“Using The Party wall etc Act 1996 to gain access to a neighbouring property”
Dear Mr Antino,
I’m delighted to tell you that your article entitled “Using The Party wall etc Act 1996 to gain access to a neighbouring property” has just been published in Structural Survey. To view your article online or alternatively copy the following URL into the address bar of your web browser:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/fwd.htm?id=aob&ini=aob&doi=10.1108/02630801111148194
Please do pass the link above (NB the link, not the actual PDF as this would be breaking Emerald’s copyright policy) on to your friends and colleagues to increase dissemination and possible future citation of your work. Why not add it to your e-mail signature or put the link on your social media pages?
You will also be receiving by post an author pack containing a copy of the journal issue and five reprints of your article. Please be advised that this may take from 6 to 8 weeks to arrive.
As a member benefit of the Emerald Literati Network (an expert network of more than 70,000 Emerald authors worldwide, including such names as Sir Tim Berners-Lee, Gary Hamel, Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Warren Bennis, Henry Mintzberg and Edward de Bono), you are entitled to complimentary access to all of Emerald’s online journal content for three months.
Please also take some time to look over the many resources we have on our web site, split in to four sections:
For Authors (e.g. “How to …” guides)
- Research Zone (e.g. global doctoral and research fund awards)
- Learning Zone (e.g. a range of podcasts)
- Teaching Zone (e.g. Issues in education)
I hope the enclosed information will prove useful. If you have any ideas of new ways we can improve our service, please do not hesitate to get in touch.
Best regards,
Nelli Rubante
External Relations Assistant
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Tel +44 (0) 1274 785062
Email: nrubante@emeraldinsight.com
http://www.emeraldinsight.com
Visitor Comments
Leave a Reply
Dear Phil,
Firstly, I do want to thank you for the excellent seminar at kings Lynn
today, I found it of great value.
So gripped in fact by the subject, I have just read, with great interest
your paper re ‘ The PWA to gain access’.
Specifically as a section of your paper regarding section 1 of the act
relates closely to a case that I have just been instructed on, I would be
very grateful if I could ask for your thoughts.
I have been appointed by an AO who legitimately has concerns based
on a s1.5 notice received recently whereby the BO intends to build up to
the line of junction/boundary (and where upon the AO’s side of the
boundary is a row of hedging, which the BO wishes to remove + dig up part
of a decorative patio). However the BO states that the single storey
extension will be built upon his own land.
Not withstanding the possible contradiction re the above or whether it is
simply a ruse to gain entry via S 8.1, my other real concern is the
interpretation of section 1, i.e. line of junction 1.5 notice when as in
this case, the AO has dissented?
Critically, I read in your paper that the BO can indeed press ahead after
one month even if the AO objects and requires an award to be made to
protect his interests which are many in this instance.
My confusion has come about as I have been formally of the view informed
by Alex Frame’s book on ‘Missunderstandings and guidence,’ which suggests
that although the act is silent compared to the explicit process laid out
re section 2 and 6; in the case of dissent from a section one notice, Alex
suggests that the dissent / award process can still be undertaken from
1.8.
Therefore, whilst I have requested that they determine the precise line of
the boundary, before I can get too involved; can the BO press on
regardless or will he have to abide by the normal process and appoint a
PWS and follow the standard procedures?
I understand that if it is the case that a s.1.5 applies he will have the
right to gain access albeit as you have so ably demonstrated, this will
have to be very seriously considered along side s 7.1.and 12.1.
Thank you once again for your input and if you could help shed some light
on this issue re s1 and whether the BO can simply ignore a dissent
situation, I would be grateful.
Dear Mark,
The BO does not have a right of access because by his own admission he will build the extension
from his land and therefore access is not required.
Furthermore he cannot romove the AO’s hedge or excavate his patio. This is not related to the work on the BO land and is unreasonable and a nuisance.
He can cut back any over hanging (the line of junction) parts of the hedge and cut back roots when they are found on his land but that’s all
An Ao cannot dissent to someone building on there land. The BO request to remove the hedge and
dig up the patio is not reasonable or within the jurisidction of the surveyros to determine.
If a valid dispute arises under 1(8) the dispute must be settled by section 10.
Regards philip