Creatine water sensitive places - scoping the potential ...

Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) is an approach to design that delivers greaterharmony between water, the environment and communities. This is achieved byintegrating water cycle management with the built environment through planning andurban design. WSUD prioritises water management considerations during the earlyconception of developments creating multiple benefits and opportunities to overcomechallenges. WSUD is not a set of solutions or measures, but a process and philosophy tooptimise water management and urban design.

This scoping study together with the ‘ideas booklet’(C723) provides details of the drivers,

benefits and vision of WSUD in the UK. It is based on findings from a collaborative projectthat included extensive consultation and a literature review to understand the role ofWSUD in the UK.

Water Sensitive Urban Design in the

UK – ideas for built environment practitioners

C724

C724

Creatingw

atersensitiveplaces

-scopingthe

potentialforWaterSensitive

Urban

Design

inthe

UK

CIRIA9 780860 177333

Creating water sensitive places- scoping the potential for

Water Sensitive Urban Design in the UK

Who we areEstablished in 1960, CIRIA is a highly regarded, industry-responsive, not for profit research and information association, which encompasses the construction and built environment industries.

CIRIA operates across a range of market sectors and disciplines, providing a platform for collaborative projects and dissemination by enhancing industry performance, and sharing knowledge and innovation across the built environment.

As an authoritative provider of good practice guidance, solutions and information, CIRIA operates as a knowledge-base for disseminating and delivering a comprehensive range of business improvement services and research products for public and private sector organisations, as well as academia.

How to get involvedCIRIA manage or actively participate in several topic-specific learning and business networks and clubs:

Where we areDiscover how your organisation can benefit from CIRIA’s authoritative and practical guidance – contact us by:

Post Classic House, 174–180 Old Street, London EC1V 9BP, UKTelephone +44 (0)20 7549 3300Fax +44 (0)20 7253 0523Email [email protected] www.ciria.org

(for details of membership, networks, events, collaborative projects and to access CIRIA publications through the bookshop)

zz Core membershipAllows your employees to assist with the development of and access to good practice guidance, formal networks, facilitation, conferences, workshops and training.

zz Associate membershipAllows your employees to access CIRIA’s services. Members are able to access exclusive content via the CIRIA website.

zz CIRIA Books ClubMembers can buy most CIRIA publications at half price and can attend a range of CIRIA conferences at reduced rates.

zz The CIRIA NetworkA member-based community where clients and professionals meet, develop and share knowledge about specific topics relevant to construction and the built environment.

zz Project fundingProject funders influence the direction of the research and gain early access to the results.

zz CEEQUALCIRIA co-manages this environmental award scheme, which promotes environmental quality in civil engineering and infrastructure projects.

zz Local Authority Contaminated Land NetworkLACL helps local authorities address responsibilities under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

zz European Marine Sand and Gravel GroupCIRIA provides secretariat support to EMSAGG, including management of the Group’s conferences, workshops and website and producing its newsletter.

zz SAFEGROUNDS Learning NetworkA forum for disseminating good practice guidance on the management of radioactively and chemically contaminated land on UK nuclear and defence sites.

zz SD:SPURThe initiative was developed to establish safe, socially, economically and environmentally sustainable practices arising from the decommissioning of nuclear sites.

zz LANDFoRM (Local Authority Network on Drainage and Flood Risk Management)A platform for sharing knowledge and expertise in flood risk management and sustainable drainage.

zz BRMF (Brownfield Risk Management Forum)Promoting sustainable and good practice in brownfield projects in the UK.

CIRIA C724 London, 2013

Creating water sensitive places– scoping the potential for Water Sensitive Urban Design in the UK

J Abbott, P Davies, P Simkins of ARUP

C Morgan, D Levin, P Robinson of AECOM

Creating water sensitive placesii

Summary

Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) is an approach to design that delivers greater harmony between water, the environment and communities. This is achieved by integrating water cycle management with the built environment through planning and urban design. WSUD prioritises water management considerations during the early conception of developments creating multiple benefits and opportunities to overcome challenges. WSUD is not a set of solutions or measures, but a process and philosophy to optimise water management and urban design.

This scoping study together with the “ideas booklet” Water Sensitive Urban Design in the UK – ideas for built environment practitioners (C723) provides details of the drivers, benefits and vision of WSUD in the UK. It is based on findings from a collaborative project that included extensive consultation and a literature review to understand the role of WSUD in the UK.

Creating water sensitive places – scoping the potential for Water Sensitive Urban Design in the UK

Abbott, J, Davies, P, Simkins, P, Morgan, C, Levin, D, Robinson, P

CIRIA

C724 RP976 CIRIA 2013 ISBN:978-0-86017-733-3

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record is available for this book from the British Library

Keywords

Asset and facilities management, building envelope, inland waters and groundwater, planning, surface water drainage and flooding, sustainability, water supply and sewerage

Reader interest

Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) integrates water cycle management with the built environment through planning and urban design providing multiple benefits and opportunities to overcome challenges with water management

Classification

Availability Unrestricted

Content Advice, recommendations

Status Committee-guided, established knowledge

User Policy makers, investment planners, water managers, engineers, spatial planners, urban designers, landscape architects, architects, SuDS practitioners, green infrastructure practitioners, ecologists, regulators

Published by CIRIA, Classic House, 174–180 Old Street, London, EC1V 9BP, UK

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information on the subject matter covered. It is sold and/or distributed with the understanding that neither the authors nor the publisher is thereby engaged in rendering a specific legal or any other professional service. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the publication, no warranty or fitness is provided or implied, and the authors and publisher shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage arising from its use.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying and recording, without the written permission of the copyright holder, application for which should be addressed to the publisher. Such written permission must also be obtained before any part of this publication is stored in a retrieval system of any nature.

If you would like to reproduce any of the figures, text or technical information from this or any other CIRIA publication for use in other documents or publications, please contact the Publishing Department for more details on copyright terms and charges at: [email protected] Tel: 020 7549 3300.

CIRIA, C724 iii

Acknowledgements

This scoping study was written by Justin Abbott, Paul Simkins, Paul Davies, Celeste Morgan, David Levin and Peter Robinson. The authoring team was also involved in developing an accompanying ideas booklet Water Sensitive Urban Design in the UK – ideas for built environment practitioners (CIRIA, C723).

AuthorsJustin Abbott BEng (Hons) MSc CEng CEnv MCIWEMJustin is a director at Arup and is a chartered engineer whose principal interests focus on the sustainable management of water, with expertise in environmental impact assessment, water scarcity and risk, water quality and sustainable design. He sits on CIRIA’s Water Advisory Panel and EPSRC’s Review College. He has recently acted as team leader for projects with the World Bank and UNEP-FI looking at water scarcity and risk in the municipal, agricultural and industrial sectors. He is currently researching water footprinting and is providing consultancy advice on carbon footprinting in the water sector.

Paul Simkins BA (Hons) MEng MArch Dip.Arch CEng MICE RIBAPaul is a chartered architect, a chartered civil engineer at Arup, and an urban designer. He currently works across these disciplines to provide integrated design and strategic advice on a range of projects related to water, green infrastructure and urbanism. Paul has spent 11 years undertaking research and practice in master planning and site development, planning, landscape design, housing and green infrastructure. His experience covers all stages of the project cycle and includes resolution of complex multi-agency planning and regulatory issues, and community and stakeholder engagement.

Paul Davies BEng (Hons) CEng MCIOBPaul is a chartered engineer and a chartered water and environment manager at Arup with particular expertise in bringing innovative technical approaches to flooding, integrated urban drainage and surface water management. He has over 37 years experience in the water industry and has worked on a number of ground breaking projects, including the recent development of an advanced Integrated Urban Drainage (IUD) model for analysing surface water management options.

Celeste Morgan BA BE MIPENZCeleste is an expert in sustainable design applied in the development of urban places and landscapes at AECOM. Her background in environmental engineering coupled with experience in planning and urban design provides her with a creative perspective that is also grounded in practicality. Celeste is a recognised thought leader in Water Sensitive Urban Design and is passionate about exploring how water management and urban design aims can be achieved concurrently.

David Levin BCom (Hons) MPLDavid is a sustainability consultant at AECOM, with a focus on sustainable water management strategies. David has an urban and environmental planning background, and he regularly works with developers and local authorities to plan and deliver sustainable development. He co-authored Cambridgeshire County Council’s sustainable drainage handbook, which establishes the County’s approach to approving and adopting sustainable drainage systems (SuDS).

Peter Robinson BEng (Hons) MSc CEng MICEPeter Robinson works at AECOM in the water resources and flood risk management sector and is exploring the potential for water management in an urban context. Peter has over 16 years experience in a broad range of water engineering, flood risk management and planning related projects, which have included EIA’s, flood risk and drainage impact assessments, surface water management planning, sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and Integrated Urban Drainage (IUD) pilot studies.

Creating water sensitive placesiv

Project Steering GroupRichard Ashley (chair) University of Sheffield/Ecofutures Ltd

Richard Allitt Richard Allitt Associates

Richard Behan Environmental Gain

James Berryman Micro Drainage (now ACO)

George Bond South West Water

Victoria Botcherby Ofwat

Simon Bunn Cambridge City Council

Aaron Burton Ricardo AEA (was Natural Resources Wales)

Alan Corner Hydro International

Aaron Dixey Environment Agency

Kieran Downey Scottish Water

Derek Dunsire Glasgow City Council

Martyn Evans Natural Resources Wales

Martin Fairley ACO

Elliot Gill Halcrow Group

Chris Glass Banks Property

Gary Grant Green Roof Consultancy

David Harding Thames Water

Sue Illman Illman Young Landscape Design

Jeremy Jones Dwr Cymru Welsh Water

Lutz Johnen Aquality

John Lloyd Formpave

David Martin Wessex Water

Richard Martin Defra

Brian Morrow United Utilities

Marc Pinnel Jeremy Benn Associates and E Water

Bob Sargent Independent Consultant

Jason Shingleton Polypipe

Brian Smith Yorkshire Water

Mike Vout Telford and Wrekin Council

Sarah Ward University of Exeter

Nikki Wood Environmental Gain

Corresponding membersRobert Barker BACA Architects

Lorna Fewtrell Aberystwyth University

Adam Ingleby Environment Agency

Gaye Mckaye MWH

Phil Mills Policy Consulting Network

Alex Nickson Greater London Authority

Jacob Tompkins Waterwise

Carrie Williams Environment Agency

CIRIA, C724 v

CIRIA managersLouise Clarke

Paul Shaffer

Funders

ACO Natural Resources Wales

Defra Polypipe

Dwr Cymru Welsh Water Richard Allitt Associates

Environmental Gain Scottish Water

Formpave South West Water

Glasgow City Council Thames Water

Halcrow United Utilities

Hydro International Wessex Water

Jeremy Benn Associates and E Water Yorkshire Water

Micro Drainage

Supporting partners for the WSUD ideas bookletRobert Huxford Urban Design Group

Adam Kirkup Institution of Civil Engineers

Sarah Lewis Royal Town and Planning Institute

Paul Lincoln Landscape Institute

Justin Taberham Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

Further acknowledgementsAcknowledgement is also made to those individuals that provided input to workshops in London, Cardiff and Glasgow. Thanks also go to Yorkshire Water (and MWH) who shared useful information from their project on Living with water.

Creating water sensitive placesvi

Executive summary

Introduction to the scoping studyThis report summarises the results of a CIRIA scoping study (CIRIA project RP976 Water Sensitive Urban Design in the UK – a scoping study) that aims to explore the potential for Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD), and its associated benefits in the UK. The study also produced an accompanying literature review and a short WSUD ‘ideas booklet’ (Morgan et al, C723). This report also includes a desktop review of the evolution and experiences of countries that have developed and now practice the application of Water Sensitive Urban Design, to determine key drivers and benefits that would be relevant to the UK. The overall aim will be to demonstrate the need and clearly establish the benefits of a WSUD approach.

The current situation in the UK, in terms of realising water management opportunities, has been appraised. This includes the regulatory context. From this, the potential benefits of WSUD have been identified to propose a vision and recommendations for its uptake in the UK. A range of practitioners and organisations have been consulted during this study through a questionnaire, telephone interviews and three consultation workshops in England, Wales and Scotland. Drawing on the evidence gathered, this study identifies ‘agents for change’ whereby certain factors or catalysts could assist in delivering Water Sensitive Urban Design in the UK.

What is Water Sensitive Urban Design?Water Sensitive Urban Design is a holistic design process that strives to establish greater harmony between water and communities. It does so by creating places to live that are sensitive to the needs of the natural water cycle and that are also attractive, functional and valued. The built environment has a direct and interconnected relationship with water systems and resources. By focusing on the planning and urban design process, WSUD aims to give greater priority to water management considerations during the initial conception of developed areas while optimising the opportunities for delivering benefits to communities and the natural environment. WSUD is not a set of solutions or measures, but a process and philosophy through which the best solutions are sought to optimise both water management and urban design objectives. WSUD brings together a range of considerations under one umbrella, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 WSUD uses a holistic approach where various considerations come together

CIRIA, C724 vii

Why would WSUD benefit the UK?The realisation that water in urban areas can be managed differently to traditional approaches has been growing. Traditional engineering and management of water, surface water runoff and wastewater systems is still too often centralised and constrained by a ‘problem solving’ tradition, rather than taking an ‘opportunistic’ stance, where the management of apparent problems is seen as a potential way to improve urban living.

The water shortages experienced across England in the spring and early summer of 2012 together with serious incidents of flooding across the UK and remaining challenges in meeting water quality requirements highlight some of the current pitfalls of conventional water management in towns and cities. Recently, there have been major positive changes in the way in which surface water is expected to be managed, with a preference for sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) in new developments. However, surface water runoff is only one part of the water cycle, and initiatives relating to water supply, wastewater treatment and broader flood resilience in towns and cities have been less consistent in application. Examples of provision of alternative water supplies from rainwater, surface water runoff, greywater or wastewater remain limited, with only the use of water butts being considered commonplace in the UK. Water efficiency measures are fairly common in new development, but retrofits of existing buildings remains a challenge. Meanwhile, the need to maintain and develop key urban areas near watercourses and coastlines means that more adaptable places need to be created that are resilient to flooding.

The vision for the use of WSUD in the UK draws significant attention to the risk of flooding, as well as a response to water quality management and water security. The urban design priorities will also vary considerably, relating to location, demographics, character, existing uses and the mechanism for change. WSUD also seeks to achieve design and cost efficiencies in delivering a range of benefits through design collaboration. In applying WSUD, the design response should be a tailored one depending on local and wider context.

There is a fantastic design opportunity in urban landscapes to increase multi-functional land use and use buildings and landscapes to actively improve water systems and simultaneously improve placemaking, enhance ecosystems and provide direct economic value from resources for local communities. Figure 2 shows the many benefits that practitioners in the UK have identified from a WSUD approach – the font size depicts the benefit’s importance to practitioners. Now is an opportune time to explore new approaches to integrated water management within the built environment.

The case for WSUD is obvious, requiring the collaboration of a range of disciplines and stakeholders to realise the full breadth of benefits. Accordingly, a range of perspectives and organisations have been analysed in this study to explore the approaches and beneficiaries around which a baseline business case could be developed.

Definition

Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) is the process of integrating water cycle management with the built environment through planning and urban design.

Two principles are essential to its application:

1 All elements of the water cycle and their interconnections are considered concurrently to achieve an outcome that sustains a healthy natural environment while meeting human needs. This includes managing:a Water demand and supply.b Wastewater and pollution.c Rainfall and runoff.d Watercourses and water resources.e Flooding and water pathways.

2 Consideration of the water cycle is made from the outset, and throughout the design and planning process. Accordingly, water management solutions seek to meet the expectations and aspirations for design of successful places, such as:a Celebrating local character, environment and community.b Optimisingthecost-benefitofinfrastructureandbuiltform.c Improving liveability for communities.d Providing resource security and resilience in the future.

Creating water sensitive placesviii

A way forwardGreater application of WSUD will need to be progressed through a concentrated campaign to raise awareness, knowledge and enthusiasm among key disciplines, organisations and sectors. This will then require co-ordination and funding. Through the analysis in this study, seven ‘agents for change’ have been identified that could help the promotion and delivery of WSUD in the UK:

1 Presence of a co-ordinating body.

2 Evidence base, guidance and training.

3 Presence of Water Sensitive Urban Design champions.

4 Supportive planning and design process and legislation.

5 Reliable science and research.

6 Fostering environmental expectations.

7 Strategic funding and incentives.

In this document, a series of important actions have been identified and developed into a recommended route map through which partners can work together to establish a thriving WSUD movement in the UK. The actions share three common themes:

1 CONNECT the water cycle: seek the best solution for all aspects of the water cycle by thinking about water supply, wastewater, surface water runoff and flood management

2 COLLABORATE with other disciplines: seek out others built environment practitioners who can bring new perspectives and expertise

3 CREATE great solutions for great places: plan and design the built environment to respond to urban form, community needs and water issues.

Figure 2 Benefits of Water Sensitive Urban Design

CIRIA, C724 ix

Contents

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Executive summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Abbreviations and acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

1 Water, places and people. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1.1 The evolving UK context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Introducing Water Sensitive Urban Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

2.1 Introducing Water Sensitive Urban Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.2 How does WSUD differ from SuDS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.3 How does Water Sensitive Urban Design seek to improve water management? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.3.1 Water supplies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.3.2 Surface water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.3.3 Wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.4 How does Water Sensitive Urban Design seek to improve urban design? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.5 A process and a product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.6 What are the opportunities for Water Sensitive Urban Design? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3 How has Water Sensitive Urban Design been applied elsewhere? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.1 Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153.2 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213.3 Other countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

4 How successful has the UK been in applying a water sensitive approach? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.1 Current level of application of WSUD principles in the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

5 How does Water Sensitive Urban Design interact with current regulation?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

5.1 Legislative context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .405.2 European legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .405.3 UK policy and strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .415.4 Future direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .485.5 Regulatory barriers and opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

6 Building a case for action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

6.1 Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .536.2 Understanding value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .536.3 ThebenefitsofWSUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .556.4 Identificationandanalysisofkeystakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .616.5 Developing a business case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .766.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82

7 What is the potential for change in the UK? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

7.1 Agent for change 1: presence of a co-ordinating body. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .847.2 Agent for change 2: evidence base, guidance and training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .857.3 Agent for change 3: presence and characteristics of champions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .867.4 Agent for change 4: supportive planning and design process and legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .887.5 Agent for change 5: trusted and reliable science and research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .937.6 Agent for change 6: fostering environmental expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .947.7 Agent for change 7: strategic funding and incentives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96

8 Route map and recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

8.1 HowshouldthedefinitionofWSUDbeadaptedfortheUK? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98

Creating water sensitive placesx

8.2 DefinitionofWaterSensitiveUrbanDesignfortheUK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008.3 Vision statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008.4 Recommendations and route map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Statutes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Case studiesCase study 3.1 Coomera Waters Development, Gold Coast, Queensland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Case study 3.2 Troups Creek Surface water runoff harvesting project, Narre Warren North, Victoria. . . . . . .20

Case study 3.3 Green City, Clean Waters, Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Case study 3.4 Hohlgrabenäcker, Stuttgart, Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Case study 4.1 New Heartlands Project in Cornwall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Case study 4.2 Wastewater recycling plant, London Olympic Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Case study 4.3 Caerau and Brynglas Market Garden, Wales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Case study 4.4 Tooley Street redevelopment, London, UK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Case study 6.1 Partnership funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Casestudy6.2 Exploringpartnershipfundedlandscaperetrofit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

Case study 6.3 Building a shared language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

Case study 6.4 Understanding the value of good water sensitive design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Case study 6.5 Building a platform for water-related action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

Case study 6.6 Developing exemplar guidance and research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

Case study 6.7 Building a case for multi-functional GI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

Casestudy6.8 SocialhousingretrofitforSALIXhomesinManchester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82

Casestudy6.9 CommunityGreenDealURBEDSustainableHousingActionPartnership(SHAP)carbonretrofit. . .82

Case study 7.1 Northwest Cambridge master plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90

FiguresFigure 1 WSUD uses a holistic approach where various considerations come together . . . . . . . . . . . . .vi

Figure2 BenefitsofWaterSensitiveUrbanDesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .viii

Figure 1.1 Water is central to the public image of London and most other UK cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Figure 1.2 The most pressing issues relating to water in UK according to questionnaire respondents. . . 3

Figure 2.1 Integration of recreation space, built form and a wetland edge alongside a watercourse in the London Olympic Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 2.2 Concept diagram for water sensitive urban design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Figure 2.3 Conceptual design of a rill transferring treated runoff through a development, creating interaction and playfulness along the way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 2.4 Conceptual water sensitive home. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Figure2.5 Conceptualwatersensitiveflat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Figure 2.6 Conceptual water sensitive existing neighbourhood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Figure 2.7 Conceptual water sensitive new development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Figure 2.8 Conceptual water sensitive city. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Figure 3.1 The Australian model for the urban water cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Figure 3.2 Urban wetland used to harvest surface water runoff for irrigation in Melbourne Docklands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Figure 3.3 Evolution towards a water sensitive city. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Figure 3.4 Integrated bioretention corridor and seating area in Southport, Brisbane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Figure 3.5 Integrated street rain gardens in Portland, Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Figure 3.6 Living machine system designed to treat wastewater locally, combining mechanical and vegetative treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

CIRIA, C724 xi

Figure 3.7 Water sensitive green corridor in San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Figure3.8 VisualisationofPhiladelphiaGreenStreetsretrofit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Figure 3.9 Industrial wastewater wetland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Figure 3.10 Waitangi Park Wetland, Wellington. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Figure 4.1 Rainwater harvesting tank. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Figure 4.2 Rainwater collection channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Figure 4.3 The wastewater recycling plant at Old Ford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Figure 4.4 Breakdown of questionnaire respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Figure 4.5 Main type of work undertaken by respondents from each disciplinary group . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Figure 4.6 Geographic representation of questionnaire responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Figure 4.7 Associations of water sensitive urban design according to respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Figure 4.8 Consideration of outcomes through the planning and urban design process currently in the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Figure4.9 SuDSintegratedwithgreencorridorsandopenspacetoinfluencelayoutintheUptonSustainable Urban Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Figure4.10 Feelingofinfluenceonaspectsofwatermanagementandthebuiltenvironmentfrom the responding disciplinary groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Figure 4.11 Key drivers and barriers for WSUD according to questionnaire results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Figure6.1 Exampleofthediagramusedtosummarisetheprioritiesthatmayinfluenceeachkeystakeholder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

Figure 6.2 Indicative balance of priorities for government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

Figure 6.3 Indicative balance of priorities for local authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66

Figure 6.4 Indicative balance of priorities for environmental regulators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

Figure 6.5 Indicative balance of priorities for water companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

Figure 6.6 Indicative balance of priorities for developers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Figure 6.7 Indicative balance of priorities for local community and third sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

Figure 6.8 Indicative balance of priorities for designers and consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

Figure 6.9 Indicative schematic diagram showing the potential misalignment the WSUD investment costs byanorganisation,andthereturnofWSUDbenefits,usingawatercompanyexample . . . . . . . .77

Figure 6.10 Indicative schematic diagram showing the potential misalignment the WSUD investment costsandthereturnofWSUDbenefits,usingawatercompanyexample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78

Figure 7.1 Northwest Cambridge master plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90

Figure 7.2 Cross-disciplinary working for to integrate water sensitivity into a development. . . . . . . . . . .92

Figure 8.1 Flood risks and water supply opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98

Figure 8.2 WSUD concept that brings together a range of considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101

Figure 8.3 Route map to promote and deliver WSUD in the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105

TablesTable 2.1 Urban design objectives in applying WSUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 3.1 Key transition factors in the journey of Melbourne towards current application of WSUD principles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Table 3.2 How LID initiatives have been delivered across the US . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Table6.1 Reviewofsampleofpublishedbenefitsofgreeninfrastructureandsurfacewatermanagement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

Table6.2 PotentialBenefitsofWSUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

Table 6.3 Breakdown of WSUD cost elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79

Table 7.1 Analysis of desired characteristics of WSUD champions in the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

Table 8.1 Changes in approach required to deliver WSUD in the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Table 8.2 Summary chart of actions to achieve agents for change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

Creating water sensitive placesxii

Abbreviations and acronyms

AISC Average incremental social cost

BMP Best Management Practices

BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology

CABE Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment

CAPEX Capital expenditure

CCANW Centre for Contemporary Art and the Natural World

CIRIA Construction Industry Research Information Association

CIWEM Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

CNT Center for Neighborhood Technology

CSH Code for Sustainable Homes

CSO Combined sewer overflows

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

EA Environment Agency

EC European Commission

ESCo Energy services company

EU European Union

FD Flooding Directive

GHG Greenhouse gas

GI Green infrastructure

HA Hectares

HCA Homes and Communities Agency

ICE Institution of Civil Engineers

LDP Local Development Plans

LLFAs Lead local flood authorities

LID Low Impact Development

LIUDD Low Impact Urban Design and Development

LNP Local Nature Partnerships

OPEX Operational expenditure

PES Payment for Ecosystem Services

RBMP River Basin Management Plan

RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects

ROI Return on investment

RTPI Royal Town Planning Institute

RUDI Resource for Urban Design Information

RWH Rainwater harvesting

SEPA Scottish Environment Protection Agency

SROI Social Return on Investment

SuDS Sustainable drainage systems

UWWTD Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive

WCS Water cycle study

WFD Water Framework Directive

WSUD Water Sensitive Urban Design

CIRIA, C724 1

2

3

4

7

8

5

6

1

Water is central to people’s way of life. Cities, towns and villages all have a long and intimate relationship with water resources and were historically located around a water source, watercourse or coastline as the focus point for sustenance, transport and trade. In modern times, not only is there a dependence on clean water supply for daily needs, but there is also dependence on water to grow food and produce resources, to transport goods, beautify urban centres and provide fun and recreation.

The relationship between the places people live and the water they depend on is often not prioritised in the design and evolution of those places. Water shortages, flooding and watercourse pollution are all signs of stress where developed areas have a troubled interaction with the natural water cycle and where, conversely, water has become a risk or a nuisance rather than an asset or an opportunity.

1.1 The evolving UK contextThe effect of urban development on water systems has been clear for decades, but is becoming more pronounced. With increasing population and a larger percentage of people living in cities and major urban conurbations, pressure on existing water infrastructure and ecosystems is evident. Resource depletion and environmental degradation are critical themes for the future, especially when considering

1 Water, places and people

Water is often central to the identity of a place

Figure 1.1 Water is central to the public image of London and most other UK cities

This chapter introduces the relationship between water and urban places, scoping the issues to be addressed and opportunities that could be taken.

Creating water sensitive places2

the economic sustainability of major cities and the ongoing provision of safe drinking water, resilient infrastructure and effective sanitation. Flooding remains a major issue for the UK, with urban centres particularly vulnerable due to building densities, impervious surfaces, concentrations of population and vital infrastructure. Chapter 5 provides more information on the regulatory context and potential barriers and opportunities for WSUD in the UK.

Conversely, water stress has become a major topic, particularly in the south and east of England and parts of Wales. In April 2012 the Environment Agency declared 17 English counties were officially in drought (BBC, 2012). Hosepipe bans have become a common event in these parts of the UK due to strains on water resources.

In the UK the average water consumption figures are quoted as almost 150 litres per person per day (Chapagain and Orr, 2008). This grossly understates the water used to satisfy user requirements. This takes no account of the water used by agriculture to produce food, or water used by industry to provide the goods people use daily. Including the water used by agriculture raises human consumption to about 4645 litres per person per day (Chapagain and Orr, 2008), but even this overlooks water lost to evapotranspiration. A significant amount of water is used to produce the energy used for heat, light and cooking that is also not included in the consumption figures.

Population growth has placed additional pressures on existing infrastructure, meaning that some systems are now struggling to cope. Simultaneously, changes in lifestyle and technology have led to a questioning of whether traditional infrastructure solutions are still as effective as when they were built.

Increasing pressures on the water environment, due to climate change and population growth, are being seen globally. In the UK, this is a major concern, with population growth of 17.5 per cent in England, 13 per cent in Wales, 11.5 per cent in Scotland and 11 per cent in Northern Ireland (ICE, 2012b). These population rises are likely to compound a range of water issues in key urban areas. For example, in Wales an additional 200 000 homes are predicted to be built by 2025 and 80 per cent of existing homes will remain by 2050. These existing homes are often not water efficient and are increasing their paved and impermeable areas, contributing to flooding and pollution incidents due to surface water entering an ageing combined sewer system. Water supply that is twice the current household’s use in Cardiff may be required for south east Wales by the 2030s. This is the area with the most surface water flooding identified (Environment Agency Wales, 2011, now Natural Resources Wales). Also, six per cent of UK carbon emissions are from water supply, use and disposal. The majority of this is from heating hot water in the home. Pressures on water security are likely to be felt in the south east of England where a 23 per cent rise in population is expected in an already water stressed area (ICE, 2012b). For these reasons, incorporating and retrofitting WSUD into new and existing developments with permeable surfaces, lower carbon solutions, and other WSUD strategies will become increasingly important if the outcomes of traditional water management are to be mitigated.

Despite the development of River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) as a delivery tool for the Water Framework Directive (WFD), delivery of effective water management on the ground has been hampered by poor engagement. This may be improved with the introduction of more integrated catchment management currently being piloted in parts of England, Wales and Scotland. Although the WFD provides a framework to address water pressures in an integrated fashion, attention is often focused on water bodies that can achieve good ‘ecological status’. Unfortunately, due to urban areas containing water bodies classified as ‘heavily modified’ and considered less likely to be remediated to a good ecological status, they are not often considered a priority opportunity. There is a need for an

Somefivemillionpeopleareclaimedto live or work in places that are at riskoffloodingundercurrentclimaticconditions, due to a main river, coast, or surface water runoff.

Environment Agency (2011)

In the European Union (EU) (including the UK) over the past 30 years, droughts have dramatically increased, rising by some 20 per cent between 1976 and 2006 at a cost of about €100bn.

EC (2010)

Worldwide annual operating expenditure for water and wastewater utilities was some $222bn in 2010, so operation of these systems is costly and alternatives to the traditional prevailing centralised systems could potentially result in considerable cost savings.

Cope (2011)

CIRIA, C724 3

2

3

4

7

8

5

6

1

approach that restores the ‘ecological potential’ of urban water bodies by addressing the suite of human-initiated effects unique to the urban environment.

Longer term, the potential effects of climate change on water systems needs to be addressed. The largest of these is the predicted changes in precipitation – a 33 per cent increase in the winter and 40 per cent decrease in summer (Jenkins et al, 2009). This most likely result is increased stress on existing water infrastructure, and greater risk of flooding. The existing climate change issue is exacerbated when considering the population is expected to increase to 70 million, with many settling in the water stressed south east region. New, innovative thinking to meet these challenges and maintain the delivery of core services is required.

In a survey of built environment professionals for this scoping study (discussed in Chapter 4) responses suggested that flooding remains the greatest challenge for the UK, followed closely by concerns for water quality in watercourses and water scarcity and security issues. This is portrayed in Figure 1.2.

Water quality in the UK is being driven by compliance with EU legislation like the Habitats Directive, Bathing Waters Directive, Urban Waste Water Treatment and the Water Framework Directive (WFD).

ICE (2012b)

Figure 1.2 The most pressing issues relating to water in UK according to questionnaire respondents

Summary

66 water and the built environment have a complex and often interdependent relationship66 water is essential to urban development, to provide sustenance, transport, identity, recreation and healthy

ecosystems66 strainsonthewatercycleareparticularlybeingfeltinurbanareas,includingincreasedincidenceofflooddamage,

water use restrictions and water pollution. Climate change and population increase will exacerbate these issues.

Flooding

Quality of watercourses

Drought

Human health and sanitation

Affordability of water

Most

Least


2.1 Introducing Water Sensitive Urban DesignWater Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) strives to create greater harmony between water and communities by creating attractive, functional and valued places to live in that are sensitive to the needs of the natural water cycle. WSUD is based on the integration of the two key fields of ‘integrated urban water cycle planning and management’ and ‘urban design’ (Wong and Brown, 2009). As a process, it integrates a range of disciplines to seek approaches that deliver a variety of benefits for both water management and placemaking (the planning and creation of successful places).

The term ‘Water Sensitive Urban Design’ originated in Australia, and has gained popularity internationally as an encompassing term that frames all aspects of the water cycle within the urban design process. The ‘water sensitive’ prefix has become a short form used to delineate designs or outcomes where the WSUD process has been applied. The concepts of a water sensitive development and a water sensitive city are now becoming commonplace in Australia. It is the purpose of this scoping study to explore the application of WSUD in the UK. While the WSUD concept and its derivatives gained popularity in application in Australia and the US in particular, where there are climate differences to the UK, the geographical spread of application in these countries indicates that WSUD can be applied in a range of climate conditions (including those similar to the UK). The geographic and climatic differences will require solutions dependent on the water context, and will prioritise appropriate responses to water stress, flooding, water quality and wastewater management.

As a holistic process for managing an urban area’s water cycle, WSUD also seeks to provide resilience against a changing climate. With increased risk of extreme weather events and a likely increase in both

2 Introducing Water Sensitive Urban Design

This chapter introduces the concept of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) as it is understood internationally. It explains the principles of WSUD and provides

examples of how WSUD can be applied at different spatial scales.

Figure 2.1 Integration of recreation space, built form and a wetland edge alongside a watercourse in the London Olympic Park

CIRIA, C724 5

1

3

4

7

8

5

6

2

droughts and flooding, coupled with ever-increasing population and infrastructure intensities in urban areas, cities and towns remain the most vulnerable to climatic changes. Managing water through a water sensitive process makes urban areas more tolerant to increased precipitation, and better equipped to supply water during times of drought.

2.2 How does WSUD differ from SuDS?The similarities between the acronyms for sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) can cause confusion. The use of SuDS is an integral part of Water Sensitive Urban Design as it involves the management of surface water runoff within the urban form to mimic natural drainage processes. In addition to the synergies in the acronym, each seeks to achieve better management of surface water runoff while supporting broader biodiversity and amenity aims. SuDS can have a very direct influence on placemaking, and good planning and urban design should create the best examples of SuDS.

