We had a major water leak under the pavement right in front of our
driveway one night a couple of months ago. A failed valve meant that it
took them over 3 hours to finally turn the water off.

Our driveway (2 cars) is made up of a single piece of concrete (sorry,
not sure of the correct terminology€¦), with some stencilled
rectangle-shaped indentations in it, all dyed in a pinkish colour€¦ A
very ugly thing indeed.
The water pressure was high enough to wash a large amount of silt and
sand from under the concrete, resulting in parts of it cracking and
collapsing by a few centimetres, leaving the driveway damaged and uneven.

The water company agreed to do whatever it takes to bring it back to its
original condition or similar.

They sent the sub-contractor that they use to have a look at it today.
He suggested two possible solutions:
1. Remove the damaged parts (80% of the driveway - he said that they
won't approve doing the whole thing), and use concrete again to re-do.
He thinks that it would look horrible as he would never manage to
exactly match the colour and pattern.
2. Remove the whole concrete driveway and the equally as ugly edging
stones that need replacing anyway and re-do it in tarmac instead and
edging of our choice.

We are not particularly house-proud, and can happily live with the 2nd
option (he assured us that it would be done properly), but is there a
reason not to go with that? We live in a neighbourhood of around 100
houses, and none of them has a tarmac driveway€¦ Is it just a matter of
taste?

On Wednesday, 15 November 2017 15:13:37 UTC, JoeJoe wrote:
We had a major water leak under the pavement right in front of our
driveway one night a couple of months ago. A failed valve meant that it
took them over 3 hours to finally turn the water off.

Our driveway (2 cars) is made up of a single piece of concrete (sorry,
not sure of the correct terminology€¦), with some stencilled
rectangle-shaped indentations in it, all dyed in a pinkish colour€¦ A
very ugly thing indeed.
The water pressure was high enough to wash a large amount of silt and
sand from under the concrete, resulting in parts of it cracking and
collapsing by a few centimetres, leaving the driveway damaged and uneven.

The water company agreed to do whatever it takes to bring it back to its
original condition or similar.

They sent the sub-contractor that they use to have a look at it today.
He suggested two possible solutions:
1. Remove the damaged parts (80% of the driveway - he said that they
won't approve doing the whole thing), and use concrete again to re-do.
He thinks that it would look horrible as he would never manage to
exactly match the colour and pattern.
2. Remove the whole concrete driveway and the equally as ugly edging
stones that need replacing anyway and re-do it in tarmac instead and
edging of our choice.

We are not particularly house-proud, and can happily live with the 2nd
option (he assured us that it would be done properly), but is there a
reason not to go with that? We live in a neighbourhood of around 100
houses, and none of them has a tarmac driveway€¦ Is it just a matter of
taste?

I'd go with tarmac. The other option sounds like a right bodge. Tarmac is long lasting if done properly, hopeless if not. So check/agree on the base specs before proceeding.


NT

Depends on if its a conservation area. Your council should be able to tell
you, hopefully in writing if its ok to go ahead. I'd certainly not just take
a telephone blokes word for it, there have been lots of issues around here
about new windows being fitted and the council denies all knowledge of
OKing them. Mind you half the time they do not evn know where their own
blocks of flats are judging by the stories I get about maintenance crews
going to the wrong places.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"JoeJoe" wrote in message
o.uk...
We had a major water leak under the pavement right in front of our
driveway one night a couple of months ago. A failed valve meant that it
took them over 3 hours to finally turn the water off.

Our driveway (2 cars) is made up of a single piece of concrete (sorry, not
sure of the correct terminology.), with some stencilled rectangle-shaped
indentations in it, all dyed in a pinkish colour. A very ugly thing
indeed.
The water pressure was high enough to wash a large amount of silt and sand
from under the concrete, resulting in parts of it cracking and collapsing
by a few centimetres, leaving the driveway damaged and uneven.

The water company agreed to do whatever it takes to bring it back to its
original condition or similar.

