Party Wall contravenes Building Regulations

Graffiti

I posted recently seeking advice on clarification that the neighbour's extension wall was a party wall as we were looking to build along it for our own kitchen extension. They were adamant that it was their wall and we stopped our works to allow professional's to clarify the matter. We have since had it confirmed as a party structure (neighbour's appointed an engineer and we appointed an architect - both of whom we are obliged to pay for).

It now transpires that the party wall in question was built with cavity blocks and as such contravenes building regulations. As a result, it now falls to us to build a wall against the existing wall in order to make up for the neighbour's negligence in complying with sound insulation regulations. We had already started our works and it was only when we had our foundations laid and were about to begin our roof that the fuss escalated. So now, our foundations will have to be dug up to build the new wall, requiring money we don't have.

It all seems so unjust, they built the wall onto our property and built it in contravention of regulations and we're the ones to pay the price (emotionally and financially).

Is there anything we can do? Sorry if that question is very vague but I'm at my wits end, living in half a house with no heating/cooking facilities etc, no idea of when works can re-start, can we claim anything from them, feel very hard done by.

sydthebeat

first point:
it wasnt a party wall when they built it, it was just a boundary wall, and therefore did not contravene sound insulation regulations. Internal party walls are bound by regulations, external boundary walls are only bound to Part A which is structure (basically they shouldnt fall down).
The architect and engineer may refer to them as "party structures" to indicate that the are owned by both parties and used to delineate land boundaries, but they are not party walls as defined in the building regulations. so your neighbour hasnt done anything in contravention at this point.
as you are in effect changing the status of this wall from an external boundary wall to an internal party wall, the onus is on you to ensure its compliance, not your neighbour.

point 2:
works could start tomorrow once you satisfy all conditions of exemption AND the land conveyancing act 2013.

see here
http://www.lynchsolicitors.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Party-Walls.pdf

Graffiti

Thanks for the reply. Our architect has advised us that the location of the wall classifies it as a "party structure" under Land and Conveyancing Reform Act (LACRA) 2009 and when our extension is built it would then be a "party wall".

Under regulations in place since 1992, building walls built within 1m (or 2metres, can't remember) of a boundary line, should not be built using cavity blocks and as such, contravenes said 1992 regulations.

sydthebeat

Graffiti wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. Our architect has advised us that the location of the wall classifies it as a "party structure" under Land and Conveyancing Reform Act (LACRA) 2009 and when our extension is built it would then be a "party wall".

completely agreed, and as per what i posted above.
when you make it a party wall, you have to ensure it comply with building regs

Graffiti wrote: »

Under regulations in place since 1992, building walls built within 1m (or 2metres, can't remember) of a boundary line, should not be built using cavity blocks and as such, contravenes said 1992 regulations.

was the extension built between 1992 and 1997?
i must admit i havent come across any building regulation that required a boundary wall to be a 215 solid block wall for a distance of 'x' from a boundary (sounds like fire regulations, but architect would need to prove that 215 hollow block with internal dry lining doesnt offer 1hr fire resistance, which it would do in the standard case. Also, the wall shouldnt be considered either a separating wall or an unprotected area).
it may be a by law in the locality

BryanF

There are other means of achieving noise regulations

Drift

Graffiti wrote: »

Under regulations in place since 1992, building walls built within 1m (or 2metres, can't remember) of a boundary line, should not be built using cavity blocks and as such, contravenes said 1992 regulations.

I'd be interested to know what regulation this is?

Are you referring to a local by-law by any chance?

If so I'm not sure there is anything enforceable with regards to structures that broke by-laws that have since been revoked.

BryanF

Graffiti wrote: »

a party structure (neighbour's appointed an engineer and we appointed an architect - both of whom we are obliged to pay for).

It now transpires that the party wall in question was built with cavity blocks and as such contravenes building regulations. .

I have to ask, would a professional involvement at the outset avoid this ...

