On 16/08/18 12:12, Nightjar wrote:
On 16/08/2018 09:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
Its not particularly onerous. But it does set a precedent for
retroactive building regulations which is slightly worrying.

There is no retroactive application of construction standards to septic
tanks.

Yes, there is.

The regulation says that by 2020 or if you sell the house you must
modify your private sewage plant to meet a given standard.

This legislation merely bans existing practices that may be
damaging to the environment. Precedents for that go back to 1306, when
Edward I banned the burning of coal in London. The Clean Air Act 1956 is
a more modern example, but virtually all environmental legislation does
something similar.



That is exactly the same. 90% of building regulations are effectively
banning something or other.

Corridoors less than 900mm are banned. stairs steeper than 45 degrees
are banned (or something similar) Airtight rooms with solid fuel or gas
fires in are banned. windows smaller than a given size are banned on
forst floors and upwards.

walls without insulation are banned. Ditto floors and rooves.

BUT this has never been made retrospective.

Building regulations aim to build to new better standards. They have
never inisted on modifications to existing properties.

This regulation does that.


--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
The regulation says that by 2020 or if you sell the house you must modify
your private sewage plant to meet a given standard.

How severe is the standard? How many two-chamber septic tanks installed
(say) in the 1960s and 70s would pass? If not, what sort of modification
would typically be necessary to make it comply (in terms of cost and
disruption during construction)?

Is it similar to the new rules about MOTs and diesel emissions, where there
was a lot of scaremongering in advance, but in practice the vast majority of
cars still pass and it is only ones with a damaged or removed diesel
particulate filter that would fail.

On 16/08/2018 12:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/08/18 12:12, Nightjar wrote:
On 16/08/2018 09:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
Its not particularly onerous. But it does set a precedent for
retroactive building regulations which is slightly worrying.

There is no retroactive application of construction standards to
septic tanks.

Yes, there is.

The regulation says that by 2020 or if you sell the house you must
modify your private sewage plant to meet a given standard.

This legislation merely bans existing practices that may be damaging
to the environment. Precedents for that go back to 1306, when Edward I
banned the burning of coal in London. The Clean Air Act 1956 is a more
modern example, but virtually all environmental legislation does
something similar.



That is exactly the same. 90% of building regulations are effectively
banning something or other.

Corridoors less than 900mm are banned. stairs steeper than 45 degrees
are banned (or something similar) Airtight rooms with solid fuel or gas
fires in are banned. windows smaller than a given size are banned on
forst floors and upwards.

walls without insulation are banned. Ditto floors and rooves.

BUT this has never been made retrospective.

Building regulations aim to build to new better standards. They have
never inisted on modifications to existing properties.

This regulation does that.


It's not part of the building regulations so I don't know why you are
banging on about them.

Look at it more like the restrictions on leaded petrol, lead paint,
dumping white asbestos in your local park, burning plastic waste or old
tyres in your garden incinerator, etc etc.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

"Robin" wrote in message
...
Building regulations aim to build to new better standards. They have
never inisted on modifications to existing properties.

This regulation does that.


It's not part of the building regulations so I don't know why you are
banging on about them.

Look at it more like the restrictions on leaded petrol, lead paint,
dumping white asbestos in your local park, burning plastic waste or old
tyres in your garden incinerator, etc etc.

Not really a fair comparison. Leaded petrol can be solved in cars that need
it by using unleaded and either a fuel additive as a valve lubricant (IIRC)
or an adjustment to ignition timing. Lead paint, asbestos, burning
plastic/tyres - all those come into the category of "don't do it - do this
instead" (eg take to a proper tip).

But if there are going to be tighter restrictions on the outflow from septic
tanks, then that may be a very costly and disruptive conversion. It's not
just a case of modifying your behaviour a bit so as to be more responsible.
I'm sure retrospective changes will be a lot more expensive than modified
regulations and more elaborate septic tank for new build.

I'm wondering because at some stage in the next decade or so we will
probably be selling my parents' holiday cottage which has a dual chamber
septic tank that was installed probably in the late 60s or early 70s
(certainly by 1975 when we bought the cottage). As far as I know, all the
properties have septic tanks and these drain into a common "land drain" that
also takes grey water and rainwater and I think drains into a stream just
beyond the village. I don't think it goes into underground soakaway.

