Rebuilding Garden Wall - Planning Needed?

[malcolm]

I have a garden wall which I'm guessing was built before 1850 (given the way it forms part of the gable wall construction of the 1850 barn). It is mentioned in the conservation area appraisal document as an important wall.

It is a retaining wall (we are 6 inches or so higher on our side) and someone planted a huge conifer beside it so it leans a lot. We have cut the conifer down and I don't think the wall is in danger of imminent collapse, but there is a footpath on the other side and I don't fancy the risk of prosecution if we get strong winds and I squash someone. The bricks are soft reds and have spalled badly, but mortar is mostly lime so it ought to be possible to salvage bricks.

I would like to rebuild the wall, hopefully using the original bricks turned around and fill in the gaps with reclaimed bricks, all lime mortared. I am keen to increase the height by 2 bricks to match the fence which would make it about 1.3m high.

My reading of the planning laws is planning is only needed if the wall is over 1.8m. In a conservation area planning is only needed if the change will affect the appearance of the conservation area. I reckon I'm good for both. Is that a good reading of the rules? I could apply but judging by the neighbours wall from hell planning experience it will delay the fix until next year so I'd need to do something naughty to prop the wall up on the side I don't own.

Any ideas for what would be the least naughty fix? Retrospective planning if they need it maybe?

 

[paulb33]

It doesn't look SO bad, to my eye.

If you must rebuild, I'd do it and worrying about planning later. As long as its pretty much what you have now and you do a GREAT job, you'll be ok. A bad job will probably need retrospective planning and a rebuild.

 

[skier-hughes]

I wanted to rebuild my log store in the front garden and was told I needed planning permission to do it, as it was in the front garden.
I've let the trees grow and done it now, nobody can see it!!

The wall doesn't look too bad, I'm thinking an awful lot of work and expense for little return, unless of course you are a great worrier......................

 

[Feltwell]

I, for one, definitely don't like the look of the lean on that wall and would rebuild it, especially as it leans onto a public footpath. Collapsing garden walls can be very dangerous indeed - one killed a 2 year-old child in London a couple of years ago when it collapsed in high winds onto her buggy, and it wasn't a high wall. A freak occurrence perhaps, but even so the lean on that wall would worry me.

Personally, I wouldn't fuss about permissions of any kind and would just get on with it, if you're rebuilding like-for-like - it's a repair after all. Before and after of my leaning garden wall - turned out well I thought, and it's weathered in nicely since, the after picture being three years old now.

 

[CliffordPope]

Be prepared to find that the old wall doesn't have proper foundations. Presumably you would decide it worth having foundations, if you are going to the trouble of rebuilding? In which case it will need more excavating, not just removing the bricks and sticking back up again.

 

[malcolm]

Thanks all. That's a nice wall Feltwell.

I guess removing the 30m conifer immediately beside the wall will alter water content which could cause further movement. Possibly I should be doing something sooner rather than later. The wall has nice stepped brick foundations but I don't know how far down they go. It ought to be possible to repair without demolishing by taking the most leaning parts down to dwarf height then working along the whole lot from foundation level.

 

[88v8]

I would like to rebuild the wall, hopefully using the original bricks turned around and fill in the gaps with reclaimed bricks, all lime mortared. I am keen to increase the height by 2 bricks to match the fence which would make it about 1.3m high.

If the additional bricks are mixed in rather than added on top, this should look OK.
But a fence is a transitory thing, a passing cloud....
Perhaps less bother to take the saw to the fence.

Repair... if you take the whole thing down at once 'they' could claim you are rebuilding it, with a mexican wave approach, people will immediately see that you are doing nothing visually or historically offensive.

Ivor

 

[paulb33]

It ought to be possible to repair without demolishing by taking the most leaning parts down to dwarf height then working along the whole lot from foundation level.

If you do it under the radar, be careful you don't fall foul of building regs. These may require a very different construction, particularly adjacent to the public footpath. You could be opening a can of worms if you try to progressively repair like for like and use reclaimed bricks. I'm thinking deeper foundations, more robust and regular piers, expansion/movement gaps etc. You may cause the whole lot to come down if you start to remove sections.

I have far worse stone walls encircling my garden that I'm not going near until I have the stomach to do the whole lot properly. Contractors just suck through their teeth and tell me it would "have to be done properly" and "they dont build them like that any more". Sigh.

Paul

(my usual caveat applies: much of my (so called) knowledge is shared without even checking Google)

 

[skier-hughes]

I thought my work was repair, but was told no, needed planning and as it is so visible if you are going to do it, do it right through every step.

