Father denies Chingford home construction causing neighbour's house to sink

Iain Duncan Smith with George and Georgina Constantinou (centre)

Iain Duncan Smith with George and Georgina Constantinou (centre)

First published in News East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Photograph of the Author by , Senior reporter

A young father has denied building work on his dream home could cause a neighbour’s house to sink.

Agy Epaminondas, 30, has stopped construction on the property in The Ridgeway, Chingford, after a neighbour’s surveyor claimed builders dug below his foundations, putting his property at risk.

George Constantinou, 55, also claimed the construction of a single-storey side extension has caused blockages to toilets and kitchen sinks in surrounding properties after a manhole was concreted over, and that the building work has caused structural damage.

Work on the side extension, a front garage and a loft conversion was halted in December pending an independent survey to verify Mr Constantinou’s claims.

This left Mr Epaminondas, his wife and two young daughters having to live with his parents.

Mr Constantinou said: "They’re destroying our home.

"I have spent thousands on solicitors but nothing has been done to rectify it. All the neighbours are so angry, it’s a ridiculous situation.

"We’re unclogging our toilet each day and now I’m faced with the prospect of my house sinking. This is no way to live."

However, Mr Epaminondas denied the work was affecting other properties.
He said: "My engineer said it’s impossible to have caused subsidence.

"The work on the manhole was above board. Thames Water are happy because I’ve built another one five metres away.

"It’s frustrating because we are living with my parents and the house is too small."

Mr Constantinou and his neighbours claim the extension will leave them with little privacy and light.

He said: "There’ll be no privacy in our kitchen or bedroom and we’ll have to bend down and hide while using the toilet now, like we’re prisoners in our own home being watched at all times."

He claimed he received no letter of notification when his neighbour made the planning applications, which were passed last summer.

The estate agent appealed to Chingford MP Iain Duncan Smith for help.

Mr Duncan Smith said: "I’ve written to the Head of Planning at the Council to demand an immediate inspection of the site."

A council spokesman said a further site inspection would take place.

Thames Water has been approached for comment.

Comments (28)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:28pm Mon 14 Jan 13

ruby newbie says...

would love to know how this fella got permission,and this also proves that building inspecters need to visit building developments more often,shame on waltham forest planning dept.......
would love to know how this fella got permission,and this also proves that building inspecters need to visit building developments more often,shame on waltham forest planning dept....... ruby newbie
  • Score: 0

6:03pm Mon 14 Jan 13

SXH says...

Mybe Cllr Akram had this passed, i am surprised no one checked the plans regarding the manhole, sloppy work from them all.

I have had experiance of the boroughs buildings control not even turning up at a property, but still get paid.
Mybe Cllr Akram had this passed, i am surprised no one checked the plans regarding the manhole, sloppy work from them all. I have had experiance of the boroughs buildings control not even turning up at a property, but still get paid. SXH
  • Score: 0

8:22pm Mon 14 Jan 13

sunn says...

How on earth did that monstrosity get planning permission?!
How on earth did that monstrosity get planning permission?! sunn
  • Score: 0

8:22pm Mon 14 Jan 13

sunn says...

How on earth did that monstrosity get planning permission?!
How on earth did that monstrosity get planning permission?! sunn
  • Score: 0

7:53am Tue 15 Jan 13

stickmanny says...

"Homeowners should be able to extend their properties up to 8m without planning permission".

Another cracking idea dreamt up by Duncan-Smith's friends.
"Homeowners should be able to extend their properties up to 8m without planning permission". Another cracking idea dreamt up by Duncan-Smith's friends. stickmanny
  • Score: 0

9:26am Tue 15 Jan 13

Techno3 says...

That is a very popular style of architecture in slums all over the Third World. What are people complaining about?
That is a very popular style of architecture in slums all over the Third World. What are people complaining about? Techno3
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Mikonos30 says...

Cowboy builder springs to mind.
Ive been living in chingford all my life and have never seen anything like...
waltham forest council need to act asap
Cowboy builder springs to mind. Ive been living in chingford all my life and have never seen anything like... waltham forest council need to act asap Mikonos30
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Tue 15 Jan 13

VillageIdiot69 says...

I work in construction and avoid using local authority building control at all costs. Most of them never turn up when you request it and they'll then argue with you when the project is completed as to what they agreed at the start !

Having said that, concreting over a manhole shouldn't have stopped neighbours wastes to become backed up. As long as the new one was in place prior to the previous one being concreted over.

I admit it doesn't look great at the moment but most projects like this look like that half way through the build. If other houses in the neighbourhood have had extensions built then a precedence has been set for the planning department to which they probably couldn't reject the application.

