Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Marks DTM Calib on 07 July 2010, 11:40:30
-
I have an on going arguement with Market Harborough building control department who, from what I have researched, dont know the regs!
The scenario is an extension where the rainwater from the roof is being discharged into a water butt with no further provision to manage drainage!
My understanding of Part H3 (Drainage and waste disposal - Rainwater drainage) of the building regulations is that the following options must be followed in priority order:
1) Discharge into a soak away or infiltration system.
2) Discharge to a water course.
3) Discharge to a sewer.
The solution in question has none of these and hence once the water butt is full, it will over flow and cause damp issues with the construction which it is adjacent to.
Clearly this is not an acceptable solution and one the builder should be addressing as per the architects plans (which describes discharge into a sewer).
Assuming the standard figure of 0.014 litres/second/m2 of rainfall intensity (taken from H3) and an approximate roof footprint of 12m2 (estimate) we could get 10 litres per minute of water discharged. This would fill a 210 litre water butt in 21 minutes and hence why the building regulations do not support such a rain water control solution.
So if anybody know about such things then any feedback would be appreciated!
-
I am assuming this affects you, personally, if it was me affected, would pop over with my Makita drill and 'add' some drainage to the side of the water butt :D - But on their side ;D
-
No need, they are leaving the tap permanently open!
But, I am concerned that the building control officer might sign this extension off!
-
No need, they are leaving the tap permanently open!
But, I am concerned that the building control officer might sign this extension off!
Then whats the point of it? :-/ - Guessings its cheaper than having drains routed to the correct place?
Grandpa tunnie has waterbutt at his extension, the over-flow is a simple bit of hose than runs to the drain at the back of the house
-
No need, they are leaving the tap permanently open!
But, I am concerned that the building control officer might sign this extension off!
That's OK until the tap blocks up with crud, which it will in short order as it's skimming debris off the top of the water.
It's clearly an unacceptable arrangement, and I can't imagine how it could be seen to meet building regs but there seems to be an increasing tendency to turn a blind eye to rubbish that doesn't conform in this country. >:(
Kevin
-
No need, they are leaving the tap permanently open!
But, I am concerned that the building control officer might sign this extension off!
That's OK until the tap blocks up with crud, which it will in short order as it's skimming debris off the top of the water.
It's clearly an unacceptable arrangement, and I can't imagine how it could be seen to meet building regs but there seems to be an increasing tendency to turn a blind eye to rubbish that doesn't conform in this country. >:(
Kevin
Its not ok as the water is discharging adjacent to the foundations and will cause damp issues (hence why the regs say a soak away must be sited 5m from a foundation and a road). :y
-
No need, they are leaving the tap permanently open!
But, I am concerned that the building control officer might sign this extension off!
That's OK until the tap blocks up with crud, which it will in short order as it's skimming debris off the top of the water.
It's clearly an unacceptable arrangement, and I can't imagine how it could be seen to meet building regs but there seems to be an increasing tendency to turn a blind eye to rubbish that doesn't conform in this country. >:(
Kevin
Its not ok as the water is discharging adjacent to the foundations and will cause damp issues (hence why the regs say a soak away must be sited 5m from a foundation and a road). :y
Didn't mean to imply it was acceptable, of course. It will soon fill up and start discharging over the back of the butt and down the wall, though. ;D
Kevin
-
Mark, if it could affect your property all you need to do is get in touch with the legal department at your house insurers. A letter from them holding your neighbour liable, blah, blah will be enough to make them rethink their design, I feel sure. :y
-
Mark, if it could affect your property all you need to do is get in touch with the legal department at your house insurers. A letter from them holding your neighbour liable, blah, blah will be enough to make them rethink their design, I feel sure. :y
Already started that process thanks Nickbat.
My big concern is that building control might actualy sign this work off!
-
I have an on going arguement with Market Harborough building control department who, from what I have researched, dont know the regs!
The scenario is an extension where the rainwater from the roof is being discharged into a water butt with no further provision to manage drainage!
