"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Jo wrote:
"Paul Matthews" wrote in message
...
Jo wrote:

My guess is the foundations are crap.

It sounds horribly like early signs of subsidence due to shallow
foundations and nearby trees.

Shouldn't be....the house was underpinned in 1983

But that would not do much for the extension as that was built 17-18
years
later. The fact that the house needed underpinning suggests there is
some
movement in the land, and if that was not accounted for in the
foundations of
the extension, that could be a problem.

Why did the house need underpinning? What area is it in? Are there big
trees
nearby? What type of foundation was uses for the extension?
--
Paul Matthews

http://www.hepcats.co.uk

The house was underpinned as a result of a tree growing too close. We
are in Leigh-on-Sea in Essex - known for movement! A structural surveyor
has indicated that the tree - which is still there - should no longer be
causing a problem.
The foundations for the extension were deeper than the original founds.
Were they approved by the BCO?

You may have to go down 1.5 meters for stability in some soils (clay is
worst) with nearby trees.

Checked the plans. The foundations were deifinitely approved and they were
a minimum of 550mm below root growth.