The neighbours claim that they had no notice of the project but I don't see how that can happen. You are legally required to advertise in a newspaper, notify your neighbours and put up notices at the site for a project of this size.
I work in construction and avoid using local authority building control at all costs. Most of them never turn up when you request it and they'll then argue with you when the project is completed as to what they agreed at the start ! Having said that, concreting over a manhole shouldn't have stopped neighbours wastes to become backed up. As long as the new one was in place prior to the previous one being concreted over. I admit it doesn't look great at the moment but most projects like this look like that half way through the build. If other houses in the neighbourhood have had extensions built then a precedence has been set for the planning department to which they probably couldn't reject the application. The neighbours claim that they had no notice of the project but I don't see how that can happen. You are legally required to advertise in a newspaper, notify your neighbours and put up notices at the site for a project of this size. VillageIdiot69
  • Score: 0

4:16pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Cornbeefur says...

VillageIdiot69 wrote:
I work in construction and avoid using local authority building control at all costs. Most of them never turn up when you request it and they'll then argue with you when the project is completed as to what they agreed at the start !

Having said that, concreting over a manhole shouldn't have stopped neighbours wastes to become backed up. As long as the new one was in place prior to the previous one being concreted over.

I admit it doesn't look great at the moment but most projects like this look like that half way through the build. If other houses in the neighbourhood have had extensions built then a precedence has been set for the planning department to which they probably couldn't reject the application.

The neighbours claim that they had no notice of the project but I don't see how that can happen. You are legally required to advertise in a newspaper, notify your neighbours and put up notices at the site for a project of this size.
Or apply retrospectively.
[quote][p][bold]VillageIdiot69[/bold] wrote: I work in construction and avoid using local authority building control at all costs. Most of them never turn up when you request it and they'll then argue with you when the project is completed as to what they agreed at the start ! Having said that, concreting over a manhole shouldn't have stopped neighbours wastes to become backed up. As long as the new one was in place prior to the previous one being concreted over. I admit it doesn't look great at the moment but most projects like this look like that half way through the build. If other houses in the neighbourhood have had extensions built then a precedence has been set for the planning department to which they probably couldn't reject the application. The neighbours claim that they had no notice of the project but I don't see how that can happen. You are legally required to advertise in a newspaper, notify your neighbours and put up notices at the site for a project of this size.[/p][/quote]Or apply retrospectively. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

4:59pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Alan_1976 says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
VillageIdiot69 wrote:
I work in construction and avoid using local authority building control at all costs. Most of them never turn up when you request it and they'll then argue with you when the project is completed as to what they agreed at the start !

Having said that, concreting over a manhole shouldn't have stopped neighbours wastes to become backed up. As long as the new one was in place prior to the previous one being concreted over.

I admit it doesn't look great at the moment but most projects like this look like that half way through the build. If other houses in the neighbourhood have had extensions built then a precedence has been set for the planning department to which they probably couldn't reject the application.

The neighbours claim that they had no notice of the project but I don't see how that can happen. You are legally required to advertise in a newspaper, notify your neighbours and put up notices at the site for a project of this size.
Or apply retrospectively.
If you choose to ignore your legal responsibilities yes you can do that
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VillageIdiot69[/bold] wrote: I work in construction and avoid using local authority building control at all costs. Most of them never turn up when you request it and they'll then argue with you when the project is completed as to what they agreed at the start ! Having said that, concreting over a manhole shouldn't have stopped neighbours wastes to become backed up. As long as the new one was in place prior to the previous one being concreted over. I admit it doesn't look great at the moment but most projects like this look like that half way through the build. If other houses in the neighbourhood have had extensions built then a precedence has been set for the planning department to which they probably couldn't reject the application. The neighbours claim that they had no notice of the project but I don't see how that can happen. You are legally required to advertise in a newspaper, notify your neighbours and put up notices at the site for a project of this size.[/p][/quote]Or apply retrospectively.[/p][/quote]If you choose to ignore your legal responsibilities yes you can do that Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

5:05pm Tue 15 Jan 13

myopinioncounts says...

The Thames Water Works in Coppermill Lane has a planning application notice fixed to the fence regarding the construction of two single story buildings. Fine so far, but what the notice does not mention are the huge white tanks that are appearing - I think there are now 11 - which tower above the approved buildings and are hideously visible from nearby homes. But the greatest concern is whether they contain hazardous substances.
The planning department needs to take a look at what appears to be an infringement of the planning consent!
The Thames Water Works in Coppermill Lane has a planning application notice fixed to the fence regarding the construction of two single story buildings. Fine so far, but what the notice does not mention are the huge white tanks that are appearing - I think there are now 11 - which tower above the approved buildings and are hideously visible from nearby homes. But the greatest concern is whether they contain hazardous substances. The planning department needs to take a look at what appears to be an infringement of the planning consent! myopinioncounts
  • Score: 0

7:22pm Tue 15 Jan 13

SXH says...

Thames Water pass anything, when things go wrong you get informed London Sewers are so old it will cost too much to replace them.
Thames Water pass anything, when things go wrong you get informed London Sewers are so old it will cost too much to replace them. SXH
  • Score: 0

8:45pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Michael Kanias says...

