Surface water sewer map?

[saveasteading]

There comes a time when general advice is not enough. This now has to be site specific and needs expert design.

Your homework so far is not wasted as you can brief your chosen Engineer on your thoughts and findings.

You can do a percolation test yourself, but your Engineer should ask to see it repeated.

 

[crooksey]

1 hour ago, ToughButterCup said:

 

The installation of a cesspit will require Planning Permission, and therefore Building Control regulation.

@crooksey is being diplomatic : any cesspit is highly unlikely to get PP.

 

I don't think I have seen a cesspit on a planning application for years, septic tank maybe.

 

Cespool is the very last option (no drainage and all foul is stored in one tank). They usually only permit new build's with cespool's if they can prove all other options have been totally exhausted. You can install a cespool with no planning on an existing property. This is usually when an older house with a cesspit/septic tank has failed due to a poor drainage field or one that would not meet new regs and the only option would be a cespool.  For new builds now you generally need to prove the reasoning behind having a cespool as they are a "worst case" option.

[ToughButterCup]

4 hours ago, saveasteading said:

...

You can do a percolation test yourself, but your Engineer should ask to see it repeated.

 

I would be stunned - delighted indeed - if anyone in ENGLAND did anything other than submit a set of guessed (but acceptable) numbers to the LPA. And a proper percolation test is expensive.

Planners are just to busy to check.

Our planner once mutterered under her breath that if someone wants to build a house - but at the end of the process the builder gets his own back - well that was fine by her. She had a way with words - thats why we employed her.

[saveasteading]

59 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

a proper percolation test is expensive.

It is very simple involving a spade, a bucket and a watch. 

Depends how many tests of course.

 

59 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

the builder gets his own back

A bit lazy of the planner. To be fair, more likely not conversant with the issues.

Any problem is likely to take months or years to present itself. Worse, it simply leaches unseen through the ground and contaminates elsewhere.

Houses get sold on, and the builder is usually long gone.

 

59 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

I would be stunned - delighted indeed - if anyone in ENGLAND did anything other than submit a set of guessed (but acceptable) numbers to the LPA

Agreed. I have done a few in England and I saw no sign of anyone checking it. I assumed that my qualifications were enough, but more likely nobody looked.

In Scotland it is compulsory to present proper details and the bco does send them on. There was no response and we cant tell if they looked, shrugged and set it aside as ok, or did nothing.

 

If there was contamination found, it can normally be traced back and there could be repercussions.

Anyway, doing it right isn't much more expensive.

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by saveasteading

[Drellingore]

On 24/02/2023 at 09:06, crooksey said:

I don't see how you plan to get planning without having this done first and frankly your planning agent needs talking to as they will know this.

 

The plot already had planning permission granted with later delivery and approval of a drainage strategy as a planning condition.

 

On 24/02/2023 at 09:30, ToughButterCup said:

The installation of a cesspit will require Planning Permission, and therefore Building Control regulation.

@crooksey is being diplomatic : any cesspit is highly unlikely to get PP.

 

I mentioned that we're in groundwater source protection zone 1, so a cesspool is the only acceptable option without an EA permit - thus it's highly likely to get planning permission.

 

Getting back on topic to the original question, the drain/ditch/gulley isn't owned by Southern Water, nor National Highways, but Kent County Council. They have confirmed that they hold no details on it whatsoever other than there are two gullies that they are responsible for occasionally clearing. Hence, this has gone as far as it can without getting surveys done at my own expense.

[Drellingore]

On 24/02/2023 at 01:19, Temp said:

I expect you've seen this on new discharges after changes in 2015

 

Yep, thanks for the heads-up. We've got to apply for a permit anyway if we want anything other than a cesspool, so the general binding rules are orthogonal to our situation.

[IanR]

On 20/02/2023 at 13:54, Drellingore said:

It turns out that a previous tenant of my plot had a "land drain" installed that leads to the surface water sewer that exists alongside an adjacent road. Local folklore has it that this surface water sewer infiltrates under another field (not under my plot).

 

1 hour ago, Drellingore said:

the drain/ditch/gulley isn't owned by Southern Water, nor National Highways, but Kent County Council. They have confirmed that they hold no details on it whatsoever other than there are two gullies that they are responsible for occasionally clearing. 

 

1 hour ago, Drellingore said:

 so the general binding rules are orthogonal to our situation.

