I have a small conundrum and am hoping that someone here might have been in a similar situation and can advise. I'm currently buying a plot with DPP. It has a long and chequered planning history, with several refusals along the way. Initially the water company declared the plot was not in a foul sewered area and so a package treatment plant was going to be the solution. By the final (successful) planning application the water company had changed their mind and said it was in a foul sewered area, so the EA have now said a package treatment plant isn't acceptable.

The problem is that to connect to the nearest sewer connection point means installing a pumping station and digging up around 100 metres of public highway to lay a new pumped sewer, just for one two bedroom house. Initial cost estimates show this to be prohibitively expensive, several tens of thousands of pounds.

I am planning to go back to the EA and explain that connection to the main sewer is not feasible, on the grounds that it would be prohibitively expensive (probably not a particularly sound argument) and also on the grounds that there was a mistake made originally in assuming that mains drainage was nearby (this seems to have just been a cock-up, where the steep hill and distance to the nearest access point to the sewer wasn't taken account of).

The plot is outside of any groundwater protection zone, has a watercourse running down one side and hasn't got enough suitable land area for a conventional soakaway drainage field because of the gradient. My plan is to fit a low energy treatment plant, something like a Biorock.

Has anyone ever managed to do something similar and get the EA to agree to a change like this?

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: renewablejohn</cite>Classic case of buyer beware. If your mad enough to buy it knowing the cost of water connection why should the EA bail you out with a cheaper solution.

Myself I would not touch it with a barge pole</blockquote>

Thank you for that well thought through and erudite bit of advice. If you read what I wrote you will see that I actually put "I'm currently buying a plot with DPP". Note the use of the present tense.............

The question is partly one relating to price and negotiation, plus an element of cock-up during the planning process. All I am trying to do is determine the art of the possible, in this particular instance, what constitutes "feasible" in terms of the wording of the EA prioritised list of sewerage disposal options. The EA won't say, there's some guidance from other areas that more than 30 metres along a highway is unreasonable (but not from the EA themselves) and the water company take ten days to respond to queries. I am trying to do proper due diligence checks before buying, by exploring all the options, in accordance with caveat emptor.

Anyone, getting around to your load of cobblers about "why should the EA bail you out with a cheaper solution". The simple answer is that cost isn't the only issue. The local community will be severely buggered about by having a single track lane closed and dug up for around 100 metres, there will be noise, a buggered up road surface (the lane was recently resurfaced) and the inconvenience of the road closure whilst the work is done.

Not everything in life revolves around money.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: renewablejohn</cite>I do realise your still in the process of doing due diligence and looking through rose tinted spectacles. But get down to reality and ask yourself why has it taken so long to get through planning. Why do they not want to develop it themselves now they have DPP. If you can honestly answer the questions in a positive light then by all means go ahead with the purchase. Either way it is no skin off my nose. I find the EA extremely helpful but only in ways which comply with there long term strategy anything which goes against there policy which this clearly does will prove very expensive in trying to argue the case without any guarantee of success.</blockquote>

Exactly what I am doing. The EA have been fed duff gen by the water company, which is at the core of the problem. Originally the water company said there was no sewer in the area, then they said there was in another application made later. The water company local chap reckons it's not really practical to run a pumped outlet from a domestic pump that far and that high and thinks his head office assume that the world is flat............

The EA won't accept phone calls, only letters, so there's a time delay before I get an answer from them. I'm up against some time pressure because plots are hard to get and there are always more people looking for them than there are people selling them. Having said that I'm not going to commit to buy until the risks are bottomed out (and for interest, the last job I did was manage a £200M rationalisation programme with a £96M design and build project as part of it, so I do understand the risk management bit reasonably well!). My hope was that someone here might have been through something similar and be able to give an idea as to what "feasible" means in this context.

I've just come off the phone with the agent, as it happens, who suspects that the vendor knows full well about the cost of getting this sorted, which is why he's dragged his heels on building on the plot. The planning issues were all associated with trying to build a house in a rural area inside an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and were pretty much par for the course in this particular area.

Posted By: JSHarrisHas anyone ever managed to do something similar and get the EA to agree to a change like this?

You might try asking Nick Grant if he knows of anybody who can advise. Or perhaps he can himself.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: djh</cite>You might try asking Nick Grant if he knows of anybody who can advise. Or perhaps he can himself.</blockquote>

Thanks for the tip. I can't see to find him as a member on here, though, is he on another forum?

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Joiner</cite>Jeremy, he's on here somewhere...

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.aecb.net/">http://www.aecb.net/</a>

Look in the members section which leads to...

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.aecb.net/profile/elemental/">http://www.aecb.net/profile/elemental/</a></blockquote>

Thanks for that, I'll have a look at that forum - looks interesting.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: seascape</cite>Hi, don't know of anyone with similar situation but I know someone who negotiated with seller re a difficult sewage connection, some £15,000 off price - it took a long time though. Throughout the process he was worried that others would come along, but fortunately they didn't and it all worked out.

