OK, I'm with you now.
If you do get some quotes, I'd be interested to know what figures you get.
I've seen properties advertised for sale which you can tell need underpinning, but a builder comes along - does the job and sells on. I've seen builders on TV (HUTH) who claim - 'oh its just a bit of underpinning' and yet their all in costs for the renovations is incredibly cheap and they've factored in the underpinning too.
I think this must be fairly cheap to do, but Joe Public will be charged a fortune.
Okay, well today's visit from my insurer was a 'tree survey'.
They found lime tree roots in the test pit, and so have now condemned the smallish 30ft high lime tree 10ft from the rear wing, and also next door's one.
These are the only trees in the gardens, and it seems a terrible shame to get rid of them.
If I was to traditionally underpin the rear of the house, would I be able to keep the tree, or would it still cause troubles?
Lime trees are far less invasive rootwise than say Eucalyptus Gunnii or Salix (willow). Limes also respond well to hard pruning of roots and boughs. They are often found 'pollarded' to make a lollipop shape in confined areas.
If you want to keep the tree the roots are usually 'trimmed'severely in the area 3 meters from where the underpinning starts. Then a 'wall' concrete is constructed below ground to prevent the roots coming back towards the house. Traditional underpinning then follows to jack up the failing walls of the house.
I think my tree is too close for that. I am resigned to losing it.