Building over a foul sewer

SailorSam

Doozergirl wrote: »

It's a newish law from 2011. It will apply to your house now and any new work as you have shared drains.

Water companies are obliged to adopt all shared drains. It makes them responsible for issues, so they need to check that any new work by homeowners is compliant with keeping the drains intact.

I think it was about 25yrs ago we built the garage. We couldn't find the drains and a neighbour who had been there since the houses were first built knew she came and pointed out where a manhole was, but it had been turfed over years before.

woodbutcher_2

Doozergirl wrote: »

That is not how buildover agreements work and I don't believe it for a second.

As you can imagine, if that were truly the case, the house would be completely unsaleable. Try raising a mortgage against that!

Yes it is how they work. I had one on one of my previous houses and it states on the agreement that Anglian Water (my area suppliers) can do whatever they wish to my extension if they deem it fit, including knocking it down. I sold my house with this agreement in place some years ago.

Doozergirl

Before 2011, most of the sewers that now need buildover agreements were under private ownership. It's only now that most of us are affected.

It used to be that onlyshared sewers belonging to houses built before 1936 were the responsibilty of the utility company. Now it's all shared sewers. It also used to be okay to have existing manholes within new extensions. Even if it were the case previously, things change and 'is' becomes 'was'.

The current laws are there to check the quality of drains, maintain good access and quality, and regulations are definitely more stringent.

I do not believe that current legislation allows buildover agreements to have clauses about the demolition of extensions, nor do I believe that current mortgage lending criteria would find that acceptable.

BigBopper

It might help the op if someone actually knew if they could knock his new home down or not.

Doozergirl

BigBopper wrote: »

It might help the op if someone actually knew if they could knock his new home down or not.

I've arranged buildover agreements since the new legislation. I have seen nothing in paperwork from Severn Trent even suggesting something that ridiculous.

If you build without compliance then yes, in theory they could, just like building control can demand demolition of any extension (buildover ir not) if you don't obtain that paperwork in worst case scenario. But the point of an agreement is that you're taking suitable precaution to prevent damage and therefore potential demolition. What would be the point of a "buildover agreement" if you were agreeing to knock down the thing you had agreed could be built?

victor2

Doozergirl wrote: »

I've arranged buildover agreements since the new legislation. I have seen nothing in paperwork from Severn Trent even suggesting something that ridiculous.

If you build without compliance then yes, in theory they could, just like building control can demand demolition of any extension (buildover ir not) if you don't obtain that paperwork in worst case scenario. But the point of an agreement is that you're taking suitable precaution to prevent damage and therefore potential demolition. What would be the point of a "buildover agreement" if you were agreeing to knock down the thing you had agreed could be built?

Ditto with Severn Trent.
As the man who did our camera surveys said - there are no plans telling Severn Trent where all the pipes they have been given responsibility for go, they are getting homeowners who are building to provide plans and surveys at their own cost.
Should a sewer that has been built over subsequently fail, they have clever ways of relining them without digging. In the case of a total failure that couldn't be repaired, they would construct a new one around the building.

tony6403

Doozergirl wrote: »

I've arranged buildover agreements since the new legislation. I have seen nothing in paperwork from Severn Trent even suggesting something that ridiculous.

If you build without compliance then yes, in theory they could, just like building control can demand demolition of any extension (buildover ir not) if you don't obtain that paperwork in worst case scenario. But the point of an agreement is that you're taking suitable precaution to prevent damage and therefore potential demolition. What would be the point of a "buildover agreement" if you were agreeing to knock down the thing you had agreed could be built?

So have I.
The proposals were agreed in advance by the water company, inspected during construction and certified upon completion (£330 in fees)
It is absurd to suggest that demolition of any part of the building might afterwards be demanded.

woodbutcher_2

Doozergirl wrote: »

Before 2011, most of the sewers that now need buildover agreements were under private ownership. It's only now that most of us are affected.

It used to be that onlyshared sewers belonging to houses built before 1936 were the responsibilty of the utility company. Now it's all shared sewers. It also used to be okay to have existing manholes within new extensions. Even if it were the case previously, things change and 'is' becomes 'was'.

The current laws are there to check the quality of drains, maintain good access and quality, and regulations are definitely more stringent.

I do not believe that current legislation allows buildover agreements to have clauses about the demolition of extensions, nor do I believe that current mortgage lending criteria would find that acceptable.

I stand (sit) corrected. Mine was done well before 2011 and i wasn't aware of the change. Not had reason to apply for one for some time, so thanks for the update.

woodbutcher_2

tony6403 wrote: »

So have I.
The proposals were agreed in advance by the water company, inspected during construction and certified upon completion (£330 in fees)
It is absurd to suggest that demolition of any part of the building might afterwards be demanded.

It definitely was on mine as i remember being quite peeved about it but as Doozer points out, things have changed since. It may sound absurd but it was once the case.

chappers

To be fair it can still apply to sewers of certain size, sewer pipes upto 6" probably aren't deemed to be at much risk anymore once under the foundations modern technology allows them to be repaired and lined and in certain cases replaced in situ.
However if a sensible diversion is an option and not too costly then that would always be my preferred choice.
Looking at the size of the works proposed then in this case I would seriously consider diverting the sewer as suggested by tony66 and evn more so if you are considering a complete re-build.