Driveway materials compliant to part M of building regs?
Discussion
Looking to put a tar and chip driveway down on our new build, however I get the feeling the building control officer is not keen on it regarding it compying to part M of the building regs.
However, we want to have it as not only is it cheap, but it looks good too (IMO).
So
Anyone know the hard and fast rule on chip and tar with part M? I tried googling but wasn't successfull.
If its a bit of a grey area then I would like to put a good argument together to support it, other than its our house, we're not disabled, and we want it
However, we want to have it as not only is it cheap, but it looks good too (IMO).
So
Anyone know the hard and fast rule on chip and tar with part M? I tried googling but wasn't successfull.
If its a bit of a grey area then I would like to put a good argument together to support it, other than its our house, we're not disabled, and we want it
It is a new build, and the ramp ratio is no problem, but I was under the impression that the surface had to be wheelchair friendly, ie tarmac or block, where as the tar and chip could be argued that it doesnt provide a good enough base for a wheel chair?
If I'm wrong I'll be happy, dont want to piss the building control officer off, as he has to sign the house off yet!
If I'm wrong I'll be happy, dont want to piss the building control officer off, as he has to sign the house off yet!
Can't see what he could object to really. It's good enough for vehicles isn't it.
This is the relevant bit.
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF...
Edit: poor link. Page 64 is what you are after.
This is the relevant bit.
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF...
Edit: poor link. Page 64 is what you are after.
Edited by silverthorn2151 on Thursday 17th June 18:17
We did a tar and chip driveway last year,no problem at all with prams,wheelchairs,cars etc etc.I think its a very underused surface,looks good and has the traditional appearance of gravel yet is a fully 'firm' surface and as you said,its relatively cheap.Whats not to like? Cant imagine building control would have a problem with it.
The reason I ask is that we had a casual conversation about 2 months or so ago, when at the time, I was looking at doing a stone resin finish, when he said he would like to see tarmac or block instead.
It was only a side conversation, and I didn't push as I don't like to enter conversations that have important outcomes without a bit of preperation of fact before hand, hence this thread.
It certainly sounds like we should have no issues, so I will tackfully approach the subject again with him, want to stay on his good books for sign off
It was only a side conversation, and I didn't push as I don't like to enter conversations that have important outcomes without a bit of preperation of fact before hand, hence this thread.
It certainly sounds like we should have no issues, so I will tackfully approach the subject again with him, want to stay on his good books for sign off
Grandad Gaz said:
TooLateForAName said:
I think the surface has to be water permeable these days. Hence permeable blocks or tarmac would be OK but a non-permeable resin surface would be a no-no.
SUDS, I think it's called Don't ask me what it stands for, though!
TooLateForAName said:
I think the surface has to be water permeable these days. Hence permeable blocks or tarmac would be OK but a non-permeable resin surface would be a no-no.
What powers do Building Control have over external surfaces under the Building Regulations, other than the Part M example under discussion?herbialfa said:
As long as you comply with a 1:20 gradient up to a level threshold then its fine!
Approved Document M to the Building Regulations said:
A 'level' approach will satisfy Requirement M1 if its gradient is not steeper than 1:20, its surface is firm and even and its width not less than 900mm.
Note that, technically, where a drive is used to provide the access, it must be arranged so that access is possible past parked cars (ie. a clear width of 900mm would be required in addition to the normal 2.4m width required for car parking), but I've never known a Building Control Officer try to enforce this.silverthorn2151 said:
What powers do Building Control have over external surfaces under the Building Regulations, other than the Part M example under discussion?
Building Control? Very little.The regulations on permeable surfacing are controlled by Planning, which is a separate system altogether.
Um.......I know that. The inference in a post above was that Building Conrtol were asking for permeable surface.
It's not actually planning as such, but part of the planning consultation process that throws up the requirement for dealing with surface water run off in a certain way.
We used to have great trouble with surface water in Epping Forest, the last LA I was a Building Control Officer in before jumping into the private sector. The problem was not so much in our area, but further downsteam in the surface water system. That resulted in some very complex surface water designs incluing planned flooding of car parks, large diameter 'holding' pipes below ground connected via hydrobrakes to the public system. They restricted the flow of water into the system, reducing the flood risk downstream.
