WORKING TOGETHER TO STREAMLINE SUDS SCHEMES ROUND TABLE REVIEW 39


the industry should be saying water is an asset to be looked after.” Graham also stressed Burdens’ sales maxim of “time, cash, carbon” – highlighting time savings, as well the crucial sustainaility enefi ts of retaining water on sites, but also avoiding the carbon emissions of traditional approaches. he fi rst session of the deate looed at current challenges, but also the current state of play on the quality of SuDS, according to our delegates, who identifi ed a ery mied picture across the country. They also delved into some of the ways that designs could e refi ned and streamlined, saving cost but even improving functionality long-term. When housebuilders are employing SuDS, is the design of schemes given enough prominence/time by contractors in programmes, especially given the possible cost savings? Is overengineering and reverting to received wisdom a default setting? Several in the meeting agreed it was a common risk, but one that could be surmounted.


Our joint research with Burdens found that most housebuilders asked said they were using SuDS on projects, but did this refl ect the eperience of delegates esigner ai han said his fi rm had completed 100 SuDS projects in schools, but it’s only this year that demand in the residential sector has really started to ramp up. “A huge amount of projects hae come up in residential specifi cally private residential properties funded by water companies,” he said, however admitted they were fi nding these ery challenging.” And Patrick Flood of Juta UK asserted there was a “massive disconnect” between SuDS installation design, and procurement and delivery,” which was leading to the preponderance of “bomb craters” masquerading as SuDS.


DEFINITIONS art of the prolem with defi ning progress in housebuilding is that defi nitions of SuS ary, as aul Shaffer of the Chartered Institute of Water Environmental Management said, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” So ‘while some developers would say they are delivering SuDS, engineers and SuDS champions might say they are just doing ‘pipe to pond,’ in crates.” He said it was impossile to e confi dent that SuS was in fact being delivered across the country as “there isn’t enough clarity on what good SuDS are,” and that “there is so much more that can be delivered within the ‘four pillars; it’s about unlocking those multiple enefi ts, that we arent seeing as much as we’d like.” Charlotte Markey, ex-Polypipe and now at sister company Skygarden, said


SUCCESSFULLY STREAMLINING SUDS Representatives from round table sponsors Burdens explained the compelling cash and sustainability savings possible from replacing stone with geotextiles


her fi rm had een woring with nglian Water to try and identify “what good looks like” from their perspective. But she was adamant that professionals “have to really understand whether something is a SuDS feature, or just a basic solution that we’re trying to treat as something special?” Glen Westmore accepted there was “lack of consistency” in LLFA approvals, but that the National Planning Policy Framework has now specifi ed the standards, as a national consideration.” David Owen of Taylor Wimpey admitted that “three or four years ago, we were pulling features off the shelf,” but developers’ SuDS knowledge is now evolving.


COLLABORATION


The key organisations driving local SuDS projects are Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs), with a more wide-ranging resilience remit than the originally planned SuDS Approval Bodies (SABs). homas Sturtridge, a fl ood ris engineer from MEC Consulting Group, said that their real issue in designing SuDS schemes was trying to identify consistency through the planning process. Representing LLFAs, Glen Westmore said that he believed “everything was in place” to drive SuDS adoption, from the new NPPF, to the existing standards, but it was “about linking up the approach through all of the people involved in that process, from land acquisition all the way to delivery.” Delegates agreed that collaboration across the sector including early stage


working on schemes to integrate SuDS was crucial, but what should it look like, for example how should landscape architects be involved? Matt Moore described some of Anglian Water’s collaborative approaches, which included “getting more engaged with insurers early on, and trying to get them on board to actually contribute towards schemes. Because ultimately it reduces their fl ood ris. Steve Wilson, bringing vast experience of engineering different installation types, cited issues around the disciplines involved and who ‘owns’ SuDS design: “You do get landscape people saying that it’s a landscape discipline, and you don’t need engineers, or they just do a few calcs. That is entirely wrong. It’s multidisciplinary, and the engineers are just as important as the landscape architects; both disciplines have to realise the value that the other brings to the party.” He added that by the same token, to achieve the right biodiversity goals, landscape design and ecology must be prioritised.


Mark Gillies said that from experience with contractors, even after successful education programmes, some “have their own agendas; where is it in their interest to put SuDS in when they’re going to make more money doing it a different way?” Charlotte Markey said that if SuDS adoption becomes more widespread, contractors and merchants needed to expand their knowledge, giving


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