Page 1 of 2
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:04 pm
by colordrives
I am a surfacing contractor and have just learned tonite about this :
"legislation due late 2008 requiring planning permission for paving of front gardens of existing – as well as new – homes, unless permeable systems are used. And it can be expected that in many cases permission will not be granted if permeable paving is a viable alternative"
I have heard nothing about this whatsoever!!
I simply cannot believe what i am reading as 80% of my work is tarmac this could put me out of business, anyone else here in the same boat?
In addition most of my block work is highly detailed clay paved stuff the only permeable paving i have ever seen is cheap concrete crap that looks horrible.
Can anyone else spread any light on this potential disaster for the tarmacers of England?
Dom
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:09 pm
by James.Q
go to tony's blog page and read all about it 
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:39 pm
by colordrives
Yea i have just read that and i agree with what he is saying but when is this actually going to come into force? this year?
Is it set in stone that these changes will be made?
Cuss if it comes in late 2008 for sure than I need to retrain all my staff and completly change my advertising.
Tony you got any more info on this m8?
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:54 pm
by Rich H
Yes, it is coming in. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the decision as to whether to require a SUDS scheme for construction on residential projects lies with the individual planning authorities at the moment.
The way I'm looking at it is to re-orient my business to be a SUDS paver - you can't turn back the tide, after all.
What's unclear at the moment is whether you really need to do the fairly complex study necessary to design a SUDS scheme for each little driveway, or whether the councils will take the view that, for a given region, a certain approach will be ok.
From what I can tell, in my area, a flattish driveway which is taking no additional flow from down pipes or adjacent impermeable paving, and which is being designed as a full-infiltration system, would need a CGA sub-base of 150mm, optional membrane, fine grit bedding layer and the pavers on top.
If the planners will accept some degree of templating, I can't see that it makes an awful lot of difference for 90% of jobs - just cost, that's all!
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:49 pm
by matt h
planners and councils will make decisions on what they havbe no idea..you will just have to suck it and see... just the latest fad if you ask me:(
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:22 pm
by Dave_L
It's certainly a little worrying for us blacktop boys :rock:
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:11 pm
by MRA
Rich H wrote:Yes, it is coming in. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the decision as to whether to require a SUDS scheme for construction on residential projects lies with the individual planning authorities at the moment.
The way I'm looking at it is to re-orient my business to be a SUDS paver - you can't turn back the tide, after all.
What's unclear at the moment is whether you really need to do the fairly complex study necessary to design a SUDS scheme for each little driveway, or whether the councils will take the view that, for a given region, a certain approach will be ok.
From what I can tell, in my area, a flattish driveway which is taking no additional flow from down pipes or adjacent impermeable paving, and which is being designed as a full-infiltration system, would need a CGA sub-base of 150mm, optional membrane, fine grit bedding layer and the pavers on top.
If the planners will accept some degree of templating, I can't see that it makes an awful lot of difference for 90% of jobs - just cost, that's all!
Correct...Yes, it is coming.
The dig for a domestic SUDS driveway installation is deeper than a regular CBP installation; 310mm in fact (average). This is to allow for a deeper area in which the water can flow into. A membrane would prove to counteract the effects of the natural drainage, hence it being left out of a SUDS drive. The concrete bedding upon which the edgings will be laid will also be deeper; it needs to be the full depth of the dig allowing for total lateral support to the sub-base which is made up from a 200mm deep layer of 20mm clean stone (to allow water penetration). Other considerations have to made if the drive is sloping considerably etc. This method of installation is free draining and is not the same as the permeable paved areas with tanked drainage.
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 6:28 pm
by colordrives
So whats to stop me just doing a driveway as normal and plugging ACO into a soakaway? whay should i need planning for that?
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:02 pm
by Dave_L
Aslong as you are dealing with the surface water correctly, then I would see no problem!
I'm sure the legislation will be full of red tape etc.....
