# ManHole under extension of House



## Gary_b (14 May 2009)

hi

Recently brought a house and now discovered that there is a Manhole under the extension of the house. We found out when we started work on the floor and found it under the raised floor (floor was on wooden joistings). 

The builder said its a serious problem and needs to be dealt with, needs to be sealed up and moved outside. My girlfriend is so upset as there was no mention of this on the surveyor report or architect's Report. The owners provided building permission for the extension so we taught it was legal. We have gone back to our solicitor but we got the feeling that he doesnt want to know.

Does anyone have experience in this sort of thing or could give us some sound advice on this. Even a PM with a website link or name of a solicitor that would be good in this field.


thanks


----------



## mf1 (14 May 2009)

I suggest that you do as the builder says and move it.  

Most surveyors/architects do not pull up floorboards so it is likely that their report   excludes the issue. 

If you are already doing work, it will add some expense but better to deal with  it now. If you have any recourse against anyone, which I doubt, you may be able to recover the cost from them.

mf


----------



## Gary_b (14 May 2009)

But surely they would not have gotten planning permission if they were building over a manhole. Also should not the sewage system not fall under a survey or architects report? 
I mean how are you meant to know there is a manhole there without ripping up the floors? It would have to be stated somewhere would it not?


----------



## mathepac (14 May 2009)

I believe the *absence* of an outflow point / man-hole cover in any of the open spaces at the back of the property should have triggered an observation / comment or recommendation for further investigation on a professional surveyor's report.

The seriousness of having a man-hole under the floor depends on whether the pipe in question is exclusively for the use of OP's home or whether it services other dwellings in the area.

If other homes use the pipe, re-routing it is potentially a big deal.


----------



## Billo (14 May 2009)

Is this a duplicate post ?


----------



## baldyman27 (14 May 2009)

Billo said:


> Is this a duplicate post ?


 
It is, but it seems to be developing here.

As Mathepac said, it probably should have been spotted that the pipe ran under the house but not necessarily that there was a manhole there. BTW, by 'manhole', do you mean an actual manhole that is large enough to accomodate a man or just an access junction which would be maybe a foot and a half wide? If the former, then it is a fairly big job and is possibly taking sewage from other houses. If, however, it is only an AJ, this wouldn't be too uncommon under an extension and its not a major job to move it. Your builder is possibly making it out to be a bigger job than it is.


----------



## Gary_b (14 May 2009)

Hi
Its a full manhole , as you said its probably going down to a junction. Its seems to me that this should have been pointed out by surveyor or architect? Would I be wrong in saying that?
The builder I have in is a friend of mine and he has said this has the potential to be a huge job.
Do I have any legal come back on the people we brought off , surveyor etc?


----------



## mathepac (14 May 2009)

I reckon the vendor is probably in the clear if they were asked for and produced planning documents and compliance certs for any extension works.

Do you have a surveyor's report - NOT a valuation report for the bank?


----------



## Gary_b (14 May 2009)

Yes I have a surveyor report (not valuation) that I paid 500 euro for and it states nothing about manhole or sewage lines etc. 
I also have a Architect reports that also has nothing of Manhole or any sewage. Both do not advise to ask about sewage etc. 
I would say the vendor is clear too but there has to be something that can be done with either surveyor or architect.
Only found out about this 2 days ago , if the manhole is unable to be moved then will the extension have to come down?


----------



## Sconhome (14 May 2009)

You can put a sealed access cover in place. They have a double flange with a grease filled cavity to prevent venting into a building.
They are access junctions and the requirement is that their location is known and that they are accessible. It is not always possible to relocate access chambers due to pipe runs and gradients.
The main concern would be the treatment of the pipework at the foundations / rising walls. They need a pre-stressed lintel to prevent the pipe being compressed by the building. This can be checked by digging down & finding where the pipe passes the foundations.


----------



## theresa1 (14 May 2009)

Does a down pipe connect to an access junction? A friend had an extension built years ago and it was not moved. Somebody came out to look and said oh yes the pipe will have to be cut and sealed -garden dug up and access junction or manhole moved further out the back. Friend so far has not had this work done. Sorry to hear about your situation Garyb.


