Building regs 3c 2b no worse than previous

[Tankmisery]

Hi, 

Building control have signed off a new pipe from a septic tank discharging to surface, knowing it breaches gbr of the environment agency. They say its no worse than previous. They were told the discharge point was the same, which isn't true. 

We're they correct to do this? 

 

Thanks in advance 😊

[ProDave]

A Septic tank should not discharge to a watercourse, so I would say they were wrong to sign it off.  More details needed, who's tank, who's land is the discharge point on and exactly what issues is it causing you?

[Tankmisery]

Thank you for your reply. 

When we bought the house, we were told it was a shared septic tank on our land and there was a drainage field on their land. We discovered there was no drainage field but a discharge to surface. We were then disconnected from the original discharge point and they installed a new pipe to a new discharge point, beyond the area we have legal access to. 

 

[ProDave]

As you share it, you are between a rock and a hard place.  Notify the EA of the illegal discharge and you will get a notice to upgrade it to a treatment plant. Then you will be jointly responsible for the cost of that with your neighbour who you appear to have a bad relationship with, so  that will make for a difficult installation particularly getting the neighbour to pay his share I suspect.

 

BC "signing it off" does not stop it having to comply with the GBR

[Tankmisery]

Who pays for it all is a separate problem! I'm just trying to get to the nitty gritty of the building regs. It appears to have been signed off as a material alteration and I don't understand why.  I can't get to the bottom of paragraph 2b and it's relevance. If it applies, then which of the paragraph 3 conditions apply? 

[nod]

At as DT at the beginning 

No names no post codes 

Its likely that someone on here has been through the same thing 

[Tankmisery]

2 minutes ago, nod said:

At as DT at the beginning 

No names no post codes 

Its likely that someone on here has been through the same thing 

DT? Sorry, not used to forums. What does that mean?

I'm hoping someone has been through similar, b=my drainage engineer has never seen anything like it!! 

[nod]

I think collectively we on here have could probably write a book on drainage issues 

Also there are quite a few on here who are very savy regarding rules and regulations for septic tans and treatment plant discharge 

You don’t even need to share your exact location But Scottish and English rules can vary 

 

[Tankmisery]

We are in England and I know we are not gbr compliant. It's these pesky building regs I can't figure out. They were told it discharged to surface and saw two pipes sticking out (which were later removed so they could tell us and ea it was discharged to a drainage field). A dye test soon revealed the truth but I can't figure out why building control are happy with it!! 

[ToughButterCup]

The General Binding Rules (GBR) are  , it seems to me , more honoured in the breech than the observance. 

 

2 hours ago, Tankmisery said:

... A dye test soon revealed the truth but I can't figure out why building control are happy with it!! 

 

Because they don't care. Its the same locally (NW England) - they can argue they don't police the discharge, thats the EA's responsibility. All Building Control care about is the quality of the pipework to the system. They don't even care if the digester or septic tank leaks. (Because it's got f'all to do with them).

 

Forget the BC sign off. It's done, it's history.

 

4 hours ago, Tankmisery said:

...

When we bought the house, we were told it was a shared septic tank on our land and there was a drainage field on their land. ...We were then disconnected from the original discharge point and they installed a new pipe to a new discharge point, beyond the area we have legal access to.

....

and

3 hours ago, Tankmisery said:

... A dye test soon revealed the truth... (about the actual discharge point)

 

You have an evidence base: in short, you have a (possibly) non-compliant foul drainage system, and you know where it discharges.  And that discharge cannot be inspected by you without permission I suspect? But the discharge isn't on your land. Correct?

 

My advice based on bitter, smelly experience is

• Document the system
• Tell your neighbour (formally if necessary) that the system is non-compliant under the GBR. Then, EITHER  
• Tell the EA about your non compliance OR
• Keep schtumm.
• If you tell the EA, all they will do is offer advice . They are highly unlikely to do anything about it at all
• If you don't, since the discharge is not on your land : happy days

Then

• Wait for something to go wrong with the drainage system.
• If I were you and you are still unable to get your message across to your neighbour, I'd think hard about not paying for your share of the costs of cleaning out the tank. Doing that tends to focus minds a bit - but even that hasn't (in our case) made any difference whatsoever.

The one key factor in this is that we are dealing with soft and smelly stuff. And people tend to ignore it.  

 

6 hours ago, Tankmisery said:

...

They say its no worse than previous.  

...

