Argh hit the posts too early. You must ask the sewerage company when the sewers have been accepted under the extension. I hope that it was not adopted during the construction of enlargement, in which case we would not have needed a construction agreement. It is almost impossible to obtain information from the water service to confirm whether the building permit should have been issued or whether the sewers were previously private and were transferred following the transfer of the private canals regulation in 2011. This makes it difficult to satisfy a commercial lender that was not necessary to reach an agreement. A commercial lender must ensure that, in a situation where a sewer contractor needs access to a sewerage system located under land, the work does not affect the value of the property and the security of the bank, and there must be some certainty as to the liability of a legal minor to repair the damage in the absence of a formal construction agreement. The housing recidivism situation and the lack of building permits appear to be insurance for compensation. However, as commercial real estate lawyers know, insurance is much more expensive when it comes to commercial real estate. The answer is not clear. The costs of studying the history of sewers under the ground must be incurred to meet the situation, or the costs must be borne by obtaining a compensation policy. One way or another, this is an uncomfortable situation that has not contemplated the transfer of the regulation to private channels and will probably only be more frequent, since real estate that would have been private before 2011 is now falling above the public. No, no planning, building control.
In 1992, they would have needed a construction agreement if the derivative backwards was divided AND the house before 1937. So we are close to the exchange and the research has identified a public sewer that works at the back of the house. It is a 1930s house and the expansion was built in the 1990s. There`s a building permit. The well is just outside the wall of the extension cord, perhaps a foot from here. My lawyer asked the seller`s lawyer to tell us if they have a construction contract, but seem unlikely. I understand that you can build in a guilty way, but it seems that since I have been inquiring about this issue with the water supplier, we are not in a position to remove it now, as has just been announced. I am puzzled as to what we will do next if there is no construction on the agreement. We love the house and we have already invested time and money to get to this point. Has anyone experienced anything about it and have you been able to solve it? I`m grateful for your insight.
According to the 2010 building code, Scheme 1, Part H4, the agreement of a legal undertaker is required for construction work on a public sewer. When ”public pollution channels” and ”public surface water channels” pass underground, an owner of such land cannot build on or within the distribution line of such a channel without the approval of the regional wastewater operator. This is called ”Build over Consent” or ”Building over Agreement.” Such an agreement allows the legal undertaker to access the sewers for maintenance purposes. A construction by agreement will also determine the responsibilities of the legal undertaker to repair the damage suffered.