Yes, the building permit for the extension dates back 1992.So when it was built when the new requirements were not yet in effect. What does this mean, can I say that it has already been defined as a public channel and therefore has been taken into account in the planning rules when they built the extension? Had it not been adopted at the time of enlargement, there should not have been a build over agreement. Argh hit the posts too early. You must ask the sewerage company when the sewers have been accepted under the extension. I hope that it was not adopted during the construction of enlargement, in which case we would not have needed a construction agreement. So we are close to the exchange and the research has identified a public sewer that works at the back of the house. It is a 1930s house and the expansion was built in the 1990s. There`s a building permit. The well is just outside the wall of the extension cord, perhaps a foot from here. My lawyer asked the seller`s lawyer to tell us if they have a construction contract, but seem unlikely.
I understand that you can build in a guilty way, but it seems that since I have been inquiring about this issue with the water supplier, we are not in a position to remove it now, as has just been announced. I am puzzled as to what we will do next if there is no construction on the agreement. We love the house and we have already invested time and money to get to this point. Has anyone experienced anything about it and have you been able to solve it? I`m grateful for your insight. Hello, the property – the responsibility of private outings changed in 2011, but you say that the extension was built on your house before that date (before 1999) … Therefore, the 2011 requirements would probably not apply. Find out how much income you keep and how much the helmsman takes. In 2011, most of the sewers and private sewer outlets in England and Wales were transferred to public property. Thousands of kilometres of pipes – repaired and maintained by the owners (often without their knowledge) were under the jurisdiction of water companies. While this was undoubtedly good news for the owners, it created a kind of legal shade zone when these sewers were built by their former owners. Each water company has its own policy regarding the construction of public pipes or near public canals. For Severn Trent Water, if an owner wants to build in the immediate vicinity of an existing public channel, they will have followed one of the two lawsuits.
Until the late 1990s, they reportedly entered into an agreement with Severn Trent Water, which stated both their rights and the rights of the water company. What matters is when the land was built and whether the runoff at the back serves only the house or the neighbours. If it was built before 1937 and is divided – it is and it was a public sewer, and an over-construction agreement that were needed. The other possibility is that the seller will provide the buyer with compensation insurance to protect against financial losses resulting from the construction of the property through a public sewer. It is the fastest and cheapest option, but whether or not insurance is available depends on the circumstances of each case. No, no planning, building control. In 1992, they would have needed a construction agreement if the derivative backwards was divided AND the house before 1937. If no construction agreement has been reached, the vendor should have a sewer line review and the records forward to the water company. If the water company is satisfied that the sewers are in good condition, they will give a consolation letter confirming that the sewers are in satisfactory condition. The comfort letter generally satisfies the buyer and its mortgage lender that the Water Company will not take any action to demolish the insulting structure over the public sewers. All water companies have legal rights to access public sewers on private land.