28 BUILDING-IN RESILIENCE: REVISITING FLOOD MITIGATION FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS INDUSTRY VIEWFINDER
Where should responsibility for maintenance of SuDS features lie?
technologies and strategies are currently being adopted across the housing sector. It explored not only which systems are being used, but also how they are integrated into planning, design, construction, and long-term maintenance strategies. The research also investigated the barriers to implementation, including cost pressures, planning requirements, technical knowledge gaps, and uncertainty around responsibility for maintenance and adoption.
A key objective of the research was to compare current industry attitudes and practices against the fi ndings of an earlier survey we conducted, in 2022. By revisiting many of the key questions from the previous survey as well as introducing new currently relevant themes for 2026 and beyond, the study aimed to identify how industry understanding and implementation of fl ood mitigation measures has evolved over time, while refl ecting current thinking. his part-comparative analysis helped reveal which technologies are gaining momentum, where innovation is occurring, and what challenges continue to present barriers to widespread uptake of resilient drainage solutions. Both the original 2022 survey and the new study explored housebuilders’ attitudes towards the context of climate change, and whether respondents believed it would increase both awareness and the need for SuDS in the UK over coming decades. Revisiting this question was particularly important given the increased public and political focus on climate adaptation since 2022.
Most respondents in the original survey (83%) agreed that climate change ‘will increase the need for SuDS systems in the UK in the coming decades.’ In this year’s study, this had increased to a resounding 89%. However, the key question is whether this conviction on the direction of travel is translating
into greater commitment to resilient design strategies. Our cohort of developers reported they were in general looking at new builds rather than retrofi tting u or other water management features to tackle stormwater, with only saying they have retrofi tted them to existing developments. Most respondents said they were not aware of the Government’s failure to implement Schedule 3. But, of the 38% who were, the vast majority said that this didn’t mean developers can ignore the requirements for considering the approach. Motivations for integrating SuDS into developments were also analysed. Participants were asked to assess the strength of various drivers, including regulatory compliance, insurance considerations, buyer expectations, long-term operational savings, and climate change adaptation. This helped determine whether resilience is currently viewed primarily as a regulatory requirement or increasingly as a commercial and environmental necessity. Unsurprisingly, regulatory compliance was said to be the strongest motivation (29% picked this option). Conversely, buyer expectations of stormwater management in projects was at the bottom of the list at 8%, showing there is a major job to be done to persuade buyers of both the resilience benefi ts, and the possible amenity for their neighbourhood, of such installations. ut the key fi nding of this motivation uestion was probably the fact that ‘climate change adaptation’ was the second highest driver, at 26% again showing that climate change was arguably the biggest ‘non-regulatory’ motivator in projects.
DESIGN APPROACHES
The survey began by revisiting several core questions from the 2022 research. Respondents were asked how frequently
PRODUCED IN ASSOCIATION WITH
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
