DRAFT v0.1 for review — 28 July 2026 · Technical sign-off required · Production version to be designed as a branded PDF download
A practical checklist for architects, landscape architects, consultants and asset owners specifying wetpour safety surfacing. It asks one question throughout: does the specification describe what the surface must still be doing in service — or only what it must be at handover? Work through it against your specification before it goes out; every item is a question you are entitled to put to any supplier.
1 · Material identity
| ✓ | The specification… | Why it matters |
|---|
| ☐ | Names a specific product and manufacturer — not just "EPDM" or "TPV" | Category names cover hundreds of producers whose materials age very differently |
| ☐ | States the place of manufacture | Traceability — and a factory you can ask questions of |
| ☐ | Requires the supplied material to be the same formulation as the tested material | Test certificates are worthless if the delivery differs from the sample |
| ☐ | Controls substitution: alternatives assessed against evidence, not category name | "Or equivalent" should mean equivalent demonstrated performance |
2 · UV & ageing evidence
| ✓ | The evidence requested… | Why it matters |
|---|
| ☐ | Accelerated weathering results (e.g. EN 14836, greyscale-scored) for the actual product | An independent, comparable benchmark of colour and polymer stability |
| ☐ | Named, dated aged installations in a comparable climate and use | Service history is the strongest ageing evidence there is |
| ☐ | Current photographs of those installations — or an invitation to visit | "Extensive experience" without a dated site is marketing, not evidence |
| ☐ | An account of how the colour behaves with age (fade, chalk, drift — or hold) | Whatever attacks the colour is also attacking the polymer |
3 · Composite testing
| ✓ | The data supplied… | Why it matters |
|---|
| ☐ | Is measured on the finished bound composite, not the loose granule or moulded sheet | Users walk on the composite; the composite is what ages and fails |
| ☐ | Includes composite tensile to EN 12230, with binder type and loading stated | The headline structural measure of the installed system |
| ☐ | Includes impact attenuation to EN 1177 on the specified build-up and thickness | Compliance belongs to the system, not the material |
| ☐ | States the test conditions alongside every figure quoted | A number without its conditions cannot be compared with anything |
4 · Binder & system
| ✓ | The specification… | Why it matters |
|---|
| ☐ | States the binder type and loading, not just the granule | The binder determines colour behaviour, cure and long-term bond |
| ☐ | Confirms granule–binder compatibility from a single technical source | Granule and binder age as one system — or fail as one |
| ☐ | Reflects the project's climate, colours and installation constraints | The right combination for one setting can visibly fail in another |
| ☐ | Avoids assuming extra binder can compensate for material shortcomings | Beyond a point, more binder doesn't buy more performance |
5 · Installation & application
| ✓ | The specification… | Why it matters |
|---|
| ☐ | Matches thickness, granule geometry and binder ratio to the actual use | A toddler area and a destination playground carry loads an order of magnitude apart |
| ☐ | Considers layout and jointing in the light of thermal movement | Daily and seasonal cycles work every joint in the surface |
| ☐ | Defines curing conditions and weather-window requirements | Cure quality on install day shapes behaviour for years |
6 · Retained performance
| ✓ | The specification… | Why it matters |
|---|
| ☐ | States colour-stability expectations in service, with supporting evidence | Colour is the client's most visible measure of the asset |
| ☐ | States that elasticity must be retained — no progressive surface hardening | Hardening is how ageing surfaces quietly lose their safety function |
| ☐ | Addresses granule retention and surface integrity over time | Granule loss and crumbing are early, visible failure modes |
| ☐ | Expects continued impact performance through the design life — not only at handover | EN 1177 compliance on Day One is the start of the obligation, not the end |
Scoring it honestly
There's no pass mark — but a pattern to watch for. A specification that ticks sections 1–3 and fails 4–6 is a handover specification: it will produce a surface that passes its tests and an owner who carries all the risk of what happens next. The items in 4–6 are where longevity actually lives.
Where to go from here. Rosehill works with project teams to develop performance-led surfacing specifications appropriate to the application, climate and intended design life — and delivers the full Science of Performance evidence base as a private CPD. Both at tpv.rosehill.group/science-of-performance.
Published by Rosehill Sports & Play, a division of Rosehill Group. Every Rosehill TPV® granule is manufactured at Sowerby Bridge, West Yorkshire.
