Russdl

@Temp Thanks, another thing that had been on my mind.

That would be the plan. I think I got the idea from here, did you post a picture of your rainwater solution? If so that was my inspiration but I also don't know if its acceptable for foul runs. Failing that then i would plan on access at the base of each stack prior to finished floor level. Neither of those solutions have been properly thought through yet... That wasn't the driving force for me but would be an unintended consequence if I opted for my blue route. @epsilonGreedy Pointed out the obvious requirement for the rest bend at the base of the stack - so obvious that I hadn't taken it into account. The remaining fall could start to get tight now and the shortest route may be the only option (apart from all the other options that I have no knowledge of!)

Of course! And the architects route would need at least 3 IC's for the same reason, plus 1 more for where the two drains meet and yet 1 more for the max 11m run (if that is the limit) So assuming @MikeSharp01's correct r the max 11m (I'll get on to checking that right now) the IC count would be: 5 for the architects route 3 for the developers red route 2 for my blue route If the 11m rule is correct, all plans will have an IC some point on the lawn between the hose and remaining drain. So on the IC count the blue route would win. Any other views on running foul drains that far under a passive type slab construction? ~~~~~~~ According to Approved Document H, if I've interpreted Table 13 correctly then the stack to the first IC can be up to 22 meters (or bananas, it actually doesn't mention meters anywhere on that table) and then from IC to IC/Manhole maximum 45. So that would reduce at least 1 IC from all the options. Doc H does say "The layout of the drainage system should be kept simple. Changes of direction ... should be minimised" The architects plan does the opposite. Ant thing else I'm missing?

So far it seems like the architects plans or my developer friends plans are winning. The developers version seems much simpler than the architects, any ideas why the architect would have chosen the long way round save for some comments already posted?

I'd considered that, and the first IC would be under decking/patio and disguised as such. I hadn't considered @MikeSharp01's comment about the max 11m run, which would indeed place an IC chamber in the lawn or a flower bed so your point is taken, thanks.

@MikeSharp01 Another good point that I should probably have been aware of, thanks!

Good question, well phrased... I think it was to get everything pointing in the right direction, i.e. heading towards the existing drain and keep it simple but I take your points re minimising long foul runs under the slab. Thanks for the input.

I'm after your collective wisdom again! On the attached image the architects foul water plan in dotted lines (I hope the quality is good enough to see it) goes clockwise around the outside of the proposed property to the existing sewage connection. A developer friend of mine suggested the route marked in red from the two stacks, the opposite way round to the architect. I'd considered the route in blue on the diagram (the red and blue lines converge where the stacks will be) It would be under a passive slab foundation and the width of the slab is 7.5m. The Invert Level of the existing drain is 60.66m OSBM and the finished floor level needs to be 61.88 OSBM, so, takeaway about .450m for the floor and slab leaves 61.43 OSBM, or .77m fall between the underside of the slab and the existing Invert Level. On my blue lines the longest distance between stack and existing drain is about 25m so (if I'm right) there is sufficient fall. I hope I've used all the correct terminology... Are there any reasons why one proposal trumps the other?

Excellent, I shall relax - slightly - again.

@ProDave Ok. I'll obviously be getting an electrician on board (it would seem sooner rather than later would be the order of the day). My preliminary plan would have the new supply about 12m from plant room where the supply would emerge in the new build.

@JSHarris Today is definitely a school day, I'm learning loads! I recall seeing pictures of your set up in your blog and I certainly plan to do something similar. Now I'd better get on and find out more about that BS7671

@jack Oh Lord! Just when I thought I was emerging from the woods. ? Thanks for the 'heads-up' Jack, I'll check it out.

@JSHarris Thanks for the re-assurance. I'll make a note of all you've said especially the TT earthing system (when I've found out what that is) and make sure I don't run it as a TN-C-S (whatever that is!) ? It's sometimes embarrassing to be this thick but I'm starting to get used to it ?

@ProDave Indeed, that's exactly want I plan to do after seeing various BH members doing it. I hope I've not stitched myself up by calling it a 'temporary building supply' when I was talking to the DNO, but I made it very clear that the temporary supply will be in a permanent position just inside the plot and the new house will be connected to the temporary supply at a later date.

Ah, the wonderful enlightenment of Buildhub. We your advice on-board I phoned the DNO again, the existing supply can provide up to 23kVa so as Dave suggested I've told them I'll need 10kW for the TBS which is just a figure they needed to put in a box before they can move forward. That hurdle seems to be jumped. Thanks again all for your help as ever. Russ.

Thanks for that @JSHarris that certainly clears things up a bit (I'll get the beer). I should have realised the VAC VDC thing, especially as I fly an aircraft with is primarily VDC but uses VAC for windscreen heating.

Thanks Jeremy, it seems I have to do it the other way round, i.e. tell them the total expected kW before they arrive for the survey. Sadly I wasn't bright enough to think to ask the network capacity question as mentioned by @ProDave. I'll get back in touch and see what I can find out. I suspect the above paragraph is not complicated, however it starts to loose me when the kW start getting mixed up with the kVA and then VAC turns up ? @JSHarris Can I buy you a pint or several whilst you talk me through these (and other) problems!!

That's the kind of thing I'm after Dave. I'm as thick as pig-pooh when it comes to this elec-trikery and I've no idea if 10kW is high, low or somewhere in the middle but I'm guessing it's more than adequate for a single residence?

Ah, good point Jack. That is the plan that it will become the permanent supply but I'm still none the wiser on the "total expected kW"

I've just got off the phone to a very helpful chap at Scottish and Southern who was helping me through the service alteration process. When it came to the temporary building supply he said they would need "information regarding construction equipment used for the TBS - total expected kW". He couldn't see my blank look, so I made it clear to him that I was indeed looking blank. I told him that I had no idea, and asked what he thought, he said they weren't permitted to make any assumptions so it looks like it's down to me to make the assumption, however, I'm still looking blank. Can anyone help me with this? We're planning on a timber frame build on an raft foundation so I don't foresee any electric cement mixers. There's bound to be a kettle a radio and probably a handful of power tools either plugged in (or having their batteries recharged) and perhaps a heater. Can someone give me a sensible figure I can fire back at SSEN or guidance on how I can come up with a sensible figure myself? Thanks. Russ.

I like the sound of those - I can feel a cunning plan coming on to address my (future) shading issues.

On the ever growing list of things to do... Thanks for posting.

That's a good point Temp, thanks for highlighting it. I was aware that the fee is 'per request' and I think I will take your advice and go for 3,6,7 & 9 and the rest on completion. I've only just got the planning approval so No1 is fine. It all seems so obvious reading everyones replies but it has certainly helped clear a bit of the fog for me so thanks all! Russ.

@ProDave That's understood Dave. I'm starting to reach the assumption that I will be able to discharge those conditions (6 and 7 in my original post) with a relatively basic site plan and lots of reference to the Building Regulations.

@PeterW Excellent, thanks Peter I was hoping it might be something along those lines.