Objection from watercourse

[deuce22]

Hi.

 

I have a planning application submitted and one of the objections is about a watercourse that is coming from a spring on the adjoining land behind my plot.

 

They have agreed to let me divert it away from the house, by accessing the ground behind me, but i have to get permission from the land owner first. I have spoken with him in the past and he is a bit strange, so i am pre-empting that he doesn’t allow me to do what I need. I have been told that I can’t allow it through the headwall and then connect a 90 degree bend to take it away from the property, it has to have a sweep, which means I can only do it this way by having access to his ground.

 

I’m trying to think of other ways to get around not having to move the position of the property if the owner doesn't allow me access.

Would it be possible to run an industrial type of Aco drain or some type of open culvert pipe across the back of the boundary on my side and then have the outlet however far away I need it?

 

I have attached some drawings.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

Existing_Watercourse.pdf

Accepted_Watercourse.pdf

Proposed_New_Watercourse.pdf

Edited January 8, 2019 by deuce22

[scottishjohn]

how much flow is there in this as from plan i am guessing it goes underground at bottom of your plot.

surely work out max flow then put a concrete/pvc  culvet twice or 3 times that flow rate with a inspection chamber  somewhere in case it gets blocked

although would be much simpler if you could do a proper deal with neighbour 

 

lets face it he can see a nice little earner here,as you would if in his place

[Jeremy Harris]

As above, the critical thing here is the maximum flow rate, together with the elevation.

 

As a gentle sweep has been suggested as the solution, I'm guessing that there may not be a great difference in height from the point where the water course enters your plot to the point where it goes underground.  On the face of it a straightforward concrete dam arrangement connected to a culvert might work, but if there isn't much height difference then this may well silt up (I think the risk of silting up may well be why gentle bends have been suggested).

 

Could you build a reasonably tall dam in the space between the house wall and the boundary, all on your side?  There are ways to encourage turbulence in order to prevent silting up, but it really depends a lot on how much variation in flow there is through the year, whether there's likely to be any debris in the flow and what the height difference is that you have to play with across the plot.

[deuce22]

The flow differs depending on the time of year, so I'm not sure of maximum flow. It goes into a chamber at the bottom and then into a 10" (roughly) concrete pipe. I asked about doing what you stated and keeping the direction of it, but they don't want it going under the property.

The guy behind is bizarre. He asked about having some land to the right, so he could create a drive and get access to his existing house further up. It would also open up an opportunity to develop the land he has behind me. I said he could have 20m x 3m as long as I could have some ground directly behind my house (roughly 15m x 2m) and he hasn't got back to me. It is way more valuable to him.

[deuce22]

2 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

As above, the critical thing here is the maximum flow rate, together with the elevation.

 

As a gentle sweep has been suggested as the solution, I'm guessing that there may not be a great difference in height from the point where the water course enters your plot to the point where it goes underground.  On the face of it a straightforward concrete dam arrangement connected to a culvert might work, but if there isn't much height difference then this may well silt up (I think the risk of silting up may well be why gentle bends have been suggested).

 

Could you build a reasonably tall dam in the space between the house wall and the boundary, all on your side?  There are ways to encourage turbulence in order to prevent silting up, but it really depends a lot on how much variation in flow there is through the year, whether there's likely to be any debris in the flow and what the height difference is that you have to play with across the plot.

 

There is around a 2.5m difference between the back and front of house and the ground continues to drop all the way to the chamber. I would guess that it's about 4m difference.

[Jeremy Harris]

Just now, deuce22 said:

 

There is around a 2.5m difference between the back and front of house and the ground continues to drop all the way to the chamber. I would guess that it's about 4m difference.

 

 

That's good news, as it probably means you could just build a dam and fairly deep collecting chamber where the water enters at your boundary.  Should be no problem in running a culvert along your side of the boundary and then down to where it now enters the chamber, I'd have thought.   The dam and collecting chamber on your side just needs to have a greater capacity than the existing chamber where the water exits your plot, so there's little risk of it ever over-topping.

 

[ToughButterCup]

3 hours ago, deuce22 said:

[...]

I’m trying to think of other ways to get around not having to move the position of the property if the owner doesn't allow me access.

[...]

 

Cant go round, eh? Well, go under it then.

[deuce22]

6 minutes ago, recoveringacademic said:

 

Cant go round, eh? Well, go under it then.

They won't let me. The want it to be accessible if it collapses.

