Neighbour's planning application for new build requires underpinning of my wall!

Baldytyke88

BunnyBurrow said:

What I will say is their whole application / design / build is completely dependent on underpinning our wall as they need to be able to do that in order to excavate. And they need to be able to excavate to turn it into a 3 storey house so that they can obtain the minimum internal area which they would not be able to achieve if it were 2 storey (58m) given it is only 3.2m wide. So it feels like planning regulations (minimum area) is intertwined with building structure so I believe this point is definitely relevant to the application. I don't see how it can't be, but I take your point. It's a complicated one I think.

Thank you.

I know very little about underpinning, but is excavating a minor aspect of this work that needs to be done?

Maybe underpinning would be advisable anyway?

BunnyBurrow

Baldytyke88 said:

BunnyBurrow said:

What I will say is their whole application / design / build is completely dependent on underpinning our wall as they need to be able to do that in order to excavate. And they need to be able to excavate to turn it into a 3 storey house so that they can obtain the minimum internal area which they would not be able to achieve if it were 2 storey (58m) given it is only 3.2m wide. So it feels like planning regulations (minimum area) is intertwined with building structure so I believe this point is definitely relevant to the application. I don't see how it can't be, but I take your point. It's a complicated one I think.

Thank you.

I know very little about underpinning, but is excavating a minor aspect of this work that needs to be done?

Maybe underpinning would be advisable anyway?

My view is that this is not necessary work. My building does not require any underpinning currently. Only the work being proposed by this ugly new build application would require it to be underpinned.

So no, thanks, but it is not something I want to just do anyway. There is no need for it.

Section62

BunnyBurrow said:

silvercar said:

Thank you, this is good to know. It will be out of keeping with the area as it will look nothing like the rest of the uniform looking victorian houses along the terrace.

They have also included lots of supposed examples of extensions etc that they claim set a precedent for what they want to do. But none of their examples are relevant as they are all extensions of people's existing houses and not complete new builds in such a tiny space.

Unless you are in a conservation area or there is something especially unusual about the Victorian properties then this won't necessarily be a strong argument against planning consent.

"Precedent" doesn't mean as much in planning terms as people generally think it does, likewise "out of keeping".  Some planners would be Ok with the idea of a new property being faux-Victorian to fit in with the rest of the street, others will take the view that is dishonest and potentially worse than having a property which looks completely different.  As an example, people wanting to extend listed buildings are often told that they have to have a 'modern' look. The applicant is surprised because they wanted something 'in keeping', but the planners much prefer clarity that this (new building) is new.

Other than reading the local plan for clues there's no way to be sure which way the planners will go in your example, but don't pin all your hopes on the planners refusing the application because the proposal isn't in the Victorian style.  It would be worth checking the council's online planning website to see if there has been any pre-application advice given, and see if you can get a copy.  That may guide you as to what the planners are thinking.

BunnyBurrow said:

What I will say is their whole application / design / build is completely dependent on underpinning our wall as they need to be able to do that in order to excavate. And they need to be able to excavate to turn it into a 3 storey house so that they can obtain the minimum internal area which they would not be able to achieve if it were 2 storey (58m) given it is only 3.2m wide. So it feels like planning regulations (minimum area) is intertwined with building structure so I believe this point is definitely relevant to the application. I don't see how it can't be, but I take your point. It's a complicated one I think.

This could be where you have a valid planning objection.  If there was a technical reason why the proposal cannot be build as per the plans, and the only way to build would involve a compromise which goes against planning guidance (e.g. minimum areas), then the planners should probably refuse the application.  It is a grey area, because the planners don't know whether or not the applicants can reach agreement with you for working on your property, but if there is something which can't be achieved irrespective of agreement then the planners should take that into account and either condition or refuse the application.

This is why I suggested a conversation with a party wall surveyor at this stage - some initial advice shouldn't be that expensive and they may pick up on something in the plans which you can use - if not to stop the development then perhaps to have it conditioned in a way that gives you some protection.

DE_612183

How have you found this information out?

If they have applied for planning permission, I presume there are details on the local council planning website.

It may be worthwhile contacting whoever applied ( them or their architect ) to advise you are not happy about this and will fight vigorously against it.

