This week I had a new soil stack installed. I did the "right" thing and had
notified the council about the planned work. After the existing pipework had
been exposed and a section of new pipe attached to the old clay pipe, I
notified the council who said they'd send an inspector around the next
morning.

I was told that the inspector would want to see the new below ground
pipework and would want to see a pressure test. The hole could then be
filled in and there would be a second inspection for the above ground stack
pipework.

By the time that the inspector had arrived, the whole external stack was in
place and connected up to the house appliances. The inspector agreed that
because there was old clay peipework, a pressure test would be problematic
and he was satisfied with what he could see had been done. The hole could be
filled in with new pipework protected by shingle.

The inspector said he would return at a later date to witness a pressure
test of the above ground stack. The above ground pressure would use an
airbag to block off the stack at the inspection cover at the base.

It seems to me that the second inspection is entirely pointless. Any above
ground leaks will be immediately evident (as one was initially) and the
pipework wouldn't really be under any great pressure in normal use. I really
don't see the point of pressure testing the above ground stack. The opposite
is true for the below ground work where the inspector was content with a
visual inspection. The only thing I can think of is that the inspector is
paid independently on a per-visit basis.

FWIW the waste pipe was blocked prior to the inspectors arrival and the
stack filled with water. It didn't leak until an end cap was pushed out of
the pipe by the pressure.

So is this second visit a complete waste of time? Is this above ground
pressure test usual?

It's going to be an interesting test since the connected stack hooks up to
so many open-ended pipes: sink, bath, kitchen sink, dishwasher, washing
mashine and toilet!

Paul

"Paul Andrews" <ac297@dial.pipex.commmmm> wrote in message 
news:5voUe.2723$Q%2.2327@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

> This week I had a new soil stack installed. I did the "right" thing and 
> had
> notified the council about the planned work. After the existing pipework 
> had
> been exposed and a section of new pipe attached to the old clay pipe, I
> notified the council who said they'd send an inspector around the next
> morning.
>
> I was told that the inspector would want to see the new below ground
> pipework and would want to see a pressure test. The hole could then be
> filled in and there would be a second inspection for the above ground 
> stack
> pipework.
>
> By the time that the inspector had arrived, the whole external stack was 
> in
> place and connected up to the house appliances. The inspector agreed that
> because there was old clay peipework, a pressure test would be problematic
> and he was satisfied with what he could see had been done. The hole could 
> be
> filled in with new pipework protected by shingle.
>
> The inspector said he would return at a later date to witness a pressure
> test of the above ground stack. The above ground pressure would use an
> airbag to block off the stack at the inspection cover at the base.
>
> It seems to me that the second inspection is entirely pointless. Any above
> ground leaks will be immediately evident (as one was initially) and the
> pipework wouldn't really be under any great pressure in normal use. I 
> really
> don't see the point of pressure testing the above ground stack. The 
> opposite
> is true for the below ground work where the inspector was content with a
> visual inspection. The only thing I can think of is that the inspector is
> paid independently on a per-visit basis.
>
> FWIW the waste pipe was blocked prior to the inspectors arrival and the
> stack filled with water. It didn't leak until an end cap was pushed out of
> the pipe by the pressure.
>
> So is this second visit a complete waste of time? Is this above ground
> pressure test usual?
>
> It's going to be an interesting test since the connected stack hooks up to
> so many open-ended pipes: sink, bath, kitchen sink, dishwasher, washing
> mashine and toilet!
>
> Paul
>


You see, you did 'the right thing' and where has it got you? And what use is 
it?
Keeps public sector employment high, that's all. I blocked my sewer up in 
the
inspection pit at my boundary, on a hunch, and filled it with water from the 
outside
gully. Water ran away quite quickly after I stopped the water going in, 
until the
level had dropped about 3". I could actually hear it leaking out underground 
where
the soil stack entered the ground along from the gully. It turned out to be 
a cracked
glazed clay pipe, must've been cracked for years, there was a pit underneath 
the leak.
It was duly replaced, encased in concrete and passed a second leak test.