The key distinction is the breadth of scope of WSUD beyond surface water runoff to also consider water supply, wastewater management and the more extensive integration of built form with watercourses and flood pathways to better plan for the impact of surface water flows on land downstream. Through the consideration of the entire water cycle, synergies and efficiencies can often be identified. For example, while SuDS aims to manage the discharge of surface water runoff from a site, a broader consideration of water supply needs for the same site may highlight opportunities for use of treated surface water runoff locally. WSUD also explicitly focuses on the planning and urban design process to ‘build in’ a sustainable water approach from an early stage of new development, whereby SuDS and other water management initiatives may be employed to tackle local water issues. However, as new build represents only a small portion of drainage needs, incorporating WSUD into existing developments is critical. The good news is that there are many options for retrofitting WSUD solutions into existing developments providing potential synergies with other environment improvement initiatives like reducing energy and carbon use.

2.3 How does Water Sensitive Urban Design seek to improve water management?

WSUD promotes an integrated analysis of the whole water cycle and the influences of the built environment. It considers the water cycle at all scales, and focuses on improving three aspects of the water cycle in particular:

1 The selection and management of water supplies.

2 The management of surface water (predominantly surface water runoff in Australian definition but could also consider flooding more broadly in the UK).

3 The management of wastewater.

2.3.1 Water supplies

To alleviate pressures on water supply, a WSUD process would first consider the use of water efficiency measures and then consider all available water resources in an area and seek to match a supply of suitable quality and availability to appropriate uses. In considering the suitability of a water source, the environmental impact, cost and carbon content of that source should be understood. In situations where centralised water supply resources or infrastructure are strained or at capacity, a WSUD approach could support the delivery of alternative water supplies from harvested rainwater, greywater or wastewater to supplement local supply (primarily for non-potable uses). To deliver both water efficiency and alternative water supply options, these measures need to be considered through the planning and urban design process, for both new developments and retrofits, to identify appropriate and deliverable measures.

SuDS can be a key part of WSUD to integrate surface water runoff management into the urban form, but WSUD brings in broader consideration of the whole water cycle.


2.3.2 Surface water

To improve management of surface water, WSUD would consider how the built environment influences surface water runoff, water pathways and watercourses and seek to minimise that influence. It would consider how design can mimic natural levels of permeability, and capture and treat runoff to ensure their impacts on watercourse quality and downstream flooding are minimised. It would also consider how water moves through developed areas and ‘build in’ an adaptable and flexible environment to reduce water damage in high rainfall and flooding events.

2.3.3 Wastewater

To improve the management of wastewater, a WSUD approach would seek to firstly minimise wastewater creation and then seek to minimise discharge of pollutants to the environment through low impact wastewater treatment (minimising environmental, carbon and cost issues) and reduce wastewater discharges through reuse of wastewater. By considering all aspects of the water cycle together, there are solutions that address multiple water management objectives. In urban areas with combined drainage systems, a combined approach is similarly needed to water management, where the management of surface water runoff is critical in improving wastewater management and reducing discharges from combined sewer overflows (CSOs).

In achieving these water management objectives, WSUD inherently seeks options that will meet multiple objectives by exploiting synergies in the water cycle. For example, the capture and treatment of surface water runoff for local use, will not only improve flooding and water quality impacts, but will also provide a new local water source to meet water demands and could remove pressure from the wastewater collection and treatment system.

2.4 How does Water Sensitive Urban Design seek to improve urban design?

In the process of improving water management, WSUD seeks to exploit opportunities to enhance the places lived in by developing a greater awareness of water resources, celebrating natural assets and supplying water locally to provide for peoples’ needs. WSUD brings ‘sensitivity to water’ into urban design, as it aims to ensure that water is given due prominence within the urban design process.

This includes those dealing with the protection of aquatic environments in urban areas as well as those who lead the vision and design of existing and new places (Wong and Brown, 2008). When applying the principles of WSUD, the emphasis is on making the most of opportunities to manage the water cycle in the context of good urban design and planning in ways that improve the quality of urban life and use land effectively and efficiently. This is often done by designing places, buildings and landscapes to be more multi-functional. In doing so, water becomes an asset, which improves the urban aesthetic. Consequently, water becomes an inherent and important consideration in the design of the built environment, influencing and responding to other urban design criteria. Figure 2.2 is a concept diagram illustrating the relationship between the water cycle and urban design.

In addressing some of the strains on the water cycle previously outlined, an approach to planning and urban design, which includes a water sensitive process, can also benefit quality of life and placemaking in a range of ways, as shown in Table 2.1.

Through the improved consideration of water in planning and urban design, WSUD naturally engages a range of disciplines, including those involved in the design of the built environment and those involved in water management.

CIRIA, C724 7

1

3

4

7

8

5

6

2

Figure 2.2 Concept diagram for water sensitive urban design

Demand management + greywater and

wastewater recycling

Sustainable water supply

Integrated water cycle

managementSurface water

runoff reduction and treatment

+flood water integration

Rainwater and surface water runoff

recycling

Reduced pollution and flood

risk

URban DeSIgn

Local identity

Sustainable buildings

Local resource management

Urban food production and

gardening

Local infrastructure

efficiency

Habitat creation and

enhancement

Complimentary land use planning

Street and highway design

Flood pathway

integration

Open spaces and recreation

Water features and art

Local climate and human comfort

Community engagement

PRODUCtIve LanDSCaPe

URban PLannIng

PLaCe MakIng

Carbon reduction

affordable water and

good service

Lush landscapes

Wastewater reduction and

treatment


Table 2.1 Urban design objectives in applying WSUD

Celebration of watercourses and water bodies and their associated amenity value can be fostered through improvements in water quality and improved interactions between water pathways and built form.

Greater provision of integrated green infrastructure (GI)intheurbanformthroughthecombinationofvegetatedwaterfiltrationfeatures and more extensive integrated permeable surfaces and open spaces promoting health, recreation and amenity.

Improvement of biodiversity in urban areas through an ecosystem services approach.

Local resource management including urban horticulture to relieve pressure on rural resources.

Long-term sustenance of trees, agriculture, vegetation and water features through provision of local water sources including harvested rainwater and treated greywater or wastewater.

Reduction in the urban heat island effect and the provision of natural shading and cooling through greater integration of water and vegetation in the urban realm.

Reduced costs of water throughwaterefficiencymeasuresandreducedstrainonwatersupplies.

Greater self-sufficiency and local control for communities contributing to localism through the provision of additional local water supplies from alternative sources such as surface water runoff or wastewater reuse.

Long-term resilience of buildings and infrastructurethroughdesignthatminimisesfloodrisk.

Reduced carbon emissions, material impacts and energy demands through selection of appropriate water supply and water management infrastructure that reduces water movement and treatment demands.

2.5 A process and a productWSUD should primarily be viewed as the collaborative design process through which both water management and urban design aims are achieved. The product of this process could be a water sensitive home, a water sensitive development, a water sensitive city, a water sensitive catchment, or a water sensitive country.

Its application should be undertaken at every scale that frames interactions between human development and the water cycle, including:

66 spatial scales: country, catchment, city, county, town, neighbourhood, plot

66 temporal scales: longevity of need and resilience to future change

66 institutional, governance, regulatory boundaries and cultural scales: responsibility and ‘interest’ boundaries now and in the future.

WSUD initiatives should be considered to be interactive and synergistic between scales. Applications should be integrated together to produce an effective whole that achieves the aims of both, supporting a successful built environment and population and also protecting and supporting natural water systems.

2.6 What are the opportunities for Water Sensitive Urban Design?A WSUD process seeks to find water management solutions that are appropriate to context, and so there is no set of defined technologies or measures it promotes. However, in applying the principles to improve both water management and urban design, as defined in Sections 2.3 and 2.4, WSUD will lead to the development of a range of solutions for the built environment, in both new and existing developments. These solutions range according to local context and the spatial scale being considered. This dovetails with the Government’s focus on localism and support for neighbourhood planning, which provides added incentive for local water solutions.

WSUD principles have been applied to a range of situations at different scales here to demonstrate the type of solutions that may arise. These visions of water sensitive places have been developed in workshops conducted as part of the scoping study. While each scenario includes many suggestions, in reality, each

Water Sensitive Urban Design is the process...

...water sensitive places are the outcome

CIRIA, C724 9

1

3

4

7

8

5

6

2

situation is unique and might not need to implement all suggestions before being considered water sensitive. The most effective approach will be different for every development.

Figure 2.3 Conceptual design of a rill transferring treated runoff through a development, creating interaction and playfulness along the way

What could a water sensitive home look like?

At the building scale, there is a very direct relationship between water and people. This is where people can directly influence and select water supplies, and where these actions affect the level of water use and wastewater generation. The design of a building and its surroundings also affects rainwater and subsequent surface water runoff.

A water sensitive house should be designed to provide comfort and to support self-sufficiency and a high quality of life. In doing so, it could be resource efficient, using local water resources where possible, supporting water efficient systems and behaviour and as a consequence reducing energy.

A range of ‘water sensitive’ measures can be delivered at a household scale at very little cost, and are likely to benefit the householder in a number of ways. The use of water efficient fixtures and practices as well as localised water harvesting will lower water bills, and could also incur significant savings in energy bills by reducing use of hot water in particular. Simple measures can help householders take greater social and environmental responsibility, but can also lend convenience. For example, rainwater harvesting can provide a free supply of water for gardening that is unrestricted by hosepipe bans. Surface water management measures like downpipe disconnection and the use of rain gardens can minimise runoff from a property, and this can directly reduce drainage tariffs in some areas. Natural water management measures can also be included that promote biodiversity and urban greening that bring wider benefits to the community and often increase property values.


Some solutions will be beneficial where the context is right. For example, blocks of flats with a smaller relative roof area will have a limited area from which rainwater can be captured, and communal greywater recycling can become a more cost-beneficial solution. Flat roofs can provide a good opportunity for green roofs that reduce runoff but also provide insulation, ecology and amenity benefits. Depending on the location, some properties will also need to be designed to be adaptable to flooding so that any damage is reduced in a flood event and they are more resilient.

Figure 2.4 Conceptual water sensitive home

CIRIA, C724 11

1

3

4

7

8

5

6

2

What could a water sensitive neighbourhood look like?

For neighbourhoods, there are a range of opportunities that need to be designed to suit both the local water challenges and the local community context. While retrofitting WSUD into existing developments is more challenging than integrating into new development, there are a range of regeneration and improvement activities through which water sensitive measures can be delivered. Improvement of public realm and the delivery of GI provide a direct opportunity for better water management through retrofit of SuDS features. The introduction of urban trees and landscaped spaces can easily be designed with suitable soil mixes and plant species to support drainage and natural treatment of runoff from roads and paved surfaces. Other urban improvement initiatives, such as the introduction of home zones and pedestrian priority areas provide the opportunity to introduce more permeable spaces, green and blue infrastructure that can contribute to a water sensitive place or space. The opportunity to retrofit existing homes with water efficient fixtures is also important, and should be undertaken in co-ordination with energy efficiency retrofits to minimise disruption to homeowners and to gain cost efficiency.

Figure 2.5 Conceptual water sensitive flat


In the planning of new developments and extensive regeneration schemes, there may also be the opportunity to directly complement, extend or improve water infrastructure through the delivery of decentralised water supply schemes that use local sources of water or alternative non-potable supplies from harvested rainwater, greywater, wastewater, or local water abstraction. These schemes can contribute to water cycle studies (see Chapter 5) reduce pressure on water resources in water stressed areas and can also avoid the need for further investment in existing infrastructure that is at capacity or would require extension to serve new areas. The suitability of such schemes needs to be assessed based on a range of factors including cost, carbon content and public health management, but a large scale of development in the right location can make decentralised systems viable and beneficial. These types of schemes could become a valid water supply model for water companies, allowing them to provide tailored local solutions while giving communities the comfort of having a trusted and regulated supplier. The large-scale harvesting of surface water runoff can have a dual benefit of managing downstream flood risk while providing a relatively low carbon water source.

New developments also have the opportunity to integrate water management features into the layout and land use plans so that the amenity value of water features and green areas can be optimised. Greater integration of water into the public realm can create character, enhance the quality of life through improved amenity and deliver direct value for neighbourhoods. The creation of adaptable landscapes will also minimise impacts of flooding, while maximising the value of land by allowing places to use space for various activities (that are also suitable for flood pathways and storage during extreme events). All of these land use planning benefits stem directly from incorporating water sensitive principles from the start of the master planning process.

Figure 2.6 Conceptual water sensitive existing neighbourhood

CIRIA, C724 13

1

3

4

7

8

5

6

2

What could a water sensitive city look like?

At the larger scale, a town or city can apply strategic water sensitive measures that will support its growth and resilience in the long-term. These measures could include improvement, or daylighting of urban watercourses to improve their quality and function, but also to improve quality of life, urban landscapes and recreation, tourism, wildlife, climate change adaptation, and economic opportunities. There is great potential to create a positive aesthetic for an urban area through a focus on creating pristine watercourses and water bodies, as demonstrated by the some of the most acclaimed urban landscapes around the world. On a conurbation scale, there are also strategic opportunities for the development of alternative water supplies and flood mitigation measures using the urban form as a vehicle for natural water storage, treatment and management. Urban areas are a concentrated demand on water supplies but also a natural generator of large amounts of surface water runoff and wastewater. Strategically there are opportunities to use these as alternative water supplies.

Urban areas can suffer from concentrated flood damage, but smarter urban forms can be shaped to accept and manage flooding more effectively through management, resilience and resistance. In the face of climate change, it may be that coastal and riverside cities and towns will need to adapt as a matter of need rather than preference, better accomplished through a placemaking agenda that also improves the urban realm. Land use planning can be an effective tool in ensuring that the urban form considers and respects the water cycle. Whether it is preventing development in flood zones, forming policies for agricultural land near receiving bodies of water, or establishing blue and green corridors to treat water and improve the sense of place, land use planning can have a substantial effect on adopting WSUD.

Great synergies with broader sustainability initiatives for renewable energy and GI can also be delivered through the planning of water systems at a large scale.

Figure 2.7 Conceptual water sensitive new development


Figure 2.8 Conceptual water sensitive city

Summary

66 WSUD is the process of considering the whole water cycle through planning and urban design to seek better solutions in the built environment that support placemaking objectives and provide for human needs while also protecting and improving water resources

66 WSUD considers management of surface water, wastewater and water supplies and the synergies between these aspectsofthewatercycletocreatemorebeneficialsolutions

66 SuDS is an integral part of the WSUD process to manage surface water runoff in a better way in the built environment, but WSUD also considers the broader aspects of the water cycle, including water harvesting and reuse,waterefficiency,floodresilienceandwastewatermanagement

66 WSUD driven solutions should be tailored to context and scale. A range of examples of possible solutions are demonstrated in this chapter

66 determining appropriate WSUD solutions included workshops where participants developed ideas and visualisations of how WSUD could be incorporated at various scales of development.

CIRIA, C724 15

1

2

4

7

8

5

6

3

The application of WSUD in Australia is well documented and supported by a substantial academic and scientific research programme and an active practitioner community. Encouragingly, significant integration of the WSUD philosophy, at least in component parts, has been achieved in several countries around the world, leading to new approaches to water management in the built environment. Significant progress in addressing water cycle management though planning and urban design has been made in the US under the guise of low impact development (LID) and green stormwater management, or GI. This chapter focuses on the journeys of Australia and the US, examining the drivers for change, barriers to change and examples of successful application. Several other countries around the world have made notable progress and these are also generally discussed in this chapter. It should be remembered that the climates in each of these countries may differ from the UK and as a result any WSUD process will need to be tailored to account for these differences.

3.1 Australia

Drivers for change

WSUD began in Australia because of public outcry due to the deteriorating health of the country’s major water bodies, especially Port Phillip Bay in Melbourne. Pollution from septic tanks was threatening the Bay, as well as other watercourses in Melbourne. Algal blooms in Melbourne’s watercourses and across many water bodies in other parts of the country highlighted the problem, bringing the issue to the forefront of the public discourse. The problem was very much in the public eye with Melbourne’s beaches frequently being closed due to pollution, and soon the city’s watercourses slowly slipped into public ridicule (Brown and Clarke, 2007).

The health of watercourses, or waterway health, quickly became an important issue. With little local knowledge on the issue, research began to develop environmental protection policies. Soon, public agencies concerned with waterway health began developing their own expertise, galvanising support and recognition as leaders and champions in their own right (Brown and Clarke, 2007). Water companies also took a strong responsibility in delivering WSUD measures to benefit water resource availability, quality and protection. With a strong grasp of improving environmental protection, the mandate then evolved to respond to the pressures of drought by campaigning for more efficient water use and using integrated urban surface water management features to harvest and treat surface water for use. Greywater recycling, sewer mining (the process of tapping into a wastewater system and extracting sewage, which is then treated and used as recycled water) and wastewater recycling have also become common design options under a WSUD approach. Figure 3.1 shows the urban water cycle, with conventional water cycle management connected with the solid arrows and the additional WSUD opportunities shown with dashed arrows.

3 How has Water Sensitive Urban Design been applied elsewhere?

This chapter explores to what extent WSUD approaches have been applied and developed globally, identifying the key drivers and barriers in the journey of other countries. This

analysis is intended to highlight ‘agents for change’ or important catalysts that have engendered strong take-up of a WSUD approach, so that lessons can be

gathered for application of Water Sensitive Urban Design in the UK.

One of the problems with the UK psyche that

we are not good at learning from elsewhere. We like to reinvent wheels. There are good WSUD examples elsewhere, why shouldn’t we simply take them on board. In this particular case it means we have been terribly slow in getting to grips with this issue.”

Michael Norton Water engineer, ICE

“


Melbourne and its acceptance of WSUD demonstrates a clear set of transition phases, beginning with the ‘seeds of change’ sparked by social awareness and activism, followed by a period of research that focused on building knowledge and relationships, whereby innovation inspired pilot projects and a niche movement was formed that stabilised to attract mainstream institutional legitimacy through demonstrable results (Brown and Clarke, 2007). The catalysts for the journey have been studied, and suggest that combining an active group of champions and some key factors can support positive change and an enabling context. Table 3.1 outlines the catalysts that have been identified through academic research into the Australian journey.

Figure 3.1 The Australian model for the urban water cycle (adapted from Hoban and Wong, 2006)

CIRIA, C724 17

1

2

4

7

8

5

6

3

Table 3.1 Key transition factors in the journey of Melbourne towards current application of WSUD principles (Brown et al, 2008)

Key transition factors

Champions Interplay The enabling context

1 Vision for waterway health

A ‘common vision’ for protecting waterway health through pursuing a largely co-operative, rather than directive, approach for enabling change.

1 Socio-political capital

Aligned community, media and political concern for improved waterway health, amenity and recreation.

2 Multi-sectoral network

A network of champions interacting across government, academia and the market.

2 Bridging organisations

Dedicated organising entity that facilitates collaboration across science and policy, agencies and professions, and knowledge brokers and industry.

3 Environmental values

Strong environmental protection values with a ‘genuine’ agenda for improving Melbourne’s waterways.

3 Trusted and reliable science

Accessiblescientificexpertise,innovatingreliableandeffective solutions to local problems.

4 Public good disposition

An orientation to advocating and protecting ‘public good’.4 Binding targets

A measurable and effective target that binds the change activity of scientists, policy makers and developers.

5 Best practice ideology

Beingmorepragmaticandfindingwaystohelpindustryimplement best practice thinking.

5 Accountability

A formal organisational responsibility for the improvement of warterway health, and a cultural commitment to proactively influencepracticesthatleadtosuchanoutcome.

6 Learning by doing

Wanting to foster and trial new ideas, and valuing the rapid adoptingofongoingscientificinsights.

6 Strategic funding points

Additional resources, including external funding injection points, directed to the change effort

7 Opportunistic

Continually thinking ahead and creating opportunities through strategic advocacy and practice.

7 Demonstration projects and training

Accessible and reliable demonstrating of new thinking and technologies in practice, accompanied by knowledge diffusion initiatives.

8 Innovative and adaptive

Prepared to challenge the status quo, and concentrating efforts using an adaptive management philosophy.

8 Market receptivity

A well articulated business case for the change activity.

Figure 3.2 Urban wetland used to harvest surface water runoff for irrigation in Melbourne Docklands


While Melbourne has been an active player in the evolution of WSUD, other Australian cities including Brisbane, Sydney and Perth have also maintained an active movement backed by local champions and expertise (Taylor, 2010). In each area, the need for consistent guidance, training and tools became apparent and a series of co-ordinating bodies were developed to act as providers of guidance and training.

Widespread uptake of best management practices for surface water (SuDS) along with rainwater, surface water and wastewater harvesting or recycling to aid removal of pollutants from the natural environment while addressing water availability issues was aided by the development of strong local government policies and expectations. Water quality models, including the Model for Urban Stormwater Improvement Conceptualisation (MUSIC), were developed to aid the planning of best management practices into planning and design of new development, to model achievement of planning targets for water quality (Brown and Clarke, 2007).

The movement gradually identified and proved the multiple benefits of a WSUD approach in addressing a range of water issues while increasing the liveability of place. Academia in Australia developed the concept of a ‘water sensitive city’, conceived of as the ultimate evolutionary state where urban environments and the water cycle operate in harmony while maximising benefits for communities and building resilience to future change (whether climate change, or urban development) (Brown et al, 2008). While this might appear to be a major step change in the approach to water management, it is better viewed as a part of the evolving relationship people have with water. Figure 3.3 outlines the theoretical evolution of cities, beginning from water source needs, to address problems of sanitation, drainage and waterway health, to eventually manage the water cycle as a whole, and then gain the full secondary benefits through improvement to the built environment.

A review of the water sector in Australia identified that links between water management and liveability need to be recognised and made clear, and that further change is still needed in both institutions and policy to support a more integrated approach (National Water Commission, 2011). The Centre for Water Sensitive Cities, a major research programme, has recently gained AUS $24m in funding for a series of research studies into society, water sensitive urbanism, future technologies and adoption pathways (Centre for Water Sensitive Cities, 2012 <http://watersensitivecities.org.au>).

Barriers to change

In developing their approach to WSUD, many Australian cities have encountered and overcome a number of barriers. The often decentralised nature of WSUD means that maintenance is considered

Figure 3.3 Evolution towards a water sensitive city (adapted from Brown et al, 2008)

Examples of guidance and training

Clearwater capacity building and training programs: www.clearwater.asn.au

Sydney’s water sensitive urban design program: www.wsud.org

Healthy Waterway’s Water by design guidance www.waterbydesign.com.au/

CIRIA, C724 19

1

4

7

8

5

6

3

2

on a piecemeal basis rather than being rationalised on a large centralised system. From a public health standpoint, decentralisation can also impede the ability to implement controls, if necessary, from a central authority (Brown, 2005). Often financial risks present an additional barrier due to the unfamiliar nature of the technologies involved, Melbourne Water initially underwrote early adopters of WSUD to overcome this hurdle. Finally, government structure separates environmental considerations from engineering, planning, and urban design, creating barriers to communication and holistic water management (Roy et al, 2008). There were also indirect barriers in changing the industry and creating new knowledge among practitioners. Some of the widespread impediments to change appear to include:

66 insufficient professional skills and knowledge

66 organisational resistance

66 risk aversion

66 lack of political will

66 limited regulatory incentives

66 unsuitable institutional arrangements

66 a need to establish new cultures across multiple organisations, professions and tiers of government.

Addressing these barriers requires knowledge building and establishing new relationships, as well as leadership in the form of WSUD champions. In Melbourne’s case, research into catchment hydrology, freshwater ecology, wetlands, and litter management improved the depth of knowledge. Restructuring the water industry set the stage for new agencies, and programmes to be developed. One of the hallmarks of the Australian approach has been the reliance on WSUD champions. These champions can come from industry, academia or government. The collaboration among these champions is an important goal to overcoming many barriers and advancing WSUD (Taylor, 2008). One of the misconceptions for applying WSUD is the notion that space constraints can prevent its successful delivery. However, there is no evidence that space constraints have been an issue in applying WSUD in Australia or elsewhere. As design should always adapt to local context, space should be a consideration but not a barrier as good design and early engagement should help overcome challenges.

Successful application

Despite those existing barriers, Australia’s public support for improving waterway quality proved to be vital for WSUD delivery. With public support mounting, politicians, academia and industry found a cause easy to support. From their efforts, WSUD has been applied to achieve many successes in Australia, including (Roy, et al, 2008):

66 rehabilitating and protecting watercourses, which were once heavily polluted

66 progressive policies and political bodies aiming to reduce wastewater overflows and improve protection of catchments

66 adoption of surface water runoff management best practice into policy, as well as local, state, and national guidelines

66 state-wide funding for WSUD research and design, including a AUS $120m investment in the development of large scale rainwater harvesting

66 innovative market-based offset scheme

66 assessment tools for designers, planners, and regulators

66 dedicated WSUD training (eg Clearwater, Ewater, Healthy Waterways)

66 residential subdivisions that meet surface water runoff quality targets, and ensuring all subdivisions include WSUD criteria.


Case study 3.2 Troups Creek Surface water runoff harvesting project, Narre Warren North, Victoria

This is a residential development of 58 houses. The aim of the project is to provide the residential properties with an alternative source of water for non-potable water use. The project also aimed to provide additional capacity for surface water runoff treatment with the Troups Creek East catchment.

Water is abstracted from Troup’s Creek and also collected from catchment runoff treated within a wetland area. Also, water fromroofsiscollectedforuse.Thewaterisusedforoutdooruse,toiletflushingandwashingmachinecoldtaps.

The scheme is estimated to save 50 to 75 per cent of potable water use compared to conventional residential developments of similar density and type.

Case study 3.1 Coomera Waters Development, Gold Coast, Queensland

The site at Coomera consists of a new residential development constructed around an existing lake and ecologically significantwetlandarea.Theaimoftheprojectwastoreducetherateofwaterconsumptionandtodevelopalternativewater sources to substitute conventional water supplies. The development aimed to not affect the current hydrologic and hydrogeological regime and so supported recharging the groundwater as well as not increasing the impervious area. The siteaimstoreducetheeffectoffloodingbyprovidingappropriatecollectionandconveyancesystemsaroundthesitetodirect the surface water away from properties. These conveyance systems were required to be incorporated into the urban designofthesiteallowingtheGItobecomeaestheticallypleasingandeducational,whichprovidedasocialbenefittothescheme.

The surface water was treated using bioretention basins and swales along with a constructed wetland.

Residentsusetherecycledrainwaterfornon-potablepurposesincludingtoiletflushingandoutdooruse,achievedbytheuse of a dual reticulation pipe network (Water by Design, 2010).

Figure 3.4 Integrated bioretention corridor and seating area in Southport, Brisbane

CIRIA, C724 21

1

2

4

7

8

5

6

3

3.2 United States

Drivers for change

In the late 1960s, observations of heavily polluted watercourses in many parts of the US became common. The issue came to the forefront in June 1969 when the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio caught fire due to a discharge of highly volatile petroleum from an oil slick floating nearby. The solution came through national government regulation with the Clean Water Act (CWA) 1972, which gave the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) the power to develop and regulate water quality standards. The CWA evolved in 1987 to require more urban areas to obtain surface water runoff discharge permits, and was further expanded in 1999 to also cover smaller municipalities. In conjunction with the evolution of federal water regulations, research highlighting the benefits of controlling runoff at its source emerged for both environmental protection and flood risk management reasons and resulted in the promotion of the use of best management practices (BMPs) (equivalent to SuDS). BMPs are seen as part of the low impact development (LID) planning and design approach in the USA, which includes a wider range of considerations such as water supply and energy management (US EPA, 2012) and is akin to WSUD. LID is defined as “a comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach with a goal of maintaining and enhancing the pre-development hydrologic regime of urban and developing watersheds” (Low Impact Development Centre, 2011). The motive for taking this approach has been environmental protection under the Clean Water Act 1972, although flood risk management is also considered important. Most recently, BMPs have become synonymous with the use of GI or green stormwater management in the USA due to the multiple benefits arising from using vegetated surface water management systems (Ashley et al, 2011, US EPA, 2012, and Digman et al, 2012).

The Low Impact Development Centre <www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/> has been developed as a non-profit organisation dedicated to the advancement of LID technology (Low Impact Development Center, 2011), and similarly the Water Environment Research Foundation <www.werf.org/> promotes best management practices for surface water runoff. In a similar fashion to those in Australia, these co-ordinating bodies provide guidance and training. In a similar fashion to the ecosystem services appraisals in the UK, several valuation tools, including the CNT Green Values Stormwater Toolbox (CNT, 2012) have been developed to quantify the multiple benefits of GI and have helped to justify decentralised water management interventions.

In terms of water supply, water scarcity issues, particularly in the west of the USA have driven demand for alternative water supplies, requiring both large scale and small scale interventions. Decentralised wastewater recycling systems such as membrane bioreactors and living machine systems (see Figure 3.6 integrated into the San Francisco water utility’s building) have been successful.

Barriers to change

In delivering LID the USA has experienced a number of barriers. Much like other areas, uncertainties regarding cost and performance are most prominent. Many other barriers exist, including (Roy et al, 2008):

66 many engineers, architects, landscapers and policy makers lack the knowledge, resources and capacity to support, implement, and regulate LID. Educating professionals through targeted workshops is fundamental for the increased adoption of LID principles

66 as watersheds are regulated at the county and city level, regulations vary across watersheds. Grassroots efforts can help improve regulations for watersheds lacking effective guardianship

66 decentralised water and drainage infrastructure can transfer maintenance costs to different parties and can be perceived as a cost increase. Many areas also require training and education costs to deliver the required skills. Properly designed incentive-based policies were found to help mitigate these additional costs.


Successful application

Various cities across the US have successfully embraced WSUD principles under the guise of LID or GI movements. These are outlined Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 How LID initiatives have been delivered across the US

Location Low impact development initiatives

Portland and ChicagoThesecitiesfirstprovedtheprinciplesworkedthroughpilotprojectsonpublicsites.Soondevelopers followed their example, and with the help of effective incentive programmes, good practice surface water runoff management is now considered business as usual.

OrlandoThe city has delivered source control and best management practices for redevelopments to improve water quality. Due to the city’s wet climate, large water features, such as ponds, have long been used and are considered aesthetically appealing to residents.

Philadelphia

The Green City Clean Waters programme has embraced a city-wide program to manage surface waterrunoffthroughGIinanefforttoreducecombinedseweroverflows(PWD,2012).Thisprogressive approach will combine grey and green infrastructure to use green roofs, rain gardens, pervious pavements, and vegetated swales, and open spaces to manage surface water runoff acrossitswatershed.ThisapproachprovidesUS$2.8bnofbenefitsincontrasttoUS$122mforthesole grey infrastructure approach.

New YorkFunding a US $2.4bn public-private plan to reduce storm runoff from the city’s streets (Bloomberg and Holloway, 2010). New York’s initiatives are complementary to wider urban agriculture and drinking water campaigns and have created an ambitious and widespread movement.

Orange County Wastewater treatment to supplement potable supply (via groundwater injection) in Orange County (Archibold, 2007).

CIRIA, C724 23

1

2

4

7

8

5

6

3Figure 3.5 Integrated street rain gardens in Portland, Oregon

Figure 3.6 Living machine system designed to treat wastewater locally, combining mechanical and vegetative treatment (courtesy Living Machine Systems)


Figure 3.7 Water sensitive green corridor in San Francisco

Case study 3.3 Green City, Clean Waters, Philadelphia

Philadelphia has a 25 year plan to enhance their watersheds by managing surface water runoff using GI. This is in the hope to continue to meet customer expectations while still delivering a safe and affordable water supply. The aims of the planaretoprovidecollectionandtreatmentofwastewaterandsurfacewaterrunoff,providefloodprotection,aswellasprovidingclean,attractivefishable,swimmableriversandstreams.Asnewchallengesarefacedthedecisiontoshiftawayfrom traditional solutions towards GI has been made.

At present the increase in population and urbanisation has led to an increase in the surface water runoff volume and combinedseweroverflowspills.TheaimoftheprojectistobettermanagethesurfacewaterrunoffwiththeuseofGI.Thisshouldleadtoeconomic,socialandenvironmentalbenefitsforPhiladelphia.

As part of this initiative Philadelphia Water Department introduced a Stormwater Management Incentives Program that made $5m available for grants and $5m available for low interest (one per cent) loans for any commercial organisation that wanted to implement schemes that reduced surface water runoff. Businesses can also get a tax credit for up to 25 per cent of the cost of green roofs

The plan is to use: surface water runoff tree trenches, surface water runoff build-outs in roads, surface water runoff planters,perviouspavements,greenroofs,rainbarrels/cisterns,raingardensandflow-throughplanters.

For more information go to: http://tinyurl.com/d3fxb4p

Figure 3.8 Artist impression of a greened neighbourhood and street in Philadelphia (courtesy Jim Smullen)

CIRIA, C724 25

1

2

4

7

8

5

6

3

3.3 Other countriesOther countries have also made significant progress in integrating urban planning and design to achieve water management objectives. Some of the more significant progressions are described in the following sections.

Singapore

Singapore is a highly urbanised area that experiences high rainfall but suffers from a lack of water supply bodies. Understanding the scarcity of water in the community, the country has embraced a WSUD approach, and has gradually developed a pervasive network of waterways and reservoirs to overcome its water challenges (Wong and Brown, 2008). Two-thirds of the nation now functions as local catchment areas collecting and storing rainwater in 17 reservoirs, 32 major rivers and more than 7000 km of canals and drains to be directed and reused as the City’s water supply (Droege, 2009). With the vision of converting Marina Bay into a surface water runoff reservoir, the Singapore Government is leading the transition to a water sensitive city state. Through the development of the Active-Beautiful-Clean (ABC) Waters Programme, Singapore is retrofitting its waterways into attractive places for the community while at the same time functioning to filter surface water runoff (Singapore Government, 2012). In an effort to integrate urban planning, with the improvement, protection and management of the water cycle, the ABC Waters Programme has grown to establish its own set of water design guidelines (Droege, 2009).

