Neighbour Wants to Demolish Communal Out House Building

Simon_G_2

I live in a Victorian terrace that has a communal brick out house building in which all six houses share ownership. The building, which is completely derelict sits on land directly behind the two houses in the middle of the block.

I was recently visited by the owner of one of the houses, whose property the out house building sits on and who wanted to open discussion about the prospect of having the building demolished. As we all own a share in the building he would have to have agreement from all parties to move forward with the demolition. He left me with a letter in which he stated that he had been contacted by a local Council surveyor who deals with dangerous structures about conducting a survey and structural assessment. This made me wonder why I hadn't also been contacted by the same surveyor, as I own a portion of the building.

During the conversation he said that he would need to have the building assessed in order to continue the insurance of his property in light of new tenants moving in. His position, and the impression he left me with was that we can either voluntarily choose to have the building demolished or wait until the results of the Council surveyor are in, at which point the Council may force us to have the building demolished.

As the building appears to be on its last legs I can only assume the Council will eventually condemn it, and impose the demolition upon us. If we act collectively now and opt for demolition we'll each have to contribute for the necessary work to be carried out. At the same time, if we don't act now the Council could force us to demolish the building on the grounds of it not being safe - again also resulting in us footing the bill for the demolition work. My main issue with the situation is that demolition of the out house building is of no benefit to me, or three of the other home owners, whereas the owners of the two properties that the out house building sits behind stand to gain additional garden space, and as a result additional value to their homes - at the expense of the other four home owners.

Apologies for the long post, but I'm seeking advice in what I'm sure will turn out to be a complex situation and potential legal minefield.

Thanks for any help.

Regards,
Simon

Prothet_of_Doom

It has a value. Apply for planning permission to convert to a studio appartment or studio office, and then you'll have the real value.

Worst case, it's a brick shed, which must have value.

cattie

[QUOTE=Simon_G;65190797 As the building appears to be on its last legs I can only assume the Council will eventually condemn it, and impose the demolition upon us. If we act collectively now and opt for demolition we'll each have to contribute for the necessary work to be carried out. At the same time, if we don't act now the Council could force us to demolish the building on the grounds of it not being safe - again also resulting in us footing the bill for the demolition work. My main issue with the situation is that demolition of the out house building is of no benefit to me, or three of the other home owners, whereas the owners of the two properties that the out house building sits behind stand to gain additional garden space, and as a result additional value to their homes - at the expense of the other four home owners.

Apologies for the long post, but I'm seeking advice in what I'm sure will turn out to be a complex situation and potential legal minefield.

Thanks for any help.

Regards,
Simon[/QUOTE]

Well as you understand that if the building could well be condemend & an order to demolish issued, I don't quite understand your reluctance to contribute towards demolition costs now.

When you bought your property you were fully aware of owning a share of this building in a poor state of repair, so obviously must have realised there could be a financial implication somewhere along the line.

Just because demolition of the building won't directly affect you other than financially & you don't see the point in paying towards it is a rather selfish attitude. It's a bit like somebody living in a ground floor flat not seeing why they should pay towards roof repair or renewal as it doesn't directly affect them & only affects anybody living on the top floor.

A derelict building has financial implications for all owners, if anybody was injured due to the building falling down, all owners could be held responsible & sued.

A bit of extra garden doesn't increase a houses value. Yes it might make the property more appealing when selling, there not being an ugly tumble down building out there, but it won't add anything to the price, unless it's big enough & has good access to be used as a building plot for another dwelling.

If you want to be on bad terms with your neighbours, then go ahead & refuse to pay towards any work or demolition for as long as you can, but I'd rather continue a good relationship with my neighbours personally, while recognising that we all legally share a responsibility for the building in question.

AdrianC

Simon_G wrote: »

My main issue with the situation is that demolition of the out house building is of no benefit to me, or three of the other home owners, whereas the owners of the two properties that the out house building sits behind stand to gain additional garden space, and as a result additional value to their homes - at the expense of the other four home owners.