They sent the sub-contractor that they use to have a look at it today. He
suggested two possible solutions:
1. Remove the damaged parts (80% of the driveway - he said that they won't
approve doing the whole thing), and use concrete again to re-do. He thinks
that it would look horrible as he would never manage to exactly match the
colour and pattern.
2. Remove the whole concrete driveway and the equally as ugly edging
stones that need replacing anyway and re-do it in tarmac instead and
edging of our choice.

We are not particularly house-proud, and can happily live with the 2nd
option (he assured us that it would be done properly), but is there a
reason not to go with that? We live in a neighbourhood of around 100
houses, and none of them has a tarmac driveway. Is it just a matter of
taste?

tabbypurr wrote:

JoeJoe wrote:

re-do it in tarmac instead and edging of our choice.

I'd go with tarmac

So would I, get in writing what he means by "properly"

Don't go for a patch up job, it will always look a patch up. I'd go for the complete Tarmac. A lot of authorities now favour resin drives owing to their ability to let water permeate through. However if you have any sort of a slope on your drive it will simply flow off before it gets a chance to permeate.

Richard

On 15/11/2017 15:51, Tricky Dicky wrote:
Don't go for a patch up job, it will always look a patch up. I'd go for the complete Tarmac. A lot of authorities now favour resin drives owing to their ability to let water permeate through. However if you have any sort of a slope on your drive it will simply flow off before it gets a chance to permeate.

Richard


It is definitely a slop, with a drain the width of the garage at the bottom.

On 15/11/2017 15:40, Andy Burns wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:

JoeJoeÂ* wrote:

re-do it in tarmac instead and edging of our choice.

I'd go with tarmac

So would I, get in writing what he means by "properly"

He mentioned something about 100mm deep base I think...

On 15/11/2017 15:40, Brian Gaff wrote:
Depends on if its a conservation area. Your council should be able to tell
you, hopefully in writing if its ok to go ahead. I'd certainly not just take
a telephone blokes word for it, there have been lots of issues around here
about new windows being fitted and the council denies all knowledge of
OKing them. Mind you half the time they do not evn know where their own
blocks of flats are judging by the stories I get about maintenance crews
going to the wrong places.
Brian


Thanks for the tip - I am 100% certain that we are not in a conservation
area.

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:13:33 +0000, JoeJoe wrote:
2. Remove the whole concrete driveway and the equally as ugly edging
stones that need replacing anyway and re-do it in tarmac instead and
edging of our choice.

Go for tarmac.

You need a good well consolidated hardcore base and the topcoat should be
30mm of 10mm aggregate. Get them to check the whole of the proposed base
is adequate. If its being done by a 'proper' company as, indeed it
sounds, they will be able to understand the above even if you are not
sure.

JoeJoe wrote:
We had a major water leak under the pavement right in front of our
driveway one night a couple of months ago. A failed valve meant that it
took them over 3 hours to finally turn the water off.

Our driveway (2 cars) is made up of a single piece of concrete (sorry,
not sure of the correct terminology€¦), with some stencilled
rectangle-shaped indentations in it, all dyed in a pinkish colour€¦ A
very ugly thing indeed.
The water pressure was high enough to wash a large amount of silt and
sand from under the concrete, resulting in parts of it cracking and
collapsing by a few centimetres, leaving the driveway damaged and uneven.

The water company agreed to do whatever it takes to bring it back to its
original condition or similar.

They sent the sub-contractor that they use to have a look at it today.
He suggested two possible solutions:
1. Remove the damaged parts (80% of the driveway - he said that they
won't approve doing the whole thing), and use concrete again to re-do.
He thinks that it would look horrible as he would never manage to
exactly match the colour and pattern.
2. Remove the whole concrete driveway and the equally as ugly edging
stones that need replacing anyway and re-do it in tarmac instead and
edging of our choice.

We are not particularly house-proud, and can happily live with the 2nd
option (he assured us that it would be done properly), but is there a
reason not to go with that? We live in a neighbourhood of around 100
houses, and none of them has a tarmac driveway€¦ Is it just a matter of
taste?

IME tarmac driveways are crap. I'd agree a price with the original
contractor to remove and relay the concrete. Then split the cost with
the water company if necessary. What do your house insurers say?

