Building over manhole cover on public sewer?

[loply]

Hi folks,

I was planning on building something over what I thought was an inspection chamber to a private drain, but have since discovered it's actually a manhole cover for a public sewer which serves one other property before passing over my land and heading off to join some others.

The cover is there because, judging by the plans, there's a change in direction.

Is it possible to have this moved at all by the water co?

Cheers,
Rich

 

[Hugh Jaleak]

Moving it (if allowed or possible) can only be done at your expense, with the Water Co's permission, and to their specification. The Water Co haven't got an issue with the chamber in its current position I would imagine, if it's in the way of your proposed building works then the expense of moving it also falls to you.

 

[conny]

Only people that could truthfully answer this question is the water company themselves.

Take some photo's or draw a sketch plan of the cover and explain what you want to do and ask if they can help in any way. If their reply is that they can't help then ask them if they know who the relevant people may be.

You could get all kinds of advice on here from agreement that you could move it, to downright flat denial that you could.

You would also possibly get instructions on how to do it and what materials you need if you asked nicely, but! It will all depend on whether you can get permission of the relevant authorities.

 

[loply]

Yeah I will ring the water co tomorrow. I know they're the only people who can give me the real answer, but rather awfully I'm due to complete on this property in 48 hours time, and without the ability to build over this sewer it isnt worth buying.

Just reading on the water company website, it seems to imply they have a duty to divert public sewers on private property where the sewer is preventing development, which sounds promising.

However, it confesses that it is a 'protracted process' and recommends you budget at least 7 months for this to occur

I've briefly sketched out what the layout appears to be, the sewer currently runs between the existing house and a detatched double garage, before joining a long run down the back of everyone's gardens. I would need to divert it along the blue path in order to create clearance for the new development.

Any comments on feasibility/timescale? Bloody last minute hickups

Cheers,
Rich

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yeah I will ring the water co tomorrow. I know they're the only people who can give me the real answer, but rather awfully I'm due to complete on this property in 48 hours time, and without the ability to build over this sewer it isnt worth buying.

Then don't buy it.

Just reading on the water company website, it seems to imply they have a duty to divert public sewers on private property where the sewer is preventing development, which sounds promising.

Sounds remarkably remiss of them if that means they have a duty to move it at their expense. Are you sure that they don't have a duty to move it, but at the developer's expense?

I would need to divert it along the blue path in order to create clearance for the new development.

That goes under a building....

 

[loply]

Sorry I didn't make myself clear, they won't move it at their expense of course, you can either pay them or use an approved contractor.

The building under the blue line is coming down.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Sorry I didn't make myself clear, they won't move it at their expense of course, you can either pay them or use an approved contractor.

The world resumes turning.

I guess their "duty" then is that they may not refuse to have it moved.

The building under the blue line is coming down.

And nothing going back up? I know each undertaker has their own rules, but down here you aren't allowed to put new builds up over sewers, irrespective of how you engineer it, where manholes are etc.

 

[loply]

An extension is going up but will be entirely within the blue line.

If they'd let me build the extension over the sewer it would be good as I'd simply need to move the manhole cover and would still only have two turns in the line, else it needs redirecting as illustrated.

 

[conny]

Unless you can get written permission within the remaining time I would walk away.

Maybe this is the reason the current sellers are moving. They had similar plans but were rejected permission. Worth a quick phone call to ask them reason for selling and if they had this in mind at any time.

By 'due to complete within 48 hours' do you mean due to exchange first or final contracts?

 

[jeds]

Wessex water (the authority I deal with most) will not allow public manholes inside buildings. I've tried several times on behalf of clients. Sewer lines under buildings is no problem. Moving a manhole is no problem. Diverting a sewer is no problem. But they will not, under any circumstances, allow a public manhole inside. I don't know about other authorities. If anybody knows of one that does allow this I'd be interested in the details.

 

[loply]

Hi folks,

Due to complete tomorrow. I know, I know, I should have figured all this out.

The plot has thickened somewhat as I've just been round to the property and the manhole cover which, according to the plans the solicitor got from her searches, is a public sewer serving the other property, does not appear to be so.

I had a snoop round the neighbours gardens and they let me pull their covers up, and I photographed the inside of two manhole covers inside 'my' land and you can see there is no inlet for any other property there (or it's been blocked off if so?).

I rang the water authority and spoke to a chap there who told me the only manhole cover is the one in the back garden of the property to the north of my property, which as it happens is built up out of ground level by about 4ft. His plan didn't show the connections coming from the two properties to the south. He said he does show a main sewer crossing my property on approximately the same line illustrated above, but just no man holes. He had no idea why our plans might be different.

Bit confused now to be honest. I think the two manhole covers I've photographed below are clearly just for the various gullies around the property and aren't serving anyone else.

What I'm wondering is whether there's a much bigger pipe a meter or two further down? Especially since the neighbor to the north has that strange contraption in their back garden.

Really appreciate the advice by the way folks.

1:

2:

All a bit confused now,

 

[jeds]

Pictures of manholes don't really tell us anything. The problem you have is that not all sewers appear on the sewer authority map. So there may be a shared sewer that isn't shown. The only way to know what goes where is water test and/or cctv survey. Problem with the water testing is knowing where to test from? In other words you'd have to test every property in every direction, which is fine when there are only two or three possibilities but difficult when the lines could be coming from anywhere.

I also presume the sewer line shown on your map flows North - i.e. away from your house.

 

[loply]

Yes it flows to the north.

I guess the main point I was making is that inspection chamber #1 there quite clearly isn't a main sewer, but according to the plan it should be.

 

[jeds]

Your only option then is to cctv survey each line to establish exactly where it goes, or water test everything in every direction to prove that nothing flows onto your boundary and down that North line.

 

[loply]

Okay, I think I've safely concluded that the two manhole covers are in fact just inspection chambers for the 'private' gullies etc.

I've got a new plan (shown below) which indicates the main sewer has NO manhole covers at all, contrary to the older looking plan which my solicitor had which showed it had two.

I think somebody has erroneously attributed two 'private' inspection chambers as manhole covers to the main sewer.

The actual layout is shown below therefore, so hopefully all I need is a build-over agreement for the main sewer which I think is at about 2m depth anyway (that's what the 2.27 means?).

One final question though - the triangle shown on the gray line - is this just to indicate direction of flow? The key on that plan indicates it may be a 'pumping station' but there's one every 25 meters or so, so that seems unlikely?