New Zealand

New Zealand applies WSUD principles under the term Low Impact Urban Design and Development (LIUDD) (van Roon, 2011). However, the LIUDD concept seems to emphasise the need to minimise a wide range of adverse effects of a physiochemical, biodiversity, social, economic and amenity nature resulting from conventional development (van Roon, 2011). This is in contrast to the benefits and opportunities that WSUD promotes and seeks to use. Although LIUDD has also been used at a catchment scale, this is not typical, and in contrast WSUD would bring together integrated catchment management with LID (van Roon, 2011a). Application of LIUDD mostly consists of application of WSUD and urban planning to protect and preserve ecological areas. Extensive areas of New Zealand are ‘off-grid’ and have a more self-sufficient attitude to water management, with rainwater harvesting a common feature.

Figure 3.9 Industrial wastewater wetland


Germany

Germany has a wide range of water sensitive projects. There are many projects incorporating surface water treatment. For example, Hohlgrabenacker, a new residential development in Stuttgart, has delivered green roofs, permeable paving, and cisterns to capture, store, and reuse rainwater, see case study 3.4. Germany also contains one of the preeminent WSUD designs in a public space. Potsdamer Platz in Berlin is designed to have an aesthetically pleasing design, including water features and substantial GI, while also being engineered to capture, treat and reuse water to be reused in neighbouring buildings (Hoyer, 2011).

While these projects are considered archetypal developments in their integration of WSUD, anecdotally, water suppliers have also reported widespread uptake of rainwater and greywater harvesting systems throughout the country. This is supported by data that suggests that German cities consume half the amount of water other European cities do (Siemens, 2011).

Figure 3.10 Waitangi Park Wetland, Wellington

Case study 3.4 Hohlgrabenäcker, Stuttgart, Germany (Switch, 2006)

The site is a residential site in the city of Stuttgart. The aim of the site is to create a residential site that is sustainable andfulfilstherequirementsofthewaterrelatedlegislationinBaden-WürttembergandStuttgartCityCouncilwhileconsidering the local hydrogeological conditions. This requires the reduction in site runoff by 30 per cent and on site infiltrationofsurfacewaterrunoff.Thesitewastestedasunsuitableforsurfacewaterinfiltrationandsoacombinationof solutions has had to be adopted. These include green roofs, rainwater tanks and pervious pavements. Green roofs are used for water detention and storage and also act as a cooling mechanism through evapotranspiration, as well as providinghabitats.Rainwatertanksareusedforcollectionandreuseofwaterinthehomes,forirrigation,toiletflushingand clothes washing. Permeable paving is used on all streets on the site to reduce the quantity of surface water runoff.

An economic comparison of the scheme showed that the whole life costs for this scheme are less than the cost of a conventional scheme.

Thesiteprovidesanaestheticandeducationbenefitbyvisuallyremindingresidentsofthewatersavings.Itisestimatedthat the total savings over the next 30 years due to the implementation of the WSUD techniques will be over €1m.

CIRIA, C724 27

1

2

4

7

8

5

6

3

The Netherlands

Situated six metres below sea level, Rotterdam has been at the forefront of sustainable water management and flood control in the Netherlands. The risk of rising sea levels has provided the impetus for the city to initiate the Rotterdam Climate Proof (RCP) programme, which has the goal to ‘climate proof’ the city by 2025. Rotterdam is focusing on sustainable drainage measures in combination with water storage to mitigate flood risk and improve water quality. Green roofs are mandatory on all municipal properties, while private properties are subsidised €30 per square metre of green roof installed. To mitigate impacts from heavy rainfall, the city is investigating the opportunity for developing water squares. These multifunctional spaces often take the form of a depressed sports field surrounded by a sloped field, with the capability to attenuate and store water during wetter times of the year. Rotterdam is also investing in other forms of surface water runoff storage. For example, a new car park near Museumpark includes the Netherlands’ largest water storage facility with the capacity to hold 10 million litres of rainwater. Water storage strategies like these will reduce pressure on the existing sewer system while mitigating flood risk (Mackenzie, 2010).

For more information go to: <www.rotterdamclimateinitiative.nl/en/english_2011_design>.

Summary

66 WSUDhasbeenappliedwithsignificantsuccessinsomecountries,notablyAustraliaandtheUSundertheguiseoflow impact development (LID)

66 many countries have examples of adopting WSUD, suggesting the process is gaining mass appeal internationally66 the key ‘agents for change’ that aided the application of WSUD included:

66 heightened environmental awareness for water resource protection and water quality improvement in watercourses

66 establishment of a clear movement for change led by a co-ordinating body66 the development of guidance, tools and training for practitioners66 active politicians and commitments66 supportive policy instruments and direction66 practitioner enthusiasm and demonstrative practice.

66 thereareaseriesofcommonbarriersthathavebeenidentifiedincluding:66 lack of knowledge66 absence of good cross-disciplinary working66 mis-match of institutional scales of operation between the catchment, city and development level66 multiplestakeholdersreceivingbothcostsandbenefitsmakingitdifficulttostructureinitiatives66 risk aversion and resistance to changing ‘business as usual’.


4.1 Current level of application of WSUD principles in the UKThe realisation that water in urban areas can be managed differently to traditional approaches has been growing. This challenges the conventional approach in the developed world where water supply and sanitation systems are designed, operated and managed in isolation with the primary design goal of ‘getting all waste(water) as quickly and efficiently out of towns’ (Allen, 2008, and Nelson, 2012).

It is now understood that traditional systems are resource consumptive and unsustainable, especially with regard to energy use (Kenway and Lant, 2012). Also, they fail to use the wealth of opportunities to direct water collection at source, enhance urban space (MacPherson, 2012, and Wong et al, 2012) and recover resources. Traditional engineering of water, surface water runoff and wastewater systems is still too often centralised

and constrained by a ‘problem-solving’ tradition, rather than taking an ‘opportunistic’ stance, where the management of apparent problems is seen as a potential way to enhance urban living.

The water shortages experienced across England in the spring and summer of 2012 highlight some of the pitfalls of conventional water management. While a water sensitive city is still affected by unpredictable weather patterns, the ability to store water and manage its use on a smaller scale means that local communities, neighbourhoods, and individuals can adapt their behaviour accordingly and have greater control over their water supply. Reorganising existing water management practices to take advantage of these benefits will be a long-term strategy, and one that is in agreement with the WSUD process.

Urban designers, architects, and planners have identified the value of combining water and GI in urban landscapes to increase multi-functional

land use, and help with adapting to climate change (Landscape Institute and Town and Country Planning Association, 2012). In existing developments, SuDS and GI have been adopted as a means of creating communities more resilient to future problems.

Recently, there have been major changes in the UK in expectations of surface water management, with a preference for sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) in new developments. For example, more than 50 per cent of local authorities now include SuDS within their development policies (Woods-Ballard, 2012). Changes to legislation under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 will ensure that SuDS become commonplace in the future in England and Wales, while in Scotland, SUDS have been commonplace in development proposals since the introduction of the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) Regulations (Scotland) 2005. Currently there is limited legislation covering Northern Ireland. These and other legislation are discussed further in Chapter 5. A challenge for SuDS remains achieving good integration with placemaking objectives through active cross-disciplinary working.

4 How successful has the UK been in applying a water sensitive approach?

This chapter discusses the current level of application of WSUD principles in the UK, drawing on available evidence and results from workshops, phone interviews and a questionnaire conducted

as part of this project to gain the views of a variety of stakeholders and practitioners.

Holistic consideration of water in the urban

catchment can deliver significantbenefitsovertraditional approaches to water management. By taking an end-to-end view of water in the urban environment we canfindjoined-upsolutionsthat look for synergies over individual solutions.”

Mike KeilClimate change manager,

Severn Trent Water

“

We typically manage water in different

stakeholder boxes and I don’t think we are joined up. For example we aren’t joining the dotsonfloodriskmanagementwith water resource management, we could be holdingontomoreofourfloodwater for reuse rather than rushing it out to sea.”

Michael NortonWater engineer, ICE

“

CIRIA, C724 29

1

2

3

7

8

5

6

4

Surface water runoff is only one part of the water cycle, and initiatives relating to water supply, wastewater treatment and flood resilience in towns and cities have been less consistent in application. There are few examples of provision of alternative water supplies from rainwater, surface water runoff, greywater or wastewater, with only the use of water butts being considered commonplace in the UK. Water efficient fixtures are fairly common in new developments, but retrofits of existing buildings remains a challenge. There is guidance available to adjust housing design for flood resilience, but this is yet to be required through planning for new developments or undertaken through extensive retrofit schemes. There are some examples of urban landscapes designed to withstand and accommodate flooding, mainly through the provision of green corridors alongside rivers that double as recreational spaces. For example, the re-design of the Lee River Valley corridor for the Olympic Park development in East London is one example of a retrofit of a flood adaptable urban landscape and, similarly, in large scale regeneration in South Dalmarnock in Glasgow. Also, the use of roads and highways as formal flood exceedance routes as is now being delivered in Dublin (streets as streams, roads as rivers pilot study), and shows how flood management can be planned more effectively when water is considered in concert with other urban services.

Case study 4.1 New Heartlands Project in Cornwall

Heartlands is a community led regenerative social enterprise, part funded by a Big Lottery grant of £22.5m, implementing RWH and SuDS in a mixed use development.

The development provides parks, playgrounds, cafés, learning centres, transport links and community buildings. Alongside the historic centre are housing and business units.

A communal rainwater harvesting strategy has been used to collect rainwater from the roofs off buildings to be reused fortoiletflushing,waterfeaturesandirrigation.Surfacewatermanagementisusedtopreventfloodingandrechargegroundwater.Thisincludesrainwaterharvestingasaboveandviabasins,ponds,permeablepaving,filterstrippedchannels.Thequalityofthewaterismaintainedthroughwaterqualitymanagementusingartificialandvegetativefiltration.

Alsowaterefficientfixturesandfittingshavebeenused.Intotal,thereductioninpotablewaterdemandisaround60percent.Thecombinationofwaterefficientfixturesandfittingsandtherainwaterharvestingsystemshouldprovidea60 per cent reduction in potable water demands. These help to ensure the buildings comply with the BRE Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) Excellent rating levels.

Figure 4.1Rainwater harvesting tank

Figure 4.2Rainwater collection channel

Sometimes, engineers can be enamoured with

big technological solutions but sustainable water management often requires small, humble local solutions. This requires lots of talking and collaboration”

Tim WatermanLandscape architect and

lecturer, Writtle College

“


Case study 4.2 Wastewater recycling plant, London Olympic Park

The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) set a target of 40 per cent reduction in the use of potable water on the Olympic Park.30percentwasachievedthroughwaterefficientdevicesinvenues.Thenon-potablewatersupplynetworkprovides a 10 per cent reduction in the use of potable network on the Olympic Park achieving the ODA’s sustainability objective. Non-potable water is harvested from the northern outfall sewer and treated for reuse.

The site also has the largest wastewater harvesting scheme in Europe, which harvests wastewater from a trunk sewer to provide irrigation water for the park. Thames Water is operating the plant as a pilot project for seven years. Options to keep and extend the non-potable network to serve communities in the area are being investigated.

Figure 4.3 The wastewater recycling plant at Old Ford

Case study 4.3 Caerau and Brynglas Market Garden, Wales

Groundwork UK – Wales and the Caerau Development Trust are working in partnership to create a community market gardenon1.4haofbrownfieldsitebehindAlexandraRoad,CaeraunearMaesteginWales.Thesiteoftenexperiencesfloodingduringbadweather,alongwiththehousesalongAlexandraRoad.Inordertomanagethefloodingissuesandsupport the future of the market garden, the site is being developed to help conserve and use the water coming off the surrounding land.

This involves large storage units, which will be used to irrigate the raised beds. The water will be collected off the surrounding hills and the roofs of the polytunnels of the site. A drainage ditch will be used to trap any excess water. This is to avoid sending excess surface water to the main drainage system, and will only be used in times of high rainfall.

The overall project should provide a sustainable and carbon neutral business, which has a minimum environmental impact.

For more information go to: http://tinyurl.com/cwl7yuw

Case study 4.4 Tooley Street redevelopment, London, UK

Aninnovative,award-winningmixedusedevelopmentprovidingfivefloorsofflexibleoffice/commercial/retail/residentialspace. A variety of technologies were used within the design to minimise the environmental impact of the building, taking an integrated approach to the management of resources. A rainwater harvesting system, including a large rainwater tank, was installed within the development to supply the non-potable needs for WCs. The project was one of thefirstcompletedmajorofficedevelopmentsinLondontomeettheLondonMayor’s10percentrenewableenergypolicy and has achieved a ‘Very Good’ BREEAM rating.

CIRIA, C724 31

1

2

3

7

8

5

6

4

Perspectives on the potential for WSUD in the UK

As part of the scoping study, gathering the views of the relevant professions and stakeholders was seen as being critical to understanding how WSUD is viewed and incorporated in the UK. Phone interviews were conducted with 10 practitioners representing key disciplines and actors (or ‘stakeholders’), including practitioners involved in planning and design of the built environment, regulators, community champions and developers. Key quotes and views from these interviews are dispersed through this report to aid discussion.

A questionnaire was also developed and circulated to gain views from a wider body of professionals. The questionnaire was distributed to CIRIA networks and also by Royal Town Planning Institute, Urban Design Group, and the Landscape Institute to target views from a range of disciplines involved in planning and designing the built environment. In total, 207 professionals responded to the survey. Figure 4.4 shows the breakdown of responding professions and their disciplinary group. Figure 4.5 further outlines the percentage of professionals working in specific types of work. Geographically, as shown in Figure 4.6, a relatively good spread of responses was achieved across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Figure 4.4 Breakdown of questionnaire respondents

What I would say is that water still does

not have the standing that it needs to have in planning and urban design. The scale and implications of it are still not fully understood. Hence wearestillgettingflooding,we are still getting problems. We haven’t come to terms with the full impact of getting it wrong.”

Mike VoutUrban designer, Borough

of Telford and Wrekin

“


Figure 4.5 Main type of work undertaken by respondents from each disciplinary group

CIRIA, C724 33

1

2

3

7

8

5

6

4

Figure 4.6 Geographic representation of questionnaire responses


Application of WSUD in the UK

The results of the questionnaire suggest that the term Water Sensitive Urban Design is becoming well known in the UK, with about 68 per cent of respondents being familiar with it. However, this is perhaps a self-selecting result through those who chose to take the survey. From those who responded, WSUD was understood to primarily focus on surface water management, flood management and improvement of watercourses and ecosystems while providing GI and placemaking benefits. Figure 4.7 shows the topics and initiatives respondents associated with WSUD (with association relative to font size).

Figure 4.7 Associations of water sensitive urban design according to respondents (larger the font more common the response)

Respondents overwhelmingly reported that WSUD is rarely applied in the UK, and showed that while surface water runoff attenuation was often considered in the planning and urban design process, the other elements of the water cycle were commonly neglected. Consideration of water use reduction and alternative water supplies to reduce strains on water resources was thought to be rarely considered by most. The ability of water to enhance urban landscapes was highlighted as a low-priority consideration, representing a missed opportunity to use water to increase property values and to provide communities with improved public realm. Figure 4.8 shows how water management practices were being considered by practitioners.

CIRIA, C724 35

1

2

3

7

8

5

6

4

The results of the questionnaire show that water is not considered as a high-enough priority in the planning and urban design process, especially when considering the focus given to other pressing environmental issues such as energy and carbon. These results emphasise the need to prioritise water in the urban design process and increase engagement among practitioners in the built environment sector. Equally, the impact of not applying a water sensitive approach could have serious consequences, where evolving urban areas are less able to cope with flooding, water stress and pollution issues and basic quality of life is compromised.

While respondents suggested that WSUD is rarely applied in the UK (see Figure 4.9), there were few areas where they believed they, as practitioners, had a ‘strong influence’ that would allow them to implement WSUD. Considering the inherent need for cross-disciplinary work to achieve WSUD, this is not entirely surprising. Rather, it highlights the need for collaboration – in combining areas of influence, each profession’s circle of influence will be crucial to delivery.

Figure 4.8 Consideration of outcomes through the planning and urban design process currently in the UK (green dot – important consideration, orange – reasonable consideration, red – low consideration)

83 per cent of respondents believed that water was considered too late in the planning process.

Certain elements of water are well

considered in the planning process,particularlyfloodrisk management – both river and surface water. But need to do more when it comes to waterefficiency,supplyandwastewater.”

Simon BunnSuDS engineer,

Cambridge City Council

“


Figure 4.9 SuDS integrated with green corridors and open space to influence layout in the Upton Sustainable Urban Extension

Figure 4.10 outlines where survey respondents believed where they had influence over water management. Generally, flood risk is an area where most professionals believe to have significant influence. While water company professionals considered themselves to have strong influence over waste water, others believed they had no influence at all. There are few areas where professionals thought they had strong influence, but many where they had some influence. This suggests that each profession has a hand in effective management, but not total control. Collaboration will be key to delivering effective WSUD solutions.

I do a lot of public speaking around water

security and I often quote the 2009 UN water development report – water engineers and scientists really enjoy working inside their ‘water box’ where we all gather together to talk about technical things. Water engineers and scientists need to get outside their box and engage with planners and policy makers and this is an uncomfortable zone. I think this is absolutely true.”

Michael NortonWater engineer, ICE

“

CIRIA, C724 37

1

2

3

7

8

5

6

4

Figure 4.10 Feeling of influence on aspects of water management and the built environment from the responding disciplinary groups


Challenges particular to the UK context

The results of the questionnaire, workshops and phone interviews also highlighted some common constraints to the application of WSUD in the UK. It suggested that all of the following areas were lacking:

66 understanding and cross-disciplinary working

66 economic incentives

66 regulatory requirements.

Figure 4.11 Key drivers and barriers for WSUD according to questionnaire results

Most barriers seem to be institutional or process-based in nature, so can be overcome. Changes in institutional structures and formation of partnerships may help to gain a holistic perspective.

In Wales, for example, the formation of Natural Resources Wales (Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru) in April 2013 brought together the work of the Countryside Council for Wales, Environment Agency Wales and Forestry Commission Wales, as well as some functions of Welsh Government.

CIRIA, C724 39

1

2

3

7

8

5

6

4

Natural Resources Wales covers a unique mix of activities for managing, protecting and using natural resources. The purpose of this single environment body is to ensure that the natural resources of Wales are sustainably maintained, used and enhanced. This remit should therefore encourage integrated water and ecosystem management.

However, there are a range of technical challenges for the UK that are worth noting. The general density of urban areas is relatively high compared with other countries where a WSUD approach has been more successful, though success has also been gained in very dense areas such as Singapore and New York. WSUD is not a ‘one size fits all’ approach, and by its very nature it should lead to solutions that are matched to its context as all good design should. Space-hungry solutions will only be suitable in certain areas, but can often be designed in through good use of multi-functional spaces and through early consultation. Designs also need to match the ‘water context’, and use robust environmental and physical analysis to understand local geological and hydrological factors to select solutions and exploit opportunities.

Chapter 7 provides further analysis of the main supporting conditions needed to deliver a WSUD approach and possible catalysts for the UK. Chapter 8 formulates a UK-specific vision and definition for the application of WSUD, and defines a route map to promote and deliver WSUD.

Summary

66 despite clear drivers and needs for a comprehensive and integrated approach to water management through planning and design of the built environment, water sensitive urban design is not currently commonly practiced in the UK

66 themanagementofthequantityofsurfacewaterrunofffromnewdevelopmentisgivensignificantandincreasingattention,butwideraspectssuchaswaterquality,waterefficiencyandwaterharvestingandreusearerarelyconsidered

66 theabilityforwatertoenhanceandimprovethepublicrealmandbringavarietyofbenefitstocommunitiesappears to be undervalued

66 cross-disciplinary working and a higher prioritisation of water in the planning and urban design process, particularly early in that process, is needed to deliver integrated water cycle management.


5.1 Legislative contextPeople live in a complex regulatory landscape that makes the delivery of truly sustainable water management, including WSUD, challenging.

The UK has a long history of producing legislation to regulate and there are more than 250 separate regulations in the UK that would need to be considered when delivering WSUD. The complexity of these legislative requirements may be perceived as a barrier to the delivery of WSUD in the UK and this is an issue that is discussed later in this chapter. Regulation was identified as a potential barrier to the introduction of WSUD by a significant number of respondents to the questionnaire issued as part of this study, as it could potentially restrict innovative approaches to manage the water cycle. However, a more integrated legislative approach to water, as exemplified by the WFD, is important and aligns with the WSUD process.

Legislation and regulation is fragmented, and there is an absence of an overall framework that recognises the interactions of water through all elements of development planning and the water cycle. The following sections discuss key elements of policy and legislation highlighting, where relevant, differences in approach across the home nations.

It should also be noted that the UK Government has an aspiration to reduce the overall burden of legislation, through the Red Tape Challenge. The aspiration is to reduce the burden on industry and encourage greater local responsibility, which could potentially act as a catalyst to WSUD. In December 2012 Defra announced that it is proposing to “scrap or improve” 63 per cent of 168 water regulations reviewed under the Red Tape Challenge. The areas reviewed include water quality, water treatment and flood and coastal risk management.

5.2 European legislationThe EU has published a series of Directives that have a direct bearing on the UK environment and the delivery and management of water infrastructure. The main directives that influence the sustainable management of the water cycle are the:

66 Water Framework Directive (WFD)

66 Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD)

66 Flooding Directive (FD)

66 Bathing Waters Directive

66 Habitats Directive.

In terms of WSUD a few key themes emerge:

Catchment planning: the WFD and the FD formalised the concept of managing rivers in an integrated way through the introduction of River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs). The intent of these Directives

5 How does Water Sensitive Urban Design interact with current regulation?

This chapter provides a brief synopsis of the current legislative context associated with the introduction of WSUD in the UK. It summarises the key elements of regulation across the water

cycle that impact WSUD and examines the influence of future trends in policy on WSUD.

CIRIA, C724 41

1

2

3

7

8

6

5

4

is to manage water better across the whole water cycle and in this context there would appear to be close alignment with the principles of WSUD. However, the European Commission (EC) is also aware of cases in which policy consistency between WFD objectives and sectoral policies, such as energy and agriculture, is not aligned. This is looking to be addressed through the Blueprint for Water, which is discussed later in this scoping study. The WFD provides the legislative driver for an integrated approach to water management. The first cycle of RBMPs is complete, and the development of the second cycle of the RBMPs (due to be completed by 2015) with the focus on Significant Water Management Issues has the potential to facilitate further integration across the water cycle. In particular, the identification of significant water management issues during the consultation phase on the RBMP in the second half of 2013, could consider WSUD-led responses.

Water resources: the WFD looks to promote the sustainable use of water, it requires that sustainable levels of abstraction from rivers to ensure the minimum flows necessary to support algae, plants, fish and macro-invertebrates whose presence confers good ecological status on a water body. Reduced abstraction and more stringent discharge consents are likely to lead to wider adoption of demand management measures, including water recycling and reuse. The UWWTD also requires that waste water should be reused ‘whenever appropriate’.

The EC’s White Paper sets out a framework to reduce the EU’s vulnerability to the effect of climate change, including a potential intensification of extreme events such as floods and droughts. The impact assessment carried out for the White Paper concluded that land use and land management measures that strengthen the resilience of water and environmental resources had the potential for providing cost-effective adaptation to climate change through increases in water retention by soil and ecosystems. It also noted that such measures, which are consistent with WSUD, may provide multiple benefits in the form of water resource retention, water self-purification, biodiversity benefits, flood management and soil improvements. The assessment concluded that the current administrative setups do not seem to be geared to take full advantage of this potential. This is an issue that is also being explored within the Blueprint for Water (EC, 2012).

5.3 UK policy and strategy

Water White Paper and Draft Water BillThe UK Government’s Water White Paper (Defra, 2011b) represents its response to three major reviews of the water sector:

1 Cave (2009) Review of competition and innovation in water markets (The Cave Report).

2 Walker (2009) Review of charging for household water and sewerage services (Walker Review).

3 Gray (2011) Review of Ofwat and consumer representation in the water sector (Gray Review).

Defra (2011b) in Water for Life sets out a vision for a resilient water sector, in which water is valued as a resource and is managed appropriately. The Draft Water Bill identifies several specific measures to strengthen the water sector’s ability to respond to population growth and less certain water supplies. Important reforms relating to the water industry include:

66 the introduction of a package of reforms to extend competition in the water sector by increasing choice for business customers and public sector bodies and by making the market more attractive to new entrants

66 encouraging water companies to introduce social tariffs to support vulnerable customers

66 with the Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and Ofwat, the provision of clearer guidance to water companies on planning for the long-term, and keeping demand down.

Defra (2011b) represents a call to action for the water industry to protect the environment while still providing water of good quality for an increasing population. It focuses on finding opportunities to


reduce river abstraction and providing ways to incentivise less wasteful use of water. The paper seeks to address the issues of pollution by a ‘catchment based approach’ and aims to tackle over-abstraction from rivers by providing better incentives for the suitable management of abstractions. This is a significant step towards the UK Government’s longer term objective to reform water abstraction, as introduced by HM Government (2011). In terms of WSUD the document recognises the potential of working within catchments and across stakeholders to manage water better: “Catchment-sized projects are local projects, making use of local networks, tapping into local enthusiasm, addressing local concerns. Working at a catchment level enables all those with an interest to see how they can tackle water issues together, in a way that not only improves water quality but also delivers benefits to the whole area” (Defra, 2011b).

Although specific measures on water efficiency are absent, the Water White Paper advocates measures around rainwater harvesting and water efficient fittings. It also sets out how the UK Government will encourage and incentivise water efficiency measures, including the use of the Green Deal Initiative (Energy Act 2011) and water efficiency labelling for water using appliances as well as fixtures and fittings.

Natural Environment White PaperThe document produced in 2011 outlines the UK Government’s vision for the natural environment over the next 50 years. It describes four generic ambitions:

66 protecting and improving the natural environment

66 growing a green economy

66 reconnecting people and nature

66 international and EU leadership.

Many of the detailed requirements for these ambitions have influenced the ‘commitments’ that have been stated in the Water White Paper. The Natural England White Paper reinforces the importance of the water cycle in delivering on the four ambitions. The document strongly encourages the delivery of ‘natural systems’ and GI, objectives that are consistent with a WSUD approach. It also refers to:

Landscape scale conservation that requires the pursuit of multiple benefits across a defined area (eg water quality, biodiversity and access). The best examples make links to wider economic and social priorities, where enhancing nature can provide benefits to the local economy and quality of life.

Developing partnerships across administrative boundaries that reflect natural features, systems and landscapes, working at a scale that has the most effect. Where necessary, they may join up on cross-boundary issues, such as landscape scale action for biodiversity, water management, GI, air quality and ecosystem services more widely.

Welsh Government Water Strategy and Written Statement – Water Policy in WalesThe Welsh Government published their Strategic Policy Position Statement on Water in 2009. This document, which was updated in 2011, presented the Welsh Government’s priorities for the management of water, although it is likely to be replaced by a Welsh Government Water Strategy. The Strategic Policy outlines some of the main differences between the approaches of the English and Welsh governments and identifies a set of environmental strategy outcomes.

In 2011 the Welsh Government published its Written Statement on water policy in Wales (Griffiths, 2011). The Written Statement builds on the wider commitments set out in the Sustainable Development Scheme, One Wales: One Planet 2009 (Welsh Government, 2009), the Climate Change Strategy for Wales 2010 (Welsh Government, 2010a) and the Strategic Policy Position Statement on Water 2011 (Welsh Government, 2011).

Some of the key drivers/targets cited within the Written Statement support the concept of WSUD, including:

CIRIA, C724 43

1

2

3

4

7

8

6

5

66 developing an evidence base on mechanisms that will encourage innovation and a longer term shift towards a system that recognises the value of the water resource available to Wales

66 promoting the deployment of SuDS to help ease the surface water burden on the sewerage system and alleviate flood risk

66 promoting water efficiency through products and behavioural change linking messages on water efficiency with climate change communications campaign in the context of living more sustainably

66 recognising that the WFD can support a more integrated, whole catchment approach to water management

66 highlighting the impact of diffuse pollution on water quality, with a need for solutions to tackle the problem in both rural and urban areas.

Sustaining a living Wales green paperThis green paper, published in 2012, explores a new approach to the management of natural resources in Wales, recognising that one of the main challenges Wales faces in the 21st century is to find ways of securing a healthy, resilient and productive environment that delivers for society as a whole. It also recognises the importance of a regulatory and management approach having a strong spatial or place based dimension because “the best use of land or water will vary hugely from place to place”.

It supports a holistic management approach and notes that there is a need for a planning regime that enables all options to meet water resource challenges to be explored. This includes a more integrated view on environmental, social and economic outcomes supporting regeneration and improved health and well-being.

Building a hydro nation – a consultationThe Scottish Government launched a consultation paper in 2012 that aimed to build on the previous consultation published in 2011. The document identifies a number of aspirations that will deliver the strategic vision:

66 Scotland’s expertise in governance of water resources will be recognised internationally and Scotland will have partnered with other nations in developing their water governance framework

66 Scotland’s water industry will be known for its transformation in performance and for low carbon sustainable approaches

66 Scotland’s research community will participate in international research programmes contributing solutions to important issues

66 the value of water resources to the economy will be increasingly realised through the development and marketing of technologies and services and the attraction of water intensive activities from areas of water stress.

The focus of the consultation paper (Scottish Government 2012) is on water resources and delivering economic gain, raising Scotland’s international profile and delivering on knowledge and research. Water efficiency is referred to in the context of providing climate change mitigation.

Climate changeFollowing the Stern Review in 2005 the UK Government signalled a need for a clear strategic approach to climate change and produced a legislative framework in the Climate Change Act 2008 (DECC, 2008). The main provisions of this Act included a commitment to an 80 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and 26 per cent reduction of CO2 emissions by 2020. The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan (DECC, 2009), published in July 2009, outlines the policies and proposals that will be put in place to decarbonise the UK economy.

The Energy Act 2011 provided for a change in the provision of energy efficiency measures. In particular it introduced the Green Deal Initiative, which is a new financing framework to enable the provision of


fixed improvements to the energy efficiency of households and non-domestic properties, funded by a charge on energy bills that avoids the need for consumers to pay upfront costs.

One of the mechanisms for delivering on the Climate Change Act is the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) scheme, which covers the water sector in the UK. The CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme Order 2010 is a mandatory UK Government initiative aimed at improving energy efficiency and cutting emissions in large public and private sector organisations. The whole water cycle is now under close scrutiny, particularly with regard to its carbon output and this will require significant behavioural changes from regulators, water service providers and all water consumers. There are clearly opportunities to align this increased focus on carbon with the potential benefits associated with WSUD.

In 2008 Ofwat published a Climate Change Policy Statement, which set out how climate change is expected to affect the water and waste water sectors in England and Wales. Climate change adaptation for water companies should comply with Ofwat’s policy guidance. A WSUD approach will assist water companies with meeting many of the areas needing to be addressed by their climate change adaptation strategies. These areas include (Ofwat, 2008):

66 water resources

66 leakage targets

66 water efficiency

66 water quality and treatment

66 maintaining serviceability

66 drainage.

Scottish Water have set a zero net energy import target by 2020, which is being considered in the context of energy production, but will also need to look at energy reduction in the supply and treatment of water.

Climate Change Strategy for WalesThe Climate Change Strategy for Wales (Welsh Government, 2010) sets out where the Welsh Government will act to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that Wales produces. It also explains how Wales will prepare for the impacts of climate change. The Strategy addresses:

66 the current scientific evidence about climate change and the impacts we might expect to see in Wales and across the world

66 the need for urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to prepare for the impacts of climate change

66 the role in leading and supporting action on tackling climate change, and the roles of other organisations in taking action

66 how the Strategy supports the Sustainable Development Scheme One Wales: One Planet (Welsh Government, 2009), and how both together will help deliver Welsh Government’s vision of Wales in the year 2050

66 the key target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by three per cent per year in areas Welsh Government control.

Flood risk managementFlood and Water Management Act 2010In the summer of 2007 severe rainfall events across large parts of the UK resulted in unprecedented rates of surface water runoff. Thirteen people lost their lives and over 55,000 homes and several thousand businesses were flooded leading to estimated insurance claims of £3.3bn. The Pitt Review (Pitt, 2008) suggested 92 recommendations for consideration. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 gives effect to the UK Government’s response to that review. The Act reinforces the need to manage flooding holistically and sustainably. It places a number of new roles and responsibilities on the lead local

CIRIA, C724 45

1

2

3

4

7

8

6

5

flood authority, including the preparation of a local flood risk management strategy (LFRMS).

The Act aims to create a healthier environment, better services and greater protection for people and their communities and business, consistent with the principles of WSUD. The Act will affect water cycle management by:

66 delivering improved security, service and sustainability of water for people and their communities

66 clarifying who is responsible for managing all sources of flood risk

66 protecting vital water supplies by enabling water companies to control more non-vital uses of water during droughts

66 encouraging more sustainable forms of drainage in new developments to make it easier to resolve misconnections to sewers.

One of the main outcomes that will affect water cycle management in new developments is the shift from building flood defences to flood risk management. Water on site will need greater consideration especially as the Act ends the automatic right for a new development to connect to the sewer system for surface drainage. Instead there will be the requirement to use SuDS to manage surface water.

Flood Risk Management Act (Scotland) 2009This Act introduces a more sustainable and modern approach to flood risk management in Scotland and creates a more joined up and co-ordinated process to manage flood risk at a national and local level. Specific measures within the Act include:

66 a framework for co-ordination and co-operation between all organisations involved in flood risk management

66 the assessment of flood risk and preparation of flood risk management plans

66 new responsibilities for Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Scottish Water and local authorities in relation to flood risk management

66 a revised, streamlined process for flood protection schemes

66 new methods to enable stakeholders and the public to contribute to managing flood risk.

Guidance on delivering sustainable flood risk management has been published alongside the bill (Scottish Government 2011). It talks inter alia about a new approach involving more collaboration across agencies, a greater role for communities in managing the risks they face and a more integrated approach to managing urban water.

Planning and developmentEnglandPlanning policy statementsIn England, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (DCLG, 2012b) was published in March 2012. The rationalised planning policy in England contains much less detail in relation to water cycle management. Within the NPPF, planning and development decisions are to be informed by the delivery of Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRA). The framework focuses on the effect of new development on flood risk and advises that SuDS should be given priority with references to the Flood and Water Management Act 2012. The NPPF replaces the previous Planning Policy Statements (PPSs), which contained almost 1300 pages of planning guidance.

