Water butt or soakaway, old conservatory

subjecttocontract

Would it be possible to connect an overflow pipe from the water butt to the gutter downpipe off of the main roof ?

WIAWSNB

Or add another downpipe on the other side of the conservatory roof that will feed into the same drain as the main house?

(You could perhaps balance this output with the butts, and only open it after the butts are full.)

It would help to understand the layout you have.

Section62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81882604#Comment_81882604

Again, the water butt isn't the issue here in terms of building control enforcement. The enforcement action (if any) would probably relate to the new roof, not the water butt.

The OP hasn't said exactly when the roof was done, but if it was after October 2023 then the 10-year clock started then. If it was before October 2023 then the enforcement limit for building control was 12 months, not 4 years.

Enforcement action isn't limited to building control breaches. Hence the question to the OP about which council department had been in touch.

Section62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81882607#Comment_81882607

It depends what was signed off. For example if it was a plans application and the plan shows the rainwater runoff to (say) "existing surface water drain" then it would be an enforceable breach if the actual arrangement is different and non-compliant.

Since Covid there has been more reliance on trust and honesty rather than inspection when it comes to building control. Typically the builder now sends in photos rather than an inspector visiting, and the builder having control over how the photographs are taken means details can be hidden. Conversely, the extension of the enforcement period (and the builder also having liability) means if the builder pulls a fast one then building control can enforce for up to 10 years.

Also worth remembering that there has been a shift from compliance at a point in time towards continuous compliance. If the regulations require 'x' then doing 'x' to get signoff and then removing 'x' at a later date, doesn't mean that enforcement action can't be taken (subject to time limits).

ellenpal

There's lots of knowledge in this thread, and lots to consider, thank you! We are probably just going to make life easier and get the soakaway done. But I know that once it's done, there will be another complaint on the way. That's just the nature and personality of this neighbour, sadly.

bjorn_toby_wilde

If the council specified a soakaway when the new roof was fitted and the OP hasn’t complied with that then how was it signed off?

stuart45

I replaced a flat roof on an extension with a pitched roof on a job. The downpipe from the flat roof used to run away down a lane. However, Building Control insisted on the new roof draining to a soakaway. The customer thought that because it had been draining away like that for years it would be OK.

Section62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81882710#Comment_81882710

The council wouldn't specify a soakaway. The specification is the responsibility of the applicant. If this was a plans application to the council then the BCO would decide whether the applicant's specification complied with the regs, and might advise a soakaway if they considered the proposals didn't comply with the regs. That advice can effectively become an insistance, because otherwise your plans don't get approved. Likewise, on a notice job there won't (in theory) be signoff until the BCO is happy.

Also, it isn't clear whether the OP used the local authority BC or went private, and therefore who has signed what off.

As I mentioned above, the signoff process is weaker than it used to be. LABC or a private BCO won't necessarily require proof that the soakaway has been installed and is functioning correctly before signing the project off, but the council can enforce if it turns out this hasn't been done. Unfortunately the BC process has developed an element of assuming property owners wouldn't do something to their own detriment - for example by not providing adequate rainwater drainage and allowing their foundations to be compromised. The general assumption appears to be that people wouldn't accept something which causes themselves a problem.

The flaw in that thinking is the average lay client wouldn't know whether something was problematic or not… and that was one of the chief functions of the BC process - i.e. to protect people from themselves (or their builder) by having independent expert supervision.

MACKEM99

Two words come to mind and the second one is off.😁

bjorn_toby_wilde

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81882761#Comment_81882761

Good point. Your knowledge of the system is clearly better than mine.

I’d assumed that whoever fitted the replacement roof would have supplied the householder with a plan, which would have been submitted for approval and that plan “should” have included some detail of rainwater drainage. I know my last BC submission for an extension included a soakaway 5m from the house.

If I were the OP and the rainwater from that roof wasn’t being routed into a drain or soakaway then I’d be less worried about Building Control and more about where the water was ending up and what damage it was potentially doing.