 

If there's not an "authority" that owns the drainage adjacent to the road, I doubt it's going to be part of a larger surface water drainage network. Sounds like previous land owners, or perhaps the council, have taken local measures to put underground what previously ran in ditches, but probably caused some occasional local flooding. We have similar in our road, where a neighbouring farm allowed a ditch to be diverted under a corner of their field to give surface water an easier exit to a larger ditch then into a river.

 

If they were all still "ditches", there would be no issue discharging into them under the General Binding Rules as long as, at the point you were discharging, it remains "wet" for the majority of the year. Or are you saying the fact that you are in a "groundwater source protection zone 1" disallows this? I thought it stops the drainage field, but discharge directly to a water course was allowed.

 

Just because surface water ditches have been re-routed underground, it doesn't change their function, so they should be able to be treated as a water course in General Binding Rules terms. It would be nice to know they won't get blocked though.

[Drellingore]

1 hour ago, IanR said:

Or are you saying the fact that you are in a "groundwater source protection zone 1" disallows this?

 

Correct. Being in GWSPZ1 means one cannot meet the GBRs.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Drellingore

[ToughButterCup]

3 hours ago, Drellingore said:

...

I mentioned that we're in groundwater source protection zone 1, so a cesspool is the only acceptable option without an EA permit - thus it's highly likely to get planning permission.

...

 

Thank you very much. I'd forgotten that - and merely skim read your posts. 😔

[IanR]

1 hour ago, Drellingore said:

Correct. Being in GWSPZ1 means one cannot meet the GBRs.

 

Areas precluded from the GBR for discharge to a surface water are specifically listed as:

• biological sites of special scientific interest (SSSI)
• special protection areas
• special areas of conservation
• Ramsar wetland sites
• designated bathing water
• protected shellfish water
• freshwater pearl mussel population

Are you believing ground water protection zone 1 is covered by one of the above list, or have you got a reference elsewhere that precludes it? I'm not saying it's allowed, just haven't found the rule you are likely referring to.

[Drellingore]

18 hours ago, IanR said:

Are you believing ground water protection zone 1 is covered by one of the above list, or have you got a reference elsewhere that precludes it? I'm not saying it's allowed, just haven't found the rule you are likely referring to.

 

I'm grateful that you question that, because I was incorrect and you're right in that it only applies to groundwater discharges and surface water discharges are specifically exempted from rule 7.

 

Sadly I don't think it will change much for our case, as I think I'll be hard pushed to make the case that the ditch/gulley has flowing water

[joe90]

4 hours ago, Drellingore said:

Sadly I don't think it will change much for our case, as I think I'll be hard pushed to make the case that the ditch/gulley has flowing water

I discharge my treatment plant and surface water to a ditch that I informed them that was flowing 6 months of the year, no one actually checked it tho 🤷‍♂️. 

[ToughButterCup]

6 hours ago, Drellingore said:

..., as I think I'll be hard pushed to make the case that the ditch/gulley has flowing water

 

Did that ditch once have  flowing water?

I ask because last century, the ditch into which we (and now ten or more house discharge ) once had one or two houses discharging into it. And the volume of water in it then  was quite substantial. Now, there's just a trickle - almost all from discharges of the houses which surround the leet (as they call 'em oop ere).

 

Your ditch / gulley might once have carried enough water to be regarded as 'flowing' perhaps? See where this is going?

 

@joe90's point (above) is a good one. Nobody - but nobody is likely to check. Is that gulley regulalrly maintained?

[saveasteading]

1 hour ago, ToughButterCup said:

Nobody - but nobody is likely to check.

But that might be enough for the bco to say 'prove it'.

Bear in mind that a ditch is not  necessarily a water-course and, if it is, it might be the wrong direction.

[IanR]

11 hours ago, Drellingore said:

Sadly I don't think it will change much for our case, as I think I'll be hard pushed to make the case that the ditch/gulley has flowing water

 

The discharge to surface water rules have a contradiction. While there is a clear rule (19) stating you can't discharge to a water course "that does not contain flowing water throughout the year, unless there is a drought or an unusually long period of dry weather", in rule 20 it then allows a partial drainage field that permits waste water to soak into the ground, when the ground is dry. With this rule 20, the partial drainage field is still considered a discharge to surface water as long as the perforated pipe used between the treatment plant water course is no more than 10m from the water course.

