Hi not strictly a DIY Q's but thought I would just ask. We are soon to
renovate an old barn tho there's a few things

1) The local planning department is opposing the development on the grounds
that it will cause negative impacts on the surrounding area (At present the
barn is falling down and if nothing is done it will be lost)

2) We have a very large deep pond with no water in cos of its size it has no
obvious inflows and would like to be able to use it as a pond.

3) Were keen environmentalists and as such looking at certain things we can
do to decrease impacts from the development.

As such we are looking at having a reedbed constructed to deal with our
sewage and let the fresh water go into the pond, upon Environment Agency
approval. The reasoning behind the reedbed was:
1) To try to prove to the council that impacts will be minimal.
2) To fill the pond up with freshwater and maintain the water level
3) To avoid paying sewage charges
4) To reduce impact of the property.

What I was after was any experiences of such a system pros/cons etc if it
would be suitable to fill a pond. Any possible problems.
Cheers
Oli

The Question Asker wrote:
Hi not strictly a DIY Q's but thought I would just ask. We are soon to
renovate an old barn tho there's a few things

1) The local planning department is opposing the development on the
grounds that it will cause negative impacts on the surrounding area
(At present the barn is falling down and if nothing is done it will
be lost)

I fail to see how a well presented revovation will cause a negative inmpact.
A rotting old barn is an eyesore. There was a similar situation in Wroughton
nr Swindon with the LA refusing to give permission to renovate an old barn
right in the middle of town. Some kids (I assume) burned it to the ground.
Problem solved. However if someone is prepared to make the effort I feel the
LA is overstepping their mandate. Touch of the old "I'm in charge" I think.
Steve R

---
One piece, one button suit, timeless fashion. All made by the same
manufacturer, no designer label, everybody has one.

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 21:33:36 UTC, "The Question Asker"
wrote:

: What I was after was any experiences of such a system pros/cons etc if it
: would be suitable to fill a pond.

The Centre For Alternative Technology (www.cat.org.uk) would be very
good people to ask about this.

Ian

--

In article ,
"The Question Asker" writes:

[reedbeds]

1) The local planning department is opposing the development on the grounds
that it will cause negative impacts on the surrounding area (At present the
barn is falling down and if nothing is done it will be lost)

Sewage as such is a bit of a problem for constructed wetlands.
Runoff and grey water aren't such a problem.

2) We have a very large deep pond with no water in cos of its size it has no
obvious inflows and would like to be able to use it as a pond.

What is your local soil permeability? You may have to consider
puddling the pond to retain the water.

3) Were keen environmentalists and as such looking at certain things we can
do to decrease impacts from the development.

As such we are looking at having a reedbed constructed to deal with our
sewage and let the fresh water go into the pond, upon Environment Agency
approval. The reasoning behind the reedbed was:

1) To try to prove to the council that impacts will be minimal

More importantly, you should try to prove to the council that the
impacts will be large and positive. Should they at this point
refuse, you should suggest that the next time you see them, it
will be in Strasbourg, as they are violating your human rights.

2) To fill the pond up with freshwater and maintain the water level

Directing your roof runoff there is a good start.

3) To avoid paying sewage charges

Probably not an option.

4) To reduce impact of the property.

An old barn is an old barn. I cannot really visualise it is going
to impinge on the rural idyll unless you paint it day-glo orange.

What I was after was any experiences of such a system pros/cons etc if it
would be suitable to fill a pond. Any possible problems.

Going on the experience I have had with the constructed wetlands
at Heathrow, the local bird population will increase. Buy some
binoculars. The Heathrow scheme is to remediate their runoff,
particularly the de-icing fluids, and is located to the south of
the airport. As the runways run east-west, this means that the
birds do not generally cross the path of the airliners, which
would be a bad thing for birds and aircraft alike. The site is
large, it took me about 10 minutes to cross it on foot. BAA can
probably give you some shiny brochures to wave at the council.

John Schmitt


--
If you have nothing to say, or rather, something extremely stupid
and obvious, say it, but in a 'plonking' tone of voice - i.e.
roundly, but hollowly and dogmatically. - Stephen Potter

"The Question Asker" wrote in message ...
2) We have a very large deep pond with no water in cos of its size it has no
obvious inflows and would like to be able to use it as a pond.

3) Were keen environmentalists and as such looking at certain things we can
do to decrease impacts from the development.

As such we are looking at having a reedbed constructed to deal with our
sewage and let the fresh water go into the pond, upon Environment Agency
approval. The reasoning behind the reedbed was:
1) To try to prove to the council that impacts will be minimal.
2) To fill the pond up with freshwater and maintain the water level
3) To avoid paying sewage charges
4) To reduce impact of the property.

What I was after was any experiences of such a system pros/cons etc if it
would be suitable to fill a pond. Any possible problems.
Cheers
Oli

Hi

I saw a piece one time on a hotel which used a series of ponds to
treat all sewage, and the guests wandered round them without realising
what they were, so that tells you how effective it can be.

Regards, NT

John Schmitt wrote:
The Heathrow scheme is to remediate their runoff,
particularly the de-icing fluids,

Ethylene Glycol ? What eats it, and what is turned into, out of
interest. I know that yeast eats stuff and turns that into ethanol. Is
there anti-yeast !

Steve

In article ,
Steve writes:

The Heathrow scheme is to remediate their runoff,
particularly the de-icing fluids,

Ethylene Glycol ? What eats it, and what is turned into, out of
interest. I know that yeast eats stuff and turns that into ethanol. Is
there anti-yeast !

It isn't just ethylene glycol. The two main sellers are are
Konsin and Kilfrost, both blends of glycols. Sodium acetate
formulations are coming in and all are readily (or is that
reedily?) biodegradible and of low toxicity. The degradation
appears to be a combination of microbial activity in the soil
substrate and metabolism by the reeds. As the reeds live in a
carbon-poor environment, this is mostly turned into reeds.
Obviously there is a variety of biota in the reedbeds which is
what attracts the birds (I should be so lucky!) who come to dine
on them. There is probably some carbon dioxide released, but when
you consider that a 747 is converting in excess of 11 tonnes of
JP4 (which is a petroleum distillate) to carbon dioxide and water
(hence vapour trails) every hour, any environmental
considerations about this are negligable. Per mile, jet is the
way to travel long distances with regard to the environment. I
have quite lost track of the number of times I have crossed the
Atlantic, all I know is that it is now an odd number. The first
time was in a Super Connie and we made stops at Keflavik and
Gander before landing at Idlewild (now JFK). Of course the Super
Connie was a prop-jet, but it was the best option at the time.
Nowadays, of course, the Atlantic can be done without refuelling
stops, and those seat-back screens seem to make the time fly by.
Last time, it was really only the seat belt light that alerted me
to the fact that something like 6 hours had passed.

John Schmitt


--
If you have nothing to say, or rather, something extremely stupid
and obvious, say it, but in a 'plonking' tone of voice - i.e.
roundly, but hollowly and dogmatically. - Stephen Potter