Jump to content

Quay Headings


JohnK

Recommended Posts

Sorry for the choice of forum (the Broads Underwater) but it was the closest I could find.

 

So ... I have quay headings, behind the quay heading in places is a gap. I initially thought the soil had washed away. But now the tides are lower I can see in the key heading itself about a foot down is a small hole (maybe 3/4”) so I’m now thinking the gap is deliberate and there for drainage.

 

Does anyone know?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3/4" sounds suspiciously well suited to a tie-rod! If there were drainage holes, which I think would be unusual, then it would be deeper down than a foot. Gaps behind quay heading are not unusual but one word of warning, don't fill the gap with heavy aggregate, that just might force the piles outward, even causing them to collapse. If whatever you put behind the piles washes out then you can line the piles with a porous membrane that will help prevent that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, JohnK said:

Thanks JM.
So you don’t think there’s any reason to not back fill the holes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please don't take my word as gospel but you should be able to. One important factor is the depth of the toe of the pile. A man who shares a dyke with me had bought himself a rather tasty, decidedly opulent bling-boat boat. He had his side of the dyke dredged, that plus the undertow of his props, the toe of the piles was exposed so when he backfilled the bottoms pushed out. Should have used an experienced, professional river bank maintenance contractor in the first place but that's another story. Just be aware. PS, you can always create a decking boardwalk to cover the holes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It did flood quite badly when we had the high stuff a few weeks ago. Although next to the quay didn’t have standing water (most of the garden did) it was very muddy.
I did ask the local National Park Authority (sorry) about decking and they said if it’s less than 30cm above the ground you don’t need planning but above you do. I didn’t ask about alongside the quay but I will if I decide to do it (I like to do things correctly).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is some confusion over height above ground. There was a well documented case a year or two back, coincidentally at Potter, where the landowner created decked access to the river bank for his disabled wife.  Granted that it was a tad over the top, just an opinion,  but since I have waterside decking I did look into the matter. Please don't take this as gospel but as I understand it the decked area must not exceed more than 50% of the land area, excluding any buildings. Height wise it can be half way between the highest and lowest part of the land to be decked. Effectively if your land undulates then it doesn't have to follow those contours with a strict 30cm height restriction. By and large the BA offers advice, worth taking, but very often its just an opinion rather than a strict specification, there are numerous examples of this in regard to roof and cladding colours around the Broads! That is not bashing, rather it's a well documented fact. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Difficult one without seeing it with my own eyes although a hole any lower than your front board shouldn't usually be there. 

3 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Might be worth asking Riverman. I would tend to trust his advice more than mine!

I don't know about that, excellent advice, you'll be doing me out of a job. 

The only thing to really add to it would be if putting in decking, make sure your back supporting uprights are long enough. Quite often see boardwalk that's sunk at the back after dredgings have been put on a plot and it looks terrible. Also, wood waste, chippings, shreddings, all brilliant as backfill underneath a boardwalk. Light, gentle on the piling, easy to move, usually free. There's no point wasting good money on soil you'll never see again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of interest I googled decking dispute at Potter & came up with the Authority committee papers regarding the dispute that I had previously alluded to. Two lots of bumph came up, firstly much sabre rattling and secondly a rather more realistic approach so I'll quote that one:

9/9 Enforcement of Planning Control: Enforcement Items for Consideration (1) Bathurst, PH51 North East Riverbank, Potter Heigham The Committee received a report providing an update concerning the unauthorised installation of decking at a riverside property in Potter Heigham and prevalence of comparable decking in the vicinity. The Planning Committee on 9 January 2015 deferred making a decision on the report in order to clarify the extent of the ownership of the plot and for officers to provide information on the number of other plots in the area which had installed comparable decking. Having made detailed investigations it was appreciated and recognised that the riverside plots in this vicinity often had an associated mooring facility. It was therefore not considered wholly uncharacteristic to have structures like decking by the water to create a safe and level access for boats. It was noted that there was one or two other properties with decking extending over much of the plot, although not having the benefit of planning permission would now have established use. Members noted that Site Specifics Policy POT2 of the development plan had the intention to restrict domestic development favouring the small scale and more open character of the riverside plots with front lawns adding significantly to their character. Although it was preferable to see as much open and green space on plots as possible, and the decking installed at Bathurst presented a full decked frontage to the property which did appear excessive, it was noted that the adjacent grassed area next to Bathurst was in the same ownership. They therefore considered that in this instance it would be unreasonable to take full enforcement action. However, they did recognise the concern that retention would establish an undesirable precedent and lead to increased urbanisation. It was noted that officers had discussed the increasing level of decking and external structures and its impact on the character of the area with the River Thurne Tenants Association and a joint site visit was proposed to look at the extent of the issue and to agree best practice. It was considered that it would be appropriate to provide more detailed guidelines for development and that POT2 be reviewed and examined in more detail. Members noted that the owner had previously declined to submit a planning application for a reduction in the decking as he had considered that it was permitted development. Members were in favour of a negotiated settlement and it was suggested that a personal condition would be appropriate on a planning permission. SAB/RG/mins/pc060315/Page 8 of o seek10/190315 RESOLVED unanimously (i) that it would be inappropriate and not expedient to pursue enforcement action in this particular instance in light of the size of the entire property in the ownership of Bathurst as well as the personal circumstances of the owner; and (ii) that officers be encouraged to go back to the chalet owner t a retrospective planning application for the extended decking and limit any permission by personal condition.

I am only posting this in order to indicate that there doesn't appear to be a hard and fast policy and that any advice can only be seen as being a guideline rather than as mandatory.  David at the River Thurne Tennants Association, or whatever it's called, would seem to be the man to seek out. However, for a bog-standard riverside boardwalk I rather doubt that any hackles will be raised!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks JM, that’s good to know.
I did read in a BA document that they’re keen for green on plots.
I think I’ll try to get a couple of quotes, decide if it’s what we want to do and if so approach TBMC (Thurne Bungalow Management Company) and the BA. I’d much rather do a bit of work up front than get a load of grief later.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Sponsors

    Norfolk Broads Network is run by volunteers - You can help us run it by making a donation

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.