I'm utterly shocked and very disappointed with Waltham Forest council for allowing such a monstrous ugly pile of concrete to be erected in a residential area, I'm sure glad that I don't live there. I know that the laws have been relaxed, but this is taking the mickey. Surely the building regulations authority doesn't allow such building work to be continued and allowed to stay put ?
I want to know why no residents were informed before hand and no one from the council had came to check on the building work whilst being built.
I'm surprise alarm bells aren't ringing at Waltham Forest council as I have my suspicion with them.... As they say, " It's not what you know, but who you know ".
I'm utterly shocked and very disappointed with Waltham Forest council for allowing such a monstrous ugly pile of concrete to be erected in a residential area, I'm sure glad that I don't live there. I know that the laws have been relaxed, but this is taking the mickey. Surely the building regulations authority doesn't allow such building work to be continued and allowed to stay put ? I want to know why no residents were informed before hand and no one from the council had came to check on the building work whilst being built. I'm surprise alarm bells aren't ringing at Waltham Forest council as I have my suspicion with them.... As they say, " It's not what you know, but who you know ". Michael Kanias
  • Score: 0

9:13pm Tue 15 Jan 13

kingdino says...

Waltham Forest Council should be ashamed of themselves!! I'd call for an investigation and for some individuals to be sacked, obviously there's back handers involved.

Besides, why does a family of four need a property that large, are they planning on hosting the next olympics?
Waltham Forest Council should be ashamed of themselves!! I'd call for an investigation and for some individuals to be sacked, obviously there's back handers involved. Besides, why does a family of four need a property that large, are they planning on hosting the next olympics? kingdino
  • Score: 0

6:49am Wed 16 Jan 13

Domino50 says...

Planning and building regs aren't the only issues, it should be shut down for failure to put in place even the most basic safety requirements. With regards to the neighbours being notified of the proposed extensions and loft conversation, if the house is semi detached a party wall agreement would have been drawn up which the person having the work done would have had to pay for. The blocking up of the drains and concreting over the existing manhole, moving the manhole 5 metres away, if this a Thames water main sewer then there's no way they'd be happy to work on their sewer, if the sewer is private serving the houses adjacent, as long as the work is carried out correctly and passed by building control, then everything is good, by the way building control doesn't have to visit, it's at their discretion and the builders duty to inform the building inspector in advance giving more than a couple of hours notice.
Planning and building regs aren't the only issues, it should be shut down for failure to put in place even the most basic safety requirements. With regards to the neighbours being notified of the proposed extensions and loft conversation, if the house is semi detached a party wall agreement would have been drawn up which the person having the work done would have had to pay for. The blocking up of the drains and concreting over the existing manhole, moving the manhole 5 metres away, if this a Thames water main sewer then there's no way they'd be happy to work on their sewer, if the sewer is private serving the houses adjacent, as long as the work is carried out correctly and passed by building control, then everything is good, by the way building control doesn't have to visit, it's at their discretion and the builders duty to inform the building inspector in advance giving more than a couple of hours notice. Domino50
  • Score: 0

11:41am Wed 16 Jan 13

Mikonos30 says...

kingdino wrote:
Waltham Forest Council should be ashamed of themselves!! I'd call for an investigation and for some individuals to be sacked, obviously there's back handers involved.

Besides, why does a family of four need a property that large, are they planning on hosting the next olympics?
i wasnt aware the next olympics were in chingford... they must be building an indoor cycling arena....

pop corn at the ready
[quote][p][bold]kingdino[/bold] wrote: Waltham Forest Council should be ashamed of themselves!! I'd call for an investigation and for some individuals to be sacked, obviously there's back handers involved. Besides, why does a family of four need a property that large, are they planning on hosting the next olympics?[/p][/quote]i wasnt aware the next olympics were in chingford... they must be building an indoor cycling arena.... pop corn at the ready Mikonos30
  • Score: 0

7:34pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Michael Kanias says...

After carefully observing the photo and the ugly monstrous concrete building next door, I can't help but noticing no scaffolding only one flimsy ladder up high on the roof . what ever happened to health & safety ???? Who are the builders ??? I hope they are not listed in the yellow pages.
If they get away with building huge buildings like this then God help the residents of Britain, In who's back garden will the next Olympic stadium be built ? It has to come down, no questions asked !!!!
After carefully observing the photo and the ugly monstrous concrete building next door, I can't help but noticing no scaffolding only one flimsy ladder up high on the roof . what ever happened to health & safety ???? Who are the builders ??? I hope they are not listed in the yellow pages. If they get away with building huge buildings like this then God help the residents of Britain, In who's back garden will the next Olympic stadium be built ? It has to come down, no questions asked !!!! Michael Kanias
  • Score: 0

2:33pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Esta Noia says...

Looks like a bad day in Bosnia.
Looks like a bad day in Bosnia. Esta Noia
  • Score: 0

11:57am Sat 19 Jan 13

ruby newbie says...

if the council dont make him knock it down (which they should) i would plant some nice big trees (leylandis).on your side.............
if the council dont make him knock it down (which they should) i would plant some nice big trees (leylandis).on your side............. ruby newbie
  • Score: 0

4:06pm Sat 19 Jan 13

stickmanny says...

