Discharge distances from boundaries?

[Drellingore]

Are there any regulations stipulating how far either packaged treatment plant discharge, or a drainage field/mound, must be from a property boundary?

 

Approved Document H2 1.54 says that PTP discharges need to be >=10m from any watercourse or building. Section 1.27 says that drainage fields/mounds need to be >=15m from any building (presumably including neighbours!).

 

I had a vague recollection that there was a requirement somewhere about the proximity of discharges from boundaries, but despite a quick scan and a search of approved document H, I can't find anything.

 

Any ideas, folks?

[Gone West]

Our BCO said our soakaway should be 5m from the boundary, but as it wasn't possible he let us put it next to the boundary, as it was just an orchard the other side.

[ProDave]

In our case (Scotland) it was 5 metres from a boundary or 10 metres from a road or watercourse.

 

The watercourse one was bonkers, in the case of a treatment plant where the output was clean enough to go directly into the watercourse.

 

So that is exactly what happened.  Instead of being allowed to build a soakaway right up to the burn, no that was not allowed, but we were allowed to discharge into the burn instead.

 

[saveasteading]

The outflow from a package treatment can go straight to watercourse. The  volumes are low so do not increase flood risk.

 

Rainwater should not. 

The 5m rule is to stop it interfering with existing or future buildings of neighbours. Or, i would suggest, it creating a direct stream to the watercourse and increasing flood risk downstream.

 

Where there is an orchard it may be reasonable to assume that it will not be developed..depends where it is.

 

[Drellingore]

16 hours ago, saveasteading said:

The 5m rule

 

Any idea where this rule is written down? I've been through approved doc H, but couldn't find it. But then, given my poor ability to read VAT documentation, it's entirely possible that I've missed it

[Kelvin]

It’s written down in the Scottish Technical Handbook 2020. It’s to allow the owner of the adjacent land to enjoy the benefit of development of the land in the future. I can’t see why the English regs would be different albeit it might be of course. 

[Kelvin]

17 hours ago, ProDave said:

In our case (Scotland) it was 5 metres from a boundary or 10 metres from a road or watercourse.

 

The watercourse one was bonkers, in the case of a treatment plant where the output was clean enough to go directly into the watercourse.

 

So that is exactly what happened.  Instead of being allowed to build a soakaway right up to the burn, no that was not allowed, but we were allowed to discharge into the burn instead.

 

It’s in case the soakaway fails at some point in the future and the concentration of the effluent builds up. If it’s 10m from the watercourse it won’t impact it. Of course the treatment plant could fail too but this is less likely. It’s also pragmatic as if they applied the guidelines rigidly and said no discharge to direct to watercourse and soakaway must be 10m away then this would make many viable building plot’s impossible to build on. 

[joe90]

It can depend on the building inspector, some interpret the rules as they see fit, have you got building regs yet? I was supposed to instal a rainwater soak away but I explained that as we are on solid yellow clay it would never work so he let me pipe it direct to a ditch.

[saveasteading]

English rules were the same, last time I looked.

[Drellingore]

20 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

English rules were the same, last time I looked.

 

Any suggestions as to where I should be looking to verify? What the English rules in question, do you recall?

[saveasteading]

In the building regs. Document H. All free on line. Worth reading yourself anyway.

[Kelvin]

I’ve been googling for you and not having much luck within the regs. However several treatment plant companies quote over 2m from a neighbouring boundary e.g.

 

https://proseptic.co.uk/useful-information/sewage-treatment-plant-regulations/

 

 

[Drellingore]

49 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

In the building regs. Document H. All free on line. Worth reading yourself anyway.

 

Thanks. I've been through approved document H several times now, and I haven't managed to find any reference to this yet. For instance, the word "boundary" doesn't appear anywhere in the document.

 

I'm wondering if it's one of those cases of there used to be a rule and now there isn't but it sticks in the minds of all the experienced folks, or maybe there's never been a rule but it seems sensible.

