54
INDUSTRY VIEWFINDER: DESIGN FOR SUDS
“How realistic do you think it is to use the following green infrastructure solutions to meet stormwater management needs in UK projects currently?” Very Realistic Slightly Realistic Not Very Realistic Very Unrealistic
Planning process & maintenance issues The network of responsibilities overseeing SuDS and green/grey infrastructure installations is as complex as the projects themselves can be. A total of seven sets of bodies can be involved in managing project risk, from the Environment Agency, to Lead Local Flood Authorities and District and Borough Councils, as well as coastal protection bodies, water companies, ‘Internal Drainage Boards’ managing local water levels, and lastly, Highways. The Flood Act requires them to work together and exchange information. One of the most notable developments in the oversight part of the picture is the introduction of SuDS approval bodies (SABs) who as part of the Schedule 3 of the Act implemented in 2024 will ‘adopt’ the new drainage systems as an asset and therefore be responsible for their maintenance, based on the systems meeting certain criteria. If the pattern in Wales is replicated in England, SABs will also provide a pre-application advice service to design teams to discuss their proposals, and evaluate and approve applications for new developments where construction work has an impact on drainage.
Assessing the challenges
The challenges faced by architects as well as civil engineers, landscape designers and specialist consultants – and the local authorities that commission them to provide effective SuDS for developments, are multi-faceted.
Availability of land
The scarcity of land for projects is one major factor which is cited (including by our survey respondents) as something which can make nature-based SuDS schemes very hard to pull off effectively. It’s believed by experts that this may be one further aspect which drives the hybrid approach of green and grey systems working together, namely that by adding engineered approaches, the space requirements to install a natural system are mitigated. However, there has been a long-standing ‘5 metre rule’ in Building Regulations which says that water attenuation systems like tanks
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK EXPERT VIEW
Chris Hodson is an architect and consultant to trade body Interpave, which champions concrete block permeable paving as a ‘nature-based’ SuDS technique. He comments that this survey fi nding may
refl ect an issue of lack of education within the industry on SuDS: “Many developers do not appear to have been made aware of the multifunctional benefi ts of SuDS and green infrastructure.”
and soakaways cannot be constructed within 5 metres of buildings, due to the risk to foundations.
Developer resistance
One of the key stumbling blocks for introducing SuDS to housing developments has been the reluctance of developers to invest in something which is not mandatory, and from which the commercial benefi ts could be seen as intangible. However, are developers beginning to understand, and put money behind, tackling the challenges of changing weather patterns, before it becomes compulsory to do so in 2024? We asked whether respondents’ developer clients understand the ‘importance, and design ramifi cations of, comprehensive and fi t-for purpose stormwater management?’ Disappointingly, 62% thought that developers currently didn’t.
Landscape-led approaches We looked at what the challenges were for architects in achieving the ‘landscape-led’ SuDS projects that can add the maximum amenity and desirability for customers. Land availability, questions around adoption (who will maintain the asset), as well as understanding, planning issues, lack of information and design tools and ground conditions. These were all factors cited by our survey respondents which were causing diffi culties in specifying nature-based solutions.
ADF MAY 2023
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
