At Simple Survey, we see the same pattern repeatedly: the building work is well thought through, the builder is booked, materials are being discussed, and then—almost as an afterthought—party wall is raised. Notice timing is then treated as an inconvenient administrative hurdle rather than what it truly is: a statutory timetable with consequences. Party wall timing is rarely the “thing” that stops a project; poor timing is what creates avoidable disputes, unhelpful neighbour tension, and cost.
The first point to grasp is that “serving notice” is not the finish line. It is the start of a defined process, and the process contains waiting periods and response windows which do not flex to accommodate a contractor’s diary. If you are serious about keeping your programme controlled, you must plan party wall notice timing as early as you plan lead times for kitchen joinery or structural steel.
Minimum notice periods are not the same as “the earliest start date”
Different categories of notifiable work carry different minimum notice periods. In broad terms, works to an existing party wall or party structure typically require a longer minimum notice period than excavations and new boundary walls. However, homeowners often misread this as “I can start the job when the minimum period ends”. That is only true if written consent has been received promptly, and if the design information described in the notice remains consistent with what you actually intend to build.
In the real world, the minimum period is simply a baseline. Your true programme must account for how people respond, how quickly letters are read, and how often neighbours prefer a formal route rather than signing on the spot. A neighbour’s caution is not misconduct; it is normal, and your planning should assume that normal behaviour may occur.
The response window is where time is commonly lost
Once a notice is served, the adjoining owner has a period to respond. Where they consent swiftly in writing, matters can be straightforward. Where they dissent, or do not respond, the Act provides a structured route forward under Section 10. The most expensive timing error we see is when a building owner waits passively—hoping a neighbour will respond—while the programme continues to march towards a start date that has become unrealistic. That is not strategy; it is wishful thinking.
Our approach is disciplined: if written consent is not obtained, you move forward procedurally, rather than allowing delay to accumulate. “Waiting a bit longer” feels polite, but it often creates the very pressure that later causes bad communication.
Serve early, but not vague
Homeowners often ask: “Should I serve notice as early as possible just to get the clock running?” Our answer is: serve at the earliest sensible point, not the earliest possible point. There is a difference.
A notice must describe the works clearly enough to be understood. If you serve while the scheme is still in flux—foundation depths undecided, wall positions shifting, structural details unresolved—you may end up with a notice that is either vague or quickly outdated. Vague notices tend to produce caution, and caution tends to produce dissent. Equally, if the design changes materially after service, you may find yourself explaining, re-serving, or dealing with unnecessary suspicion.
At Simple Survey, we aim for the earliest point when the proposal is stable enough to describe properly. It is better to serve slightly later with a clear, coherent description than earlier with uncertainty that invites delay.
The hidden timing trap: identifying the correct adjoining owners
Timing is not only about dates on a calendar. It is also about whether you served the correct people. A great many delays come from serving the occupier rather than the legal owner, missing a freeholder, or overlooking a joint owner. When that happens, the “time lost” is not only statutory; it is the time spent discovering the error, correcting it, and rebuilding confidence.
This is why we treat ownership diligence as an early, non-negotiable step. It is difficult to keep costs low if you are forced into rework.
A practical, controlled timeline
A sensible party wall timeline usually looks like this:
- Confirm triggers: are you engaging Section 1 (new wall at the boundary), Section 2/3 (works to an existing party wall or party structure), and/or Section 6 (excavations)?
- Confirm who must receive notice: do not guess—identify the relevant owners.
- Align notices to a stable design: the notice should reflect what will actually be built.
- Serve with real-world lead time: include not only the minimum statutory periods, but also time for neighbour response and, if needed, the formal route.
- Act promptly if consent is not received: drifting is what costs money.
Why timing is the cheapest “risk control” you have
Party wall cost overruns are rarely caused by one dramatic event. They are caused by accumulated inefficiencies: late service, unclear descriptions, re-served notices, and correspondence that becomes increasingly tense as deadlines approach. Good timing prevents most of those inefficiencies before they appear.
Our core philosophy is simple: party wall should support the build programme, not fight it. Timing is how you achieve that. Calm early action is almost always cheaper than urgent reactive action.
Get Cost Saving Pro Advice Now
If you want party wall notice timing planned properly—so your programme remains realistic and cost controlled—contact Simple Survey. Our notice service starts from £25 per adjoining ownership, with agreed surveyor administration typically £300, depending on complexity and owners.