Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:07 pm
Hi all. In the process of gathering quotes to resurface a very worn and broken asphalt driveway. Would really appreciate some opinions on the best way of doing this.
Quote 1 from Company A is for new tarmac as follows
Supply & Install on sand & cement as advised a Brick block border creating new surface water levels to fall away from the wall. Making good the boundary line to the neighbours & re-routing the communication wiring.
Sweep clean the entire area free from debris.
Supply & apply throughout a K140 bitumen emulsion to bond the old surface with the new.
Supply, lay & compact to a depth of 30mm, using a twin drummed vibrating roller, 6mm SMA (Smapave) Surface Course. (Very durable and hard wearing Macadam Surface)
Quote 2 from Company B is for a gravel finish which seems to be far simpler, in that after removing the old asphalt, the existing concrete would be repaired with new, and on top would be laid stabilising tiles http://www.aco.co.uk/product_detail.php?id=1 and gravel on top.
When I asked Company A about a gravel finish, I got a very complicated description of what that would entail, involving the original job plus an additional layer of bitumen emulsion, followed by embedded shingle and loose shingle on top - this would cost an additional £1,000.
So I'm confused. What, if anything, is 'wrong' with Quote 2? It's cheaper obviously but I'm more interested in which approach is best. Why does Company A have such a different approach to a gravel finish to Company B? (they say tarmac has to be laid whichever finish we want) Can they both be right?
The house is in London, Victorian, on top of a hill, divided into 3 flats. Currently water is soaking down through the broken concrete and collecting behind the retaining walls round the basement. So proper drainage is important, but also there's a question of aesthetics. A gravel finish is preferred by the flat owners because it looks more stylish than tarmac (if kept tidy) and more in keeping with a period house. Could the simpler, cheaper job be right for our building, or is there something important I'm not seeing?
Any thoughts gratefully received - I'm getting very confused!
Many thanks
Quote 1 from Company A is for new tarmac as follows
Supply & Install on sand & cement as advised a Brick block border creating new surface water levels to fall away from the wall. Making good the boundary line to the neighbours & re-routing the communication wiring.
Sweep clean the entire area free from debris.
Supply & apply throughout a K140 bitumen emulsion to bond the old surface with the new.
Supply, lay & compact to a depth of 30mm, using a twin drummed vibrating roller, 6mm SMA (Smapave) Surface Course. (Very durable and hard wearing Macadam Surface)
Quote 2 from Company B is for a gravel finish which seems to be far simpler, in that after removing the old asphalt, the existing concrete would be repaired with new, and on top would be laid stabilising tiles http://www.aco.co.uk/product_detail.php?id=1 and gravel on top.
When I asked Company A about a gravel finish, I got a very complicated description of what that would entail, involving the original job plus an additional layer of bitumen emulsion, followed by embedded shingle and loose shingle on top - this would cost an additional £1,000.
So I'm confused. What, if anything, is 'wrong' with Quote 2? It's cheaper obviously but I'm more interested in which approach is best. Why does Company A have such a different approach to a gravel finish to Company B? (they say tarmac has to be laid whichever finish we want) Can they both be right?
The house is in London, Victorian, on top of a hill, divided into 3 flats. Currently water is soaking down through the broken concrete and collecting behind the retaining walls round the basement. So proper drainage is important, but also there's a question of aesthetics. A gravel finish is preferred by the flat owners because it looks more stylish than tarmac (if kept tidy) and more in keeping with a period house. Could the simpler, cheaper job be right for our building, or is there something important I'm not seeing?
Any thoughts gratefully received - I'm getting very confused!
Many thanks