You can only get away with one tree now. In law more than one constitutes a hedge and the owner can be required to reduce its height if it affects the amenity of adjacent property.
You can only get away with one tree now. In law more than one constitutes a hedge and the owner can be required to reduce its height if it affects the amenity of adjacent property. stickmanny
  • Score: 0

5:20pm Sat 19 Jan 13

fgdfsdf says...

1. Yes the building work looks unsightly at present, but that's because it isn't finished. That said i'm not sure it will be any better when finished and that is for more reasons that the owner employing a bad architect. The building appears to have been build tight up to the boundary line or nearly. This has left no room for access scaffolding to be erected to apply finishes to the block work. The neighbor is going to have to decide if he wants a view of unfinished blockwork for evermore or if he is willing to give his neighbour access to erect a scaffold to finish the work.

2. Lack of notifcation by planners etc....the neighbour, at the very least, when he saw the works starting next door should have spoken to his neighbour to find out what was happening to protect his own position. Or approach the local planning office to view the plans which are available to anyone. If hevhad done this they would have advised him that his neighbour should have served notice on him under The Party Wall etc Act 1996 in relation to excavations for foundations within 3m of his foundations, which looking at the photo appears to be the case. This would have lead to him receiving professional advice in good time from a surveyor and an award being agreed to protect his position and property.

3. Concreting ove a manhole would not have caused toilets to block up. But a brocken pipe and poor workmanship could have. Again if the neighbour had sought advice this could have been avoided.

4. Loss of light to the neighbours property and lack of privacy when going to the toilet. The single storey extension will not cause sufficient loss of light to the rear patio doors visible in the picture to be an issue for planning. Building Regulatons require bathrooms to have obscured glass to windows. If the neighbour doesn't have this then he is contravening the regs. Obscured film can be purchased from B&Q.

5. Health & Safety - yes a decent builder should have scaffolding and handrails in place to protect his staff. It's the builder that will face prison if an accident occurs.

The moralvof this story is: if you see your neighbour start doing work near to your property, don't just sit there. Go and ask what is happening both from them and your local council. Whilst the neighbour doing the work has broken the law by not notifying his neighbour onder the PWA 1996, the powers under the act are not retrospective and are no help once the deed is done.
1. Yes the building work looks unsightly at present, but that's because it isn't finished. That said i'm not sure it will be any better when finished and that is for more reasons that the owner employing a bad architect. The building appears to have been build tight up to the boundary line or nearly. This has left no room for access scaffolding to be erected to apply finishes to the block work. The neighbor is going to have to decide if he wants a view of unfinished blockwork for evermore or if he is willing to give his neighbour access to erect a scaffold to finish the work. 2. Lack of notifcation by planners etc....the neighbour, at the very least, when he saw the works starting next door should have spoken to his neighbour to find out what was happening to protect his own position. Or approach the local planning office to view the plans which are available to anyone. If hevhad done this they would have advised him that his neighbour should have served notice on him under The Party Wall etc Act 1996 in relation to excavations for foundations within 3m of his foundations, which looking at the photo appears to be the case. This would have lead to him receiving professional advice in good time from a surveyor and an award being agreed to protect his position and property. 3. Concreting ove a manhole would not have caused toilets to block up. But a brocken pipe and poor workmanship could have. Again if the neighbour had sought advice this could have been avoided. 4. Loss of light to the neighbours property and lack of privacy when going to the toilet. The single storey extension will not cause sufficient loss of light to the rear patio doors visible in the picture to be an issue for planning. Building Regulatons require bathrooms to have obscured glass to windows. If the neighbour doesn't have this then he is contravening the regs. Obscured film can be purchased from B&Q. 5. Health & Safety - yes a decent builder should have scaffolding and handrails in place to protect his staff. It's the builder that will face prison if an accident occurs. The moralvof this story is: if you see your neighbour start doing work near to your property, don't just sit there. Go and ask what is happening both from them and your local council. Whilst the neighbour doing the work has broken the law by not notifying his neighbour onder the PWA 1996, the powers under the act are not retrospective and are no help once the deed is done. fgdfsdf
  • Score: 0

6:37pm Sat 19 Jan 13

Domino50 says...

fgdfsdf wrote:
1. Yes the building work looks unsightly at present, but that's because it isn't finished. That said i'm not sure it will be any better when finished and that is for more reasons that the owner employing a bad architect. The building appears to have been build tight up to the boundary line or nearly. This has left no room for access scaffolding to be erected to apply finishes to the block work. The neighbor is going to have to decide if he wants a view of unfinished blockwork for evermore or if he is willing to give his neighbour access to erect a scaffold to finish the work.

2. Lack of notifcation by planners etc....the neighbour, at the very least, when he saw the works starting next door should have spoken to his neighbour to find out what was happening to protect his own position. Or approach the local planning office to view the plans which are available to anyone. If hevhad done this they would have advised him that his neighbour should have served notice on him under The Party Wall etc Act 1996 in relation to excavations for foundations within 3m of his foundations, which looking at the photo appears to be the case. This would have lead to him receiving professional advice in good time from a surveyor and an award being agreed to protect his position and property.