       Having said that, the sewer pipe still must've had fine cracks in it 
at other
points as the water level still dropped very slowly even when below the 
level of the
original crack, but it is 70 years old, and like you say, normally it isn't 
under an
real sort of pressure. I at no point felt the need to get someone to look 
over my shoulder.
That's just inventing problems!

cheers,

Andy.

"Andy"  wrote in message
news:4322268a@212.67.96.135...

>
> "Paul Andrews" <ac297@dial.pipex.commmmm> wrote in message
> news:5voUe.2723$Q%2.2327@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> > This week I had a new soil stack installed. I did the "right" thing and
> > had
> > notified the council about the planned work.

snip

> > Paul
> >
>
> You see, you did 'the right thing' and where has it got you? And what use
is
> it?
> Keeps public sector employment high, that's all.

snip

>I at no point felt the need to get someone to look
> over my shoulder.
> That's just inventing problems!


Maybe. I would probably have just gone ahead and and not inconvenienced the
council if it weren't for the fact that we have planning permission for an
extension and the plans show the soil stack as being inside the house..

I really didn't want to have some eagle-eyed inspector asking about the nice
shiny outside soil stack and the juxtaposition of the pipe shown in the
plan.

Paul


> cheers,
>
> Andy.
>
>

"Paul Andrews" <ac297@dial.pipex.commmmm> wrote in message 
news:soxUe.710$7p3.481@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...

> "Andy"  wrote in message
> news:4322268a@212.67.96.135...
>>
>> "Paul Andrews" <ac297@dial.pipex.commmmm> wrote in message
>> news:5voUe.2723$Q%2.2327@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>> > This week I had a new soil stack installed. I did the "right" thing and
>> > had
>> > notified the council about the planned work.
>
> snip
>
>> > Paul
>> >
>>
>> You see, you did 'the right thing' and where has it got you? And what use
> is
>> it?
>> Keeps public sector employment high, that's all.
>
> snip
>
>>I at no point felt the need to get someone to look
>> over my shoulder.
>> That's just inventing problems!
>
> Maybe. I would probably have just gone ahead and and not inconvenienced 
> the
> council if it weren't for the fact that we have planning permission for an
> extension and the plans show the soil stack as being inside the house..
>
> I really didn't want to have some eagle-eyed inspector asking about the 
> nice
> shiny outside soil stack and the juxtaposition of the pipe shown in the
> plan.
>

Ah well, if you're building an extension I suppose there's no way you could 
keep them out of the loop. I wouldn't
recommend trying to keep a BCO out of an entire extension project!

Andy.

"Andy"  wrote in message
news:4322e908@212.67.96.135...

>
> "Paul Andrews" <ac297@dial.pipex.commmmm> wrote in message
> news:soxUe.710$7p3.481@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> > "Andy"  wrote in message
> > news:4322268a@212.67.96.135...
> >>
> >> "Paul Andrews" <ac297@dial.pipex.commmmm> wrote in message
> >> news:5voUe.2723$Q%2.2327@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> >> > This week I had a new soil stack installed. I did the "right" thing
and
> >> > had
> >> > notified the council about the planned work.
> >
> > snip
> >
> >> > Paul
> >> >
> >>
> >> You see, you did 'the right thing' and where has it got you? And what
use
> > is
> >> it?
> >> Keeps public sector employment high, that's all.
> >
> > snip
> >
> >>I at no point felt the need to get someone to look
> >> over my shoulder.
> >> That's just inventing problems!
> >
> > Maybe. I would probably have just gone ahead and and not inconvenienced
> > the
> > council if it weren't for the fact that we have planning permission for
an
> > extension and the plans show the soil stack as being inside the house..
> >
> > I really didn't want to have some eagle-eyed inspector asking about the
> > nice
> > shiny outside soil stack and the juxtaposition of the pipe shown in the
> > plan.
> >
> Ah well, if you're building an extension I suppose there's no way you
could
> keep them out of the loop. I wouldn't
> recommend trying to keep a BCO out of an entire extension project!