On 15/11/2017 17:41, Capitol wrote:
JoeJoe wrote:
We had a major water leak under the pavement right in front of our
driveway one night a couple of months ago. A failed valve meant that it
took them over 3 hours to finally turn the water off.

Our driveway (2 cars) is made up of a single piece of concrete (sorry,
not sure of the correct terminology€¦), with some stencilled
rectangle-shaped indentations inÂ* it, all dyed in a pinkish colour€¦ A
very ugly thing indeed.
The water pressure was high enough to wash a large amount of silt and
sand from under the concrete, resulting in parts of it cracking and
collapsing by a few centimetres, leaving the driveway damaged and uneven.

The water company agreed to do whatever it takes to bring it back to its
original condition or similar.

They sent the sub-contractor that they use to have a look at it today.
He suggested two possible solutions:
1. Remove the damaged parts (80% of the driveway - he said that they
won't approve doing the whole thing), and use concrete again to re-do.
He thinks that it would look horrible as he would never manage to
exactlyÂ* match the colour and pattern.
2. Remove the whole concrete driveway and the equally as ugly edging
stones that need replacing anyway and re-do it in tarmac instead and
edging of our choice.

We are not particularly house-proud, and can happily live with the 2nd
option (he assured us that it would be done properly), but is there a
reason not to go with that? We live in a neighbourhood of around 100
houses, and none of them has a tarmac driveway€¦ Is it just a matter of
taste?

Â*Â*Â*Â*IME tarmac driveways are crap.

Why?

I'd agree a price with the original
contractor to remove and relay the concrete. Then split the cost with
the water company if necessary. What do your house insurers say?


Should I have mentioned it to them? Why

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:48:32 +0000, JoeJoe wrote:

On 15/11/2017 17:41, Capitol wrote:

Â*Â*Â*Â*IME tarmac driveways are crap.

Why?

Perhaps because he had a crap job done 'on the cheap'. A good tarmac
drive is, well, good.


I'd agree a price with the original
contractor to remove and relay the concrete. Then split the cost with
the water company if necessary. What do your house insurers say?


Should I have mentioned it to them? Why

No need to mention it to them as the company have apparently accepted
liability and are prepared to carry out the works at their cost.

On 15/11/2017 18:02, Mark Allread wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:48:32 +0000, JoeJoe wrote:

On 15/11/2017 17:41, Capitol wrote:

Â*Â*Â*Â*IME tarmac driveways are crap.

Why?

Perhaps because he had a crap job done 'on the cheap'. A good tarmac
drive is, well, good.


I'd agree a price with the original
contractor to remove and relay the concrete. Then split the cost with
the water company if necessary. What do your house insurers say?


Should I have mentioned it to them? Why

No need to mention it to them as the company have apparently accepted
liability and are prepared to carry out the works at their cost.

That's what I thought as well.

On 15/11/17 15:13, JoeJoe wrote:

snip

We are not particularly house-proud, and can happily live with the 2nd
option (he assured us that it would be done properly), but is there a
reason not to go with that? We live in a neighbourhood of around 100
houses, and none of them has a tarmac driveway€¦ Is it just a matter of
taste?

How about Resin?
http://www.pavingexpert.com/resin.htm

A car owning house near here has has it done years ago, still looks good
- no cracks, weeds, discolourations etc...

--
Adrian C

On 15/11/2017 15:13, JoeJoe wrote:

They sent the sub-contractor that they use to have a look at it today.
He suggested two possible solutions:
1. Remove the damaged parts (80% of the driveway - he said that they
won't approve doing the whole thing), and use concrete again to re-do.
He thinks that it would look horrible as he would never manage to
exactlyÂ* match the colour and pattern.


If your car needed an 80% respray because of an accident would you
accept an 80% respray in a different colour to the original?






--
Adam

In message , Mark
Allread writes
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:13:33 +0000, JoeJoe wrote:
2. Remove the whole concrete driveway and the equally as ugly edging
stones that need replacing anyway and re-do it in tarmac instead and
edging of our choice.

Go for tarmac.

