DEFRA & DCLG Consultation on SuDS – October 2014
Part 5: consultation questions
General Comments
POS considers that using established consent regimes to deliver the SAB role is a
welcomed development. The planning system should consider sustainable drainage as
the default drainage option and changes to paragraph 103 of the NPPF should be made
to establish this. Approved Document H of the Building Regulations should be updated
to set out National Standards for detailed design of SuDS and Lead Local Flood
Authorities (LLFA should carry out enforcement duties in line with their other
enforcement roles in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
Overall it is considered helpful for the developer not to have a completely separate and
new regulatory system, the proposed process would be simpler and lead to less
confusion. It is a good idea in theory to have a single point of contact however the
society is concerned that considering staff turnover, career development and budget
cuts that this will not work in practice.
In general terms the draft standards include significant caveats such as “where
reasonably possible” to ensure that the measures aren’t so onerous as to prevent
development. As the need for sustainable drainage would be a material planning
consideration other considerations, such as the presumption in favour of sustainable
development, would carry out this role effectively, so the caveats should be removed.
Q1. Do you agree that the proposed revision to planning policy would deliver
sustainable drainage which will be maintained? If not, why?
SuDS are an important consideration within the planning system as their design is
intrinsic to the design of developments overall and needs to be considered at the
earliest stages of the design process. POS therefore agrees with the principle of
encouraging the use of SuDS by an adjustment to NPPF to make it clear that the
expectation is that sustainable drainage systems will be provided in new developments.
However, we do not support the use of the planning system to ensure that SuDS are
implemented and maintained properly. The reason for this is that there are other
regimes that are not only better placed to do this but currently perform this function.
The proposed approach set out in this consultation will result in additional burdens on
the planning system that government in other areas (eg Housing Standards Review) are
seeking to simplify. It seems rather ironic to suggest this is controlled by conditions
when DCLG are trying to simplify the amount of conditions.
Under the Building Regulations (Approved Document H: Drainage and Waste Disposal)
new developments have to be properly drained. This Document should be amended to
ensure that SuDS are incorporated into the Building Regulations so that their detailed
implementation can be checked alongside the implementation of all other functional
elements of a building. It is assumed that any SuDS currently being provided as part of a
development are checked in this way as the Building Regulations are required to sign off
drainage as being in compliance. There is no sensible reason to set up a separate
detailed implementation regime through the planning system when one already exists
in the Building Regulations.
Therefore, in common with many other detailed technical issues, a planning application
would establish the principles of what is proposed and the detailed SuDS would need to
be in compliance with a planning approval and the revised Building Regulations.
Councils have a responsibility under the Flood Management Act for ensuring that
drainage and flood management infrastructure are recorded and maintained. This
should be the body responsible for enforcing the ongoing effective operation and
functioning of SuDS along with the other drainage assets that they are responsible for.
To separate out SuDS as being the responsibility of the local planning authority makes
no more sense than making them responsible for the maintenance of highways in the
context of the powers available to the highway authority. There is no sensible reason to
set up a separate enforcement regime through the planning system when one already
exists through the Flood Management Act.
Detailed consideration needs to be given to fall-back options if a maintenance company,
or the other selected maintenance option, fails and an enforcement Order under
Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act should provide for effective action
to be taken.
Q2. How should the Local Planning Authority obtain expert advice on sustainable
drainage systems and their maintenance? What are the costs/benefits of different
approaches?
As set out above, POS believes that the detailed implementation of SuDS should be
through the Building Regulations. Including the National Standards in an amended
Approved Document would provide clarity and certainty as to what is required,
minimising the need for expert advice.
Nevertheless consideration of the SUDS system would need to be given at the planning
application stage. It is understood that the Environment Agency is expecting to step
back from surface water drainage, as a local flood risk issue. As such, it will be necessary
for independent expert advice to be secured by LPAs.
The appropriate body should be a statutory consultee, but interdisciplinary knowledge is
necessary which will require specialist consultants or members of staff and would
constitute a new burden. LPAs do not have this expertise in-house and sourcing
specialist advice would lead to budget issues. It could be that the developer bears the
cost for this expert advice similar to assessing a basement impact assessment or viability
assessment. However this may lead to delays if a developer is reluctant to pay the fees
for external expert advice. Alternatively the budget of the statutory consultee would
need to be adjusted to provide this service to LPAs; this charge could be levied through
increasing planning fees to generate additional resources for statutory consultees.
