External Air Admittance Valve ?

[denso13]

any such 'legal requirement' (or not) is determined solely by the Building Regs.

Yes, but they have a lot of leeway given by regulation 11. I can't believe they'd insist on an application for such things as AAV's only. But who knows.

Do you agree with all that?

Yes, which has always been my general understanding, https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/new-soil-stack-not-as-easy-as-i-thought.612648/#post-5501613. New above ground drainage (where there was none before) requires notification. Although it gets silly if you are say extending a basin waste by 100mm, I'd hope someone somewhere would see sense.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, but they have a lot of leeway given by regulation 11.

That's true, but ....

I can't believe they'd insist on an application for such things as AAV's only. But who knows.

... the problem there is that, unless they exercise their 'leeway', the legal obligation to notify exists, so one has to ask them before one can determine that they are happy to waive the requirement to notify - buy which time it would be 'too late' if theye were (I agree unlikley) to give the wrong answer.

Yes, which has always been my general understanding, https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/new-soil-stack-not-as-easy-as-i-thought.612648/#post-5501613. New above ground drainage (where there was none before) requires notification. Although it gets silly if you are say extending a basin waste by 100mm, I'd hope someone somewhere would see sense.

Fair enough.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

@denso13 , you edited away your comment about Section 3 of the Building Regs before I had a chance to respond, but it seemed to me that you were perhaps opening up a can of worms that I had never previously considered!

If one assumes that the entirety of the Building Regs applies only to "building works" then, in Sction 3 (which defines "building work"), as you implied, the only relevant part of 3(1) is 3(1)(c) (which refers to "material alteration of a controlled service"). 3(2) then defines a "material alteration" as something which creates, or worsens, a non-compliance with a "relevant requirement" and, finally, 3(3) defines '"relevant requirements" as only being requirements in Parts A, B and M.

I think I must be missing something, since that series of definitions would appear to be suggesting that absolutely no plumbing (or electrical, or many other things) could possibly count as "building work" - and so, I would have thought, not within the scope of the Building Regs at all!

What am I missing?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

[I think I must be missing something, since that series of definitions would appear to be suggesting that absolutely no plumbing (or electrical, or many other things) could possibly count as "building work" - and so, I would have thought, not within the scope of the Building Regs at all!
What am I missing?

Ah - perhaps this is why you 'edited away' your previous comment! What I was 'missing' is that, in addition to 3(1)(c) (relating only to 'material alterations' - which, per their definitions, cannot arise in relation to either plumbing or electrical work), there is also 3(1)(b),which says:

(b) the provision or extension of a controlled service or fitting in or in connection with a building;

As you probably realised, this means that, as far as Section 3 is concerned, any plumbing or electrical work qualifies as 'building work - so I think we're back to the fact that any plumbing work is notifiable unless it is listed in Schedule 4, or the need for notification is waived by the individual LABC?

For electrical work, this is essentially over-ridden by (in Amendment) 12(6A), which restricts the requirement for notification (in England) to just three types of work, but I don't think there is any equivalent for plumbing.

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

As you probably realised, this means that, as far as Section 3 is concerned, any plumbing or electrical work qualifies as 'building work - so I think we're back to the fact that any plumbing work is notifiable unless it is listed in Schedule 4, or the need for notification is waived by the individual LABC?

Yes, I thought perhaps I had found something but had mistakenly overlooked 3(1)(b).

... the problem there is that, unless they exercise their 'leeway'

Yes, and it could be that "leeway" requires them to consider an application to relax the rules and respond in writing.

I used to know the head of Building Control locally and have phoned in the past for general advice. He left some time ago but it would have been interesting to know his thoughts.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, I thought perhaps I had found something but had mistakenly overlooked 3(1)(b).

That makes two of us, then

Yes, and it could be that "leeway" requires them to consider an application to relax the rules and respond in writing.

Indeed - it's potentially a bit of a 'Catch 22' / vicious circle, since I suspect that, in a strict formal sense, one probably has to 'make an Application' in order to ascertain whether they are prepared to waive the nee for an Application!

I used to know the head of Building Control locally and have phoned in the past for general advice. He left some time ago but it would have been interesting to know his thoughts.

My experiences are the same in relation to electrical matters. Most of them are sensible/pragmatic and happy to give ('informal') general advice. Indeed, in relation to the AAV, the guy I was in communication with was very happy to 'give advice', and did so very rapidly, even if his advice was daft!

However, as above, I'm not sure whether, strictly speaking, a verbal 'waiving of the need to notify' would have much legal status. I suppose I have nothing to loose by asking the 'AAV guy' whether "I am right in thinking" that this is a situation in which they would waive the (theoretical/'strict') need for 'notification.

Kind Regards, John