 

You previously described a "land drain" installed by a previous tenant of your plot. Is this a piped drain? Could you replace a section of this with perforated pipe, if it isn't already perforated, and then discharge directly into it.

 

For my install BC made no checks on the discharge pipe. I supplied a drawing and stated the installation is covered by the GBR and that satisfied BC. The Environment Agency would only ever get involved if there was a pollution issue.

[ToughButterCup]

50 minutes ago, IanR said:

The discharge to surface water rules have a contradiction....

 

I would not like to face you in a Law Court.

 

PS, but then again, it might be fun .....

Edited February 26, 2023 by ToughButterCup

[Drellingore]

Thanks for the help and the insights, everyone.

 

13 hours ago, IanR said:

The Environment Agency would only ever get involved if there was a pollution issue.

 

That's one of the reasons why I'm taking giving this a fair bit of consideration. We're about 300m from the extraction point for the local water supply. The farmer who used to work the land told us that once there was a car crash on the main road next to our site, and to help out he towed one of the damaged vehicles onto the plot to unblock the road. The next day the water company turned up in a flap because they'd detected petrochemicals entering the water supply, which had apparently been from a crack in the petrol tank of the crashed car!

 

Of course we have no intention of putting petrochemicals down the drain (driving fully-electric here since 2013!) but it does give me the impression that they're going to be on it.

 

I'm off to try and find the exact route of this land drain today, which is going to be... Tedious.

[Kelvin]

Petrol leaked from a car and traveled 300m to the extraction point in less than 24 hours? 

[Drellingore]

15 minutes ago, Kelvin said:

Petrol leaked from a car and traveled 300m to the extraction point in less than 24 hours? 

 

That is what I am told, yes. I have no reason to believe that the chap in question would lie to me. It's a chalk valley.

[johncraig8229]

We had to get drainage specialists out to help us with a cess pit a few years ago. It tends to happen a lot in rural areas i think. Really couldn't recommend anyone else than [commercial link removed] they knew exactly what they were doing and they offer a lot of off main services if you are having issues  worth looking into. 

Edited February 27, 2023 by jack
Please don't post commercial links until you have established a reputation within the forum

[Drellingore]

Today I'll be out in the rain with a cat-and-genny, and a massive reel of copper that the previous owner left lying around...

[Drellingore]

On 27/02/2023 at 09:34, Kelvin said:

Petrol leaked from a car and traveled 300m to the extraction point in less than 24 hours? 

 

I found out a bit more about this. Firstly, I made a mistake and it's only 150m. Secondly, according to an ex-water company manager, the site is on a chalk faultline meaning that once stuff gets below a certain depth it's fast-tracked down to the aquifer.

[Kelvin]

11 minutes ago, Drellingore said:

 

I found out a bit more about this. Firstly, I made a mistake and it's only 150m. Secondly, according to an ex-water company manager, the site is on a chalk faultline meaning that once stuff gets below a certain depth it's fast-tracked down to the aquifer.

It’s interesting to me because I happen to have two boreholes side by side (about 6m apart) The one with the water is 147m deep and the dry one is 137m deep. I’ve had various folk from private water companies tell me all I need to do is cap it. However my concern is that by not backfilling it with suitable clean material I have a fast track for anything on the surface to get into our water. Certainly SEPA best practice is to backfill it. 

[Drellingore]

2 minutes ago, Kelvin said:

Certainly SEPA best practice is to backfill it. 

 

That definitely sounds safer to me. I don't know if it's different up there, but this chap was of the opinion that the Environment Agency in England will just defer to the private water company in question as to whether they think something is safe or not. Sounds like (as with many things) there's a more sensible system in Scotland.

[Drellingore]

On 24/02/2023 at 14:31, ToughButterCup said:

I would be stunned - delighted indeed - if anyone in ENGLAND did anything other than submit a set of guessed (but acceptable) numbers to the LPA. And a proper percolation test is expensive.

Planners are just to busy to check.

 

Only tangentially related, but the Environment Agency's groundwater risk assessment team have requested a site plan showing the percolation test hole locations. This isn't actually required on Form B6.5, but might be being requested in my case because we're in groundwater source protection zone one.

So, if you dig percolation test holes, make sure you keep a record of where exactly they were