I think I'd take the angle that the work of demolition, and the cost of disposal of the rubble, was roughly equivalent to the gain in garden.

In other words - fine, go ahead, I relinquish all claim on the building - and am happy to sign to say so. But don't expect me to pay...

browneyedbazzi

AdrianC wrote: »

I think I'd take the angle that the work of demolition, and the cost of disposal of the rubble, was roughly equivalent to the gain in garden.

In other words - fine, go ahead, I relinquish all claim on the building - and am happy to sign to say so. But don't expect me to pay...

That would be my response too - I'd say 'If you would like to have the building demolished at your expense then I won't have any objections.'

I'm a bit cynical, but I'd suspect that it was the neighbour who contacted the council rather than the council contacting him...it's a bit too convenient if the council says the building needs to be demolished at the same time as the neighbour wants to demolish it. I've worked for local authorities for a long time and unless the building is adjacent to the highway (and a possible danger to people on it) it sounds far too proactive.

princeofpounds

- Check that the neighbour is not exaggerating the council's involvement. But don't be too hard on them if they are but it is only a matter of time; I can imagine a useless structure is kind of frustrating.

- Do you or your neighbours actually use the structure? I know you say it is derelict, so I presume not.

- Just because the neighbour owns the land does not mean they will get to use the new space as their own garden. This is really important.

Precisely what do all the deeds say about obligations to each other and how the communal building is supposed to be run? You might even find the neighbour is obligated to provide you with a new building.

- If you would prefer a different outcome, speak to your neighbours and lobby for it, subject to the previous point.

- I agree with the above poster that it might make most sense to sell the building back to the owners. Depending on how expensive a demolition might be and how much garden land is worth in your area this might raise a little money, or not much at all.

princeofpounds

I'm a bit cynical, but I'd suspect that it was the neighbour who contacted the council rather than the council contacting him...

He probably did, or the other neighbour affected by it. It's not an unreasonable thing to do, particularly if you are going to let out the property.

arbroath_lass

You could always suggest that you'd like to rebuild the outhouse as it would be really handy.....


Otherwise I'd find out how much it will be before agreeing/arguing over it.


Are the bricks any good ie if you offered them on Freecycle/Gumtree would anyone want to take them away and do the demolition?

AdrianC

cattie wrote: »

A derelict building has financial implications for all owners, if anybody was injured due to the building falling down, all owners could be held responsible & sued.

princeofpounds wrote: »

- Just because the neighbour owns the land does not mean they will get to use the new space as their own garden. This is really important.

Precisely what do all the deeds say about obligations to each other and how the communal building is supposed to be run? You might even find the neighbour is obligated to provide you with a new building.

These are good points, which I must admit, I'd not considered in my earlier response. They don't make a big difference, though, imho...

princeofpounds wrote: »

- I agree with the above poster that it might make most sense to sell the building back to the owners. Depending on how expensive a demolition might be and how much garden land is worth in your area this might raise a little money, or not much at all.

Not worth the hassle of trying to negotiate. A one-sixth share of b'ggrall? After legal expenses?

Nope, just sign your sixth over with zero hassle. But, of course, LR may well need to be amended. Well, fine. The actual cost of doing that is the price I'm asking - but to make things simpler, you just pay for that directly.

Job jobbed. The building is, as far as you're concerned, now officially SEP. If you can liase with the other relatively unaffected neighbours and present this plan to him en masse, it'll make everything much simpler. He then has a simple choice. Continue as-is, or square everything up legitimately and finish up with a bit more actual/definitive/provable garden.

Strapped

I'd take the approach above ie happy for you to demolish it at your cost.

Of course, it doesn't HAVE to be demolished - it could be fenced off to make safe for tenants ;-) (by the landlord) I certainly wouldn't pay if I didn't have to.

princeofpounds

Not worth the hassle of trying to negotiate. A one-sixth share of b'ggrall? After legal expenses?

Perhaps my reply is coloured by the fact that I am in the South East, where a derelict shed in the right area can be worth a lot of money. I agree that if we are talking a tenement in outer glasgow it's a different matter.