BryanF wrote: »

plans and details should have been agreed between your arch/engineer and neighbours in the first place and boundary wall issues sorted before you started.
Quickest thing to do is build your new wall inside the boundary wall, reinstate the boundary as is.

Graffiti wrote: »

We didn't need planning permission as it's under 40m squared.
I really don't want to fall out with them and am doing all I can to avoid it.

Graffiti wrote: »

Bryan, that's all well and good saying that we just build our new wall inside the boundary but how do we "reinstate the boundary as is" when their extension is sitting on it! And we'd lose so much indoor space if we can't have their extension wall as the fourth wall of our extension.

Graffiti

BryanF wrote: »

I have to ask, would a professional involvement at the outset avoid this ...

I'm not sure of the regulation specifics regarding how our neighbours built the wall of our extension, other than that our architect told me yesterday that they contravened building regulations when they built that wall.

Bryan, possibly. But our builder told us, before he even began works that the wall was a party structure and as such, we didn't need neighbours consent and so we never sought it/showed our plans to them. This seems to be the way works often proceed, having spoken to friends who built similar extensions. It's only because the neighbours raised objections 3weeks into our build that the details regarding the wall of their extension have unfolded.

Gumbo

Graffiti wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. Our architect has advised us that the location of the wall classifies it as a "party structure" under Land and Conveyancing Reform Act (LACRA) 2009 and when our extension is built it would then be a "party wall".

Under regulations in place since 1992, building walls built within 1m (or 2metres, can't remember) of a boundary line, should not be built using cavity blocks and as such, contravenes said 1992 regulations.

Sorry but no building regulation was breeched here. It would have been good practice for your neighbour to anticipate you building and use 215 solids on the flat but they didn't have to.

You could use a suitable material on your side of the wall build up to meet Part E now and still use their wall structurally for the extension (subject to engineer been happy with its loading capabilities).

Graffiti

kceire wrote: »

Sorry but no building regulation was breeched here. It would have been good practice for your neighbour to anticipate you building and use 215 solids on the flat but they didn't have to.

You could use a suitable material on your side of the wall build up to meet Part E now and still use their wall structurally for the extension (subject to engineer been happy with its loading capabilities).

Our architect has said that they contravened regulations and their engineer accepts this. However, there's not much we can do about it.
There is no product/material, other than a wall, that can be used that will comply with sound regulations.

We do not need their wall to bear any load. We simply need to flash into it for weather proofing.

Gumbo

Graffiti wrote: »

Our architect has said that they contravened regulations and their engineer accepts this. However, there's not much we can do about it.
There is no product/material, other than a wall, that can be used that will comply with sound regulations.

We do not need their wall to bear any load. We simply need to flash into it for weather proofing.

what part of the regulations Part E can it not meet? I'd be very interested I hear that

Graffiti

I'll find out the exact regulation when speaking to the architect later. I'm not sure what is the "Part E", to which you refer?

I suppose we're just very upset, that given that the neighbours knew that their wall was a cavity block wall, they didn't let us know before we laid our foundations. It would save us the significant cost of now having to dig them up. Maybe our builder should have realised that though, I don't know.

Gumbo

Graffiti wrote: »

I'll find out the exact regulation when speaking to the architect later. I'm not sure what is the "Part E", to which you refer?

I suppose we're just very upset, that given that the neighbours knew that their wall was a cavity block wall, they didn't let us know before we laid our foundations. It would save us the significant cost of now having to dig them up. Maybe our builder should have realised that though, I don't know.

Part E is the building regulation on Sound. If timber frame construction can meet it easily, then cavity block can too with the correct material lined on your side of it.

Explore your options before going gun hoe into the build.

Graffiti

Thanks. That's what our builder wants to do - timber and double layer of sound insulation and layer of one hour fire protection. Architect says that wouldn't comply....

sydthebeat

Graffiti wrote: »

Thanks. That's what our builder wants to do - timber and double layer of sound insulation and layer of one hour fire protection. Architect says that wouldn't comply....

what spec is the architect giving you that WOULD comply?

