saveasteading

What is the advantage of the Belle at £530 over a screwfix unbranded one of the same capacity for £290? I am looking for second hand but they seem to be silly prices. typically 2/3 of the new price and 'well used'.

What did they reject? I might have proposed a soakaway or sand bed perhaps 10m from the burn, to filter the water a bit more. I can see their point of view. Even a badly installed 3 chamber tank will still do most of the work, even with the power off. But one of the other types might overflow fairly neat stuff if the power went off. And we know that lots of people won't know or care about putting beach etc down the pan. I'm guessing from previous posts that your burn hurtles to the sea, and runs all year. But they can't go looking at every case. Anyway I have had a good day. My English proposal just needs a soakaway or short French drain. That is £1,000 not to spend. I will put lots of numbers down so the BCO just skims to the end. and an obvious quote of clause 1.11. I have more concern now about the roof water going to an existing trench that was dug for twice as much roof, I know works, but can't really prove. Again, it won't go to the EA so as long as the bco is happy, it is my shout. BTW I am thinking of including a large water tank in-line, to use for summer watering. If I filter the incoming water and use a pump it doesn't even need to be deep or accessible. What size would allow for keeping the garden alive during a hosepipe ban? 3m3?? £630. Will it ever repay itself? Probably not. £2/m3 x 15m3/year ??? x 20 years = £600. But the garden not dying! priceless.

On our Scottish project this was close to being an issue. The magic, fastest number seems to vary from 12 to 15. We had 17. If it is faster then I think it can still be put before the EA or in Scotland SEPA. The concern is of the sand washing away and sinkholes forming. Our sand was like rock to build on but porous with it (glacial deposits). It might cost more to prove though, than building an alternative solution. England. But I was looking for the logic behind it. If based on proper science then that could be the makings of the proposal, as the regulations are generic of necessity. Then I found the magic clause 1.11. Wouldn't you show that to the Scottish inspector if it suited? I wonder why they are not concerned though. They know it is silly? Been told to keep out of it as policy?

Absolutely. I'd end up describing my recent trip to The Glenlivet distillery. Back on subject. Not that we know where the OP is building: Since the area became of special interest I note how often the westerly rain storms fizzle out before Morayshire. Nairn has annual rainfall around 700mm. Aberlour 800mm, much of it turned into whisky. shouldn't hijack this topic though.

Quote from HSE If the site has a policy on clothing that does not allow shorts then you are expected to follow this rule. Clothing needs to protect against hazards on site. During cold weather it is important to keep warm, especially when, for example, working at height where the cold can distract and lead to loss of concentration. As I suspected it is not HSE but a site rule. Logically then, the site manager makes you wear longs for arc welding and in January. But could allow, but not insist on, shorts indoors in July. Seems sensible enough. I certainly wouldn't wear shorts clambering about in a shutter full of reinforcement. Safety boots can be hot too. Sandals or crocs?

I'm hoping I am misunderstanding the regulations. Document H , Drainage and waste disposal. Actually on reflection maybe Document H used to be silly but now is vague. The Scottish rules are still silly. So I will start with them. Quote The floor area of a sub-surface drainage trench required to disperse effluent from treatment plants or septic tanks may be calculated from the following formula: A= P x Vp x 0.25 so for a typical 6 person house with average percolation of 30s/mm. the result is 6 x 30 x 0.25. = 45m2. That is a fancy trench system measuring say 3m x 15m. Perhaps that is sensible for a septic tank outlet where the stuff is still filthy. 6 persons would produce 6 x 130 litres in a day total. Less than a m3, not all filthy, and it dribbles in. Then it says to reduce it by 20% if it is a treatment tank. (Not so long ago manufacturers claimed this outflow was almost safe to drink.) 20% reduction seems ultra conservative. In a discussion with a JCB driver in Scotland, as he lifted our treatment tank in, he said they always just put in a rubble soakaway. Perhaps 20 times he had done this. The building inspector was not interested. My submission showed a great big drainage field. With this in mind we left our drainage field at 'phase 1 of 3'. Now to the English reg's. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/442889/BR_PDF_AD_H_2015.pdf For septic tanks the same formula applies. However I don't see any reduction for treatment tanks. I'm sure it used to but perhaps sense has prevailed. At 1.54 it mentions package treatment works but is silent on what happens to the outflow. Hey... I have just found clause 1.11... It says "normally allows discharge direct to a watercourse". I am going to propose putting it into a soakaway and see what results from the bco. Does 'normally' cut it details-wise? I must admit just pointing the pipe at a copse on one occasion and the bco didn't look. But back then the reg's said nothing on the subject. Any feedback on what you have done is welcome. I guess Scottish rivers are generally much cleaner, so they don't want anything going in. But I think it is silly, and perhaps ignored. Next time I would quote the English regs. even for a Scottish project. But I am working on an English one so it is now clear. Thanks for being on this journey with me. It really has helped typing it down logically. Perhaps it will simplify the process for some others too.