Localism and local decision makingThe UK Coalition Government in 2010 introduced an agenda of localism and decentralisation with decisions and accountability being proactively passed down from central government to local communities and local government.

The Decentralisation and the Localism Bill (DCLG, 2010) lists six actions for every department and every level of government to:


66 lift the burden of bureaucracy

66 empower communities to do things their way

66 increase local control of public finance

66 diversify the supply of public services

66 open up government to public scrutiny

66 strengthen accountability to local people.

The Localism Act 2011 also removed the need for regional planning guidance and policy. Regional policies will still have to be taken into account in decisions on planning applications, although the weight that can be attached to them will vary case by case. The UK Government has supported localism through the development of local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) and business improvement districts (BIDs). These have been established to help local regeneration and improve the local quality of life. Many of the BIDs in London are being used to deliver GI, for example the Victoria BID, which is retrofitting green roofs and rain gardens to improve surface water management and beautify the area (Digman et al, 2012).

Neighbourhood planningThe UK Government’s neighbourhood planning proposals aim to devolve many of the planning responsibilities to a more local level. A fundamental principle is that neighbourhood planning should be community-led with the community being in charge of the process but with the local planning authority making necessary decisions at key stages. Neighbourhood planning includes various tools such as neighbourhood development plans (NDPs), neighbourhood development orders (NDOs), village appraisals and Community Right to Build Orders. NDP’s provide an opportunity to deliver more locally focused water management, while being aligned to a wider catchment based approach.

Overall, the shift to local government and local decision making and responsibility for planning, flood risk and health is a potentially significant positive shift for embracing WSUD and could complement some aspects of the proposed Water Bill.

Water cycle studiesThe purpose of the water cycle study (WCS) methodology is to examine the potential effects of future growth in relation to three main aspects of the water cycle:

66 water resources

66 water quality

66 flood risk.

They were only undertaken in areas that were identified by the UK Government as ‘growth zones’ and only looked at the infrastructure needed to support the growth areas. The principle is that the process is collaborative managed by local authorities partnering with stakeholders to determine the timing, location and requirements of water infrastructure. They have provided a useful evidence base for local/regional development plans, demonstrating how water infrastructure and the water environment have been considered strategically. The proposed intent of the revisions to the Planning Bill in Wales in terms of wider engagement of stakeholders, including water and sewerage companies, would complement this approach.

WalesPlanning Policy Wales (Welsh Government 2012a) provides the policy framework for the effective preparation of planning authorities’ development plans. Planning Policy Wales is supported by a series of Technical Advisory Notes (TANs), many of which expand on water issues, eg TAN15 describes how local planning authorities should consider surface water runoff.

CIRIA, C724 47

1

2

3

4

7

8

6

5

Chapter 4 of the policy framework in Planning Policy Wales notes that good design is important to ensure that areas offer high environmental quality, including open and green spaces. Landscape considerations are identified as an integral part of the design process and “can make a positive contribution to environmental protection and improvement, for example to biodiversity, climate protection, air quality and the protection of water resources”.

Chapter 12 addresses infrastructure and services and states that:

66 development plans should promote increased efficiency and demand management

66 design approaches and techniques that improve water efficiency and minimise adverse effects should be encouraged

66 a catchment wide perspective should be taken including the use of SuDS.

The Welsh Government is proposing the introduction of a Housing Bill and Planning Bill, which are discussed later in this section.

ScotlandScottish Planning Policy (SPP) is a statement of Scottish Government policy on nationally important land use matters. It was published in February 2010 and consolidates a series of topic specific policy statements into a single, more concise statement. The SPP currently refers flood risk and drainage and sets out aspirations for the creation of high quality sustainable places, and increased sustainable economic growth. The Policy recognises that development can sometimes be constrained by a lack of water supply or waste water infrastructure capacity and highlights the need for stakeholders to work together to identify the best practicable option to accommodate the development. The Policy supports the adoption of SuDS on new development to manage flood risk and water quality impacts.

A review of the SPP was launched in 2012 and it is likely that water related Scottish Planning Advise Notes (PAN) will be consolidated into one document, potentially including reference to GI.

In 2012 the Scottish Government published the results of a consultation on architecture and placemaking. The consultation was wide ranging, but in the context of WSUD it is pertinent to note that one of the main themes emerging was around working in partnership with communities to deliver sustainable places, while recognising the challenge of managing expectations in the current economic climate. Other responses highlighted the role of GI, the need to raise awareness of good practice in placemaking and the importance of taking a more holistic approach to delivering environmentally sustainable places, moving away from the narrow focus on energy efficiency.

Buildings and sustainability standardsFrom a buildings perspective the Building Regulations and the Water Regulations control water using appliances and include reference to rainwater harvesting systems and SuDS.

Building RegulationsIn the UK, these regulations are included in the Building Act 1984 updated by the Building Regulations 2010 for England and Wales, Building (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004 for Scotland and the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012. In Wales the power to revise and update Building Regulations was transferred to the Welsh Government in 2012. The first proposed changes are intended to support the delivery of zero carbon new builds. Following a recent Welsh Government consultation there were some proposals to remove the requirements for some developments to comply with the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH).

The Approved Document G of the Building Regulations in England and Wales has since 2010 control the water efficiency in buildings (HM Government, 2000a).

Part G makes reference to the ‘water calculator’ for domestic buildings. If a designer wishes to use low water efficiency fittings (such as high flow rate showerheads and larger baths) then they must consider


water savings elsewhere including the fitment of rainwater harvesting and greywater reuse. As water efficiency standards are tightened more use of rainwater harvesting systems to ‘offset’ high water using appliances and equipment.

In addition, the CSH (HM Government, 2010) has the provision for enhanced water efficiency standards.

The Approved Document H (HM Government, 2000b) of the Building Regulations includes the so-called ‘drainage hierarchy’, in the following priority:

1 Infiltration.

2 Discharge to a watercourse.

3 Discharge to a surface water sewer.

However, detention and attenuation are not explicitly mentioned.

Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH)The CSH is an environmental assessment method for rating and certifying the performance of new homes based on BRE’s global EcoHomes scheme (CLG, 2008). It is a UK Government owned national standard that applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which is intended to encourage continuous improvement in sustainable home building. Its primary aim is the reduction of carbon emissions. The code is voluntary, but has been specified by several government bodies.

The CSH covers nine categories of sustainable design:

66 energy and CO2 emissions (mandatory)

66 water (mandatory)

66 materials (mandatory)

66 surface water runoff (mandatory)

66 waste (mandatory)

66 pollution

66 health and well-being (mandatory)

66 management

66 ecology.

To gain level 3 or 4 of the code, water efficiency measures and a simple water butt can be used to achieve the water credits. To reach level 5 or 6, some form of water recycling is needed. The surface water runoff credits encourage the use of SuDS to reach suitable runoff rates and volumes.

BRE Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM)The preeminent environmental rating system for buildings in the UK is BREEAM. BREEAM uses a similar method to CSH, which encourages the use of rainwater harvesting systems for higher rated buildings. Following a recent consultation in Wales the Welsh Government were also proposing to review the requirements for BREEAM on some buildings.

New and emerging British Standards for water managementBritish Standards Institution (BSI) has developed new British Standards for water reuse systems. In particular, BS 8515:2009 will encourage the adoption of rainwater harvesting systems. The BSI is also developing a code of practice for surface water flood risk management, BS 8582.

5.4 Future directionIn the context of WSUD, there are a number of drivers that will influence policy and regulation in the future. Across Europe there is an increasing focus on more integrated and effective management

CIRIA, C724 49

1

2

3

4

7

8

6

5

of water building on the achievements of the WFD. Across the UK there is likely to be an increased focus on diffuse pollution, including urban diffuse pollution, and there is a clear aspiration to work in partnership to deliver multi-objective benefits. Regulation of the water sector in England and Wales is also likely to push the industry into exploring new ways of working across the water cycle, potentially in collaboration with others. In England, as noted previously, there is likely to be a focus on localism whereas in Wales the recent and planned policy development around housing and planning are pushing a strong regeneration agenda. These themes are discussed as follows:

66 the Blueprint for Water

66 water regulation (England and Wales)

66 developing diffuse pollution strategies

66 partnership

66 the regeneration agenda (Wales)

EC Blueprint for WaterIn late 2012 the European Commission published its Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s waters. The overall objective of the Blueprint is to improve EU water policy to ensure good quality water for all authorised users. It will encourage a move towards ‘prevention and preparedness’ and will look to strike a better balance between demand and supply. Some of the main policy measures relevant to WSUD include:

66 severity and frequency of droughts will increase in the future: to reduce the social, economic and environmental impacts, there is a need for prevention and preparedness/response actions

66 buildings and water using appliances should take into account the need for water efficiency. Labelling, performance rates, requirements for water efficiency and the best available technology (BAT) concept are possible measures that can assist to reduce water waste, and give this contribution to possible water stress

66 leakages in water infrastructure are especially a challenge in areas that are water stressed or at the risk of being so. It implies a high (and increasing) shadow price of water that should call for action to reduce leakages. Managing the access to finance could be a means of promoting such investments, and development of better and joint methods for assessing leakages could enhance transparency and support investment decisions

66 water reuse is a possible measure to reduce the pressure on water quantities in water stressed areas. Without compromising public health, standards and certification guidelines could be measures that could ensure a higher level of water reuse

66 assessing the costs and benefits of inaction and of water related measures are essential to develop pricing schemes that take consider the effects of the different water uses on water services including on environment, nature and ecosystems services.

Water regulationThe direction of economic water regulation in England and Wales is outlined in Ofwat’s discussion document Beyond limits (Ofwat, 2010). The document identifies a shift in focus for water companies to ensure that they deliver on the broader outcomes that customers and wider society value rather than prescribing detailed inputs and outputs. In Ofwat’s associated discussion paper (Ofwat, 2011b) potential outcomes identified include:

66 environmental sustainability

66 reduced carbon emissions

66 sustainable use of water resources.

This shift in focus potentially allows water companies the freedom to be able to invest money into projects undertaken by others (such as local authorities, Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales) that would result in a net benefit to the water company. These measures may include elements of WSUD that could positively affect the water companies, for example reducing flows to the sewerage system. Overall the direction of travel appears to be towards more flexibility, innovation and incentivisation


within the sector. This, together with localism and the growing acknowledgement of the importance of partnerships, could herald a new approach to managing the water cycle.

In Defra’s Statement of Obligations (2012) states that “water and sewerage companies can invest in natural as well as built infrastructure to deliver their desired outcomes” and suggested that “payments for ecosystems services” schemes would be a possible approach to examining these options. This new approach appears to be encouraging water companies to adopt methods that will be more in-line with the proposed shift from outputs to outcomes mentioned previously. The document also notes that “investments in natural infrastructure can deliver a cost beneficial outcome for their customers”, which appears to support the WSUD approach.

Developing diffuse pollution strategiesIn England, Defra and the Environment Agency have been working closely to identify the main diffuse pollution sources from urban and other non-agricultural sources, and understand the evidence-base behind these.

This work will enable them to develop a research and evidence programme, and develop a strategic programme of regulatory and non-regulatory policy interventions. This is being approached using source–pathway–receptor methodology to help address the issue of non-agricultural diffuse pollution to meet WFD targets. As this policy develops there is a significant potential role for WSUD led interventions in managing urban diffuse pollution.

In late 2012 Defra launched a consultation on water pollution from the urban environment, seeking views on developing a strategy for the management of urban diffuse water pollution in England.

In Wales, it is recognised by Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales that a high quality water environment is essential to support a healthy ecosystem. This will then provide a number of services for people and wildlife.

WFD river basin management plans (RBMPs) for Wales highlight diffuse pollution as a key reason for failure to meet good ecological status in a number of rivers. Building on previous work by Welsh Government and others, Natural Resources Wales has produced a Strategic Diffuse Water Pollution Action Plan (2013) to aid effort in the current round of RBMPs.

The Action Plan identifies eight areas on which to prioritise effort to tackle diffuse pollution. These are:

66 industrial estates

66 small sewage discharges (private)

66 drainage misconnections

66 surface water drainage from developed areas

66 livestock management

66 land management

66 storage – slurry, fuel, oils and chemicals

66 mine waters.

The Action Plan aims to develop solutions that build upon – and complement – local project delivery. However, with Natural Resources Wales adopting an ecosystem approach to the management of water to meet European environmental obligations, the Action Plan will also feed into the second cycle of planning for the WFD.

In Scotland, SEPA have already started to look at diffuse pollution, under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005, the Water Environment (Diffuse Pollution) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 and the Action programme for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Scotland) Regulations 2008.

CIRIA, C724 51

1

2

3

4

7

8

6

5

PartnershipThe new Defra Partnership Funding policy (Defra, 2012a) places increased emphasis on partnership approaches. There is an increasing opportunity for stakeholders to build partnerships to deliver multi-objective benefits, potentially including WSUD.

The option for local planning authorities to introduce a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), which came into force in 2010, complements this approach. It is a tariff-based approach that allows local planning authorities to raise funds from developers and can be spent on a wide range of infrastructure that is needed because of development. This includes transport schemes, flood defences, schools, health and social care facilities, parks, green spaces and leisure centres. The levy’s rate should be set in a ‘charging schedule’ that will be based on an assessment of infrastructure needs in the local plan.

The Regeneration Agenda (Wales)In May 2012 the Welsh Government published its White Paper (Welsh Government, 2012), which sets out an ambitious programme of action for the remainder of this term of government. Welsh Government’s regeneration policies encompass a range of integrated activities. These aim to reverse economic, social and physical decline in order to achieve lasting improvement, in areas where market forces will not be sufficient to achieve this without some support from government.

The White Paper describes several proposals for new legislation and other, non-legislative, action, which includes plans to:

66 increase the supply of new homes by:

66 7500 new affordable homes – 500 will be co-operative homes and 500 will be built on surplus public sector sites

66 bringing 5000 empty properties back into use.66 improve the quality of existing homes, including their energy efficiency, through the Welsh

Housing Quality Standard (Welsh Government, 2002) and other mechanisms.

This regeneration agenda provides a real opportunity for WSUD to be an integral part of the delivery of the White Paper. Aligned to this is the intent of the Welsh Government to publish a White Paper and Planning Bill in 2013. In advance of the Bill an Independent Advisory Group (IAG) has reviewed potential future roles and responsibilities. In particular the IAG recommends that water and sewerage companies are made statutory consultees to the planning system, including local development planning. This could help a more integrated dialogue on management of the water cycle within the regeneration process.

5.5 Regulatory barriers and opportunities

Barriers

The results from the questionnaires undertaken as part of this scoping study indicate that 42 per cent of respondents consider regulation as a barrier to applying WSUD. There is clearly a view that regulation may impede the delivery of WSUD. Specific legislative and regulatory barriers were not identified, but there is an absence of legislation that recognises the full interactions of a truly holistic water-based ecosystem. The framework of legislation that currently exists is very fragmented and opportunities to broaden the approach have not been taken up. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 is an ambitious piece of legislation that attempts to resolve many of the issues raised by the Pitt Review. Although the Act brings in a shift in focus to f lood risk management, and reinforces the use of sustainable drainage, it fails to promote a more holistic approach to managing water, and f lood risk.


Opportunities

Although perceived as a barrier the direction of travel of regulation and policy on water is increasingly consistent with WSUD. The WFD supports a more integrated and catchment-led view of managing water, including urban water.

The role of local planning authorities is likely to be essential in progressing WSUD as they have the power at a local level to interpret national strategies and produce local strategies. Often, water is not regarded as a high priority in the planning process, but good water planning can produce multiple benefits (see Chapter 6) that can assist and enhance urban regeneration.

In England, localism is likely to be a main factor in delivering WSUD. The localism agenda provides opportunities for local authorities to adopt initiatives that respond to local issues. It also allows them to create strategies can have a fundamental effect on the way development happens in their areas.

Council policy documents frequently promote sustainable values in generic terms, but supplementary planning guidance documents can specify in detail how these sustainable values translate into development that promotes regeneration. New development will only address a fraction of the housing stock, but there are developing models and approaches on retrofit partnerships, primarily addressing energy, that should be explored for delivering WSUD within existing developments.

The water cycle study (WCS) approach has provided a useful evidence base for the strategic and co-ordinated planning of water infrastructure and the proposed changes to the Planning Regime in Wales, as an example, complement this approach in encouraging greater involvement by stakeholders. There is an opportunity for the UK Government to geographically extend and broaden this requirement for WCSs to cover all areas while adopting a more holistic approach to understanding potential ‘sources’ and ‘sinks’ of water within the catchment. These studies could be used to identify areas where WSUD interventions may be effective. WCSs could also be used at a development or neighbourhood scale as a tool for identifying WSUD measures.

Summary

66 there is a vast amount of regulation in the UK that could affect the delivery of WSUD66 there is similar legislation in all four countries, however, there are variations across England, Scotland, Wales and

Northern Ireland66 many new pieces of legislation have been recently produced enabling and encouraging the use of WSUD in design,

including the Floods and Water Management Act (2010) and catchment-led regulations such as the WFD and the FD66 42 per cent of the respondents to the questionnaire believe that regulation (or the lack of it) presents barriers to

the implementation of WSUD in the UK66 the framework of national legislation is very fragmented. While the national strategies support sustainability at the

generic level they are weak on integrating policy across the water cycle66 potential changes from outputs to outcomes present opportunities for more partnership approaches, supported by

engagement between stakeholders earlier in the planning cycle66 whiletheapplicationofregulationcancreatebarriers,theflexibilitywithinthelatestlegislationdoesgivemore

opportunities at the local level

66 inEngland,‘localism’andtheincreasinginfluenceofthecatchment,willsupportmorelocalchoicesforcommunitiesandthepossibilityofprojectsthatdelivertheadditionalbenefitsthatWSUDseekstoprovide.

CIRIA, C724 53

1

2

3

4

7

8

5

6

6.1 ContextDeveloping a business case for WSUD can be challenging, particularly as some of the approaches are in their infancy. The direct and indirect multifunctional benefits need to be assessed and quantified in a way that allows them to properly inform decision making. Also, the alignment of costs and benefits may not be straightforward, as costs incurred within one sector, or by one partner, in one catchment area may result in benefits elsewhere.

High-level economic benefits of environmental actions can be demonstrated at international, national and city-region scale. For example, the Stern Report (Stern 2006), the National Ecosystems Services Assessment (Watson and Albon, 2011) and the Leeds City Region mini-stern (Gouddon et al, 2011). While these can be useful at macro-economic level to attract investment and drive policy agendas, they can also be quite abstract and the economic benefits dispersed across many stakeholders, some of whom may be driven by economics more than others. The business case is not the same for all stakeholders, and for any one party to realise meaningful economic returns, co-operation with others will be required.

The primary drivers for the various bodies to be attracted towards WSUD in a struggling economy are, in reality, likely to be economic, but there are other reasons too. Where these exist it is important to understand what these are and explore how and why different parties have been motivated to take action. The multiple benefits need to be understood and quantified while avoiding the risks of abstraction and double counting. Workshops conducted as part of this scoping study have started to identify stakeholders and their priorities. This chapter builds on this work to look more closely at the key stakeholders, with a view to trying to understand, benefits and ‘what’s in it for them?’ Some will be driven more by the need for a business case than others, but in reality all will need any actions to stack up economically. This may mean economic growth, for others profit, or covering their costs and breaking even, and for others, mobilising sufficient resources in kind. They are the mixture drivers that enable people to justify potential actions to others (trustees, executive boards, external funders etc).

6.2 Understanding valueThe value of the economic, environmental and social benefits derived from assets and services associated with WSUD can be considered:

66 in monetary terms – using economic valuation techniques

66 quantitatively – referencing, for example jobs, hectares of land, visitors

66 qualitatively – referencing evidence for economic societal or environmental benefit and other externalities, but where the scientific basis for quantification and/or monetisation is not yet sufficiently robust.

Economic appraisal plays a major role in public sector decision making. This is becoming of increasing significance in the commissioning of infrastructure projects. In general there is usually an economic driver underpinning these projects and their potential contribution to jobs and economic productivity

6 Building a case for action

This chapter explores the multiple benefits that can result from WSUD and reviews, at a high level, the type and quantification of those benefits. Case studies are included to support

the evidence base. Individual profiles for seven organisations that are likely to have an important role in delivering WSUD are explored, to understand the benefits that are likely to be more significant in supporting their respective business cases.

The building blocks of a potential business case are then presented.


is generally the focus of any business case. There are three aspects of decision making that explain this (NEF, 2010):

1 Economic benefits are easier to measure and quantify and generally have established market prices. This means that they are more likely to be accounted for while non-traded effects such as those on public health, or natural habitats are harder to monetise. This often means that they are excluded completely, or under-valued. Even where artificial markets are introduced, as with carbon, prices vary and can be subject to controversy. A report by HM Government (2011) states that “too many of the benefits we derive from nature are not properly valued. The value of natural capital is not fully captured in the prices customers pay, in the operations of our markets or in the accounts of government or business”

2 Generally, appraisals focus on one stakeholder, usually the government, or the economy. When this occurs the economic returns (increases in tax or personal income, and economic growth) will take on greater importance relative to everything else than they perhaps merit. The assumption is that these are good proxies for wider welfare. In some instances this may be true but not in all. Forms of measurement are often based on narrow economic theories, or on causal relationships that have not been empirically established. In addition, they are often incapable of taking into account the ‘externalities’ linked to any economic gains – the social and environmental costs. Such costs are often borne by specific groups, and these are not represented in the analysis as separate stakeholders.

3 The imperative to maximise economic growth, jobs and productivity is paramount for decision makers. The political culture makes it difficult for anyone to question the efficiency of these arguments even where the costs generated in other areas are high.

Inclusion of ‘externalities’ in cost benefit analysis

Cost benefit analyses have not traditionally been able to take account of externalities, but this is gradually changing as reliable methodologies emerge for placing a value on these less tangible criteria.

The exclusion of ‘externalities’, ie other impacts such as environment, place, community, well-being, biodiversity, from appraisals means that the true costs and benefits of an activity are not being properly accounted for. This has important consequences for effective decision making and for the efficient allocation of resources.

There are certain qualitative criteria that will never be pinned down in monetary terms, however abstract the analysis. While most know instinctively that certain things are valuable, only a fundamental cultural shift will enable qualitative factors to have a significant influence when developing a comprehensive business case for a WSUD project.

There is an increasing trend to develop more sustainable solutions evolving from the ‘triple bottom line’ (Elkington, 1994) addressing societal, as well as environmental and economic issues. Such solutions involve the making of places that are continuous with their history and context and are able to accommodate cultural and sociological change. Building a business case for action based on a triple bottom line approach requires new method of quantifying benefits. Despite the fact that for many, placing a monetary value on things like ‘place’, ‘well-being’ or a ‘clean water supply’ is seen as counterintuitive, new methods of analysing wider benefits and bringing them into a quantifiable case for action are increasingly important. Some of the emerging method of quantifying ‘externalities’, such as ecosystem services and Social Return on Investment (SROI) are described later in this chapter.

Though a lot of valuable work is being undertaken to develop these methods and bring them into the mainstream, externalities are still often perceived as being of secondary importance during development of the business case, when compared to the outputs from easily quantifiable conventional cost benefit analysis (such as those used in regulation of the water sector).

This can prevent a valuable project with many associated benefits being progressed. Conversely in instances where a poorly designed project may stack up economically but in other aspects has negative

CIRIA, C724 55

1

2

3

4

7

8

5

6

effects, it can be difficult to argue for a better scheme or to prevent a project going ahead. In instances where there is an apparent strong economic case for a project, it is unusual that other non-monetary considerations are taken to be sufficient to counter this, even if when it is shown that these effects are real.

So one of the main challenges in delivering WSUD schemes is to find ways to quantify multifunctional benefits, and importantly, bring them into mainstream practice to facilitate partnership delivery.

6.3 The benefits of WSUDDuring the development of this Scoping Study the Water Sensitive Urban Design concept was tested with practitioners to determine whether it is a readily applicable and beneficial process in the UK. A collaborative approach was used in three workshops conducted during this study and participants were asked to articulate and visualise what WSUD could bring to the UK when applied in various contexts and at various scales (see Chapter 2). The workshops demonstrated that WSUD concepts could be readily applied to all scales and to a variety of contexts, and that the benefits of such an approach were both clear and wide-ranging. When asked to re-imagine a water sensitive place, participants identified several urban design interventions, both spatial and material, and some that made fundamental changes to the built form. A common theme was a greater celebration of water in the public realm, lending a strong identity to communities and creating a more direct relationship between people and water resources.

The workshops and the questionnaires also explored views on the benefits of WSUD. The vast majority of respondents highlighted reduction of flood risk as an important benefit. Other commonly identified benefits include the creation of more attractive places, and the delivery of GI alongside other ‘urban greening’ benefits such as support of urban food production, community engagement and mitigation of the urban heat island effect. Improvement of water quality, water security and ecosystem health were also identified. Around half of the respondents expected cost savings to result from a WSUD approach and there was a general recognition that delivery of WSUD would require greater cross-disciplinary and partnership working.

Identifying the benefits

There are several studies that have categorised the benefits associated with GI and the management of urban water. Example references, mainly from the UK, include:

66 Grey to green (CABE, 2009)

66 The value of green infrastructure (Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2011)

66 The green infrastructure valuation toolkit (Natural Economy Northwest et al, 2009)

66 Green infrastructure guidance (Natural England, 2009)

66 A business case for best practice urban stormwater management (Water by Design, 2010).

In addition to these, a WSUD approach offers further benefits associated with increased resilience to water stress (too much/too little), management of wastewater and greater public engagement, and buy-in, to the management of the water cycle.

For the purposes of this scoping study and the workshops it was considered that it would be helpful to rationalise the benefits within a framework appropriate for water led interventions. Following a review of the guides previously highlighted (see Table 6.1), 10 areas of benefit were identified:

66 water quality

66 flood risk management

66 food and urban agriculture

66 energy/carbon

66 wastewater


66 water supply

66 health and well-being

66 economy

66 place and community

66 habitat and biodiversity

66 microclimate adaptation.

Table 6.1 Review of sample of published benefits of green infrastructure and surface water management

Benefit used in this study

Green infrastructure Green infrastructure and surface water management

Grey to green GI valuation toolkitGreen

infrastructure guidance

The value of green infrastructure

A business case for best practice

urban stormwater management

Flood risk management

Betterfloodprotection

Waterandfloodmanagement

Flood attenuation and water resource management

Reducesflooding

Water quality Waterandfloodmanagement Water pollution

Reduces water treatment needsImproves water quality

Reducing water treatment needsImprovements in property values

Energy/carbon Biomass Climate change

mitigationEnergy production and conservation

Reduces atmospheric CO2

Water supplyIncreases available water supply, increases groundwater recharge

Economy Sustainable economy

Land and property values, investment, labour productivity, tourism

Premium on land values, avoided development costs, tourism, industry (seafood)

Habitat and biodiversity

Support for biodiversity Biodiversity

Habitat provision and access to nature

Improves habitat

Avoided ecosystem management costs, watercourse and wetland health, ecosystem services

Food and urban agriculture

Land managementFood production and productive landscapes

Urban agriculture

Wastewater

Reduces water treatment needs, improves water quality, reduces grey infrastructure needs

Avoided watercourse rehabilitation costs

Health and well-being

Cleaner air, improved public health

Health and well-being, recreation and leisure

Access, recreation, movement and leisure

Improves air quality, reduces noise pollution Recreation

Place and community

A beautiful well designed place

Place and communities

Landscape setting and context for development

Improves aesthetics, improves community cohesion, cultivates education opportunities

Area’s general liveability and amenity, education

Microclimate adaptation Cooler cities Climate change

adaptation Cooling effect Reduces urban heat island Urban cooling

CIRIA, C724 57

1

2

3

4

7

8

5

6

Quantifying the benefits

There is a considerable body of work available that reviews the evidence base for quantifying the wider benefits of GI and surface water management, including several publications previously referred to. It is not the intent of this scoping study to present these in detail but to provide an overview of the current position. Natural England have completed a detailed research review of the economic benefits, including the wider benefits to society (see box below). There is also an evolving strand within the Defra-led Green Infrastructure Partnership to look at and place a value on GI.

There is clearly considerable overlap between GI and WSUD in delivering the range of benefits that these interventions can bring. For water management the GI-based frameworks recognise the potential benefits associated with flood management and some of the more intangible benefits around amenity and community, but do not account for the potential positive effects on other aspects of water management associated with the supply and treatment of water. As noted any WSUD-based assessment framework needs to take these into account. Quantifiable benefits associated with, for example, a reduced CAPEX and OPEX investment (see box below), to manage the water supply/demand balance or deferred investment on wastewater treatment infrastructure resulting from a reduction in load will be important in developing the business case (particularly for water and sewerage companies (WaSCs).

Table 6.2 provides a high level initial overview of the 11 areas of benefit potentially resulting from the introduction of WSUD. Each benefit is explained in more detail, and a short commentary is provided on measuring the benefit, based on the findings of the literature review.

Microeconomic evidence for the benefits of investment in the environment – review

This literature research review was focused around GI interventions, based on an ecosystems approach. It was commissioned to help Natural England staff make the case to local authorities and local enterprise partnerships on the case for GI. Each section provides a critical review of the literature and where therearemonetisedstudiestheseareidentified.Thereviewexaminestheevidenceofbeneficialeffectoneconomiccompetitiveness,healthandsociety,regulatory services and provisioning services.

Natural England (2011)

Carbon and rainwater harvesting

The project evaluated the carbon implication of rainwater harvesting as part of an integrated water management and urban drainage solution. Normally rainwater harvesting solutions tend to have a greater whole life costs when compared to carbon cost of supplying mains water. However, this comparison does not take into consideration the carbon implication of any alternative water supply solution, nor does it take into consideration the carbon implication of surface water management. The project report provided a methodology to evaluate and compare the carbon implication of integrated water management solution with existing conditions. It concluded that in most cases using rainwater to displace mains supply reduced the carbon footprint.

Environment Agency (2011)


Flood risk management

WSUD can be used to improve the management of surface water, by reducing the effect on the natural hydrologic behaviour of catchments. This could primarily be delivered through the integration of SuDS and drainage exceedence to:

66 retainanddelayflows66 potentiallyreducedownstreampeakfloodflows66 reduce the volume of runoff66 reducetheflowrateofrunoff.

WSUDalsoincludesthedesignandplanningofplacestobemoreadaptabletoflooding,suchasbuildings,infrastructureandpublicrealminfloodriskareas.

Measuring the benefits66 thevalueofthebenefitsishighlydependentonlocalcontextualfactors,includinglocalhydrologywithinthe

catchment,thecurrentleveloffloodriskandthecharacteristicsofthewaterinfrastructuresystem66 averagecostofflooddamageperpropertyisbetween£20kand£30k,usingEnvironmentAgencydata66 benefitscouldbequantifiedatalocallevelwithsufficientinvestigationbasedonanestimationofreducedflood

damage66 the2007floodskilled13peopleandcostover£3bn.Thefrequencyofextremestormsispredictedtoincrease.Any

reductioninpotentialfloodriskwillequatetosignificantsavingsinflooddamagesandimprovedsafetyofthepublic.

Water quality

Many WSUD components, particularly where natural, vegetative or bioretention treatment systems are used, provide opportunities to improve water quality and treat diffuse water pollution by a variety of mechanisms such as sedimentation, filtration,biologicaldegradationetc.WSUDcomponentscanalsoreducerunoffinthecatchment,whichreducestheamount of surface water getting into watercourses (reducing erosion and pollutant potential) and getting into sewers adding to subsequent treatment requirements and possible CSO spills.

Measuring the benefits66 the evidence base for the merits of managing erosion and enhancing water quality is dependent on other ecosystem

services, particularly regulating, supporting or provisioning services66 benefitsareassociatedwithreducedinfrastructureandoperationalcostsfortreatingwateratwastewaterandwater

treatment works66 therearewiderrecreationalbenefitsofhavinghigherqualitywatercoursesandwaterbodies.Thereareanumberof

studies in the USA looking at increases in the value of properties overlooking waterbodies where GI has been delivered to improve water quality (CNT, 2011)

66 there is good evidence that wetlands bordering rivers are an effective method of managing diffuse pollution like nitrogen and phosphorous (Gilliam, 1994), and metals (Gambrell, 1994).

Energy/carbon

GI associated with WSUD can remove greenhouse gas (GHG) from the atmosphere and sequester them over the long-term. Shading and insulation effects can result in reduced use of mechanical cooling in the summer.

Decreasing the treatment and supply of water can reduce energy use associated with water supply, pumping and wastewater treatment. The appropriate use of local alternative water may have a lower carbon content, particularly in remote areas. Also, local harvesting of rainwater or runoff may have a lower carbon content.

Measuring the benefits66 pricing mechanisms exist for carbon, including the social cost of carbon and the non-traded price of carbon. The non-

traded price of carbon can be used to estimate the ‘value’ of the energy savings66 the effectiveness of carbon storage in soil depends on several factors, including soil type, condition and use. Current

evidence does not yet allow robust estimates to be made of the carbon storage capacity of different types of GI, and are likely to be relatively minor unless linked to a wider GI programme

66 watersupplyandwastewaterenergyrelativesavingswillbelocallyspecificandcouldbequantifiedatalocallevelbased on an estimate of reduced demand/load.

Table 6.2 Potential Benefits of WSUD

CIRIA, C724 59

1

2

3

4

7

8

5

6

Water supply

WSUD can lead to the reduction in consumption of mains potable water and can support demand management through theuseofwaterefficientfixturesandfittings.WSUDcouldalsoencouragetheuseofdecentralisedalternativewatersupplies (rainwater and wastewater harvesting for reuse), which will reduce pressures on centralised water supplies. This hasthepotentialtoreduceoveralldemandforpotablewatersupplyandtreatmentandcouldinfluencetheneedfornewsuppliestobesourcedinthefuture,resultinginbenefitsassociatedwithdeferredcapitalinvestment.PotentialOPEXsavings associated with the reuse of water to non-potable standard.