They may be working on the blind assumption that you will be happy unless you make your feelings known.

Section62

Baldytyke88 said:

BunnyBurrow said:

What I will say is their whole application / design / build is completely dependent on underpinning our wall as they need to be able to do that in order to excavate. And they need to be able to excavate to turn it into a 3 storey house so that they can obtain the minimum internal area which they would not be able to achieve if it were 2 storey (58m) given it is only 3.2m wide. So it feels like planning regulations (minimum area) is intertwined with building structure so I believe this point is definitely relevant to the application. I don't see how it can't be, but I take your point. It's a complicated one I think.

Thank you.

I know very little about underpinning, but is excavating a minor aspect of this work that needs to be done?

Maybe underpinning would be advisable anyway?

From what the OP describes it sounds like the plan is to create a semi-basement in order to build three storeys without going too high overall.  The designer is probably assuming the OP's property has a minimal foundation depth and excavation for the 'basement' would go down below the OP's foundation level.  Therefore they think underpinning may be necessary to allow excavation to the required depth.

The alternative would probably be piling - which could be done wholly within the site - but they would need to leave sufficient horizontal distance from the OP's wall to the centreline of the piles which on a narrow plot may mean they can't achieve the additional floor area they need.  Plus piling is likely to cost more, especially on a constrained site.

EssexHebridean

I take it that you are objecting to the planning application in any event? 

Also - I imagine that this is a pretty unlikely outcome but in case you'd not seen it - this has been in the news recently https://www.geplus.co.uk/news/collapsed-building-in-greater-manchester-raises-basement-planning-concerns-29-01-2025/#:~:text=The partial collapse of a,on Saturday (25 January).

BunnyBurrow

EssexHebridean said:

I take it that you are objecting to the planning application in any event? 

Also - I imagine that this is a pretty unlikely outcome but in case you'd not seen it - this has been in the news recently https://www.geplus.co.uk/news/collapsed-building-in-greater-manchester-raises-basement-planning-concerns-29-01-2025/#:~:text=The partial collapse of a,on Saturday (25 January).

Thank you for sharing this, but - yikes!

Yes, I'd heard about another building in north London that has not been able to be inhabited for 4 years to significant subsidence and a huge crack down the front and side of the building as a result of a large development that happened next to it. Again, a different situation, but it does highlight the risks associated with excavations near / next to existing old buildings which is obviously my big concern here.

But, yes, I and 4 other surrounding property owners are all going to object anyway. There are several reasons, but this excavation is the main concern.

FreeBear

EssexHebridean said: Also - I imagine that this is a pretty unlikely outcome but in case you'd not seen it - this has been in the news recently https://www.geplus.co.uk/news/collapsed-building-in-greater-manchester-raises-basement-planning-concerns-29-01-2025/#:~:text=The partial collapse of a,on Saturday (25 January).

Plenty of other examples of partial/complete collapse of buildings having basement works in London. Such is the problem, I think some London authorities have a moratorium on such applications.

But in the OPs shoes, aside from the risks from underpinning, I'd be concerned about access to undertake repairs to the boundary wall. After 100+ years, the wall will need regular inspection & maintenance.

As a side note, 1.2m deep foundations wouldn't be that unusual depending on local soil conditions. If they were planning a basement, they'd probably need to dig down a lot deeper. Then they would have issues ensuring that there is sufficient natural light if the space is going to be habitable. But at 3.2m wide, that is barely sufficient for a garage, let alone a residential property.

edit to add - On the subject of garage, where would they park any car. Is there sufficient space for of-road parking and an EV charging point (without causing a trip hazard) ?

EssexHebridean

@BunnyBurrow I confess I did hesitate as I didn't want to scare you, but in the light of the topic I felt it was worth drawing attention to. There is little doubt that in that scenario something has occurred which was probably outwith what was allowed by the planning permission, but still! 

My suspicion is that 4 separate objections from near neighbours ought to be sufficient to get the application turned down - I'll cross fingers for you. 

Albermarle

Maybe an alternative scenario, is that you allow the underpinning if you are ( generously) financially compensated.