Page 1 of 2
Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:20 am
by anyoneforcoffee
I just love this site but up to now have never posted so I hope you guys can help with this question. Is SUDS law? I ask because I am concerned about a self build going on behind my property and the soakaway they are required to do is 12cubic mtrs in clay soil. This soakaway will butt up to my boundary at the bottom of my garden which historically received a lot of rainwater run off. They said they will be filling the soakaway void with rubble and spoil which in my view rather defeats the object of a soakaway and will not hold anywhere near 12 cubic mtrs of water. Are they legally bound to adhere to SUDS? I notice that plastic storm crates are now being used for soakaways to creat a greater water holding capacity. Do they have to use these or some other method to achieve a more true water holding capacity? If they proceed with rubble fill my garden will be a no go zone. Any help or advice would be so welcome.
Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 10:26 am
by Tony McC
Anyone offering to construct a soakaway as a rubble-filled void should be shoved into the hole and backfilled quickly as they must be a dinosaur and therefore ought to be left to a properly trained archaeologist.
Rubble? FFS! That's Victorian technology. Even clean gravel is last century and achieves an underwhelming 30-35% void space against the 95-98% available from a cell system, which effectively cuts the volume of the proposed soakaway by two-thirds.
By and large, SUDS *is* mandatory but how mandatory is a function of your local authority and its Building Control office. You need to offer them some of your coffee, and probably a nice mince pie, and find out what they require.....
Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 5:14 pm
by dig dug dan
bco's round here do not allow anything other than storm water storage cells, and quite right too. They are so much more easy to install and do a better job. Tony was spot on
Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:05 pm
by anyoneforcoffee
Hey thanks guys. The laughable thing is they are a pair of quite established, and by all accounts, well respected, local builders who just happen to be building there own house, well for one of them anyway. Thanks again, I'm now off to make some mince pies:)
Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 8:42 pm
by Mikey_C
also the building regs state that any soakaway, even one of bygone construction should be 2.5M from the boundary (meaning they will always be 5M apart).
Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:31 pm
by lutonlagerlout
tony the job we are on now the BCO has told us in writing that he wants hardcore as the ground is clay and it wont work anyway!
I am not going to spend £160 of my hard earned putting crates and terram in if HWMBO says otherwise
same town different job different BCO we had to put in a 2.5 by 2.5 by 2.5m soakaway filled with crates terram the works
LLL
Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:44 pm
by msh paving
don't se em' used round hear very often, clean rubble is sold by the aggregate pits for soakaways, mind you we are on light soil /silt
cant remember last time a BCO looked at a soakaway
MSH 
Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 10:38 am
by TheRockConcreting
If your guaranteeing your work for any length of time, and your rubble soakaway fails, normally because the void space is not sufficient for the area being drained, that would surely leave you liable.
Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:35 pm
by Tony McC
Remember the old adage - those who can, build; those who can't, become BCO's. 
Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 7:49 pm
by GB_Groundworks
For a 12m2 rubble filled soakaway you'd need a hole at like 30m2 or bigger lol
Ie post their plot
Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:07 pm
by lutonlagerlout
another old adage
many a good tradesman can go skint
if we follow the architect,structural engineer,and BCO's instruction,how can we be at fault?
they all sign it off
my priorities on any job are
1 safety
2 quality
3 profit
in that order, I am paying £1000+vat to have 14 m2 of asbestos slates removed next week
a lot of lads would bang them in the soakaway
the building regs state that the law is whatever the BCO feels like on any given day :;):
LLL
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 8:57 am
by Tony McC
I was at a job in Bolton yesterday, currently being paved by one of the Brew Cabin Irregulars, and the wonderful architect had cleverly used 6 inspection chambers in a 750mm wide side pathway just 10m long.
The sheer number on a single drain run is completely unwarranted, and I dread to think of the additional costs, but why wasn't this picked up either during the planning application or by the BCO during the build? An IC every metre-and-a-half is just silly!
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 5:58 pm
by lutonlagerlout
they ARE the law
LOL
LLL
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 8:21 pm
by anyoneforcoffee
Whooow, I didn't anticipate such a response, I'm never going to get my mince pies done at this rate. I've just heard a whisper through the grape vine that they are going to sneakily feed the surface rainwater back into the drains. Now from my point of view this is an advantage as my property won't be worse off. But won't they get caught out with BC??? or do BC just want a quite life? I have since spoken to a couple of builders who say this is common practice. So where is the 'control'
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 9:52 pm
by r896neo
BCO's are a weird bunch. You'll find that most of them have a particular bug bare and they obsess about that. We have one who has rarely even looked at a drain never mind tested any or checked discharges where as he is shit hot on roof structures restraint straps joist hangers checked for every hole nailed etc.
As said they are the law.