----------



## Gary_b (15 May 2009)

Thanks for all the posts. Been in touch with our solicitor and he says that the architect could be in the wrong, but he advised us to get another architect report to confrim that the orginal report was bogus. 
At this point im unsure to go ahead with this as it may be throwing good money after bad. I hear architects are very expensive, does anyone know of a good architect person/company?


----------



## carjo (15 May 2009)

Current building regs state that an " aj " can be located under timber flooring provided that there is access if required.A manhole must be located outside of the building as this will require access by county council workers etc.The original planning documents should have shown this .Try to get a copy of the original planing drawing.It should say that the manhole was to be moved.If it was not , then the extension does not comply with the planning drawings.If this is the case your solicitor should have noticed it.


----------



## theresa1 (16 May 2009)

Is aj the same as ic i.e. inspection chamber?


----------



## Sconhome (16 May 2009)

An 'aj' or access junction is usually 300mm pipe with a cover and frame. An 'ic' or inspection chamber is 450 or 600mm diameter to allow access for maintenance or cleaning. A manhole is generally bigger constructed with concrete segments with built in ladder rungs for access to main sewer pipes. A man hole is usually distinguished by a round,heavy cast iron cover and frame. A manhole is in most cases the property of the council and must be available to them for access in an emergency. 
Access junctions and inspection chambers are generally for domestic convenience.

Back to Gary b, if there is the possibility to find the pipe run outside of the extension I would suggest that you locate a new access chamber outside of the building with a regular lid on it for convenient inspection. I would then place a sealed lid on the internal section to allow rodding from this position if it ever became necessary.


----------



## Sconhome (16 May 2009)

BTW Gary b where in the country are you? Might help you in getting recommendations for help


----------



## onq (24 May 2009)

carjo said:


> Current building regs state that an " aj " can be located under timber flooring provided that there is access if required.A manhole must be located outside of the building as this will require access by county council workers etc.The original planning documents should have shown this .Try to get a copy of the original planing drawing.It should say that the manhole was to be moved.If it was not , then the extension does not comply with the planning drawings.If this is the case your solicitor should have noticed it.



I would appreciate it if you could cite where the regs say that.

Its always useful to note where specific issues are mentioned in the regs.


----------



## onq (24 May 2009)

Gary_b said:


> Thanks for all the posts. Been in touch with our solicitor and he says that the architect could be in the wrong, but he advised us to get another architect report to confrim that the orginal report was bogus.
> At this point im unsure to go ahead with this as it may be throwing good money after bad. I hear architects are very expensive, does anyone know of a good architect person/company?



--------------------------------------

*Preamble*

The below comments are justified in terms of current practice in the building industry and are made as far comment in the public interest based on the facts presented by the OP.

Any advice you receive here will be compromised by the lack of drawn information shown the route of the sewere and all the buildings it serves.

There appear to be several unknown factors here.
You don't state whether this manhole serves a run which is wholly private to you or whether it exists on a public or private shared main sewer.
You don't state whether it serves a Foul Water, Surface Water or Combined Sewer.
I will assume its a Foul Water Sewer and comment on both (i) wholly private and (ii) shared private and public sewer below:

*Private Drain:*

There may have been a good reason why the MH was left where it was.
The positions of manholes relative to the direction of the pipe run has to achieve a certain geometry to facilitate the flow of effluent.
In no case can you have an acute angle on a route, the minimum angle is 90 degrees, so you may find it may be impossible to move the MH.
Regardless of the foregoing, on a restricted site it may be impossible or unwise to divert around the extension.
Where you cannot move a manhole, you should at least maintain access to it for rodding purposes.
This in turn may be the reason for the raised timber floor, an unusual form of construction these days, although very popular in the days before visqueen under concrete slabs.

