Compulsory repair

[sherman]

Hi all - hope someone can help with this.

I've got a house in a conservation area (locally listed therefore) with a boundary wall that I want rid of. I applied and was refused permission to knock it down a few years ago(long story involving a dodgy councillor). Its now going to fall down anyway, it's just over a meter tall (if that matters). So my question is - if I let it fall down can I be made to rebuild it. Not just can they ask me to do so - but can they make me? It's not part of the fabric of the house and every other house in the long stretch of the wall has already done it donkeys years ago. The conservation department recommended that I be granted permission, but I was turned down by the planning committee (ie one councillor) on the basis that mine should be preserved?????

Parking is for one hour only and the cars keep getting vandalized. The councillor who keeps referring to my house as his wrote that if I dont like the vandalism I should move out of town!

Any ideas?

many thanks in advance!

Sherman

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Sherman,

Welcome to the forum. I suppose there are 2 questions here a) should the wall be preserved? and b) if you don't can you be made to repair it?

a) - hard to judge without a bit more info and maybe some pics. Clearly there is a view from some that it is worth preserving, but it is always a difficult balance between preserving heritage and securing the future of period properties by making them livable in in the current age. I personally don't think making space for car parking strikes that balance very well. BUut I don't know all your details. Why not post us some pics?

b) Soeone will be along shortly with the legal position. You'll probably need to explain what you mean by "locally listed". The fact that the local conservation dept weren't fussed is probably a good sign for you.

Robin

 

[sherman]

Hi Robin - thanks for the speedy reply.

In answer to your point about whether it should be done I realise there is a case for keeping it. However as the owner I feel it would be OK to get rid of. Originally all I asked for was a change to the parking (I have to park 1/2 a mile away), there is a Controlled Parking Zone in the town, but they have refused to give me a space saying I should have known when I bought the house. Then I asked for the wall to be knocked down and was refused. Then I offered (with my neighbors agreement) to rebuild 17feet of identical flint wall on his property if I could take down 7 feet of my own. This time I was granted permission to build his wall but refused to take mine down - apparently it is impossible to link a demolition application with a building one.

All the staff at conservation and planning are on my side but say they don't know what to do. The main planning person advised me on the phone to "run an old banger" into it but declined to say so in writing. He seemed to think planning couldn't make me rebuild but was unsure if the conservation department could.

Another issue is whether I ever needed permission in the first place because of Shimizu V Westminster as my part of the wall is such a minor percentage of the entire thing.

Anyway - thanks for the help so far - I'll try to get some pics up later today.

Sherman

 

[Schoolmarm]

Flint :shock: yes piccies please.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

However as the owner I feel it would be OK to get rid of.

There is a view that you don't "own" a period property, you merely have the privilege of being its temporary custodian, responsible for its safe delivery to future generations. This may or may not apply to your wall - but a flint wall is undoubtedly a bit more interesting than 7 yards of Victorian brick in my book.

Its a tricky balance, and ultimatley a personal decision in unlisted circumstances - but I think we should err on the side of conservation/preservation than unfettered "progress".

 

[Pford75]

Sherman,

Welcome to the forum.

As Robin has pointed out, not everyone will agree that it is desireable to demolish the wall. However, putting this issue aside, I will try to share my perspective on the legal position.

1. If a wall is dangerous (which it sounds as if yours may be), then building control can serve a 'dangerous structures notice'. This can be served on listed structures (I have received one myself on a wall). This notice can require you to take action to make the wall safe within a defined period (eg. 28 days). I am not sure if building control can require you to rebuild...but they can certainly obtain a court order to force you to make the wall safe.

2. If this (1) were to happen...this does not (I believe) give you permission to demolish, but if their opinion is that the wall is structurally unsafe, then it might work in your favour at a subsequent application to demolish. Do bear in mind that it may be possible to 'make the wall safe' through repair rather than demolition

3. I am assuming that your wall is listed (given your comments and the interest of the conservation officer). If the wall were to collapse, then you could be forced to reconstruct....or they could seek a compulsory repair notice before it collapses and force you to make repairs.

