Rather more tha a garden shed...Planning?

Page 1 of 2  
Having just had the garden shed broken into and a fair load of power tools nicked, he thought has occurred that the ideal place to put a more secure place for lawnmowers etc would be over the new Klargester shittank, which (with appripoate removeable flooring for emptying/service etc.) and block contsruction would be
- closer to the house (tea leafs did the other one whilst we were in the house) - disguise an eyesore - have electricity available for lights, the odd power tool, and some anti-theft measures - light duty only obviously. - if made of rendered block, be more substantial and thief proof than timber.
What are the relevant issues of planning and/or building regs attached to a not-so-temporary structure, and siting it over a shit tank?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

B&Q do some decent well priced stuff.

Over that? Don't you have any more space around?

How did they break in?

Isn't it under the ground?

A decent timber construction is fine. You need decent doors and windows.

There are some off-the-shelf designs around. See Goggle on this. have the new shed with a pitched roof and blend in with the main house.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If you can make it satisfy the rules on "permitted development":
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19950418_en_4.htm
Then you won't need PP. You won't need building regs because it's an uninhabbited outbuilding.
As for building it on top of you tank - I don't know. Gut feeling says it's would be fine, but I don't much like the sound of it.
--
Grunff


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Talk to Klargester about the ground loading over the tank. We have a Klargester under a flower bed in the front garden, and the only thoughts I've had about it is the amount of damage that would be caused if it ever had to be dug up.
--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 13:04:44 +0100, a particular chimpanzee named

I remember a Building Regs application for a commercial joinery workshop sited directly over a septic tank. We went through the requirements with a fine-tooth comb, as did Environmental Health, but we could find nothing which expressly prohibited it.
--
Hugo Nebula
"You know, I'd rather see this on TV,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:39:19 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Wouldn't it be bettet to actually talk to your local Building Inspectors? That way you stand the chance of getting an authorative answer, instead of some of the half-baked (and quite possibly incorrect) opinions you'll get here!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wanderer wrote:

What exactly is the point of replies like this? There have been a few of these lately, and IMO they add no value whatsoever to a thread.
When someone asks a question like this one, it's far more polite to assume that they've considered where to ask, and concluded that uk.d-i-y is a good starting point - whatever their reasons are. It isn't very polite to just assume that they're clueless and therefore haven't considered asking the relevant BC/planning department.
--
Grunff


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:04:07 +0100, Grunff wrote:

The point is right there in what I said. Some posters can and do give good advice, but some answers are crap advice. In the end the guy is going to have to satisfy his local building inspector, take a chance that Building Regs approval isn't required or again take a chance, go ahead anyway and find out at some later date that there was something or other that he should have done. The answer I gave him was a good and sensible one. Talk to the people you'll have to satisfy.

Not wishing to make rude comments about the poster who asked the original question, but it does seem that there is a tendency for people to sit at their keyboard and dash off a question without doing any *apparent* research at all. Perhaps that's why there are an increasing number of 'replies like this', as you quite aptly put it. I'm all for helping people out with the benefit of my own experience where relevant, but I don't subscribe to doing the donkey work for them.
In the end, how people phrase their questions will elicit differing responses.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wanderer wrote:

Not necessarily.

No it wasn't; it was a waste of bandwidth.

Something which TNP certainly doesn't have a history of doing.

So the real answer is that you didn't have an answer to the OP, but you wanted to write something anyway?
--
Grunff


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 18:39:41 +0100, Grunff wrote:

You have used judicious snipping to deliberately misrepresent what I said in an attempt to to make a point about which you appear to have have only an opinion and no knowledge.

It would have given him a definitive answer. You seem to have difficulty in accepting that simple fact.
<snip>

Oh dear, you're having to sink to the level of the playground to sustain your argument. Whether you like it or not, I did have something to say, something that would give him a definitive answer. No opinions, no disinformation, no gut feelings. (Does that phrase ring a bell?)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wanderer wrote:

Not at all - your post is still there for all to see. I used judicious snipping to make it clear exactly which points I was replying to.
--
Grunff


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wanderer wrote:

Naff off.
I know the ruddy building regs almost backwards, and tehre is nothing in them that says you can't build over a shit tank, but I thought I'd check here as well.
I also needed a pointer to relevant planning and have gor it.
It would seem that you can't erect a rabbit hutch more than 10Cum without planning permission.
I can't see any reference to garden sheds as such. This would seem to imply that 99% of garden shads are technically in breach of planning regs.
Hence my questions.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I researched this quite recently.
Regarding planning permission, try keywords of "planning", "permission" and "shed" in Google.
http://www.stockton.gov.uk/resources/environment/planning/pp_shed_faq/?view=Standard
is a typical response and is consistent with several other local authority web sites.
I checked and had the same response regarding this from my local authority.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:27:56 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

But your OP gave no indication of that, which is why I phrased my rsponse as I did.
<snip>

Which proves my point quite well.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Perhaps the difficulty is that a BCO has a role of both providing information and enforcement. In any complex situation there are going to be grey areas and issues of interpretation. If you receive advice from this group prior to a meeting with a BCO you are more likely to be able to intelligently argue your case. Of course some opinions in this group may be half-baked - but it is usually possible to identify these from other responses which are well argued and point to factual information.
James

--
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wanderer wrote:

Once ou involve the Inspectors....
anyway, I know in advance which answers will be half baked.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

First off I declare ignorance of septic tank issues, however a query from the curious:
Is there any chance of a build up of gases that are offensive, corrosive or possibly inflammable/explosive, or at least a reduced O2 level? Especially if you plan on switching electricity (lights) or using power tools. By covering this thing up you are making an enclosure that could possibly contain these products rather than allowing normal dilution.
According to the manufacturer in normal operation these things do not produce any smell (how about abnormal operation?). CO2 and Methane do not smell, however... It would be a shame to have to test for gas and follow vessel entry procedures just to get the lawnmover out...
From the look of the things on the web there are several different models, all with a sealed top of some sort. I don't know how gas tight the top is.. or is there a vent somewhere?
Could make sneaking out to the shed for a cigarette dangerous to health in the short term as well as the long term. :-)
Or act as a fairly direct deterrent to theft!
Eric
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Eric Dockum wrote:

Yes, but what I was going to do was put it under a raised floor with underfloor ventilation. And have a huge hatch to get at it.
MOSTLY its supposed to be methane free, and vent elsewhere via the normal soil vent stack. It doesn't have a gas tight cover tho.
How it actually works is beyond me, but work it does. Very low smell - never smelt anything at all. It just gently stirs air into the mix - persumably allowing aerobic raher than anaerobic bacteria to strut their stuff.

ROFLMAO.
We smoke indoors.

Hmm.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good point. No way should a building be over a gas tank.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 20 Oct 2003 02:31:52 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk (Eric Dockum) wrote:

Methane does not smell? Ever been in a lift when someone farted? ;)
PoP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.