Measuring the benefits66 AISC (average incremental social cost) of water has been developed as part of the water resource planning and are

widelyacceptedbythewaterindustryandregulatorsasthemainmethodofcomparingthecostsandbenefitsofvarious schemes

66 somegenericdataonAISCisavailable(Ofwat,2011a).Goodevidenceofbenefitsforwaterretrofittingschemes,butdata on wider non-potable, rainwater harvesting interventions is less extensive

66 benefitswillbedependentonlocalregionalandcontextualfactor,requiringknowledgeofthelocalsystem66 evidencebasefortherelativemeritsofcentralisedanddecentralisedsystemsintermsofCAPEX,OPEXandriskisnot

extensive.

Economy

Much of the evidence around economic competitiveness associated with natural capital is based on holistic impacts. Potentialmultiplebenefitsassociatedwith:

66 land and property values: covering proximity effects associated with views of quality urban green spaces and water features as well as wider perceptions of an area or settlement, linked to quality of place

66 inward investment: again linked to proximity effects of the commercial value of property close to quality urban spaces and wider regional effects based on perceptions of settlements

66 labour productivity: linked to the proximity of green space and overall labour productivity.

Measuring the benefits66 isolating the impact of green space and natural capital on property values from other factors is complex. A study by

CABE(2005)showedthatpropertyprofessionalsexpecthigherpricesforpropertieswithparkviews,butthebenefitwasnotquantified

66 openspacepotentiallyaddsuptothreepercenttothevalueofcommercialpropertyThisareaisdifficulttoquantifyinpurelyfinancialterms,buttherearesomestudiesfromAustraliathatshowareasthataredemonstrablymoresustainable increase property values

66 splitting out green space impacts on labour productivity is complex, and the evidence is not directly available.


Many of the elements with WSUD, particularly where natural systems are used to manage and treat rainwater or wastewater, have been found to attract species including birds and invertebrates that are currently being pushed out of urban areas. Diverse habitats can support a greater diversity of rare bird species and urban ecology, including bees, and promoting green corridors allows the movement of wildlife within urban areas without interfering with the competing needs of humans.

Measuring the benefits66 ecosystem services approaches of urban interventions are less mature than other areas such as marginal wetlands66 qualitative and quantitative approaches associated with habitat area and diversity indexes, such as area, or increase

in area, of local/regional priority BAP habitat types.


Potentialopportunityassociatedwithlinkinglocalwaterharvestingtowaterefficientlandscapes,gardensandfoodproduction.Environmentalchallenges,growingpopulationandeconomicgrowthareexpectedtoputasignificantstrainon the food production system. WSUD can provide a means to integrate urban agriculture and horticulture with a natural irrigation or an alternative water supply.

Measuring the benefits66 benefitsdependentoncontextualfactors66 littledirectquantifiableevidencearoundissuessuchascommunitycohesionaroundthedevelopmentofgardeninggroups66 multiplebenefitsassociatedwithreduced‘foodmiles’,potentialreductionsinpollutantloadingstowater,andpublichealth.

Table 6.2 Potential Benefits of WSUD (contd)


Wastewater

Arangeofbenefitsincluding:

66 reduction in runoff from the catchment will reduce the amount of surface water getting into combined sewers, resultinginfewerspillsfromcombinedseweroverflows(CSOs).Withreducedpollutantloads

66 reduction in surface water volumes within sewerage networks, freeing capacity or potentially deferring investment66 reductioninwastewatervolumestransferredtowastewatertreatmentassociatedwitheitherwaterefficiencyor

greywater/wastewaterrecycling,reducingOPEXordeferringinvestment66 reducedpollutantloads(nutrients)atwastewatertreatmentworksaffectingpotentialOPEXandCAPEXcosts.

Measuring the benefits66 indicative ‘rule of thumb’ for providing storage to manage CSO spills (£100 000 per m3)66 potential to locally mine wastewater for reuse66 potentiallocalinfrastructuresavingsassociatedwithlocalsewerageconnectionandrates,valueswillbeinfluencedlocally66 benefitswillbedependentonlocalregionalandcontextualfactors,requiringknowledgeofthelocalsystem66 evidencebasefortherelativemeritsofcentralisedanddecentralisedsystemsintermsofCAPEX,OPEXandrisk

is not extensive.


GI can absorb air pollutants such as nitrogen oxide compounds, sulphur oxide compounds, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and other particulate matter.

Therearestudiesthatdemonstrateastatisticallysignificantcorrelationbetweengreenspaceandpositivephysicalandmental health outcomes. There is also evidence that nature promotes recovery from stress and fatigue.

Calmingandrecreationalbenefitsofproximitytowatercoursesandwater.Therearehealthandwell-beingbenefitsdirectlylinked to the role of GI in microclimate adaptation, for example through shading and temperature control in urban areas.

Measuring the benefits66 localcontextualfactorsneedtobetakenintoaccountandgeneralisedfindingsmaynotberelevant66 there is little accessible, existent or concrete valuation data on green space and mental health and well-being.

However, there are a number of studies that show a correlation between the quantity of green space and positive health outcomes (Natural England, 2011)

66 in the US, ‘recreation and amenity’ and ‘health effects’ contributed US$5.882 and US$17.548 per hectare per year respectivelytothetotalaverageofUS$29.475perhectareperyearprovidedbythesevenidentifiedecosystemservices in the various studies (TEEB, 2011).

Place and community

TherearestrongpotentialsocialandcommunitybenefitsassociatedwithWSUD.Accessto,exposureto,andengagementwithwatercanplayasignificantroleincommunitywell-being,andcanbringpeopletogether.

Green space linked to water features offers opportunity for increasing social activity and there is evidence from studies that park spaces can be active agents in improving community relationships and developing a shared sense of belonging.

River and water features can create a sense of place.

Opportunity to ‘daylight’ watercourses and manage water more sensitively above ground.

Measuring the benefits66 no concrete evidence base for quantifying the impact66 benefitlikelytoremainqualitative66 potentialtobetterunderstandsocialbenefitthroughSROIapproaches(discussedinSection6.5).


CIRIA, C724 61

1

2

3

4

7

8

5

6

Microclimate adaptation

Water and vegetation can reduce higher temperatures in several ways:

66 by providing protection to UV radiation and heat through shading66 reducing local temperature through evapotranspiration66 reducing heat absorbed and then released by surfaces.

WSUDalsoencompassesthedesignandplanningofplacestobemoreadaptabletoflooding.

Local managed water reuse can increase resilience to water scarcity and drought.

Measuring the benefits66 benefitsassociatedwithreducedneedforcooling,soenergydemandsonbuildingcouldbequantified,andvarious

studies and toolkits are available66 widerhealthbenefitsassociatedwithheatstressandairqualityarehardertoquantify.WorkundertakenintheUSas

part of the Philadelphia CSO Plan (Green City, Clean Waters) evaluated the reduction in thermal heat/stress avoided under different green CSO options and then monetised that value based on standard methods (PWD, 2009)

66 benefitswillbedependentonlocalregionalandcontextualfactors,requiringknowledgeofthelocalsystem.

6.4 Identification and analysis of key stakeholdersBased on the workshop outputs, the following key stakeholders were selected for further analysis. There were many more stakeholders, and this list will need to be refined during any follow on initiatives, but for the purposes of this initial scoping exercise the following organisations emerged as those that need to be engaged as a matter of priority:

66 UK Government

66 developers

66 environmental regulators (Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales, SEPA)

66 water companies

66 designers and consultants

66 local community and third sector

66 local authorities.

As discussed in Section 6.1, it will be important to build a case for action for each of these organisations. This means understanding what motivates them and the relative priority they place on delivering each WSUD benefit. This section takes each of these seven key stakeholders and undertakes a brief analysis of their particular perspectives and drivers. After a short analysis, a summary diagram is produced for each stakeholder indicating the overall profile of their interests and what may motivate them to act. An example is given in Figure 6.1.

Sections 6.1 and 6.2 discussed how different stakeholders will build a case for action driven by a different balance of monetary (£), quantitative (Qt), qualitative (Qu) returns. The grey column to the left of each diagram indicates the relative importance placed on each of these by that particular stakeholder. The coloured chart to the right indicates the relative priority placed on the various potential WSUD benefits discussed in Section 6.3. These diagrams are a starting point for a discussion around building the business case and have informed the evaluation of the overall business case in Section 6.5.

It is anticipated that follow on initiatives would begin by refining these profile diagrams through detailed evidence-based research within each organisation.

From the analysis and summary diagram a set of important needs is identified to help that particular stakeholder to build a case for action.



UK Government

Recent moves to decentralise strategic planning decisions in England, for example through the abolition of regional spatial strategies (RSS), the Localism Act 2011, simplification of planning regulations through National Planning Policy Framework, neighbourhood plans and Enterprise Zones, have brought a new approach to spatial and environmental planning. The Government has established Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP) covering most major urban areas, as a city-region scale planning mechanism, but these are not comprehensive and have a different remit to the recent Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), with more focus on jobs and economic growth. They do not generate spatial plans, which are the responsibility of local authorities through the preparation of local development frameworks. However, local authorities may or may not co-operate to produce a large-scale strategy. While there are potential benefits in smaller-scale action (see the section on Local community and third sector organisations), there are also risks for WSUD, which needs to be managed at a bio-region or catchment scale.

The Leeds City Green Infrastructure Strategy (Leeds City Region Partnership, 2010) provides a good example of collaborative working at a regional scale, assisted at first through the Leeds City Region Secretariat, and now being supported by the LEP Green Economy Panel. This type of co-ordinated approach, linked to the work previously undertaken at a similar scale to deliver water cycle studies, could be a basis for strategically delivering WSUD.

In Wales, there are many good examples of collaborative working to implement WSUD solutions. It is widely recognised that WSUD can help deliver ecosystem services to reduce water use, minimise f lood risk and improve water quality. WSUD also provides broader benefits such as reduced energy use, increased habitat, urban regeneration and an improved social relationship between people and their water.

For example, a partnership between Natural Resources Wales, Welsh Water and Cardiff Council is in place to look at the benefits WSUD could bring to the Grangetown area of Cardiff. ‘Greener Grangetown’ will quantify benefits from reduced sewerage spills from a pumping station, reduced sewer and surface water flooding and improved biodiversity. In Wales, the Welsh Government is currently taking forward a number of bills, including the Planning Bill, Regeneration Bill, Housing Bill and Sustainable Development Bill. The consultation process for developing these Bills presents a huge opportunity to deliver WSUD.

Figure 6.1 Example of the diagram used to summarise the priorities that may influence each key stakeholder

Note: the bar on the left indicates the priority given to various potential returns (£= direct monetary return, Qt = quantitative return, Qu = qualitativereturn).ThechartindicatestherelativeprioritygiventoeachpotentialWSUDbenefit

Floo

ding

Qt

Qu

Ener

gy/c

arbo

n

Wat

er

Econ

omy

Hab

itat

and

bio

dive

rsit

y

Food

Was

tew

ater

Hea

lth

and

wel

l-bei

ng

Plac

e an

d co

mm

unit

y

Clim

ate

chan

ge

£ Low

pri

orit

yH

igh

prio

rity

CIRIA, C724 63

1

2

3

4

7

8

5

6

UK Government and Devolved Administration are placing considerable emphasis on partnership approaches. This is particularly evident with the new partnership funding context for flood risk management (Environment Agency, 2012). The costs of many projects are now shared between local and national funding sources (see Case study 6.1). Partnerships work together to assemble a funding package, to develop, deliver and manage the project and maintain the resulting benefits into the longer term. Such an approach that allows partners to deliver on multi-functional benefits through collaboration could be highly relevant to WSUD schemes. The objectives of partnership funding are to better protect more communities and deliver more benefits by:

66 encouraging total investment to increase beyond levels affordable to central government alone

66 enabling more local choice, and encouraging innovative, cost-effective options so that civil society may play a greater role

66 increasing levels of certainty and transparency over the national funding for individual projects, while prioritising action for those most at risk and least able to protect or insure themselves.

In particular, funding for surface water flood risk management is now brought within the overall funding for flood risk management. The new responsibilities of local authorities for managing local flood risk (including surface water management) now rely on the partnership funding approach being fully embraced by lead local flood authorities and their partners, including the Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales, water companies and developers. The latest Defra WFD Statement (Defra, 2012) places great emphasis on partnership working and partnership solutions that deliver multi-objective benefits. To some extent this is already being explored with the delivery of flood risk management schemes and a growing aspiration to deliver more from less (Brouwer et al, 2010).

Despite current moves by the English Government towards decentralisation and partnership working, it is clear that there is still a need for progressing the kind of institutional and regulatory change required as part of a shift towards WSUD (see Chapter 7). Major cultural shifts are required inter alia within the water industry, as discussed in Chapter 4, but in the meantime, the industry is most likely to respond to regulation imposed from a national or devolved government level.

Operating scale

The UK Government regulates and sets policy at national scale. Though in England they have recently abolished regional scale plans and devolved more power to local authorities, they still shape the balance of power between local and central government making decisions such as to initiate LEPs and, more recently, local nature partnerships (LNPs)

Needs

66 more clarity linking national strategy to local. Need to retain some form of regional planning, which is vital when implementing integrated catchment-scale GI and WSUD

66 in England involve LEPs and LNPs66 ensure that enterprise zones and other areas of relocation do not create

lasting damage to integration of GI66 support shifts in water regulation and pricing structures through Ofwat66 cultural shift, to promote wider partnership working66 institutional and regulatory change as part of the move towards WSUD.

Case study 6.1 Partnership funding

Beam Parklands, Dagenham

A multi million pound project based in Dagenham, and delivered in a partnership between The Land Trust, Environment Agency, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and the London Borough of Havering. It attracted multiple funding sources including a £1.9m endowment from the Homes and Communities Agency’s (HCA) Parklands allocation for the East London Green Grid and over £1.5m from the European Regional Development Fund. It transformed a derelict openareaintoarecreationalamenity.Itprovidesfloodriskmanagementandincludes12haofnewhabitatincludingreedbeds, ponds, wet woodland, lowland fen, traditional orchards and acid grassland.


Figure 6.2 Indicative balance of priorities for government

Local authority

Water is not, and is unlikely to become, the main influence in spatial planning, except in exceptional circumstances where water availability and/or flooding is a challenge. It is important to understand this as a starting point in order to engage with local authorities on the subject of WSUD. However, it is useful to recognise the synergies of WSUD with other local authority functions such as highways, SuDS and GI, and the requirement to demonstrate that policies and plans are sustainable.

It is recognised that these various functions, and the benefits returned by WSUD, often fall between departments. The challenges this brings in delivering WSUD is an opportunity for alignment of agendas and different working scales. Local authorities are primarily driven by economic growth and job creation as well as delivering their regulatory and legislative responsibilities. However, they also have diverse responsibilities relating to, inter alia, education, health and well-being, housing, crime reduction and quality of place. Despite these wider responsibilities, local authorities, especially in the current economic climate, need to demonstrate monetary return on investment (ROI) through the wider economy. As a result, there can be a strong emphasis on robust and quantitative evidence for all planning decisions.

In England, the local authorities have new responsibilities for local flood risk management under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. The Act promotes the use of SuDS to manage surface water, and these will be required to be adopted and maintained by lead local flood authorities through the new SuDS Approval Bodies. The new Defra partnership funding policy places great emphasis on local flood risk schemes (particularly surface water management) being now eligible for Flood Defence Grant-in-Aid (FDGiA). Previously, some projects were fully funded but many were declined. Projects will now be able to proceed by building partnerships and securing funding agreements with other parties such as developers and water companies.

There is an opportunity for local authorities to bring different sources of funding together to deliver multi-objective projects – making economic, social and environmental improvements, including amenity, tourism and regeneration, on the back of tackling surface water management issues. Integrating WSUD with the planning process can also help local authorities deliver many of their policy objectives and broader multiple benefits.

Floo

ding

Qt

Qu

Ener

gy/c

arbo

n

Wat

er

Econ

omy

Hab

itat

and

bio

dive

rsit

y

Food

Was

tew

ater

Hea

lth

and

wel

l-bei

ng

Plac

e an

d co

mm

unit

y

Clim

ate

chan

ge

£ Low

pri

orit

yH

igh

prio

rity

We feel that the growth and sustainability and

resourceefficiencygohandinhand. What we don’t want to doisstiflegrowthinthefuture,so it’s being smarter about how weplanaswellasbenefittingthe environment.”

Simon BunnSuDS engineer, Cambridge

City Council

“

CIRIA, C724 65

1

2

3

4

7

8

5

6

The retrofit project in Hull (see Case study 6.2) is exploring these wider benefits and associated delivery mechanisms. Recent developments allowing local authorities to invest a proportion of their pension funds in critical infrastructure may provide opportunities for funding WSUD, but will depend on a strong demonstrable ROI and projects at the correct scale with credible governance structures in place.

Large scale planning is now undertaken by LEPs that are driven by economics but are interested in potential returns justified through an ecosystems services approach and may emerge as a major delivery path for co-ordinated interventions, including WSUD. In addition, the UK Government Natural Environment White Paper emphasis on LNPs may result in them playing a key role as integrators within England.

In England Public health and well-being are now merged with local authority responsibilities through the Localism Act 2011. Local f looding responsibilities are now merged through the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. The Green Deal and housing retrofit are also important new activities for local authorities and their partners. These are positive shifts in a direction that could enable a more integrated approach to WSUD, but much capacity building will be required in local authorities to achieve this.

Operating scale

Local authorities, primarily working at city or district level in England, but wider remit through LEPs, city regions and LNPs.

Necessary engagement at catchment scale–thismaybedifficultandpolitically fraught.

WSUD offer opportunity for different departments working at differing scales to work in a more integrated way.

Needs

66 capacity building in integrated design and interdisciplinary practice66 integration of SuDS Approval Bodies (in unitary or county authorities) with

other departments (housing, spatial and economic planning etc)66 ensure that planning at catchment and bio-regional scale is not lost because

of planning relaxation and localism (particularly in England)66 evidence to support policy, linked to ecosystems services and pilot projects66 financemechanismsforlandscaperetrofitlinkedtoanextendedGreenDeal,

investment from pension funds etc66 capacity building between departments to help integrate planning and policy.

Case study 6.2 Exploring partnership funded landscape retrofit

Hull City Payment for Ecosystems Services (PES) pilot study

Aresearchprojectisnowunderwaytolookatthepotentialwiderbenefitsthaturbanandurbanfringegreenspacecouldprovide to communities in Hull under new community management models. The research is based on a successful bid to Defra as a PES pilot. The project will explore alternative funding and delivery mechanisms linked to models for energy-savingretrofitofcouncilhousingstockandpotentialeffectsonjobcreationandskillsdevelopment.

Theprojectisledbythefloodriskmanager,buthasdrawninrepresentativesfromhousingandregeneration,climatechange and sustainability and other council departments. In this respect is an exemplary in demonstrating how the multifunctionalbenefitsofWSUDwillonlybedisclosedifaddressedinanintegratedway.


Figure 6.3 Indicative balance of priorities for local authorities

Environmental regulators (Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and SEPA)

EnglandIn England, the Environment Agency has the strategic overview of the management of all sources of flooding and coastal erosion. Its strategic overview role is in addition to the operational function it has in relation to managing flood risk from main rivers and the sea. Lead local flood authorities (LLFAs) have a strategic and operational role in managing local flood risk including surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses, following the direction set by the strategic plans developed by the Environment Agency, as they develop their local Flood Risk Management Strategies.

The Environment Agency works with district councils and LLFAs through the planning process to plan flood risk management and support decisions on development in local planning authority areas (see Case study 6.3). The Environment Agency also works with utility and infrastructure providers, including particularly the water and sewerage companies, ensuring that they input to flood risk management plans.

Because of this clearly defined remit, the Environment Agency activities are governed by the role set out for it by legislation. Its strategic direction for flood risk is clearly described in the National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for England (Defra and Environment Agency, 2011), which was approved by Parliament. Its other responsibilities and activities relating to quality of the environment are also clearly defined by legislation.

Defra has provided the Environment Agency with a new policy direction for flood defence grant in aid funding, with a significant emphasis on partnership funding. The Environment Agency is already working closely with partners to develop integrated partnership solutions for flood risk, including surface water management, with an increasingly joined-up approach to water management, including pollution prevention and control. The WFD identifies the role of river basin management plans (RBMPs) and integrated catchment approaches to deliver improvements in partnership with stakeholders and communities. The Environment Agency responds to UK Government policy and thinking as it develops its approach to carrying out its remit. In particular for flood risk, it has responded to the Natural Environment White Paper, and the evolving PES and SROI approaches to developing business cases for flood risk management. The Economic Evaluation of Environmental Effects handbook (Brouwer et al, 2010) draws on evidence from recent studies within an ecosystem services framework. Work is ongoing to develop the evidence base for this approach (see Case study 6.3).

Floo

ding

Ener

gy/c

arbo

n

Wat

er

Econ

omy

Hab

itat

and

bio

dive

rsit

y

Food

Was

tew

ater

Hea

lth

and

wel

l-bei

ng

Plac

e an

d co

mm

unit

y

Clim

ate

chan

ge

£

Qt

Qu

Low

pri

orit

yH

igh

prio

rity

CIRIA, C724 67

1

2

3

4

7

8

5

6

ScotlandSEPA is a non-departmental public body, accountable through Scottish Ministers to the Scottish Parliament and is Scotland’s environmental regulator. SEPA is responsible for managing environmental quality and is also an important player in the new arrangements for managing flood risk in Scotland, working with the Scottish Government to co-ordinate the involvement of local partnerships and advisory groups and also defining sustainable policies and actions for flood risk management. Responsibility for managing flood risk in Scotland is shared across SEPA, local authorities, Scottish Water and also the Scottish Government.

WalesIn Wales, Natural Resources Wales (Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru) is the principal adviser to the Welsh Government on the environment, enabling the sustainable development of Wales’ natural resources for the benefit of people, the economy and wildlife.

Natural Resources Wales was set up in April 2013 and brings together the work of the Countryside Council for Wales, Environment Agency Wales and Forestry Commission Wales, as well as some functions of Welsh Government.

The purpose of this new environmental body is to ensure that the natural resources of Wales are sustainably maintained, used and enhanced, now and in the future. They will do this by:

1 Working for the communities of Wales, protecting people and their homes as much as possible from environmental incidents like flooding and pollution. They will also provide opportunities for people to learn, use and benefit from Wales’ natural resources.

2 Working for Wales’ economy, enabling the sustainable use of natural resources to support jobs and enterprise. They will help businesses and developers to understand and consider environmental limits when they make important decisions.

Case study 6.3 Building a shared language

Interdisciplinary capacity-building workshops

Arupinitiated,designedandfacilitatedatwo-dayworkshopwithfloodriskmanagersanddeliveryteamsinExeter,lookingatthebenefitsofalternative,interdisciplinaryapproachestodesignandinvolvingwiderstakeholdersonfloodrisk management projects. The event was run at the Centre for Contemporary Art and the Natural World (CCANW), in collaboration with the CIWEM Arts and Environment Network and was based around a real case-study provided by the Environment Agency. Attendees included environmental scientists, ecologists, engineers, architects, landscape and urban designers, artists, curators and policy experts and members of regulatory bodies.


3 Working to maintain and improve the quality of the environment for everyone. They will work towards making the environment and natural resources more resilient to climate change and other pressures.

Natural Resources Wales brings the management of Wales’ natural resources and environment together in a more balanced and integrated way, helping to make the best decisions possible for the people of Wales. This potentially provides an opportunity for a more integrated approach to the management of water and ecosystems, consistent with a WSUD process.

The balance of priorities for the Environment Agency, SEPA and Natural Resources Wales reflects their clearly defined role as regulators with responsibility for managing flood risk and environmental quality.

Operating scale

Environmental regulators working at national, regional and local scale. Generally engages at larger scale except through consultation. However there is a recent drive to encourage partnership funding, which requires engagement with smaller-scale organisations.

Needs

66 betterintegrationbetweencapitaldelivery(mainlyfinance/engineeringled),with environmental and landscape services

66 expansion of disciplines to include urban planners and sociologists as well as environmental professionals and landscape architects

66 continuedexplorationofintegrationofPESmethodsintocost-benefitanalyses.

Figure 6.4 Indicative balance of priorities for environmental regulators

Floo

ding

Ener

gy/c

arbo

n

Wat

er

Econ

omy

Hab

itat

and

bio

dive

rsit

y

Food

Was

tew

ater

Hea

lth

and

wel

l-bei

ng

Plac

e an

d co

mm

unit

y

Clim

ate

chan

ge

Qt

Qu

£ Low

pri

orit

yH

igh

prio

rity

CIRIA, C724 69

1

2

3

4

7

8

5

6

Water sector

For the most part financial returns influence decisions in the water sector, and while more enlightened companies recognise the potential effects on the wider economy, such as the study undertaken by Yorkshire Water (2010) these wider effects are not core to the regulated business. Regulated by Ofwat the majority of water companies are driven by their own pricing and investment cycles, which are relatively short-term and rarely coincide with political or economic cycles. Welsh Water, is slightly different than the water companies in England because its parent company Glas Cymru is the only not-for-profit organisation in the water industry. This means it has no shareholders and profits are either reinvested in the business or returned to customers.

In England and Wales an Ofwat discussion document (Ofwat, 2010) provides a focus for the sector to deliver broader outcomes that customers and wider society value rather than prescribing detailed inputs and outputs.

As part of these changes Ofwat needs to look at the economic analysis used for developing a business case. Currently water companies are constrained to five year AMP periods, meaning the economic analysis does not necessarily incentivise long-term solutions, especially solutions with benefits that are difficult to quantify in monetary terms. The outcome based approach should seek to find new methods of economic analysis that allow the long-term benefits associated with the outcomes for society to be quantified. This will enable water companies to provide and approve different types of solutions that are more in-line with WSUD principles and help partnered approaches. Defra (2012) in their Statement of Obligations recognises that water and sewerage companies can invest in natural systems to deliver outcomes, and suggest that payment for ecosystem services could be used to inform options. It is likely that similar principles will be carried forward in Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland enabling similar opportunities to develop.

A credible, valuation of WSUD is necessary to be coherently included in the regulated business. WSUD address some supply security, network capacity, surface water management and energy use issues and may provide new business opportunities.

Defra has also emphasised the responsibilities of water companies for WFD measures, with a requirement that they include this in their current pricing review.

Operating scale

Watercompanieshavetightlydefinedcatchment-scale boundaries and generally act within these though there are selected cases of cross-boundary trading and collaboration, which may increase in future.

Generally focused on centralised municipal treatment processes.

Needs

66 building more evidence for the business case, including pilot studies66 exploration of a water-related Green Deal66 moreflexibilityfromregulators,allowingalternativecostingmethodsin

pricing review, such as longer timescales for returns on investment and differential pricing for non-potable water

66 more research into centralised versus decentralised systems of water and wastewater treatment

66 moreresearchintodifferentapproachestodeterminingcostsandbenefits.


Figure 6.5 Indicative balance of priorities for water companies

Developers

Developers are sometimes portrayed as the most detached and financially-driven of stakeholders within the built environment, but this is an over-simplification. In fact it could be argued that enlightened developers and property agents have long understood the value of ‘place’ and ‘design’ and its complex relationship to notions of value. Social landlords have traditionally been proactive in embracing environmental and sustainability objectives.

The relative autonomy of developers and their risk-taking nature means that although their overall case for action is caused by a need for direct and short-term monetary returns, they are free to make design decisions based on quantitative/qualitative criteria if this is judged to increase property values. This means that developers are able to get on and deliver design features, including those through WSUD that others, such as the Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales or water companies, are still struggling to quantify in their cost-benefit analysis or price reviews. Also, the direct and rapid link between action taken and a demonstrable financial return provides a potentially rich source of evidence to help quantify the benefits of WSUD, evidence that will enable more conservative organisations to act. This fact alone makes developers a vital element in delivering WSUD in the future.

However, there are times when a purely financial model will not stand alone, ie when WSUD may not deliver clearly defined monetary returns and so will not happen spontaneously. Even when water sensitive measures are viable within a site, there is a risk that there is a lack of sufficient incentives to consider the integration of these measures on their site with wider urban systems, leading to isolated and potentially disintegrated actions. An example might be a prime location for building within a site conflicting with a strategic green/blue corridor or pedestrian route. This is when larger-scale planning, regulations and design standards become important. Developers also need to comply with regulations, generally channelled through the planning and building control process (Building Regulations, water quality, flood risk, provision of planning gain etc). The quality of planning decisions and policies are critical. In England recent relaxations in permitted development, enterprise zones, and loose definitions of sustainability in the National Planning Policy Framework have caused some concerns. It is important that policy and planning decisions remain integrated, with water management a key part of this process. Exemplar standards such as the CSH (CLG, 2011) are helping to improve quality, but they are voluntary and are only gradually being incorporated into revised Building Regulations. Regulations are important but building incentives may be more effective for progress, as discussed in Chapter 7.

Floo

ding

Ener

gy/c

arbo

n

Wat

er

Econ

omy

Hab

itat

and

bio

dive

rsit

y

Food

Was

tew

ater

Hea

lth

and

wel

l-bei

ng

Plac

e an

d co

mm

unit

y

Clim

ate

chan

ge

Qt

Qu

£ Low

pri

orit

yH

igh

prio

rity

CIRIA, C724 71

1

2

3

4

7

8

5

6

Considerable existing evidence for the value of WSUD is based around new build developments but there is larger challenge and opportunity in relation to retrofitting. Developers remain important for new build spaces and increasingly will take a role in retrofitting properties and surrounding landscapes. To make this beneficial for property developers, work needs to be done to explore similar financial incentives extending and expanding such mechanisms to cover water efficiency measures, and the possibility of landscape retrofit at a larger scale.

Operating scale

Industry bodies may play a national and strategic role in representing developer interests. However all but the largest developers are likely to operate at the levelofaspecificsiteandarelikelyto interact with wider systems only in so far as they constrain or open up opportunities to make a monetary ROI.

Needs

66 more case study evidence to support developers to invest upfront in making quality places linked to WSUD

66 linking of WSUD measures to current provision for public open space within development

66 ensure that SABs are integrated with planning not a side-lined technical department

66 developmentoffinancialincentives,suchastheGreenDealinEngland,toallowdeveloperstoengageinwaterrelatedretrofit

66 investigate possibility of incentives/obligations linked to insurance industry.

Figure 6.6 Indicative balance of priorities for developers

Case study 6.4 Understanding the value of good water sensitive design

The Canal Rivers Trust and Igloo Developments

The Canal and Rivers Trust (formerly British Waterways) own part of the Lancaster Canal in Kendal, and were looking to restore a three to four mile section of the restoration of the Northern Reaches, extending into Kendal. They undertook extensive economic and environmental studies as part of a full master plan and area action plan developed with South Lakeland District Council and Cumbria County Council. Fundamental to this phase of the project was identifying what Kendalneededintermsofcommercialandleisurefacilitieswhileallowinglandownersandthecommunitytobenefitfrom the opportunity to develop around a high quality, vibrant water space. Income from the development would fund restoration of the remaining section. During the economic analysis it was found that construction of houses near to high quality waterside development could raise values by up to eight per cent.

This project is one example of the general approach taken by the Trust. Their development arm, Igloo, is seen as one of the industry leaders in developing high quality developments that takes far-sighted view on the integration of ‘intangibles’ such asplaceandcommunityandotherbenefitstocreatesustainabledevelopment.Theyhaveestablishedaframeworkforsustainable development with a sustainable investment committee selected to oversee its delivery.

Floo

ding

Ener

gy/c

arbo

n

Wat

er

Econ

omy

Hab

itat

and

bio

dive

rsit

y

Food

Was

tew

ater

Hea

lth

and

wel

l-bei

ng

Plac

e an

d co

mm

unit

y

Clim

ate

chan

ge

Qt

Qu

£ Low

pri

orit

yH

igh

prio

rity


Local community and third sector organisations

In England Government is placing a high priority on devolution of decisions through, for example, abolishing regional spatial strategies (RSS), introducing the possibility of community-initiated neighbourhood plans and relaxing of planning constraints through the new NPPF. Likewise organisations such as Environment Agency are increasingly encouraged to work in partnership with local authorities, local communities and third sector organisations (not public sector or private business, but voluntary and non-profit organisations, and typically social enterprises, depending on the nature of the business model).

Increasingly, it will be a requirement to demonstrate local engagement and mobilisation of local resources to supplement wider investment, with local communities and the third sector as key players.

Third sector organisations often play a role as intermediaries between very local actions and the wider world or hierarchical organisations, such as larger business and all levels of government. They will have to demonstrate value and results, but not usually profit. So while some monetary return is important their priorities are often because of quantitative/qualitative criteria. This enables them to champion areas that are now harder to include in conventional cost-benefit analyses.

This area is complex and it is difficult to generalise particularly in relation to the third sector. There is a vast array of third sector organisations some of which place water and environment as their highest priority and make that their single focus. Others look at GI and health, where there are synergies that could be exploited. These organisations may play a critical role in facilitating change. However, to focus on these would influence the analysis. It may be fair to say that for many third sector organisations, water management and design will be of interest only as far as it delivers community benefits.

The term ‘local community’ is easily used, but is complex. In reality communities are made of individuals who may have very specific personal concerns around single issues, such as financial security, parking, quality of local schooling, and perhaps flooding, but rarely water or wastewater. They may be highly motivated by a direct monetary return through decreased energy or water bills, or potential house price increases due to improved external environment linked to WSUD action, but are unlikely to be motivated by large scale water-related strategy.

In reality a ‘community’ is only formed when individuals gather around a single issue or project. Once motivated, such a group may demand very little monetary return at all, and may generate a significant amount of investment in kind based purely on qualitative returns linked to benefits such as place and community, health and well-being. Understanding the complex set of motivations that operate within communities to bring them together around a project will be critical to building an integrated business case. New skills will be required. Third sector organisations and bodies such as the Third Sector Research Centre are likely to play an important role in mediating between conventional water management teams, community groups, and the individuals that act within them.

Home Zones are a concept that originated in the Netherlands in the 1970s and is an example of a single issue, in this case traffic management, which can help to galvanise a community. These schemes are ostensibly about reconfiguring public realm to strike a balance between people and traffic, but they also are an opportunity to deliver other WSUD benefits.

CIRIA, C724 73

1

2

3

4

7

8

5

6

Operating scale

Local communities and third sector organisations operate at small scale, with potential to have increasing influenceonlargerscaleplanningdecisions.

