WWYD - building dilemma

Need_some_help

Hypothetical scenario:

There is a bricks and mortar single room outbuilding on your property without foundations that has become dangerous through a combination of subsidence and neglect. You would like to use this building every day, although not for any habitable purpose. 2 options are presented to you.

Option 1: remove the vegetation that is the likely cause of the subsidence, tear the whole building down and rebuild with foundations of an appropriate depth.

Option 2: ignore the surrounding vegetation, underpin the base and patch up the walls and roof.

IF the two options cost the same and involved the same amount of hassle (just for the purposes of this exercise: I’m not suggesting for one moment they do), which option would you pick? 1 or 2? Or is their a 3rd way?

chappers

Basically are you saying tree roots have caused the problem, if so removing the offending tree might not solve your issue, depending on the soil you have, in high heave soil the rotting of the remaining roots over years could still cause movement.
But that would probably be the lesser of two evils.
If you have the inclination and the money, I would go with option 1.
How big is this building and how badly has it been affected.

Need_some_help

It’s the size of a double garage and totally unusable. If we had another storm like the one back in 1987 it wouldn’t be standing.

sooty&sweep

Hi
Personally I'd tear it down & rebuild properly.

The trouble with patching is it will be never ending !

I'd guess it would be the more expensive option initially but it also means that it's sorted.

Jen

Furts

Option 1 because you sort the problem in one hit, and you end up with an asset and not a liability. Being an asset it increases your home's value and/or makes it more saleable.

Sorting out the issues will not be simple - you need the help of a Structural Engineer.

glasgowdan

Absolutely rebuild. You'll have a great looking new building which will add to the value of your property.