[saveasteading]

https://www.eden.gov.uk/planning-and-building/building-control/building-control-guidance-notes/rainwater-soakaway-design-guidance/#:~:text=A soakaway must always be,any time of the year.

 

Found this googling

5m from building, 2.5 from boundary.

[Pocster]

Title is rude .

You should always respect other people’s boundaries and where you wish to discharge .

[Drellingore]

10 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

Found this googling

5m from building, 2.5 from boundary.

 

Thanks for the continued efforts. That refers to rainwater soakaways rather than PTP discharges, and also doesn't appear anywhere in approved document H. It does reference BRE Digest 365: Soakaway Design which sadly costs £28 to purchase, and NS EN 752-4 which also is locked behind paywalls. The fact that Government legislation forces us to abide by rules that we have to pay to read is, as my mum would phrase it more politely than I would, "a bit of a swizz".

[Drellingore]

I got hold of a copy of BS6297:2007, and in there it says it's "good practice" to ensure drainage fields are 2m away from any boundary. Interestingly it also recommends drainage fields being 7m away from buildings, whereas Approved Document H says 15m. Note that neither of these are defined as hard limits, they seem to be recommendations.

[Pocster]

35 minutes ago, Drellingore said:

I got hold of a copy of BS6297:2007, and in there it says it's "good practice" to ensure drainage fields are 2m away from any boundary. Interestingly it also recommends drainage fields being 7m away from buildings, whereas Approved Document H says 15m. Note that neither of these are defined as hard limits, they seem to be recommendations.

I had this issue also . It meant in effect I couldn’t do my build as 7m away from property and 2m away from boundary was impossible. So this ‘issue’ for suds was waived though noted “ did not comply “ by the council ; once I complained.

[Drellingore]

7 minutes ago, pocster said:

So this ‘issue’ for suds was waived though noted “ did not comply “ by the council ; once I complained.

 

Sorry for my ignorance, I'm not sure what you mean here? Not meaning to be rude, I'm just completely naïve.

[Pocster]

1 hour ago, Drellingore said:

 

Sorry for my ignorance, I'm not sure what you mean here? Not meaning to be rude, I'm just completely naïve.

I guess what I’m trying to say is if it’s impossible to implement you may be able to get it ( kind of ) waived .

[Drellingore]

Just now, pocster said:

I guess what I’m trying to say is if it’s impossible to implement you may be able to get it ( kind of ) waived .

 

Gotcha. I didn't know that was a thing!

 

Approved Document H2:1.71 says alternative implementations need to follow BS6297:1983, which doesn't even use the term drainage field!

[Pocster]

1 minute ago, Drellingore said:

 

Gotcha. I didn't know that was a thing!

 

Approved Document H2:1.71 says alternative implementations need to follow BS6297:1983, which doesn't even use the term drainage field!

Tbh I think it’s all BS .

My council say ALL new builds must conform to the suds rules . Needless to say I found easily planning applications where it wasn’t even mentioned or if it was mentioned the “ condition “ wasn’t met .  So the argument wasn’t difficult to win . Though I still had to pay for the condition to be noted as not met . 🙄

[Gone West]

2 minutes ago, pocster said:

Tbh I think it’s all BS .

My council say ALL new builds must conform to the suds rules .

You're right there. There was no way I could get rid of roof drainage on site due to size and a high water table so our BCO and Highways agreed that I could run the water straight onto the road. It just ran down the road until it found a ditch. You just need a pragmatic BCO.

[Drellingore]

2 minutes ago, Gone West said:

There was no way I could get rid of roof drainage on site due to size and a high water table so our BCO and Highways agreed that I could run the water straight onto the road.

 

Was this all after planning had been approved, and much later when the build was taking place? Apologies for the silly question.

[Gone West]

1 minute ago, Drellingore said:

 

Was this all after planning had been approved, and much later when the build was taking place? Apologies for the silly question.

Yes it was. I tried not to have contact with the planners once I had got approval due to a less than good relationship with them after I had got planning approval against the Head of Planning Department's recommendation. I just carried out the conditions and did the build.