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

Beeblebr0x

I wouldn't want someone else's builders tampering with my property. Even if they're insured, it isn't worth the anxiety and risk.

subjecttocontract

Surely if underpinning your wall is necessary for their development to take place you hold all the cards. Would you agree to the underpinning if you received a payment ? If so how much would persuade you to agree ?

Surely insurers & mortgage lenders might be entitled agree or disagree with proposed works.

Underpinning may put off future buyers of your property.

BunnyBurrow

subjecttocontract said:

Surely if underpinning your wall is necessary for their development to take place you hold all the cards. Would you agree to the underpinning if you received a payment ? If so how much would persuade you to agree ?

Surely insurers & mortgage lenders might be entitled agree or disagree with proposed works.

Underpinning may put off future buyers of your property.

Yeah, I'm thinking that I should hold the cards. And no, I wouldn't agree to a payment. I don't want them to build, for several reasons, not least because it will look awful and subject us to a year long building site next door.

But my main concern is any long term effects of them directly impacting my place with the underpinning which I believe could impact, property value (it might scare people off as people associate underpinning with subsidence), insurance and mortgage implications, and genuinely it may cause problems with subsidence in the long term and I would much rather leave it untouched.

AskAsk

This happened to me some years ago.  Despite my protest, they got planning permission.

They didn't need to underpin my wall but I instructed a party wall surveyor, which they had to pay for when they serve you the party wall notice. 

Because wall was already fragile, the surveyor forced them to use a different method of construction to minimise disturbance to my wall. 

To be honest, it still affected the wall but not enough so that the surveyor could identify after the work was complete. 

You can get a party wall surveyor when they serve the notice and they will need to pay for it.  Insist on instructing your own rather than use theirs.

Section62

BunnyBurrow said:

subjecttocontract said:

Surely if underpinning your wall is necessary for their development to take place you hold all the cards. Would you agree to the underpinning if you received a payment ? If so how much would persuade you to agree ?

Surely insurers & mortgage lenders might be entitled agree or disagree with proposed works.

Underpinning may put off future buyers of your property.

Yeah, I'm thinking that I should hold the cards. And no, I wouldn't agree to a payment. I don't want them to build, for several reasons, not least because it will look awful and subject us to a year long building site next door.

But my main concern is any long term effects of them directly impacting my place with the underpinning which I believe could impact, property value (it might scare people off as people associate underpinning with subsidence), insurance and mortgage implications, and genuinely it may cause problems with subsidence in the long term and I would much rather leave it untouched.

TBH I'm not sure you do.  My understanding of the Party Wall Act is it gives the neighbour a right to build up to the boundary, including attaching to your building if necessary.  To you it gives the right to have a PW surveyor acting on your behalf to make sure the work doesn't cause damage to your property (both during, and post-completion).  The cards you hold are only the ability to cost them more (by having a PWS of your choice) and that ultimately damage caused to your property attributed to the work will be rectified at their expense.

However, my knowledge of the PWA is a bit sketchy so I could be wrong.  We could really do with @Doozergirl dropping by to comment as her knowledge of the PWA is the best around here.

I don't think the 'underpinning' should necessarily impact on the value of the property, especially if the PWS helps you by characterising it as "a new foundation associated with adjacent construction" rather than as 'underpinning'.  It should be clear to any surveyor acting for a future buyer of your property that this work was done - in accordance with the PWA - solely for the purpose of allowing excavation and constructing the adjacent property.

What may affect the property's value more is that if they attach to your property you'll no longer be 'end of terrace', but rather just plain 'terrace'.  But AFAIK there is nothing you can do about that.

I'd also suggest you may need to accept the principle that someone will eventually build something on the land - it has value and someone will want to turn that value into a profit.  So at least consider the possibility of working with the owners to get the least worst outcome for you.  That might include you and the neighbour on the other side agreeing to buy and split the land between you if the planning consent does get refused.  Owning the adjacent land is the one sure way of making sure nobody else builds on it.

silvercar

As well as not wanting anything attached to your wall, you want to be able to maintain your wall.  Anything closer than 1m to your wall will mean that you can't easily maintain your wall.

lincroft1710

If the plot is definitely only 3.2m wide then this would mean an absolute maximum internal width of only 2.6m which would severely restrict the internal layout design. Planners may not approve of such a narrow building, especially if it is 3 storey.

