"Natural Ground Stability"

Early_Retire_Free

The homebuyer’s report for our property identifies that the house sits within 50 metres of an area described as having a “moderate to high potential for natural ground subsidence”.

I understand that this type of wording can appear in Homebuyer reports where there is a geological feature or susceptibility identified in the underlying data. However, it has understandably spooked our buyers, who now believe the house itself has a subsidence risk.

Our position is that there is no evidence of this being a particular risk to the property. The neighbourhood has been established as residential for over 100 years (although our house itself was only built within the last five years), and we have found no recorded or anecdotal evidence of subsidence or ground movement in the immediate area. Importantly, the buyers’ own survey did not identify any signs of movement or other specific ground-related concerns.

We have also checked a number of other sources, which indicate a low risk for the area, and found no historical evidence of mining, quarrying, significant industrial activity or landfill in the vicinity.

Has anyone else encountered this situation, where a generic geological-risk statement in a Homebuyer report has caused concern for buyers?

How did you deal with it? I’d be particularly interested in hearing from land surveyors, geotechnical engineers or other professionals who can explain how these “moderate to high potential” classifications should actually be interpreted in the context of an individual property.

user1977

We've had numerous previous threads here on the subject. I don't know why solicitors are recommending buyers get these searches, when there is no obvious source of further advice if the buyers are spooked by the results.

Other than giving a vague idea of the likelihood of subsidence in the area, they're not much use - unless for example you are building something new and want advice about how best to design foundations etc. But then you'd be getting much more specific professional advice anyway.

bouicca21

if the property was only built in the past 5 years won’t the planning documents give reassurance about the foundations?

Early_Retire_Free

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82126554#Comment_82126554

There were no specific provisons in the planning requiring additional / special work which I guess is comfort in itself!

user1977

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82126591#Comment_82126591

Not as conditions in the actual consent, but there's usually something in the planning papers submitted by the applicant about site investigations etc - which will tell you much more detail than the desktop search the conveyancers get. Modern properties will generally be much more stable than older ones (when there wasn't that much science involved and foundations tended to be relatively shallow).

Dustyevsky

I'll just add that although people frequently slag-off modern construction, sometimes with good reason, today's foundations are typically deeper and stronger than those in the past.

For example, 1 metre deep has been standard for some time, but deeper when a particular ground condition suggests more would be wise. Our last house, built in 1939, had foundations only just over 25 centimetres deep.

Chief_of_Staffy

That's 25% of the property market written off for them before they even start looking. Not sure what you can do about it, however. If they don't want to take the risk they won't. Between that and the dreaded radon and 'contaminated ground' a buyer is lucky to find anything.