Graffiti

100mm wall using metal ties to tie to wall of neighbour's extension.

sydthebeat

Graffiti wrote: »

100mm wall using metal ties to tie to wall of neighbour's extension.

so basically create a cavity wall.

id get a second opinion

i think his issue is that he cannot point to any of the 4 suggested constructions in part E 2014, and is not confident enough to stand over a specification designed for this situation.

The regs prescribe specific decibel levels to be met.
if he was confident in his understanding, he should be able to design a specification using timber studs, quilted insulation and sound block plasterboard.

Graffiti

I understand what you're saying, I'm looking at Part E at the moment here. That's what builder wants to do re: timber etc. We already have our our architect, the builder, the builder's engineer and the neighbour's engineer on the case, I can't pay for any more opinions

sydthebeat

That's completely understandable.
I have a lot of sympathy for you and your situation.
What should be a straight forward build onto an existing wall has turned into a regulatory mine field.

I do think the architect is being overly cautious though.

Calahonda52

Why should the OP bear all the cost of Part E, or what ever the sound one is?

The import of the discussion thus far is that the OP has to provide for all the sound proofing costs because its now a " " wall.

The OP may well break wind but I doubt if the neighbour is immune to such realities.

My learned, and most, if not esteemed, colleague StB has elucidated very clearly the transmogrification of the wall from boundary to party wall.

In addition, the OP, relying on some obscure, post 1992, rules, with which I am not aware, not to to mind familiar, about cavity blocks [ CB] maintains that CB is verboten in such a wall.

He also, very understandably, says he is all out, paying wise, of opinions.

Iff, not just if, but iff, he is certain about the post 1992 rules, then why not invoke the 2009 Act to get a works order to rectify the wrong by the dastardly neighbour. The 7, or 12 year LA rule for enforcement is well past, but it does not right a wrong: it just prevents them from acting.

Therefore my argument would be that by virtue of the neighbour doing what he did on the " " wall, he has encroached on, perhaps even extinguished, the OP's constitutional rights to unfettered use of your property.
Therefore he should pay for some of the new wall.

Graffiti

Therefore my argument would be that by virtue of the neighbour doing what he did on the " " wall, he has encroached on, perhaps even extinguished, the OP's constitutional rights to unfettered use of your property.
Therefore he should pay for some of the new wall.[/quote]

Perhaps the neighbour "should" but I'm pretty certain won't. And our architect has said that if we want to go down the route of doing something about their wall, we'd add immeasurable time and cost to our build.
I do feel that our architect is very cautious but can't really fault him for that.

rampantbunny

Graffiti wrote: »

I do feel that our architect is very cautious but can't really fault him for that.

You can't fault your architect but you can always question. Questions cost you nothing except a bit more time/delay potentially.

Other professionals on this thread have already indicated that there are likely other ways to achieve what is necessary. I don't think you need to spend money on a second opinion as such, but a little pressure on your architect to provide a second option might yield a result i.e. a cheaper/quicker way forward. Not saying your professionals are being lazy, but there is often more than one way to skin the proverbial - just needs a little thought.

Graffiti

rampantbunny wrote: »

You can't fault your architect but you can always question. Questions cost you nothing except a bit more time/delay potentially.

Other professionals on this thread have already indicated that there are likely other ways to achieve what is necessary. I don't think you need to spend money on a second opinion as such, but a little pressure on your architect to provide a second option might yield a result i.e. a cheaper/quicker way forward. Not saying your professionals are being lazy, but there is often more than one way to skin the proverbial - just needs a little thought.

He has presented us with a timber solution but we've decided to go with the block option as it takes up less space and is more likely to appease the neighbour's engineer. The new issue is now our roof design...give me strength....