New Build developer needs to construct a gradient on my front garden

[Deleted User]

Understand 😊👍

diystarter7

Apologies if I have missed the point but why is a gradient needed and how steep will this be? Id is only a slight gradient to comply with water drainage/flooding?

Bendy_House

Until the OP comes back, we can only speculate.

My spec is that front physical boundary fences are not permitted in the deeds (for the developer's aesthetic reasons...) So the unprotected change in level there represents a genuine hazard.

If that's the case, the OP is probably stuffed.

Until the developer sells all their houses.

It's a stupid situation, and should really have been anticipated.

IF that's the issue, then - tbh - even a slope of that gradient would remain a hazard.

I hope this doesn't turn in to another "I wonder what the outcome was?" type thread...

ProDave

First thing is to arrange a meeting with the sites surveyor to discuss what it is they want to actually do, ask for plans of the work they intend to do.  Then if you don't like it discuss the WHY of what they are doing and discuss alternatives like a fence or the raised path / step idea I proposed earlier.

Ath_Wat

Sapindus said:

Also, so far everyone is talking about the risk of people getting out of the car and falling down the drop..  What seems to be a much bigger hazard is someone misjudging the drive and rolling the car down.  Putting in a slope isn't going to solve that.

Yes it is, surely.  If your wheel goes off onto a gradient, you drive back on.  If it drops straight off an edge like that, you are stuck.

molerat

OP, what is the view towards the front. Does the step up go beyond the front of the building ?

It looks like the gradient should be between the two houses, not from half way between the two.  They are trying to fix the fact that they have built the drive where they shouldn't have.  You need to see the plans to see if the driveway was there originally.

Section62

Sapindus said:

Also, so far everyone is talking about the risk of people getting out of the car and falling down the drop..  What seems to be a much bigger hazard is someone misjudging the drive and rolling the car down.

By far the greater hazard are the ones involving people and the straight drop.

A vehicle tyre going over the edge would cause that corner/side of the vehicle to drop until the lowest part of the chassis hits the drive. Although expensve-to-repair damage may be caused to the car, the potential for someone to die as a result of the vehicle dropping that far is extremely remote - the forces involved wouldn't be that much greater than driving off(/onto) a kerb.

Accidentally stepping/falling off an edge of 300-400m could result in various possible musculoskeletal injuries, up to and including a fractured skull.  Injuries of this type can cause permanent disablement, mobility loss, and in some cases death.  It doesn't look much of a drop, but that is one of the risk factors - because people commonly don't perceive there to be a risk (as they might if walking that close to the edge 10 storeys up) they are less cautious, and therefore the effective hazard is greater.  This is why there is a requirement to consider changes in level and the risks they may pose.

Sapindus said:

Putting in a slope isn't going to solve that.

It will.  The gradual change in angle should alert the driver to something being wrong and give them an opportunity to react/stop.  Unless the vehicle has very low ground clearance it should be possible to simply drive it out the way it came in.  A straight drop gives no warning to the driver.  Recovery would require the vehicle to be jacked up and pulled out, followed by inspection and repair.

It is really poor design to have a level change like that.  The most cost effective solution would have been to bank soil up so there is a gradual level transition.... so it isn't surprising that the council wants this done.

Edit:typo

LongoBongo

It's very odd that there is no path leading up to the gate. If the developers put the gate in then the plan would have also shown a path. I'd suggest the plan showing the path would take precedent over any plan showing levels and that the developer should offer an alternative solution that doesn't include putting a crossfall over the path that they should have constructed.

 OP - Who put the gate in and was it, and a path, shown on the planning drawings that you refer to?

Section62

LongoBongo said:

It's very odd that there is no path leading up to the gate. If the developers put the gate in then the plan would have also shown a path.

It depends why and how the gate appeared there.  There are many ways a gate could have been provided with no intent (at the planning stage) for a path to be provided as well.

LongoBongo said:

I'd suggest the plan showing the path would take precedent over any plan showing levels and that the developer should offer an alternative solution that doesn't include putting a crossfall over the path that they should have constructed.

What would the basis of that be?

If the approved planning consent drawings show the area being grassed and sloped down from the neighbour's driveway then that is what has to be built, unless the planning authority (and building control) agree otherwise.  If what is shown on the drawings cannot be built, then the developer will need to agree an alternative with all parties.

If the OP was promised a path and gate by the developer (not just shown on the plans, but as an enforceable contractual requirement) then the OP and developer would have to agree something between them, in accordance with the provisions of their contract.

LongoBongo

Section62 said:

LongoBongo said:

It's very odd that there is no path leading up to the gate. If the developers put the gate in then the plan would have also shown a path.

It depends why and how the gate appeared there.  There are many ways a gate could have been provided with no intent (at the planning stage) for a path to be provided as well.

LongoBongo said:

I'd suggest the plan showing the path would take precedent over any plan showing levels and that the developer should offer an alternative solution that doesn't include putting a crossfall over the path that they should have constructed.

What would the basis of that be?

If the approved planning consent drawings show the area being grassed and sloped down from the neighbour's driveway then that is what has to be built, unless the planning authority (and building control) agree otherwise.  If what is shown on the drawings cannot be built, then the developer will need to agree an alternative with all parties.

If the OP was promised a path and gate by the developer (not just shown on the plans, but as an enforceable contractual requirement) then the OP and developer would have to agree something between them, in accordance with the provisions of their contract.

I'd suggest the provision of the path would take precedent because there are many different ways to overcome the level difference and only one way to provide the path. The layout drawings that go through planning normally happens well before external levels are considered in such refined detail, it would then be up to the developer's engineer to come up with a solution that works within the context of the approved planning layout.

 

If the plans show a path then the OP should insist that their path is provided which would mean the level difference needs to be made up in the gap between the path and driveway and not between the driveway and the wall of their house.