The drive in front of my garage is really starting to break up - it was
only every nastily laid tarmac about 1mm thick.
Now luckily, I don't keep a car in the garage, nor use the drive to keep
a car on at all. The only traffic that goes over the drive is the Mrs
power scooter. Being (like everyone else) of limited means, we can't
really afford the rolls-royce solution of block-paving, and experience
from when we first moved in tells us that no-one will actually quote to
tarmac a 4m x 4m piece of ground.
I'm thinking of putting down some of that plastic honeycomb, that can be
filled with shingle:
luckily there's about 40mm between the garage floor and the drive :). I'm
not too concerned about the dip to the pavement ... I could probably rig
up a small slope for that.
As an aside, we went out on New Years Eve, and when I returned, there
were tyre marks across the drive (in the moss !). Cheeky neighbours -
might explain why it's deteriorated so rapidly. I've put a concrete fence
post across it for now.
I think you mean 1 inch thick, 1mm is basically paint
You've got 16m2 that needs covering, so the 6m2 is no good to you, if you
decide to leave a strip on each side, you may get away with the 12m2 at
£171, failing that you'll have to get the 22m2 @ £314.
Then you need gravel at £55 a tonne and I can't see that area going in one
so you'll need two and someone to do it for you unless you can DIY and even
then I can't see it being suitable for a scooter.
You can get cheapo paving flags (400X400) from b&q for £212 for 100, then
say £50 worth of sand & cement and a day and half to lay them....bearing in
mind they are as light as a feather, it's like dealing a deck of cards.
Available in buff or grey
If he starts getting those people involved, they will find a way to triple
the cost of anything he wants to do, making it un doable.
If he just goes ahead and does it, it's been there for the past 15 years and
so it's not subject to any regulations, and in any case, we don't know that
the drive slopes towards the pavement, it could have a drain already
installed, in which case it will just drain into that.
Of the 18 drives I've done since this legislation came into place, over half
of them drained onto the path / road.
No one from any local authority have been in touch with either me nor any of
my clients, IE, they don't care, as they know it can't be policed, if they
had been involved from the start, they would have photographed it and kept
an eye on it watching for any changes.
If the drains are at the house end and the land runs away from them, there's
no way to collect water at the road end and get it back uphill to the house
drains, soakaways aren't allowed so close to the highway, and the LA won't
allow you to connect into the road drains, so what is there left to do but
ignore these idiotic rules....what they want you to do is pay an extra £10k
so they can dig up the pavement and put an extra drain in for you, but who's
gonna do that on a £500 job?
Have you applied for the planning permission?
They won't get in touch if they don't know.
However it is not their responsibility to apply, maybe not even yours.
At worst you will only have to dig them up and replace them with porous
sub-bases and surfacing and you might even get paid if its the owners
It only makes floods further down stream more likely so its not going to
be a problem for you unless you are down stream of lots of other people
putting in non porous surfaces.
I won't be replacing anything and it's never going to happen where the
council try and force someone to remove a driveway when they've no way of
proving it's only been done since the legislation - how can they prove it's
been done since and not been there for 10 years? - they have to prove this
and the customer doesn't have to prove anything, nor even speak to them if
he chooses not to.
Not really, the country didn't suddenly start flooding when we built the
And it's nothing but a money making scam anyway, what difference does it
make if it drains off into the house drains, or into the road and into
street gullies? - everyone pays for surface water removal and it all ends up
in the same place anyway
It makes those of us who live next to streams: downstream from
conurbations very nervous.
I think the concept of not adding to surface water run off is a wise
one, particularly in the South East where existing aquifers are barely
keeping pace with consumption. There is also the issue of overloading
sewage treatment plant leading to discharges of untreated water to
rivers and annoying the anglers.
I haver cured surface flooding in several areas by using limestone MOT
type I covered with soil. The limestone allows the surface water to
drain. You can if enough is used, even safely run cars over it. Heavy
use will wear back to chalk, but occasional uses does little harm to the
My drive is about 4" of crushed MOT top dressed with about 4" of
gravel., Up till this year it has always drained well, but now the
gravel in the high traffic entrance is all mashed down and full of mud,
so it needs another 20 tonnes or so whacked on top.
(in-ep-tocβ-ra-cy) β a system of government where the least capable to
On 04/01/2013 17:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
That is certainly the modern trend, but it does depend on the area
though... older towns often had combined sewers that were fed from both
foul and surface drains.
Our previous place had separate sewers for foul and surface water.
Google may well be able to show when stuff was done.
The motorway network is a minor thing compared to all the building work
done and some bits of country side do flood when it rains on the
motorways. They didn't flood before the motorways.
The idea is that it doesn't run off into *any* drains.
As you say there is little difference between the rainfall drains of a
house and those of the road.
It should not run into either these days as it is intended to keep as
much of it in the soil as would have been if there was no impermeable
Its all quite simple really..
1" of rains falls.
It either soaks into the ground and then seeps into the rivers as it
used to. This takes a few days so the rivers don't rise much.
Or it all drains into the river from hard surfaces almost immediately
and causes the rivers to rise quickly.
when in the train to Edinburgh in early November and seeing all the
flooded fields, SWMBO (a biologist) remarked that a large part of the
problem was that organic feritilizers (aka manure) were no longer used.
This means that the soil is not as aerated as it used to be, so water
simply lies on the surface instead of draining through.
A half truth at best.
On heavy soils where compaction exists, there is considerable work done
to break up and mulch in last years crops as part of the subsoil ploughing.
You dont need organic matter to create porosity any more - you can use
mechanical means. Also the stalks of the last years crops are mulched in
anyway. They don't have much nutrient, but they have,mechanical value.
Finally the optimal cost benefit is to go extremely light on fertilizers
anyway. They are very expensive, and the best profit is just enough
sprayed when its relatively dry so it doesn't get washed away.
(in-ep-tocβ-ra-cy) β a system of government where the least capable to
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.