Needs

66 further research into what motivates individuals and communities to act in relationtoWSUDrelatedbenefits.Workingwithcommunitygroupsandthirdsector organisations

66 possible project with Third Sector Research Centre66 capacity building among professional and communities66 mechanisms to demonstrate direct and indirect monetary returns for

individuals through bills, property values and SROI66 developing models for collaboration between large and small organisations,

including pilot projects to test scenarios.

Figure 6.7 Indicative balance of priorities for local community and third sector

Case study 6.5 Building a platform for water-related action (from Incredible Edible Todmordon Unlimited)

This well-known scheme involved citizens in taking actions to plant food when and where possible throughout the public realm. This was a self-initiated and self-funded action with the main aims being sustainable food production, motivated by ideas of community and place, health and well-being, habitat and biodiversity. In time the project has also delivered tangibleeconomicbenefitsthroughdevelopmentofsmallbusiness.Waterwasnotconsideredimportant,butastheproject has developed and built political and institutional support at local and national level, it has become something thatcoulddelivermajorwater-relatedbenefits.Thiswouldofferaready-madeplatformforinjectionofwater-relatedfundingintolandscaperetrofit,withtheassociatedWSUDbenefitsalreadybeingdelivered.

For more information go to: www.incredible-edible-todmorden.co.uk

Floo

ding

Ener

gy/c

arbo

n

Wat

er

Econ

omy

Hab

itat

and

bio

dive

rsit

y

Food

Was

tew

ater

Hea

lth

and

wel

l-bei

ng

Plac

e an

d co

mm

unit

y

Clim

ate

chan

ge

Low

pri

orit

yH

igh

prio

rity

Qt

Qu

£


Designers and consultants

This is a diverse community, with fluid boundaries, made up of private-sector consultants, professional bodies, research organisations, think tanks and academics. This sector includes research and development departments within some private-sector firms. There can be, potential crossover of professional institutions or think tanks with the third sector, and elsewhere there may be overlaps with the public sector, for example through education and government-funded research.

Private sector designers and consultants while often individually motivated by non-monetary quantitative and qualitative factors, are generally constrained by their business models to carry out work according to specific briefs and budgets. Depending on the commission, this may limit the extent to which they are able to broaden a scope of work, for example from traditional water management into a WSUD approach.

Academics, think tanks and independent research bodies, may have wider scope to set their own agendas, though due to increasingly scarce funding even these organisations are less independent and bound by conditions attached to funding streams. Many academic departments undertake work on a private consultancy basis. Linked to this, is the general tendency among designers, consultants and academics, even professional bodies, towards division of labour – specialisation to differentiate and create a niche to survive in harsh market conditions. This tendency, both within and between organisations is sometimes in conflict the need for greater co-operation and integration, which is critical to delivery of WSUD.

The need to integrate across disciplinary boundaries is stronger than ever. This has emerged as a repeated theme throughout this study. The water industry, perhaps more than most, has been isolated from wider conversations about city making. There is an urgent need for integrators and specialist generalists.

Despite these limitations and occasional conflicts of interest, designers and consultants, professional bodies and academics remain in a unique position to encourage conversations and knowledge exchange, and by influencing clients and funding bodies, regulators and politicians where possible. This community plays a key role in educating, training and developing and disseminating good practice. It is in a strong position to influence change. The role of designers and consultants in the planning and urban design process is discussed in Chapter 7.

This community may not be in a position to carry out immediate actions without other key bodies such as government, local authorities, water companies and developers, and perhaps have a strategic long-term view.

Operating scale

Designers and consultants operate at national and local level, with networks extending internationally.

Potential role in developing neighbourhood plans and assisting ‘bottom up’ action

Needs

66 consider a WSUD co-ordinating body to assist with integrated conversation across disciplinary boundaries

66 review disciplinary boundaries and entry criteria (long-term)66 preparation and dissemination of good practice. Awareness raising and

lobbying all levels of government66 facilitate long-term culture change towards integrated design.

It’s impossible to separate WSUD from

wider sustainability issues. The modes that we need to employ for WSUD are exactly what we need to employ in all other realms for good design.”

Tim WatermanLandscape architect

and lecturer

“

CIRIA, C724 75

1

2

3

4

7

8

5

6

Figure 6.8 Indicative balance of priorities for designers and consultants

Floo

ding

Low

pri

orit

yH

igh

prio

rity

Ener

gy/c

arbo

n

Wat

er

Econ

omy

Hab

itat

and

bio

dive

rsit

y

Food

Was

tew

ater

Hea

lth

and

wel

l-bei

ng

Plac

e an

d co

mm

unit

y

Clim

ate

chan

ge

Qt

Qu

£

Case study 6.7 Building a case for multi-functional GI (from CABE, 2009)

The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) ran a campaign and produced a report that called for “…a shift in funding and skills from grey to green infrastructure…moving a proportion of investment in projects like road buildingandheavyengineeringtonetworksofgreenspacestoprovidefloodprotectionandcutcarbonemissions.”

ThemainideawastopromoteGI,whichcanprovidemultifunctionalbenefitssuchascleanerair,floodmanagement,cooler cities, local food, sustainable waste management and renewable energy, improved public health, biodiversity support, sustainable economy and beautiful places. Indeed, CABE’s emphasis was on the need for the design professionstoadoptthiswayofthinkingandencouragetheseskillstobedeveloped.Itrecognisesthesignificantchange from the normal for many professionals and the ideas require a change in culture. This kind of cultural shift will be central to delivery of WSUD. This campaign and other similar are laying the groundwork for a shift towards more integrated approaches. It is an important example the kind of role that a WSUD co-ordinating body could play.

Case study 6.6 Developing exemplar guidance and research (from the LiFE Project)

The LifE project was one of six projects funded by Defra’s Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Innovation Fund.TheInnovationFundseekstoimprovefuturedeliveryoffloodandcoastalerosionriskmanagement,bypromotinginnovative approaches that contribute towards the development of more holistic and sustainable policy making in the future.

Twoexamplesiteshavebeensuggested,thefirstatHackbridgewherethesuggestionwouldbetouseamenityplayareasasfloodstorage.ThesecondprojectisinPeterborough,wherethereissuggestiontocreateamenityislandsbetweendevelopmentplotstodivertfloodwatersawayfromhomes.

Theaimistohelpmanageandreduceunacceptablelevelsoffloodriskbyraisingawarenessandassistinginpromotingmore sustainable development. This should be used by all parties from an early stage in design. This is a great example of interdisciplinary collaboration, supported by government funding to initiate practical and cultural change.

For more information go to: www.lifeproject.info/


6.5 Developing a business caseWSUD takes an all-encompassing view of water and how it should be managed, and necessitates a more detailed consideration of the value of ecosystems and GI. While clear lines of responsibility can be proportioned on who does what to implement WSUD successfully, determining the economic and social benefits can be harder to determine and distinguish between interested parties to develop a robust business case.

Misalignment of cost and benefits

The UK Government’s Water White Paper (Defra, 2011b) promotes a joined-up approach to solving the problems that are now faced with water. The government expects stakeholders to review current legislation and determine mechanisms by which present laws can be amended to aid the introduction of the Water White Paper. WSUD can act as a catalyst for both informing and encouraging a new approach to multi-agency working.

In determining the present benefits of WSUD, several inputs have been tracked from beginning to end from the perspective of one ‘stakeholder’, in this case a water company. The analysis identifies the cause and effect of their investment and who really benefits from the investment. The outcome is clear, in that many of the wider benefits accruing from an investment in WSUD will occur outside the regulated business. This misalignment of investment/benefits to stakeholders does not encourage a holistic understanding of all the potential economic/financial and social benefits that WSUD has to offer. Figures 6.9 and 6.10 represent this schematically.

Compare with the local authority example in Figure 6.10 (p78).

In Figure 6.10 costs of WSUD actions would be incurred by the water company, but some of the associated benefits will not be directly returned within the business. The benefits materialise for other stakeholders and for wider society. The water company may be satisfied that the wider benefits are consistent with their corporate social responsibility (CSR) objectives, but that may not necessarily be enough to enable them to act within the constraints of current pricing mechanisms and regulations.

Figure 6.10 looks schematically at a local authority. It can be seen immediately that both are likely to have quite polarised priorities. For example, compare ‘water’ and ‘wastewater’, which are two elements central to WSUD. Benefits like ‘economy’ are similarly polarised, while less tangible benefits such as ‘place and community’ and ‘health and well-being’ form part of a local authority case for action more easily than a water company business case. Elements like ‘food and urban agriculture’ lie more distant from both organisations central priorities – but this may be a high priority for a small third sector organisation or local community group. The figures highlight limitations for each stakeholder, but also opportunities. They become helpful in understanding the overlaps – places where if objectives can be properly aligned an overall case for action involving partnership with several different stakeholders can be formulated. A scenario where objectives are aligned and costs are shared in proportion to the benefits returned to build up an overall case for action.

These figures could be prepared for other stakeholders. It is expected that this kind of analysis, undertaken in more detail and backed up with further evidence, would form a vital part of future project initiatives and development of the overall evidence base and ‘business case’ for WSUD.

CIRIA, C724 77

1

2

3

4

7

8

5

6

Figure 6.9 Indicative schematic diagram showing the potential misalignment the WSUD investment costs by an organisation, and the return of WSUD benefits, using a water company example

Place and community

Flooding

Wastewater


Climate change adaptation



Energy/carbon

Economy

Water

Other actors and wider society

Local authority

Investment in WSUD


Figure 6.10 Indicative schematic diagram showing the potential misalignment the WSUD investment costs and the return of WSUD benefits, using a water company example

Place and community

FloodingWastewater


Climate change adaptation



Energy/carbon

Economy

Water

Other actors and wider society

Water Company

Investment in WSUD

CIRIA, C724 79

1

2

3

4

7

8

5

6

Establishing the elements of the business case

In developing the business case for WSUD it will be necessary to consider:

66 cost, including whole life costs of WSUD measures and process

66 benefits encompassing direct financial benefits and indirect benefits

66 funding that could support or share investment and risk.

CostIn addition to the direct costs of building and maintaining WSUD related infrastructure, the delivery of a WSUD approach will also involve a variety of indirect costs associated with lost opportunity cost, training costs and risk related costs. The breakdown of potential costs has been examined by Water by Design (2010) and are summarised in Table 6.3. As discussed in the previous chapter there is often a mis-alignment with who will incur these costs, and who will benefit.

Table 6.3 Breakdown of WSUD cost elements

Item Description of cost elements

Direct financial

Total life cycle The sum of an asset’s cost over its life span with future costs discounted to a base date. Includes acquisition, annual maintenance, operational renewal and decommissioning costs

AcquisitionCapital costs of construction and establishment of the WSUD measuresCosts of design and assessment of WSUD measuresSite acquisition costs, where relevant

Annual maintenance Maintenanceduringthefirsttwoyears(elevatedcost)andongoingmaintenance(egweeding, replanting, sediment removal)

Operation Costs associated with running WSUD measure (eg rainwater tank pumps)

Renewal Re-setting or rebuilding the infrastructure once the design life is reached (eg replacing media in the bio-retention system and re-planting it)

Decommission In some circumstances WSUD measures will be decommissioned

Indirect financial

Reduction in area for other uses

Foregone opportunity to use land for other purposes (eg active public open space and development)

Environmental costs Associated with obtaining raw materials, construction and maintenance

Training and education costs

Capacity building within government and the development industry to assist in the delivery of WSUD

Hidden costs of development

Environmental monitoring, delays in gaining development approval, environmental permits, insurance

Exposure to risk/reputation Exposure to risk if WSUD assets fail

Non-market

Maintenance burden for residents

Maintenance burden for residents and landowners where WSUD assets are held in private ownership

Nuisanceflooding Inconvenienceassociatedwithnuisanceflooding

Community health and safety The health and well-being of nearby residents who may be affected by potential nuisances.

Unit costs for surface water runoff and for WSUD management measures are available from various studies around the world, but are very contextual and tend to be focused on direct financial costs during the ‘acquisition’ phase. The relevance of collating Australian or US data on WSUD elements for application to the UK is questionable. Local databases of costs for the elements of a WSUD scheme are still relatively new (see Woods-Ballard et al, 2007). Further work should be undertaken as part of the next phase of this project to compile a composite database of the latest UK figures available. This should cover direct and indirect costs together with comparative costs for conventional solutions.


BenefitThe possible benefits from WSUD range from the financial benefits a utility company get from reducing the amount of surface water runoff and wastewater they treat to the benefits a homeowner will get from having improved air quality. To develop a business model for WSUD, an understanding of how the present benefits are measured is required. The misalignment of costs to benefits needs to be addressed to develop a fairer means to distribute the benefits to those who pay for them. For example, a water company could pay part of the cost of replacing permeable paving in public realm through a joint WSC/LA fund set up to finance such schemes. The challenge is to interpret these non-monetised benefits and quantify how they can be assessed side by side with financial benefits.

New methods of analysing wider benefits and bringing them into a quantifiable case for action are increasingly important, and are gaining recognition by government, for example Defra (2012). The main emerging methods of quantifying externalities (PES and SROI), are described here.

Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES)The PES approach has been developed to encourage, monitor and assess the environment and the economic benefits of payment systems. However, PES is confined to single components within the environment. With PES and other practices, direct contributions into changing environmental practices can be determined, and the results can be demonstrated to the stakeholders involved. PES has proved successful and shows that tackling environment issues proactively by committed stakeholders can lead to improvements to the environment. It is imported to realise the present misalignment of benefits to costs, which is referred to here.

The principle behind WSUD and the UK Government’s Water White Paper (Defra, 2011b), relies on joined-up approach to solving the problems that are now faced with water as discussed in Chapter 5. The government now expects stakeholders to review current legislation and determine mechanisms by which present laws can be amended to aid the introduction of their Water White Paper. WSUD can form a significant contribution to these mechanisms. Watson and Albon (2011) highlight the costs of current environmental challenges.

WSUD is challenging all involved in the water industry, the design sector and those who use water daily to refine current work and life practices. By developing a more long-term approach to water, WSUD needs more attention to be paid to the environmental benefits and associated financial benefits that will occur in the future.

PES needs innovative responses to environmental issues, by parties who have a direct influence in the issue. PES is defined as a payment to undertake a service in a more environmentally friendly manner. The users of a service pay the providers to improve the service or product. The PES service has been used in agri-environment, carbon, sequestration and wildlife conservation analyses, and is beginning to be applied to flood risk management by the Environment Agency (see Case study 6.2). Paying ‘extra’ to the provider means they can improve their product or their environmental process, which helps the environment and ultimately both the user and provider. PES attempts to generate a win–win scenario.

Applying PES style practice to WSUD requires a more integrated, rather than the conventional sectoral approach. As with all negotiations, all parties should realise that trade-offs will be required between individual stakeholders for the better good of all parties. Demonstrating the individual benefits within the WSUD process will be a means by which individual stakeholders will be asked to share and combine these benefits, to form synergies between individual benefits to create a much more tangible benefit for all.

Social Return of Investment (SROI)SROI is a relevant and appropriate method of appraising WSUD. SROI combines social, environmental and economic factors to value projects. The evaluation is informed by the views of stakeholders who play a central role in determining the outcomes and values of each outcome, effect and benefit. SROI values

CIRIA, C724 81

1

2

3

4

7

8

5

6

the things that matter, rather than just those things that are easy to monetise. It measures explicitly across a ‘triple bottom line’ of social, environmental and economic returns. SROI is concerned with the net value of WSUD when social, environmental and economic factors are examined together.

SROI requires the direct involvement of stakeholders, which brings an added dimension of transparency and accountability to the process. In assessing environmental and socio-economic benefits that come from WSUD, SROI provides a ‘social value’, which incorporates positive and negative social, environmental and economic effects as defined by the stakeholders. SROI does not value items in pure economic terms.

An SROI approach aims to ensure that all issues of concern to stakeholders but which other stakeholders may not appreciate or value or items that might be difficult to value, are counted. Case study 6.8 demonstrates the use of SROI on retrofit projects. SROI builds on conventional forms of traditional financial and economic analysis, and cost benefit analysis. SROI is based on seven principles:

1 Involve stakeholders

Stakeholders are the people or organisations that experience change because of WSUD. These should be committed and be best placed to describe the change. The stakeholders are identified and then involved in the entire consultation process.

2 Understand what changes

The different benefits from WSUD are created by the different processes and stakeholders involved. Some benefits will be positive and others negative. This process requires a detailed description of each and how in changes are influenced. The changes come from the actions of stakeholders. It is important to have the correct data reading for all parameters as the resulting benefits indicate that change has taken place.

3 Value the things that matter

As mentioned previously in this chapter, some benefits are not easily quantifiable in financial terms. So using financial proxies to recognise the value of these benefits allows for more balanced trading between vested stakeholders.

4 Only include what is material

This requires an assessment of whether a stakeholder would make a different decision if a particular piece of information were excluded. Stakeholder need to decide on what material is required to be reviewed. This will depend on the stakeholder’s commitments, views, policies and financial input.

5 Do not over claim

This requires a balanced interpretation of the benefits and the requirement to use benchmarking to help assess the change caused by the activity. It should also consider the contributions of other stakeholders to provide a balance mechanism to evaluate benefits.

6 Be transparent

Each decision and every step of the process should be documented and explained. The responsibilities of the stakeholders, the outcome of discussions and proposals, the indicators and benchmarks identified and used, all need to be identified. The basis of the SROI method of measurement is that it will achieve greater buy-in if the stakeholders have the same access to the information provided and the decision making process.

7 Verify the results

SROI involves subjectivity, however, the SROI analysis provides the opportunity for a more complete understanding of the value being created by an activity. Independent verification is thought to be preferable to ensure that stakeholders assess whether reasonable conclusions have been reached.


FundingFunding opportunities associated with partnership funding and, for example, the Green Deal have been briefly discussed under local authorities in Section 6.4. The need to bring together strategic funding for WSUD is discussed as an agent for change in Chapter 7.

6.6 ConclusionThere is clear evidence that the delivery of WSUD in the UK would produce both economic benefits and wider benefits. These can be assessed in terms of the stakeholders to whom they are relevant, and a business case can be refined for each stakeholder taking into account their individual interests and requirements. The framework for a business case assessment has been outlined here, which can be used in the development of full guidance for a WSUD approach.

Case study 6.8 Social housing retrofit for SALIX homes in Manchester

Arup recently carried out SROI analysis to demonstrate, examine and understand the value created from investment inretrofit.Thestudyusedenergydataandinformationfromin-depthinterviewswitharepresentativegroupoftenantsand other stakeholders. Arup used the New Economics Foundation’s (NEF) SROI methodology (NEF, 2010) to map and, where possible, monetise the environmental, economic and social value of results from the works. The study estimated thatforevery£1thathadbeeninvestedintheretrofitprogramme,asocialreturnworth£1.58willbemadetothestakeholders.

Summary

66 WSUD is an easily understood and applicable concept that can be applied at all scales66 oneofthemainchallengesindeliveringWSUDschemesistofindwaystoquantifymultifunctionalbenefits,and

importantly, bring them into mainstream practice66 thebenefitsofWSUDaresignificantandwideranging.Asidefromthedirectbenefitstowaterresources,thereare

likelytobebenefitsforplacesandcommunities,whichwillbeprimarilyofinterestto:66 UK Government66 devolved administrations (Scottish and Welsh Governments)66 local authorities66 water companies66 Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and SEPA66 developers66 design communities and individuals.

66 astherearepotentiallymanybenefitsandmanybeneficiaries,apartnershipapproachisneededforfundinganddelivery of WSUD. However, a range of practitioners, particularly those who lead the planning and design of the built environment will play an important role in delivering WSUD

66 itwasnotpossibletoprovideafullyquantifiablecostbenefitanalysisduetoalackofgoodqualityverifiabledataatthistime,howeverstrongevidenceofcostbenefitsandwiderbenefitscanbedemonstratedforkeystakeholders

66 unit costs have been compiled from SuDS studies that can be used to undertake more detailed cost comparisons during follow on initiatives

66 further investigation researching how the SROI process could be developed to support WSUD is recommended66 furtherworkneedstobeundertakentodemonstratehowbenefitscanbeassessed,includingthedevelopmentof

pilot schemes.

Case study 6.9 Community Green Deal URBED Sustainable Housing Action Partnership (SHAP) carbon retrofit

TheURBEDreportsetsouthowlowcarbonretrofittingcanbedeliveredonalargescaleacrosswholecommunities.The community Green Deal is proposed as a locally-based, area-wide response to the delivery of the Green Deal and ultimatelytheUK’smedium-tolong-termcarbonreductiontargets.Itwoulddeliverwhole-homeretrofitstoachieve80 per cent CO2 reductions for communities of between 750 and 3000 homes. It would be delivered by trusted local delivery bodies working in partnership with local communities. Local delivery bodies would bring together local authorities, and registered providers to pool resources.

CIRIA, C724 83

1

2

3

4

8

5

6

7

Analysing the journey of a number of countries outside the UK, in Chapter 3, highlights common barriers and further agents for change that have promoted a greater uptake of a WSUD approach. The results of the questionnaire and phone interviews, discussed in Chapter 4, also highlighted some common barriers to the application of WSUD in the UK, suggesting all of the following areas can realise improvements:

66 understanding and cross-disciplinary working

66 economic incentives

66 regulatory requirements.

Generally, regulation is considered to be the most effective measure for delivering change. However, sharing of professional good practice and increasing the expectations of the client body or beneficiary were shown to have significant potential. These main areas for improvement will need to be addressed by agents for change although it is recognised there is little appetite for initiatives that may adversely affect economic growth. The workshops, conducted as part of this study, also identified a range of needs that participants felt would help to increase take up of a WSUD approach in the UK. The most commonly cited needs (in order of priority) were:

1 Development of an evidence base.

2 Development of standards and guidance.

3 Education of practitioners.

4 Partnerships and collaboration.

5 Training and skills development.

6 Quantification of benefits.

7 Funding of initiatives.

8 Engagement with key disciplines and stakeholders.

9 Development of supportive regulation.

10 Targeted marketing of the concept.

11 Pilot projects.

12 Development of local champions.

13 Research and development.

This chapter reviews the common agents for change identified in the international review and verified through the UK-based questionnaire, workshops and analysis of key stakeholders and benefits. It analyses the current and emerging UK context to identify possible pathways that could aid the uptake of a WSUD approach. The agents for change discussed are:

1 Presence of a co-ordinating body.

2 Evidence base, guidance and training.

7 What is the potential for change in the UK?

This chapter develops and analyses possible ‘agents for change’ that could enable the promotion and delivery of a WSUD approach in the UK. It suggests possible actions and initiatives that could be undertaken, which are detailed

here then programmed in the route map in Chapter 8.


3 Presence and characteristics of champions.

4 Supportive planning, design processes and legislation.

5 Trusted and reliable science and research.

6 Fostering environmental expectations.

7 Strategic funding and incentives.

A summary of actions is included for each agent for change discussion. These actions have been developed into a route map in Chapter 8.

7.1 Agent for change 1: presence of a co-ordinating body

Diagnosis

The presence of a clear co-ordinating body (or network) has been crucial to the delivery of WSUD elsewhere, as it is able to provide a clear message and guidance as well as having a holistic view. In the UK there are various research, industry and regulatory bodies that focus on water management, but there is no co-ordinating body present that has guardianship over the whole water cycle. Also there is no co-ordinating body that actively involves both water management and built environment related disciplines.

CIRIA has a broad spectrum of research activities having a good reputation for collaboration between diverse disciplines, and has become well known as a guidance provider and champion of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and elements of GI. CIRIA has also completed research into rainwater harvesting and various other aspects of water cycle management, but is less established as a leading authority on those aspects.

Knowledge and promotion of alternative water supplies (rainwater harvesting, greywater harvesting and local wastewater treatment) appear to be predominantly centred on the activities of product suppliers and their trade associations. Reliance on information from product promotion can lead to undesirable solutions that are technology heavy but not part of a well thought out water sensitive strategy.

There are numerous industry groups and knowledge sharing networks focused on water management, though most have a dominance of a particular discipline or an aim on one aspect of a water cycle. Institutions such as CIWEM and ICE provide a collective framework for engineers, environmental consultants and ecologists to discuss water and other benefits. However, currently they do not provide strong interaction with other disciplines involved in urban design and placemaking to manage the rounded discussion that WSUD requires. Similarly, industry groups and platforms in planning and urban design, including RTPI, RIBA, the Design Commission for Wales, Urban Design Group and Resource for Urban Design Information (RUDI) have not extensively sought cross-disciplinary activity around water. The Landscape Institute is perhaps one exception where a greater emphasis on the overlap between water management engineering and landscape design is being explored along with recent wider studies into GI through events and publications. This diversification outside of the industry focus has been aided by the presence of champions in the organisation.

Central government agencies are able to set out a coherent vision for water cycle management, but often they are not in a position to lead co-ordination of initiatives with industry and communities. However, central and local governments may be instrumental in setting up and funding an independent advisory body. In Australia, the state or city based co-ordinating bodies of Clearwater (Victoria), WSUD.org (Sydney) and Healthy Waterways (Southeast Queensland) are good examples of how a co-ordinating body can promote knowledge and capacity building. Australia has gained national funding to set up a central co-ordination body for research on the water sensitive city.

The UK has established similar types of co-ordination bodies for carbon reduction such as the Low/Zero Carbon Hub and the Carbon Trust. This model for a WSUD co-ordinating body has been identified as

CIRIA, C724 85

1

2

3

4

8

5

6

7

having potential in Wales. In particular, where a possible new body, Water Sensitive Wales, is being scoped to aid the improvement of place and water management in Wales.

Local authorities could also be well placed to take a central role as a co-ordinator of WSUD initiatives in their area, though resource constraints are likely to mean they are unable to provide broader campaigns and promotion.

Possible approach

A co-ordinating body could be set up in the UK to provide advice, co-ordinate research and stimulate debate around water issues in developed areas. This co-ordinating body could have an overarching remit for the UK but have regional networks and representatives. The co-ordinating body could be an existing entity, a newly formed focused body or a formalised partnership between existing bodies. CIRIA has actively managed this scoping study and has a well-developed network of practitioners and a body of research to call upon in the area. However, it has been recognised that this existing audience and historical focus is predominantly based in engineering and environmental disciplines. If CIRIA were to co-ordinate the promotion, dissemination, thought leadership and research of WSUD in the UK, it would need to build on its partnerships with other bodies involved in good practice, dissemination and research in the built environment. Possible partners could include Landscape Institute, Urban Design Group, RTPI, RUDI, RIBA, and the ICE. Alternatively, there may be an opportunity to form a dedicated co-ordinating body with its own identity, but would draw on existing partner networks to develop and establish profile in the short-term until funding could be established.

7.2 Agent for change 2: evidence base, guidance and training

Diagnosis

The consultation identified evidence, guidance and training as fundamental requirements for promoting understanding and application of WSUD, and that they would need to be specific to the UK context. This scoping study begins the process of articulating and demonstrating the need for WSUD, but more comprehensive and actively instructive guidance is yet to be developed. Some guidance is available for component parts of a WSUD approach, including extensive information on SuDS, however there is no published guidance that brings the approach together.

The LifE project is a good example where guidance has been developed that aims at a multidisciplinary audience. It includes useful studies and visualisations of typical UK towns that will experience or contribute to flooding (see Chapter 6).

Currently, there is no training available on a WSUD approach in the UK, though a few conferences and bespoke training sessions have incorporated the concept and sought to cover all aspects of the water

Australian WSUD co-ordinating bodies

Victoria: www.clearwater.asn.au

Sydney: www.WSUD.org

Southeast Queensland: http://HealthyWaterways.org

Key actions to establish a co-ordinating body

1 Identify interested networks/groups and supportive professional bodies: the success of movements often relies on a co-ordinating body to provide information, guidance, and a central point for promotion, discussion and research.

2 Funding the establishment of a co-ordinating body: sourcing funds to kick-start the development of a co-ordinating body is an important step, which will likely require support from a wide range of public, private, and third sector organisations concerned with water management and the built environment. Once ongoing funding is achieved, dedicatedtimeandresourcecanbemadeavailabletocarryoutarangeoftheactionsidentifiedinthefollowingsections.

Local authorities are well placed to help

to co-ordinate application of Water Sensitive Urban Design, as we are good at looking at things holistically, and we look wider than our responsibilities. We have a verybigroleininfluencingdelivery through the planning system and quite a big role in working with other partners. We represent our local residents and we should push it forward.”


City Council

“


cycle and its interaction with urban design. The provision of guidance and training has been important elsewhere. Melbourne’s Monash University Water Sensitive Cities Winter School is one example that provides an opportunity for participants from a multidisciplinary background to learn about WSUD from experts in the field. The five day workshop focuses on urban sustainability and WSUD practices, with the aim of engaging stakeholders and influencing behavioural change.

As yet, WSUD has not been explicitly integrated into academic courses, but there is scope to combine disciplines for such a course. Some landscape architecture courses, including the University of Leeds and University of Sheffield, have recently included lectures on SuDS and a wider WSUD approach.

Possible approach

It is recommended that further guidance and more detailed evidence base is developed to continue to raise awareness and foster skills in the industry.

Ongoing training could be delivered (perhaps by the co-ordinating body) to focus on a cross-discipline audience. To be successful, training would need to appeal to a broad audience but also provide sufficient detail for the various disciplines involved. A modular approach may be beneficial, with compulsory joint sessions to manage cross-working. Online learning modules would also help greater accessibility. It may also be useful to ensure that WSUD and its philosophy are covered within university and academic curriculums.

7.3 Agent for change 3: presence and characteristics of champions

Diagnosis

As reflected by the growing popularity and use of the term Water Sensitive Urban Design in the UK industry over the last 12 months, there are a series of increasingly active champions in the UK calling for a better integration of objectives. While a group of central champions is important, their influence also needs to be wide reaching across disciplines and geographies. One objective of this study was to identify and empower a series of champions through involvement in the project steering group and workshops related to

Key actions to develop evidence base, guidance and training

1 Develop full UK WSUD guidance manual: with ongoing research and development of an evidence base, a comprehensive guidance manual could be produced to be used by a range of disciplines in both new development andretrofittingprojects.

2 Training professionals together: the importance of WSUD is gaining momentum across the many disciplines that are concerned with water management and urban development. As an idea inherently reliant on effective cross disciplinary collaboration, training that places relevant professions together to learn how existing water management practices can bechangedtobemorewaterefficientandimproveurbandesigniscritical.

3 Update university curricula for professions working in the built environment exposing students to WSUD as part of their training will enable them to incorporate its concepts once they become professionals. Integrating WSUD into university courses for town planners, architects, urban designers, landscape architects, civil engineers, environmental engineers, ecologists, and land developers will be crucial to amplifying buy-in for WSUD principles in the future.

Talking about the environmentalbenefits

and climate change is not getting the message across. Explainingthatwaterisfinitein this area and there is a line in the sand that isn’t that far away where we cannot use any more water, that is starting to focus peoples mind on how to do things differently in order to extend that time frame”


City Council)

“

A lot of what’s needed is around training. Local

authorities have a huge role and don’t have the skills or resources to understand the potential. Start there andgetplanningofficers,green space, highways to break down barriers and see opportunities. People are put off by terms such as SuDS and rain gardens but when you start to look at what they are the Local Authorities will be more likely to get involved”

Lucy Geldard Community engagement

officer, Groundwork UK

“

Even though there is the desire to integrate,

market forces are working against this. Silos are also reinforced in academia, they aren’t just in industry.”

Tim Waterman Landscape architect

and lecturer

“

CIRIA, C724 87

1

2

3

4

8

5

6

7

the project. It is expected that this scoping study will provide further information and structure for future informal activity of champions. The workshops also identified that the development of champions is a high priority in prioritising WSUD in the UK.

The socio-cultural analysis of the WSUD transition in Melbourne identified a series of characteristics of champions (Brown and Clarke, 2007), which are provided in Table 7.1, and based on anecdotal observations in the UK.

Possible approach

There is a considerable and increasing base of champions to build from, but greater connection and engagement is needed with planning, urban design and landscape architecture disciplines to foster champions. Champions are already building within the water engineering and water management sector, but it would be useful for these champions to align across sub-disciplines and ensure there is good coverage in water companies, consulting and government agencies. Champions would also be very valuable in ecology, development, and in architecture. Geographically, Wales has a strong emerging network of champions while England and Scotland have a strong but small base to build from. Few active champions have been identified in Northern Ireland as yet. One of the tools used to encourage champions in Wales was the use of WSUD visualisations specific to the Welsh context enabling stakeholders to experience how decisions can affect the water cycle within urban areas. Similar visualisations may motivate others in the UK to become WSUD champions.

Table 7.1 Analysis of desired characteristics of WSUD champions in the UK (Brown and Clarke, 2007)

Champion characteristic

identified in Australia

Expected importance in the UK context

Current characteristics of known champions in the UK

Red = low performance green = good performance

Multi-sectoral network Crucial

There is some outreach across disciplines, but fairly limited in most cases. Stronger presence is needed in the built environmentfields,particularlyplanning,urbandesignandlandscape architecture. Some further joint working across industry, academic and product sectors should be facilitated.

Environmental values and vision

Important, but also needed for economic and social awareness to drive change

Champions have developed a strong challenge culture to achievebeneficialoutcomes.

Disposition towards public good Crucial

Strong connection to public desire is needed. Most existing champions are industry or academia-based and have little opportunity to link to community initiatives and wants. Some third sector champions are emerging that could help to link better to communities.

Pragmatic ideology and learning by doing Crucial

Overcoming risk aversion is an important issue in the UK. Some championshavedemonstratedconfidencebycarryingoutpilot projects, though a better learning network needs to be established.

Innovative and adaptive Crucial Champions have given open challenge to conventional thinking.

Opportunistic Crucial Champions in the UK are harnessing a range of opportunities and connections, which need to continue.

Further guidance

Long-term initiatives for Flood-risk Environments (LIfE) Project: http://lifeproject.info

Monash University Water Sensitive Cities Winter School: http://tinyurl.com/nz7fbac

We were working with a community in a housing

estate, it had very bland green space, but through the process of putting in a rain garden, we are creating a much higher amenity resource forcommunitybenefits,amore interactive play space where you can work with water. Huge amounts can be done if you use a little bit of imagination.”