You need a good well consolidated hardcore base and the topcoat should be
30mm of 10mm aggregate. Get them to check the whole of the proposed base
is adequate. If its being done by a 'proper' company as, indeed it
sounds, they will be able to understand the above even if you are not
sure.

A house a few doors away has just had their driveway done in tarmac with
brick edging. I think it looks great, wife thinks it isn't in keeping
with the house approach.

The company who did it appeared to be a roads contractor, and took ages
- about a month in all of intermittent work with huge lorries blocking
the road, deliveries of hardcore, various machines such as rollers, and
many days with men with barrows etc. One day a man was there with a
theodolite.

Everyone moaned about not being able to get past and the time it took
for such a small drive, but, as I say, it looks like a good job.
--
Bill

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 7:21:14 PM UTC, ARW wrote:
On 15/11/2017 15:13, JoeJoe wrote:

They sent the sub-contractor that they use to have a look at it today.
He suggested two possible solutions:
1. Remove the damaged parts (80% of the driveway - he said that they
won't approve doing the whole thing), and use concrete again to re-do.
He thinks that it would look horrible as he would never manage to
exactlyÂ* match the colour and pattern.


If your car needed an 80% respray because of an accident would you
accept an 80% respray in a different colour to the original?






--
Adam

Had the same thing happen years ago in a rented house. They will make it good. Go for the tar, they will do a proper job.Proper contractors, not some fly by night mob.

JoeJoe wrote:
We had a major water leak under the pavement right in front of our
driveway one night a couple of months ago. A failed valve meant that
it took them over 3 hours to finally turn the water off.

Our driveway (2 cars) is made up of a single piece of concrete (sorry,
not sure of the correct terminology.), with some stencilled
rectangle-shaped indentations in it, all dyed in a pinkish colour. A
very ugly thing indeed.
The water pressure was high enough to wash a large amount of silt and
sand from under the concrete, resulting in parts of it cracking and
collapsing by a few centimetres, leaving the driveway damaged and
uneven.
The water company agreed to do whatever it takes to bring it back to
its original condition or similar.

They sent the sub-contractor that they use to have a look at it today.
He suggested two possible solutions:
1. Remove the damaged parts (80% of the driveway - he said that they
won't approve doing the whole thing), and use concrete again to re-do.
He thinks that it would look horrible as he would never manage to
exactly match the colour and pattern.
2. Remove the whole concrete driveway and the equally as ugly edging
stones that need replacing anyway and re-do it in tarmac instead and
edging of our choice.

We are not particularly house-proud, and can happily live with the 2nd
option (he assured us that it would be done properly), but is there a
reason not to go with that? We live in a neighbourhood of around 100
houses, and none of them has a tarmac driveway. Is it just a matter of
taste?

A few years ago the gas people put new plastic gas supply pipes around here.
We all got a leaflet saying that if they had to dig up the drives they would
do their best to replace as original, but no guarantees.
They did not need dig up our drive. But on some drives they had to dig a
hole. The repair work looks awful.
Go for the tarmac.

In article , Bill
writes
In message , Mark
Allread writes
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:13:33 +0000, JoeJoe wrote:
2. Remove the whole concrete driveway and the equally as ugly edging
stones that need replacing anyway and re-do it in tarmac instead and
edging of our choice.

Go for tarmac.

You need a good well consolidated hardcore base and the topcoat should be
30mm of 10mm aggregate. Get them to check the whole of the proposed base
is adequate. If its being done by a 'proper' company as, indeed it
sounds, they will be able to understand the above even if you are not
sure.

A house a few doors away has just had their driveway done in tarmac
with brick edging. I think it looks great, wife thinks it isn't in
keeping with the house approach.

The company who did it appeared to be a roads contractor, and took ages
- about a month in all of intermittent work with huge lorries blocking
the road, deliveries of hardcore, various machines such as rollers, and
many days with men with barrows etc. One day a man was there with a
theodolite.

Everyone moaned about not being able to get past and the time it took
for such a small drive, but, as I say, it looks like a good job.
Do you want a good job or a quick job? Sounds like you got the former.
--
bert

On 15/11/2017 18:51, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 15/11/17 15:13, JoeJoe wrote:

snip

We are not particularly house-proud, and can happily live with the 2nd
option (he assured us that it would be done properly), but is there a
reason not to go with that? We live in a neighbourhood of around 100
houses, and none of them has a tarmac driveway€¦ Is it just a matter of
taste?