Detailed guidance on standards and methods of calculating run-off, infiltration etc
should be included in industry standard best practice which has buy in from major
stakeholders, including developers.
There should also be a statutory requirement to consult the county council who have
statutory duties as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and where the specialist skills
should reside. It may therefore make sense for any regulations/guidance to refer to the
need for county councils to be involved where appropriate adding a statutory
requirement for the LLFA to be consulted and provide advice to LPA’s.
Q3. What are the impacts of different approaches for Local Planning Authorities to
secure expert advice within the timescales set for determining planning applications?
Statutory consultees would be expected to respond within existing timescales for
responding to planning consultations. Key to ensuring a high quality drainage system is
taking a front-loading approach. Statutory consultees should be expected to engage in
detailed pre-application discussions to provide certainty in emerging schemes. This may
create delays in that the local authority would be relying on an external consultants or a
statutory consultee for a response. Any delay in this process would be outside of the
LPAs control.
Q4. Do you agree that minor size developments be exempt from the proposed revision
to the planning policy and guidance? Do you think thresholds should be higher?
Fully agree – the correct threshold has been set out. Once fully established, sustainable
drainage requirements should be rolled down to minor development so as to ensure
that the effects of “urban creep” are ameliorated.
Q5. What other maintenance options could be viable? Do you have examples of their
use?
For effective maintenance to be possible a suitable mechanism for inspection of
implementation is necessary. As set out above, the Building Regulations should be
expanded to assess the detailed performance of SuDS. Consideration should be given to
whether the default response is always expedient to take action against poor
maintenance. Not taking action may result in flooding and therefore represents too big
a risk.
Q6. What evidence do you have of expected maintenance costs?
None. Although the society has concerns regarding the calculation of a commuted sum,
there are many variables such as over how long a period the maintenance costs would
be calculated for, what contingency would be included etc. In addition at paragraph 3.18
the society has concerns that SuDS maintenance being included in viability assessments
could lead to delays in agreeing a financial amount for this and that this would put
further pressure on affordable housing.
Q7. Do you expect the approach proposed to avoid increases in maintenance costs for
households and developers? Would additional measures be justified to meet this aim
or improve transparency of costs for households?
POS has no detailed comments to make on this issue as there is generally a lack of
information and evidence with which to compare maintenance costs. Evidence to
support the claims made in para 3.16 of the consultation document is needed as
developers claim SuDS are more costly to build and maintain.
Detailed guidance/information sources are required on this issue to ensure robust
appraisal of developers claims of excessive costs
Specific Comments on draft National Standards
-
-
-
Standard 18 requires the impacts of climate change to be factored in with
regards to maintenance. This point should be incorporated into standards 4 – 8
by requiring the design events to include an allowance for climate change.
Peak flows and volumes for brownfield sites can be difficult to ascertain, as
inaccurate records of drainage systems exist. Standards 5 & 7 requiring drainage
to be no worse than the existing brownfield situation a) don’t lead to any
betterment and b) could be difficult to calculate. LPAs should be given the
opportunity to set a local requirement through Strategic Flood Risk Assessments.
Standard 12 (water quality) provides no guidance on assessment. Almost all
flows impact on water quality, so further guidance & more detailed standards
are required on this issue
-
-
-
Standard 18 requires the impact of future impermeable areas to be taken into
consideration. Whilst desirable, this is extremely impractical – who knows
whether a future homeowner might put down a patio? If allowances for this type
of urban creep are to be made, adjust standards 4 – 7 to require betterment of
30% to offset these likely future works.
Standards 21 & 22 deal with compliance (ie constructed and operates in
accordance with approved details) should include the setting of an inspection
regime during construction.
Criterion 4 makes reference to considering the opportunity cost of land lost to
SuDS which could have been developed when assessing the reasonableness of
using a SuDS system. In practice this could result in widespread avoidance of
these regulations in urban areas if SuDS systems require land take and there is
pressure for development, leading to high land values.