[ToughButterCup]

Just now, deuce22 said:

They won't let me. The want it to be accessible if it collapses.

 

Rats.

[deuce22]

1 hour ago, JSHarris said:

 

 

That's good news, as it probably means you could just build a dam and fairly deep collecting chamber where the water enters at your boundary.  Should be no problem in running a culvert along your side of the boundary and then down to where it now enters the chamber, I'd have thought.   The dam and collecting chamber on your side just needs to have a greater capacity than the existing chamber where the water exits your plot, so there's little risk of it ever over-topping.

 

When you say no problem, Is there a rule of what can actually be done or is it different between different planners? When I met the drainage engineer on site, he just looked at the drawing and said "my boss won't allow it to go under the house" and didn't say anything else. I mentioned about diverting it and they agreed, but they want it to be open as much as possible. I can culvert it where the price will go.

Is it worth getting the exact difference in height?

[ToughButterCup]

Just now, deuce22 said:

[...]

and said "my boss won't allow it to go under the house"

[...]

 

To me, that is an open invitation to push the matter further.

 

What did the person talking to you think? Why didn't she say anything else? Did you push the issue abt further? 

[Jeremy Harris]

8 minutes ago, deuce22 said:

When you say no problem, Is there a rule of what can actually be done or is it different between different planners? When I met the drainage engineer on site, he just looked at the drawing and said "my boss won't allow it to go under the house" and didn't say anything else. I mentioned about diverting it and they agreed, but they want it to be open as much as possible. I can culvert it where the price will go.

Is it worth getting the exact difference in height?

 

I've had a look at the elevations, and a peek at the plot on Google Earth, and it looks as if the plot is going to be dug out and levelled where the house is going to sit, is that right?

 

If so, then it looks as if there may need to be a retaining wall or structure along the boundary where that watercourse is, and it may well be possible to build some form of deep, open culvert into that.  I've also read the observations in the consultation about drainage, where it notes that a 6m wide easement for access to the watercourse will be required.  Did that make it into the conditions of your planning consent?

 

When you say that you met the drainage engineer on site, was this someone that you've employed, or was this the person who wrote the objection in the consultation about drainage?  There's a very big difference, as someone employed by you should be able to offer you the most pragmatic solution; someone employed by the local authority almost certainly won't!

[deuce22]

4 minutes ago, recoveringacademic said:

 

To me, that is an open invitation to push the matter further.

 

What did the person talking to you think? Why didn't she say anything else? Did you push the issue abt further? 

Yes. They have agreed to let me divert it with a sweep from the ground behind, but I'm not sure if the owner will allow me to do it.

[deuce22]

3 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

 

I've had a look at the elevations, and a peek at the plot on Google Earth, and it looks as if the plot is going to be dug out and levelled where the house is going to sit, is that right?

 

If so, then it looks as if there may need to be a retaining wall or structure along the boundary where that watercourse is, and it may well be possible to build some form of deep, open culvert into that.  I've also read the observations in the consultation about drainage, where it notes that a 6m wide easement for access to the watercourse will be required.  Did that make it into the conditions of your planning consent?

 

When you say that you met the drainage engineer on site, was this someone that you've employed, or was this the person who wrote the objection in the consultation about drainage?  There's a very big difference, as someone employed by you should be able to offer you the most pragmatic solution; someone employed by the local authority almost certainly won't!

Yes, the ground will be dug down about a metre at the back and will be built up at the front. The plan was to use gabion baskets along the back. Would what you suggest still work with them?

The engineer was from planning and he was the one that objected it.

[Jeremy Harris]

2 minutes ago, deuce22 said:

Yes, the ground will be dug down about a metre at the back and will be built up at the front. The plan was to use gabion baskets along the back. Would what you suggest still work with them?

The engineer was from planning and he was the one that objected it.

 

That's pretty much what I thought, and I'd just lay the comments from the local authority bloke to one side for now, as he won't be looking to help you, or make your life any easier.

 

Gabions are cost-effective, but far from ideal I think, as you will need to create a retaining structure that's watertight, I'm sure.  As well as the established route from the spring(s) there is bound to be water coming down that slope in other places, perhaps just below the surface.  Not hard to deal with, but there needs to be a coordinated design undertaken by your structural engineer and someone who understands the local hydrology.  Incorporating a diversion for the spring water into the retaining structure shouldn't be too hard, and will ensure that there's minimal risk of water finding its way under your foundations.

