Partial removal of chimney breast and party wall act

[jazzfestival]

Partial removal leaving two supporting walls in ground floor flat .
Flat above
Do works require party wall agreement?

[bungeejumper]

If any part of the chimney breast has been taken out, it'll need to be properly done. Even if there isn't a chimney breast overhanging it in the flat above it (and I'll bet there is), you don't know whether yours is supporting floor joists or other structural stuff. Don't try to do this without expert advice, because the cost of getting it wrong is just too awful. It may well require building regs approval and an RSJ. Not too appallingly expensive - we had one done last year.

BJ

[Dicky99]

Partial removal leaving two supporting walls in ground floor flat .
Flat above
Do works require party wall agreement?

It sounds like what you are describing does not involve work to the party wall. The Party Wall Act is very specific to works to the party wall.

[bungeejumper]

It sounds like what you are describing does not involve work to the party wall. The Party Wall Act is very specific to works to the party wall.

I think the chimney breast is usually considered to be part of the party wall, insofar as it's one of the strong points of the building. And even if the upstairs flat has already removed its own chimney breast, you'll also need to be sure that there isn't a hanging stack of bricks somewhere up in the loft. It's not quite such a scary prospect as it sounds, though.

The following may prove helpful.

https://iconsurveyors.co.uk/do-i-need-t ... t-removal/

Any building owner who proposes to exercise their rights under section 2(g) of the Act in order to “cut away from a party wall, party fence wall, external wall or boundary wall any footing or projecting chimney breast……………..”, is, under section 3 of the Act, obliged to serve a Party Structure Notice, on any adjoining owner at least two months before the date on which the proposed works are to begin.

BJ

[jazzfestival]

Thank you ,the chimney breast is on the flank wall of the house .Oh well ,not much I can do TBH .I just wondered .

[mc2fool]

Party wall matters aside, as it's flats I assume there's a lease and a lessor and it's pretty much guaranteed that the lease prohibits any potentially structural changes without the lessor's agreement, and maybe even any non-structural changes without it too, and the lessor will want to see plans and a structural surveyor's report (at your cost) before even considering it.

[Lootman]

If any part of the chimney breast has been taken out, it'll need to be properly done. Even if there isn't a chimney breast overhanging it in the flat above it (and I'll bet there is), you don't know whether yours is supporting floor joists or other structural stuff.

Yes, I once removed an entire brick chimney from a 3-floor building, and I was very careful to start at the top and work down, rather than start at the bottom and work up!

It's amazing how much space you get back. Enough for a large walk-in storage closet on each floor, which made the flats more attractive for rentals, plus I didn't have to worry about the tenants trying to light fires.

[jazzfestival]

Mc2FoolYes ,it's 2 flats .We live in the upper flat .The chap downstairs is a bit of a bully and was very difficult with me when installing a stove in a fireplace in the front room .I thought the chimney should be lined ,it's a 1890s building on clay and I was worried .He was very unpleasant .
The freehold is shared 50/50 between the flats .Of course there was no discussion ,not even to warn us when the fireplace was being knocked out .Just denial that any brick dust could have drifted upstairs .
But all that's as maybe ,they are selling and maybe the new people will be more thoughtful .
I'm still not really clear whether there should have been a party wall agreement for work on the chimney breast .

[jazzfestival]

I'm still not really clear whether there should have been a party wall agreement for work on the chimney breast .
If I'm reading posts correctly ,Dickie says not ,but Bungee's quote says it does .

[bungeejumper]

I'm still not really clear whether there should have been a party wall agreement for work on the chimney breast .
If I'm reading posts correctly ,Dickie says not ,but Bungee's quote says it does .

The party wall agreement would have been one thing. The building regs approval would have been another - it's almost universally required. And if your neighbour is thinking of selling, and if he did remove a chimney breast, his buyer's solicitor would want to see the certification (on form TA6 and presumably TA7) - so let's hope he's got it?

https://hoa.org.uk/advice/guides-for-ho ... /ta6-form/

Alterations, planning and building control
If you’ve made changes to the property, in this section you’ll be asked to show the works have the proper consents and approvals. For example, you will need to provide copies of planning permissions, Building Regulations approvals and completion certificates. As a seller you should also give details of any building or alteration work that doesn’t have the necessary consents and permissions. You’ll also need to give details of all unfinished building and alteration work too.

