| Beneath the surface of SUDS |
| Friday, 20 March 2009 | |
|
Alex Stephenson, of Hydro International UK and the British Water Suds Group, argues that we need a better understanding of sustainable drainage.
THE LONG term predictions for the British climate are stark: The Environment Agency's UK Climate Impacts research projected major changes in river flows by 2050. The research shows that river flows in late summer and early autumn could drop by over 50% and as much as 80% in some places over current levels and rise 10 to 15% during winter months. Meteorologists agree that in future the frequency and intensity of storms will increase. All of this has major implications for protecting the country's flora and fauna from polluting runoff and poor water quality. It also yet another wake-up call for us to get to grips with managing the UK's drainage infrastructure. Indeed a new Water and Floods Bill is expected to be put out to consultation in the spring. The Government has already indicated that the Bill will give local authorities new powers to assess and manage local flood risk from all sources, including surface water, and that Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) will be a key part of their portfolio. However, there have already been concerns expressed in the industry and among local authorities that local authorities will be ineffective in this role unless they are given sufficient funds and knowledge of SUDS principles to implement real change. Each local authority will need to build up the necessary expertise and resources to replace knowledge lost over the last two decades, but the environment secretary Hillary Benn has indicated only £15 million will be available to fund the new measures. It will therefore be important for the new Bill to have a practical emphasis on how exactly the UK is going to improve the surface water drainage infrastructure by the implementation of realistic SUDS measures and mitigate flood risk. The Government's acknowledgement of the importance of SUDS should be cause for optimism and indeed SUDS systems are already beginning to become a more established approach to managing surface water runoff, both on new developments and in upgrades to existing drainage systems. In the Government's detailed response to Sir Michael Pitts’s recommendations, a SUDS scheme at Elvetham Heath - a housing development in Hampshire was showcased as an example to be followed. But there is a depth of misunderstanding of the scope of SUDS techniques which still endures and a tendency to pigeonhole SUDS as 'natural' measures such as swales and ponds, rather than a comprehensive 'toolbox' of both engineered and natural measures. To succeed, local authorities will need to adopt a 'best management' approach based on a proper understanding of the full toolbox of SUDS measures. The Government puts up Elvetham Heath as a shining SUDS example - and indeed it truly is. But the report points to its soakaways, detention basins, ponds and swales and crucially fails to point out that the scheme was only made possible with the engineered technology of 18 Hydro-Brake(r) Flow Control attenuation devices; in fact, a mixed engineered and natural approach is an excellent way forward. At the Eden Park development near Littlehampton, the creation of 400 new homes was only made viable through an innovative solution which combines hard-engineered underground infiltration basins with a wetland pond. On this site, there were no nearby public surface water sewers or watercourses, so a conventional solution would have meant a costly surface water pumping station and substantial storm sewer installations off-site. The value for money solution adopted utilised Hydro's infiltration technology Stormbloc(r) as the basis for design. Three underground infiltration basins were built and a fourth incorporating open water with reeds provided a total of 3000 cu.m storage volume - sufficient to cope with the total impermeable catchment area of some 4.5 hectares. For SUDS to thrive in all urban and rural environments it will be vital for engineers, specifiers and local authorities alike to be fully informed. Otherwise the space and economic restrictions of 'natural' solutions could curtail the full implementation of SUDS in many locations. We need a full SUDS toolbox which encompasses storage and infiltration tanks, attenuation devices and even rainwater harvesting to combat flood risks. |