Observations

1. If your wall collapses through lack of repair, then your insurance company will not pay to reconstruct.

2. You could well be forced to reconstruct or repair.

3. This can be expensive when flint is involved (believe me, I have the scars :? )

4. You really don't want to get into a situation of hoping that you are not forced to do something which you cannot afford

5. Any further contact with the council could set you down a path which you no longer control.


I'll not comment on whether the wall merits keeping or not - that is the role of your Conservation Officer. If he/she is not fussed and it is the planning officer who wants you to keep it, then AIUI the planning officer does not possess the power to force reconstruction. But, the CO does.

You could consider getting external opinion (building control or a surveyor) which supports the view that the wall is unsafe and argue for demolition on the basis that you cannot afford repair....but...and this is a big one....affordability is not the concern of the council.

There are others here who are CO's and will know all the details/powers....it would help if you could provide photos

 

[sherman]

For those who asked - here is the pic of the wall as it is and as I proposed to alter it. I should point out that the wall continues a long way in either direction off the image. All in all its about 100 meters in this section and then picks up again after a break for another 100. Hence my interest in Shimizu.

best regards
Sherman

 

[Pford75]

Thanks for the pics

Leaving aside the issue of demolishing the wall, it is possible that the planning objection is about creating an additional access to the highway (at the point where you seem to be inserting gates). The addition of a 'dropped kerb' or simply additional access onto the highway has certain rules around it and can often be the source of planning opposition. Do you know if this is the case?

 

[sherman]

Pford75

No not that - I got approval for a drop kerb and a quote of £900. In fact the highways department were positively keen to get a car off the road.

For those who think the wall should ideally be kept have you got any idea how I should get the parking restrictions changed so that I can park somewhere near my house?

thanks as always
Sherman

 

[skier-hughes]

No idea how to get parking restrictions changed, but where they in place when you bought the house?
If not, you should have challenged them at the time.
If they were, then you bought the house with a parking problem and as such knew it was a problem.

When we bought our house the conservation officer when asked what help they could give us in grants etc for working on the house said, you bought the house in this condition knowing you would have to do the work, why do you expect others to have to foot the bill?

 

[JoceAndChris]

Have you written to your MP about the Parking Restrictions?

We used to write to Lynne Featherstone all the time - she always replied- in the end the parking got sorted out with sensible lines increasing bays and a CPZ scheme. (this was also a Conservation area). Just went there this weekend and parking is now blissfully easy. It was a 5 year battle though!

Another option is to rent a lock up garage nearby. (you don't say if you already have a garage?) But I appreciate that depending on your location that might be prohibitively expensive -£200 a month in N London! We felt it was too expensive to be justifiable, but had endless problems with vandalism too, including one memorable night when our little Vespa was smashed to smithereens with a rock. If you could buy one cheaply it might be worth it.

I think you should repair or rebuild that wall! I can't remember the last time I saw a flint wall.

 

[sherman]

OK not a lot of legal opinion yet. Heres an almost identical case to mine that got treated completely differently (different council):

http://tinyurl.com/cvgwpw

Any thoughts?

 

[skier-hughes]

OK not a lot of legal opinion yet. Heres an almost identical case to mine that got treated completely differently (different council):

http://tinyurl.com/cvgwpw

Any thoughts?

Maybe because most people on the forum aren't legal people?

These may be able to help more
http://www.gardenlaw.co.uk

If it's a true legal opinion you want then you need to employ a professional in the correct field who can ask the right questions and hopefully get replies to them from all parties then give you your actual standing.

Was the problem thre when you moved in?

 

[Schoolmarm]

The problem I can see from the council's point of view is that after demolishing your bit, and rebuilding it to extend to next door, there would be nothing left of the old wall and the neighbour could pull his down.

Thus leaving a teeny section of new flint wall.

 

[sherman]

Well its over a year later and I found an excellent legal loophole which allows me to do what I want. If anyone is in a similar situation, just google Shimizu, took forever to get the council to confirm that I was right, but basically it defines anything short of total demolition as alteration, for which you don't need permission.

hoorah!