How about Resin?
http://www.pavingexpert.com/resin.htm

A car owning house near here has has it done years ago, still looks good
- no cracks, weeds, discolourations etc...

One of my neighbours had that done, over the top of the original
concrete. Where the four wheels of his van pressed down every
night, it has warn away the resin and 'grit'. Moss has invaded
the rest. Looks awful 10 years on.

On 15/11/2017 15:13, JoeJoe wrote:
We had a major water leak under the pavement right in front of our
driveway one night a couple of months ago. A failed valve meant that it
took them over 3 hours to finally turn the water off.

Our driveway (2 cars) is made up of a single piece of concrete (sorry,
not sure of the correct terminology€¦), with some stencilled
rectangle-shaped indentations inÂ* it, all dyed in a pinkish colour€¦ A
very ugly thing indeed.
The water pressure was high enough to wash a large amount of silt and
sand from under the concrete, resulting in parts of it cracking and
collapsing by a few centimetres, leaving the driveway damaged and uneven.

The water company agreed to do whatever it takes to bring it back to its
original condition or similar.

They sent the sub-contractor that they use to have a look at it today.
He suggested two possible solutions:
1. Remove the damaged parts (80% of the driveway - he said that they
won't approve doing the whole thing), and use concrete again to re-do.
He thinks that it would look horrible as he would never manage to
exactlyÂ* match the colour and pattern.
2. Remove the whole concrete driveway and the equally as ugly edging
stones that need replacing anyway and re-do it in tarmac instead and
edging of our choice.

We are not particularly house-proud, and can happily live with the 2nd
option (he assured us that it would be done properly), but is there a
reason not to go with that? We live in a neighbourhood of around 100
houses, and none of them has a tarmac driveway€¦ Is it just a matter of
taste?

Thanks a lot everyone - always happy to be educated!

Tarmac it is then...

"JoeJoe" wrote in message
o.uk...
We had a major water leak under the pavement right in front of our
driveway one night a couple of months ago. A failed valve meant that it
took them over 3 hours to finally turn the water off.

Our driveway (2 cars) is made up of a single piece of concrete (sorry, not
sure of the correct terminology€¦), with some stencilled rectangle-shaped
indentations in it, all dyed in a pinkish colour€¦ A very ugly thing
indeed.
The water pressure was high enough to wash a large amount of silt and sand
from under the concrete, resulting in parts of it cracking and collapsing
by a few centimetres, leaving the driveway damaged and uneven.

The water company agreed to do whatever it takes to bring it back to its
original condition or similar.

They sent the sub-contractor that they use to have a look at it today. He
suggested two possible solutions:
1. Remove the damaged parts (80% of the driveway - he said that they won't
approve doing the whole thing), and use concrete again to re-do. He thinks
that it would look horrible as he would never manage to exactly match the
colour and pattern.
2. Remove the whole concrete driveway and the equally as ugly edging
stones that need replacing anyway and re-do it in tarmac instead and
edging of our choice.

We are not particularly house-proud, and can happily live with the 2nd
option (he assured us that it would be done properly), but is there a
reason not to go with that? We live in a neighbourhood of around 100
houses, and none of them has a tarmac driveway€¦ Is it just a matter of
taste?

Nope, concrete works much better.

"Rod Speed" Wrote in message:


"JoeJoe" wrote in message
o.uk...
We had a major water leak under the pavement right in front of our
driveway one night a couple of months ago. A failed valve meant that it
took them over 3 hours to finally turn the water off.

Our driveway (2 cars) is made up of a single piece of concrete (sorry, not
sure of the correct terminology?), with some stencilled rectangle-shaped
indentations in it, all dyed in a pinkish colour? A very ugly thing
indeed.
The water pressure was high enough to wash a large amount of silt and sand
from under the concrete, resulting in parts of it cracking and collapsing
by a few centimetres, leaving the driveway damaged and uneven.

