Timbercrib retaining walls - what happens when they rot?

mysterymurdoch

There are some large estates near me recently built, with houses priced £400-600k. A lot of them are built on slopes and the gardens are bordered by a huge timbercrib structure, up to 10m high or so.

So what happens when this reaches end of life? Are the builders likely to have a warranty in place for that amount of time (I've read lifespans can be 15-60 years). If not, how would individual homeowners manage repairs, given that the embankments span dozens of houses?

See pic 15 http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-65885582.html

G_M

mysterymurdoch wrote: »

.....Are the builders likely to have a warranty in place for that amount of time

Possible but highly unlikely. And if the builders were not still in business, then the warranty would be worthless unless it was insurance-backed.

More likely

* there may be some communal areas wihin the estate, including these whatchmecallits, managed by a management company, and financed via a rent charge or similar paid by all properties. This would be specified in the property titles

* maintenance may fall directly on the individual owners. Whichever property owned the land (or boundary) on which the whatchmecallits fall would be responsible for repair/replacemen. If one owner failed to maintain, a neighbour could sue in the normal way for any consequental losses or damage.

Personally, and however nice the bathroom, I wouldn't want to live next to that monstrosity!

EachPenny

The one thing you can be sure of is someone or something will own the structure and have responsibility for maintaining it. Something of that size would pose a significant risk to life or property if it were to fail at some point in the future. It also doesn't just affect the properties at the bottom, but also the land at the top is only stable so long as the retaining wall functions as intended.

As G_M suggests, you could possibly expect a management company to be responsible. Another possibility is the local authority may have undertaken to maintain and own the structure - there are cases where works of this scale are required to 'enable' a development and the LA obtains the funding or otherwise has oversight of the infrastructure to make the development feasible.

If the property owner at the bottom of each section of wall is the owner and liable for maintenance then I'd be looking elsewhere for my dream home.

davidmcn

Usually it's the owners whose land is being retained who are liable for maintaining such walls - probably enforceable by the people downhill - or it might be shared by the upper and lower developments (they look like different phases). As it's a modern estate I'd expect there to be factors appointed looking after common maintenance, hopefully that includes the wall. Only a few quid to get a copy of one of the titles from Registers of Scotland if you wanted to check what the titles say - do you actually have an interest or merely curious?

Cakeguts

Who would buy a house like that? The back garden is like a prison yard.

stator

It starts to collapse
https://goo.gl/maps/16vEptEoZXQ2

mysterymurdoch

That's sobering stator... it does look incredibly hard to replace sections of this stuff, and there'd be a bit of a pointless task doing so as the whole structure would be ready to crumble by that point.

I must admit this is merely a point of curiosity rather than personal interest. I can't fathom buying an expensive family home with such a potential burden.

It's actually just a road/park area above it, so I guess the factors are responsible. I'd hate to be living there when the lot needs replaced and invoiced!

scottishblondie

Ever since they built those houses I've wondered what on earth they were thinking with the gardens. I can't make up my mind what would be scarier - being at the bottom of one or having one at the bottom of your garden!! I keep imagining a kid running into a rotten fence panel and falling into the garden below...

stator

If you plant some nice shrubs or trees all along it, it will hold together nicely.

Davesnave

stator wrote: »

If you plant some nice shrubs or trees all along it, it will hold together nicely.

I've heard that a plant called Japanese knotweed is good for stabilising soils, holding them together with its tough root structure.

Railtrack have had it on their embankments for many years.

moneyistooshorttomention

Cakeguts wrote: »

Who would buy a house like that? The back garden is like a prison yard.

I like the look of a lot of the house - but...yep....that wall would put me off per se. I'd feel it was so "in yer face" and overwhelming every time I was out in that back garden or saw it from inside the house.

Certainly some potential future owners would be put off by it - even if you personally aren't.

If you're still interested - then check out exactly what the deeds say about it. As it's likely to be a job that would need doing all at once in years to come - then I'd expect the deeds to say I would have to bear a share of the cost (say, if it's 10 houses with that monstrosity in their back garden - then that my house would have to bear 10% of the costs).

I would also want to know what the arrangements were for getting that maintenance work done - ie who was responsible for getting quotes, etc, and how the decision was going to be made about whether the work needed doing.

Re davidmcn's point - I'm not a "legal" - but would have thought that his comment re it's normally the house being supported that pays would only apply if it's specifically stated in the deeds of that house? I understood that it's the house "beneath" that pays normally or people often come to a 50/50 arrangement about paying - but, either way, it would go by what the deeds say about it and otherwise it's the responsibility of the house that has the wall on its land?