On 15/08/2018 15:37, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 04:03:42 -0700, aprilsweetheartrose wrote:

Sorry to be a pain but I was talking to someone this moring who said
that the EU ( them again!) were changing the rules on Septic Tanks.

I couldnt get out of him what changes exactly but he left me with the
impression ( worryingly) that my septic tank is now illegal but didnt
explain how or whay that could be .

You said it yourself: EU regs. The EU can make anything they like
illegal. And there's a lot of money in doing so - for *them* that is.
EU = Corruption. Never forget it.





and of course there is none whatsoever in good old Blighty.

On 16/08/18 12:41, NY wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
The regulation says that by 2020 or if you sell the house you must
modify your private sewage plant to meet a given standard.

How severe is the standard? How many two-chamber septic tanks installed
(say) in the 1960s and 70s would pass?

None.

If not, what sort of modification
would typically be necessary to make it comply (in terms of cost and
disruption during construction)?

Intsall a klargester or a reverse field drain


Is it similar to the new rules about MOTs and diesel emissions, where
there was a lot of scaremongering in advance, but in practice the vast
majority of cars still pass and it is only ones with a damaged or
removed diesel particulate filter that would fail.


No. I think the situaion is similar to when I built my new house,.
Because it was by then a 'new build' they refused permsission to use the
existing two chamber septic tank.

I had to install a klargester.


--
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.

On 15/08/2018 16:45, tim... wrote:


"Andrew" wrote in message
news
On 15/08/2018 12:33, T i m wrote:
On a similar topic, isn't someone in the States currently taking
Monsanto to court over heath issues suggested to be down to his
exposure to Glyphosate (and wasn't it Germany who asked the EU to look
into it)?

He's got non-hodgkins lymphoma.

This is a disease of unknown aetiology, just like all the
related leukeamias and other diseases.

He is just trying his luck to blame Monsanto for a big
compo payout.

and seems to have succeeded

tim




No he hasn't. A jury of man-in-the-street thickos 'decided'
that they knew more than the scientists. It will be
overturned on appeal.

On 15/08/2018 17:32, mechanic wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 16:17:26 +0100, Andrew wrote:

On 15/08/2018 12:33, T i m wrote:
On a similar topic, isn't someone in the States currently taking
Monsanto to court over heath issues suggested to be down to his
exposure to Glyphosate (and wasn't it Germany who asked the EU to look
into it)?

He's got non-hodgkins lymphoma.

This is a disease of unknown aetiology, just like all the
related leukeamias and other diseases.

He is just trying his luck to blame Monsanto for a big
compo payout.

Fairly clueless comment there, mate.


I used to be a haematology technician at one of the London
teaching hospitals that pioneered the diagnosis and
treatment of this family of diseases.

You are the one who is clueless.

On 16/08/18 15:05, Andrew wrote:
On 15/08/2018 17:32, mechanic wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 16:17:26 +0100, Andrew wrote:

On 15/08/2018 12:33, T i m wrote:
On a similar topic, isn't someone in the States currently taking
Monsanto to court over heath issues suggested to be down to his
exposure to Glyphosate (and wasn't it Germany who asked the EU to look
into it)?

He's got non-hodgkins lymphoma.

This is a disease of unknown aetiology, just like all the
related leukeamias and other diseases.

He is just trying his luck to blame Monsanto for a big
compo payout.

Fairly clueless comment there, mate.


I used to be a haematology technician at one of the London
teaching hospitals that pioneered the diagnosis and
treatment of this family of diseases.

But not their causes

You are the one who is clueless.

It appears by your own admission, you are.

--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 16/08/2018 12:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/08/18 12:12, Nightjar wrote:
On 16/08/2018 09:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
Its not particularly onerous. But it does set a precedent for
retroactive building regulations which is slightly worrying.

There is no retroactive application of construction standards to
septic tanks.

Yes, there is.

The regulation says that by 2020 or if you sell the house you must
modify your private sewage plant to meet a given standard...

