View Single Post
  #9   Report Post  
The Natural Philosopher
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Huge wrote:

The Natural Philosopher writes:

Peter Crosland wrote:


Walking away is the only rational option. It will be impossible to insure
the property and the costs of a properly designed scheme would certainly
escalate way beyond your estimate.


Can you actually prvide evidence for that? I have seen underpinnig done
roun here and it was certaily not a total ecsalation such as you
describe. Lbour intensive, messy, and a right royal pain, but it took
only about 6 weeks of three blokes to do a similar section.

At a garnd a weekm thats 18 grand...

...walking away is not an option here, unless it truly is 'cheaper to
demolish and start over'...which would be about 100k estimated.



You really, really, *really* should make sure you can get buildings insurance
on this property. If you can't, even should you be foolish enough to buy it,
you won't be able to sell it, so it will be valueless.


Its insured right now, and there may be a claim on it by the current owners.

Its not for residential purposes BTW. That's why its had to walk away.
Its required for business purposes and has the requisite planning for
that type of activity, and is in a perfect location for it - with no
suitable alternatives anywhere remotely near.


I totally agree that an uninsurable property is worth only plot value
less clearance costs.

Its not as bad as you think - there are signs of cracks and maybe up to
an inch of sink in the worst place. Since estimated 1970. I don't think
its dangerous, or will fall down, but fit for purpose means stopping the
process and making good the existing damage.

Costs of fixing it to a level that satisfies BCO and insurance companies
is the issue.

One assumes contacting the correct type of structural engineers, and
getting a report and recommendation and implementing it is what will
have that effect.



BTW, and this is from personal, current, experience, underpinning is no
longer flavour of the month. We have a problem due to adjacent trees (mainly
a mature oak about 20 feet from the house) and the insurers want all of them
cut down. When I mentioned underpinning, both my structural engineer and
the insurer's structural engineer said "it doesn't work".


Well it does, and it doesn't.

As I said before my house had tree problems. I being reluctant to remove
them, the engineers simply said 'well we well go down soil sample wise
to a level at which the tree roots are not present in any form, and then
some, and build a concrete wall that will stop fresh roots dead in their
tracks' essentially. They also insisted on a raised concrete floor to
allow the already shrunk earth to expand without upsetting the floor
levels, which is a serious problem if you simply cut the tree down -
soil moisture returns, expansion happens and the building gets pushed up
again.

The essence of underpoinning or piling - as I understand it - is to get
the solid base of the fondations down to a level with stable
charcteristics, and let the soil above move as it will, without that
affecting the structural integrity of the house.

I am intersted in the piling type methods - that was given to me as a
potentially cheaper way in my case, but that would have consisted of
building a sort of viaduct of vertical concrete posts, with beams laid
across othe top, to form the foundations.

I cannot see how it cold be done as a remedial method.

If anyone knows, please share.


We await the men with chainsaws. (


Indeed.That is an option as well in the current case, for a couple of
nasty conifers.

But the main protagonist is a rather nice weeping willow some 10 meters
from the worst corner. I am fond of willows, though they have a
reputation for this kind of thuggery.

What might be very simple and totally possible is to trench down a
couple of meters about a foot from the footings, and fill that with
concrete. That would cut the roots there, and stop any further
penetration to the footings area. I believe willow roots are pretty
shallow.

Of course doing that UNDER the footings and backfilling with concrete
and mortar would be ideal..