I'm not sure I'd regard chip and tar (or however it was described) as being permeable in any event.
It's not actually planning as such, but part of the planning consultation process that throws up the requirement for dealing with surface water run off in a certain way.
We used to have great trouble with surface water in Epping Forest, the last LA I was a Building Control Officer in before jumping into the private sector. The problem was not so much in our area, but further downsteam in the surface water system. That resulted in some very complex surface water designs incluing planned flooding of car parks, large diameter 'holding' pipes below ground connected via hydrobrakes to the public system. They restricted the flow of water into the system, reducing the flood risk downstream.
I'm not sure I'd regard chip and tar (or however it was described) as being permeable in any event.
silverthorn2151 said:
It's not actually planning as such, but part of the planning consultation process that throws up the requirement for dealing with surface water run off in a certain way.
You're trying to split the finest of hairs by differentiating between 'planning' and 'the planning consultation process', since the basic Planning process should only take account of material planning considerations when determining an application, regardless of whether those considerations are identified by a statutory consultee, a member of the public or (increasingly unlikely with the dire quality of actual Planning Case Officers these days, I do admit) the Planning Officer themself.... but in any case, the requirement for permeable hard surfaces is a direct outcome of a modification to the General Permitted Development Order, removing PD rights from any hard surfacing of more than 5 square metres unless it is permeable.
You don't get much more 'actual Planning' than the GPDO!
JR said:
Sam_68 said:
silverthorn2151 said:
It's not actually planning as such, but part of the planning consultation process that throws up the requirement for dealing with surface water run off in a certain way.
You're trying to split the finest of hairs ... My point was not intended to split hairs and I apologise because it was certainly worded like that. Many who post questions here are not familiar with the minutae of 'our' world. The fact is that planning officers merely pass on technical requirements either by requiring amendments to the scheme or by adding conditions to a consent without understanding why.
The change to the requirements in terms of hard sufacing is intended to address the increased number of front gardens being paved for precisley the reasons that I referred to in my post up there ^^^. Increased run off into the surface water system.
We are straying off at too much of a tangent though to be fair to the OP. I don't believe any tarmac surface could be regarded as permeable.
silverthorn2151 said:
The fact is that planning officers merely pass on technical requirements ...without understanding why.
They certainly shouldn't be doing so, and any Planning Officer who does is grossly incompetent and incapable of doing their job (though I'm afraid that this sort of Officer does occasionally survive).Ultimately, it is the Planning Officer who writes the committee report, including draft conditions, and they need to both understand the implcations of what they are writing and more importantly understand whether those conditions are legal and relevant under Planning law. Similarly, it is the Officer's job when the application is set before the committee to ensure that the Members have adequate information to take a decision that would be defensible at appeal and to ensure that any further conditions of their own that they ask to be imposed are similarly defensible ... Planning Authorities can't simply impose what conditions they like at a whim; they've got to be backed up by legislation and natioanl and local adopted policies.
I suspect that you've only ever been involved to any great depth in the Building Control side of things... if Planning Officers were as clueless and impotent as you are suggesting, we (developers) would absolutely tear them to shreds on every application!
Much as I hate defending Planning Officers, you're doing the majority of them a great disservice...
Sam_68 said:
I suspect that you've only ever been involved to any great depth in the Building Control side of things... if Planning Officers were as clueless and impotent as you are suggesting, we (developers) would absolutely tear them to shreds on every application!
Much as I hate defending Planning Officers, you're doing the majority of them a great disservice...
You suspect wrong. As a developer you must have had dealings with planning officers whom you have absolutley no confidence in, in terms of understanding pertinent issues when you open a discussion about something they have passed on. Equally, of course, there are very many planners that are the complete opposite.Much as I hate defending Planning Officers, you're doing the majority of them a great disservice...
silverthorn2151 said:
JR said:
Sam_68 said:
silverthorn2151 said:
It's not actually planning as such, but part of the planning consultation process that throws up the requirement for dealing with surface water run off in a certain way.
You're trying to split the finest of hairs ... ...
I don't believe any tarmac surface could be regarded as permeable.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff