What are Special Foundations? – The Party Wall etc. Act 1996

In Section 20 of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, “special foundations” are defined as those employing an assemblage of beams or rods to distribute loads – a term some consider outdated, often synonymous with “reinforced.”

But what makes a foundation “special,” and why does it matter?

The crux lies in Section 7, Subsection 4 of the Act, stipulating that a building owner cannot place special foundations on the adjoining owner’s land without written consent:

“Nothing…shall authorise the building owner to place special foundations on the land of an adjoining owner without his previous consent in writing.”

However, the complexity arises, as evident in the 2013 case “Chaturachanda vs Fairholme,” where the use of mass concrete underpinning raised questions about whether it fell under Section 20.

The Court clarified that mere pads or blinding layers wouldn’t bypass the adjoining owner’s veto, emphasizing the need for a substantial mass concrete “foundation” as a permanent part of the design.

So, can you use concrete under your retaining wall to circumvent this?

The Court’s stance is clear: neither pads nor blinding layers protect against the adjoining owner’s veto. Anything less than a substantial mass concrete foundation could be deemed a “sham.”

To consent or not to consent?

The Act’s unique clause grants the adjoining owner the right to say “yes” or “no” to special foundations. If a basement isn’t in your future plans, there’s little reason to deny your adjoining owner. Reinforcement ensures structural integrity.

However, if a basement is on the horizon, consider whether the foundation’s “toe” encroaches on your land, potentially limiting future floor space. Engineering solutions without a projecting “toe” might be worth exploring.

In conclusion, special foundations provoke nuanced discussions, highlighting the significance of the Act’s clause that empowers adjoining owners with a decisive “yes” or “no.”