Lucy Geldard Community engagement


“


Third sector organisations and charities who work directly with communities to highlight and address a range of issues could be effective promoters and enablers of WSUD as a ground-up, or bottom-up movement where communities deliver smaller scale initiatives and raise awareness. Sustrans and Groundwork are examples of organisations that are delivering sustainable drainage pilots as well as water efficiency initiatives, urban horticulture and GI projects that would be a natural promoter of water sensitive projects.

Alongside the establishment of a co-ordinating body, it is possible that a stronger network could also be established for champions to diversify and nurture knowledge through existing initiatives and organisations.

7.4 Agent for change 4: supportive planning and design process and legislation

Diagnosis

Planning and urban design, particularly the early concept and master planning stages of new development and retrofitting, are the greatest opportunity to integrate holistic water management measures that maximise benefit to local communities and place-making.

Generally, water is not a high priority in the planning and design process in the UK for new development or regeneration of existing areas. Commonly, the inclusion of conventional water supply, wastewater drainage and surface water runoff drainage infrastructure is primarily seen as an engineering-only task that is undertaken relatively late in the urban design process once land uses, layout and the ‘vision’ for the site has been determined. Within the urban design process, two primary aspects of water management are given significant (and increasing) consideration due to legislative requirements:

66 the positioning of development in relation to flood risk zones, and the concurrent allocation of appropriate uses depending on risk

Key actions to foster champions

1 Develop network of champions across key disciplines:theWSUDprocessprovidesmultiplebenefits,soengagement from a wide variety of disciplines is required. Champions from within each of the following professions will need to be incorporated into the network:66 landscape architects66 town planners66 ecologists66 civil/water engineers66 urban designers66 architects66 land developers.

2 Establish professional networking events: there is a vast network of professionals who need to be concerned with effective water management and urban design. Establishing major networking events, and co-ordination between private, public, and academic institutions could help establish WSUD as an imperative in the UK, and in the process inspire and encourage professionals to lead it. A WSUD co-ordinating body could organise these events.

3 Connect different networks of champions across geographies: to ensure there is good coverage of activity across England,Wales,ScotlandandNorthernIreland,someareasmayneedspecificfocusandattentionwhereactivechampions are not in place. Once WSUD is widely recognised in the UK, establishing regional sub-groups could be an effective way to ensure local catchment needs are met.

4 Identify and support third sector champions to work with communities: progressing WSUD in communities around the UK will be substantially easier with community members supporting the movement from the ground-up. Working with community-facing organisations, such as Sustrans and Groundwork UK, to identify and support communities in applying WSUD initiatives is important for gathering momentum.

Further guidance

Groundwork UK: www.groundwork.org.uk

Sustrans: www.sustrans.org.uk

Water is being designed out when really we should be designing it in.”

Mike VoutUrban designer, Borough of

Telford and Wrekin

“

CIRIA, C724 89

1

2

3

4

8

5

6

7

66 the integration of surface water attenuation areas to meet SuDS requirements set out by local planning policy or by recent requirements under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) Regulations (Scotland) 2005 and Flood and Water Management Act 2010 in England and Wales.

As discussed in Chapter 5, at the moment the achievement of CSH (DCLG, 2011) and BREEAM (BRE, 2011) can also help with the consideration of both runoff reduction and water use reduction. The requirement to reduce potable water use to 80 litres/person/day to reach CSH Levels 5 or 6 has been a driver for developments to seek alternative water supply solutions from harvesting of rainwater, greywater or wastewater. To date, Levels 5 and 6 have only been achieved on a few small developments that are pilot projects rather than the norm. However, higher code targets are beginning to be included in planning policy documents and, as more policies are adopted and the development market improves, water harvesting will be a major consideration for new developments. Despite the water efficiency targets, there is a common belief in the industry that most efficiency measures (eg shower heads) and water harvesting units will be disconnected by homeowners because of the management implications and perceived restrictive effects on lifestyles and consumption (NHBC Foundation, 2010). Accordingly, water reduction measures are seen as a capital outlay for developers with perhaps little real impact.

At a strategic planning level, water cycle studies (WCS) discussed in Chapter 5 have been developed in several areas in England. A WCS signals the strategic requirement for integrated water management, rather than provide guidance on design at a development scale, but combining these with development master plans provides a strong evidence base and framework for delivery. In England this combination was used as a pre-requisite for eco-towns (DCLG, 2009) where an integrated water cycle strategy was required for eco-town master plans, setting a vision to manage water more holistically. In areas of water stress, eco-towns were required to be ‘water neutral’, manage flood risks, and comply with CSH Level 5. Significantly, some 40 per cent of a new eco-town has to be comprised of GI, providing opportunities for management of water on the surface. As a result, most integrated water cycle strategies for eco-towns have explored significant site-wide water management measures, including local wastewater harvesting. However, to date none have been significantly progressed into development. A WSUD approach could be articulated (and required) through the need for major developments to demonstrate an integrated water cycle strategy. Such a requirement could bring this WCS concept down to a development scale to test and demonstrate how water sensitive initiatives can be integrated and delivered in the built environment, bringing together surface water, water supply, wastewater and flood risk strategies, and demonstrating how these have been considered in the urban design process to reach integrated solutions. At an outline planning stage, it might be appropriate that part of the design and access strategy addresses WSUD. Specific design initiatives could also be detailed for master plans through a design code, whereby an overall framework of design objectives is set out for the whole site across multiple parcels to allow an overall vision to be set.

The reduction of carbon continues to be a necessary criterion for achieving sustainable development in the UK. The links between carbon and water are evident and traditional water cycle management uses large amounts of carbon (Water UK, 2011, and Walker, 2009). The high energy consumption of the water industry suggests the need for a more sustainable approach to water cycle management as a means to reduce waste, carbon and energy use, GHG emissions and the loss of nutrients. For example, when household and water service provider emissions are considered together, around 90 per cent of these (35 million tonnes CO2 per year) can be attributed to ‘water in the home’ (Environment Agency and Energy Savings Trust, 2009). Accordingly WSUD initiatives, that also demonstrate carbon reductions, are likely to be well received in the UK.

Whether or not the current governance, institutional and regulatory processes prevalent in the UK continue to be fit for purpose, it is likely to be the subject of much debate, especially as WSUD is inevitably delivered. In Australia, changes in the governance regimes have been required (Brown, 2012)

The development schemes we have

seen that are investigating large scale water recycling are driven by the Code for Sustainable Homes and looking at alternative methods of reaching the higher levels. Developers are also driven by requirements from planning authorities and water companies who are trying to reduce pressure on infrastructure.”

Ray FarrowConsultant, Home

Builders Federation

“


and in Philadelphia, significant re-writing of statutes and regulations has been required to allow the widespread uptake of GI for surface water runoff management (Maimone, 2012). A particular trigger for more effective integration of surface water runoff management into urban design in Australia was water quality requirements that forced greater integration of a ‘treatment train’ of SuDS features across a site. Conversely, attenuation based targets for SuDS in the UK have predominantly led designers to mistakenly favour large and single storage solutions that are allocated as a ‘land use’ in master plans rather than a multi-functional and integral part of the design concept. As discussed in Chapter 5, many believe regulation could be a barrier to the implementation of WSUD. Accordingly, a clear vision of integrated water management and the prioritisation of water as an opportunity for the built environment need some alignment and clear direction in the regulatory framework.

We need both legislation and best

practice. Policy should encourage collaboration. Designers get frustrated with rules that don’t work – policy needs to provide the intention and the governmental support but it shouldn’t be a rule book. Solutions need to becommunityspecificandenvironmentspecific–designhas to be central. The good news for designers is that they are really part of that process. You need designers who are used to working with and understanding sites.”

Tim WatermanLandscape architect

and lecturer

“

Case study 7.1 Northwest Cambridge master plan (University of Cambridge, 2012)

Proposals are being developed for the long-term expansion of the University of Cambridge to the north west of Cambridge. It includes a mixed-use sustainable development of university research and academic facilities, housing, community facilities and public open space on the 150 ha site.

Water has been a core shaping element in the evolution of the master plan. The layout is being designed around an interconnected matrix of green corridors that capture and manage water in the public realm and feed a landscaped wetland area near to the local brook. With the strategic water management design now integrated into the master plan vision, the next stage of design will detail streetscapes, public spaces and building design to explore how water can betreatedandreusedlocally.Buildingson-sitearetargetingCSHLevel5andBREEAMExcellentcertifications,whichprovide an opportunity to explore how water can be locally harvested, and how the public landscape can be used to provide treatment and storage of water sources.

Initial explorations of communal water harvesting schemes on site, using site-wide surface water runoff supply for non-potable use to homes or communal wastewater treatment and re-supply show potential cost reductions compared with a plot by plot water harvesting solution.

Figure 7.1 Northwest Cambridge master plan

CIRIA, C724 91

1

2

3

4

8

5

6

7

Possible approach

In England refinement of the design and planning process, and the accompanying legislation will need to be sensitive to current structures, while also making key changes to general practice. Neighbourhood planning provides an opportunity to develop locally relevant WSUD responses that engage local communities. The challenge with this is the integration of consistent objectives for the wider good and the provision of strategic advice to achieve a co-ordinated and effective response to development and regeneration. To this end, local plans will continue to play a vital role in enshrining WSUD principles. Cambridge City Council is currently developing its local plan by bringing all elements of water management together, under the banner of WSUD, which is setting a good example.

In Wales, water companies, Natural Resources Wales, Welsh Government and others need to work with local planning authorities to implement WSUD. Schemes need to be incorporated in to local development plans (LDPs), which require a sound evidence base.

There are already several LDPs in Wales that consider issues like surface water flooding. This has provided the rationale for local projects to implement WSUD solutions.

Understanding and expertise needs to be built among local authority planners to achieve integrated policy frameworks nationally. A strong programme of training and a suite of resources will be needed to foster policy development that supports a WSUD approach and this could be delivered by a co-ordinating body working closely with local authorities.

A useful tool in integrating water management may be the refinement of sustainable design assessment measures such as the CSH, BREEAM and CEEQUAL to cover and recognise all aspects of WSUD. Involving BRE and the UK Government and a review of the current credit structure would be needed to achieve this. Alternatively, a voluntary measure, target or award system that recognises good practice could be created for WSUD and administered by a separate entity. These measures could then be included in planning policy requirements locally.

Changes to national policies may also be productive. Legislation was favoured by questionnaire participants as a means of encouraging WSUD in the UK. Given the holistic nature of WSUD, legislation could be difficult if it makes design solutions too regimented. A broad aspiration similar to the commitment for zero carbon homes (Zero Carbon Hub, 2011) by 2016 could be set for new developments to require a change in water management practice.

While WCS have achieved some progress at a catchment scale, it seems that a requirement to conduct an integrated water cycle strategy at development scale to meet defined objectives, following the eco-town model, could be beneficial. A strategy will encourage a WSUD approach to new development, which could be linked to central or local government WSUD policy.

Water companies and local authorities are likely to play an important role in improving existing communities and infrastructure, as discussed in Chapter 6. Unless regeneration is the main aim, these initiatives will not be introduced through the planning process (though they may require planning permission at some point). However, the involvement of practitioners who design the built environment is likely to be vital for successful and appropriate retrofit solutions.

Ultimately, all of these measures will try to raise water as a priority in urban design and stimulate widespread collaboration between engineers, urban designers, planners and other practitioners, involved in the land development process. Also they will seek improved water management results that bring

My ideal would be to call it an integrated

water policy and link it to the development vision. We have found in the past that these elements are something separate to urban design but we want to change that perception through the local plan.”


City Council)

“

Cross-disciplinary working is essential –

the more you can do upfront, the easier it is to take it forward. If things are brought into the process too late there can be serious implications so developers want to know what is needed up front. We are used to a changing planning context, so our approachhastobeflexible.”

Ray FarrowConsultant, House

Builders Federation)

“


broader benefits to communities. This will require a strong and widespread campaign to build capacity in taking a WSUD approach. This will need to identify and celebrate good practice examples and change expectations for standard practice.

Figure 7.2 Cross-disciplinary working for to integrate water sensitivity into a development

Key actions to create supportive planning and design process and legislation

1 Integrate WSUD principles into voluntary sustainability rating systems: a review of BREEAM, CSH and CEEQUAL could be conducted to ensure the targets encourage and reward co-ordinated water management and integration of water initiatives in the urban design process. These standards could then be used to monitor and stimulate a WSUD approach.

2 Align legislation to promote WSUD principles: sustainable drainage has begun receiving the attention it deserves within the UK, and have now been enshrined into policy, in England and Wales, with the passing of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Building on Schedule 3 of the Act that introduces the National Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (Defra, 2011a) this legislation will need to continue evolving to eventually fully align with the greater ambitions in WSUD. However, as creativity and neighbourhood character are important for effective WSUD,therewillbeaneedforanylegislationtobeflexibleandrespondtolocalneedsandtypologies.Therewillbeaneedtobreakdowninherent‘silos’inlegislationthatbecomereflectedinindustrytoencouragecross-workingandbalance between prescription and encouragement.

3 Review local plans to align water management goals: by tailoring local policies with complementary and clear design and water management aims will help local authorities lead and support WSUD. Good practice policy examples and training for local authority planners will be important.

4 Develop new good practice standards for water sensitive developments: a measurable target that will gain UK-wide recognition could be developed for water sensitive developments. Akin to zero carbon targets that were tested in the market before being included in policy could provide a suitable model. A standard that minimises ‘water in’ and ‘water out’ could serve to test and demonstrate a range of WSUD initiatives in the interests of determining what could work and what is suitable to different contexts.

5 Establish the expectation for integrated water cycle strategies for major developments: the UK will soon require all new developments to incorporate SuDS. Even further, local authorities can require all new developments to submit an integrated water cycle strategy, which establishes not only how surface water runoff will be managed, but how all facets of the water cycle, ie wastewater, greywater, and surface water runoff, will operate together to reduce the site’s potable water demand.

CIRIA, C724 93

1

2

3

4

8

5

6

7

7.5 Agent for change 5: trusted and reliable science and research

Diagnosis

As demonstrated, in the review of the ongoing journeys of other countries (Chapter 3), academic and practical research has been an important foundation in the development of a WSUD approach. Where there are deviations from a conventional approach, trials and monitoring are vital for making the unconventional commonplace. In terms of available science and evidence, there is substantial research to draw on globally, but there is a pressing need for UK-specific evidence and demonstrations.

There are a few active academic practitioners in the UK who are researching WSUD, including from the University of Sheffield, Exeter University, Imperial College London, University of Dundee, Heriot-Watt University and University College London, but it is yet to be established as a coherent programme of research. Recent journal publications on WSUD, including a call for papers for an ICE municipal engineer issue on WSUD (ICE, 2012a) will help to capture academic and practical research in the area so far. Practical research and application is less often captured and a lack of a co-ordinating body may mean that lessons are not well documented or distributed. Several pilot projects are being developed, primarily focused on SuDS.

These projects seek to capture and test urban design benefits as well as water management benefits. These include a pilot neighbourhood and social housing developments in Wales (Natural Resources Wales, Welsh Water and Cardiff Council), a selection of streets in London (Greater London Authority, Lambeth Council and Thames Water) and development in Glasgow (Glasgow City Council, Clyde Gateway URC and the 2014 Commonwealth Games).

The Environment Agency is also scoping a research study to monitor success of rainwater and greywater harvesting in East Anglia. There is a need to bring research like this together to propose a clear site-based methodology for assessment that could link to the development of guidelines for integrated water cycle strategies for developments discussed here.

Perhaps the most extensive body of research that considers water management and urban design is f lood risk management. Academic research projects including CORFU, SMarTEST and FloodProBE have developed built environment solutions that will improve flood resilience. A new EPSRC project involving seven university partners may help to align flood risk and GI research further (University of Cambridge, 2013).

Waterwise has conducted research into the effectiveness of water efficiency measures in both new development and retrofitting into existing development (Omambala, 2009, and Watters, 2010). A range of research has also been undertaken in the UK regarding community attitudes to water (Doron et al, 2011).

Possible approach

Although most research is currently focused on a particular aspect of water management, some overlap between research into water, GI and ecosystem services are becoming apparent. To draw the results of these current research programmes and to highlight areas of WSUD that need further research and development, a co-ordinated research programme for WSUD is needed that focuses on key questions, opportunities and potential risks. This research needs to be collected and distributed by a co-ordinating body. To ground WSUD in ongoing research programmes and to ensure that it is better integrated in future curricula across disciplines, it is recommended that several university hubs are identified.

A range of practical research also needs to be distributed in the UK. The UK has strong and continual drivers for redevelopment of urban centres and settlements, which will provide the opportunity to integrate new approaches. While pilot projects of SuDS in particular are progressing, other aspects of water management and urban design integration are lacking, including:


66 effect of water efficient fittings (and post-occupancy certainty of reduction)

66 surface water runoff harvesting on a plot and communal basis

66 greywater harvesting on a plot and communal basis

66 communal wastewater harvesting for reuse

66 flood resilient construction in practice

66 adaptable public realm for multiple uses including flood storage

66 methodology to assess carbon effects of alternative water supplies for sites.

7.6 Agent for change 6: fostering environmental expectations

Diagnosis

Environmental expectations for the quality of land, water bodies and oceans from both the public and industry and a public willingness to change have been notable in Australia, New Zealand and the US in particular. Convincing communities to recognise the need for change and to take actions is a vital element of a local response. WSUD should not only lead to technical solutions, but also to societal change. While environmental agencies in the UK have taken a legislative approach to point source pollution prevention in the UK, public concern has not been particularly high profile in comparison. Recent initiatives to improve the quality of watercourses in England have been primarily as a result of requirements under EU Directives. The long history of urbanisation and change of watercourses and bodies in some parts of the UK may account for lacking drivers, as perhaps the public expectation is low and water quality problems are seen as too complex to change. However, initiatives to improve water quality of watercourses do seem more prevalent in Scotland and Wales, where perhaps watercourses have been less affected by development in the past.

Water quality of beaches receives some attention from campaigning bodies including Surfers Against Sewage and there have been recent attempts to increase public awareness of the quality of bathing waters through initiatives such as the BeachSelecta phone app <www.beachselecta.co.uk/>.

Results of the questionnaire suggest that the major water-related concern in the UK is flooding, followed by water quality and water scarcity as second tier considerations. Accordingly, it is expected that concern for harm to property, infrastructure and human life due to flood risk is likely to be vital for change in the UK than it has been elsewhere. So, the successful development of a WSUD approach in the UK will need to give a strong emphasis to flood prevention, risk mitigation and adaptation in the urban environment.

Key actions to produce trusted and reliable science and research

1 Collate existing relevant research: before developing a research programme, it is necessary to understand what research has already been undertaken. Doing so will require a systematic review of the evidence, collating the existingresearchofWSUDintheUK.ThisactioncanbeundertakenbyaWSUDco-ordinatingbody,oraspecificresearch co-ordinating body.

2 Establish research funding: research will require funding to support developing an effective evidence base. Funding sources for research can be obtained from many areas, including water companies, academic institutions, quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations (quangos), professional governing bodies, and EU funding streams.

3 Establish body to co-ordinate research: legitimising and highlighting research requires the development of a university or partnership of universities to oversee and encourage ongoing research in areas of need. This body could be linked to or be part of the co-ordinating body, and could be focused on establishing research funding. Also, there is potential to create a journal or magazine to improve WSUD awareness. A possible approach for co-ordinating research is the Defra/Environment Agency Flood and coastal erosion risk management model (Defra and Environment Agency, 2009). Practitioners and water companies will also need to be included as part of the body to ensure the research is applied.

4 Develop UK WSUD research programme: a programme of research would need to be established to focus on main areasandreinforceconfidenceinUKappropriateWSUDinitiatives.

Further guidance

Collaborative Research on Flood Resilience in Urban Areas (CORFU): www.corfu-fp7.eu

Smart Resilience Technology, Systems and Tools (SMarTEST): www.floodresilience.eu

Technologies for the cost-effective Flood Protection of the Built Environment (FloodProBE): www.floodprobe.eu

CIRIA, C724 95

1

2

3

4

8

5

6

7

Broader environmental expectations surrounding the promotion of biodiversity and green space under the GI movement may also be needed for a WSUD approach. GI projects and studies have also been widely developed by local authorities, Landscape Institute, Natural England and Glasgow Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership to demonstrate the need and advantages of introducing open space and vegetation into urban environments. However, ‘blue infrastructure’ and water management is commonly included as an afterthought rather than central to this agenda. However, commonalities with GI initiatives are seen as a natural platform to promote a WSUD approach in academia and industry. However, the GI movement at the practitioner level is yet to form a cohesive movement (or water management movement for that matter) at a community level in the UK, though it is expected that urban greening would be of general appeal to most communities.

Possible approach

While watercourse quality has been a strong driver elsewhere, it is likely to be a secondary priority in the UK. Instead, the impacts of flooding are a major concern and this is likely to remain a policy and funding priority in the future. Accordingly a coherent WSUD definition and practice will need to be developed that lends a stronger focus to surface water management including both runoff effects and river and coastal flooding effects on local communities.

Community initiatives under an environmental improvement, urban greening or self-sufficiency banner have shown good uptake of WSUD techniques internationally. This kind of community impetus does not yet exist for water or GI in the UK, though current government structures under the localism agenda and the Localism Act (CLG, 2011) are likely to be conducive to such an approach. The Transition Town movement, whereby local groups initiate a range of community projects to ensure the town is sustainable without reliance on oil, is one example that has been very successful in achieving environmental aims, involving communities and lending a new sense of identity to a place.

The workshops conducted in this scoping project identified similar ‘water sensitive community’ initiatives that could be used to encourage change and communication with the general public. Environmental drivers relating to local watercourse quality or flooding will need to be identified in each community to provide a clear objective for action. A recent rain garden guide has been produced that focuses on householders as the main audience, and promoting ‘do-it-yourself ’ rain garden retrofits (Bray et al, 2013).

In industry and academia, synergies with research and articulation of environmental benefits through an ecosystem service approach are likely to be beneficial (see Chapter 6). However, there is a risk of combining too many concepts together, and WSUD will need to keep its own definition, drivers and objectives clear.

Further guidance

Transition Town movement: www.transitionnetwork.org

UK Raingarden guide: http://tinyurl.com/p5mfvq4

Surfers Against Sewage: www.sas.org.uk

I see the potential for more of a

ground-up movement from communities driving this. Though it depends on the demographics of a community. Movements such as transition towns are pushing environmental concerns through, but these only reach a certain demographic. Different hooks for different communities are needed.”

Lucy GeldardCommunity engagement


“


7.7 Agent for change 7: strategic funding and incentives

Diagnosis

The current structure for funding typically reflects the institutional silos that separate the various aspects of the water cycle, generally wastewater, water supply, surface water runoff and flooding. Funding for regeneration and design quality are also predominantly separated. Incentives and funding to encourage a more integrated approach would be beneficial. However, funding may need to be identified and orchestrated between a variety of bodies as there is currently no co-ordinating body in place to provide incentives.

A good example of funding cross-working for better water management solutions is the Drain London project, which brings together the GLA, 33 London boroughs, the Environment Agency, Thames Water, Transport for London and London Councils to address flooding issues. Local authorities often play a central role in bringing funding together, as discussed in Chapter 6. Other projects such as The GRaBS project (Green and Blue Space Adaptation for Urban Areas and Eco Towns), a range of partnership WSUD retrofit projects in Wales are beginning to demonstrate how cross-funding can be aligned to support WSUD research.

In terms of economic incentives for developers and communities to take a WSUD approach, the value of water in the UK is a major obstacle. While energy efficiency solutions are able to make an economic case based on energy bill savings, water does not have the same luxury under current pricing. The short-term interest of developers in investing in infrastructure that will not bring them direct financial benefit, even if it will benefit future homeowners, remains a constant barrier. To make WSUD more attractive to commercial investors who can own and manage WSUD initiatives and systems on an ongoing basis is a possibility to be explored. One route might be through emerging methods of valuing ecosystem services, but this is unlikely to become workable in the short-term. Water companies are a natural partner for managing WSUD schemes, but a clear economic case needs to be made. Following the model of an ESCo (energy services company) or MUSCo (multi-utilities service company) whereby residents pay for services provided will only be successful if water charging mechanisms can be broken down. Currently, water companies do not commonly charge residents for the supply of non-potable water and the regulations

Key actions to encourage environmental expectations

1 Establish WSUD as an umbrella term to align relevant environmental movements for sustainable water management in the built environment: theimportanceoffloodingandsurfacewatermanagementhasresultedinseveral pieces of legislation and the Water White Paper (Defra, 2011b). Defra has also already written two reports and a white paper in support of GI and valuing nature as a whole (Forest Research, 2010; HM Government, 2011a; NaturalEngland,2011).Asfloodmitigation,SuDS,waterefficiencyandGIareallintegralcomponentsundertheWSUD umbrella, there is an opportunity to package all of these complementary approaches as a single solution to multiple issues. Establishing connections with Defra as well as other organisations that support GI, such as the Landscape Institute, will help to improve knowledge and buy-in. The ability to solve multiple issues with one solution should be attractive in an age of austerity.

2 Foster water sensitive community movements:internationally,theWSUDmovementhasbenefittedsubstantiallywhen the community becomes concerned about and involved in the management of their water. The UK’s greatest waterconcerniswithrespecttoriverandcoastalflooding,butcommunitiesarealsolikelytobeconcernedaboutwater quality and water scarcity in some areas. Holding WSUD workshops in areas of the UK most at risk of flooding,thoseinwaterrestrictedareas,andthosewithsensitivewaterwayswouldprovideanopportunitytobringconcerned citizens together. Establishing connections with Flood Plan UK, as well as the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales can lend legitimacy to these meetings. These organisations’ insight can also provide local knowledge to help local action.

3 Market the wider benefits of WSUD: oneofthestrengthsofWSUDismultiplebenefits,ieitcanappealtoabroadaudience.Afocusonreductionofflooding,improvementofwaterqualityandalleviationofwaterstressarelikelytobekeyconsiderationsformostgroups,thoughthereisaneedtotailorpromotionofbenefitstoaudiences.Urbangreening, where water management is included as part of the design, may be the side of WSUD that inspires and excites communities the most.

I don’t talk to tree officersaboutthe

value of trees as they already know. I don’t talk to the water engineers about the importance of water as they are already there. The people that need to change the way they think about these things are the Directors and Council Members who are faced with making challenging economic decisions and the planners and designers who need to make developments work and be viable.”

Mike VoutUrban designer, Borough

of Telford and Wrekin

“

CIRIA, C724 97

1

2

3

4

8

5

6

7

in this area are unclear. This has been a barrier to alternative water supply proposals. Combined charging for sewerage and surface water drainage is also an issue where different operators may provide those services in the future under a WSUD approach.

Possible approachStrategic funding of research and retrofit projects may be achievable through an alliance of bodies or co-funding of the co-ordinating body previously discussed. Economic incentivising of new development remains a challenge and will require changes in water charge structuring to encourage independent operators to become involved. It was urged that these kinds of incentives are tested with developers to understand the initiatives that might interest them.

Key actions to establish strategic funding and incentives

1 Differential pricing for non-potable water: currently water companies in the UK do not commonly supply non-potable water and the regulatory position on pricing mechanisms for such schemes is unclear. The result is that water companies do not harvest and use rainwater or reuse wastewater on a large scale. Developing clear guidance on sale of non-potable water could drive the development of local alternative water supplies and reduce the level of stress on existing water supplies.

2 Introduce incremental water use pricing: the EA has noted that many regions of the UK are water stressed. If water quantityandqualitycontinuetobeconstrained,therewillbeaneedtorethinkhowwaterispricedandtosignificantlyreward those who implement water saving measures. Installing water meters across the UK will be key to enabling such measures.

3 Establish funding for pilot projects: funding streams that help pilot projects and creative applications of WSUD strategieshelptoingraintheprocessinthedesignanddevelopmentoflargedevelopmentsorretrofitschemes.Similartothepilotprojectsforzerocarbonhomes,thedevelopmentcommunitywouldbenefitfromcollaborativelearning.

4 Establish WSUD awards or incentives: making the inclusion of WSUD part of the regular development process willrequiredeveloper-specificincentives.AwardingdevelopmentschemesthathavedoneasuperiorjobofmeetingWSUD goals should be recognised. This could be done for various categories for different development sizes, and be overseenbyeithertheco-ordinatedWSUDgoverningbodyorresearch-specificbody.

5 Open competition for professionals: many professions concerned with city development have design competitions to transform a piece of property in a creative and inspiring way. Given that the concept of the water sensitive city is a fresh idea, this could be an opportunity to capture new and inventive concepts and link to the provision of funding for demonstration projects.

Further guidance

Drain London project: www.london.gov.uk/drain-london

Green and Blue Space: Adaptation for Urban Areas and Eco Towns (GRaBS): www.grabs-eu.org

Summary

Sevenpossibleagentsforchangehavebeenidentifiedinthisscopingstudy.Eachofthesecouldplayanimportantrolein developing greater application of WSUD in the UK. The seven agents for change are:

66 presence of a co-ordinating body66 developing an evidence base, guidance and training66 establishing presence and characteristics of champions66 supportive planning and design process and legislation66 trusted and reliable science and research66 fostering environmental expectations66 establishing strategic funding and incentives.

A series of actions have been formulated for each agent for change to capture possible next steps. These actions have been programmed and are examined in Chapter 8.


8.1 How should the definition of WSUD be adapted for the UK?As demonstrated in discussion throughout this scoping study, the central philosophy of WSUD remains relevant and poignant for the UK given the current and future challenges it faces. This philosophy being that there is a synergistic inter-relationship between the water cycle, communities and urban development that requires an equally integrated and adaptable approach to identify beneficial solutions that will sustain quality of life in the future.

The original definition of WSUD from Australia responded directly to watercourse health concerns and water scarcity issues and focused primarily on the synergies between the three pillars of water supply, wastewater management and surface water runoff management. These initiatives all remain relevant in the UK, but the emphasis on both the objectives and the desired outcomes is different. In particular, surface water, river and coastal flooding is a major and continuing concern for the UK, as highlighted in Chapter 5. Urban design has a central role to play in both flood prevention and flood resilience in all parts of the UK, and this is a necessary addition to the definition of WSUD for the UK. However, demand on water resources is also a strong, and recently highlighted, challenge for the UK. The interaction between flood management and the provision of alternative water supplies shows great potential for new solutions to be delivered. Building-based water efficiency initiatives, led by sustainability assessment mechanisms like CSH, provide an immediate policy tool that encourages harvesting of local water resources as discussed in Chapter 7. Figure 8.1 illustrates the interaction between flood risks and opportunities for water supply that could become a central synergy for WSUD in the UK.

Figure 8.1 Flood risks and water supply opportunities

8 Route map and recommendations

This chapter summarises the recommended definition of WSUD for the UK, and sets out a route map of actions to promote, embed, inspire and deliver WSUD practice in the UK.

CIRIA, C724 99

1

2

3

4

7

5

6

8

The expectations and priorities for sustainable design are also unique in the UK, and alignment with these broader objectives will be essential to the success of a WSUD approach. In particular, movements in the UK to increase delivery of GI for biodiversity, self-sufficiency, health and climate change adaptation benefits have demonstrated momentum in the UK. The development of a new framework for valuing GI through an appreciation of ecosystem services also provides a mechanism for the multiple benefits of WSUD as discussed in Chapter 6. Another dominant sustainability driver in the UK is reducing carbon (particularly energy-related carbon), which has been reinforced in binding UK Government targets and policy (ie Climate Change Act 2008) and will remain a priority for the built environment profession. Water supply and wastewater management is a significant, if not widely recognised, contributor of carbon. WSUD provides an opportunity to incorporate inherent flexibility and adaptability to water systems, which is not possible using traditional water assets (Sieker et al, 2008). WSUD may be able to make progress through demonstration of how appropriate local initiatives can reduce embedded and energy related carbon by alleviating pressure on existing infrastructure and deviating from assumed need for conventional infrastructure expansion.

This study has also uncovered an inherent passion in practitioners and communities for the greater integration and celebration of water in the urban environment. The potential to increase the quality of urban places through the exposure of the ‘hidden water assets’ in communities has come across as a clear desire to improve the quality and identity of places. There is an identified need to achieve greater community awareness of water related issues as well as the potential solutions that could improve the built environment. Currently, the benefits are well recognised in academia and industry in the UK, but are rarely delivered from the ground-up. If WSUD is to be successful in the UK, it needs to gain support from the general public and also needs to demonstrate how WSUD can be delivered through local community initiatives in keeping with the sentiment of the neighbourhood planning system.

Another clear theme of the analysis is that while the benefits WSUD could bring are diverse, the parties it could benefit are equally diverse and numerous. Chapter 6 has identified the key stakeholders, and the benefits that will appeal to them to attract interest, funding and commitment. The creation of a coherent movement will need a clear co-ordinating structure that can both involve and communicate benefits to a wide-ranging audience. Greater awareness and leadership of WSUD initiatives is needed from the professions in the built environment, but equally the engineering and ecology related disciplines with technical awareness of water issues need avenues for improved cross-working in planning and urban design, particularly in the early stages of strategic planning and master planning. To address issues in existing areas, stakeholders need to come together to initiate retrofit schemes that could also deliver community benefits. However, this collaboration requires the development of a common new language that is both creative and strongly aligned to clear objectives. The fragmented institutional system for managing disparate parts of the water cycle, especially in England, means that the development of such an approach is challenging, but not insurmountable. WSUD could be an approach that defines the badly needed vocabulary and common framework to address this fragmented situation.

The advancement of WSUD in the UK will require a change in culture, expectations and practice that is based on sound research, engagement and creativity. The benefits to a range of parties and the general public are extensive, but a conscious break from conventional working is needed to stimulate the scoping and delivery of new solutions. The switch from traditional paradigms prevalent in the UK to a WSUD approach is demonstrated in Table 8.1.

With both flooding and drought risk, along with the impacts of urbanisation being felt, a return to community-led planning and resource management being promoted, the potential to stimulate new WSUD thinking and ways of working in the UK has never been more opportune. Arguably, change is critical to ensure urban development and water systems can be combined in a sustainable way.


