SuDS Solutions - Are They Really 'Sustainable'?

Date Published:

Last Updated:

This threat is undoubtedly growing as global warming disrupts weather patterns and raises sea levels; we should expect more winter storms and heavy rainfall, not just in the immediate short-term, but for the foreseeable future – and potentially for generations to come.
 
As we know, SuDS is a term that describes a variety of products/elements.  Some of these are created within the existing landscape (e.g. swales, detention basins), others are proprietary or “manufactured” products (e.g. fuel separators which remove hydrocarbons from the run-off, preventing them polluting the local environment). 
 
They can be used solus or combined into a train (literally a daisy chain) of products which allows the water to cascade or pass along a series of linked products, where each product performs a slightly different function, until the water is discharged into the ground. Simply put, SuDS trains are designed to capture, control, treat and finally discharge the surface water to a receiving water course or allow it to seep underground.  The decision as to which product/s to use depends upon the site and its requirements.
 
However, drainage systems are not fit-and-forget solutions.  Ongoing maintenance is critical to ensure their continual, optimal performance - and this applies to all SuDS elements/products, regardless of whether they are natural or proprietary.
 
If SuDS are to be truly ‘sustainable’ and represent long-term, trusted, solutions for the communities they protect, and continue to do so for the life-time of the development, they must be looked after.  And that means somebody has to take responsibility for their maintenance and servicing.

According to CIRIA’s SuDS Manual, the maintenance of a surface water drainage system includes:

  • required regular inspections to identify performance issues and plan appropriate maintenance needs
  • operation and maintenance of the drainage system
  • landscape management
  • waste management associated with contaminated silt and other waste materials resulting from maintenance.

 
There is recognition within the manual that, “Maintenance regimes should be regularly assessed (e.g. once per year) to make sure that the approach is still meeting the drainage, landscape and any other objectives.”
(Source: CIRIA’s SuDS Manual)

There appears to be a preconception among certain sectors of the industry that natural, landscaped SuDS techniques make planned, ongoing servicing and maintenance easier – not just because most are above-ground, but presumably because natural systems tend not to need human intervention to work well. 
 
But landscaped drainage solutions have a specific job to perform and must do it to a set standard over many decades.  For this to happen, the tendency for ecological systems to evolve and change, through growth and succession, may need to be controlled with direct and regular intervention. 
 
CIRIA’s SuDS Manual includes advice on maintaining natural solutions, taking into account the characteristics of individual habitats/settings and issues such as seasonality, and longer-term considerations, from mowing to dredging and coppicing.  For example, the Manual states that plants and trees, “tend to require different periodic management techniques as they mature. This is particularly relevant to coppice areas and woodland, or indeed shrub and herbaceous planting, some of which may require renewal after 10 years or so, depending on the planting and its purpose.”
 
The fact is natural systems constantly evolve, and indisputable fact should highlight their need for regular upkeep and give an indication of the number of the number of man-hours (including specialist support) any one system is likely to require. 
 
By contrast, proprietary systems don’t evolve and in many ways are far more predictable in terms of both performance and regular maintenance requirements.  This in turn may help with forward planning and scheduled works.  They will have been designed with performance and operator safety in mind, throughout their predicted lifespan.  Attenuation tanks, for example, have built-in access chambers for easy maintenance (attenuation crates however do not offer the same, integrated access).  Remote monitoring can also be embedded within proprietary techniques to allow operators to schedule servicing specifically when required and provide an early alert to any issue long before any problem becomes apparent to people living nearby. 

The Design and Construction Guidance (DCG) for foul and surface water sewers offered for adoption in England, 2020, aims to transfer ownership and management responsibility of SuDS in new developments to water and sewerage companies (WaSCs).  Foul and surface water systems in England are adoptable both under the aforementioned DCG and in accordance with Section 104 of the Water Industry Act 1991.
 
Making SuDS easy to maintain should, in theory, help make them more attractive for adoption by a WaSCs, but it appears that it’s not guaranteed.  There are documented examples of where SuDS have been provided, but there has been no whole-life maintenance provision put in place.  No one apparently is taking responsibility for these vital drainage systems.   Are they therefore truly “sustainable” drainage solutions?  If not, what can be done?
 
Well, one initiative that might cut across any reticence or reluctance to adopt has been the creation of SuDS Approving Bodies (SABs) in Wales.  SABs fall under the remit of Local Authorities and they are there to ensure that drainage proposals are fit for purpose, that the systems are correctly designed and that, once installed, they are then adopted. 
 
Could something similar under Local Authority control be effective in England?  One to keep an eye on, for sure.

Contact Us

For more information on how we can help you with your project, get in touch with us

Main Navigation