Jamie998

You need to get in touch with BT Openreach and register for a new connection. They will eventually send an engineer out for a site appraisal which will be followed by a delivery of the required ducting & cable free of charge. I simply told him I didn't want a pole on my land and that I would run ducting underground to the nearest pole. They sent the stuff & I laid it all ready for a connection, I received enough cable to reach to my house, the connection is in my static caravan at the minute - the rest of the cable is coiled up in the duct access chamber that I installed, ready for me to move the master socket to the house when the time comes. To get the connection up and running you apply to BT for a phone line connection simples.

Cheers @ProDave that helps to clarify things in my mind. I forgot about the 25*50mm battens - which answers the query about how does the sub deck attack to the pozi joists over the screed!

Hey, Just trying to get my head around how this would work for the first floor. As I understand it, because the pozi joists can't be notched there are two options: 1. The UFH pipes are supported between the joists with the loops running down and up through the webs. The dry screed is then laid on top and all of this sits between the joists so that the finished screed surface is level with the top of the pozi joists. The sub deck then gets laid over all of this. 2. A supporting deck is laid over the pozi joists. The pipes are then laid on top of this and its all then covered by the dry screed, with the sub deck then being laid over the top. This all sits on top of the pozi joists. At the minute, if I have method 2 correct then this looks like my preferred route. Unless someone tells me otherwise, I dont like the idea of UFH pipes running down and up through the webs of the pozi joists and it seems a lot more fiddly and time consuming over just laying all of it on top of the joists? Advice from people in the know is much appreciated! Ta.

I'm paying £1200 for a SE to design the insulated raft for me - approx. 170m2 for total area of slab.

This reference should probably be caveated with the fact that prices have moved on somewhat since 2013, so yes it is a useful read, however the prices quoted may no longer be applicable. If you are going with a ground bearing slab then why bother with strip foundations with it? May as well go the whole hog and use an insulated raft foundation as the costs are only slightly higher than strip founds paired with a ground bearing slab if I have my numbers right?

The problem here Jonathan is that the usual sequence of events means that you have to make a decision and action it before you get to the stage where you meet the actual guy tasked by the DNO to do the work. I agree they are generally a pragmatic bunch and more realistic 'on the ground' than the folks sat behind a computer tend to be. Little Britain and 'computer says no' springs to mind.

I have had an electric bill so EON are definitely charging me, Anglian Water don't seem to care. I had a red letter come from Anglian and when I rang up to find out why a red letter had been received but no previous bills, it turned out to be an error - they had mixed my account up with someone else's. When I asked about my bill, the answer seemed to be that I wouldn't get one till I was living there - all seemed a bit strange the conversation, but I gave up trying to clear it all up. I assume that as my water meter was '0' on day dot, when I start paying for water they will bill me for it all anyway, so I will end up paying at some point.

I agree - I am pretty sure 45m from IC to IC. Table 13 of Part H.

Adding more inspection chambers is what I want to avoid. My plot was the neighbours garden, there is now a driveway owned by her which I have rights of access for anything and everything I could possibly need over it. There are already two fugly manholes in the drive at the front of her house bordering the drive - we don't need a third! I'm on a mission to minimalize/hide manholes where I can.

I have permission both from the sewage company and the neighbour. Its all in the deeds that I have right of access for all services etc. etc...(all the i's are dotted and t's crossed so no issues in this regard). When I filled out my foul drainage application form stated I would connect indirectly via neighbour. It currently serves neighbour only so I will be property no.2. No problem with flow capacity of pipe etc., it can support my additional connection. My head tells me to break the neighbours connection, dig a deeper hole, whack in an IC to 1.4m, connect my pipe, connect neighbours pipe as a backdrop connection to the new depth, reconnect to the pipe that connects the outlet to the sewer albeit at a deeper depth. Am I missing something fundamental? P.S. The only contact I have since had with the sewage company is to say 'no you can't bill me yet as the connection hasn't been done yet - ok, ring us when it has - rgr'

I've paid the connection fee already Peter and they have no problem with me connecting Indirectly - its just the 'how' now. Throwing my conundrum out to the audience in the hope that the collective mind will focus in on the optimal solution to the problem. Many ways to skin a cat - which is cheapest vs easies that is the question!!

Pumping isn't my preferred option - no moving parts is Plan A. @ProDave I've just modelled it all in Sketchup, to bring my foul run into the neighbours IC I would need to bring the rest bend up into the concrete slab pretty much so I will have to do something at the Inspection Chamber end.

I could connect to main sewer - but then it will cost a hell of a lot more and I would have to used an 'Approved Contractor'. This may seem like hassle at the minute but I'm seeing money to be saved - potentially enough not to be sniffed at. There doesn't seem to be any issues with me actually connecting to the manhole - its just the levels that are a problem. There will only be two houses on this connection and without going into the weeds I am not concerned about where responsibility lies in the event of a blockage. If it blocks I'll get some drain rods out and unblock it - simples. If this is done 'right' then should be no more likelihood of it blocking than anyone else's - sometimes s@@t happens and if so it will be dealt with. I've spoken to BC - other than to say it sounds ok I'm on my own. The image is a rough sketch of the current foul run from the manhole to the main sewer. At a fall of 1:60 my run would come in at about 1.05m below the current invert.

