Retaining Wall, would it put you off buying.

JJR45

Slinky said:

This reminds me of one my friend rejected at a few months back. Had been up for sale for over a year, despite it having 'motivated sellers'

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/68094234#/

That one is prime for a failure, should have nothing with a stem/trunk over 1.5" near it!!

Section62

JJR45 said:

But the general scaring of people is what I am looking for, as many will not read the info, look it up before making a decision.

As a plan it was a good one, but possibly foiled by asking on the wrong forum.  This one has a wide range of people with expertise and knowledge tuned to identifying problems of this type.

On a different forum the responses to your question might approximate to "Yeah, but what does the kitchen look like?".  Which one is more representative of future potential purchasers?

For me the top issue is not the appearance, nor the future cost of maintenance.  The main issue is the disruption and limitation on your use of the land resulting in the certain need to carry out maintenance at some point in the future (which could be next week).

Carrying out substantial maintenance or replacement of a wall like that will require the use of heavy plant (e.g. tracked excavators as per the Permacrib link) so in effect a strip of land (say 6m wide) in front of the wall needs to be kept 'sterile' in terms of development to allow access and use of such equipment.  That ideally means no permanent sheds, garden rooms, fishponds, swimming pools, greenhouses, landscaping etc in that area, unless the owners are willing to have them demolished and the cost of replacement falling on them.

In fact I would be scouring the documentation for the property to look for any prohibition on building permanent structures within 'x' metres of the wall - and if I didn't find anything of that nature I'd be running a mile as it could mean any future maintenance becomes a nightmare with the management company having to spend months (or years) negotiating access and compensation payments to affected residents.

It is a no-win situation - either you've had to accept significant limits on your use and enjoyment of the land, or else you have the spectre of substantial legal/compensation costs (on top of construction costs) when maintenance is required at some point in the future (which could be next week).

weeg

Nothing wrong with a timber crib wall, in fact, at least it's likely to be installed properly, unlike a lot of masonry walls.

JJR45

Section62 said:

JJR45 said:

But the general scaring of people is what I am looking for, as many will not read the info, look it up before making a decision.

As a plan it was a good one, but possibly foiled by asking on the wrong forum.  This one has a wide range of people with expertise and knowledge tuned to identifying problems of this type.

On a different forum the responses to your question might approximate to "Yeah, but what does the kitchen look like?".  Which one is more representative of future potential purchasers?

For me the top issue is not the appearance, nor the future cost of maintenance.  The main issue is the disruption and limitation on your use of the land resulting in the certain need to carry out maintenance at some point in the future (which could be next week).

Carrying out substantial maintenance or replacement of a wall like that will require the use of heavy plant (e.g. tracked excavators as per the Permacrib link) so in effect a strip of land (say 6m wide) in front of the wall needs to be kept 'sterile' in terms of development to allow access and use of such equipment.  That ideally means no permanent sheds, garden rooms, fishponds, swimming pools, greenhouses, landscaping etc in that area, unless the owners are willing to have them demolished and the cost of replacement falling on them.

In fact I would be scouring the documentation for the property to look for any prohibition on building permanent structures within 'x' metres of the wall - and if I didn't find anything of that nature I'd be running a mile as it could mean any future maintenance becomes a nightmare with the management company having to spend months (or years) negotiating access and compensation payments to affected residents.

It is a no-win situation - either you've had to accept significant limits on your use and enjoyment of the land, or else you have the spectre of substantial legal/compensation costs (on top of construction costs) when maintenance is required at some point in the future (which could be next week).

There is a part of " no man's land" at the top. About 6m wide.

wannabe_a_saver

AdrianC said:

JJR45 said:

AdrianC said:

JJR45 said:

I am in contact with the management company now, the site is around 80 houses and all houses have to pay in to manage and repair the wall. At the moment they have £80K  a year going into the slush

Or, to look at it another way, £1k/property/year going into a savings account to fund minor works...

with a expected life of the wall being 60 years.

SIXTY years...? For timber in contact with wet earth? Yeh, right.

For that to be anything remotely approaching reasonable, that timber would be so heavily treated with serious chemistry that I really don't think I'd want it in my garden.

I think you may have to read the specs, the image is just a picture, it is on a concrete pad with drainage, the back is lined and the infill is graded stone.https://www.phigroup.co.uk/expertise/techniques/permacrib-timber-crib
But the general scaring of people is what I am looking for, as many will not read the info, look it up before making a decision.

So those plants growing in the pic...? They're growing in concrete and stone, right?

Some plants do do that. 

Section62

JJR45 said:

There is a part of " no man's land" at the top. About 6m wide.

The working space would be required at the bottom.

Land at the top would be dug out and removed to remove the load on the wall, allowing it to be dismantled.

The diagram on that link gives a reasonable indication of what is involved - the existing ground is removed to a slope of approx 45 degrees, a foundation built, then the wall is constructed with fill being placed in the wall and the 'wedge' shape behind it.  All of that fill material would first have to be removed to rebuild the wall.

An alternative might be to build a piled wall behind the existing and by working from the land above.  But a piled wall comes with very different levels of cost, and the space at the top has to be stable and accessible.  If the wall is failing that stability cannot be assured.

JJR45

Section62 said

The working space would be required at the bottom.

Land at the top would be dug out and removed to remove the load on the wall, allowing it to be dismantled.

The diagram on that link gives a reasonable indication of what is involved - the existing ground is removed to a slope of approx 45 degrees, a foundation built, then the wall is constructed with fill being placed in the wall and the 'wedge' shape behind it.  All of that fill material would first have to be removed to rebuild the wall.

An alternative might be to build a piled wall behind the existing and by working from the land above.  But a piled wall comes with very different levels of cost, and the space at the top has to be stable and accessible.  If the wall is failing that stability cannot be assured.

I have read that it can be repaired in place (presumably you can remove a box/crate at a time). But that would depend on the type of failure I suppose (localised Vs larger failure)
I suppose the figures needed is the cost to replace it to see what future liability looks like in terms of management fund.

scottishblondie

There is a development near us that has huge walls like that, built about 8 years ago.  They always seem to sell on, but there is no chance I would buy one.  Some of the houses have walls as tall as the house itself towering over the back garden.  Then there are the ones on the top of the wall, with that drop right behind the garden fence.  I wouldn't like to live in either!!

BikingBud

Slinky said:

This reminds me of one my friend rejected at a few months back. Had been up for sale for over a year, despite it having 'motivated sellers'

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/68094234#/

There are so many other issues with that house, never mind the wall.