3. Concreting ove a manhole would not have caused toilets to block up. But a brocken pipe and poor workmanship could have. Again if the neighbour had sought advice this could have been avoided.

4. Loss of light to the neighbours property and lack of privacy when going to the toilet. The single storey extension will not cause sufficient loss of light to the rear patio doors visible in the picture to be an issue for planning. Building Regulatons require bathrooms to have obscured glass to windows. If the neighbour doesn't have this then he is contravening the regs. Obscured film can be purchased from B&Q.

5. Health & Safety - yes a decent builder should have scaffolding and handrails in place to protect his staff. It's the builder that will face prison if an accident occurs.

The moralvof this story is: if you see your neighbour start doing work near to your property, don't just sit there. Go and ask what is happening both from them and your local council. Whilst the neighbour doing the work has broken the law by not notifying his neighbour onder the PWA 1996, the powers under the act are not retrospective and are no help once the deed is done.
Under CDM the Architect and the client could face criminal charges, if there was an incident, or a injury, wonder if they realise what the penalties are, probably haven't even given it a thought judging by the standard of work and the lack of consideration given to how their going to apply a finish to the block work facing the neighbour, and maintain it.
[quote][p][bold]fgdfsdf[/bold] wrote: 1. Yes the building work looks unsightly at present, but that's because it isn't finished. That said i'm not sure it will be any better when finished and that is for more reasons that the owner employing a bad architect. The building appears to have been build tight up to the boundary line or nearly. This has left no room for access scaffolding to be erected to apply finishes to the block work. The neighbor is going to have to decide if he wants a view of unfinished blockwork for evermore or if he is willing to give his neighbour access to erect a scaffold to finish the work. 2. Lack of notifcation by planners etc....the neighbour, at the very least, when he saw the works starting next door should have spoken to his neighbour to find out what was happening to protect his own position. Or approach the local planning office to view the plans which are available to anyone. If hevhad done this they would have advised him that his neighbour should have served notice on him under The Party Wall etc Act 1996 in relation to excavations for foundations within 3m of his foundations, which looking at the photo appears to be the case. This would have lead to him receiving professional advice in good time from a surveyor and an award being agreed to protect his position and property. 3. Concreting ove a manhole would not have caused toilets to block up. But a brocken pipe and poor workmanship could have. Again if the neighbour had sought advice this could have been avoided. 4. Loss of light to the neighbours property and lack of privacy when going to the toilet. The single storey extension will not cause sufficient loss of light to the rear patio doors visible in the picture to be an issue for planning. Building Regulatons require bathrooms to have obscured glass to windows. If the neighbour doesn't have this then he is contravening the regs. Obscured film can be purchased from B&Q. 5. Health & Safety - yes a decent builder should have scaffolding and handrails in place to protect his staff. It's the builder that will face prison if an accident occurs. The moralvof this story is: if you see your neighbour start doing work near to your property, don't just sit there. Go and ask what is happening both from them and your local council. Whilst the neighbour doing the work has broken the law by not notifying his neighbour onder the PWA 1996, the powers under the act are not retrospective and are no help once the deed is done.[/p][/quote]Under CDM the Architect and the client could face criminal charges, if there was an incident, or a injury, wonder if they realise what the penalties are, probably haven't even given it a thought judging by the standard of work and the lack of consideration given to how their going to apply a finish to the block work facing the neighbour, and maintain it. Domino50
  • Score: 0

6:57pm Sat 19 Jan 13

fgdfsdf says...

Domino50 wrote:
fgdfsdf wrote:
1. Yes the building work looks unsightly at present, but that's because it isn't finished. That said i'm not sure it will be any better when finished and that is for more reasons that the owner employing a bad architect. The building appears to have been build tight up to the boundary line or nearly. This has left no room for access scaffolding to be erected to apply finishes to the block work. The neighbor is going to have to decide if he wants a view of unfinished blockwork for evermore or if he is willing to give his neighbour access to erect a scaffold to finish the work.

2. Lack of notifcation by planners etc....the neighbour, at the very least, when he saw the works starting next door should have spoken to his neighbour to find out what was happening to protect his own position. Or approach the local planning office to view the plans which are available to anyone. If hevhad done this they would have advised him that his neighbour should have served notice on him under The Party Wall etc Act 1996 in relation to excavations for foundations within 3m of his foundations, which looking at the photo appears to be the case. This would have lead to him receiving professional advice in good time from a surveyor and an award being agreed to protect his position and property.

3. Concreting ove a manhole would not have caused toilets to block up. But a brocken pipe and poor workmanship could have. Again if the neighbour had sought advice this could have been avoided.