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:35 pm
by Tony McC
I've just got back from deepest, darkest Gloucestershire after running the first one-day course on permeable pavements. Let me have a brew, read me paper, have a kip, and I'll do a fuller piece on permeable pavements tomorrow.
Just to be sure Mr Colordrives doesn't sit up all night fretting, there are a good number of options that will enable you to carry on with the blacktop: you'll probably need some training in drainage and soakaway design, though.
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:16 pm
by Tony McC
It’s still not 100% clear just how the half-baked notion to require all new driveways and residential paving to deal with surface water at source will be implemented; the only information I can ascertain is that all new residential paving will have to be either permeable surfaces or drain to an on-site soakaway of some description. Otherwise, they will require planning permission, which has to be obtained from the local council at an elevated cost and with no guarantee that it will be granted. There is a real risk that a paid up-front planning application will be rejected out of hand and that fee is non-returnable.
We know how to do this type of work, but what we still don’t know how it’s going to be monitored and controlled. Will individual householders be expected to apply for permission, or will that become yet another layer of paperwork and administration for the contractor? What happens when the “cowboys� that blight our trade put in a price 20% cheaper than a bone fide contractor, because they have no intention of excavating to 400+mm and installing a no-fines sub-base. There’s no need for a crystal ball to be able to predict that John Wayne and his sidekicks will manage to convince some householders that blocks laid on sand over bare earth will act as a permeable pavement. To the less clued-up homeowner, such an argument may seem plausible: after all, they are not civil engineers or paving specialists and they will believe what they are told. Just look at how many still fall for the “bitmac left over from a big job up the road� ruse!
For those contractors willing to be trained in the construction of permeable pavements, there’s nothing that should be a worry. The tools and techniques used are pretty familiar; some of the aggregates will seem a bit strange at first, but they’ll soon become as familiar as Type 1 or Class M. However, for those contractors that have previously specialised in monolithic surfaces, such as macadam or PIC, they’re going to have to expand their skill range to learn about soakaways and drainage installation.
There are ways and means of installing any of the paving types currently on the market in a way that will create a pavement where surface water is disposed of “at source�. Yes: concrete block permeable paving (CBPP) will grab the headlines, but there are plenty of alternatives. Clients preferring setts, or yorkstone flags or resin bound aggregates will still be able to have them. It will be up to the contractor to devise a suitable drainage system, and that’s the biggest change.
The easy familiarity of falling the paving towards existing gullies or dropping in a few lengths of linear channel will disappear. Contractors working the residential market will all have to become paving AND drainage contractors if they want to stay in business. They will be expected to be able to calculate the size of soakaway required, where best to locate any such soakaway, whether a sub-base replacement unit might be a better option, whether a simple “rain garden� would be adequate, or whether the client is just going to have to accept that gravel, as loose material or contained within a cell-matrix system, is the only viable option.
Despite bearing all the hallmarks of being thought up over a particularly generous liquid lunch late one Friday afternoon, these new requirements do NOT spell the end of PIC, macadam, RBA or any other type of paving that we currently use. There are workarounds for all surfaces in all situations. However, there is a real danger that the requirements will become a “rogue’s charter�. With CBPP currently costing around 50% more than conventional CBP, and with honest tradesmen already struggling to compete against those that skimp or omit sub-base, that lay edge courses on sand, that don’t pay VAT, this represents yet another threat to their livelihood.
If we had a level playing field, where all contractors were licensed or approved or checked by some independent accreditation service, then we could rest easy in the knowledge that these guidelines WILL benefit the environment and better serve the customer in the long term. But we all know that the rogues will use this as an even better opportunity to fleece the unsuspecting by swearing to the client that the shoddy structure they plan to throw down is a permeable surface.
Until we’re told how these requirements will be policed, by whom, with what penalties, and at whose expense, there’s a real risk that, as the old adage says, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Edited By Tony McC on 1207340344
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:42 pm
by Tony McC
Just noticed: MRA states...
MRA wrote:A membrane would prove to counteract the effects of the natural drainage, hence it being left out of a SUDS drive.
