A bottle of wine could go a long way to influence...glasgowwestie wrote:Maybe you can encourage others that are less directly affected by saying that it might become a 'planning precedent' for both sides of the street, which would mean that they have less power to protest if someone decides to build something similar next door to them?
Good point to get neighbours a bit further away on side. Think you are doing the right thing remaining calm and polite. Going down the official route is the best option.glasgowwestie wrote:Maybe you can encourage others that are less directly affected by saying that it might become a 'planning precedent' for both sides of the street, which would mean that they have less power to protest if someone decides to build something similar next door to them?
Tis fine provided they used frost resistant block, the water can permeate through the block but will still be stopped by the tanking. That said the tanking stops at the base of the wall so unless they lapped in a tanking for the concrete slab the water will still get in anyway.kerryxeg wrote:Looking at his pictures, I thought the tanking had to go on the outside of the retaining wall, otherwise water pressure can work through the retaining wall negating the benefit of the retaining wall, (so my eng told me - that was for a house which is a tad more important). They also didn't paint the outer block to waterproof the foundation so same result.
My engineer wouldn't have liked it. He basically said if you don't tank the outside of the retaining wall you might as well have not bothered with the extra thickness, as the water pressure would be acting on the 4" block on the inside. My retaining wall was 1.6m high. The other interesting comment was that the damp course could not be continuous through the wall as this could become a sliding surface. I checked that with a mate who is a site agent and sure enough he'd just been told the same on his job. More complex than I'd have believed, but I can see the logic and it's certainly been effective so far.Tis fine provided they used frost resistant block, the water can permeate through the block but will still be stopped by the tanking. That said the tanking stops at the base of the wall so unless they lapped in a tanking for the concrete slab the water will still get in anyway.
Tenner says he ignores the lack of permission and puts his deck on anyway.
No doubt that tanking on the outside is the better detail. In reality on a sloping site you are not going to have a high water table to exert full hydrostatic pressure over the height of the wall and looks like the tanking just stops rather than returning through the wall. It probable wont fall over just leak like a sieve. Looks like someone has plucked some standard old school 'rule of thumb' details and decided that will do. Generally I wouldn't use blockwork retaining walls, far easier just to use concrete.kerryxeg wrote:My engineer wouldn't have liked it. He basically said if you don't tank the outside of the retaining wall you might as well have not bothered with the extra thickness, as the water pressure would be acting on the 4" block on the inside. My retaining wall was 1.6m high. The other interesting comment was that the damp course could not be continuous through the wall as this could become a sliding surface. I checked that with a mate who is a site agent and sure enough he'd just been told the same on his job. More complex than I'd have believed, but I can see the logic and it's certainly been effective so far.
I have to agree, I bet there is a load of decking with no railings on order - purely decorative of course.
