What to do with manhole covers?

[jassdhali]

Hi,
Where I am planning to have my Porch (outline in Red)

Untitled

• jassdhali
• 18 Jul 2011
• 1

The floor as you can see in the picture has 3 metal manhole covers.
Does anybody have any suggestions as to what I can do regarding them.
I dont really want to start digging the drainage system up. I know I would need access to them for blockages, but totally stumped how..
Thanks guys

 

[Richard C]

You can fit sealed inspection covers which will also take tiles so you can hide them to a certain extent; I wouldn’t fit them in an extension or a cons but a porch then maybe. It shouldn’t be too much of a problem but the fact that you have 3 in the area makes me wonder what type/size they are & how big the porch is? Sizes & more description needed.

Building Regs for outbuildings were changed in 2010 & if you exceed 3 sq/m externally, you now need planning permission;
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/porch/

 

[tim00]

Something odd about this post. A porch at the rear, tight against your fence?
3 no. M/H's in a short distance running into "your neighbour's drive"?
Where is your soil pipe located? Has work been done on your drainage in the past?
Perhaps if you posted pics it would help me, anyway.

Answers to Richard's Q's would also help.

 

[jassdhali]

You can fit sealed inspection covers which will also take tiles so you can hide them to a certain extent; I wouldn’t fit them in an extension or a cons but a porch then maybe. It shouldn’t be too much of a problem but the fact that you have 3 in the area makes me wonder what type/size they are & how big the porch is? Sizes & more description needed.

Building Regs for outbuildings were changed in 2010 & if you exceed 3 sq/m externally, you now need planning permission;
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/porch/[/QUOTE]
We already have planning for a single storey extension - but failed Building regs as we have a mineshaft within 10m of the house. So I am considering Cons/porch, as building regs aren't required. The area is approx. 3m x 5m. So if I were to go for a porch, I dont believe PP that would be too much of an issue.
I will confirm as we had a survey done originally for the extension, but off the top of my head they are 100mm pipes. Not sure why there are 3 inspection covers - but have been there since we had the house - well over 20 years.
I would actually like to have a proper floor covering in the building whether it be a porch or conservatory..
Dose that help?

 

[jassdhali]

Something odd about this post. A porch at the rear, tight against your fence?
3 no. M/H's in a short distance running into "your neighbour's drive"?
Where is your soil pipe located? Has work been done on your drainage in the past?
Perhaps if you posted pics it would help me, anyway.

Answers to Richard's Q's would also help.

Tim, pic may be a bit off, but, the porch is on the back of the house - off the kitchen. So the main wall is against neighbours boundary wall. The drain runs into back of neighbours garage, where it is shared to the main.
I will update pic with soil pipe location, but no work has ever been done to the drainage.
At the back of the house I have a garden running approx. 30m long and width of house, so there is no issue with space at the back.
Hope answers to Richard's Q's help. Thanks

 

[Richard C]

This could be interesting; //www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=278544
Seems to have established that since the Building Regs change in October 2010, there no longer seems to be any fundamental difference between the classification of a porch & a cons. The planning portal, however, still shows there is, specifically a maximum size of 3 sq/m porch; whereas it’s 30 sq/m for a cons. Looking at the definitions of each, it seems that a conservatory is not a conservatory when it’s forward of the principal elevation or side elevation fronting a highway, it’s then a Porch. I think the latest changes have made things more confusing rather than easier to understand.

If you meet the rest of the criteria for a Cons, I would suggest that’s what your building rather than a porch & as it is less than 30 sq/m you don’t need Building Regs. I would advise you seek guidance from your LABC, obtain a certificate of lawfulness as far as your current planning is concerned & get written confirmation it will be treated as a cons & exempt from Building Regs.

As for the drains, it’s difficult to understand why there are 3 MH. You’re allowed one up to 45 degree change in direction if you have access from both ends so unless there are side connections you should be able to get rid of one or even all of them if you introduce a new one outside the building line; not possible to say without more information about the foul drain run.

 

[jassdhali]

Richard,

The svp actually connects to MH2, so all waste is down that way.
So what your saying is the LABC will stil give advice even though building Regs dont apply??
If I was to introduce a new waste pipe outside the property, for access for rodding, that may work?

 

[jassdhali]

Since last posting - I have pulled up manhole covers & only MH1 has soil pipe connected to it.
However the open gully (its all brick and clay work) is only 19 inches deep going into main sewer pipe leading out of property? Is this deep enough??
I know looking at regs that the max depth for waste pipe from WC should be 1.3M - is there a minimum depth?
Cheers

 

[Richard C]

The svp actually connects to MH2, so all waste is down that way.
So what your saying is the LABC will stil give advice even though building Regs dont apply??

BR’s may not apply to the Cons/porch but they still apply to the foul drain. My advice to seeking guidance from LABC was for the exemption/lawfulness of your con’s not the drainage. As far as any modifications to the foul drain goes, you need to establish exactly what you currently have (I’m a little confused at the moment), work out what you’re going to do & then consult LABC; they may want to inspect.

