ROUND TABLE REPORT 25
the start.” He added: “They recognised that land take isn’t an issue if you design it right, conversely, if you put appalling SuDS in that are ‘bomb craters,’ it is going to take a lot more land, and probably cost more to build, and people aren’t going to like it.” What are the key issues for housebuilders in complying with SuDS in the current context? Procurement is riven with problems, and some planning authorities may be more amenable than others when it comes to creating comprehensive SuDS schemes as part of new developments. Our panel discussed the issues around the hierarchy of decision-making in projects, and the organisational and bureaucratic obstacles that overcomplicate things. Steve Wilson told the group there were “a lot of artificial organisational boundaries that make SuDS difficult – technically it’s straightforward,” adding: “What we really need is a wholesale rewriting of surface water legislation.” Jamie Gledhill of Brett Landscaping pointed out that the Highways authority were often a major nut to crack in the procurement process, and they “do tend to be the main blockers” when it comes specifying SuDS. Chris Carr admitted there were issues with accepting SuDS features in highways departments, although it may seem like one of the best locations to introduce them. For example, swales were seen as incompatible with services connections such as street lighting, meaning that two rows of streetlights may not be possible. However he said that this is “ because of the issue with energy costs now, local authorities are happy to reduce street lighting.” Is it a myth that SuDS costs more than a traditionally landscaped and road network-oriented scheme? A 2013 Defra study even
“Planners require a certain amount of public space in schemes, but don’t include the SuDS feature in that area” Matt Clutton, Cameron Homes
found that well-designed, landscape-based SuDS should be cheaper than traditional drainage with underground storage, with less pipework. Ruth Clarke from Innovyze asked whether housebuilders “were able to charge more for properties based on the increased amenity, or are SuDS still just seen as a necessity to get planning?” Land take is the key issue in terms of affordability, as developers have to sacrifice land they could build on to include SuDS, but in theory their developments are more desirable as a result, so there’s a balance. But, as Matt Clutton of Cameron Homes pointed out, there’s a key problem which planners bring into the picture, by “requiring a certain amount of public space in schemes, but not including the SuDS feature in that area.” Therefore, SuDS places a further burden on the land equation, when it could be integrated into the public space calculation. Steve Wilson agreed it was “a real problem, that makes SuDS expensive – we’ve got to look at multi- functional use of open space.”
Collaboration & hybrid solutions According to our 2022 Industry Viewfinder reader research into architects’ views on SuDS, 85% of respondents thought that a
NETWORKING The event at the Building Centre was a unique opportunity for suppliers of solutions to discuss the key issues with specifiers in this niche field
ADF JANUARY 2024
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
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
