Party Wall Awards - rear extension in Highbury, North London

Awards had been finally served recently in respect of a rear extension project to a fairly typical terraced property in N5, North London.

The works were a form of scheme which I have worked on a number of times before and were particularly suited to Victorian properties of a traditional construction.  I acted as Building Owner’s Surveyor and served Notices on the Owners either side. This scheme was to create a larger open plan kitchen within the outrigger on one side and extending over to the party fence wall on the other.  The new extension was to be longer than the original and therefore the works involved Party Structure Notices for rebuilding the party fence walls as party walls, together with cutting into these on the outrigger side and for deeper foundations with Adjacent Excavation Notices.

I initially met the Surveyor for the adjoining property with the outrigger and the Awards were promptly concluded without any major concerns raised apart from clarification regarding vibration from cutting in.

When I met the Surveyor and Adjoining Owner on the other side, it was clear that there was opposition to the proposal.  It seemed that this was largely based on the changed outlook by having a higher party wall rather than a mid-height party fence wall and due to the construction of the wall.  The intention was to rebuild the defective solid party fence wall with a new cavity wall conforming to current regulations and with a gutter on top of this.  Unfortunately the Adjoining Owner’s Surveyor suggested that the works were not permissible and unreasonably onerous but, despite requests for clarification of the basis of this obstruction, none was forthcoming.  Reference to the Party Wall Etc Act 1996 and associated case law was requested. The objections appeared to be largely on an emotional basis with suggestions that the Act limited forms of wall construction.  The matter therefore proceeded with reference to the Third Surveyor with no new valid objections raised during the submission.  Unfortunately for the Adjoining Owner’s Surveyor, the Third Surveyor found fully in support of the works proceeding and the submission I put forward and therefore the Adjoining Owners Surveyor had to bear the fees of all three surveyors. 

It was confirmed that walls need to be structurally sound and conform to building regulations but otherwise adjoining owners or surveyors cannot impose changes and act as designers.

The Award for the work was concluded fairly quickly after this and included agreed access and showed unreasonable inconvenience was not being caused.

Peter Sharp, April 2026