Forum Topic

Land subsidence in Ealing

Which areas of our borough are prone to weaknesses and faults in the ground that might result in subsidence and damage to house foundations?  Anyone know?

Gerry Tan ● 4753d24 Comments

Beware if they jump the gun and prior to planning consent, dig a foundation and pour concrete, a surveyor cannot carry out a party wall survey.This has become a favourite trick particularly among small building companies and architects as it is very rare for them to be stopped but makes it very expensive and difficult for a neighbouring property to take any action short of an injunction to stop works.Because of the impasse between planning officers and building control, it is very unlikely that the council will take any sort of action and it bears no weight on a planning decision. The best you might get is a footnote on the consent acknowledging that works commenced before consent and that any consequences are at the owners risk.  Not really helpful.It ends up costing you a lot of money which you may have to fight in court to recoup.

Michael Brandt ● 4744d

This is always a possibility, in theory, if he wins his appeal and proceeds with the work. At that point I can appoint a specialist surveyor, at Sahota's expense, to examine the proposed works and ensure my interests are protected.However, in practice, my surveyor can do little more than demand some soil sampling and extract promises that everything will be done according to building regulations. Nobody can predict, with absolute certainty, what might actually happen, and this is the get-out clause. It's a suck it and see principle - and if my house moves, cracks or slips towards the big hole being dug, then it's just tough, all necessary precautions were taken and it's bad luck. Yes, I can then sue or claim on insurance, but the damage has been done, literally.

Judy Jaafar ● 4744d

Re  if damage occurs, via civil law and compensation      xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Just a thought Judy, would it not be possible for you at this stage get an injunction served on him, with appropriate proof of course what damage will occur to your property.

Tony Price ● 4744d

Michael, please feel free to copy and repost elsewhere if you think it helpful. The problem is that subsidence and geophysics in general is not a planning issue. Doh! It beggars belief. Seemingly this comes under Building Control, and all that is required is for the developer to undertake building in a dangerous subsidence area with due care and attention. Thus many householders have had their foundations undermined, their walls crack and bits of their properties subside because of neighbouring works. Flooding from water table diversion is also a big problem. I know people who have had to have existing basements fully tanked, at enormous expense, because nearby developments have caused serious flooding. Nobody seems to be able to stop this kind of thing. We need new building laws.I have brought this up in another thread on the forum about Labour GLA member Dr. Onkar Sahota applying to dig out a large basement next door to me, even though his property is almost fully underpinned already. The planners refused his application for reasons other than dangerous proposed engineering, but he has lodged an appeal, so the nightmare is ongoing. One has to assume the only redress available is, if damage occurs, via civil law and compensation. But why not disallow such precarious building in the first place?If K&C are considering banning basement excavation altogether then it suggests councils do have a measure of control over these issues -and presumably new build on unstable land -even if it doesn't lie with the planning department. But I fear vested interests are at work - developers just throw money and lawyers at objectors and councils until they just cave in or go away.

Judy Jaafar ● 4744d

Can you post this on the Brentford TW8 website? It's been dismissed by planners and councillors there that any of the hiuge developments planned and ongoing will cause any sort of subsidence or flooding. Even though it is already happening!

Michael Brandt ● 4746d

Re  studying the borough of Ealing for subsidence.            xxxxxxxxxx thank you Judy for a very useful and interesting posting.

Tony Price ● 4746d

Aston University, Birmingham, has a Clay Research Group that is currently (well 2012 at least)studying the borough of Ealing for subsidence.There is a wide range of risk over the borough, for different reasons, but the post-code of W13 8 is the riskiest in terms of subsidence claims frequency. This is in the top 50 subsidence post codes in London. The group is particularly interested in how tree roots affect foundations and in one sample sector LiDAR surveying revealed that tree roots covered nearly 70% of the area - it was a sample sector in central Ealing area. Between 2007 and 2012 the Council felled 3,600 trees, 11% of which were associated with subsidence damage.The whole borough is built on highly shrinkable London clay with some alluvial deposits and pebble layers in areas. Moisture keeps the soil cohesive, drought makes it crack and shrink and this is when the damage is caused. Every single house on my street in W5 has had subsidence damage and some are underpinned. The damage started in the 1970s when a private estate was built opposite us on what had been more or less open land with a pond. The building works diverted the natural springs coming down from the top of Montpelier Road and Castlebar Hill and thus changed the water table level in our area that had been keeping the sub-soil moist and cohesive.The Clay Research Group can be found on-line at www.theclayresearchgroup.org

Judy Jaafar ● 4746d

Re  from a, blissfully, heaving church            xxxxxxxxxxxx you obviously got out in time Nigel, heave is just as dangerous as subsidence!.

Tony Price ● 4749d

Just returned from a, blissfully, heaving church full of those who really don't give a 'tinker's curse' about statistics.Happy Easter.