 

One advantage you have is that the water flow in that area must be well-understood, as there is an old reservoir marked just below your plot, which I'm guessing may have been fed from these springs at one time.

 

 

[deuce22]

53 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

 

That's pretty much what I thought, and I'd just lay the comments from the local authority bloke to one side for now, as he won't be looking to help you, or make your life any easier.

 

Gabions are cost-effective, but far from ideal I think, as you will need to create a retaining structure that's watertight, I'm sure.  As well as the established route from the spring(s) there is bound to be water coming down that slope in other places, perhaps just below the surface.  Not hard to deal with, but there needs to be a coordinated design undertaken by your structural engineer and someone who understands the local hydrology.  Incorporating a diversion for the spring water into the retaining structure shouldn't be too hard, and will ensure that there's minimal risk of water finding its way under your foundations.

 

One advantage you have is that the water flow in that area must be well-understood, as there is an old reservoir marked just below your plot, which I'm guessing may have been fed from these springs at one time.

 

 

Nothing has been mentioned about create a watertight retaining wall, but I have been told that there will be plenty of land drains. I assumed that these would collect all the water and channel them into the watercourse. There are other areas that have water on, yes. The planning engineer said all surface water would go into the culverts at the bottom. If there was a watertight retaining wall wouldn't all the water behind just congregate? 

[Jeremy Harris]

1 hour ago, deuce22 said:

Nothing has been mentioned about create a watertight retaining wall, but I have been told that there will be plenty of land drains. I assumed that these would collect all the water and channel them into the watercourse. There are other areas that have water on, yes. The planning engineer said all surface water would go into the culverts at the bottom. If there was a watertight retaining wall wouldn't all the water behind just congregate? 

 

Your SE would be the best one to advise, but I think it may well be important to make sure that water cannot run underneath the house foundations, hence the suggestion that a watertight retaining wall may be needed.  We're in a slightly similar position, in that we needed to dig down and build a 2.5m high retaining wall behind our build, and found a couple of springs that had to be dealt with, plus an old clay land drain.  Our wall is reinforced concrete, but has a land drain perforated pipe running along behind it, plus a covering of gravel up to just below the backfilled ground level.  Any water that builds up just filters down to the land drain and then runs via a length of drain pipe to a big soakaway at the end of the wall, in the corner of our plot.

 

It sounds like you will need a more technical solution, but your retaining wall isn't anywhere near as high as ours, so the design will be a lot simpler and cheaper.  Have you already got someone lined up to do the design of the foundation system?  If not, I suggest looking for an SE to do the foundation and retaining wall design with experience of working with wet sites and the sort of hydrology you have in that area, as the chances are that your situation isn't that uncommon there and someone with local knowledge may already have a range of solutions that they have used before.

 

As a guide as to cost, I found an SE near to me that knew our area very well, and he designed our big retaining wall (it's around 35m long and up to 2.5m high), provided all the drawings, calculations, specifications for materials, reinforcement, concrete etc for £300 + VAT, so not a big expense in the overall scheme of things, and well worth it both for peace of mind and to keep building control and our insurance company happy.  As an idea as to how much bigger our retaining wall is, here's a photo of it together with the recently poured house foundation slab:

 

[AliMcLeod]

16 hours ago, deuce22 said:

The guy behind is bizarre. He asked about having some land to the right, so he could create a drive and get access to his existing house further up. It would also open up an opportunity to develop the land he has behind me. I said he could have 20m x 3m as long as I could have some ground directly behind my house (roughly 15m x 2m) and he hasn't got back to me. It is way more valuable to him.

 

If none of the other suggestions work out and you have to speak to your neighbour but accessing his land to do the "sweep", it probably makes sense (to both of you) to tie any agreement into the land-swap deal. Not ideal for you, but if i were him and you came to ask me now to move the pipe, i'd be looking for concessions on the land deal... Probably worth you having a think about what you're willing to give up. However, if his end game is to develop his land but requires your 20x3 piece, to do so you could  be in a strong position. 

Edited January 9, 2019 by AliMcLeod

[deuce22]

13 hours ago, JSHarris said:

 

Your SE would be the best one to advise, but I think it may well be important to make sure that water cannot run underneath the house foundations, hence the suggestion that a watertight retaining wall may be needed.  We're in a slightly similar position, in that we needed to dig down and build a 2.5m high retaining wall behind our build, and found a couple of springs that had to be dealt with, plus an old clay land drain.  Our wall is reinforced concrete, but has a land drain perforated pipe running along behind it, plus a covering of gravel up to just below the backfilled ground level.  Any water that builds up just filters down to the land drain and then runs via a length of drain pipe to a big soakaway at the end of the wall, in the corner of our plot.

