In an Expert Focus article for Waterbriefing, Alex Stephenson, Director of Hydro International’s UK Stormwater Division and Chair of the British Water Sustainable Water Management (SuWM) Focus Group looks at the wider implications for the uptake of Sustainable Drainage Systems as the Water Bill makes its way through Parliament.

Encouraging greater use of Sustainable Drainage Systems in England and Wales came one small step closer to being underpinned by compulsory regulation with the publication of the Water Bill.  The Bill – or more strictly speaking the commentary that accompanied the Bill - provided some important clues for the many consultants, developers, Water Companies and local authorities who will be affected.

Long delays

The key piece of legislation for SuDS is actually not the Water Bill itself, but Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act.  The parliamentary EFRA select committee has not held back in lambasting the Government for the long delays in implementing the regulation first developed out of the recommendations of the 2008 Pitt Review.  This will make the right to connect surface water drainage to the public sewer conditional on approval of Sustainable Drainage Systems by new Local Authority SuDS Approving Bodies (SABs) for developments over one property.

In its scrutiny of the Water Bill, EFRA once again urged the Government to move as quickly as possible to implement Schedule 3.  In its response to the committee, the Government confirms its aim to commence the legislation in April 2014 and stresses its commitment to SuDS as well as its determination to make it work effectively.  The journey, it acknowledges, has been more complex than first expected and more work still needs to be done to ensure the concerns of all stakeholders are properly addressed.

If you interpret this as a firm commitment (some have questioned the robustness of the word ‘aim’) then this date is very welcome with the caveat that the regulation is subject to successful and timely progress through Cross Whitehall and Parliamentary Approval.

Water company clarification

The Water Bill has provided important clarification that sewerage undertakers can build and maintain sustainable drainage systems to slow down or prevent surface water entering a public sewer.  The emphasis is on encouraging Water Companies to favour SuDS solutions, I believe, and to support them in being able to plan their investments as part of the price review cycle.  The move is also a significant indicator of the Government’s concerns to tackle resilience of the sewerage and drainage networks to flooding with the advancing threats of climate change.  In theory, it should also encourage Water Companies to retrofit with SuDS when the existing sewer network needs upgrading to cope with increased flood and surface water pollution risk.

The Water Companies can also continue to own and operate the sustainable drainage solution subsequently.  The legislation has prompted some debate about who is best placed to adopt and maintain the new SuDS solutions built by the Water Companies and how that will be paid for.  It may be that the Water Company is a key stakeholder in partnership funding arrangements that can resolve the best solutions for particular sites.

A consultation on new National Standards for SuDS which the local authority SABs will use to approve new schemes ended in March 2012.  The Government says it is working through issues raised during the consultation and subsequently by key industry stakeholders, particularly housebuilders and developers, I believe.  Cross-disciplinary ‘task and finish’ groups have been set up with local authorities, developers and the water industry working together to come up with an ‘innovative and practical’ solution that will be satisfactory to all parties.  Their recommendations will be revealed in the autumn.

In its response to the EFRA scrutiny the Government also commits to tackling other concerns, especially those raised by the construction industry to ensure the cost-benefits of SuDS are better understood and evidenced.

Consultation

The Government says the groups are working through issues to address the need for:

• a robust evidence base for SuDS
• a set of agreed definitions of SuDS for the purposes of adoption by the SuDS Approving Body
• National Standards for SuDS and accompanying guidance.  (A first draft of the National Standards was published for consultation back in December 2011).
• Guidance for developers and local authorities on the calculation and operation of non-performance bonds

In my view, providing a framework for SuDS that demonstrates predictable and repeatable performance outcomes will be very welcome.  In addition, clarification about the affordability of SuDS may also serve to dispel some unhelpful myths about SuDS being too costly to install.  Further consideration will also be needed on planning for the costs for local authorities to maintain SuDS.

As my colleagues at Hydro International have been keen to point out, SuDS do not need to be costly and sometimes proprietary features can be used to mitigate against the land take of natural features such as ponds and artificial wetlands.  Proprietary treatment solutions can also provide welcome low-maintenance solutions that are repeatable and predictable.  Choosing from a full toolbox of natural and proprietary solutions can often help to achieve a good cost-benefit throughout the life of the SuDS feature.

It is to be hoped that the proposed definitions and any evidence base includes full consideration of proprietary features that can be used alongside natural solutions to deliver predictable and maintainable SuDS solutions.

Hydro has made its own contribution to the cost-benefit debate by developing an online selection tool for surface water treatment in SuDS.  It’s designed to help users compare the cost-benefit and pollutant removal outcomes for building a treatment train using a full toolbox of SuDS features, being they proprietary or ‘natural’.   You can access the tool here.

Regulation is the tip of the iceberg

All of these measures signify important progress towards SuDS.  But the Flood and Water Management Act still only addresses new developments – and of course existing legislation in Scotland has resulted in a slightly different experience and interpretation of the application of SuDS tools and techniques across the border.

There’s still a long way to go before we see more widespread uptake of SuDS through retrofitting as well as through highway maintenance and development programmes.  It’s therefore really important not to get too hung up on the legislation.

The opportunities already exist for local authorities to develop SuDS, to retrofit them and to demand them through planning.  Many local authorities – and some Water Companies - have already got on with producing their own local guidance for SuDS.  Whilst these documents can address local topographic issues, the danger is that there will be inconsistency of approach across the nation.  If some robust definitions of SuDS and clear evidence are the result of the additional consultations with Defra, then this would be a very useful outcome to ensure consistency and help engineering designers and developers to produce really good SuDS schemes from which we will all benefit in future.