Conservatory subsidence

Homeimprover919

Hello MS Experts!

I am after some advice! Sorry its a bit long!

A few years ago, I noticed cracks both indoors and outdoors where my conservatory met the rear of my house.

Conservatory is solid brick walls at both ends, and dwarf wall to the rear, with a polycarbonate roof. Its quite large at 5m x 3m and is open plan with two openings into the house (which should have upvc doors but previous owners removed them)

I made an insurance claim which of course resulted in a survey etc and ultimately in the insurance company confirming subsidence but rejecting the claim on the basis that the conservatory was not built with sufficient footings.

Both the survey company and a structural engineer I later appointed myself said that the problem had been caused by 10 large leylandii trees forming a hedge between my neighbors property and mine and that if I removed them, it would solve the problem. I removed them all, the ground rehydrated and the conservatory moved back into position and has not been a problem for 5 years.

I have wanted for some time to convert the conservatory to an extension initially by replacing the roof with a solid one. My structural engineer advised that this will be acceptable to building control with the addition of steel 'goal posts' both around the opening from the house into the conservatory, and at the rear of the conservatory - even with the history of subsidence.

My two questions:

1) Would there be much difference in cost between installing a lot of steel and a flat roof, plus new windows throughout versus knocking it down and building an extension from scratch

2) Of course I now have most standard insurers refusing to insure my house becuase of the history of subsidence - as its only the conservatory, would I be able to get the record changed if I knocked the conservatory down and rebuilt, and then get normal insurance?

Thanks for reading this far!

Toby

DullGreyGuy

Possibly best to split the question in two... here for Insurance matters and the DIY/Building section on the costs.


No, 99% of insurers want straight forward machine pricing which cannot deal with nuances like insufficient foundations being replaced with a new building. The property still has suffered from subsidence even if you rebuild the bit that had and/or remove the trees that caused it. 

You may find some of the 1% that will look at engineers reports etc may change their decision and/or price in the rebuild scenario