When is a wall not a wall?

[geraldthehamster]

I read a post recently (I can't remember if it was on this forum) from somebody who had a 6 foot wall that adjoined a highway. The wall was dilapidated, so he took it down, then built a new one, subsequently to be told by the council that he needed to apply for planning, because it was a new wall over 1 metre tall. If it was on this forum, and you are reading, then you have my full sympathy.

However, this got me wondering where the boundary between repair and replacement could be said to lie. If one gradually repaired a wall over a number of years, replacing brick and stone such that none of the original wall eventually remained, I'd guess the wall would still be deemed the same wall (if this seems an unlikely way to repair a wall, imagine instead that we are gradually replacing the panels of a fence).

What if one were to begin taking the wall down from one end, rebuild one half while the other was still standing, then remove the other half and complete the job. There has never been a stage when a wall was absent. New wall, needing (and possibly not getting) planning, or existing wall?

Would it make a difference if half the job were done, as above, then a year allowed to elapse before the job was completed?

This is a theoretical question, the answer to which will probably depend on the inclinations of neighbours and local planning officers, and whether anybody notices. Any views or similar anecdotes? I also read some time ago of this happened to someone converting a barn - his builder took down so much of the barn that the council decided it no longer existed, and planning was revoked.


Regards
Richard

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

This is a theoretical question, the answer to which will probably depend on the inclinations of neighbours and local planning officers, and whether anybody notices.

Yes, this in a nutshell. Your question cannot be categorically answered. Each situation is a unique situation and only advice sought from Planning prior to the works being carried out can pre-empt their twisted logic.

Any views or similar anecdotes? I also read some time ago of this happened to someone converting a barn - his builder took down so much of the barn that the council decided it no longer existed, and planning was revoked.

I have also witnessed this on a barn conversion, the developer was warned by us but went ahead and demolished sections of walls as he pleased but what can you do!

 

[RonnyRaygun]

If one gradually repaired a wall over a number of years, replacing brick and stone such that none of the original wall eventually remained, I'd guess the wall would still be deemed the same wall

Like Trigger's broom

 

[Richard C]

Any views or similar anecdotes?

Many years ago my friends & I used to regularly visit a family in rural Essex & they rebuilt their old farmhouse wall-by-wall, brick-by-brick in much the same fashion; they reused the same external bricks but forming a block cavity (none before) & studed out internally. It took them 3 years & it was virtually a new house built with the same external bricks but I’m not sure they would get away with it now.

I also read some time ago of this happened to someone converting a barn - his builder took down so much of the barn that the council decided it no longer existed, and planning was revoked.

I think the problem here is the location, possible listed status & the amount of the original building that remains; there will be a % I would think but, of hand, I’ve no idea what it is. I bet the builder wasn’t too popular with his client!

 

[jeds]

My T&C Planning tutor used to say; 'it's a matter of fact and degree'. That usually meant he didn't have an answer. You might get away with it or you might get your fingers chopped off.

People have tried to rebuild houses by doing one wall at a time. There's stacks of case law on it. I expect a lot of people have also got away with it.

 

[^woody^]

The TCPA 1990 specifically defines rebuilding as operational development, and so planning permission is required for rebuilding work.

There is a point where replacement of parts is so extensive that rebuilding is deemed to have occurred, and it does not matter if this was done in stages over a period of time.

There are several precedent cases covering this and the basis of these dealt with works which were so extensive so as to be more than normal maintenance, improvement or alteration

In the context of the OP's question, it would not be possible to rebuild a wall from one end to the other or in parts and claim that this was maintenance - there would be no valid, reasonable excuse for doing so, other than for the purpose of rebuilding the wall

 

[clifford1]

If the same principle applies to a 6 foot fence, one would have to be very careful indeed when replacing rotten panels. Perhaps one panel per year, rather than replacing them all over a weekend?

It also I think has never been tested what "adjoining" a highway means, nor whether that means the carriageway of a road, or could apply to a grass verge at the side of a footpath. I read on another forum the statement that probably a distance of more than 1 metre does not mean "adjoining".

 

[geraldthehamster]

I read on another forum the statement that probably a distance of more than 1 metre does not mean "adjoining".

Guidance from various councils found via Google suggests that some interpret "adjoining" as up to one metre away, others two metres.

Cheers
Richard