 

[Penners]

I, for one, definitely don't like the look of the lean on that wall and would rebuild it, especially as it leans onto a public footpath. Collapsing garden walls can be very dangerous indeed - one killed a 2 year-old child in London a couple of years ago... I wouldn't fuss about permissions of any kind and would just get on with it, if you're rebuilding like-for-like - it's a repair after all.

I agree with Feltwell. The wall may be standing at the moment, but you can't risk a possible catastrophic failure in the future, particularly in view of the risk to passers-by. I suspect that a public liability claim would be denied by your insurer, as the wall's deterioration has been long-term and would be seen as wear and tear.

I would repair* the wall by rebuilding it like-for-like on proper foundations. That should obviate any necessity for planning permission.

I'm not an expert in such matters.

* That's an important word.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

It appears to be permitted development, unless your permitted development rights have been taken away

Class A

A. Permitted development

The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure.
A.1 Development not permitted

Development is not permitted by Class A if—
(a)the height of any gate, fence, wall or means of enclosure erected or constructed adjacent to a highway used by vehicular traffic would, after the carrying out of the development, exceed one metre above ground level; .
(b)the height of any other gate, fence, wall or means of enclosure erected or constructed would exceed two metres above ground level; .
(c)the height of any gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure maintained, improved or altered would, as a result of the development, exceed its former height or the height referred to in sub-paragraph (a) or (b) as the height appropriate to it if erected or constructed, whichever is the greater; or .
(d)it would involve development within the curtilage of, or to a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure surrounding, a listed building.

 

[Flyfisher]

I'll join the queue behind Feltwell and Penners in being concerned about the safety of the wall, particularly as it adjoins a footpath, and I think Malcolm is intending to the right thing by rebuilding it.

I've had a similar question about the need for planning consent for a fence and I wrote to our council planning dept asking the question. They were very quick to confirm the planning position (not needed in my, though they did point out that it wasn't a definitive decision as that could only be given by going through the formal planning process! However, I think such a written response would absolve me from any charge of negligence if there was a future issue.

My only doubt about the wall in question is that it exceeds 1m and is next to a footpath. Gareth's extract only mentions "highway used by vehicular traffic" so presumably that's not the same as a footpath, but these are the sorts of definitions that can be confusing.

Assuming Malcolm is prepared to start the works immediately, I would write to the council informing them of the intention to rebuild the wall because of its dangerous condition and the assumption that planning consent is not required for this. If there is any problem, the council will have to write back and also take responsibility for delaying work to a dangerous structure - something I'd bet they would be unwilling to do. Either way, Malcolm could not be fairly charged with being negligent.

One other consideration is building regulations. Could these apply to this wall? I realise all this red tape is irksome, but it could have future significance in the event of an insurance claim.

 

[paulb33]

Assuming Malcolm is prepared to start the works immediately, I would write to the council informing them of the intention to rebuild the wall because of its dangerous condition and the assumption that planning consent is not required for this. If there is any problem, the council will have to write back and also take responsibility for delaying work to a dangerous structure - something I'd bet they would be unwilling to do. Either way, Malcolm could not be fairly charged with being negligent.

There's just a risk that the council acknowledges the safety issue and requires that the wall is demolished. Then, normal planning procedure would be followed?

 

[Penners]

I would write to the council informing them of the intention to rebuild the wall because of its dangerous condition and the assumption that planning consent is not required for this.

Good plan, although I think I might add "...intention to rebuild the wall to a like-for-like specification under permitted development regulations...".

 

[Feltwell]

I'd question the need to redo the foundations.

The wall has been there for over 150 years - whatever is under it's stepped foundations is well and truly compressed by now. *If* it doesn't rock when pushed at the moment, I think you'll get away with taking it down to ground level and just rebuilding it straight. That's what I've done with my wall, it's been fine since and shows no signs of further movement. The huge birch tree which you can see in the pictures behind the wall which I believe was causing the movement has now been chopped down, which should help.

 

[CliffordPope]

Is your property boundary the outer face of the wall, or the edge of the grass border, or do you in fact own up to the centre of the path or highway, as is usual in rural areas?

Why thought is, if you own that strip of grass on the outside, why not just build an "old" buttress out of reclaimed bricks?

 

[malcolm]

Thanks Gareth, I was unclear on permitted development rules within a conservation area. Though nobody complained when I replaced the fence like for like. The old fence was over 20 years old and was showing it's age.

I like the buttress idea. Solicitor said the road has been adopted by the highways department. Though they don't seem to cut the grass so we've adopted it back a little.

I'll crack on. Just need to make sure the little birdies have vacated the remaining ivy.