Going back a bit, I'm not sure whether a structural engineer's report is always required when removing a chimney breast, but it certainly goes a long way toward keeping bulding regs sweet, and it doesn't need to cost the earth. There are thousands of retired structural surveyors out there who carry on doing freelance surveys (and are still qualified to do so). Ours put in days of work for £400 or so, and masses of calcs, and it was money well spent.

BJ

[mc2fool]

Mc2FoolYes ,it's 2 flats .We live in the upper flat .The chap downstairs is a bit of a bully and was very difficult with me when installing a stove in a fireplace in the front room .I thought the chimney should be lined ,it's a 1890s building on clay and I was worried .He was very unpleasant .
The freehold is shared 50/50 between the flats .Of course there was no discussion ,not even to warn us when the fireplace was being knocked out .Just denial that any brick dust could have drifted upstairs .
But all that's as maybe ,they are selling and maybe the new people will be more thoughtful .
I'm still not really clear whether there should have been a party wall agreement for work on the chimney breast .

The freehold being shared 50/50 is problematic if the other 50 is being difficult but also gives an opportunity if they're selling. Is it an arrangement where the two flats are leasehold by the individual owners and the building is freehold held 50/50 by the lessees, or held by a company in which the lessees are equal shareholders/members?

If so take a look through the lease, and if there isn't one, through any covenants between the two flats. It's highly likely that somewhere there will be some restrictions on making structural changes and you may well be able to stymie the sale pending a structural surveyor's report or other formal certification.

Have you had to supply any information to the solicitors for the sale of their flat? While BJ is correct that the seller should declare such works on the protocol forms (TA6/7), it's the seller that fills those in and they could just lie (serious stuff it they do, but still...), however it's also common for the freeholder to have to supply information on a form called the LPE1, and in the case where the seller is one of the freeholders the solicitors should insist that the LPE1 is signed by one of the other freeholders, which would be you.

[Lootman]

I'm still not really clear whether there should have been a party wall agreement for work on the chimney breast .
If I'm reading posts correctly ,Dickie says not ,but Bungee's quote says it does .

The party wall agreement would have been one thing. The building regs approval would have been another - it's almost universally required. And if your neighbour is thinking of selling, and if he did remove a chimney breast, his buyer's solicitor would want to see the certification (on form TA6 and presumably TA7) - so let's hope he's got it?

Most of my experience of doing major building works is from 20-40 years ago rather than the last 20 years. But with that caveat I have to say that buying and selling a property that has had unpermitted work done is not necessarily a problem. I say that as someone who has both bought and sold such properties.

Not that I am recommending people do works without permits of course, and especially not structural works. But often one is dealing with work done a long time ago for which permission was never given, quite possibly by a previous owner, and it does not necessarily place any purchase or sale in jeopardy.

And one factor is how long ago the work was done. In general a job has to comply with the building regs as they were at the time of the job, and not as they are now. So that wall that someone knocked down 50 years ago might have been fine when it was done, just not now. But it doesn't cause a problem. And indeed, how would anyone prove that wall was ever there in 1974?

Again, to get into trouble for failing to get permissions, it would have to be known both that the work happened and that you the seller did that work, and when. Such information may not be available and sellers are fond of responding "I do not know" or "I do not recall" to questions designed to bring out such problems.

So again, I do not advise doing unpermitted work. But people do it all the time, not least because permits cost money (I have probably spent 2K to 4K getting them in the past) and also the contractors who do work "by the book" charge more than those who do work on the DL.

My rule of thumb was to get permits for structural work or anything visible from the outside. But for internal and cosmetic alterations, just do it. I never experienced a subsequent problem.

[jazzfestival]

Lootman I understand and agree with your comments \.