*Public or Shared Private Main Sewer:*

Some estates in Dublin have private sewers running along the back gardens.
In one location I am aware of, the sewer behind the houses may in fact be a public sewer.
Both sewer types may have legal prohibitions on building over them.
What little information I have on private sewers suggests they may be diverted within your own site.
Alternatively it may be possible to build over them, but MH's should be provided either side of the extension to allow them to be kept clear.
As noted by another poster, precautions have to be taken to protect teh site as it passes through any rising walls.
This is usually done by installing arches or lintols to keep the walls loads off the pipe, and some space should be left above the top of the pipe to allow for settlement.
The building regulations specify concrete encasement as one method of protecting the pipe as it passes beneath a building, but their may be others, including using strengthened cast iron pipes.
The public sewer cannot normally be built over, and more onerous than that, the Council may require a ROW the width of a JCB or more to be left to allow later access for repairs and/or relaying.
This raises concerns that one of the previous owners in title may have committed an offence.

*Preventative Measures:*

You should ensure that the MH currently poses no health problems and is properly vented to an FAI to prevent the build up of sewer gas under the house.
Foul sewers should normally be vented at the head of the run by the soil vent pipe, and at the last manhole where it leaves your site, via a Fresh Air Inlet located not too far away.
The timber floor under which it is situated should be ventilated by vent bricks or grilles in the perimeter rising walls and you should ensure these are not blocked by earth or plants.
As noted elsewhere in these responses, you could consider replacing the existing installation and installing a sealed manhole.

*Legal Matters*

The legals on this one are unclear but assuming the extension is not compliant; -

Before pursuing your architect and surveyor, check the exclusions list on the reports and see they are limited to "visual inspection only" and state that "no opening up works were undertaken, save where specifically referred to in this Report."
If not, both inspecting parties may be open to a claim.
If the aforementioned exclusions are there, they may provide a good defence.
If the inspecting professionals are defended by their exclusions, you may still have an avenue of redress through the solicitors.
Check to see what your own solicitor asked for on the Requisitions in Title, for example, did they inquire after the status or otherwise re Planning Permission and Building Regulations of the extension.
If they asked nothing, they themselves may be liable.
If they asked good questions, and the vendors solicitor either confirmed compliance [did you get Certs?] or admitted nothing, then they may be liable.
Finally if the property was sold with architects opinions then the certifying architect may be liable, but again, watch out for those disclaimers.

Best of luck and perhaps you might revert to let the forum know how you get on.

HTH


----------



## BICIP (1 Jun 2009)

hi 

arch and surveyors report normally has a list of exclusions longer than the actual report which gets them off hook (no opening/lifting - surface visual inspection only). so here's my recommendation:

if there are connections from other houses the manhole at this location (should be around 600mm wide min - is it an old estate??) needs to remain to relieve blockages in the future from neighbouring properties. if this is the case get a sealed cover as per previous poster and that pretty much solves that

if no connections (i.e. 1 pipe in 1 pipe out) then get pipe sleeved thru manhole - bit of breaking not much tho - and leave as is. construct a new AJ at edge of extension.....either way your not  looking at huge costs - wouldnt bother with arch report - if needs be get an engineer to have a quick look.


----------



## Lizzie (12 Jun 2009)

We've got the same situation but don't regard it as a problem. We bought the house in 1991 and it needed decorating and minor updating.It was at least 5 years later that we got around to putting in a new kitchen and discovered the manhole in what was an extension to accommodate an enlarged kitchen and was built in 1975! We decided to leave well alone and that is still the situation now in 2009.  The previous owner who added the extension was an architect by profession. Again we thought it strange how the plans were passed (we're in England)but it was a long time ago. We've never had any problems and don't lose any sleep over it. Relax!


----------



## Lizzie (12 Jun 2009)

We've got the same situation but don't regard it as a problem. We bought the house in 1991 and it needed decorating and minor updating.It was at least 5 years later that we got around to putting in a new kitchen and discovered the manhole in what was an extension to accommodate an enlarged kitchen and was built in 1975! We decided to leave well alone and that is still the situation now in 2009.  The previous owner who added the extension was an architect by profession. Again we thought it strange how the plans were passed (we're in England)but it was a long time ago. We've never had any problems and don't lose any sleep over it. Relax!


----------

