Page 2 of 2
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:09 pm
by Big Phil
what he said 
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:08 pm
by GB_Groundworks
This is off topic but the thickness of the Tarmac triggerd the thought, was driving up winnats pass this am explaining to my 4 yr old about the old rd that was closed in 1979 after years of landslides. So I took him and showed it him, the bitmac is 2 metres thick in places after years of repair. That's some serious bitmac,
My folks are going through something similar on their hill, lane is a bye way but two neighbours at bottom of the hill don't want it resurfacing with two strips of bitmac they want it leaving as Brocken up bitmac/subbase. They are both tree hugging hippies, the 8 neighbours above want it doing becoming a big pita
Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 2:27 pm
by Colin James
This matter is still not resolved.
My neighbour does not like the thought of a soakaway and is suggesting we use permeable tarmac instead of the traditional sort (225 Type1 + 70mm dense bitmac).
Does anyone have any thoughts on whether this stuff is reliable? The total driveway is 280 m2, so not easily fixed if it goes wrong.
Regards,
Colin.
Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:19 pm
by Dave_L
Sounds like the neighbour is a pain in the arse.
Permeable surfacing requires a permeable subase at increased depth - more to dig out, more fill in.
Is he aware of the costs??
Yes, permeable bitmac is available and works well.
Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:43 am
by Colin James
Thanks for the reply.
I had got the impression from some of the threads that the robustness and expected life was a bit suspect. Part of the driveway is used of three point turns but on the other hand, the overall useage is on the light side.
The local councils here seem to be using it more.
Regards,
Colin.