MortarThePoint

How much higher do you think the oak step will be than the top of the woodpecker flooring? Planked flooring normally has it's long axis perpendicular to a door like this so has some strength to cantilever over a 60mm wide gap particularly with a timber over the top. If the woodpecker flooring is thick enough to be used over joists without a sub floor then it's should be fine, you just have to make sure any planks don't flip up if trodden on, but unlikely anyone would tread that close to the door. That would remove any structural requirements from what you put in the cavity

Is that a regs requirement or just sensible design? Is this in case the foul pipe leaks and cross communicates with the rainwater pipe? Unfortunately, the foul will be the higher. I can stagger pipe joints so the foul would have to pass horizontally over a metre to then enter the rainwater pipe. Such a cross communication would become too unlikely to be a genuine concern then.

I can't see, but is the door frame on top of a timber cill? I think @Mr Punter is asking what your final floor finish will be. Tile, Timber, Carpet,...

I've separate rainwater and foul systems as I have a sewage treatment plant and the rainwater is going to a ditch. Most of the area where I have both foul and rainwater drainage pipes is going to get covered by a patio, so I can happily have two separate trenches a suitable distance apart. In another area, I have a run of around 5m where both are going parallel and there is no patio. Since the pipes are shallow, I want to cover them with a concrete slab path. The slabs are supposed to bear 200mm each side of the trench. A 900mm wide slab could straddle a 500mm trench and that could have two 110mm pipe runs in. One pipe will be sloping one way and the other in the opposite direction. The slabs should be strong enough as I have tried jumping on one supported just at the ends and it was fine Does that sound sensible? Is there anything to worry the BCO in this (e.g. Building Regs)?

Actually, the socket OD of the couplers is just too big for 8" layflat tubing so would need to be 10" or larger: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Triplast-LF5001001-10-Inch-Layflat-Tubing/dp/B07BRNYC32/

I can find geotextile sleeves designed to stop silt and sand entering land drain pipes, but not one designed to sleeve over pipe couplings to stop root penetration. Three approaches I am considering are: Do nothing Wrap and cable tie each coupling with a 1m length of non-woven geotextile like this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0DQ88WHD4/?th=1 Use a 1m length 8" temporary downpipe or layflat tubing an duct tape at each coupling (normal 150mm not large enough) I found this but not UK: https://www.mainlinematerials.com/products/underground-pipe-root-barrier

That's the plan, but you never know

I'm about to lay lots of 110mm drainage pipe and wondered if there is some effective protection I can put in to prevent root penetrating the ring seals. Ideally it would be something I can wrap around the joint. Has anyone identified a good approach. Osma have something new called Rootseal. No idea if it works and it is only on newly bought Osma fittings and I have a lot of older black ring fittings.

Osma only seem to make plain ended pipes in their Underground range (OsmaDrain), so no socket ended pipes. Any idea why that is? Socket ended pipes would appear to be a lot easier to work with on longer runs. Also, for Floplast the cost uplift from P/E to S/S is minimal and certainly less than the cost of a coupler.

Anyone who finds this thread would probably appreciate this link: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/goods-and-services-you-can-claim-for-under-the-vat-diy-scheme Muckaway is disallowed, but amusingly manure is allowed.

I was surprised too. Can't see it in part H, but the manufacturers seem to agree as I think Floplast also has that. Seems a tad excessive and a 12" bucket feels sensible and would provide 100mm on three sides of the pipe

Estimating how much gravel is needed. For 110mm pipe, the trench needs to be at least 410mm wide and the depth of the gravel at least 210mm including the height of the pipe or 160mm if ground suitable. That works out as 0.41m*0.21m = 0.086 m3/m or 0.41m*0.16m = 0.66 m3/m (ignoring pipe for contingency). Round that up to 0.09m3/m or 0.7m3/m. A bulk bag of pea gravel seems to be about 2/3 m3 so that provides enough for 7m or 10m of pipe. 7m or 10m per bulk bag. Does that sound right? 10mm pea gravel links: https://www.travisperkins.co.uk/bagged-aggregates/travis-perkins-gravel-and-shingle-bulk-bag-10mm/p/938182 https://www.jewson.co.uk/p/pea-gravelpipe-bedding-bulk-bag-AGSTB016 https://www.wickes.co.uk/Tarmac-10mm-Gravel-Pea-Shingle---Jumbo-Bag/p/131897 Osma: PolyPipe:

Neither Floplast nor Osma make a 22.5 degree bend in 110mm, but Brett Martin does: Single Socket: https://direct-drainage.co.uk/products/110mm-single-socket-22-5-bend-b5071-underground-drainage-pipe-fitting Double Socket: https://direct-drainage.co.uk/products/110mm-double-socket-22-5-bend-b4051-underground-drainage-pipe-fitting

Looking closer on site, the 160mm pipe is closer to the corner of the house than I thought, so I think I can use the setup below that looks pretty reasonable. May be better to use a 160x160x160 junction to keep all inverts level. I don't think I have to have the optional rodding access as the bends on that branch will be 30 degrees or less meaning I could rod the branch and the 160mm main section through the top Inspection Chamber (I.C.). If space allowed, it would probably be nice to have it after the lower bend and focused on rodding just the 160mm main section. Still interested how people would tackle the original challenge though, but that's relegated to curiosity now rather than necessity.