There is absolutely no requirement to modify existing plants. All
existing plants, no matter how old, can be left exactly as built. The
requirement is that you must ensure that the outflow from the plant does
not contaminate a waterway.



--
--

Colin Bignell

On 16/08/2018 14:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
....
No. I think the situaion is similar to when I built my new house,.
Because it was by then a 'new build' they refused permsission to use the
existing two chamber septic tank....

That is quite different. New builds must comply with the current
regulations. Existing builds only have to have complied with the
regulations in force at the time they were built, if there were any.



--
--

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 16/08/2018 12:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/08/18 12:12, Nightjar wrote:
On 16/08/2018 09:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
Its not particularly onerous. But it does set a precedent for
retroactive building regulations which is slightly worrying.

There is no retroactive application of construction standards to septic
tanks.

Yes, there is.

The regulation says that by 2020 or if you sell the house you must modify
your private sewage plant to meet a given standard...

There is absolutely no requirement to modify existing plants. All existing
plants, no matter how old, can be left exactly as built. The requirement
is that you must ensure that the outflow from the plant does not
contaminate a waterway.

Which may amount to the same: you may need either to modify your plant so
its output is cleaner, if it discharges into a waterway, or else you may
need to modify where the unmodified outflow goes (soakway rather than
waterway). One way or the other you may need to pay, even though your system
met the relevant standards when it was installed.

"NY" Wrote in message:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 16/08/2018 12:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/08/18 12:12, Nightjar wrote:
On 16/08/2018 09:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
Its not particularly onerous. But it does set a precedent for
retroactive building regulations which is slightly worrying.

There is no retroactive application of construction standards to septic
tanks.

Yes, there is.

The regulation says that by 2020 or if you sell the house you must modify
your private sewage plant to meet a given standard...

There is absolutely no requirement to modify existing plants. All existing
plants, no matter how old, can be left exactly as built. The requirement
is that you must ensure that the outflow from the plant does not
contaminate a waterway.

Which may amount to the same: you may need either to modify your plant so
its output is cleaner, if it discharges into a waterway, or else you may
need to modify where the unmodified outflow goes (soakway rather than
waterway). One way or the other you may need to pay, even though your system
met the relevant standards when it was installed.



Now you're getting it ;-)
--
--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Building regulations aim to build to new better standards. They have
never inisted on modifications to existing properties.

Really? Try renting out legally a 3 story house in London which doesn't
have the correct fire check doors etc protecting the stairs.

--
*My wife and I had words. But I didn't get to use mine.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
No he hasn't. A jury of man-in-the-street thickos 'decided'
that they knew more than the scientists. It will be
overturned on appeal.

Ah. So experts are always right, then? Or at least far more reliable than
the man in the street?

But not when it come to Brexit, obviously. ;-)

--
*Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 16/08/2018 16:55, NY wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
....
There is absolutely no requirement to modify existing plants. All
existing plants, no matter how old, can be left exactly as built. The
requirement is that you must ensure that the outflow from the plant
does not contaminate a waterway.

Which may amount to the same: you may need either to modify your plant
so its output is cleaner, if it discharges into a waterway, or else you
may need to modify where the unmodified outflow goes (soakway rather
than waterway). One way or the other you may need to pay, even though
your system met the relevant standards when it was installed.

The result may well be that you need to spend money to clean up the
outfall, but that does not constitute a retrospective application of
current standards to the plant itself.

The OPs plant and drainage filed will not be certified to the relevant
British Standards. However, neither needs to be changed in any way to
meet the regulations. If the General Binding Rules required the septic
tank to be replaced with one certified to BS EN 12566-1 and the drainage
field to be replaced with one designed and constructed to BS 6297:2007,
that would constitute a retrospective application of standards, but they
don't.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 16/08/2018 13:19, NY wrote:
....
I'm wondering because at some stage in the next decade or so we will
probably be selling my parents' holiday cottage which has a dual chamber
septic tank that was installed probably in the late 60s or early 70s
(certainly by 1975 when we bought the cottage). As far as I know, all
the properties have septic tanks and these drain into a common "land
drain" that also takes grey water and rainwater and I think drains into
a stream just beyond the village. I don't think it goes into underground
soakaway.

