Chimney breasts and lounge wall removed without plan/docs

pieroabcd

Section62 said:

pieroabcd said:

No, the house is not ex Local Authority.

So that means if the pipes serving one property only are public sewers then they would have to have been explicitly adopted - and that is so uncommon that it would be a fair working assumption that those pipes are private, not public.

That means that if they break the cost would be in me instead of on the water company?

Section62

pieroabcd said:

Section62 said:

pieroabcd said:

No, the house is not ex Local Authority.

So that means if the pipes serving one property only are public sewers then they would have to have been explicitly adopted - and that is so uncommon that it would be a fair working assumption that those pipes are private, not public.

That means that if they break the cost would be in me instead of on the water company?

Yes, but for clarity I'm only talking about the pipe(s) that serve this property only and are within the property boundary.  The shared/common drain/sewer is public and would be the water company's responsibility.

This is the default situation, not specific to this property - pipes usually have to be shared (or on someone else's property) to be public sewers.

pieroabcd

We are still waiting for the papers from the sellers' solicitors, but in the meantime I have another question.

The sewer map is definitely updated and it came from the water authority.
If they are aware of the extension built over the sewer they must have given their build over agreement, right?
Do they keep a copy if the sellers lost the papers?

I wonder if there are cases where the map is updated and they haven't given consent in which case they they could even order to knock down the extension?

Section62

pieroabcd said:

We are still waiting for the papers from the sellers' solicitors, but in the meantime I have another question.

The sewer map is definitely updated and it came from the water authority.
If they are aware of the extension built over the sewer they must have given their build over agreement, right?

As far as I know, all water companies now keep their sewer records in some form of Geographic Information System (GIS).  The GIS system will record the OS coordinates of each relevant feature (e.g. manholes) - the source of some of those will be digitisation of the old (paper) maps, supplemented by modern GPS surveys.

The shared/common drains which became public sewers in 2011 were very rarely shown on sewer maps before then, and water companies haven't systematically surveyed these drains since.  Therefore these pipes being on the public sewer maps is fairly likely to have happened because there was a problem (e.g a blockage) and while dealing with it, the operatives took a GPS position of the manholes/inspection chambers they accessed.

The GIS system is then told to 'join the dots', so will hold information about the pipes connecting the known points (e.g. the manholes). This kind of approach is likely to be the reason why the surface water pipe at the front of the property appears as a zig-zag.

So the 'sewer map' exists as a digital model in the GIS, based on OS coordinates, but not on the OS map you see.  When someone wants an extract, the GIS is used to overlay the digital model onto (usually) the latest OS map data.

Hence it is likely that nobody at the water company is aware the extension is built over the sewers, except perhaps the technician who created the extract, and it isn't really their role to be looking for stuff like this. (it is very common, and there's not much they can do about it)

It doesn't mean there is (or isn't) a buildover agreement.

pieroabcd said:

Do they keep a copy if the sellers lost the papers?

Yes, I would expect the water company to hold a copy of the agreement.  Probably digitised.

pieroabcd said:

I wonder if there are cases where the map is updated and they haven't given consent in which case they they could even order to knock down the extension?

As above, the update to the map isn't really relevant.  If the water company did become aware of an unauthorised build-over then there is action they could take, up to and including getting a court order to have the building demolished.

In practice this is very rare, and likely only to happen where a blockage or problem with the sewer would have widespread consequences. (e.g. sewage from a whole district would flood out of the system)

As I've mentioned already, in this case the greater problem would be for the owner of the property and access to their own drainage.  The water company would probably be able to deal with a problem on the shared/common pipe without needing the extension demolished.  They might try to bill you for their excess costs though.

pieroabcd

Thanks veryich, Section62!

pieroabcd

Oh, that's funny.
The sellers have found a letter from the water authority saying that no build over agreement was necessary because there are no public sewer pipes within 3 meters of the proposed extension.
Also, the extension was approved as lawful by the council as it is now, very large.

I imagine that it's good for me as a discharge of liabilities, but it's really curious that they say that there are no sewer pipes within 3 meters of the proposed extension, even though that drawing seems to suggest otherwise.

The manhole cover is 2 houses beyond.

SusieT

pieroabcd said:

Oh, that's funny.
The sellers have found a letter from the water authority saying that no build over agreement was necessary because there are no public sewer pipes within 3 meters of the proposed extension.
Also, the extension was approved as lawful by the council as it is now, very large.

I imagine that it's good for me as a discharge of liabilities, but it's really curious that they say that there are no sewer pipes within 3 meters of the proposed extension, even though that drawing seems to suggest otherwise.

The manhole cover is 2 houses beyond.

They did not say that there were no sewer pipes, they said there were no public sewer pipes, could it mean that the pipes are spmehow private and your responsibility and not theirs?

pieroabcd

SusieT said:

pieroabcd said:

Oh, that's funny.
The sellers have found a letter from the water authority saying that no build over agreement was necessary because there are no public sewer pipes within 3 meters of the proposed extension.
Also, the extension was approved as lawful by the council as it is now, very large.

I imagine that it's good for me as a discharge of liabilities, but it's really curious that they say that there are no sewer pipes within 3 meters of the proposed extension, even though that drawing seems to suggest otherwise.

The manhole cover is 2 houses beyond.

They did not say that there were no sewer pipes, they said there were no public sewer pipes, could it mean that the pipes are spmehow private and your responsibility and not theirs?

The legend on the map reads "public foul sewer" in correspondence of the brown pipes at the back.

MikeJXE

It's as much likely the water board don't know where they are 

You're good to go so forget about it 

Section62

pieroabcd said:

Oh, that's funny.
The sellers have found a letter from the water authority saying that no build over agreement was necessary because there are no public sewer pipes within 3 meters of the proposed extension.
Also, the extension was approved as lawful by the council as it is now, very large.

I imagine that it's good for me as a discharge of liabilities, but it's really curious that they say that there are no sewer pipes within 3 meters of the proposed extension, even though that drawing seems to suggest otherwise.

The manhole cover is 2 houses beyond.

If the letter was before 1 October 2011 then it is possible they weren't public sewers on the date the letter was written, but became public on 1 October 2011.

MikeJXE said:

It's as much likely the water board don't know where they are 

You're good to go so forget about it 

If the OP buys the property they will still have public sewers underneath the extension, and more importantly for them, potentially their own connecting pipes being inaccessible.