Right of support of buildings ?

NUTLEY BOY

1. Is there a right of support of buildings ?

2. If not, can the right be acquired by prescription ?

This question arises from something I saw recently on my travels.

There is a pair of semi-detached houses. Planning permission granted to one of them for development of an extension. The permission included authority for partial demolition. I see that the property being developed has been demolished totally and right back to the party wall between the houses ?

If the neighbouring property was to collapse because it had received structural support from the now demolished house is there any cause of action for removal of support of buildings ?

In terms of time I estimate that the adjoining properties have stood from new for about 50 years ?

scrummonkey

As i understand it, there is no natural "right of support" but may be established as an easement. Even if an easement is found , the other party is still entitled to demolish his building provided this complies with building laws and similar structural supports are put in place to the party wall. However, I recall a case re demolition of a semi in howth where the court ruled that such was a breach of an easement of right to support due to the nature of the houses, age and planning permission not complied with.

Any claim relating to probable weather damage etc to exposed party wall would form part of the easement of right to support, ( there is no easement re right to weather protection in itself), and as such the other party should ensure the exposed wall is weatherproofed.

Uno my Uno.

As above the right of support is in fact a well established easement. There are several reported cases and any good Property Law Book should have a section on it. I would imagine it is acquired by presumed or specific grant.

I suppose for most people who find themselves in this situation the question is can the burden of the easement be met by providing the support necessary without the house. I recall one case sought to compel the rebuilding of a house because the remaining house looked unbalanced without its "twin". If I have it right the action was unsuccessful because the easement did not extend to the visual amenity of the demolished house.

I'm open to correction on that case, it's several years since I read it.

Pat Mustard

Case in point:
Todd v Cinelli