ROUND TABLE REVIEW 37
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 calculation of public space. Steve Wilson agreed it was “a real problem, it makes SuDS expensive – we’ve got to look at multi-functional use of open space.”
COLLABORATION & INTEGRATION Sue Illman posed the key question of how to ensure all the professional disciplines “fully understand SuDS and the multiplicity of ways that they can be designed into projects.” While this might not have been answered, there was consensus that collaboration between architects, engineers and other professions was possibly more essential for these schemes than others. Chris Carr candidly aditted that for his fir, there is a hierarchy, and landscaping comes at the bottom, they have to deliver the best they can with the engineered design, SuDS, highways and everything else; you can’t lead with landscaping, it would never work.”
He advised: “When the engineer’s finished, then look at how to incororate landscaping into it.” He added that “my first riority as a develoer is to build a home I can sell, and everything else has to work around that.” However, Sue Illman and Charlotte Markey defended the importance of prioritising landscape architecture in the process, Sue asserting in response to Chris: “We do it the other way around,” questioning why engineering would be given the chief priority. Charlotte adding that it was “hugely frightening that you can’t have a landscape-led approach.” She warned that “we are getting used to such a terrible baseline in this country where infrastructure just becomes dominant.” Charlotte cited how Polypipe’s Civils and Green Urbanisation division is working with EPG, as one example of collaboration, “because we want to encourage a wider raft of solutions.” She added that “Hopefully with Schedule 3 being implemented, green solutions will be adoptable, but that doesn’t mean you have to take a purist perspective.” She admitted that using plastic underground for the engineered element of a project “was a legitimate concern,” but that greater awareness was needed of the fact that “a lot of companies now don’t
use virgin plastics, or are looking at alternative solutions.” She added: “In some instances there might be a necessity to combine approaches when you have a lack of space.” Steve Wilson of EPG continued the theme, counselling housebuilders: “Your aim starting out should be for a fully natural system on the surface, but the constraints you come across will push you to put some plastic structures in there.” He also described how the Environment Agency had precipitated an exponential rise in requirements for storage on projects to account for future cliate chanedriven oodin, which has climbed to 40%, “a massive amount of storage, and that can make it unviable.” However, Charlotte Markey added that “there could be so many instances where shallow tree pit solutions and rain gardens with playscapes could be incorporated to reduce the land take, because people want more for less now.”
ENGINEERING OUT MYTHS Our delegates discussed some of the perceived myths, and received wisdom around SuDS engineering, such as the so-called 5 metre setback rule in SuDS schemes. This states (inherited from old guidance, that no SuDS feature can be placed closer than 5 metres from any building, however Steve Wilson for one was here to debunk this myth: “It’s not going to affect the foundations; a lot of them these days are piled, and it’s not going to make an iota of difference.” One comment was submitted by Dick Longdin, of Randall Thorp landscape architects (who was unable to attend the event): “There’s often a lack of creative input from landscape architects at the initial design stage which can result in very engineered solutions, such as 1:3 slopes.” The round table discussed whether overly engineer-led solutions could mean that simple ‘pipe to pond’ approaches can lead to a ‘pipe to a crater at the end of the site.’
There was general consensus that SuDS can be much simpler to get right than many believe, given early collaboration between landscape experts and engineers on schemes. Alternatively if left to engineers, the result can be steep-sided SuDS features schemes which work practically but present an eyesore and even a danger for residents. As delegate Matt Clutton from Cameron Homes phrased it in his question to the group, when designing swales for example, “how steep is too steep?”
Sue Illman offered some insight from experience: “1:3 is steeper than you think when you actually see it on the ground.” Steve Wilson added: “I think you should keep it as shallow
“THE WHOLE POINT ABOUT SUDS IS TO HAVE A MULTIPLICITY OF
FEATURES,” SUE ILLMAN, ILLMAN YOUNG LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
WWW.HBDONLINE.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 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84