Nigel Brooks ● 4749d

It's not that I particularly want to quote data from 2005 (though in the realm of such things I would hardly regard it as ancient and out of date data) but that that was what came up as a result of a very quick search.Personally, I take solace from the fact that numbers are on the slide whatever you say.I deal in trends over decades BTW, and am completely unimpressed by your suggestion that things have improved in the last "two years".It is great that people are being a lot more honest on the census form these days as well.Time was in this country that the default position was assumed to be Christian and that people who had no such conviction were either brainwashed or bullied into putting this onto official forms.  Thankfully those days are receding and more and more honesty is prevailing.I hate to quote the Daily Mail but:    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246436/Census-2011-religion-data-reveal-4m-fewer-Christians-1-4-atheist.htmlOf course, the battle is not yet over and there is the rise of Islam in the UK (and indeed the world) to be dealt with now.Sadly, with maybe just thirty years at best left on the planet, I will never see this battle won.

Tony Colliver ● 4749d

If you want to quote data from 2005 (as per your second link) then it was probably right at the time.Churches in the City of London have seen a 24% increase in attendances over the last two years. Attendances at CofE churches were down by 0.42% in 2011 compared with 2010 but the 2012 figures currently being compiled will show that reversed and then some.The sad thing for the naysayers is that you don't need to set foot in a church building to be a Christian so, like the early church, "where two or more are gathered in my name...". We are everywhere :-) Happy Easter!

Nigel Brooks ● 4749d

"...despite all the naysayers church attendance is actually rising."I think not.See:  http://www.whychurch.org.uk/images/charts/ch_att_trend.pngSee also:    http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/2011/church-attendance-in-england-1980-2005/Drawn from the simple Google search:    http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=church+attendance(For those that require further evidence.)And long may the trend continue.(BTW - I see that some people manage to paste actual images into their posts on this forum rather than just links.  How is this done please?)

Tony Colliver ● 4749d

Nope, they are not in the 'assets' until they are declared redundant and no longer used for public worship.Sadly, a church closes around every eight days. A victim largely of the massive building programmes under the Victorians who 'raised' churches at every opportunity with no thought of the long-term. Worry not, the Church of England still has 16,000 buildings and despite all the naysayers church attendance is actually rising.

Nigel Brooks ● 4752d

Re  do not pay for day-to-day repairs in parish churches,           xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thanks, and I hope they do not include them in their  " assets " if they are prepared to let them fall by the wayside and could well lose their churches one by one through lack of financial support?

Tony Price ● 4752d

"often wondered why the Church Commissioners did not get it repaired ".I can answer that one as I used to work in the Church Buildings division at Church House.The Church Commissioners' do not pay for day-to-day repairs in parish churches, that is solely the responsibility of the individual parish and its congregation. Although there are a few concessions with regard to VAT on repairs the bulk is down to fundraising and charitable grants.Compare that to France where EVERY public building over 100 years old is considered part of the national heritage and repair costs are centrally financed.

Nigel Brooks ● 4752d

I recall the church cracked in half and was very visible. The developers had to do a huge amount of underpinning

Michael Brandt ● 4752d

Re including St Stephen's Church        xxxxxxxxxxxxxxI can well remember the  huge great crack down the lower side of the church and often wondered why the Church Commissioners did not get it repaired which the purchasing development company did. I also wonder if the purchasers of the flats were ( made ) aware of the serious subsidence there.  The replacement church is nothing compared to the original.

Tony Price ● 4752d

Anywhere off The Avenue, including St Stephen's Churchitself,which was once underpinned.

Simon Wycombe ● 4753d

Good point Peter.On newer buildings look for little bit of 'glass' stuck to the brickwork.These are crack detectors (if the glass cracks the brickwork has moved). Often difficult to see they are a good sign that there is a potential problem.

Nigel Brooks ● 4753d

Always worth looking at the side's of buildings to see whether there are little crosses on the walls as they are a sign of remedial work due to subsidence. top of castlebar along towards st stephens you will notice a few.

Peter Chadburn ● 4753d

GerryThere are very detailed maps of the 'at risk' areas available. These 'drill down' to a house by house geological survey level. The problem is that to access them you must specify a postcode and hand-over £122+VAT per result.Much as I like you Gerry - NO!! :-)

Nigel Brooks ● 4753d

Thank you Martin for offering a reason for possible subsidence, but WHERE in Ealing do such weaknesses in the sub-soil occur? Thanks again.

Gerry Tan ● 4753d

Hangar Hill to the western slide was regarded as a high risk for subsidence by insurers all through the 1960s and 70s particularly to the lower slope towards Haven Green Madeley Road. Areas near deeper railway cuttings, Dorset Road, Airedale Road suffered subsidence in the early 1950s but nothing serious and was remedied by mid 1960s

Michael Brandt ● 4753d

Where the sub-soil not far below the surface consists of dense yellow clay and on a slope.

Martin C. Harris ● 4753d