Block paving vs concrete, tarmac, gravel

When it comes to hard surfaces around a house, block paving is mostly weighed against poured concrete, tarmac and gravel. Paving is repairable block by block, permeable through the joints and varied to look at; concrete and tarmac are cheaper over large areas but harder to put right. Gravel is the cheapest of all, and scatters under a car.

On the first comparison, poured concrete and tarmac both look cheaper and quicker. The difference arrives the day something has to be dug up: a water connection, a drain repair, a burst pipe, a tree root.

Block paving you lift, dig, backfill, compact and relay with the same blocks. The surface looks the way it did before. Concrete and tarmac get broken out and a new section is poured, and that patch stays visible and eventually cracks along the join. This is exactly why utility crews prefer paving.

The second difference is water. Paving has joints, and with a permeable build-up water soaks through into the ground beneath. Concrete and tarmac send all of it to a gully, a drain or your neighbour's boundary. On any sizeable hard surface that turns into a planning argument, not just a drainage one.

Ordinary block paving only takes water through the joints, and even then not much. A properly permeable build-up is a different construction: the difference is not the block but what fills the joints and what the laying course is made of. In a permeable pavement the jointing grit has to have the same grading as the laying course, so water passes through the whole build-up without stalling anywhere.

The water then goes into the ground under the surface instead of into a drain. At a house that means less water pushed onto next door — and here it also decides what you are allowed to build. In England, paving over more than 5 m² of front garden with an impermeable surface needs planning permission unless the run-off is directed to a lawn or border within the property; a permeable or porous surface stays permitted development. On larger schemes the same thinking appears as a SuDS requirement. You pay for it with a deeper, dearer sub-base, and it will not work everywhere — not over a garage, and not on clay that will not take the water.

Poured concrete and tarmac have no equivalent. The water has to be run across the surface into a channel drain and on into the system, which is another line in the budget that quietly drops out of price comparisons.

There is no point pretending it wins everywhere. On a long straight run carrying heavy vehicles, where nobody cares how it looks, tarmac is cheaper and faster. On an area nobody maintains, the joints silt up and grow weeds while concrete stays smooth. And the upfront price of paving is higher than gravel or tarmac — no way round that.

Paving wins on the balance of properties: it takes the load, it can be repaired, it lets water through and it lasts two to three decades. If one single criterion decides it for you, another surface will probably win.

• Yard and driveway: block paving — repairable, strong enough, smart.
• Large trafficked area where price decides: concrete or tarmac.
• Ornamental path or garden: gravel or paving.
• Frontage you want to show off: natural stone (the dearest).

See block paving prices, types of block paving and lifespan and maintenance.