My understanding of Part H3 (Drainage and waste disposal - Rainwater drainage) of the building regulations is that the following options must be followed in priority order:
1) Discharge into a soak away or infiltration system.
2) Discharge to a water course.
3) Discharge to a sewer.
The solution in question has none of these and hence once the water butt is full, it will over flow and cause damp issues with the construction which it is adjacent to.
Clearly this is not an acceptable solution and one the builder should be addressing as per the architects plans (which describes discharge into a sewer).
Assuming the standard figure of 0.014 litres/second/m2 of rainfall intensity (taken from H3) and an approximate roof footprint of 12m2 (estimate) we could get 10 litres per minute of water discharged. This would fill a 210 litre water butt in 21 minutes and hence why the building regulations do not support such a rain water control solution.
So if anybody know about such things then any feedback would be appreciated!
Mark, This is what should be followed as it was agreed when planning permission was granted. Any deviation from this would mean having to re apply for planning permission. HTH :y
-
I have an on going arguement with Market Harborough building control department who, from what I have researched, dont know the regs!
The scenario is an extension where the rainwater from the roof is being discharged into a water butt with no further provision to manage drainage!
My understanding of Part H3 (Drainage and waste disposal - Rainwater drainage) of the building regulations is that the following options must be followed in priority order:
1) Discharge into a soak away or infiltration system.
2) Discharge to a water course.
3) Discharge to a sewer.
The solution in question has none of these and hence once the water butt is full, it will over flow and cause damp issues with the construction which it is adjacent to.
Clearly this is not an acceptable solution and one the builder should be addressing as per the architects plans (which describes discharge into a sewer).
Assuming the standard figure of 0.014 litres/second/m2 of rainfall intensity (taken from H3) and an approximate roof footprint of 12m2 (estimate) we could get 10 litres per minute of water discharged. This would fill a 210 litre water butt in 21 minutes and hence why the building regulations do not support such a rain water control solution.
So if anybody know about such things then any feedback would be appreciated!
Mark, This is what should be followed as it was agreed when planning permission was granted. Any deviation from this would mean having to re apply for planning permission. HTH :y
Sadly thats not the case.
Planning are not interested, its only present on the plans because they used the same plans to support a full plans submission to building control.
Its building control that have to enforce this bit. :y
-
At the end of the day, there is always the Ombudsman:
http://www.lgo.org.uk/publications/fact-sheets/complaints-about-building-control/
-
At the end of the day, there is always the Ombudsman:
http://www.lgo.org.uk/publications/fact-sheets/complaints-about-building-control/
Thanks Nickbat, added to favourites
-
i would contact the lbc and find out who there inspector is shoe him photos and he should see your point of view damp can cause a lot of problems and the spors from it can make you very ill
the water butt is good idea but only for garden shed ecw
-
Would have thought it was obvious that all rainwater should be drained efficiently, was the extension built to the rules in the 1st place or did the owner cut corners one the building was up.
Either way, common sence would have told me that if I instelled a water butt it will fill up one day, I would have then fitted an overflow system back into the drain pipe/system (opps, you cant in this case - as that is the reason for your complaint ::) )
-
They are a government dept, of course they don't know what they are doing >:(
-
There will or should be a BC manager, I would refer to them and not the inspector potentially agreeing on no drainage or soakaway 5m away from foundations. Planning won't be interested as not an issue for them, BC deal with drainage etc, and is in their realm.
If linked to a new build or additional works to an existing building then they should be making an application to BC to inspect and approve. :y
Sounds like their a bunch of numpties, so legal route may be your last resort. However, you could appraoch your local councillor or the Council's chief exec and make a complaint regarding the issue :y
-
I had a confirmation back this afternoon from the principle bulding control officer stating that I am indeed correct.
So I have it in an email.
I have since spoken to him and sent him the application details so he is going to pay a visit.
The building control application is a full plans (as opposed to a building noice) submission and hence they have only so far carried out a first inspection and not a final one.
He has added the concern to the case notes so I think we have them by the goolies!