It's just surface water from gutters and all below ground

So do you cut a hole in the smaller rectangular grid? I was thinking of perhaps having the shoe over that part meaning the square section could be easily removed.

When they put in the drive and the rainwater pipe across it, the ground workers asked if I wanted a 110mm pipe or 160mm pipe. It seemed like a small additional cost to go with 160mm pipe. I now need to connect two 110mm pipes to it. They are coming in opposite directions each at 90degrees to the 160mm pipe forming a T shape. Rodding access on each 110mm pipe will be about 3m away via 4D960 chambers. Some options to connect are shown below. It's right at the front of the house, outside a bay window, so I'm keen to have something discrete. Using the equal tee (6D193) feels like a bodge, but a blockage here feels unlikely given the step up on pipe diameter. The two 6D198 feels less like a bodge as could provide rodding access, but doesn't have level inverts. The rodding access could go via a 110/160 reducer to decrease the size of the rodding eye. Floplast 6D900: mixed 160/110 chamber plus 2no 45 bends 6UR928: 160mm chamber plus 2no 45 bends or the naughty option on right where the central channel isn't used 6D193: 160mm 90 tee plus 2no 110/160 adapters. Feels like a bodge as no access but could add a second to the outlet with the branch facing up to allow access. Level inverts benefit 4D960: 110mm chamber plus short pipe, 2no 67.5 bends and 110/160 adapter Level inverts benefit SP230: A wildcard option is to use a soil pipe double branch and allow rodding access. Would need a short length of pipe and a 110/160 adapter into the 160mm pipe. I have one of these spare. Feels like a shame to have the combined flow in a 110mm section of pipe even though it would only be about 200mm worth. Level inverts benefit Polypipe 160/110 branch: allows rodding access via a 160mm 45 bend technically compliant down to 600mm depth I think Would prefer a ring seal version 6D198 or 6D218: two of these have the benefit of having 110mm side ports. 6D198 would need 2no 45 bends but have a smoother flow.

This is what Floplast show as an example in their brochure for downpipes with shoes:

I tried disabling the DHCP server in the Router menu hoping that DHCP requests would make their way to the original router, but sadly not. It isn't obvious how to have it act as a switch. There is a Bridge option, but it says it only supports one device at a time and has to use mobile data. With it acting as a Router (inc DHCP server) I can happily RD to a machine on the other network as well as shared drives

For the two turns, I think I'll use Osma 4D960 plus two bends as I've identified a cheap source and didn't like the look of their 90 bend chamber (4D918) and the total cost of that was looking like £100+ each. The first corner can be achieved with a total turn of 2x22.5=45 if I bring the pipe out from the house at 45 degrees. Despite all being level invert, it says to always use the main channel rather than make the turn with the chamber's 45 inlet. I loved the look of the Polypipe SFA7 option but it's too expensive.

Made a few calls. Polypipe suggested that Bottle Gullies are the standard approach. Wavin (Osma) said it was down to taste and Bottle Gullies are probably the easiest and neatest. I said I liked the idea of hopper and rested bend and that seemed ok but may be less roddable. In terms of joining the main run of pipe, it's standard to use a tee, as long as the main run is roddable (ie chamber at is ends). It's looking like I'll go with an Osma 4D960 with 2x45 bends at each corner of the house, straight runs between those and then Y-tee branches to each hopper or gully.

Brett Martin's B2803 is a 90 degree 280mm inspection chamber, but the exits have a sharp 45 bend with the channel being straight within the inspection region. Osma's 4D918, on the other hand, has the bend in the inspection region. Osma have a useful selector, a copy attached. Slightly bigger though, 315mm vs 280mm. Here's some information about their Multi-Base IC range. The Osma 4D918 looks a bit silly from above, but there is a straight alternative (4D910) that could be used with 45 elbows. Even the smaller (250mm) Osma 4D960 could be used with two 45 elbows. Brett Martin B2803: Osma 4D918: Osma 4D960: F0026752_0001.pdf

That makes for an about 15,000mm * 1/60 = 250mm drop from the stack's rested bend to the tee by the 450mm chamber which has an invert of 600mm. That means the rested bend can have an outlet invert (600mm - 250mm) = 350mm below the surface. That works about perfectly to have the Floplast rest bend at the bottom of the stack (D571, dimensions below). If it was available in black, I'd consider having the collar sticking out of the ground meaning the invert could be at just 300mm below the surface. The orange stuff isn't UV stable and would catch the eye, but I guess I could spray paint it black if I needed to.

Good advice, I'll take a look this evening when the wife isn't watching the awful movie she currently is. It will save her subjecting me to it's sequel.

Looking at table 3.1 in Part K it looks clear that the minimum height for internal elements in a single family dwelling is 900mm. A block of flats however would require 1100mm as would an external balcony of a family dwelling. I just got spooked by a call with Richard Burbidge where they said I need 1100mm even for a singe dwelling. I checked with my BCO to make sure and he says 900mm. -----