Build over agreement rejected

[dougaldog]

Hi all, I've applied to build over a 225mm drain with piling and bridging over the drain, and I've just had the application rejected. The technician acknowledged that what we want to do is allowed according to building regs, but rejected it anyway stating the reasons: the 225mm drain serves a number of properties, and the extension would make the drain difficult to maintain. Moving the drain isn't an option because it's nearly 3m deep. A clearance of 450mm from the drain is required, so if we made the extension smaller it'd have to be tiny to maintain this clearance.

We've been planning this extension for 13 months now and paid thousands to the architect, structural engineer, and building regs surveyor. Me and my wife have been waiting for this extension to be completed before we start a family too, so this is quite devastating. Also the builder is due to start at the end of August (he is aware of the difficulties we're having though).

Are there any options available to us at this point?

 

[HERTS P&D]

Move?

Andy

 

[^woody^]

You would appeal the decision and take it to court if need be.

You would need to demonstrate what a nonsense decision/explanation you have been given by asking what is involved in "maintaining" a drain and what is so different in refusing permission for your drain and routinely granting permission for other drains in similar circumstances.

You may need a suitable expert report to assist you, and some legal advice on your particular options.

You may be able to use the small claims track of the County Court as this will avoid solicitor costs - and the prospect of such may convince the water company to reconsider.

 

[noseall]

Hi all, I've applied to build over a 225mm drain with piling and bridging over the drain, and I've just had the application rejected. The technician acknowledged that what we want to do is allowed according to building regs, but rejected it anyway stating the reasons: the 225mm drain serves a number of properties, and the extension would make the drain difficult to maintain. Moving the drain isn't an option because it's nearly 3m deep. A clearance of 450mm from the drain is required, so if we made the extension smaller it'd have to be tiny to maintain this clearance.

We've been planning this extension for 13 months now and paid thousands to the architect, structural engineer, and building regs surveyor. Me and my wife have been waiting for this extension to be completed before we start a family too, so this is quite devastating. Also the builder is due to start at the end of August (he is aware of the difficulties we're having though).

Are there any options available to us at this point?

A 3m deep, 225mm wide drain? I'd be tempted to move.

 

[dougaldog]

You would appeal the decision and take it to court if need be.

You would need to demonstrate what a nonsense decision/explanation you have been given by asking what is involved in "maintaining" a drain and what is so different in refusing permission for your drain and routinely granting permission for other drains in similar circumstances.

You may need a suitable expert report to assist you, and some legal advice on your particular options.

You may be able to use the small claims track of the County Court as this will avoid solicitor costs - and the prospect of such may convince the water company to reconsider.

I did ask early on what their appeals process was and it sounded like they didn't have any formal process for it.

The thing that strikes me is that these houses were built in the 1930s and from the CCTV survey I had done it doesn't look like there has ever been any maintenance done on the sewer in that time, so from a risk assessment point of view the hazard of needing to maintain the drain is very improbable.

Any idea what profession would be an expert in this matter? I asked my building regs surveyor what our options would be and they were very dismissive, all they said was "you must follow ST requirements, as the drainage is there jurisdiction" (yes they used the wrong their). I was shocked at their reply to be honest.

 

[noseall]

I did ask early on what their appeals process was and it sounded like they didn't have any formal process for it.

The thing that strikes me is that these houses were built in the 1930s and from the CCTV survey I had done it doesn't look like there has ever been any maintenance done on the sewer in that time, so from a risk assessment point of view the hazard of needing to maintain the drain is very improbable.

Any idea what profession would be an expert in this matter? I asked my building regs surveyor what our options would be and they were very dismissive, all they said was "you must follow ST requirements, as the drainage is there jurisdiction" (yes they used the wrong their). I was shocked at their reply to be honest.

It's disappointing, I agree. But that's one serious bore pipe, at a scary depth.
If I owned those drains, I wouldn't want anyone messing around near them either.
Repairs could amount to more than the value of the house.

 

[^woody^]

Any idea what profession would be an expert in this matter?

It may not be an expert in drains and sewers per-se, but an expert in building around drains - the technicalities and the regulations involved. Initially try a structural engineer or building surveyor.
The crucial thing is that the expert be aware of this type of work, building regulations and the powers of the water company under the 2003 Water Act - and they should be able to prepare expert reports that may be used in Court.

The concern of the water company is that the pipe is damaged. Thats a valid concern. However, there are ways to build and not damage things.
Likewise the concern of future replacement is valid. But that questions how long do drains last and what maintenance will be needed (there is normally none)? Can pipe sections be replaced prior to building to mitigate future replacement?

Fundamentally, there are options, so it's wrong to get a blanket refusal and that can be challenged even if there is no formal appeals process.

 

[dougaldog]

It may not be an expert in drains and sewers per-se, but an expert in building around drains - the technicalities and the regulations involved. Initially try a structural engineer or building surveyor.
The crucial thing is that the expert be aware of this type of work, building regulations and the powers of the water company under the 2003 Water Act - and they should be able to prepare expert reports that may be used in Court.

The concern of the water company is that the pipe is damaged. Thats a valid concern. However, there are ways to build and not damage things.
Likewise the concern of future replacement is valid. But that questions how long do drains last and what maintenance will be needed (there is normally none)? Can pipe sections be replaced prior to building to mitigate future replacement?

Fundamentally, there are options, so it's wrong to get a blanket refusal and that can be challenged even if there is no formal appeals process.

Thanks for such a detailed reply. They've said that they're satisfied that our piling plan and structural calcs consider and avoid the risk of damaging the sewer and don't put any additional loading on the sewer, but the refusal is based entirely on physical future access to maintain the sewer.

I guess the issues with replacing the pipes prior to the work would be the same as relocating them, in that they're 3m deep.

 

[johnny2007]

It's 3 metres down...
Around here people just build over without any agreement and TW has not taken any action against them that I know of, and I've seen hundreds of such extensions.
Not saying you should just build over...

 

[Hugh Jaleak]

3m deep isn't major in the grand scheme of things, but as Noseall has said, it's a fair diameter pipe, and that immediately indicates it's serving a number of properties, would you want their sewage all over your garden if something went wrong? Their first duty is to protect their interests, the fact 'no maintenance has been done' indicates the sewer is in good condition and is working as it should be. In fairness, most sewers shouldn't need maintenance if laid correctly, and those using it don't abuse it!

The old adage, 'If it works, don't fix it' also applies, the Water Co are simply looking at the worst case scenario as it what it may cost should the sewer become defective and require repair in the future, when there is a building on top of it, that suddenly isn't so easy.

 

[noseall]

It's 3 metres down...

And in terms of the proposed foundations......OUCH!

£££££

 

[noseall]

3m deep isn't major in the grand scheme of things

Piece of pi$$ with a 13 tonner on tracks and some good trench shoring. Not sure the runner beans, peas and summer salad garden will appriciate the WW I Flanders look though.

 

[Hugh Jaleak]

Piece of pi$$ with a 13 tonner on tracks and some good trench shoring. Not sure the runner beans, peas and summer salad garden will appriciate the WW I Flanders look though.

Depends on access though! Remember putting a 900mm through a gap between properties, first casualty, (apart from a couple of trees) was the Windscreen of the Machine, literally wasn't enough room to swing a Cat, (or Liebherr).

If this is the back garden of a row of Terraces it could be interesting....

 

[noseall]

Cat, (or Liebherr).

Look at you! Trés posh.

 

[dougaldog]

And in terms of the proposed foundations......OUCH!

£££££

Around £10k for the piling and bridging over