The EA rules prohibit a septic tank from discharging into an open
waterway. I am not sure whether that includes a common land drain that
eventually discharges into one. The addition of grey water and rainwater
may make it acceptable. You will probably have to ask the EA or water
authority for clarification.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 16/08/2018 12:33, NY wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
....
Gosh, I hadn't realised that coal smoke was a problem in London as far
back as 1306 with the *very* much smaller number of houses that long ago.

The density of housing was probably at least as great, so fewer houses
would mean a smaller area was affected, but to no lesser degree. Edward
I considered it enough of a problem to make the burning of coal a
capital offence.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 16/08/2018 13:19, NY wrote:
"Robin" wrote in message
...
Building regulations aim to build to new better standards. They have
never inisted on modifications to existing properties.

This regulation does that.


It's not part of the building regulations so I don't know why you are
banging on about them.

Look at it more like the restrictions on leaded petrol, lead paint,
dumping white asbestos in your local park, burning plastic waste or
old tyres in your garden incinerator, etc etc.

Not really a fair comparison. Leaded petrol can be solved in cars that
need it by using unleaded and either a fuel additive as a valve
lubricant (IIRC) or an adjustment to ignition timing. Lead paint,
asbestos, burning plastic/tyres - all those come into the category of
"don't do it - do this instead" (eg take to a proper tip).

But if there are going to be tighter restrictions on the outflow from
septic tanks, then that may be a very costly and disruptive conversion.
It's not just a case of modifying your behaviour a bit so as to be more
responsible. I'm sure retrospective changes will be a lot more expensive
than modified regulations and more elaborate septic tank for new build.

I'm wondering because at some stage in the next decade or so we will
probably be selling my parents' holiday cottage which has a dual chamber
septic tank that was installed probably in the late 60s or early 70s
(certainly by 1975 when we bought the cottage). As far as I know, all
the properties have septic tanks and these drain into a common "land
drain" that also takes grey water and rainwater and I think drains into
a stream just beyond the village. I don't think it goes into underground
soakaway.

My parents have recently sold their holiday home in Brittany. The old
septic tank had to be replaced before they could sell it and due to the
position of the house and the avilable space, it could not go in the
existing position. The new one had to but put at the front of the house
and new drains run under the house (with an existing tiled floor, on
thick concrete and under 3 ft stone walls); across the drive/parking
area (2ft thick concrete, as the previous owner simply had loads poured
to level the land) and a whole new drainage system under the grass
beyond (which had to be built up because the land was too low).

Not only did it cost something like Eu20K (luckily with a Eu12K grant),
but it took 6 months to process the grant paperwork, 5 months for the
company to actually come and do some work and another 2 months to get
them to finish the last couple of hours work and get the completion
forms signed off. 13 months of delay, with the house unable to be sold
and no ability to switch to another company, as the grant application
would have had to be started all over again!

SteveW

On 16/08/18 19:45, Nightjar wrote:
On 16/08/2018 13:19, NY wrote:
...
I'm wondering because at some stage in the next decade or so we will
probably be selling my parents' holiday cottage which has a dual
chamber septic tank that was installed probably in the late 60s or
early 70s (certainly by 1975 when we bought the cottage). As far as I
know, all the properties have septic tanks and these drain into a
common "land drain" that also takes grey water and rainwater and I
think drains into a stream just beyond the village. I don't think it
goes into underground soakaway.

The EA rules prohibit a septic tank from discharging into an open
waterway. I am not sure whether that includes a common land drain that
eventually discharges into one. The addition of grey water and rainwater
may make it acceptable. You will probably have to ask the EA or water
authority for clarification.

Yes. The water boys have had the rule since at least 2002


Even a dry ditch that potentially used to feed a wartercourse is a nono.

This is not a new rule. What is new is that it is being enforced
retrospectively.

--
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act.