Section62

lincroft1710 said:

If the plot is definitely only 3.2m wide then this would mean an absolute maximum internal width of only 2.6m which would severely restrict the internal layout design. Planners may not approve of such a narrow building, especially if it is 3 storey.

Yes, the planners would never have approved this place either....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nutshell

lincroft1710

Section62 said:

lincroft1710 said:

If the plot is definitely only 3.2m wide then this would mean an absolute maximum internal width of only 2.6m which would severely restrict the internal layout design. Planners may not approve of such a narrow building, especially if it is 3 storey.

Yes, the planners would never have approved this place either....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nutshell

Used to live in BSE and know it well. Did drink in there once.

Doozergirl

Section62 said:

BunnyBurrow said:

subjecttocontract said:

Surely if underpinning your wall is necessary for their development to take place you hold all the cards. Would you agree to the underpinning if you received a payment ? If so how much would persuade you to agree ?

Surely insurers & mortgage lenders might be entitled agree or disagree with proposed works.

Underpinning may put off future buyers of your property.

Yeah, I'm thinking that I should hold the cards. And no, I wouldn't agree to a payment. I don't want them to build, for several reasons, not least because it will look awful and subject us to a year long building site next door.

But my main concern is any long term effects of them directly impacting my place with the underpinning which I believe could impact, property value (it might scare people off as people associate underpinning with subsidence), insurance and mortgage implications, and genuinely it may cause problems with subsidence in the long term and I would much rather leave it untouched.

TBH I'm not sure you do.  My understanding of the Party Wall Act is it gives the neighbour a right to build up to the boundary, including attaching to your building if necessary.  To you it gives the right to have a PW surveyor acting on your behalf to make sure the work doesn't cause damage to your property (both during, and post-completion).  The cards you hold are only the ability to cost them more (by having a PWS of your choice) and that ultimately damage caused to your property attributed to the work will be rectified at their expense.

However, my knowledge of the PWA is a bit sketchy so I could be wrong.  We could really do with @Doozergirl dropping by to comment as her knowledge of the PWA is the best around here.

I don't think the 'underpinning' should necessarily impact on the value of the property, especially if the PWS helps you by characterising it as "a new foundation associated with adjacent construction" rather than as 'underpinning'.  It should be clear to any surveyor acting for a future buyer of your property that this work was done - in accordance with the PWA - solely for the purpose of allowing excavation and constructing the adjacent property.

What may affect the property's value more is that if they attach to your property you'll no longer be 'end of terrace', but rather just plain 'terrace'.  But AFAIK there is nothing you can do about that.

I'd also suggest you may need to accept the principle that someone will eventually build something on the land - it has value and someone will want to turn that value into a profit.  So at least consider the possibility of working with the owners to get the least worst outcome for you.  That might include you and the neighbour on the other side agreeing to buy and split the land between you if the planning consent does get refused.  Owning the adjacent land is the one sure way of making sure nobody else builds on it.

You are correct to a large degree.  The party wall act is there to ensure that the party wall/neighbouring wall is kept structurally sound whilst enabling the applicant's right to build.  

The OP can refuse permission to connect onto their own wall and prevent it from becoming a party wall if it wasn't one already, but they cannot stop a build if the wall is adjacent to theirs.  If they did allow it to become a party wall, there would be financial recompense under the act.  Emotion aside, that might be the best outcome from a future maintenance perspective too. 

If planning were to be approved, it would be in the OP's own interest to allow underpinning if that is what a structural engineer advises.   I am not sure why the OP thinks that would create a subsidence risk when it does precisely the opposite.  It gives foundations to a house that previously had none.   A good thing.  Mortgage and insurance would not be an issue.  Underpinning is not the issue - it's subsidence that would be.  

As we know, the planning issue of whether it is okay to build a property there in principle is separate to the party wall issue of agreeing how a neighbouring wall is built safely once planning has been approved.