I found this, which maybe helpful<a rel="nofollow" href="http://wamuk.com/legislation.asp">http://wamuk.com/legislation.asp</a>- which states in guidance note DETR 03/99: "If by taking into account the cost/and or practicability, it can be shown to the satisfaction of the LPA that connection to a public sewer is not feasible, a package sewage treatment plant incorporating a combination of treatment processes should be considered......" I don't know if this has been superceded, but it looks as though the LPA does have a say.

When you say several tens of thousands, I presume this means £30-50,000 - is that reasonable for a 2 bed house sewage connection plus the inconvenience for others? I would say it's unreasonable and think you would have a good case - especially as they are under pressure to get houses built. Good luck</blockquote>

Thanks for that link, it's the first mention I've seen of cost and practicability. It also mentions the "within 30 m of a main sewer" rule, which, as this plot is around 100 m from a main sewer might prove useful in making the point.

The total cost for the pumped installation, including the connection fee, digging up the road and reinstating it and all the hardware (pump, pipe, chamber etc) is around £40,000 or so, as far as I can make out. I've now had two "approved contractors" give me rough estimates based solely on the length of lane that needs to be dug up, including the costs associated with closing the lane while the work goes on, and making arrangements for two houses further up the lane whilst their access is blocked. There's a possibility that this cost could come down a bit after a site visit and with a formal quote, but I'm not holding my breath on that!

I honestly don't think that this was ever really considered at the planning stage. There's no mention of it in the correspondence and the architect just says that the EA said "no" to the treatment plant on the final application purely because the water company had changed their mind about sewer availability. When I told the architect about the likely cost of the pumped system he was a wee bit shocked, as apparently he hadn't considered the cost at all when drawing up the plans for the application.

I'm inclined to think that the insistence on a sewer connection in this case is more cock-up than anything else. The local water company chap seems to share that view, too! I guess I should just wait and see what the EA say to the reasoned argument I've put to them.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: daysleeper</cite>We got nowhere trying to persuade the EA about the merit of a package treatment plant. They did come out on a site visit (though only to say no and that it wasn't negotiable.)

My rather rambling point was, as they won't take phone calls, only letters (seriously letters what century is this?) perhaps a letter inviting them round to have a look might (or might not) help.</blockquote>

Thanks for that. It sort of supports what I've heard second hand from the architect. The only thing going in my favour (I hope) is that the EA had no problem with a package treatment plant originally, in fact they recommended it in the first outline application (when the water company had said there was no sewer connection available).

I have had an alternative, less disruptive, route for the pipe suggested, so I'm exploring the cost of that option, too. It still means digging up a lot of road, but not in the very narrow lane. The only other option is to go directly across the neighbouring land, which would be cheaper in terms of excavation and making good, but probably pretty expensive in terms of getting the necessary wayleave/easements etc. The water company have said they could do this under Section 98, but I understand that route is fraught and can take months to resolve.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: seascape</cite>I would have thought that if '30 meters' is in the guidance to the legislation you'll be ok.</blockquote>

Fingers crossed................

Brilliant! Thanks very much for that info, it sounds very positive. My thoughts are leaning towards Biorock aerated system at the moment, as it seems to get good reviews.

When our soak-away silted up, we had a real problem. We were fortunate in having a small stream (more a field drain) nearby. My dealings with the EA were fine, although getting the Consent to Discharge took a few forms and some money. I have had my active sludge (aerator) system working for over three years without any blockage, just applying the recommended maintenance schedule. The effluent has a slight odour and faint colour, but is suitable for discharge to a watercourse or soak-away/drainage field. Probably no use to you as it uses an existing 'onion' septic tank. Suggestions to play with:

Offer to pay for the 30 metres specified, providing that the EA pay for the remainder, since they are ignoring the 30 metre rule (provided the rule is genuine and applicable to your site)

The Biorock sounds the best solution and just needs a soak-away or a watercourse. If you cannot have a drainage field, will the EA not permit you to discharge the treated liquor into the watercourse? If this fails, have you space to use one of the geotextile covered plastic crate soak-aways? This would need an excavation or a terrace forming on a sloping site, but might satisfy the EA, provided that you didn't need to go too deep to prevent the digestion process taking place. Avoiding the water providers sewerage charges is another powerful driver to go for your own treatment plant!

Get the vendor to knock half the installation cost off the plot price, grit your teeth and pay the rest

Best of luck with the bureaucrats!!

Check soakaways work on your soil type if you need to go that route.

That 30 metre rule seems clear enough to me. If you use an approved treatment plant, it should be difficult for the EA to find grounds to deny you permission to discharge treated water into the drain, but it sounds like they will try!
Alternatively, follow the similar thread by HH to see if it leads to an answer as he is in a worse state with no nearby watercourse.
What happens to the rainwater from the building - is it possible to harvest all of it, or is the plan to let the (excess) rainwater flow into the watercourse?

The EA have written granting permission for a package treatment plant discharging into the watercourse, so all is well with the world. Just goes to show that it's worth making the case again after an initial rejection. They also provided some helpful (and unasked for) advice on flood risk and flood damage prevention measures, including a large scale copy of the flood risk map for the area.

The key thing that swung it was, I think, the fact that the main drain was 100 metres away up a narrow lane. I quoted the "30 metre rule" and it seems they took heed of it.

Apart from having to deal with them by letter, the EA have been as helpful as I could have wished.

One problem off the list then - great result!