Blueprint for Water is warning that Government proposals for a new system to implement Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems would over time lead to substantially higher flood risk in many parts of England.

The comments come in a formal response submitted by the coalition of leading environmental organisations to the Department for Environmental Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) consultation on Delivering Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) which closed last week.

The response begins by saying:

“We can think of no sound reason for these proposals, which would override and weaken an Act of Parliament. Over time, the system proposed would lead to substantially higher flood risk in many parts of England.”

It goes on to point out that drainage systems exist to prevent new development from increasing flood risk, and as such should be a required part of any new development - the basis for Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act (2010 - FWMA), which requires government to ensure adequate SuDS on all new development -  which “this consultation proposes to breach in several important ways.”

The FWMA 2009 impact assessment states that “the preferred option (option 2) in this impact assessment is supported by the majority of respondents to the Future Water consultation and is consistent with the Pitt review recommendations. This option gives Upper Tier Authorities the lead responsibility for coordinating local flood risk management”

Legislation will be watered down via an “ineffectual and damaging proposal”

The coalition says it strongly objects to the Act being watered down via an “ineffectual and damaging proposal” which would place a nebulous duty on planning authorities – rather than flood management authorities as required by the FWMA – to consider SuDS, but only for large developments and only when they are cheaper for the developer than old-fashioned systems.

With over 100,000 houses a year built since the FWMA and over 4 million properties at risk of surface water flooding, the response says the status quo is no longer an option and that SuDS need to be incorporated into all major and minor developments.

The NGOs emphasise that they do not agree with the necessity to change the proposals laid out in the FWMA, which should be enacted without delay. In their view the current consultation “simply confuses” the course of action previously laid out and delays necessary action on SuDS even further.

The response says: ”The current consultation does not set out the rationale for change and as such we do not support the proposals within the consultation.”

The coalition wants to see a revised impact assessment for the proposals made in the consultation as opposed to those made in the FWMA, together with evidence to support the changes proposed by Defra.

Limited resources and expertise could result in sub-standard SuDS

On cost benefit, the response says the NGOs do not believe the consultation adequately looks at the ways that SuDS can be maximised for multiple benefits and want to see a requirement that the SuDS regulating body should consider the multiple benefits of SuDS when assessing development, maintenance and SuDS design, commenting:

“We believe that the National Standards have been considerably watered down from the original proposals, which covered water quality, amenity and biodiversity as well as quantity and that their incorporation into planning guidance will further weaken the proposals originally laid out in the FWMA. Critically, we are concerned that the standards will no longer be statutory; their application will be at the discretion of local planning authorities and can only be enforced through conditions on planning permissions.”

 In their view this has considerable potential, due to limited resources and expertise, to result in sub-standard SuDS.

Short-term financial savings are being put above the public interest

The response makes comments on key specific aspects of the proposals as follows:

• We are concerned that short-term financial savings are being put above the public interest: For example requiring SuDS designs to be cost beneficial will result in less adoption of SuDS or SuDS designs which do not maximise benefits to the extent they could. This will increase flood risk near new development, and will not assist local authorities in achieving other priorities and targets.
• It is estimated that the costs to the water industry of increasing the capacity of drainage and storm water management systems using traditional drainage systems to cope with climate change could be about £1 billion per year.
• The impact assessment for the commencement of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, Schedule 3 for Sustainable Drainage estimates that savings up to £10.4 billion can be made through not making new sewage connections. By omitting minor developments there will be a significant cost to water companies which will be reflected in customer charges.
• The hierarchy for whether development implements SuDS will be open to mismanagement, especially as there are not the resources to provide sufficient expertise around SuDS design (given increasing local authority, Environment Agency and Natural England cuts). This could result in developments not providing the most cost effective designs and consequently reverting to the status quo of connecting to the sewerage system – including overlooking partial SuDS solutions, covering some but not all of a development. This would not only result in further surface water flooding but would also reduce the benefits proposed in the FWMA impact assessment.

Small charge for SuDS maintenance “would not be unreasonable”

On costs and benefits, Blueprint for Water feel the statement that the cost of maintaining sustainable drainage systems should not add to household bills or when paid for upfront to the costs of building and buying a new home is misguided. The response says:

“Monetary benefits from implementing SuDS can include an increase in house prices due to increased amenity value, a decrease in water  charges due to the disconnect of surface water and a decrease in insurance premium due to reduced probability of surface water flooding. With these benefits in mind we do not think it unreasonable for there to be a small charge for SUDS maintenance.”

The NGOs express particular concerned at the proposal to give control of establishing maintenance to developers – which they believe will “most likely result in maintenance being assigned to the lowest bidder….. and could result in sub-standard maintenance depending on the site, especially given the lack of definition around what is meant by “minimum level of effectiveness”.”

In their view the responsibility to decide on appropriate maintenance rightly lies with the unitary authority as laid out in the FWMA.

Minor developments have considerable implications for surface water flooding

Commenting on the proposed exclusion of minor developments, the response says these play their part in adding to the load at sewage treatment works and to the risk of surface water flooding account for 29 per cent of new buildings (approximately 41500 new buildings in 2012). This has considerable implications for surface water flooding and for the capacity of the drainage and sewerage system to cope. New development can also increase indirect flood risk in locations beyond the development site simply by increasing the amount of run-off from the developed area. The response states:

“In addition, if minor developments are excluded, then the removal of the automatic right to connect surface water drainage of new developments to the sewerage system as laid out in the FWMA, is negated. This condition must remain and must be enacted.”

National action plan needed on SuDS

The NGOs are calling for unitary authorities to retain ownership of SuDS, with the ability to choose the most effective management for a site and to be able to enforce management through contractual arrangements.

The response concludes:

“This delay to enacting widespread inclusion of SuDS into new development is costly to people, to the environment and to business. We believe that these proposals do nothing to improve the current legislation and have the potential to significantly weaken outcomes and with no explanation as to the benefits or reasons for the proposals We are disappointed at the continued lack of action around retrofitting SuDS. We believe there is a need for a national action plan and that there is no reason to delay.”