Is Nunhead subsiding?

[jadeyc]

We're trying to buy a leasehold flat very near to Nunhead station. The searches have revealed there is a very high risk of subsidence. This conclusion has been reached 'based on analysis of historic insurance subsidence incidence data within a 0.5 km radius 0f the postcode'

The management company have no details of this and don't seem to be aware of the risk. Is the whole of nunhead/brockley subsiding and that's just the risk you have to take if you want to live in the area?

Thanks

[lameduck]

there was a lot of buildings cracked when they replaced the reservoir

on plum pudding hill

when the ground dried up after years of leaking and i suppose thats within half km radius of nunhead station

[jadeyc]

Thanks lameduck. Where's plum pudding hill? Never heard of it.

[lameduck]

its the name of the hill which the reservoir

is on between brockley jack footpath and the rye hill estate

backs on to linden grove

lynne

[woodrot]

I did Geology a long long time ago, IIRC, the south of the UK is sinking and the North is rising - not by much mind- so all of London is eventually doomed. I think subsidence is the wrong term though- its not like you are on top of a coalfield

but yes, London clay does suffer worst with heave n shit dependant on local water- though much of the housing stock is 100+ years old, so you would expect some evidence of movement- it doesnt help that fpoundations are pretty shtty for mist local victorian stock either

[unlurked]

. . .Only into further deprivation

[jadeyc]

I'm just trying to get a measure of how commonplace it is to get this result back from the searches and how much it would put off future buyers. I feel fairly relaxed about it: any problems will be picked up by buildings insurance but I definitely don't want to be saddled with a property I can never sell because of this. Any body else out there come upon this dilemma?

[MGolden]

Our house was underpinned because of subsidence before we bought it. The sellers had terrible problems selling it and so we got a bargain. Even our solicitors advised us to pull out of the sale. My belief was that as the house had been underpinned it was sturdier than houses that hadn't been underpinned. In fact ours is one of a row of four houses and three have been underpinned - the final one is still standing!

When we moved in we were told that we had to keep on insuring the property with the insurers who had taken the hit financially when the work needed to be done. They insisted on a higher excess in the event of the house needing underpinning again. We have since changed insurers although we needed to get another survey done and would still pay a higher excess if we needed more underpinning.

So - if you buy you may have difficulty selling it on or you may not. About 2% of properties in London are at risk from subsidence apparently so whilst quite rare there are quite a few houses at risk.

[jadeyc]

According to my search, 30% of london properties are at risk!

It's a tough call and because it's a leasehold and actually hasn't subsided, I can't seem to get any sound advice. Arghh!

[MGolden]

Even if the building does subside the current thinking appears to be to leave things to settle - underpinning seems to be a bit out of fashion. If the figure is 30% then the chances are pretty high you'll get somewhere at risk. Depends how much you like the flat really. I do hope you manage to get some advice - for us it was the right decision.