Page 1 of 2
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 7:15 pm
by lemoncurd1702
Ok, I know this subject has been done to death, but in Wales PP has only recently become legislation.
Couple o things that seem to make it almost impossible for a driveway paving contractor to operate.
1. Soakaway 5m from building and highway. This ain't achievable with the majority of houses. It's either going to be within 5m of the house or the neighbours house or garage or the highway.
2. Surely the permeable system is a form of a soakaway anyway.
In the past few years this has become regulatory on new developments but BC obviously have no clue as the construction is still the same type 1 and bedding of sharp sand, plus kiln dried.
3. If you use sump and pump into Storm water or sewer system its going to end up in the same place as if it spilled onto road. Plus some of the inclines would need a helluva pump, which probably has the lifespan of those in the garden pond. Or does that not matter as long as you've installed one.
Let the fun begin.
:laugh: :laugh:
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:42 pm
by lutonlagerlout
in reality its more important to be away from the house than away from the strret
LLL
Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:30 am
by Tony McC
I think the 5m from highway is a typical bit of local authority over-engineering intended to prevent any possible saturation or subsidence of the highway sub-layers, but the requirement to be both 5m from property AND highway means any house with a drive under 10m in length is automatically unsuitable for a soakaway. So, only the big posh house will qualify.
A permeable driveway *is* a soakaway, one that's spread out over a larger area and is probably a bit shallower than would be expected of a standard soakaway. Howwever, for it to function properly, it *must* use the correct sub-layers and that's very definitely not Type 1
Sump'n'pump is a last resort solution. It annoys me that the legislation is set up in such a way that it's acceptable to generate CO2 by using lecky to run a pump to send water up a gradient and intoa sewer, rather than accept that, in some scenarios, it's simply better to allow discharge onto a highway or direct into the same bloody SW sewer lower down its run.
You'd think that the current comedy of errors taking place in Lower Britain would prompt a serious re-think about how we drain buildings and pavements, but it won't. Once the water subsides, the bean counters will decide that saving a tenner this week is more important than saving fifty quid in 5 years time. Politicians know buggerall about drainage, so they should be barred from the decision making process. They only ever make things worse.
Posted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 8:15 pm
by lemoncurd1702
What if the existing driveway is to be re-surfaced I.e. mac over an existing Tarmac or concrete drive, or resin bound stone.
Is this permitted?
I'm guessing not, but the terminology in the legislation is probably ambiguous enough to find the right loophole.
I see plenty of this, particularly resin bound going on without any provision for drainage.
Saying that I see plenty of this going on with all surfaces.
Viewing a job today and customer said they had a price for permeable bound aggregate. The contractor was going to lay this directly on top of existing concrete which is definitely not permeable.
Posted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 8:22 pm
by mickg
nope no loop hole, any area over 5m2 including existing hard standings has to be installed to the current driveway legislation
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permiss....iveways
You can replace or repair a small area, up to 5 square metres, of existing hardsurfacing without using permeable or porous materials - for example to repair pot holes in a driveway, or replace paving slabs in an existing patio.
you will have to click on the welsh version in the top right corner but the driveway legislation certainly look the same for England and Wales
Posted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:42 am
by Tony McC
Mick is right. Resurfacing, re-modelling, even minor extensions, all get caught by this incredibly inept and inapt legislation.
And you are right too. There are far too many contractors claiming that such-and-such a surfacing/paving is permeable without them having any real understanding of suds or permeable construction.
They get away with this because the public are so unaware of what *should* be happening. I keep using the same analogy: if a customer were to spend 10 grand on a car, they'd be up and down the road on a test drive listening for bangs and clanks, they'd be on the web checking others' experience with that model, they'd be reading every review they could find, but they spend 10 grand on a driveway or patio and blithely accept whatever bollocks the contractor spurts out, as long as he's cheaper than the others.
So wrong! 
Posted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 10:13 pm
by lemoncurd1702
Tony, that analogy is the bane of us driveway/paving contractors:
"I don't care about my driveway, as long as there's a beemer sitting on it".
Back to suds compliant, something I had not previously thought of, until reading through Interpaves "paving for rain":
I had never considered, nor seen mentioned elsewhere ( including legislation) the fact that conveyancing solicitors are becoming savvy to suds.
That is, they are, or will be checking for PP as they do for building extensions etc. when conducting their searches.
Question is, how will they be able to discern whether the paving was installed before or after legislation?
I suppose this could also become a selling point. It could at least ensure, that you are pricing on a like for like basis, as other contractors quoting for the same work.
Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:41 am
by Tony McC
This is just another leak in the incredibly permeable legislation.
Responsibility for compliance lies with the property owner, but how many owners are aware of this, and of those that are aware, how many have the competence to check that the installation is fully compliant? This is how so many cowboys get away with the line of linear channel connected to nowt but laid at the threshold.