- George Orwell

On 16/08/18 19:53, Steve Walker wrote:
Not only did it cost something like Eu20K (luckily with a Eu12K grant),
but it took 6 months to process the grant paperwork, 5 months for the
company to actually come and do some work and another 2 months to get
them to finish the last couple of hours work and get the completion
forms signed off. 13 months of delay, with the house unable to be sold
and no ability to switch to another company, as the grant application
would have had to be started all over again!

Thank **** we are leaving the EU.


--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 16/08/18 19:53, Steve Walker wrote:
Not only did it cost something like Eu20K (luckily with a Eu12K grant),
but it took 6 months to process the grant paperwork, 5 months for the
company to actually come and do some work and another 2 months to get
them to finish the last couple of hours work and get the completion
forms signed off. 13 months of delay, with the house unable to be sold
and no ability to switch to another company, as the grant application
would have had to be started all over again!

Thank **** we are leaving the EU.

I agree! It will be so much easier to do building work in Britanny once
we can send a gunboat to silence the local mayor.

--

Roger Hayter

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/08/18 19:53, Steve Walker wrote:
Not only did it cost something like Eu20K (luckily with a Eu12K grant),
but it took 6 months to process the grant paperwork, 5 months for the
company to actually come and do some work and another 2 months to get
them to finish the last couple of hours work and get the completion
forms signed off. 13 months of delay, with the house unable to be sold
and no ability to switch to another company, as the grant application
would have had to be started all over again!

Thank **** we are leaving the EU.

Yup., About time we went back to being able to pollute as much as we want.

--
*Wrinkled was not one of the things I wanted to be when I grew up

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Nightjar posted
On 16/08/2018 16:55, NY wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
...
There is absolutely no requirement to modify existing plants. All
existing plants, no matter how old, can be left exactly as built. The
requirement is that you must ensure that the outflow from the plant
does not contaminate a waterway.
Which may amount to the same: you may need either to modify your
plant so its output is cleaner, if it discharges into a waterway, or
else you may need to modify where the unmodified outflow goes
(soakway rather than waterway). One way or the other you may need to
pay, even though your system met the relevant standards when it was
installed.

The result may well be that you need to spend money to clean up the
outfall, but that does not constitute a retrospective application of
current standards to the plant itself.

The OPs plant and drainage filed will not be certified to the relevant
British Standards. However, neither needs to be changed in any way to
meet the regulations.

How do I make the outflow cleaner without replacing or modifying the
tank or drainage field?


--
Jack

On 17/08/18 07:49, Handsome Jack wrote:
Nightjar posted
On 16/08/2018 16:55, NY wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
...
There is absolutely no requirement to modify existing plants. All
existing plants, no matter how old, can be left exactly as built.
The requirement is that you must ensure that the outflow from the
plant does not contaminate a waterway.
Â*Which may amount to the same: you may need either to modify your
plantÂ* so its output is cleaner, if it discharges into a waterway, or
else youÂ* may need to modify where the unmodified outflow goes
(soakway ratherÂ* than waterway). One way or the other you may need to
pay, even thoughÂ* your system met the relevant standards when it was
installed.

The result may well be that you need to spend money to clean up the
outfall, but that does not constitute a retrospective application of
current standards to the plant itself.

The OPs plant and drainage filed will not be certified to the relevant
British Standards. However, neither needs to be changed in any way to
meet the regulations.

How do I make the outflow cleaner without replacing or modifying the
tank or drainage field?


crap in a neighbours house.



--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

On 17/08/2018 07:49, Handsome Jack wrote:
....
How do I make the outflow cleaner without replacing or modifying the
tank or drainage field?

If you have an existing drainage field, you don't need to.

--
--

Colin Bignell

Nightjar posted
On 17/08/2018 07:49, Handsome Jack wrote:
...
How do I make the outflow cleaner without replacing or modifying the
tank or drainage field?

If you have an existing drainage field, you don't need to.


I think I have (it wasn't me who built it in the 1930s) but I don't know
if its eventual outflow to the stream is clean enough to meet the new
standards.

--
Jack

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 16/08/2018 16:55, NY wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
...
There is absolutely no requirement to modify existing plants. All
existing plants, no matter how old, can be left exactly as built. The
requirement is that you must ensure that the outflow from the plant does
not contaminate a waterway.

