Backyard shed built over pipes without planning perm.

confusedFTB_3

Got the searches today on my chosen property. Noticed there's a sewer pipe going through the far-end of the backyard. The vendor has a metal shed in a corner, above this pipe. There's also a cement base for the shed.
Now, the vendor might take the shed with him. In that case, I'd want him to remove the cement base as well, and clean it up nicely. Doubt he will, as he'll be busy with the works on his new home. Don't mind if he leaves it as is, but...
Can I please have some advice on what do I risk if I complete and inherit this shed with the cement base ? In case of future sewer works, any idea on the costs to remove both ? Should I expect any fines ? There is no planning permission for the property, according to the searches. Vendor said "called the council and confirmed I don't need one as the neighbours are all right with it".

dirty_magic

We had issues with this when we bought our house. It's the water board that issue build over agreements, not the council. From what I understand, the problem arises if you have an extension or conservatory built over or within so many metres of a public sewer. Technically they could make you demolish it if you've built over without their permission.

As you're proposing to remove the shed and base, I can't see that there would be a problem. You can get an indemnity policy which would pay for any costs if they asked you to demolish it.

In reality I think it would have to be a pretty big problem for them to need to demolish anything to get to the sewers, especially just a shed.

silvercar

It's a shed. Generally should the water board need access, they can do so from either side. I wouldn't worry too much.

Sam12341

dirty_magic wrote: »

We had issues with this when we bought our house. It's the water board that issue build over agreements, not the council. From what I understand, the problem arises if you have an extension or conservatory built over or within so many metres of a public sewer. Technically they could make you demolish it if you've built over without their permission.

Hiya - this has comeback from my solicitor as a potential problem, an extension has been built, the manhole was moved but not the sewer pipe..
How did your situation pan out? Did you get a build over agreement? How long did that take?

marksoton

As stated the council are not bothered, the water company is.

Though in this case the risk is minimal. General work would be achievable from manholes either side but in the unlikely event of a pipe failure at that location you could potentially have costs levied on you.

Highly unlikely though.

marksoton

Sam12341 wrote: »

Hiya - this has comeback from my solicitor as a potential problem, an extension has been built, the manhole was moved but not the sewer pipe..
How did your situation pan out? Did you get a build over agreement? How long did that take?

This scenario is completely different as the structure may well have load bearing on the pipeline. The asset owner would probably require mitigation measures to be carried out. The extent of which would depend on pipe type,depth etc etc....

Your post suggests the builder moved the MH, not smart.

HouseBuyer77

Presumably in OP's case in the unlikely circumstance the water board did want access they'd just remove the shed and base. If you don't want the shed in the first place this isn't a huge problem.

Perhaps you'll have to pay the costs for the removal but as it's unlikely and those costs won't be too high seems worth the risk.

stator

If it's just a pipe and there's no T junction or anything then the risks are low and you should just buy the house.

dirty_magic

Sam12341 wrote: »

Hiya - this has comeback from my solicitor as a potential problem, an extension has been built, the manhole was moved but not the sewer pipe..
How did your situation pan out? Did you get a build over agreement? How long did that take?

We didn't try to get retrospective build over agreement because it invalidates any indemnity policy and we were told they may not give them retrospectively. Our solicitor asked the vendors to pay for an indemnity policy, but tbh I think they're just another insurance money making scheme. They're so unlikely to have to pay out it almost free money for them.

Tbh we weren't that bothered, I think it's very unlikely that they'd need to demolish it. The only part that bothered me is whether it will be a headache if we want to sell the house.

Sam12341

marksoton wrote: »

Your post suggests the builder moved the MH, not smart.

May be a silly question but why was this not smart?
The solicitor said she was shocked that they went to the effort of moving the manhole but not the pipe.

dirty_magic wrote: »

We didn't try to get retrospective build over agreement because it invalidates any indemnity policy and we were told they may not give them retrospectively. Our solicitor asked the vendors to pay for an indemnity policy, but tbh I think they're just another insurance money making scheme. They're so unlikely to have to pay out it almost free money for them.

Tbh we weren't that bothered, I think it's very unlikely that they'd need to demolish it. The only part that bothered me is whether it will be a headache if we want to sell the house.

thanks for that - that's my biggest concern too !!! AFAIK my solicitor has requested a build over agreement so looks like we definitely won't be going the indemnity insurance route. She said worst case is she'll advise us not to buy, best is that the pipe is no longer in use (although I really don't see this being the case!!) she said the build over agreement would take a couple of months too

dirty_magic

I think some water boards are more flexible than others with the retrospective agreements, so maybe your solicitor thinks they are likely to give one.

It's ridiculous really because these agreements only came in in 2011. Our extension was built way before then, but they can still demolish it if it wasn't built to building regulations at the time.