Right, soooo, one solution to my lack of depth for my foul run (covered on pervious threads) is to excavate the manhole I intend to connect to and install a backdrop IC there. The manhole in question serves a neighbours property before connecting to mains sewer. It is approximately 30cm deep at the minute and about 0.75m from the neighbours front door. The output from it runs perpendicular to the neighbours frontage for about 30cm before turning 90 degrees to the right and running a further 5m ish to the sewer invert which is 3m, so that's a fairly steep connection to the sewer. If I dig out this manhole and stick an IC in at say 1.35m deep (so digging out an additional 1.05m beyond the existing depth) this should give me a fall of about 1:60 (over the 52m length from my property). However, in order to reconnect the neighbours shallow foul runs it will have to be done using backdrop connections. Does this sound feasible? There were a few indirect comments regarding backdrops on a previous thread which leads me to believe they are a favourable method? I will try and sketch this in a bit.

Insulated raft is plan A providing that the ground allows it so my drainage needs to work with it - I'm sure it will work out, I have the beginnings of a solution in mind which I will discuss in another thread as it concerns backdrops!!

Ok. As I suspected but good to have other opinions. The ridge height is set in stone so I can't raise the house, space I have plenty of. The crux of the matter is that I need to put a foul connection in now (long story) but as I don't have a foundation in yet I am working backwards from the 'known' which is the manhole and having to 'guesstimate' the depth of my insulated raft (preferred method) in order to ensure I leave myself enough height when laying the pipes so that the rest bend sits in the sub base as per previous thread - but at the same time ensuring I meet minimum falls! I will start another thread in a bit with another question - a nuisance in terms of me starting loads of thread but I want to ensure that the info within stays on point so they can be easily read by future readers who may have similar queries. Thanks Jamie

Right. Next question! So, if the invert of the manhole I am trying to connect into is 'difficult' to achieve the necessary falls would pumping my foul waste into said manhole be a workable solution? The reason I ask is I am not sure what the velocity of my pumped, mushed up waste would be when it entered the shared manhole. If the flow rate is vastly different to that of the neighbours 'gravity' connection into said manhole would it lead to blockages should we flush at the same time for example? I may be overthinking this but it is better to do so now before its too late! Likewise, if the two options were either: 1. Gravity connection - difficult to achieve given the tight margins in regards to achieving minimum falls of 1:80 or 2. Pumped connection - easy to do (if connecting into a shared manhole works!) Which would people recommend? Having read the forums I have seen that some members are on a pumped system. Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest it does what is says on the tin and should work fine - if a little more grim than the standard method! I appreciate any & all input.

Ok, so I will assume that from the experiences of both @JSHarris and @PeterStarck that the 'standard' method is to have the rest bend within the compacted sub base so that the pipe running up through the insulation & slab is vertical. As mentioned, there will also be no issues then getting BC to check it before it all gets covered over. Thank you all for focusing my mind on how to approach this. I have more 'questions/thoughts' swirling in my head but I will move them to a separate thread.

I think I should change the question slightly. If you have an established manhole to connect to and its invert is such that you are struggling to get the necessary height required to meet the minimum falls then is it possible to move the rest bend up as far as possible to gain the height you need? It seems the only thing that says you can't so far is the Isoquick manual and @PeterStarcks real world experience with his foundation.

Now, this may seem like a stupid question but until someone tells me why its a stupid question, my ignorance will continue - I am hoping my fellow self builders can educate me a little! Right, is there a minimum depth that the rest bend must sit at below the slab? Or can it sit in the slab and/or insulation in an insulated raft foundation for example. The reason I ask, is if you need to claw as much height as possible to get the falls correct then having it as high as possible would be beneficial. I've had a scoot through the Approved Document and although there are minimum depths mentioned for the foul run under drives/footpaths etc. this can be mitigated by covering with concrete etc. where necessary, so can I stick the rest bend as high as possible in my foundation to claw some precious height back? Ignore the inaccuracies of foundation detailing - the drawing is just to 'show' what I'm getting at. Ta

The problem is, that is the model I wanted. My original broad brush plan was to max out on PV and dump it into a SunAmp directly - it would seem this is no loader optimal for efficiency so an alternate course of action is required to work around this issue.

I suppose one potential workaround would be to have multiple small capacity units - not sure how they could be connected to deplete one before moving onto the next? That way you will ensure it is depleted each time you have showers/bath etc and will therefore jump straight back into a charge cycle. However without looking at costs I suspect this will raise a 'whole system' price significantly.

I would agree and I will watch this space with interest now. I am at least a year away from having to make a decision so I would hope that in this time the issue is rectified and sense prevails. The ability to dump excess PV generation directly into a SunAmp which would then sit there with low SHL was steering my decision making process - now the goalposts have been moved it may no longer be the optimal solution. I'm baffled as to why they would do this - some of their models are geared towards direct connection to PV but if it won't take the charge its bonkers.

Got mine from IQ Builders Merchants - by far the cheapest place I found: Twinwall Black Duct 125mm x 6m: Drainage Pipe = £38.74 IQ BM = £20.66 63mm Blue Flexi Duct x 50m: Drainage Pipe = £76.13 IQ BM = £54.12 I could go on, I spent a lot of time trying to finding cheap ducting! - but there may be better out there that I missed. On another note - is identifying pipes later really an issue? Maintenance? What maintenance is anyone planning on doing to a pipe laid 750mm below ground level? Surely the location of the boundary box will affect the situation as you only need concern yourself with any pipe after the meter, before belongs to the water board? I see no reason not to lay two ducts in the one trench.

@newhome If I was a more sceptical person I would say they keep enough 'flaws' in the design to keep belt feeding new models out. I only bought mine 6 months ago and saw earlier they are onto version 10 now!