 

If (and its a massive  - if - ) it comes to a tangle with the EA, then thats what your neighbour will say, and there, I suspect, the matter will end.

 

Forget the BCO sign off. Wait for a foul drain problem. In all likelihood, nowt will happen.

 

Please don't regard my response as dismissive: I think you are understandably over-worried. If the filtered foul liquor disappears, nobody takes much notice these days, despite regulatory statements to the contrary.

 

[Tankmisery]

44 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

The General Binding Rules (GBR) are  , it seems to me , more honoured in the breech than the observance. 

 

 

Because they don't care. Its the same locally (NW England) - they can argue they don't police the discharge, thats the EA's responsibility. All Building Control care about is the quality of the pipework to the system. They don't even care if the digester or septic tank leaks. (Because it's got f'all to do with them).

 

Forget the BC sign off. It's done, it's history.

 

and

 

You have an evidence base: in short, you have a (possibly) non-compliant foul drainage system, and you know where it discharges.  And that discharge cannot be inspected by you without permission I suspect? But the discharge isn't on your land. Correct?

 

My advice based on bitter, smelly experience is

• Document the system
• Tell your neighbour (formally if necessary) that the system is non-compliant under the GBR. Then, EITHER  
• Tell the EA about your non compliance OR
• Keep schtumm.
• If you tell the EA, all they will do is offer advice . They are highly unlikely to do anything about it at all
• If you don't, since the discharge is not on your land : happy days

Then

• Wait for something to go wrong with the drainage system.
• If I were you and you are still unable to get your message across to your neighbour, I'd think hard about not paying for your share of the costs of cleaning out the tank. Doing that tends to focus minds a bit - but even that hasn't (in our case) made any difference whatsoever.

The one key factor in this is that we are dealing with soft and smelly stuff. And people tend to ignore it.  

 

 

If (and its a massive  - if - ) it comes to a tangle with the EA, then thats what your neighbour will say, and there, I suspect, the matter will end.

 

Forget the BCO sign off. Wait for a foul drain problem. In all likelihood, nowt will happen.

 

Please don't regard my response as dismissive: I think you are understandably over-worried. If the filtered foul liquor disappears, nobody takes much notice these days, despite regulatory statements to the contrary.

 

Hi, thanks for your reply and sorry you've had to go through some thing similar.  We are a bit past all that to be honest. They want us to take responsibility for it and all agencies are already involved. I'm just after clarifying what the bc stuff is about. Barristers are instructed so the matter has to be resolved. My drainage engineer hasn't encountered this excuse for permitting an illegal discharge before so I'm trying to figure it out. 

 

Thsnks. 

 

[ProDave]

You need to work out what you are trying to achieve.

 

At the moment you have a shared system that "works" but you are not happy that it it technically in breach of the GBR's  Apart from not complying with the GBR's are there any other issues, smell, blockage, visible polution etc?

 

If you continue pressing with your legal complaint about it not complying with the GBR's then sooner or later someone is going to order you to update it (either install a drainage field or upgrade to a treatment plant).  Whoever issues that order does not care about who owns it, they will just want it upgraded.

 

At that point you could then end up having to organise the upgrade (it is on your land) and then fighting to the the other co owner to pay their share of the upgrade.

 

There are some times when if there is not really a "problem" being created the best course of action is none.

 

 

[ToughButterCup]

8 minutes ago, Tankmisery said:

... Barristers are instructed so the matter has to be resolved....

 

Oh, I wish you'd told us that earlier.

9 minutes ago, Tankmisery said:

...

They want us to take responsibility for it and all agencies are already involved. I'm just after clarifying what the bc stuff is about.

...

 

Who is they?

Why should you take responsibility?

To what extent are agencies involved and what have they said?

 

In terms of BC sign off, once thats done, its done. What's the issue with the sign off? 

 

[Tankmisery]

6 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

 

Oh, I wish you'd told us that earlier.

 

Who is they?

Why should you take responsibility?

To what extent are agencies involved and what have they said?

 

In terms of BC sign off, once thats done, its done. What's the issue with the sign off? 

 

I'm just trying to establish whether it should have been signed off when they knew the discharge was illegal. Sorry, I can't post everything about it, we'd be here all week!! I just posted the bit I needed help with 😊

[ToughButterCup]

BC has nothing at all to do with the quantity or quality of the discharge. They focus on the pipework, gradient and physical layout. Commonly,  they don't even inspect that beyond glance or - recently- a photograph.