‘Unnecessary’ demolition of boundary wall sparks neighbour row (2025)

Neighbours say they could be compelled to pay for the demolition which they don't think is needed

A Victorian stone wall separating a block of flats and houses will soon be demolished sparking a row with neighbours. Owners of the flats are planning to knock down the boundary wall in Cotham and rebuild it, charging people living next door for some of the “unnecessary” works.

The four-storey Knightstone Lodge on Archfield Road is owned by LiveWest Homes Limited. The housing association applied to Bristol City Council for planning permission to replace and repair historic stone walls.

The boundary wall behind the block of flats has failed and needs to be rebuilt, and the boundary wall to the front of the property also needs to be partially rebuilt, according to the applicant. The block of 12 flats was built in the 1970s, in the middle of a conservation area with historic houses. The development control A committee voted to grant permission on Wednesday, April 16.

Green Councillor Guy Poultney, representing Cotham, said: “Residents approached me about this some time ago, largely because they couldn’t make contact with the applicant and they didn’t understand why it was that the applicant seemed absolutely hell-bent on demolishing large sections of this wall, or even the whole thing, unnecessarily.

“We have these walls stretching throughout this particular bit of my ward. As far as I can tell, this is the only time someone has ever proposed demolishing one of them, rather than simply repairing it. We still have no explanation. We do not know why they want to do this in this impossibly destructive way.”

Nobody representing LiveWest Homes attended the committee meeting to speak about the plans. Before the meeting, they said parts of the walls were unstable and could collapse. Some parts are cracking and bulging, with water leaking through too. Existing stones would be kept and reused “as much as practical”, and new foundations would be piled in, avoiding tree roots.

In planning documents, the applicants said: “Sections of retaining walls [at the front] are actively moving and are at risk of partial collapse. The failure of masonry here is unpredictable, hence we cannot put a time frame on when failure will occur. The movement experienced by these walls already suggests that a full rebuild of the failing sections will be required.

“The boundary wall around the rear car park is also at risk of collapse, again where and when this will occur cannot be accurately predicted. Sections of this wall are likely to require rebuilding on new foundations.”

The housing association could serve a “party wall notice” on neighbours living next to the block of flats. This would compel them to pay for some of the extensive works, as the rear wall is shared. But some neighbours objected to the plans, saying the demolition was unnecessary.

Writing to the council, one neighbour said: “The state and repair of the walls around the property are no different from any other in this area. If one structurally surveyed the area, the entire wall structure of Cotham would require urgent rebuilding. Walls regularly collapse, especially post the very dry summer two years ago, and local repairs are made and stay good for many years.

“The request for a comprehensive rebuild of entire surrounding walls is an easy option for a management company to pursue — time-efficient, but a huge financial burden for those families living in adjacent properties, who have been told they will be required to share the costs of the works.”

Party wall disputes are dealt with through a separate process, and councillors were told they shouldn’t consider who would have to pay for the repairs when making their decision. All but one of the committee members voted in favour of granting planning permission, while Green Cllr Ellie Freeman abstained.

Green Councillor Serena Ralston said: “Having had a situation in my own garden where a wall almost collapsed on one of my children, because the neighbour hadn’t maintained it, I would always go with the safety option. I know it’s not ideal, but nor is it ideal collapsing on somebody.”