26
INDUSTRY VIEWFINDER
Are you involved with the specifi cation of any of the above in current or recent projects? Yes No
that more architects are becoming aware of the importance of regulations in this regard, and the potential negative impact developments can have on the environment.
The fact all options received a largely positive ranking shows there are multiple motivations for architects to consider and specify green infrastructure, indicating a good overall understanding of the variety of benefi ts it can offer. With even the lowest ranked factors still receiving a majority ‘very’ or ‘moderately important’ ranking, it suggests they simply sit lower on the list of priorities.
Challenges & limitations
There are a number of challenges holding architects and designers back from fully embracing the benefi ts of stormwater management solutions. In particular, the solutions falling under the ‘smart’ or ‘green’ umbrellas face an array of hurdles. We asked architects whether they viewed certain factors as a ‘major limitation’, ‘moderate limitation’, ‘minor limitation’, or ‘no limitation’ when looking at implementing smart or green stormwater solutions. Concerningly, all factors provided were majority ranked as either a major or moderate limitation, proving there is more than just one area that the industry needs to look more closely at.
Somewhat unsurprisingly, the highest ranked was budget constraints with a combined total of 82%, closely followed by both lack of client awareness and regulatory gaps, with 79% of respondents ranking both of these as either a major or moderate limitation. Furthermore, none of these factors were rated as having ‘no limitation’, showing architects are consistently fi ghting against budget restrictions, clients who are perhaps unaware or uneducated on the benefi ts and need for smart/green stormwater solutions, and a lack of regulation. Not too far behind, site footprint limitations are viewed as a major or moderate limitation by 70% of respondents – unsurprising
with many having commented earlier in the survey that urban sites are often tight for space and therefore best suit a hybrid approach. Finally, availability of reliable suppliers was ranked as a major limitation by only 14% of respondents, though a further 49% said it’s a moderate limitation. It’s clear that for the industry to truly move forward with its approach to stormwater management – from both an environmental and technological perspective – there are many areas that need urgently addressing. We asked our cohort if the failure has led to SuDS being a ‘nice to have’ feature in new schemes, rather than a ‘must have’. Over half (54%) agreed; showing the failure of SuDS being viewed as non-negotiable.
Better regulation – and education – could arrest the trend of ‘planning pushback,’ which 56% of our cohort said they have encountered when proposing natural SuDS features in projects. This could be due to an enduring lack of understanding of the benefi ts, or a concern that allocating space for them comes at the expense of other features such as housing or parking. There are also perceptions around safety and long-term maintenance to counter. Integrating ‘grey’ and ‘green’ SuDS features sensibly is seen as the most effective way to fully benefi t. We asked our cohort of architects how often they are asked by clients to integrate stormwater control features that also provide visible amenity value for end users (such as green roofs or landscaped swales). Only 7% responded with ‘always’; the majority said they’re only ‘occasionally’ asked to do this (54%), showing the unrealised potential.
The full version of the white paper includes details on preferred solutions to stormwater management challenges from amenity-rich natural solutions to practical engineered solutions for tight sites, and views on optimising project management to bring SuDS in at an early stage, and the importance of regulation. The document can be downloaded free at our Insights portal:
insights.netmagmedia.co.uk
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
ADF APRIL/MAY 2026
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116
