If you are unable to find the information you require in this FAQ list, or in this list's archive, then please contact us to pose a new question.
We have recently received high numbers of core failures for Domestic Access depth.
Since the introduction of the Second Edition of the SROH, we have been selecting the option of reinstating with 2x30mm layers of 6mm hard stone in the footway (60mm total depth).
This is shown as an acceptable equivalent option to 50mm DBC & 30mm DSC (80mm total depth) in Appendix A7.1
Under S8.4.2 Domestic Access
1) Where a recognised domestic vehicle crossing or occasional emergency service vehicle etc crosses the footway the existing structure may include thicker layers higher quality material or other strengthening measures.
(in these cases we are assuming footway crossing is designed purely to support purely domestic vehicles as the accesses are typically only just sufficient to fit a car and adjoin residential properties)
The area of footway at the Domestic Access sites that have been failed under core sampling are those which have been constructed by the H.A. to a standard footway construction of 80mm.
We would believe this construction ( maximum of 80mm depth) is consistent along the full extent of the footway ( i.e. beyond the specific area of the “domestic access”) .
As such the footway has at no point included “ thicker layers, higher quality materials or other strengthening measures “as per the requirements of the SROH ( optional for “Domestic Access)
Therefore we would recognise this as standard footway construction, and accordingly we have used the standard option under Appendix A7 – that being a bituminous constructed depth of 60mm DSC.
Any Domestic Access that includes deliberately engineered thicker layers greater than 80mm in depth , or where higher quality materials have been used or other strengthening measures have been incorporated then we will ensure we match these as S8.4.2 2 with “similar or equivalent materials”.
Please note - At none of the alleged “Domestic Access” defect locations is there any performance issue with the reinstatement ( as would be deflectable under the visual aspects of the SROH) , the alleged defect is based purely on the Highway Authorities interpretation of the SROH
A response to this question is pending.