Building Surveyor Report
Introduction
Party Wall Act and Building Planning and Regulation fall under planning control. Tricker and Alford (2013) define planning control as the process involved in the management and the development or real estates such as buildings and land. The intent of this process is to ensure that the infrastructure is established in a civilized existence perspective and mitigates the drawbacks that may arise out of the establishment. It is expected that planning control is upheld in any project within the community so as to ensure peaceful coexistence of the neighbors. As per the scenario, planning control regulations have been breached by both Mr. N Oplanning and his constructor Mr. B Leggit. The planning authority should determine where any development ranging from a simple building extension to the construction of walls or houses go ahead (Smith et al., 2016). As per the scenario, the process would be critical in ensuring the coexistence of the property as legally agreed by the law. Conversely, a party wall is a dividing partition of two properties. Such a wall is established legally under the Party Wall Act 1996. However, the two neighbors should come to an agreement on the same, and a breach of the agreement may lead to resolving in a court of law (Chynoweth, 2008). This report is focused on the evaluation of Mr. N Oplanning based on the understanding of the Party Wall Act and Planning Control.
Appraisal of the Situation
The first offense that Mr. N Oplanning may be charged with if the neighbor forwards the case in a court is the breach of Party Wall Act 1996. This Act explains that a wall is deemed a party wall if it is amidst two properties owned by different owners (Chudley and Greeno, 2013). The purpose of this act is to give a basis for evaluating and solving disputes that may arise involving party walls (Legislation.gov.uk., 2017a). As per the Act, before conducting any activities that may tamper with the party wall, it is vital to inform the adjoining owners and seek permission before proceeding into actualizing the proposed project. Mr. N Oplanning can face such charges because he did not follow the legal procedures while building the extension which most probably has attributed to the development of the cracks.
Before building any structure adjacent the adjourning property or the party wall, it is important to come to an agreement to prevent the challenges that may arise in future (Chudley and Greeno, 2013). This is conducted by drafting a writing that indicates what you intend to do and hand the dated writing to the neighbor preferably two months before actualizing the project. The Act gives the right to do such activities, but the adjoining owner has the right to stop the work through legal redress. As such, the Act agrees that the owner of the building should not cause unnecessary concern (Rust, 2013). Mr. N Oplanning has the right of building the extension along the party wall. However, he did not seek the right permissions from the neighbor as stated in the Act. One of the complaints that the neighbor can raise as stated by the Party Wall Act 1996 is the boundary wall part damage through the cracks. Similarly, Mr. N Oplanning has caused unnecessary concern to the neighbor, which is causing damage to the wall and can lead to resolving in a court law through compensation of the damage. (rephrase in a concise form)
Planning System is concerned with the protection of the built amenity and environment. It is concerned with the evaluation of the general outlook of the building and the purpose the building is intended for. Motawa and Almarshad (2013) argue that future setbacks such as damage of the property and the environment can be predicted through the process and be possibly avoided. This process is conducted by a government body referred as Local Planning Authority (LPA) (Bruton and Nicholson, 2013). It decides whether the project should go ahead or not based on the evaluation. As described in the building regulations, the building process should adhere to specific regulations.
The extension of a building is under the regulations; hence Mr. B. Leggit, the builder of this property, should be liable to any damage encountered since he did not comply to the building expectation of the planning system. As evidenced by the neighbor’s property built under the planning system compliance, the wall has existed for six years. On the contrary, Mr. N Oplanning property has not existed for more than two years since it was not built under the compliance of the planning system regulations hence evidencing the relevance of the planning system. Based on the Building Act1984 S35, Mr. N Oplanning may face prosecution in a law court with an unlimited fine for this offense (Legislation.gov.uk, 2017b).
Conclusion
Mr. N Oplanning is seen to have two offenses, which include the breach of the Party Wall Act 1996 and failing to adhere to the planning system regulations. Although the extension of the building was seen as a minor building practice, it has resulted in consequences that might lead to Mr. N Oplanning apprehension and fines that may be costly. To avoid the legal intervention of the situation, it is recommendable that he resolves the issue personally with the neighbor. Compensation of the damaged wall can at least reduce the fine that will be administered by the magistrate. Such fine includes compensation for the cracked wall, the Planning System and Building Regulations offense fine and the breach of the Party Wall Act 1996. The extension can be rebuilt again while complying with these regulations and the neighbour can be compensated for the damage. Mr. N Oplanning will have avoided the great charges that can be administered through the law court if the issue is forwarded legally.
Bibliography
Bruton, M.J., and Nicholson, D. J. 2013. Local planning in practice. London: Routledge.
Chudley, R. and Greeno, R., 2013. Building construction handbook. London: Routledge.
Chynoweth, P., 2008. The party wall casebook. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons
Legislation.gov.uk. (2017a). Party Wall etc. Act 1996. [online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/40 [Accessed 28 Jan. 2017].
Legislation.gov.uk. (2017b). Building Act 1984. [online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/55 [Accessed 28 Jan. 2017].
Motawa, I., and Almarshad, A. (2013). A knowledge-based BIM system for building maintenance. Automation in Construction, 29(1), 173-182.
Rust, M., 2013. Kaye v Lawrence revisited: The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 and the revolution of 1894. Journal of Building Survey, Appraisal and Valuation, 2(3), pp.233-238.
Smith, J., Jaggar, D. M., and Love, P. (2016). Building cost planning for the design team. London: Routledge.
Tricker, R., and Alford, S. (2013). Building regulations in brief. London: Routledge.
