On 21-Nov-17 10:39 AM, MM wrote:
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 09:32:25 +0000, Nightjar
wrote:

On 19-Nov-17 7:36 PM, MM wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 16:14:02 GMT, Iggy
m wrote:
...
The old has to be removed as
well as possibly a mountain of contamination, then new fill goes in and then
and only then does the new plant go in.

Yes, well, I kind of guessed that already!...

Depending upon the site available and the drain layout, it might be
possible to install the new unit first, divert the drains into it, then
worry about the old one. That would minimise disruption and you might
find that the old unit doesn't need to be removed, although it would
probably need to be filled in for safety.

Good idea, but what seems sensible to you or me, it doesn't
necessarily follow that the council, health & safety, the Environment
Agency, or other bodies would see it the same way. You must know that
councils up and down the land tear buildings down if they haven't
received the proper planning permission. I don't know whether such
bodies have become more flexible in recent years as I, thank God, have
never had to deal with them. But, let's face it, such bodies do
attract a certain number of pettifogging officials who relish the
chance to be bloody-minded.

From a practical POV the land area available should provide plenty of
space for your suggestion (new unit, then fill in old hole). The land
area outwith the PSTP is currently grassed over.

On the odd occasion when I have had dealings with the Environment
Agency, their inspectors have been fairly flexible about solutions,
provided that the solution suggested achieves the final result they want.


--
--

Colin Bignell