If you employ a builder to construct an extension, the builder is liable for compliance with building and planning regs. This applies even if it is a self-builder rather than a so-called professional. So, why is it NOT the paving contractors' responsibility to comply with planning regs when installing a front graden driveway?
And the bit about conveyancing surveyors becoming clued-up regarding suds compliance is a bit of wishful thinking from Interpave who have a largely laudable but naive agenda to promote permeable paving. One or two surveyors may be aware, and a small number might be able to suss out that the driveway is less than 5 years old yet does not appear to be compliant. But so what?
It's within the purview of the local authority to police compliance and they just aren't interested because it's completely uneconomic to do so. It costs more to assess a proposal and check the site than they are allowed to charge under the legislation. Every fully lawful application actually costs them money, so they either ignore completely or nod it through without any real assessment. And given that central govt is slashing their budgets at every opportunity, there is no incentive at all to incur any additional, escapable, deniable costs.
So, a canny surveyor identifies a driveway as non-compliant. The surveyor can't insist on remedial work and the council won't enforce it. They could suggest a reduced valuation, but it will be a few hundred quid at best. However, even this is tenuous, because the responsibility lies with the home owner at the time of the installation. Once the house is sold, the new owners have no liability, so even if a local council decided to get tough on compliance, there's buggerall they can do in such a situation.
And then, what's to stop *every* homeowner claiming the work was done by a previous owner? The onus would be on the local council to prove the work was carried out during the occupancy of a particular person, who may now be living at the other end of the country.
As I've been saying for nearly 6 years, it's a bollocks piece of legislation. Its heart is in the right place but it's completely useless and ineffectual, no matter how good a light Interpave wish to shine on it.
Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:30 pm
by Mikey_C
A colleague is selling his place and the buyers solicitor is querying/asking if the gravel *driveway* (gravel poured over a lawn to act as a place to park a car) has planning permission.
However he is also asking *post the surveyors visit* how they heat water? I told him regards, to the hot water, depends how much, if it is just a cupful, I use the kettle.
Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 4:38 am
by lutonlagerlout
why do the buyers solicitors ask these inane questions?
feckwits
LLL 
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:53 pm
by henpecked
'Lower Britain' I'll have to remember that one. Great posts Tony! I'm now SUDs compliant without even trying 
A thing I've noticed about SUD's installs on major jobs, is now they've been down for a bit, they seem to lend themselves to moss growth, a bit like the sphagnum stuff and look to be blocking up the substrate already (4 years laid). Dont know if you guys have noticed, but if this is the norm, maybe its another 'unforeseen' nail in the coffin of SUDs?
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 7:41 am
by lutonlagerlout
my main impression of SUDS jobs is that they look a pile of shite
weeds everywhere and moss
might as well have kept the grass
LLL
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:53 am
by Tony McC
Isn't it funny how all the manufacturers only use photies of new installations when pushing permeable paving for driveways?
The moss build-up is part and parcel of the permeable system. It's almost impossible top prevent without using lethal quantities of weedkiller, but it's a relatively small price to pay for the benefits that can come from permeable surfaces. Certainly for PCBP systems, we design allowing a significant factor-of-safety for mosses and for silting, so their presence can't seriously impede the function but it does affect the aesthetics and I believe we need to be more honest about this if we are ever going to get driveway PCBP to be anything other than a minority choice.
It's going to be a matter of re-educating the public, getting them to understand that the 'preserved in aspic' ever-new looks of some driveways is artificial and unsustainable. It will be a hard sell, and the moss problem is just another reason for homeowners to choose the 'linear-channel-to-a-soakway' option, but it is something that we will have to resolve, and sooner better than later. We can't keep flooding the country every winter because we don't want a bit of moss in the joints or because we can't be arsed to build a proper soakaway.
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:03 am
by ringi
In real life, for how many years do permeable paving remain permeable?
Also unless I am missing something, most SUBS installations reduce water runoff from the site in normal rain fall to close to 0, but have very little effect once the ground is saturated. So without SUBS the public drainage in an area gets used often, so gets tested often, but with SUBS, the public drains got little water most of the time.
Am I right to think that without SUBS 10mm of rain in a week gives X water to the drains, and 100mm of rain gives 10X water to the drains, but with SUBS 10mm of rain gives 0 water to the drains, but 100mm of rain gives say 8X water to the drains. So not reducing the PEAK load the public drains have to cope with by much….
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:24 am
by Tony McC
We're still learning about the service life of poermeable pavements, but we're fairly confident that, properly constructed and maintained, we should be seeing 40 years as a minimum.
The point of SUDS is not to replace existing SW systems, but to ease the load placed on them, and, as daft as it may seem to certain parts of Lower Britain just at the moment, to recharge aquifers. All surface water eventually ends up in the rivers. Conventional drainage systems get the water to the rives as quick as possible, where as SUDS deliberately slow down, attenuate, the process, but this doesn;t mean the existing SW infrastructyure will run dry at any time. There's still be input from all sorts of attenuated and non-attenuated sources, but, the hope is that, the peak load will be significantly lowered.