The soil pipe and the extension are two different projects, though the
extension will involve extending the existing underground drain further. I
didn't want to risk upsetting a BCO by him arriving and having a slightly
different situation to what was expected. At least this way the council are
aware of the change and I get to see what they are happy with. I've made
sure that there's provision for extending the new pipework into the
extension.

Paul


> Andy.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 23:01:21 GMT, a particular chimpanzee named "Paul
Andrews" <ac297@dial.pipex.commmmm> randomly hit the keyboard and
produced:


>This week I had a new soil stack installed. I did the "right" thing and had
>notified the council about the planned work. After the existing pipework had
>been exposed and a section of new pipe attached to the old clay pipe, I
>notified the council who said they'd send an inspector around the next
>morning.
>
>I was told that the inspector would want to see the new below ground
>pipework and would want to see a pressure test. The hole could then be
>filled in and there would be a second inspection for the above ground stack
>pipework.
>
>By the time that the inspector had arrived, the whole external stack was in
>place and connected up to the house appliances. The inspector agreed that
>because there was old clay peipework, a pressure test would be problematic
>and he was satisfied with what he could see had been done. The hole could be
>filled in with new pipework protected by shingle.
>
>The inspector said he would return at a later date to witness a pressure
>test of the above ground stack. The above ground pressure would use an
>airbag to block off the stack at the inspection cover at the base.
>
>It seems to me that the second inspection is entirely pointless. Any above
>ground leaks will be immediately evident (as one was initially) and the
>pipework wouldn't really be under any great pressure in normal use. I really
>don't see the point of pressure testing the above ground stack. The opposite
>is true for the below ground work where the inspector was content with a
>visual inspection. The only thing I can think of is that the inspector is
>paid independently on a per-visit basis.
>
>FWIW the waste pipe was blocked prior to the inspectors arrival and the
>stack filled with water. It didn't leak until an end cap was pushed out of
>the pipe by the pressure.
>
>So is this second visit a complete waste of time? Is this above ground
>pressure test usual?
>
>It's going to be an interesting test since the connected stack hooks up to
>so many open-ended pipes: sink, bath, kitchen sink, dishwasher, washing
>mashine and toilet!
>
>Paul
>


-- 
Hugo Nebula
  "If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
   just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 23:01:21 GMT, a particular chimpanzee named "Paul
Andrews" <ac297@dial.pipex.commmmm> randomly hit the keyboard and
produced:


>This week I had a new soil stack installed. I did the "right" thing and had
>notified the council about the planned work. After the existing pipework had
>been exposed and a section of new pipe attached to the old clay pipe, I
>notified the council who said they'd send an inspector around the next
>morning.
>
>I was told that the inspector would want to see the new below ground
>pipework and would want to see a pressure test. The hole could then be
>filled in and there would be a second inspection for the above ground stack
>pipework.

>So is this second visit a complete waste of time? Is this above ground
>pressure test usual?
>
>It's going to be an interesting test since the connected stack hooks up to
>so many open-ended pipes: sink, bath, kitchen sink, dishwasher, washing
>mashine and toilet!


To be honest, I wouldn't myself have asked for a 'pressure' test (air
test one assumes) on a relocated external stack.  I may have asked for
a water test on the new below-ground section, but more likely I would
have carried out a visual inspection, and advised the owner or builder
to carry out their own water test prior to backfilling (thereby
throwing the onus back on to the person carrying out the work).

An air test should be possible, provided that all the traps are in
place, as the increase in pressure will be less than that required to
'blow' the traps.

The inspection fee is a one-off, so you pay the same no matter how
many visits the BCO makes.  99% (or more) Local Authority BCOs
carrying out site inspections are employed by the Council on a
salaried basis, and for the last few years have had more than enough
to keep them busy, so no BCO is going to make extra work for
themselves.  I don't of course discount the possibility that the BCO
happens to live very close by, so your house is a convenient site
start for him.
-- 
Hugo Nebula
  "If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
   just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 10:44:00 +0100, a particular chimpanzee named Hugo
Nebula <abuse@localhost> randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

<Nothing>

Hmm.  Don't know what happened there.
-- 
Hugo Nebula
  "If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
   just how far from the pack have you strayed?"