would you underpin if it allowed a great extension when no need otherwise?

[witwootoodleoo]

Just that really. Our house has no evidence of subsidence, settle or heave. We have planned a great extension which will make the house perfect for us and also really increase its value. However, structural engineer and building control say that if we go ahead, because we will be removing a load-bearing wall, as a result of our property’s age and location, as well as the usual steels we will have to underpin the foundations for that wall.

This didn’t really worry us as it will ultimately make the house less prone to problems in the future. However, google suggests underpinning can result in problems with insurance, mortgaging and resale. Presumably because underpinning is normally associated with subsidence.

So do we abort the plan to create a great space and make the house properly awesome to avoid underpinning, or do we press on? I’ve no real idea how much of a hassle that ‘underpinned’ tag will be....

I’d be grateful for any thoughts and experience that anyone can share please.

Ask them if there is an alternative to the underpinning?

I think the questions asked relate to structural movement of the property, not the method of construction of the foundations. You would still be able to answer “no” to any question regarding historical movement.

@mosaic123 excellent point. I’m clueless about such things and it hadn’t occurred to me their might be a workaround. Are you aware of anything I should specifically ask about by any chance please?

@socksrock Thank you, I thought that too but I’ve checked my insurance and there was a specific question about underpinning. Perhaps it varies by insurer and I could just opt for one that only asks about structural movement?