4. Loss of light to the neighbours property and lack of privacy when going to the toilet. The single storey extension will not cause sufficient loss of light to the rear patio doors visible in the picture to be an issue for planning. Building Regulatons require bathrooms to have obscured glass to windows. If the neighbour doesn't have this then he is contravening the regs. Obscured film can be purchased from B&Q.

5. Health & Safety - yes a decent builder should have scaffolding and handrails in place to protect his staff. It's the builder that will face prison if an accident occurs.

The moralvof this story is: if you see your neighbour start doing work near to your property, don't just sit there. Go and ask what is happening both from them and your local council. Whilst the neighbour doing the work has broken the law by not notifying his neighbour onder the PWA 1996, the powers under the act are not retrospective and are no help once the deed is done.
Under CDM the Architect and the client could face criminal charges, if there was an incident, or a injury, wonder if they realise what the penalties are, probably haven't even given it a thought judging by the standard of work and the lack of consideration given to how their going to apply a finish to the block work facing the neighbour, and maintain it.
Domino the CDM 2007 Regs do not apply to residential work. That said the Health & Safety At Work Act does apply here, but only to the building contractor to his employees.
[quote][p][bold]Domino50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fgdfsdf[/bold] wrote: 1. Yes the building work looks unsightly at present, but that's because it isn't finished. That said i'm not sure it will be any better when finished and that is for more reasons that the owner employing a bad architect. The building appears to have been build tight up to the boundary line or nearly. This has left no room for access scaffolding to be erected to apply finishes to the block work. The neighbor is going to have to decide if he wants a view of unfinished blockwork for evermore or if he is willing to give his neighbour access to erect a scaffold to finish the work. 2. Lack of notifcation by planners etc....the neighbour, at the very least, when he saw the works starting next door should have spoken to his neighbour to find out what was happening to protect his own position. Or approach the local planning office to view the plans which are available to anyone. If hevhad done this they would have advised him that his neighbour should have served notice on him under The Party Wall etc Act 1996 in relation to excavations for foundations within 3m of his foundations, which looking at the photo appears to be the case. This would have lead to him receiving professional advice in good time from a surveyor and an award being agreed to protect his position and property. 3. Concreting ove a manhole would not have caused toilets to block up. But a brocken pipe and poor workmanship could have. Again if the neighbour had sought advice this could have been avoided. 4. Loss of light to the neighbours property and lack of privacy when going to the toilet. The single storey extension will not cause sufficient loss of light to the rear patio doors visible in the picture to be an issue for planning. Building Regulatons require bathrooms to have obscured glass to windows. If the neighbour doesn't have this then he is contravening the regs. Obscured film can be purchased from B&Q. 5. Health & Safety - yes a decent builder should have scaffolding and handrails in place to protect his staff. It's the builder that will face prison if an accident occurs. The moralvof this story is: if you see your neighbour start doing work near to your property, don't just sit there. Go and ask what is happening both from them and your local council. Whilst the neighbour doing the work has broken the law by not notifying his neighbour onder the PWA 1996, the powers under the act are not retrospective and are no help once the deed is done.[/p][/quote]Under CDM the Architect and the client could face criminal charges, if there was an incident, or a injury, wonder if they realise what the penalties are, probably haven't even given it a thought judging by the standard of work and the lack of consideration given to how their going to apply a finish to the block work facing the neighbour, and maintain it.[/p][/quote]Domino the CDM 2007 Regs do not apply to residential work. That said the Health & Safety At Work Act does apply here, but only to the building contractor to his employees. fgdfsdf
  • Score: 0

8:19pm Sat 19 Jan 13

Domino50 says...

fgdfsdf wrote:
Domino50 wrote:
fgdfsdf wrote:
1. Yes the building work looks unsightly at present, but that's because it isn't finished. That said i'm not sure it will be any better when finished and that is for more reasons that the owner employing a bad architect. The building appears to have been build tight up to the boundary line or nearly. This has left no room for access scaffolding to be erected to apply finishes to the block work. The neighbor is going to have to decide if he wants a view of unfinished blockwork for evermore or if he is willing to give his neighbour access to erect a scaffold to finish the work.

2. Lack of notifcation by planners etc....the neighbour, at the very least, when he saw the works starting next door should have spoken to his neighbour to find out what was happening to protect his own position. Or approach the local planning office to view the plans which are available to anyone. If hevhad done this they would have advised him that his neighbour should have served notice on him under The Party Wall etc Act 1996 in relation to excavations for foundations within 3m of his foundations, which looking at the photo appears to be the case. This would have lead to him receiving professional advice in good time from a surveyor and an award being agreed to protect his position and property.

3. Concreting ove a manhole would not have caused toilets to block up. But a brocken pipe and poor workmanship could have. Again if the neighbour had sought advice this could have been avoided.

4. Loss of light to the neighbours property and lack of privacy when going to the toilet. The single storey extension will not cause sufficient loss of light to the rear patio doors visible in the picture to be an issue for planning. Building Regulatons require bathrooms to have obscured glass to windows. If the neighbour doesn't have this then he is contravening the regs. Obscured film can be purchased from B&Q.