If I was to introduce a new waste pipe outside the property, for access for rodding, that may work?

I need to understand what you have & what you’re proposing &, as I said, I’m a little confused at the moment; a drawing with some photos usually does the trick.

Since last posting - I have pulled up manhole covers & only MH1 has soil pipe connected to it.

Your previous post stated the SVP connected to MH2, which is it? What feeds MH1? where does MH3 fir into the equation?

However the open gully (its all brick and clay work) is only 19 inches deep going into main sewer pipe leading out of property? Is this deep enough??

If by open gulley you mean the insoection hatch & clay work is the drain invert (pipework) the depth is more than deep enough.
Refer to Part H;
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADH_2002.pdf
Diagram 10, (page 17) for bedding for rigid & flexible foul drains.

I know looking at regs that the max depth for waste pipe from WC should be 1.3M - is there a minimum depth?

Your missunderstanding the regs; the 1.3 max depths to the drain invert only applies to a unventilated directly connected W/C or an unventilated stub stack where the highest branch is <2m; it does not apply to a ventilated soil stack.

Minimum depth will be as above, depending on the type of pipework.

 

[jassdhali]

Sorry for the confusion Richard, I will put up a pic of what I am proposing to do very soon ( Pc crashed, lost everything )
Regarding the clay work, there are a lot of cracks around and inside it.
So was going to class this as a repair?

 

[Richard C]

Sorry for the confusion Richard, I will put up a pic of what I am proposing to do very soon ( Pc crashed, lost everything )

Regarding the clay work, there are a lot of cracks around and inside it.
So was going to class this as a repair?

Again, lets have a pic. Yes replacing/reinstating would be classed as a repair.

 

[jassdhali]

Richard, I will try and explain with pics, try not to leave you more confused.

After double checking for the third time - SVP goes into MH#1 honest

Untitled

• jassdhali
• 9 Aug 2011
• 1

This is what I was saying about introducing a rodding point outside of the new room. Hope this is self explanatory.

manhole #1 is this:

MH #1

• jassdhali
• 9 Aug 2011
• 1

I hope you can see my comments and the flow.

manhole #2 is this:

MH #2

• jassdhali
• 9 Aug 2011
• 1

the only waste is domestic water & rainwater.

manhole #3 is this:

MH #3

• jassdhali
• 9 Aug 2011
• 1

the only waste is rainwater.
-- As you may notice - claywork is cracked in several places. --

The far end according to Severn Trent was a route to next doors drains, under both gardens, but as I said previously, this was dissproved as we had a drain inspection carried out about 18months ago.

Hope you are with me so far

I propose to remove MH#2 & MH#3 & route rainwater to a drain outside the boundary for extension, but back into the sewer as the soil here is clay and a soakway is not advised by LABC.
MH#1 I intend to put in an inspection chamber with riser and a double seal manhole cover ( as this will be an inhabitable room ) to cover access issue for rodding.

Regarding the original cast iron SVP, I spoke with architect who did plans for loft, and as we had a bathroom put in there, he had already agreed with council to replace the remainder of the SVP that the new one is attached to. So in fact I would have new pipes through to the public sewer inlet.

I know its a lot to read but I hope you have the time to have a look & give me your considered opinion.
Thanks again

 

[Richard C]

From the latest info, I’d also remove M/H 2 & 3 & reroute the surface water outside the extension boundary into a new inspection chamber. This should be OK with LABC as you are not introducing any new connections, just rerouting the originals. Draining additional surface water into it from an extension roof may be another matter though & you should check this will be permitted with your local Water Authority as well as an LABC inspector (not the tea lady ). In almost all cases, local by-laws prevent new surface water connections & the last thing you want is for it to be kicked into touch after you’ve built or, indeed, face the possibility of a fine!

If at all possible, I would still be looking at removing M/H 1 from inside the extension; it’s not ideal & may put any future prospective purchasers off. Instead of creating just a new rodding point outside the boundary, is it not possible to build a new inspection chamber & route the foul & surface water drains through this? Even if it involves repositioning/rerouting the SVP, it would be a much better & more desirable solution.

Sorry for delay in responding, been away.

 

[jassdhali]

Hi Richard hope you had a good break
I think I need one as I have just read my whole post and can't belive what a total Numpty I have been!!!
I am so sorry and if you dont reply I dont blame you at all.

MH3 is the one that has the SVP going to it - the others MH2 & MH3 are rain water only, I got everything on the pic labelled wrong.

Untitled

• jassdhali
• 15 Aug 2011
• 1

So in my pics - MH1 is actually a pic of MH3 as per the pic I have now uploaded with SVP leading into it, that is why I thought the only way was to have an inspection point there.

So the rodding point stays as it is and the inspection cover stays there just in case of any eventualities.
I would like to move SVP all the way to back of the house but believe that would be way to much travelling for the foul waste.

Again so sorry if I have wasted your time

 

[Richard C]

What I posted still stands; I would advise loosing the inspection cover inside the extension if at all possible, even if it means installing new chambers & negotiating with your neighbour to reroute/replace a section of his foul drain.