01332 314039
234 Derby Road, Derby DE73 6RU8.30am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday
2017
Nottingham
Dear Madam
Boundary Dispute and Water Ingress.
Instruction
To prepare an expert report on instruction of the Mrs with a view to resolving a dispute in connection with boundaries between her property and another
2. Qualifications
I am Steven John Macgregor Butler, a Member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyor trading as a sole practitioner. I qualified in 1992 and have in excess of twenty years’ experience of preparing reports on boundaries.
3. Documents.
Conveyance dated 24th March 1980 of. Appendix 1
4. Description
The properties subject to the dispute are a pair of two storey terrace houses. Number is to the south west of number and the original house projects slightly further forward towards than Number . Number was the first house to be built and Number leans against and shares its flank wall which is likely to be about 300mm thick. Photograph 1 of Appendix 2
At the rear of there is a single storey flat felt roofed porch with 112 mm brick walls that projects about 0.8m beyond the rear elevation of Number . Beyond the porch is a boiler room that projects a further 2.4m towards and steps a further 150mm towards Number . The effect is to create an 800mm x 150mm ‘cut out’ adjacent to the porch north east wall that would have accommodated the downpipe of Number The ‘cut out’ is shown at Photograph 2 and is common to other properties in the row as shown by Photograph 3
Latterly Number has built and single storey extension adjacent to the cut out for the downpipe almost immediately adjacent to wall of the boiler room of Number . The wall of the extension actually abuts the roof of the boiler room so that the felt of the boiler room roof is trapped.
The roof of the extension projects beyond its own flank wall by 40mm to accommodate the plastic cladding, a further 40mm to accommodate the tiles and a further 10mm to accommodate the tile plastic edge cladding. The total projection over the boiler room roof is thus 90mm See Photographs 1 and 2.
The original downpipe for Number has been re-routed so as to drain on to the extension roof. The positioning of the downpipe is such that water is able to ‘spit’ from the spout into the cut out that once accommodated the downpipe of Number
Measurement suggests that the floor level of the ‘cut out’ has been raised to 700mm above the floor level of the porch and boiler room and has a cement or concrete cap if not wholly filled with cement and concrete. There is no evidence of any drainage arrangements for the cut out.
Mrs the owner of Number claims that the roof edge of the extension projects beyond the boundary and that water is leaking into her boiler room since the construction of the extension at Number . Photograph 4. Importantly it is possible that damp is accumulating behind panelling in the porch of Number where is may be causing hidden damage.
The construction of the extension will make it difficult to affect maintenance to the boiler room roof as there is now no means of securing the roof felt. Photograph 2.
5 Law
I have considered that the following case may be applicable to this matter:
Acco Propertis LTD V Severn CHD 1 APR 2011
In this case the judge sets out considerations for determining a boundary. I have attached his comments as an Appendix 3
The Party Wall Act and Law of Property Act 1925 are also relevant.
6 Analysis
In Acco and Severn the judge states a number of considerations for determining a boundary:
Section 4 of the conveyance from 24th March 1980 states that the house and outbuilding walls separating the properties are party walls.
The wrap around of the boiler house and porch in relation to Number ’s flank wall are consistent with the wording of the conveyance
There is no evidence that this is applicable.
None known
The Law of Property Act 1925
The Act states that in the absence of documents to the contrary that party walls are to be considered to be divided vertically along their run. Thus approximately 61mm of the 112mm boiler house and porch wall would belong to each party. The tiles and plastic cladding of Number thus project beyond the boundary by 29mm above the boiler house roof for a length of about 1.35m
The Party Wall Act
Mrs was entitled to be consulted about the proposed extension under the Party Wall Act as its foundation would be below those of her outbuildings and the extension directly abuts the boiler house roof.
If she had been consulted she could have objected to the proposed projection of the roof edge and the raising of the ground level in the ‘cut out’ 700mm above the floor of her porch and the boiler room whilst at the same time blocking the former drainage gully.
She would also have objected to the wall of the extension abutting the boiler room roof unless satisfactory arrangements were made for the future securing of the felt.
Effects of the works
The effects of the works at Number are thus that the roof edge projects beyond the boundary by 29mm for a length of 1.35m
The ground level in the ‘cut out’ has been raised by 700mm and has no means of drainage than to soak through the adjacent walls which is consistent with the damp in the corner of the boiler room. The raised ground level might also act as a conduit for rising dampness in the porch and boiler house as it considerably bridges the damp proofing arrangements.
The badly positioned downpipe spits water into the cut out exacerbating the dampness problem.
It will be difficult to secure the felt of the boiler house roof when it needs to be replaced as part of routine maintenance. It would be normal to negotiate such an arrangement as part of a party wall award.
Solution
It is considered that the cheapest solution to the matter would be to remove the roof of the porch and demolish a section of the wall of the porch at number that abuts the cut out. The ground level in the cut out can then be lowered to below that of the floor level at number and ensure that it has good drainage. The porch wall can then be rebuilt, re-plastered/ lined and decorated and the roof reinstated.
It wound be helpful if possible at law if The Court could award Mrs and injunction allowing her to attach metal weather proofing to the wall of the extension at Number so as to be able to cover the ‘cut out’ and secure the covering of the boiler room when replaced, and ordering Number to alter their downpipe.
Mrs has lost the right to receive a consideration in respect of agreeing to the ‘overhang’ of the roof edge of Number ’s extension into her air space. I think that had Number followed the protocol of the Party Wall Act that the value of the few extra millimetres of the extension would be small and that they might at most have offered Mrs £250.00 for her air space.
The reconstruction of the porch will result in several days disturbance for Mrs . Compensation for this nuisance is however a matter for the court.
It would be beneficial if there was a metal flashing where Number abuts the boiler house roof to stop rain running between the two buildings.
10 Conclusion
The roof edge of the extension crosses the boundary by 29mm for a length of about 1.35mm. I consider that if an agreement had been negotiated this might have been for a consideration of a few hundred pounds, say £250.00, or Number would have simply redesigned the extension.
The raising of the ground level in the cut out is likely to be the cause of the penetrating dampness and in the longer term is likely to cause rising dampness and requires remediation. I expect that this work can be carried out for less than £2500.00.
Mrs will suffer several day’s disturbance whilst the work is carried out but the value of this is a matter for the court.
Relocation of Number s downpipe would help reduce the risk of dampness.
A right for Mrs to cut a weather proofing strip into the wall of the extension would be of considerable help in keeping the ‘cut out’ dry and is considered to be essential in order to be able maintain the boiler house roof.
11 Statement of Truth
11.1 This report is prepared in accordance with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Expert Witness Practice Statement.
11.2 I, Steven John MacGregor Butler, declare that:
Steve Butler
Appendix 1
Conveyance of dated 24th March 1980
Appendix 2 – Photographs
4. Damp in the corner of the boiler house
Nottingham Chartered Surveyors Expert Report on a badly planned extension and consequences for a neighbour
RICS Building Survey
RICS Chartered Surveyors in Sheffield - RICS Chartered Surveyors in Leicester - RICS Chartered Surveyors in Wolverhampton - RICS Chartered Surveyors in Birmingham - RICS Chartered Surveyos in Stoke on Trent
RICS Building Surveyors in Sheffield - RICS Building Surveyors in Leicester - RICS Building Surveyors in Wolverhampton - RICS Building Surveyors in Birmingham - RICS Building Surveyors in Stoke
www.chartered-surveyor-sheffield.co.uk - www.buildingsurvey.co.uk - www.chartered-surveyor-wolverhampton.co.uk - www.chartered-surveyor-birmingham.co.uk - www.building-surveyor-stoke.co.uk