This is not correct. A geo-textile membrane will be essential at formation level (between sub-grade and sub-base) and a number of manufacturers are promoting the use of a second geo-textile membrane between sub-base and laying course.
While I full support and understand the need for a separation membrane at formation level (it prevents mixing and migration of sub-base and sub-grade), the use of a second such membrane at the top of the sub-base is more contentious: I've heard valid and firmly-stated arguments both for and against, with the main "pro" argument being that it prevents trickle down of laying course and consequent settlement, while the most commonly espoused counter argument is that a sheet geo-textile in such a relatively high position within the overall structure can act as a slip membrane. This is likely to be one of those debates that is resolved empirically, as more and more CBPP is installed.
Back to MRA's comments...
The concrete bedding upon which the edgings will be laid will also be deeper; it needs to be the full depth of the dig allowing for total lateral support to the sub-base which is made up from a 200mm deep layer of 20mm clean stone (to allow water penetration).
Again, this isn't strictly accurate. There are several ways in which edge courses can be constructed much as they are for conventional block pavements, or with the concrete bed laid over a strip foundation of Type 1 or similar. There may be individual scenarios where an overly-deep concrete bed may be necessary, but from what I've seen and read and lectured, this would be an exception rather than a rule.
As CBPP is relatively new, there are bound to be all sorts of interpretations and considerations, but, as I've already said, these should be "ironed out" as experience with installation grows. What is fairly certain, though is that, for a typical driveway, CBPP will cost around 50% more than conventional paving. A small part of this cost comes from the blocks which, at the moment, are more expensive than standard paving. As demand grows, and production increases, this may change, but what won't change is the fact that CBPP require MORE excavation, MORE cart away, MORE aggregates, and MORE labour.
We may end up with a situation where surface water is being dealt with in an environmentally sustainable manner, but the ancillary work required will cause alternative environmental problems as we search for landfill sites and suitable sources of aggregate.
Swings and roundabouts, anyone?
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:23 pm
by williams
50% dearer spells the end of this trade imho. Its simply unsustainable at that price.
Tony do you know yet if the law has been passed or is it still in the throws of becoming legal?
I am VERY concerned about this,more so because i live and work in an area which is clay so in my limited knowledge soakaways or permeable won't work-and i just know the answer to that is installing tanks to pump the water around the garden or what have you and that equals big £.
so lets say you have a house 10 ft lower than the drives entrance, if you fit permeable paving there will all the water not just sit at the lowest point namely the house.
I feel we will be like the pub trade-shut down becuse of utter idiots inventing new rules so they get noticed in the world of climate change
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:40 pm
by colordrives
Hi tony and thanks for your comments though they don't make me feel any better.
So are you saying that a soakaways can be installed and this will remove the need for planning permission?
I have reasonable experience with the installation of soakaways but this is still an additional cost and I can just see in my mind’s eye the state of most soakaways that less reputable firms will install. In fact nearly all firms will simply start installing soakaways 100% of the time so as to avoid the considerable increased costs of doing permeable paving. What happens when all these dodgy soakaways overflow? Where will the water go then? The gypo’s are going to have a field day with this.
"CBPP will cost around 50% more than conventional paving"
If this is the case then the simple facts are that people will not pay it. I already struggle to compete with an endless stream of low priced w$£%^&$£ as regards block paving, tarmac is our real area of profit as it’s not so easy.
Has the knock on effects of these additional excavations been factored into the effect on the environment? Double excavation depth = double the trips in a wagon = double the landfill = double the air pollution?
And when was this new regulation going to be run by the people it actually affects? Paving manufacturers? Builder’s merchants? Residential pavers/ tarmacers?
When do I get my letter from the government saying they are about to screw me?
When do all the home owners get their letters saying the cost of getting their driveways done has just doubled?
Do we get a reduction on council tax then? Part of my council tax goes to the upkeep of storm drains etc. I’m getting a reduced service, where’s my reduced bill??
Rant over