5. Health & Safety - yes a decent builder should have scaffolding and handrails in place to protect his staff. It's the builder that will face prison if an accident occurs.

The moralvof this story is: if you see your neighbour start doing work near to your property, don't just sit there. Go and ask what is happening both from them and your local council. Whilst the neighbour doing the work has broken the law by not notifying his neighbour onder the PWA 1996, the powers under the act are not retrospective and are no help once the deed is done.
Under CDM the Architect and the client could face criminal charges, if there was an incident, or a injury, wonder if they realise what the penalties are, probably haven't even given it a thought judging by the standard of work and the lack of consideration given to how their going to apply a finish to the block work facing the neighbour, and maintain it.
Domino the CDM 2007 Regs do not apply to residential work. That said the Health & Safety At Work Act does apply here, but only to the building contractor to his employees.
fgdfsdf is that all forms of residential work, or just extensions to private residences etc
[quote][p][bold]fgdfsdf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Domino50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fgdfsdf[/bold] wrote: 1. Yes the building work looks unsightly at present, but that's because it isn't finished. That said i'm not sure it will be any better when finished and that is for more reasons that the owner employing a bad architect. The building appears to have been build tight up to the boundary line or nearly. This has left no room for access scaffolding to be erected to apply finishes to the block work. The neighbor is going to have to decide if he wants a view of unfinished blockwork for evermore or if he is willing to give his neighbour access to erect a scaffold to finish the work. 2. Lack of notifcation by planners etc....the neighbour, at the very least, when he saw the works starting next door should have spoken to his neighbour to find out what was happening to protect his own position. Or approach the local planning office to view the plans which are available to anyone. If hevhad done this they would have advised him that his neighbour should have served notice on him under The Party Wall etc Act 1996 in relation to excavations for foundations within 3m of his foundations, which looking at the photo appears to be the case. This would have lead to him receiving professional advice in good time from a surveyor and an award being agreed to protect his position and property. 3. Concreting ove a manhole would not have caused toilets to block up. But a brocken pipe and poor workmanship could have. Again if the neighbour had sought advice this could have been avoided. 4. Loss of light to the neighbours property and lack of privacy when going to the toilet. The single storey extension will not cause sufficient loss of light to the rear patio doors visible in the picture to be an issue for planning. Building Regulatons require bathrooms to have obscured glass to windows. If the neighbour doesn't have this then he is contravening the regs. Obscured film can be purchased from B&Q. 5. Health & Safety - yes a decent builder should have scaffolding and handrails in place to protect his staff. It's the builder that will face prison if an accident occurs. The moralvof this story is: if you see your neighbour start doing work near to your property, don't just sit there. Go and ask what is happening both from them and your local council. Whilst the neighbour doing the work has broken the law by not notifying his neighbour onder the PWA 1996, the powers under the act are not retrospective and are no help once the deed is done.[/p][/quote]Under CDM the Architect and the client could face criminal charges, if there was an incident, or a injury, wonder if they realise what the penalties are, probably haven't even given it a thought judging by the standard of work and the lack of consideration given to how their going to apply a finish to the block work facing the neighbour, and maintain it.[/p][/quote]Domino the CDM 2007 Regs do not apply to residential work. That said the Health & Safety At Work Act does apply here, but only to the building contractor to his employees.[/p][/quote]fgdfsdf is that all forms of residential work, or just extensions to private residences etc Domino50
  • Score: 0

11:31pm Sat 19 Jan 13

fgdfsdf says...

Domino50 wrote:
fgdfsdf wrote:
Domino50 wrote:
fgdfsdf wrote:
1. Yes the building work looks unsightly at present, but that's because it isn't finished. That said i'm not sure it will be any better when finished and that is for more reasons that the owner employing a bad architect. The building appears to have been build tight up to the boundary line or nearly. This has left no room for access scaffolding to be erected to apply finishes to the block work. The neighbor is going to have to decide if he wants a view of unfinished blockwork for evermore or if he is willing to give his neighbour access to erect a scaffold to finish the work.

2. Lack of notifcation by planners etc....the neighbour, at the very least, when he saw the works starting next door should have spoken to his neighbour to find out what was happening to protect his own position. Or approach the local planning office to view the plans which are available to anyone. If hevhad done this they would have advised him that his neighbour should have served notice on him under The Party Wall etc Act 1996 in relation to excavations for foundations within 3m of his foundations, which looking at the photo appears to be the case. This would have lead to him receiving professional advice in good time from a surveyor and an award being agreed to protect his position and property.

3. Concreting ove a manhole would not have caused toilets to block up. But a brocken pipe and poor workmanship could have. Again if the neighbour had sought advice this could have been avoided.

4. Loss of light to the neighbours property and lack of privacy when going to the toilet. The single storey extension will not cause sufficient loss of light to the rear patio doors visible in the picture to be an issue for planning. Building Regulatons require bathrooms to have obscured glass to windows. If the neighbour doesn't have this then he is contravening the regs. Obscured film can be purchased from B&Q.

