Retaining walls

[blackcab]

My neighbours land is higher than mine and he is currently developing on the land, there is currently a wall that is holding back his land that sits on my property - this was never built as a retaining wall and is leaning towards my land - this wall has been up 45 - 50 years so is older than my house.

His architect has said it needs a true retaining wall and thats our resposibility as the wall is on our land !

The actual boundary is sat a foot behind this wall, so that is where any retaining wall will have to go

Can anyone confirm whose responsibility this is - seems logical if its his land its his responsibility

many thanks

[andya7]

I presume that you have been notified by the neighbouring property if the Party Wall Act applies?

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/plannin...

The above document should tell you all you need to know.

IF the Act applies and they have started works then you can obtain an injunction to stop. Irrespective of the ownership there are certain measures, documents, correspondence, etc. that have to be followed prior to commencing.

[touching cloth]

I'd say it's your wall, as you say it sits within your boundary so probably liability for the upkeep will fall to you (anything in your deeds about keeping a wall in good repair?). Also whilst I can see that you see it as retaining "his" land, presumably earth was removed in order to provide a flat area that now is your land, so it was your property (or the land it sits on) that needed the original earth to be removed and not his, his land would have been originally retained by the natural shape of the ground. I say that of course without seeing the actual site so just going on what I have seen before on houses built at differing heights/on a slope. If you can argue that the wall now needs strengthening mainly due to his plans to develop however then that swings the balance (although the current lean of the wall may not help assuming that was pre-existing before development, as it would show the wall already was not up to the job) - as mentioned Party Wall act needs investigating.

[GreenDog]

Do you have legal cover included in your household insurance ? If so it might be worth giving them a call.

[Pupp]

Worth taking advice from a good property lawyer. He may have express or prescriptive rights of support from that structure but liklihood is these, if they exist, only benefit whatever is there historically and not any additional development although this may depend on the wording of any grant (the title will need to be checked).

[blackcab]

It seems the wall is not a party wall as it sits on my property and the actual boundary is 950mm behind this, there is nothing on the deeds or land registry that mentions a wall.

The wall has been there 20 years longer than my property has, as it stands I have offered to pay towards the wall, but dont want to pay for the retention of his land or the drainage etc as I dont see it as beeing my problem

My point at the moment is that If I remove the wall for reasons of safety does he not have an obligation to retain his land and stop his land draining on to my land ?

if anyone can reccomend a friend or solicitor who knows about this stuff I would appreciate it

Regards and thanks for your replies

[Jayzee]

If he has altered the levels, then it will be his responsibility to retain the land from spilling into yours. This is basically not your problem.

[ALawson]

Jayzee said:

If he has altered the levels, then it will be his responsibility to retain the land from spilling into yours. This is basically not your problem.

Also if he is going to increase the surchage on the ground on his of the wall above what would be classed as normal then it is down to him to get a geotechnical/structural engineer to evaluate the erect on your wall i.e. do a check on sliding, overturning and the wall failing in either bending or shear.

As noted above if you have some legal cover in your home insurance worth giving them a call.

[jules_s]

Pupp said:

Worth taking advice from a good property lawyer. He may have express or prescriptive rights of support from that structure but liklihood is these, if they exist, only benefit whatever is there historically and not any additional development although this may depend on the wording of any grant (the title will need to be checked).

I agree with that.

[Stegel]

In my experience the landowner at the bottom of a retaining wall is responsible for its upkeep, but as OP states the wall was not built as a retaining wall, this needs further enquiry and the neighbour's architect should not really make statements unless he is in possession of all the facts.

With regards the (quite correct) mention of the Party Wall Act, it does not just cover true "party walls", but all sorts of activities carried out adjacent boundaries. In this situation, the designers would need to be very sure of the capacity of the wall before placing the surcharge of the new building on the ground behind the wall, so really should take the foundations, whether piles or conventional, below the level of the wall, which, within certain distances, gives rise to a party wall notice and opening up of a procedure which safeguards the OP's wall. Unless there is specific reference in deeds, I cannot see how the neighbour can oblige the OP to upgrade a wall, which may not be perfect but functions to retain ground, to a wall that can retain ground supporting a building.