Which may amount to the same: you may need either to modify your plant so
its output is cleaner, if it discharges into a waterway, or else you may
need to modify where the unmodified outflow goes (soakway rather than
waterway). One way or the other you may need to pay, even though your
system met the relevant standards when it was installed.

The result may well be that you need to spend money to clean up the
outfall, but that does not constitute a retrospective application of
current standards to the plant itself.

I think you might be splitting hairs (*) here. If you need to clean up the
outfall (or direct the outfall elsewhere), having not been required to
previously, then that is retrospective application of a modern standard onto
an old system. Where you make the boundary between "the plant" and "the
outfall" doesn't really matter.


(*) Or "splitting hares" as I saw someone write, which conjures up the image
of someone attacking a jack or a jill with a cleaver :-)

On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 07:49:38 +0100, Handsome Jack wrote:

How do I make the outflow cleaner without replacing or modifying the
tank or drainage field?

The rules that have been in place since 2015 and have to be complied
with by 2020 are only applicable to systems that discharge into
surface water.

I doubt that there are many, if any, septic tank systems that
discharge into surface water. It's been standard practice for a very
long time for them to discharge underground into a drainage field or
soakaway.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 07:49:38 +0100, Handsome Jack wrote:

How do I make the outflow cleaner without replacing or modifying the
tank or drainage field?

The rules that have been in place since 2015 and have to be complied
with by 2020 are only applicable to systems that discharge into
surface water.

I doubt that there are many, if any, septic tank systems that
discharge into surface water. It's been standard practice for a very
long time for them to discharge underground into a drainage field or
soakaway.


When we sold Dads old farm amongst the documentation there was an official
looking document regarding the septic tank from the House and a plan of the
tank and drainage field . I cant recall now which department or body had
rubber stamped it but some official requirement must have been complied
with.
The tank went in when the house got its first flush toilet in 1952, before
it was just a bucket and chuck it in a pit dug and filled as required .
No idea if a plain cesspool would have been granted if requested but
Grandfather whose farm it was at the time was not noted for spending
unnecessarily so I suspect not.
The documentation was enough to satisfy the purchaser and her solicitors
that it was still legal , this was in 2010. Nearest open water course
would be a field edge ditch about 200 yards from the drainage field so
plenty of soil to filter through. The ditch leads into a stream about 500
yard away and dries out periodically.
I never saw any evidence of contamination in it unlike the outfall of my
brothers Klargester or similar device which discharges into a similar
ditch. A lot of black silt like mud in the ditch around the outfall, his J
Russel pup allegedly white in colour seemed to like paddling in it though.

GH

On 17/08/2018 10:57, NY wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 16/08/2018 16:55, NY wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
...
There is absolutely no requirement to modify existing plants. All
existing plants, no matter how old, can be left exactly as built.
The requirement is that you must ensure that the outflow from the
plant does not contaminate a waterway.

Which may amount to the same: you may need either to modify your
plant so its output is cleaner, if it discharges into a waterway, or
else you may need to modify where the unmodified outflow goes
(soakway rather than waterway). One way or the other you may need to
pay, even though your system met the relevant standards when it was
installed.

The result may well be that you need to spend money to clean up the
outfall, but that does not constitute a retrospective application of
current standards to the plant itself.

I think you might be splitting hairs (*) here.

I am arguing a legal point, which is probably much the same thing.

If you need to clean up
the outfall (or direct the outfall elsewhere), having not been required
to previously, then that is retrospective application of a modern
standard onto an old system. Where you make the boundary between "the
plant" and "the outfall" doesn't really matter.

The assertion was that this created a precedent for retrospective
building standards. I am saying that, as it does not apply to all septic
tanks* it does not create a precedent. However, in line with other
environmental legislation, it does mean that some previously acceptable
installations have to be modified.

*in fact the numbers are probably relatively few - it has been a long
time since direct discharge into an open waterway has been permitted.

(*) Or "splitting hares" as I saw someone write, which conjures up the
image of someone attacking a jack or a jill with a cleaver :-)


--
--

Colin Bignell