Labour's policy of requiring planning permission before being able to lay more than 5 sq m of 'impermeable surface' - including for car-parking (see post of 29/7/2009) - was really all about trying to cut run-off in the wake of disastrous floods. But it has also been (wrongly) cited as protecting gardens.
So does it even have the primary intended effect? As far as I can see there are no definitions for, or tests of, permeability. In practice both paving, and the material it is laid on, are heavily compacted with vibrating plate machines. In other cases solid, non-permeable, 'impressed' material is used to give the impression of paving, and a metal grille is placed where this meets the pavement zone. But that seems to me to be against the spirit of the law.
Here are some pictures of run-off (and drainage failure) from pretty flat sites, after just a short period of quite light rain.
So does it even have the primary intended effect? As far as I can see there are no definitions for, or tests of, permeability. In practice both paving, and the material it is laid on, are heavily compacted with vibrating plate machines. In other cases solid, non-permeable, 'impressed' material is used to give the impression of paving, and a metal grille is placed where this meets the pavement zone. But that seems to me to be against the spirit of the law.
Here are some pictures of run-off (and drainage failure) from pretty flat sites, after just a short period of quite light rain.
Is this amount of paving really necessary ?
No comments:
Post a Comment