The water company agreed to do whatever it takes to bring it back to its
original condition or similar.

They sent the sub-contractor that they use to have a look at it today. He
suggested two possible solutions:
1. Remove the damaged parts (80% of the driveway - he said that they won't
approve doing the whole thing), and use concrete again to re-do. He thinks
that it would look horrible as he would never manage to exactly match the
colour and pattern.
2. Remove the whole concrete driveway and the equally as ugly edging
stones that need replacing anyway and re-do it in tarmac instead and
edging of our choice.

We are not particularly house-proud, and can happily live with the 2nd
option (he assured us that it would be done properly), but is there a
reason not to go with that? We live in a neighbourhood of around 100
houses, and none of them has a tarmac driveway? Is it just a matter of
taste?

Nope, concrete works much better.


Blends in just nice with the tin roof
dunny at the other end of it?
--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

"JoeJoe" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 15/11/2017 17:41, Capitol wrote:
JoeJoe wrote:
We had a major water leak under the pavement right in front of our
driveway one night a couple of months ago. A failed valve meant that it
took them over 3 hours to finally turn the water off.

Our driveway (2 cars) is made up of a single piece of concrete (sorry,
not sure of the correct terminology€¦), with some stencilled
rectangle-shaped indentations in it, all dyed in a pinkish colour€¦ A
very ugly thing indeed.
The water pressure was high enough to wash a large amount of silt and
sand from under the concrete, resulting in parts of it cracking and
collapsing by a few centimetres, leaving the driveway damaged and
uneven.

The water company agreed to do whatever it takes to bring it back to its
original condition or similar.

They sent the sub-contractor that they use to have a look at it today.
He suggested two possible solutions:
1. Remove the damaged parts (80% of the driveway - he said that they
won't approve doing the whole thing), and use concrete again to re-do.
He thinks that it would look horrible as he would never manage to
exactly match the colour and pattern.
2. Remove the whole concrete driveway and the equally as ugly edging
stones that need replacing anyway and re-do it in tarmac instead and
edging of our choice.

We are not particularly house-proud, and can happily live with the 2nd
option (he assured us that it would be done properly), but is there a
reason not to go with that? We live in a neighbourhood of around 100
houses, and none of them has a tarmac driveway€¦ Is it just a matter of
taste?

IME tarmac driveways are crap.

Why?

They look crap compared with concrete and dont last as long.

I'd agree a price with the original
contractor to remove and relay the concrete. Then split the cost with the
water company if necessary. What do your house insurers say?


Should I have mentioned it to them? Why

Because, when they have to pay to replace the original driveway
completely with a new concrete one, they are in a much better
position to make the water company pay for that.

"Mark Allread" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:48:32 +0000, JoeJoe wrote:

On 15/11/2017 17:41, Capitol wrote:

IME tarmac driveways are crap.

Why?

Perhaps because he had a crap job done 'on the cheap'. A good tarmac
drive is, well, good.


I'd agree a price with the original
contractor to remove and relay the concrete. Then split the cost with
the water company if necessary. What do your house insurers say?


Should I have mentioned it to them? Why

No need to mention it to them as the company have apparently accepted
liability and are prepared to carry out the works at their cost.

Not if he prefers a whole new concrete driveway, which he is legally
entitled to.

"Bill" wrote in message
...
In message , Mark
Allread writes
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:13:33 +0000, JoeJoe wrote:
2. Remove the whole concrete driveway and the equally as ugly edging
stones that need replacing anyway and re-do it in tarmac instead and
edging of our choice.

Go for tarmac.

You need a good well consolidated hardcore base and the topcoat should be
30mm of 10mm aggregate. Get them to check the whole of the proposed base
is adequate. If its being done by a 'proper' company as, indeed it
sounds, they will be able to understand the above even if you are not
sure.

A house a few doors away has just had their driveway done in tarmac with
brick edging. I think it looks great, wife thinks it isn't in keeping with
the house approach.

The company who did it appeared to be a roads contractor, and took ages -
about a month in all of intermittent work with huge lorries blocking the
road, deliveries of hardcore, various machines such as rollers, and many
days with men with barrows etc. One day a man was there with a theodolite.