 

It sounds like you will need a more technical solution, but your retaining wall isn't anywhere near as high as ours, so the design will be a lot simpler and cheaper.  Have you already got someone lined up to do the design of the foundation system?  If not, I suggest looking for an SE to do the foundation and retaining wall design with experience of working with wet sites and the sort of hydrology you have in that area, as the chances are that your situation isn't that uncommon there and someone with local knowledge may already have a range of solutions that they have used before.

 

As a guide as to cost, I found an SE near to me that knew our area very well, and he designed our big retaining wall (it's around 35m long and up to 2.5m high), provided all the drawings, calculations, specifications for materials, reinforcement, concrete etc for £300 + VAT, so not a big expense in the overall scheme of things, and well worth it both for peace of mind and to keep building control and our insurance company happy.  As an idea as to how much bigger our retaining wall is, here's a photo of it together with the recently poured house foundation slab:

 

The guy I'm using for this is an SE by profession and also does drawings and other Architects work (even though he isn't one). Really, he should be coming up with the solutions and telling me, not the other way around.

 

I'll have a word with him and see what he thinks. Thanks very much for your time and help.

[deuce22]

1 hour ago, AliMcLeod said:

 

If none of the other suggestions work out and you have to speak to your neighbour but accessing his land to do the "sweep", it probably makes sense (to both of you) to tie any agreement into the land-swap deal. Not ideal for you, but if i were him and you came to ask me now to move the pipe, i'd be looking for concessions on the land deal... Probably worth you having a think about what you're willing to give up. However, if his end game is to develop his land but requires your 20x3 piece, to do so you could  be in a strong position. 

I'd prefer not to get involved with him at all as I think it'll be a big hassle. I believe that he is getting the better deal as I am giving him double the amount and it opens up potential for development. I'll see what Happens with the SE.

Thanks.

[Jeremy Harris]

3 minutes ago, deuce22 said:

The guy I'm using for this is an SE by profession and also does drawings and other Architects work (even though he isn't one). Really, he should be coming up with the solutions and telling me, not the other way around.

 

I'll have a word with him and see what he thinks. Thanks very much for your time and help.

 

 

You're welcome, and I think you're wise to push your SE to come up with some ideas.  My experience with mine was very positive, in that he already knew exactly how to tackle our potential problems, from a mix of experience and good local knowledge.

[Ferdinand]

@deuce22

 

From a different angle, do you have to bury this?

Can you make it a defining garden feature with waterfalls, maybe fountains, and a "babbling brook", and perhaps a cistern with a pump for feeding your hose pipe and outdoor shower? Some magnificent gardens have been designed around springs on hillsides. Or could your "dam" be a reflecting pool and a fountain?

 

In a flight of fancy could you build a natural swimming pond?

 

Could be far more economical than digging holes and building walls and dams and culverts, and no one could dispute the accessibility.

 

Ferdinand

(carefully avoids mentioning cherub based on @pocster's avatar).

Edited January 9, 2019 by Ferdinand

[deuce22]

3 hours ago, Ferdinand said:

@deuce22

 

From a different angle, do you have to bury this?

Can you make it a defining garden feature with waterfalls, maybe fountains, and a "babbling brook", and perhaps a cistern with a pump for feeding your hose pipe and outdoor shower? Some magnificent gardens have been designed around springs on hillsides. Or could your "dam" be a reflecting pool and a fountain?

 

In a flight of fancy could you build a natural swimming pond?

 

Could be far more economical than digging holes and building walls and dams and culverts, and no one could dispute the accessibility.

 

Ferdinand

(carefully avoids mentioning cherub based on @pocster's avatar).

The plan is to do something with the part that has to stay open, similar to those things you've mentioned. The only part that will be culverted is where the drive will be.

 

Drive.pdf

Edited January 9, 2019 by deuce22

[Ferdinand]

Just now, deuce22 said:

The plan is to do something with the part that has to stay open, similar to those things you've mentioned. The only part that will be culverted is where the drive will be.

Drive.pdf

 

Good.

 

Personally I would be wondering about growing watercress...

[Mr Punter]

Salmon fishing?