Mc2Fool -the two flats are leasehold by the individual owners and the building is freehold held 50/50 by the lessees, describes our situation .The trouble is (i think ) that while we understand that structural work and alterations need to be run past us ,the other freeholder/lesse doesn't .Or doesn't want to .
I don't want to scupper their sale ,I want them gone .I don't think they're malicious ,just young ,entitled ,thoughtless ,and determined to have their way .
We've not yet received the LPE1 ,but I'm expecting it as in previous sales of the flat we've been asked to complete one .

The entry on the local authority site is as below ,so I assume building regs are complied with .

Partial removal of groundfloor chimney breast and leaving 2 supporting walls.
Agent Name Not Available
Name Of Insurer Not Available
Scheme Name Of Competent Person Not Available
Ward xxx
Community Council xxx
Decision Accept (Building Notice/Regularisation)
Status Building Work Started

I intend to learn from what has happened ,with the incoming owners I hope to find a way to tactfully draw their attention to the fact that works done in either flat need to be discussed with the other party .
The current owners also removed the side walls of the stairs that run up through their flat ,it was tremendously noisy and alarming .No previous discussion ,not even the courtesy of pre warning re noise .

I don't know why but the whole thing makes me really upset .

[DrFfybes]

Mc2FoolYes ,it's 2 flats .We live in the upper flat .The chap downstairs is a bit of a bully and was very difficult with me when installing a stove in a fireplace in the front room .I thought the chimney should be lined ,it's a 1890s building on clay and I was worried .He was very unpleasant .

I'm pretty sure there should have been a Flue liner if it is a woodburner. There would also need to be a Certificate for installation. This will name the installer.

When we moved in here the woodburner hadn't been touched in the decade it was there, the chap put a camera up the flue, spotted a join that was not sealed, condmened the chiney and said "I bet this is one os xxxx.s". Turns out he was correct, a well known local bodger aged about 80 who had retired since installation. Self cert schemes - great eh?

Paul

[jazzfestival]

Paul ,I don't know if it's a wood burner. I know they tested the draw, so that makes me think it's solid fuel ?
I also wouldn't know if there's a certificate of installation.
The guy downstairs said they weren't planning on using it .
People eh !

[DrFfybes]

Paul ,I don't know if it's a wood burner. I know they tested the draw, so that makes me think it's solid fuel ?
I also wouldn't know if there's a certificate of installation.
The guy downstairs said they weren't planning on using it .
People eh !

Doesn't matter if it is used or not, legally there needs to be a HETAS cert or Building Regs Cert (usually the installer notifies HETAS who notify BR).

No Cert means illegal installation if it is solid fuel and is actually installed. The buyers' solicitor should pick up on this.

Paul

[mc2fool]

Mc2Fool -the two flats are leasehold by the individual owners and the building is freehold held 50/50 by the lessees, describes our situation .The trouble is (i think ) that while we understand that structural work and alterations need to be run past us ,the other freeholder/lesse doesn't .Or doesn't want to .
I don't want to scupper their sale ,I want them gone .I don't think they're malicious ,just young ,entitled ,thoughtless ,and determined to have their way.

Ok, I get that, but the thing you absolutely don't want to have happen is for your flat to collapse into the one below at some point in the future. So you do need to insist on seeing whatever will reassure you that that won't happen.

We've not yet received the LPE1 ,but I'm expecting it as in previous sales of the flat we've been asked to complete one .
:
I intend to learn from what has happened ,with the incoming owners I hope to find a way to tactfully draw their attention to the fact that works done in either flat need to be discussed with the other party.

Well, that would hopefully come about by you being honest on the LPE1 that structural work and alterations have been made without prior consent, and as such the seller has breached the terms of the lease. That's not being an a*se, it's being truthful, which is your obligation in filling in the form. It's also avoiding the buyer coming after you later for misrepresentation if you don't!

(I'd tick No to 2.4 but put into 2.4.1 "But seller has made alterations that required consent without it anyway", and Yes to 6.4 and explain in 6.4.1)

The buyer's solicitor will then (hopefully) make the seller jumps through some hoops, including getting the necessary formal consent from you, and while (as long as you give it of course) that won't stymie the sale, it will be visible to the buyer and so "draw their attention to the fact that works done in either flat need to be discussed with the other party".

[mc2fool]

Status Building Work Started

But not yet finished? Or finished but not yet notified and/or certificated?