Everyone moaned about not being able to get past and the time it took for
such a small drive, but, as I say, it looks like a good job.

And doing it in concrete would have been a hell of a lot quicker
and just involved the a couple of hours at most with the concrete
mixer truck blocking the road and would look much better.

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 20:26:47 +0000, bert wrote:

In article , Bill
writes
In message , Mark
Allread writes
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:13:33 +0000, JoeJoe wrote:
2. Remove the whole concrete driveway and the equally as ugly edging
stones that need replacing anyway and re-do it in tarmac instead and
edging of our choice.

Go for tarmac.

You need a good well consolidated hardcore base and the topcoat should
be 30mm of 10mm aggregate. Get them to check the whole of the proposed
base is adequate. If its being done by a 'proper' company as, indeed it
sounds, they will be able to understand the above even if you are not
sure.

A house a few doors away has just had their driveway done in tarmac with
brick edging. I think it looks great, wife thinks it isn't in keeping
with the house approach.

The company who did it appeared to be a roads contractor, and took ages
- about a month in all of intermittent work with huge lorries blocking
the road, deliveries of hardcore, various machines such as rollers, and
many days with men with barrows etc. One day a man was there with a
theodolite.

Everyone moaned about not being able to get past and the time it took
for such a small drive, but, as I say, it looks like a good job.
Do you want a good job or a quick job? Sounds like you got the former.

Puts me in mind of the computer repair shop's slogan:-

"We do good fast cheap repairs, pick any two options as per the list
below".

Good and fast... won't be cheap
Good and cheap... won't be fast
Fast and cheap... won't be good

--
Johnny B Good

On 15/11/17 20:55, Andrew wrote:
One of my neighbours had that done, over the top of the original
concrete. Where the four wheels of his van pressed down every
night, it has warn away the resin and 'grit'. Moss has invaded
the rest. Looks awful 10 years on.

10 years? I yield to your longer report with disappointment

--
Adrian C

"Andrew" wrote in message
news
On 15/11/2017 18:51, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 15/11/17 15:13, JoeJoe wrote:

snip

We are not particularly house-proud, and can happily live with the 2nd
option (he assured us that it would be done properly), but is there a
reason not to go with that? We live in a neighbourhood of around 100
houses, and none of them has a tarmac driveway€¦ Is it just a matter of
taste?

How about Resin?
http://www.pavingexpert.com/resin.htm

A car owning house near here has has it done years ago, still looks
good - no cracks, weeds, discolourations etc...

One of my neighbours had that done, over the top of the original
concrete. Where the four wheels of his van pressed down every
night, it has warn away the resin and 'grit'. Moss has invaded
the rest. Looks awful 10 years on.

Many many years ago, my parents were conned by one of these gangs of
labourers who knock at the door and say that they notice our driveway is
looking in need of repair and that they have a load of tarmac that will go
off if it isn't used today. Do we want them to tarmac our drive? Classic
technique :-(

The drive was admittedly crap beforehand: lots of river-washed rounded
pebbles about the size of an egg partly embedded into concrete to leave a
very knobbly bumpy surface. And these charlatans just dumped the tarmac on
top of this knobbly surface and then rolled it flat. Within a week or so it
was starting to wear through wherever there was a stone, and elsewhere it
peeled away from the concrete.

I can't believe my parents were taken in by these con-artists.

My next door neighbour is a joiner. He decided to get the rear tarmacked. The base was dug out and hardcore added, edging put in and drains added. As he is in the know I assume the squad used knew their stuff and it took about 4 days. This was about 6 months ago and Ive already noticed small weeds coming through in a few places. Price for driveway and rear of our properties was about £7k to which I contributed £2k

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 06:03:12 -0800, sintv wrote:

drains added. As he is in the know I assume the squad used knew their
stuff and it took about 4 days. This was about 6 months ago and Ive
already noticed small weeds coming through in a few places.

If weeds are indeed coming through then they clearly did not know their
stuff.

It may be that they are growing in from the sides but unlikely if proper
groundworks were done.