Table 8.1 Changes in approach required to deliver WSUD in the UK

Traditional UK approach Opportunities (what should be done under a WSUD approach)

Provide water supply, sewerage and floodmanagementforeconomicand population growth and public health protection

Ensurethatmultiplebenefitsforwaterareusedoverlong-termtimeframes including environmental and other sectoral needs, ie transport, recreation/amenity, micro-climate, energy and food production. Link water in cities more effectively to land use planning

Compartmentalisation and optimisation of separate components of the water cycle

Deliver adaptive, integrated, sustainable management of the total water cycle (including land use) designed to secure a higher level of resilience to future uncertainties in climate, water services requirements while enhancing the liveability of urban environments

Narrow technical, environmental and economic focused disciplines

Engender and use trans-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder learning across social, technical, economic, design, ecological spheres

Delivery is centralised, linear and predominantly technologically and economically based

Diverse,flexiblesolutionsatmultiplescalesviaasuiteofapproaches(technical, social, economic, ecological etc)

Water managed by government on behalf of communities

Co-management of water between government, business and communities withinthecontextofprovidingmulti-valuebenefits

Risk regulated and controlled by government

Risksharedanddiversifiedviaprivateandpublicinstrumentsaswellasindividual property owners/dwellers

8.2 Definition of Water Sensitive Urban Design for the UK

Before implementing WSUD, the term should be clearly defined for the UK.

Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) is the process of integrating water cycle management with the built environment through planning and urban design.

Two principles are important to its application:

1 All elements of the water cycle and their interconnections are considered concurrently to achieve an outcome that sustains a healthy natural environment while meeting human needs. This includes managing:

a Water demand and supply.

b Wastewater and pollution.

c Rainfall and runoff.

d Watercourses and water resources.

e Flooding and water pathways.

2 Consideration of the water cycle is made from the outset, and throughout the design and planning process. Accordingly, water management solutions seek to meet the expectations and aspirations for design of successful places, such as:

a Celebrating local character, environment and community.

b Optimising the cost-benefit of infrastructure and built form.

c Improving liveability for communities.

d Providing resource security and resilience in the future.

8.3 Vision statementWSUD provides an opportunity to create beautiful, successful and resilient multi-functional places across the UK. It is undeniable that the relationship between water and urban areas needs to be given a higher priority to provide integrated solutions to flood management, sustainable water use and supply and the

CIRIA, C724 101

1

2

3

4

7

5

6

8

improvement of water quality in valued watercourses. This priority needs to be applied in an integrated way by those that plan, design and manage the built environment and the infrastructure within it. It provides an opportunity to enhance the current built environment to incorporate nature and improve the management of water resources. In doing so, the skills and creativity of practitioners are brought together for the wider benefit of communities and the environment.

The application of WSUD will require technical rigour and creativity, but most of all it will require collaboration to identify and integrate water management solutions and opportunities within the urban form that complement wider design objectives and deliver multiple benefits. There will be some design and delivery challenges to be overcome, but these can be addressed using existing science and knowledge. The focus will be on inspiration, engagement and collective capacity building and active learning by the key disciplines that shape the built environment, ie planners, urban designers, landscape architects, engineers, ecologists, architects and developers.

There are a number of synergistic movements and initiatives that will bring great support to the development of a WSUD approach. The promotion of GI planning and the valuation of ‘ecosystem services’ has established good practice so that natural systems are integrated into the built environment to provide multiple benefits. Concurrently, there is a strong body of expertise and knowledge in the water sector that can help to promote and apply integrated water cycle management. There is also rapidly advancing knowledge of water efficiency and sustainable drainage measures in the property development industry, which is motivated by meeting sustainability targets. A comprehensive approach to climate change is also being promoted by various sectors, addressing carbon reduction and climate adaptation of urban areas. WSUD can bring these skills and initiatives together to give focus to a collaborative approach to water management in the built environment that also links effectively to other systems, services and infrastructure.

WSUD is not a set of solutions or measures, but a process and philosophy that seeks the best solutions to optimise both water management and urban design objectives. The vision for the use of WSUD in the UK draws significant attention to the risk of flooding, as well as a response to water quality management and water security. The urban design priorities will also vary considerably, relating to location, demographics, character, existing uses and the mechanism for change. WSUD also seeks to achieve design and cost efficiencies in delivering a range of benefits through design collaboration. In applying WSUD, the design response should be tailored depending on local and wider context.

The route map in the following section suggests initiatives and actions that will influence change and help the design community promote and deliver water sensitive places.

Figure 8.2 WSUD concept that brings together a range of considerations


8.4 Recommendations and route mapTable 8.2 outlines the key actions recommended to enable the agents for change to encourage greater delivery of a WSUD approach. Each of the actions suggest a main party who should be responsible for leading the action, as well as supporting partners who should be viewed as necessary in fulfilling each action. These parties have been selected and aligned with the priorities identified in Chapter 6. Results from the workshops, phone interviews and the questionnaire were used to identify the actions that should be viewed as ‘essential’. Essential items are coloured in dark green, while important items are coloured in light green. In terms of time-frame, short-term (S) is considered to be within a year, medium-term (M) is between one and two years, and long-term (L) is longer than two years before the action can be completed. Figure 8.3 shows the route map graphically.

In examining the route map, it can be seen that the actions share three common themes, which should be the key messages to practitioners:

66 CONNECT the water cycle: seek the best solution for all aspects of the water cycle by thinking about water supply, wastewater, surface water runoff and flood management

66 COLLABORATE with other disciplines: seek out other built environment practitioners who can bring new perspectives and expertise

66 CREATE great solutions for great places: plan and design the built environment to respond to urban form, community needs and water issues.

CIRIA, C724 103

1

2

3

4

7

5

6

8

Table 8.2 Summary chart of actions to achieve agents for change

Action description Main stakeholder(s) Support required from Time frame

Agent for change 1: presence of a co-ordinating body

Identify interested networks/groups and supportive professional bodies CIRIA Relevant organisations and

institutes S

Funding the establishment of a co-ordinating body

Relevant organisations and institutes S

Agent for change 2: evidence base, guidance and training

Develop further WSUD guidance (high level guidance for planners etc and potentially a detailed manual)

CIRIA Partners S

Develop and collate a detailed evidence base CIRIA Partners S

Update university curricula for professions working in the built environment

Academic institutions, academic champions WSUD co-ordinating body L

Training professionals together WSUD co-ordinating body Existing professional bodies, academic institutions M

Agent for change 3: presence and characteristics of champions

Develop network of champions across key disciplines:

a Landscape architects Landscape InstituteExisting championsLandscape institute

S

b Town planners RTPIExisting championsRTPI, TCPA

S

c Urban designers Urban Design GroupExisting championsRTPI, RUDI, Urban Design Group, Design Commission for Wales

S

d EcologistsInstitute of Ecology and Environmental ManagementEnvironment Agency

Natural Resources Wales Existing champions

S

e Civil/water engineersICEWater companies

Existing championsICE, CIWEM

S

f Architects RIBAExisting championsWSUD co-ordinating body

S

g Land developers Home Builders FederationExisting championsWSUD co-ordinating body

S

Identify and support third sector champions to work with communities WSUD co-ordinating body

Third sector community facing organisationsGroundwork UKWales Council for Voluntary Action

S

Establish professional networking events WSUD co-ordinating body Existing professional bodies,

academic institutions M

Connect different networks of champions across geographies WSUD co-ordinating body M

Agent for change 4: supportive planning and design process and legislation

Align legislation to promote WSUD principles

National government, Devolved Administrations, Defra

WSUD co-ordinating bodyOfwat

L

Review local olans to align water management goals Local planning authorities WSUD co-ordinating body S

Integrate WSUD principles into voluntary sustainability rating systems BRE, Waterwise WSUD co-ordinating body M


Establish the need for integrated water cycle strategies for developments

Local planning authoritiesEnvironment Agency, Natural Resources Wales, SEPA, NI Rivers Agency, Water authorities/companies

M

Develop new good practice for water sensitive developments

WSUD research co-ordinating body

Local planning authoritiesDesign CouncilDesign Commission for Wales

S

Agent for change 5: trusted and reliable science and research

Establish body to co-ordinate research WSUD co-ordinating body Water companies/ authorities,

academic institutions S

Collate existing relevant research WSUD co-ordinating body Academic institutions M

Establish research funding Research co-ordinating body

Water companies/ authorities, Welsh Government, Natural Resources Wales, Defra, academic institutions

M

Develop UK WSUD research programme Research co-ordinating body Academic institutions,

practitioners, water companies M

Agent for change 6: fostering environmental expectations

Establish WSUD as an umbrella organisation for environmental movements

WSUD co-ordinating bodyDefra, Environment Agency, Welsh Government, Natural Resources Wales, SEPA

L

Foster water sensitive community movement

Third sector community facing organisationsGroundwork UKGroundwork Wales

Local authorities M

MarketthewiderbenefitsofWSUD

RTPI, Landscape Institute, Urban Design GroupThird sector community facing organisations

WSUD co-ordinating bodyWSUD champions

S

Agent for change 7: strategic funding and incentives

Introduce incremental progressive water pricing

National government, Devolved Administrations, Ofwat, WIC Water companies/authorities L

Differential pricing for non-potable water

National government, Devolved Administrations, Ofwat, WIC

Water companies/authorities L

Establish funding for pilot projects Defra, Welsh Government, CLG, water companies/authorities, businesses

WSUD co-ordinating body M

Establish WSUD awards WSUD co-ordinating body Existing professional bodies, champion developers L

Open competition for professionals WSUD co-ordinating body Existing professional bodies M

Table 8.2 Summary chart of actions to achieve agents for change (contd)

CIRIA, C724 105

1

2

3

4

7

5

6

8

Figure 8.3 Route map to promote and deliver WSUD in the UK


References

ARCHIBOLD, R (2007) “From sewage, added water for drinking”, New York Times, 27 November. Go to: www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/us/27conserve.html?_r=0

ASHLEY, R M, NOWELL, R, GERSONIUS, B and WALKER, L (2011) A review of current knowledge. surface water management and urban green infrastructure. A review of potential benefits and UK and international practices, FR/R0014, Foundation for Water Research, Bucks. Go to: www.fwr.org/greeninf.pdf

BBC (2012) “Drought may last until Christmas: Environment Agency”, BBC News England, 16 April. Go to: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17690389

BLOOMBERG, M R and HOLLOWAY, C (2010) NYC Green infrastructure plan: a sustainable strategy for clean waterways, City of New York, USA. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/nhqdp4k

BRAY, R, GRANT, G, GEDGE, D and LEUTHVILY, L (2013) UK Raingarden guide, Green Roof Consultancy Ltd, London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/o274zva

BRE (2011) BREEAM New construction non-domestic buildings technical manual, SD5073, BRE Global Ltd, UK. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/q5l278r

BROUWER, R, OZDEMIROGLU, E, PROVINS, A, THOMSON, C, TINCH, R, TURNER, K, DANGERFIELD, S and NOTTAGE, A (2010) Flood and coastal erosion risk management: economic valuation of environmental effects. Handbook for the Environment Agency for England and Wales, eftec, UK.Go to: http://tinyurl.com/pj3uud8

BROWN, R (2005) “Impediments to integrated urban stormwater management: The need for institutional reform” Environmental management, vol 36, 3, Springer UK, pp 455–468

BROWN, R (2012) “Transitioning to the water sensitive city: the socio-technical challenge”. In: C Howe and C Mitchell (eds) Water sensitive cities, IWA Publishing, UK (ISBN: 978-1-84339-364-1) pp29–42

BROWN, R, KEATH, N and WONG, T (2008) “Transitioning to water sensitive cities: historical, current and future transition states”. In: Proc 11th int conf on urban drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, 31 August to 5 September 2008

BROWN, R R and CLARKE, J M (2007) Transition to Water Sensitive Urban Design: The story of Melbourne, Australia, Report No. 07/1, Facility for Advancing Water Biofiltration, Monash University, Australia (ISBN: 978-0-98034-280-2)

DROEGE, P (ed) (2009) Climate: design: design and planning for the age of climate change, Oro Editions, Singapore (ISBN: 978-0-98206-071-1)

CABE (2005) Does money grow on trees? Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/74rjxt6

CABE (2009) Grey to green: How we shift funding and skills to green our cities, Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/pgotv8r

CAVE, M (2009) Independent review of competition and innovation in water markets. Final report (The Cave Report), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London (ISBN: 978-1-84532-568-8). Go to: http://tinyurl.com/5uf4z9m

CIRIA, C724 107

CHAPAGAIN, A and ORR, S (2008) UK Water Footprint: the impact of the UK’s food and fibre consumption on global water resources, Volume One, World Wildlife Fund (WWF-UK), Surrey.Go to: www.wwf.se/source.php/1407043/wwf_uk_footprint%5B1%5D.pdf

CLARKE, A, GRANT, N and THORNTON, J (2009) Quantifying the energy and carbon effects of water saving, Environment Agency, Bristol and Elemental Solutions, Hereford

CNT (2011) The value of green infrastructure: A guide to recognising its economic, environmental and social benefits, Center for Neighborhood Technology, UK. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/qjkrh6d

CNT (2012) Technology green values stormwater toolbox, Center for Neighborhood Technology, UK. Go to: http://greenvalues.cnt.org/

COPE, G (2011) “SWAN’s way – in search of lost water” Global water Intelligence, vol 12, Issue 6, CWC Group, Media Analytics Ltd, Oxford

CORFU (2013) FP7 Collaborative research on flood resilience in urban areas: www.corfu-fp7.eu/

DCLG (2008) The Code for Sustainable Homes. Setting the standard in sustainability for new homes, Department for Communities and Local Government, London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/cwjmpfa

DCLG (2009) Eco-towns. A supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1. Department of Communities and Local Government, UK (ISBN: 978-1-40981-683-6)

DCLG (2010) Decentralisation and the Localism Bill: An essential guide, Department of Communities and Local Government, UK (ISBN: 978-1-40982-662-0)

DCLG (2011a) Code for Sustainable Homes – technical guide, Department for Communities and Local Government, UK (ISBN 978-1-85946-331-4)

DCLG (2011b) The Community Infrastructure Levy. An overview, Department for Communities and Local Government, UK (ISBN: 978-1-40982-961-4)

DCLG (2012a) Technical guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework, Department for Communities and Local Government, UK (ISBN: 978-1-40983-410-6)

DCLG (2012b) National Planning Policy Framework, Department for Communities and Local Government, UK (ISBN: 978-1-40983-3413-7)

DCLG (2012c) Neighbourhood planning vanguards, Department for Communities and Local Government, UK. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/om8kgas

DECC (2008) Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC), Carbon Zone Ltd, North Ayrshire, UK.Go to: www.carbonreductioncommitment.co.uk/

DECC (2009) The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan: National Strategy for Climate and Energy, The Stationery Office, London (ISBN: 978-0-10850-839-4)

DEFRA (2011a) Consultation on the Implementation of the Sustainable Drainage Systems provisions in Schedule 3. Flood and Water Management Act 2010, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/p2als64

DEFRA (2011b) Water for life, The Stationery Office, London (ISBN: 978-0-10182-302-9)

DEFRA (2012) Statement of obligations. Information for water and sewerage undertakers and regulators on statutory environmental and drinking water provisions applicable to the water sector in England, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/onnjdz8


DEFRA (2012a) Principles for implementing flood and coastal resilience funding partnerships, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/oc2s2p3

DEFRA and ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2009) Delivering Benefits through science, Joint Defra/Environment Agency Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Research and Development Programme, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/ctp89jp

DEFRA and ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2011) Understanding the risks, empowering communities, building resilience. The national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy for England, The Stationery Office, London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/c7ujr8o

DIGMAN, C, ASHLEY, R, BALMFORTH, D, BALMFORTH, D, STOVIN, B and GLERUM, J (2012) Retrofitting to manage surface water, C713, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-715-9). Go to: www.ciria.org

DORON, U, TEH, T-H, HAKLAY, M, BELL, S J (2011) “Public engagement with water conservation in the Lower Lea Valley”, UK Water and Environment Journal, vol 25, University College London, UK, pp 555–562

EC (2009) Adapting to climate change: towards a European framework for action, European Commission.Go to: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/adaptation/index_en.htm

EC (2010) Water scarcity and drought in the European Union, European Commission.Go to: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/scarcity_en.htm

EC (2012) The blueprint to safeguard Europe’s waters, European Commission.Go to: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/blueprint/index_en.htm

ELKINGTON, J (1994) “Towards a sustainable corporation: win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development” California Management Review, vol 36, 2, University of California, US, pp 90–100

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2007) Water efficiency in the south east of England, retrofitting existing homes, GEHO0407BMNC-E-E, Environment Agency, Bristol. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/pj9lmxw

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2010) Energy and carbon implications of rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling, Environment Agency, Bristol (ISBN: 978-1-84911-198-0)

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2012) Principles for implementing flood and coastal resilience funding partnerships, Environment Agency, Bristol. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/odl75yp

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY and ARUP (2011) Rainwater harvesting (RWH) and SuDS – carbon implications for Wales, Environment Agency, Bristol and Arup, UK

FOREST RESEARCH (2010) Benefits of green infrastructure. Report to Defra and CLG, Defra research contract number WC0807, Forest Research, Farnham. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/llm4gft

FLOODPROBE (2012) Technologies for the cost-effective flood protection of the built environment, European Community, Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/pfufgtu

GAMBRELL, R P (1994) “Trace and toxic metals in wetlands a review” Journal of Environmental Quality, vol 23, 5, ASA-CSSA-SSSA, USA, pp 883–891.Go to: https://www.agronomy.org/publications/jeq/abstracts/23/5/JEQ0230050883?access=0&view=pdf

GILLIAM, J W (1994) “Riparian wetlands and water quality” Journal of Environmental Quality, vol 23, 5, ASA-CSSA-SSSA, USA, pp 896–900

GOULDDON, A, KERR, N, TOPI, C, DAWKINS, E, KUYLENSTIERNA, J and PEARCE, R (2011) The economics of low carbon cities. A mini-stern review for the Leeds City region, Centre for Low Carbon Futures, York, UK. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/oe93g2s

CIRIA, C724 109

GRAY, D (2011) Review of Ofwat and consumer representation in the water sector (Gray Review), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/nnl8b64

GRIFFITHS, J (2011) Written Statement – Water Policy in Wales, Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff.Go to: http://tinyurl.com/phpc584

HM GOVERNMENT (2011a) The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature, natural environment white paper, CM8082, The Stationery Office, Norwich (ISBN: 978-0-10180-822-4)Go to: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/natural/whitepaper/

HM GOVERNMENT (2010) Code for Sustainable homes; Technical Guidance, Communities and Local Government, London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/q4995cv

HM GOVERNMENT (2000a) The Building Regulations. Approved Document G Sanitation, hot water safety and water efficiency, RIBA Enterprises Ltd, UK (ISBN: 978-1-85946-323-9)

HM GOVERNMENT (2000b) The Building Regulations. Approved Document H Drainage and waste disposal, RIBA Enterprises Ltd, UK (ISBN: 978-1-85946-208-9)

HOYER, J, DICKHAUT, W, KRONAWITTER, L and WEBER, B (eds) (2011) Water Sensitive Urban Design: principles and inspiration for sustainable stormwater management in the city of the future, Jovis, Hamburg, Germany, ISBN: 978-3-86859-106-4

ICE (2012a) “Call for Papers on Water Sensitive Urban Design”. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Municipal Engineer, Themed Issue. Go to: www.imesa.org.za/images/documents/ICE_WSUD.pdf

ICE (2012b) The State of the Nation: Water 2012, Institution of Civil Engineers, London.Go to: http://tinyurl.com/cb4bblp

JENKINS, G J, MURPHY, J M, SEXTON, D M H, LOWE, J A, JONES, P and KILSBY, C G (2009) UK Climate Projections: Briefing report, Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK (ISBN: 978-1-906360-04-7).Go to: www.climatechangeandyourhome.org.uk/live/content_pdfs/883.pdf

KENWAY, S J and LANT, P (2012) “The influence of water on urban energy use”. In: C Howe and C Mitchell (eds) Water sensitive cities, IWA Publishing, UK (ISBN: 978-1-84339-364-1) pp63–77

LANDSCAPE INSTITUTE and TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ASSOCIATION (2012) Green infrastructure scoping study, Ref WC0809, The Landscape Institute, UK. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/oyznu6q

LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT CENTER (2011) LID technology. Low Impact Development Center, Maryland, USA. Go to: www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/

MACKENZIE, L (2010) “Rotterdam: the water city of the future”, WaterWorld, US.Go to: http://tinyurl.com/nl3a7q6

MACPHERSON, L (2012) “Water: Nature’s amazing reusable resource”. In: C Howe and C Mitchell (eds) Water sensitive cities, IWA Publishing, UK (ISBN: 978-1-84339-364-1) pp123–138

MAIMONE, M (2012) “The SUDS Challenge – Philadelphia’s Green City Clean Waters Program” (unpublished), Keynote presentation at IWA World Congress on water climate and energy, February 2012, Dublin

MORGAN, C, BEVINGTON, C, LEVIN, D, ROBINSON, P, DAVIS, P, ABBOTT, J and SIMKINS, P (2013) Water Sensitive Urban Design. Ideas for built environment practitioners, C723, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-726-5). Go to: www.ciria.org

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION (2011) Urban Water in Australia: future directions, Australian Government. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/ogzpyft


NATURAL ECONOMY NORTHWEST, THE NORTHERN WAY, NATURAL ENGLAND, THE COMMISSION FOR ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, DESIGN FOR LONDON and TEES VALLEY UNLIMITED (2009) The Green Infrastructure Valuation Toolkit:http://tinyurl.com/6wdl53s

NATURAL ENGLAND (2009) Green infrastructure guidance, NE176, Natural England, UK.Go to: http://tinyurl.com/nemz23e

NATURAL ENGLAND (2011) Microeconomic evidence for the benefits of investment in the environment – review, research report NERR033, Natural England, UKGo to: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/32031

NEF (2010) Grounded. A new approach to assessing Runway 3, New Economics Foundation, London (ISBN: 978-1-904882-74-9). Go to: www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Grounded_0.pdf

NHBC FOUNDATION (2010) Water efficiency in new homes, NF20, NHBC Foundation, Buckinghamshire, UK. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/cy9km2t

OFWAT (2008) Preparing for the future – Ofwat’s climate change policy statement, Birmingham, UK. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/oxh5mm6

OFWAT (2010) Beyond limits. How should prices for monopoly water and sewerage services be controlled? Ofwat, Birmingham, UK (ISBN: 1-90465-575-0). Go to: http://tinyurl.com/qzh38z6

OFWAT (2011a) Valuing water – how upstream markets could deliver for consumers and the environment, Ofwat, Birmingham, UK (ISBN: 1-90465-076-9). Go to: http://tinyurl.com/oqoq3ts

OFWAT (2011b) Inputs, outputs and outcomes – what should price limits deliver? A discussion paper, Ofwat, Birmingham, UK (ISBN: 1-90465-590-4). Go to: http://tinyurl.com/pq96dsl

OMAMBALA, I (2009) Water efficiency retrofitting – a best practice guide, Waterwise, UK.Go to: http://tinyurl.com/qzmdarc

PWD (2009) Philadelphia Combined Sewer Overflow Long Term Control Plan Update. Supplemental Documentation Volume 2. Triple Bottom Line Analysis, SC11737, Philadelphia Water Department, USGo to: www.phillywatersheds.org/ltcpu/Vol02_TBL.pdf

PWD (2012) Green city, clean waters, Philadelphia Water Department, US. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/2fxjqeo

PITT, M (2008) The Pitt Review - learning lessons from the 2007 floods, Cabinet Office, London.Go to: http://tinyurl.com/aghrxo9

ROY, A H, WENGER, S J, FLETCHER, T D, WALSH, C J, LADSON, A R, SHUSTER, W D, THURSTON, H W and BROWN, R R (2008) “Impediments and solutions to sustainable, watershed-scale urban stormwater management: lessons from Australia and the United States”, Environmental Management, vol. 42, 2, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, USA, pp 344–359

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT (2011) The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act; Delivering Sustainable Flood Risk Management Guidance Document, Scottish Government, Edinburgh (ISBN 978-1-78045-221-0)

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT (2012) Scotland the hydro nation prospectus and proposals for legislation consultation, Scottish Government, Edinburgh (ISBN: 978-1-78045-640-9) Go to: http://home.scotland.gov.uk/home

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT (2012) A policy on architecture and placemaking for Scotland: public consultation 2012, Scottish Government, Edinburgh (ISBN:978-1-78045-820-5)Go to: http://home.scotland.gov.uk/home

CIRIA, C724 111

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT (2010) Building a hydro nation – a consultation, Scottish Government, Edinburgh (ISBN: 978-0-75599-863-0). Go to: http://home.scotland.gov.uk/home

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT (2012) Review of the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004: Technical Handbooks (non domestic) – Section 2 (Fire), Scottish Government, Edinburgh (ISBN: 978-1-78256-092-0). Go to: http://home.scotland.gov.uk/home

SIEKER, H, HELM, B, KREBS, P, SCHLOTTMANN, P and TRANKER, J (2008) “Flexibility – a planning criterion for stormwater management”. In: Proc 11th int conf on urban drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, 31 August to 5 September 2008

SIEMENS AG (2011) German cities among Europe’s best in environmental protection, press release, Frankfurt, Germany. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/nje2ys9

SINGAPORE GOVERNMENT (2012) ABC Waters Programme, PUB Singapore Government.Go to: www.pub.gov.sg/abcwaters/Pages/default.aspx

STERN, N ( 2006) The Stern Review on the economics of climate change, H M Treasury, London.Go to: http://tinyurl.com/3889zcz

TAYLOR, A C (2008) Industry report: Leadership in sustainable urban water management an investigation of the champion phenomenon within Australian water agencies, Monash University. Melbourne, Australia (ISBN: 978-0-9804298-5-5). Go to: www.watercentre.org/education/leadership/attachments/8.pdf

TAYLOR, A C (2010) Sustainable urban water management: The champion phenomenon. PhD Thesis, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

TEEB (2011) TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Areas, TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, Switzerland. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/ntxr4gt

TSO (2004) Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004 Technical handbooks, The Stationary Office, LondonGo to: www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/09/9995/1

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE (2012) Northwest Cambridge master plan and planning application, University of Cambridge, UK. Go to: www.nwcambridge.co.uk/planning-application-full.php

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE (2013) Delivering and evaluating multiple benefits from flood risk strategies in blue green cities, Centre for Sustainable Development, University of Cambridge, UK.Go to: http://tinyurl.com/oxjj64o

USEPA (2012) Green infrastructure, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, USGo to: http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/index.cfm

VAN ROON, M R (2011) “Water sensitive residential developments: Application of LIUDD principles and methods in the Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand”, Urban Water Journal, vol 8, 6, Taylor and Francis Ltd, UK, pp 325–335

VAN ROON, M R (2011a) “Low Impact urban design and development: Catchment based structure planning to optimize ecological outcomes” Urban Water Journal, vol 8, 5, Taylor and Francis Ltd, UK, pp 293–308

WALKER, A (2009) The independent review of charging for household water and sewerage services (Walker Review), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/m8uc83d

WALKER, G and ZYGMUNT, J (ed) (2009) The water and energy implications of bathing and showering behaviours and technologies, WaterWise, UK. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/oxk82ax


WATSON, R and ALBON, S (2011) UK National Ecosystem Assessment. Synthesis of the Key findings, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/pehfym2

WATTERS, C (2010) Water efficiency in new developments – a - A best practice guide, Waterwise, UK.Go to: http://tinyurl.com/c6r47fo

WELSH GOVERNMENT (2002) The Welsh Housing Quality Standard, Welsh Government, Cardiff.Go to: http://tinyurl.com/bpa5szs

WELSH GOVERNMENT (2009) One Wales: one planet. The sustainable development scheme of the Welsh Assembly Government, CMK-22-01-163, D6840809, Welsh Government, Cardiff (ISBN: 978-0-75045-169-7). Go to: http://tinyurl.com/px7krwh

WELSH GOVERNMENT (2010a) Climate change strategy for Wales, Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff (ISBN: 978-0-75045-714-9). Go to: http://tinyurl.com/p28k342

WELSH GOVERNMENT (2011) Strategic policy position statement on water 2011, Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/bu4s5kt

WELSH GOVERNMENT (2012) White Paper. Homes for Wales. A white paper for better lives and communities, Welsh Government, Cardiff. Go to: http://wales.gov.uk/docs/desh/consultation/120521whitepaperen.pdf

WELSH GOVERNMENT (2012a) Planning Policy Wales, Edition 5, Welsh Government, Cardiff (ISBN 978 0 7504 8211 0). Go to: http://tinyurl.com/pbexxwe

WONG, T and BROWN, R (2008) “Transitioning to water sensitive cities: ensuring resilience through a new hydro-social contract”. In: Proc 11th int conf on urban drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, 31 August to 5 September 2008

WONG, T and BROWN, R (2009) “The water sensitive city: principles for practice” Water Science Technology, vol 60, 3, EDAW, Australia, pp 673–682

WONG, T H F (ed), ALLEN, R, BERINGER, J, BROWN, R R, DELETIC, A, FLETCHER, T D, GANGADHARAN, L, GERNJAK, R, JAKOB, C, O’LOAN, R, REEDER, M, TAPPER, N, WALSH, C (2012) blueprint2012. Stormwater management in a water sensitive city, Centre for Water Sensitive Cities, Melbourne, Australia (ISBN: 978-1-92191-201-6)

WOODS-BALLARD, B (2012) “Where are we now (issues and opportunities)”. In: Proc Getting on with SuDs. The National SuDS conference, 20–21 June 2012, Thame, UK

WOODS-BALLARD, B, KELLAGHER, R, MARTIN, P, JEFFERIES, C, BRAY, R and SHAFFER, P (2007) The SuDS manual, C697, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-697-8). Go to: www.ciria.org

WATER BY DESIGN (2010) A business case for best practice urban stormwater management, Water by Design, Australia. Go to: http://waterbydesign.com.au/businesscase/

WATER UK (2011) Sustainability indicators 2010/2011, Water UK, London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/pb3rfsj

ZERO CARBON HUB (2011) Allowable solutions for tomorrow’s new homes, Zero Carbon Hub, London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/3tgtkoo

CIRIA, C724 113

Statutes

British StandardsBS 8515:2009 Rainwater harvesting systems

BS 8582 Code of practice for surface water flood risk management (in development)

ActsBuilding Act 1984 (c.55)

Building (Scotland) Act 2003 (asp 8)

Climate Change Act 2008 (c.27)

Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 (asp 6)

Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (c.29)

Localism Act 2011 (c.20)

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c.8)

The Energy Act 2011 (c.16)

RegulationsBuilding Regulations 2010 for England and Wales (No 2214)

Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (No 406)

Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 (No 192)

The Flood Risk Regulations 2009 (No 3042)

Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Scotland) Regulations 2008

Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005

Water Environment (Diffuse Pollution) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 (No 54)

Statutory InstrumentsClimate Change, The CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme Order 2010 (No 768)

European DirectivesDirective 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (EU Water Framework Directive) (WFD)

Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive)

Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks (Floods Directive 2007)

Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC (Bathing Waters Directive 2006)

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive)

AECOM Ltd

Arcadis UK Ltd

Arup Group Ltd

Atkins Consultants Limited

BAA plc

Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Ltd

BAM Nuttall Ltd

Black & Veatch Ltd

Bureau Veritas

Buro Happold Engineers Limited

BWB Consulting Ltd

Cardiff University

Davis Langdon LLP

Environment Agency

Galliford Try plc

Gatwick Airport Ltd

Geotechnical Consulting Group

Golder Associates (Europe) Ltd

Halcrow Group Limited

Health & Safety Executive

Highways Agency

Homes and Communities Agency

HR Wallingford Ltd

Institution of Civil Engineers

London Underground Ltd

Loughborough University

Ministry of Justice

Morgan Sindall (Infrastructure) Plc

Mott MacDonald Group Ltd

MWH

National Grid UK Ltd

Network Rail

Northern Ireland Water

Northumbrian Water Limited

Rail Safety and Standards Board

Royal Haskoning

RSK Group Ltd

RWE Npower plc

Sellafield Ltd

Severn Trent Water

Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd

SKM Enviros Consulting Ltd

Temple Group Ltd

Thames Water Utilities Ltd

Tube Lines

United Utilities Plc

University College London

University of Bradford

University of Greenwich

University of Reading

University of Salford

University of Southampton

WYG Group (Nottingham Office)

May 2013

Core and Associate members

Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) is an approach to design that delivers greaterharmony between water, the environment and communities. This is achieved byintegrating water cycle management with the built environment through planning andurban design. WSUD prioritises water management considerations during the earlyconception of developments creating multiple benefits and opportunities to overcomechallenges. WSUD is not a set of solutions or measures, but a process and philosophy tooptimise water management and urban design.

This scoping study together with the ‘ideas booklet’(C723) provides details of the drivers,

benefits and vision of WSUD in the UK. It is based on findings from a collaborative projectthat included extensive consultation and a literature review to understand the role ofWSUD in the UK.

Water Sensitive Urban Design in the

UK – ideas for built environment practitioners

C724

C724

Creatingw

atersensitiveplaces

-scopingthe

potentialforWaterSensitive

Urban

Design

inthe

UK

CIRIA9 780860 177333

Creating water sensitive places- scoping the potential for

Water Sensitive Urban Design in the UK

http://www.aco.co.uk/

http://www.defra.gov.uk/

http://www.engain.com/

http://www.heidelbergcement.com/uk/en/hanson/products/block_paving_and_suds/block_paving_and_suds_overview.htm

http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/

http://www.halcrow.com/

http://www.hydro-int.com/

http://naturalresourceswales.gov.uk/splash?orig=/

http://www.polypipe.co.uk/

http://www.jbaconsulting.co.uk/

http://www.raaltd.co.uk/

http://www.microdrainage.co.uk/

http://www.southwestwater.co.uk/

http://www.thameswater.co.uk/

http://www.scottishwater.co.uk/

http://www.unitedutilities.com/default.aspx

http://www.wessexwater.co.uk/

http://www.dwrcymru.com/

http://www.yorkshirewater.com/

http://www.ciria.org

Creatine water sensitive places - scoping the potential ...

Documents

Transcript of Creatine water sensitive places - scoping the potential ...