I happen to be working out a drainage scheme today. The rainwater is easy enough. to soakaway with a volume large enough to hold the storm. Lots: 6m3 but easy enough with a ditch and a small swale. But STP disposal is crazy. 90m2 of drainage field after treatment. Am I misreading the building regs doc H ? I wont hijack this thread so will start another.

Not so. Some big contractors have their very particular, sometimes counter-productive, views on what is safe.....but that is not HSE imposed: they are pragmatic and sensible. NOT HSE I'm sure. For clarity HSE is the Health and Safety Executive: the people who have to turn up to see a body splatted on the ground and try to prevent such things.

Only for drainage nerds. I came across this paper , aimed at churches. The point is that churches don't produce much waste, so why put in a complex system? It is also admirably charming in its style , I think, and hence accessible. More technical papers should be like this. (people don't like to poo in church toilets) Anyway, the 'Trench Arch' method is the point of interest and might be applied to any small use drain.....an outbuilding for example. Very cheap to build, and zero maintenance. https://d3hgrlq6yacptf.cloudfront.net/5f218af5bba08/content/pages/documents/1424700436.pdf

That is what it says, based on that map, but a later one shows 'the future' and it includes central areas and eastern. It is purely my observation that floods in Hastings and Tunbridge Wells were during rain events that were only mild , just a couple of miles away. I don't know if that would show up in these maps. Of course, urban areas that are not served by modern drainage will get a very quick build-up of water from roofs and roads, so 50mm is perhaps not a critical number there, but would be in flood plains.

Are there any suggestions that breaking the crust helps it digest? Air bubbling through might digest it.

Is taking 5 minutes each time to find which connection has popped out...or fused. And tripping over the cable.....they move when you aren't looking. No question though.We have power. I will get an electric. Cheaper, quieter, doesn't run dry.

I can't recall encountering that, in 50 years and countless exposure to site workers. Even on sites run by nasty main contractors. They bullied corporately and at management level.....and mostly disappeared. It would be a very bad indicator for quality expectation. @Chefjoiner i think move.

It is easy to fix an anchor into the wall. I like the ones which are a threaded fixing left in the wall, and a screwed-in eye. You shouldn't need it if the feet are on a solid base, but it stops any wobble and adds confidence.

I had not heard of this. Required by whom? I had to empty a "country" cess pit because it was failing. But that was after 50 years, maybe more. Even after a sucklift, there was 4" of black sludge on the bottom plus various items. Does a modern treatment tank need it or is it an advisable routine? It has since worked fine for 8 years tho the outlet liquid isn't nice.

Aberlour is one of my favourites. The village is OK too.

If you took these out, the bottom of the joists might rotate and be understrength. So stop that happening with a stud across the bottom, timber or steel. You could do the same at the top to save the floor doing the work. Work out how much space you need and size to allow it.

these 2 pipes need to ne 450mm apart. water at -750, electric at -450, generally. A plough that simply slits the ground for the pipe to go in behind it, and closes itself behind. Ok for a farm doing its own thing. I don't think they go deep enough for the water company rules, nor do they lay a warning tape above the pipe.

It depends on rainfall rates as well. This is not related to annual rainfall. For example SE England gets occasional very intense storms, hence flooding in London, Tunbridge Wells and Hastings recently. Allow 0.022 litres/ second/m2 for London but just 0.016 along the more consistently wetter west coast. The point of the retention is to protect downstream. eg The Glastonbury Levels get flooded because water reaches there so quickly form the catchment area. Development. and farmers ploughing downhill. and streams being cleared cause the same rain to flow faster to one place. A particular location may have local rainfall effects but the map used is more general with rainfall isopleths, one of my favourite words. I would cut and paste the chart, but the new 'improved' Windows 11 doesn't seem to have a 'snip' function.

That would slow the flow significantly. The most efficient flow in a drain is at about 3/4 full and of course unrestricted downstream. So you would need a bigger pipe, or the water may start to pop up manhole covers and squirt out of joints/ pour out of gutters.

I am a great fan of swales. If you have the room and the topography. This simple hollow can take loads of water and it disappears by percolation and evaporation. Nature does the work, and little reaches the drainage infrastructure downstream...and it is easy and cheap.

Welcome. Don't tell us where exactly, but 'Scotland' is over-doing the anonymity. 450 miles long with very varying conditions, and how best to build. Wet West? Dry East? Blowy North? Or perfect Perth. In a town or isolated? Anyway, get reading first. Most of it is on here already.

The roof ripping off has to be considered too. Uplift is huge when there is a solid roof and open sides. I don't think so. A steel would be that size, so timber will be deeper. Otoh it isn't an occupied building. You won't be in it during the 50 year storm. Would you risk it collapsing every 10 years or so?

I think it needs intermediate draw points at the corners, whether pits or chambers. I've seen a 32mm cable stick in an official duct with just a slight bend in it. OR these 90° bends are indicative and very slow bends are allowed. Straight into trench would be so much easier, as long as you don't have to fence it off for safety.

That may be reasonable in that the stored volume of water will not permeate thriugh your clay at any useful rate. Ie critical storms these days are very heavy downpours, but tne soakaway amount will remain slow.