5. Health & Safety - yes a decent builder should have scaffolding and handrails in place to protect his staff. It's the builder that will face prison if an accident occurs.

The moralvof this story is: if you see your neighbour start doing work near to your property, don't just sit there. Go and ask what is happening both from them and your local council. Whilst the neighbour doing the work has broken the law by not notifying his neighbour onder the PWA 1996, the powers under the act are not retrospective and are no help once the deed is done.
Under CDM the Architect and the client could face criminal charges, if there was an incident, or a injury, wonder if they realise what the penalties are, probably haven't even given it a thought judging by the standard of work and the lack of consideration given to how their going to apply a finish to the block work facing the neighbour, and maintain it.
Domino the CDM 2007 Regs do not apply to residential work. That said the Health & Safety At Work Act does apply here, but only to the building contractor to his employees.
fgdfsdf is that all forms of residential work, or just extensions to private residences etc
Dimino, see the attached link to the HSE website. http://www.hse.gov.u
k/construction/cdm/f
aq/domestic.htm
[quote][p][bold]Domino50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fgdfsdf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Domino50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fgdfsdf[/bold] wrote: 1. Yes the building work looks unsightly at present, but that's because it isn't finished. That said i'm not sure it will be any better when finished and that is for more reasons that the owner employing a bad architect. The building appears to have been build tight up to the boundary line or nearly. This has left no room for access scaffolding to be erected to apply finishes to the block work. The neighbor is going to have to decide if he wants a view of unfinished blockwork for evermore or if he is willing to give his neighbour access to erect a scaffold to finish the work. 2. Lack of notifcation by planners etc....the neighbour, at the very least, when he saw the works starting next door should have spoken to his neighbour to find out what was happening to protect his own position. Or approach the local planning office to view the plans which are available to anyone. If hevhad done this they would have advised him that his neighbour should have served notice on him under The Party Wall etc Act 1996 in relation to excavations for foundations within 3m of his foundations, which looking at the photo appears to be the case. This would have lead to him receiving professional advice in good time from a surveyor and an award being agreed to protect his position and property. 3. Concreting ove a manhole would not have caused toilets to block up. But a brocken pipe and poor workmanship could have. Again if the neighbour had sought advice this could have been avoided. 4. Loss of light to the neighbours property and lack of privacy when going to the toilet. The single storey extension will not cause sufficient loss of light to the rear patio doors visible in the picture to be an issue for planning. Building Regulatons require bathrooms to have obscured glass to windows. If the neighbour doesn't have this then he is contravening the regs. Obscured film can be purchased from B&Q. 5. Health & Safety - yes a decent builder should have scaffolding and handrails in place to protect his staff. It's the builder that will face prison if an accident occurs. The moralvof this story is: if you see your neighbour start doing work near to your property, don't just sit there. Go and ask what is happening both from them and your local council. Whilst the neighbour doing the work has broken the law by not notifying his neighbour onder the PWA 1996, the powers under the act are not retrospective and are no help once the deed is done.[/p][/quote]Under CDM the Architect and the client could face criminal charges, if there was an incident, or a injury, wonder if they realise what the penalties are, probably haven't even given it a thought judging by the standard of work and the lack of consideration given to how their going to apply a finish to the block work facing the neighbour, and maintain it.[/p][/quote]Domino the CDM 2007 Regs do not apply to residential work. That said the Health & Safety At Work Act does apply here, but only to the building contractor to his employees.[/p][/quote]fgdfsdf is that all forms of residential work, or just extensions to private residences etc[/p][/quote]Dimino, see the attached link to the HSE website. http://www.hse.gov.u k/construction/cdm/f aq/domestic.htm fgdfsdf
  • Score: 0

4:09pm Sun 20 Jan 13

ruby newbie says...

sad for all of the decent folk of WF as no matter how many people reside in this house the council tax stays as a three bedroomed house....this is true of Redbridge......needs to change as they will use up alot more resources.
sad for all of the decent folk of WF as no matter how many people reside in this house the council tax stays as a three bedroomed house....this is true of Redbridge......needs to change as they will use up alot more resources. ruby newbie
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Javaid says...

The neighbour has a right to complain. No one would except such a thing and the council should definatey look into it as I don't believe anyone would allow an extionsion of that size.
The neighbour has a right to complain. No one would except such a thing and the council should definatey look into it as I don't believe anyone would allow an extionsion of that size. Javaid
  • Score: 0

7:01pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Arif Djahit says...

I feel sad for the people who live next door to the extension, how could the council give permission to build an extension like that. If that was built next to my house I would not like it at all, in fact I would outraged! I really hope that the council will fix this mistake they have caused and apologize for stress they have caused for the family.
I feel sad for the people who live next door to the extension, how could the council give permission to build an extension like that. If that was built next to my house I would not like it at all, in fact I would outraged! I really hope that the council will fix this mistake they have caused and apologize for stress they have caused for the family. Arif Djahit
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree