Page 1 of 2
Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:56 am
by juggler
Had Marshalls come around and give me a quote for a new block paved drive today, I have a couple of issues with what he said.
Firstly my drive slopes from the road to the house, he stated that I therefore do not need planning permission and can use Driveset blocks with linear drainage installed in two places, the first would be across the front of the house draining in to the downpipe from the roof, the second towards the back of the house draining to an existing gully. Is he correct?
Secondly, the total area is 75m2 and his quote came in at just over £9000. That work out at roughly £120 per m2. This seems like a fairly large bill for the work. Any thoughts would be appreciated?
Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 11:09 am
by msh paving
what part off the country are you that price is way over the top......its a struggle to £65/70m in norfolk
the drainage depends on where the down pipe and gully drain into? 
Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 11:14 am
by juggler
Area of the country is Bedford.
As for the drainage, I am not sure where the downpipe drains to, but I am almost certain that the gully drains in tot he sewer as the two are in line and very close, I will now go outside and have a look.
Just checked where they flow to by pouring a bucket of water down each and lifting the manhole cover on the sewer. The gully at the back of the house flows to this foul water drain. The downpipe at the side I am still unsure of, but it does not flow to the foul water drain at the back of the house.
Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 11:22 am
by msh paving
i would be happy to quote you im about 1hr.20mins away
Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 11:39 am
by juggler
MSH I have sent you a PM
Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 3:32 pm
by Tony McC
The quoter is wrong to claim that they can discharge into the existing drainage without PP. While the surface water will not discharge onto the highway, it has to go to a Suds installation before it can connect to the existing drains.
As for the price - that's a central London price and totally unrealistic for your part of the world, especially from someone who doesn't understand the new legislation.
Someone from Marshalls - and I know you're reading this, even if you are too arsey to post - needs to call in this guy and get him properly trained. I'm running a very accessible 'Understanding the New Legislation' course, if you're interested! 
Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:49 pm
by juggler
Thanks Tony, I knew I was right but did not want to tell him so to his face while standing in my kitchen.
Here is the problem though, the house is a 1930's semi, I am looking to do the whole front area and down the side of the house. If I am correct I can scribe an imaginary line across the front of the house (plan view) and anything down behind this towards the garden I could drain where there is an existing gully, no problems there.
The front however slopes from the road towards the house, there is no logical place to put in a suds system, nowhere more than 5m from the house for a soakaway. Rain garden around the front edge is a possibility but I don't think the area available would be enough.
On a side note, Marshalls will not be getting the business. Following him coming around today he quoted for 75m2. I spent the afternoon out with the tape measure and drew it all up on CAD. Turns out the actual area is 57m2. Had I gone with this it would have cost me an added £2100. Nice.
Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:06 pm
by ambient
if he was quoting for priora i could understand the cost obviously not the over measure.i didnt know marshalls quoted for driveways i thought they passed it on to register members ???
Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:12 pm
by juggler
Ambient, they do offer the service, I have the guys business card in front of me.
But all they actually seem to do is then sub it out to one of their installers and garantee the work. Oh and take a big slice of money!!
Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:04 pm
by lutonlagerlout
in luton similar driveway recently priced with proper suds installed came in at a shade under £100 per metre,i would of guessed about £4.5-5.5 k would be more realistic
LLL
ps i am working in bromham at the minute,takes me 1 hr 15 minutes to do 25 miles from luton
Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:08 pm
by williams
Tony McC wrote:The quoter is wrong to claim that they can discharge into the existing drainage without PP. While the surface water will not discharge onto the highway, it has to go to a Suds installation before it can connect to the existing drains.
As for the price - that's a central London price and totally unrealistic for your part of the world, especially from someone who doesn't understand the new legislation.
Someone from Marshalls - and I know you're reading this, even if you are too arsey to post - needs to call in this guy and get him properly trained. I'm running a very accessible 'Understanding the New Legislation' course, if you're interested!
I was under the impression that sending the water to a storm drain was ok- thats what our local council have said anyway.
And if it was to go into a soakaway or the main drain how would i know or anyone else for that matter.
This law is aggro at best imo.
Oh and £120 per m is crazy.
Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:14 pm
by msh paving
im kings lynn ,the drainage in 90% of the town is combined storm and foul all the roof water goes into sewer so how is suds susposed to work and who will police it?,soakaways will not work thats why its a combined system,DEFRA missed out on that i guess
Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:22 pm
by williams
msh paving wrote:im kings lynn ,the drainage in 90% of the town is combined storm and foul all the roof water goes into sewer so how is suds susposed to work and who will police it?,soakaways will not work thats why its a combined system,DEFRA missed out on that i guess
Its simply unworkable.
From a realistic point of view i think that the following is the only acceptable way round this as people really dont want to pay a load more £ for a drainage system they cant see and dont agree with anyway because their neighbours drive drains onto the road anyway.
A. drive drains towards house- connect to downpipe as it 'should' technically drain into a soakway.
B. drive drains to road- acos along front, underground pipe to a bed holding a stone filled trench with the ability for the water to drain into the rest of the bed.
C. drive drains to road with no accesible beds- theres now a problem and some initiative needs to be used to keep te cost down.
Most customers i have quoted have said when asked if their downpipes go to soakaways tell me they do. Well its down to them then really, i have told them the law and done my bit.
It is unrealistic especially in todays climate to be fitting huge suds systems costing silly money- as usual with these lawmakers they have to be played at their own game....There are no rules being broken.
Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 9:54 am
by Tony McC
There is enormous confusion regarding what is and what isn't permissible, and this is due largely to some lazy, slipshod phrasing in the guidance document, which was written by some eejit with zero knowledge of construction in general and paving in particular:
"Planning permission is now required to lay traditional impermeable
driveways that allow uncontrolled runoff of rainwater from front gardens onto roads,
because this can contribute to flooding and pollution of watercourses.
If a new driveway or parking area is constructed using permeable surfaces such as
permeable concrete block paving, porous asphalt or gravel, or if the water is otherwise
able to soak into the ground you will not require planning permission."
So: paragraph 1 states that PP is required if you want to discharge onto the highway, but para 2 says that PP is NOT required if using permeable surfacing or a soakaway/suds installation. It does not make clear whether connection to on-site drains is permissible or not, but the general interpretation, and apparent intent of those responsible for this nonsense, is that water should not be directed to the drains unless there is no other option.
The legislation is reasonably clear in stating that paving must either be permeable or drain to suds:
"Development is permitted by Class F subject to the condition that ......
either the hard surface shall be made of porous materials, or provision shall be made to
direct run-off water from the hard surface to a permeable or porous area or surface within
the curtilage of the dwellinghouse."
Due to it being such a bollix of a piece of legislation, there are circumstances where it would be permissible to direct surface water into the drains of the property. These include:
- where the LA has elected to grant blanket PP for driveways in their area
- as an overflow from a soakaway or other suds installation
- on steeply sloping clayey sites where soakaways are impractical
In summary, preventing a driveway draining onto a highway fulfils only the first paragraph of the Guidance document but does not meet the conditions of para 2 and may not necessarily comply with the legislation unless SW is directed to ground on site, ie: not sent to the drains.
Clear as friggin' mud, eh!
Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 11:09 am
by Injured
When I asked my local council about a drive falling to the house that the client wanted replacing from tarmac to block paving and an aco to connect to exising gulley/drain i was told they would need Planning permission for it. That was at the start of October 
