Party wall act clarification

[schiz]

I am about to dig 1-metre deep foundations 2 metres away from the house next door. The neighbour also has an extension (two floors) - I looked it up on the council planning website and it was built in 1975. Is it safe to assume the depth of those foundations approximately 1 metre deep or more, and therefore that there is no need to serve notice under the party wall act? From my reading of it, it only applies when digging beneath the foundation level of next door, but without digging a trial hole under the neighbours foundations of course I'm not going to know.

The neighbour is very nice, and probably doesn't care very much whether I serve notice or not, however it would be nice to keep within the law if possible.

thanks

 

[Shytalkz]

You can never assume anything in construction. Within 3m, if you're digging to the same depth or deeper than next door's foundations, then the Act applies. Why 3m? I wish I knew, it really doesn't make a lot of sense - obviously there were far more building surveyors than structural engineers (if any) on the committee that foisted that overblown piece of legislation upon us all.

However, there is no formal notice as such to serve under the PWeA and, if you get on well with the neighbours, just getting them to sign the drawing saying they are happy for you to go ahead satisfies the requirements of the Act. No PW surveyor required; no costs for you to pick up.

If you're 2m away, then, in simplistic terms, you'd have to be digging 2m deeper than and parallel with their foundations to potentially cause a problem.

 

[^woody^]

I would assume as much as you can so that you don't have to bother with this stupid Act.

If, when you have dug out the trench, your assumptions were a bit out, then just quickly put the footings in and jobs a good 'un

 

[Shytalkz]

I would assume as much as you can so that you don't have to bother with this stupid Act.

If, when you have dug out the trench, your assumptions were a bit out, then just quickly put the footings in and jobs a good 'un

Hey up Woodster, it was your surveying brethren who came up with this load of cack! Glad to see that you're redressing the balance by giving extremely sensible advice, though

 

[^woody^]

If you want to blame someone blame those damn cockneys for giving us Eastenders, and secondly, extending their rubbish Acts nationwide. Its the congestion charge next, mark my words

And, you may even find that the perpetrators of this crime back in the old days were persons of a more structural engineering persuasion. I think we only came on board as the hourly rate was 2 n sixpence as opposed to 3 n fourpence for the guys with the slide rules

 

[Shytalkz]

Well, if SEs had an input into the original London-based version, then at least they brought some degree of reasonableness to it with the approach of "you don't respond, then you've not objected" rather than a complete reversal in its current, nationwide incarnation.

The Act must be due an update soon, just like CDM regs (another crock of pointless cráp as well)...

 

[^woody^]

Are you proposing .....

... in the UK?

 

[Shytalkz]

That would be a start...!

 

[schiz]

I would assume as much as you can so that you don't have to bother with this stupid Act.

If, when you have dug out the trench, your assumptions were a bit out, then just quickly put the footings in and jobs a good 'un

This is what I was thinking. Thanks for the confirmation .