What effect will the National Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) have upon the design

and implementation of surface water drainage on residential developments?

by Ryan Bruty

About me
Engineer

at Taylor Wimpey East Anglia, been with the company for eight years

During which time completed Taylor Wimpeys Management Trainee Scheme

Whilst

completing Foundation Degree in Construction at Suffolk College

Since

completed Bachelor of Science with Honours in Civil Engineering at University Campus Suffolk in May 2012

Contents

Introduction
Literature Review Key Changes in Legislation Interviews Key Findings

Case Study Key Findings

Conclusions Questions?

Introduction

National Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems from The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 Research based on consultation version of Standards dated December 2011 Research carried out in same four sections as Part 2 of the National Standards:
Runoff Destination Peak Flow Rate and Volume Water Quality Function

Literature Review
i.

Runoff Destination
Hierarchy previously identified in Building Regulations: 1. Infiltration 2. SW Body 3. SW Sewer 4. Combined Sewer Enforced through amendments to Water Industry Act removing automatic right to connect Now dependant upon SAB (SuDS Approval Body) Approval

Literature Review
ii.

Peak Flow Rate and Volume

Three key elements: 1. Runoff rates 2. Runoff volumes for small events (<5mm) 3. Runoff volumes for large events Two standard approaches provided for compliance (for rates and volume of large events): 1. Restrict peak flow rate and volume of runoff 2. Restrict peak flow rate Alternative approach for brownfield sites Events up to 5mm event must not discharge off site No minimum flow rate (CfSH (Code for Sustainable Homes) 5l/s)

Literature Review
iii.

Water Quality
First mandatory regulations on water quality treatment stages (although previously referred to in The SuDS Manual) Specifies minimum treatment stages dependent upon sensitivity of hazards and outfall For residential developments typically Low (roof drainage) and Medium (car parking and roads) Can be beneficial to separate roof and car parking runoff into separate systems

Literature Review
iii.

Water Quality

Literature Review
iv.

Function
Three topics under Function: 1. Design 2. Flood Risk 3. Operation and Maintenance

Designing for exceedance (Flood flow routes) already Mandatory requirement of CfSH. Maintenance responsibility of SAB but approved drainage plan must include the safe operation and maintenance for SuDS.

Interviews
Interview Participants:
Engineer at Bloor Homes Eastern (Residential Developer) 2. Design Engineer at Richard Jackson Plc (Consulting Engineer) 3. Drainage Engineer at Ipswich Borough Council (Local Authority)
1.

Interviews
i.

Runoff Destination
Indicated hierarchy already in place through PPS25 (Planning Policy Statement 25) (now superseeded) and the planning process. As is but delay in obtaining right to connect.

Interviews
ii.

Peak Flow Rate and Volume

Approach 2 provides alternative to that required for CfSH compliance but increases storage required. Area of concern was No discharge off site for 5mm rainfall event Infiltration, evaporation and rainwater harvesting only options for compliance.

Interviews
iii.

Water Quality
Main concern to all parties currently only considered if overlying aquifer. Innovative products emerging providing off the shelf options for treatment stages. Prevention of 5mm event discharging off site as less diluted First Flush.

Interviews
iv.

Function
Many aspects already in place through CfSH and PPS25.

Case Study
Selected Project:

Greenfield site of 1.5Ha in Cambourne, Cambridgeshire 52 No. residential dwellings Underlying ground conditions Glacial Till Drainage designed using three methods (based on current site layout): 1. Traditional - unrestricted outfall 2. PPS25 pre-development rates 3. National Standards for SuDS

Case Study
i.

Runoff Destination
Infiltration not possible due to poor permeability of soil. No surface water bodies in vicinity. Surface water sewer only method as previous have been discounted. Same for all three design methods.

Case Study
ii.

Peak Flow Rate and Volume

Over 2400% increase in storage required from unrestricted outfall to PPS25. Over 3900% increase in storage required from unrestricted outfall to National Standards. 60% more storage required for National Standards compliance (in accordance with Approach 2) over that of PPS25. Also requirement for storage of 5mm event (additional 50m for case study). Alternative - Approach 1 but approx. 380m of rainwater harvesting but storage required as PPS25 design.

Case Study
iii.

Water Quality
No treatment stages required for roof runoff. Two stages required for road and car park runoff. Separate drainage runs could be used for each but due to treatment options incorporated was not. Stages selected had limited effect on the development proposals and could be incorporated with existing layout.

Case Study
iv.

Function
PPS25 and National Standards designed for same events. Flood conveyance route naturally falls in the direction of the pond. Spillway with additional inlet to system (after flow restriction) specified to prevent flooding in event of blockage.

To Conclude
Two

key changes affecting Residential Developers

Peak flow rates and volume on areas with
increased impermeable areas (where infiltration cannot be used). Must be restricted to either 2l/s/ha or as CfSH. No discharge off site for 5mm rainfall event.

Minimum treatment stages to improve water quality.

Number of stages dependant on destination and risk of contamination.

Any Questions?
Or email ryan.bruty@taylorwimpey.com