The Association of Drainage Authorities Response to: Defra s. Improving Surface Water Drainage. February 2008

Transcription

1 Final Version /04/2008 Dr Jean Venables OBE - Chief Executive Address: 12 Cranes Drive, Surbiton, Surrey, KT5 8AL Web: admin@ada.org.uk Tel: Fax: The Association of Drainage Authorities Response to: Defra s Improving Surface Water Drainage February 2008 Consultation to accompany proposals set out in the Government s Water Strategy Future Water

2 Contents 01 The Role of ADA 01 An Introduction to Internal Drainage Boards 02 Map1 - Geographical Distribution of IDBs 03 Improving surface water drainage - ADA s Response 03 Consultation Questions 03 Part 2: Surface Water Management Plans 10 Part 3: Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) 13 Part 4: Drainage of surface water to the public sewerage system review of Section 106 of the Water Industry Act Omissions The Role of ADA The Association of Drainage Authorities (ADA) is the membership organisation for those involved in water level management. Its members include Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs), the Environment Agency Regional Flood Defence Committees and the Northern Ireland Rivers Agency. Associate Members include Local Authorities, Consultants, Contractors and Suppliers. The main activities of ADA involve a wide range of work for and on behalf of its members including facilitating the exchange of ideas and promoting discussions to solving common problems and/or introduction of new approaches to members' work. ADA responds to consultations from the Government, either on behalf of members or by facilitating individual member responses. It represents the interests of Drainage Authorities and other members nationally and locally, for example in relation to Bills in Parliament, other legislative measures, and local public inquiries. ADA acts collaboratively with other appropriate bodies or institutions to pursue the Association's objectives including linking to Europe through ADA's membership of EUWMA, the European Union of Water Management Associations. ADA obtains and disseminates information on matters of importance and interest to members, and provides assistance on technical and administrative problems. ADA organises exhibitions and demonstrations such as Catchment 08 for the benefit of members, maintains a website and publishes the quarterly ADA Gazette. An Introduction to Internal Drainage Boards 1 IDBs are long established bodies operating predominantly under the Land Drainage Act 1991 and have permissive powers to undertake work to secure drainage and water level management of their districts and undertake flood risk management works on ordinary watercourses within their districts (i.e. watercourses other than main river ). Much of their work involves the maintenance of rivers, drainage channels and pumping stations, facilitating drainage of new developments and advising on planning applications. They also have statutory duties with regard to the environment and recreation when exercising their permissive powers. The IDBs in existence in England in April 2005 covered 1.2 million hectares of England representing 9.7% of the total land area (Map 1) 2. Their average annual expenditure is in excess of 49 million, they employ directly or indirectly over 576 staff, have assets in excess of 145 million and operate and maintain over 500 pumping stations, 22,000 km of watercourse, 174 automatic weed screen cleaners and have a part in providing flood protection to 879,000 properties and 600,000 people. They also have responsibilities associated with 398 Sites of Special Scientific Interest plus other designated environmental areas. 1 Taken from Internal Drainage Board Review: Final Report February Map 1, Geographical Distribution of IDBs Page 1

3 Geographical Distribution of IDBs in England 2 Map 1. Geographical Distribution of IDBs in England Page 2

4 Improving surface water drainage - ADA s Response The Association of Drainage Authorities welcomes Defra s consultation to develop the key policy proposals relating to surface water drainage in the Government s new Water Strategy, Future Water. ADA looks forward to further opportunities to develop suggestions made within ADA s response with the consultation team. The Association of Drainage Authorities (ADA) has reviewed the Improving surface water drainage consultation at length and wishes to provide the consultation team with ADA s current thoughts and comments to aid your ongoing efforts with the Government s Water Strategy. ADA s Response to the consultation document has been based upon the views expressed at ADA Executive, Technical & Environment and Finance & Administration Committees, Regional Branch meetings and written responses from ADA s wider membership following the publication of The Pitt Review: Interim Report. As suggested in the consultation document ADA has chosen to use the questions provided as the basis for comment on the consultation s proposals and omissions. Each consultation question is provided as appears in Part 1: Consultation Overview followed by ADA s comment indented in italics and bold. Consultation Questions Part 2: Surface Water Management Plans Q.1 Are Surface Water Management Plans the right solution to co-ordinate surface water drainage? How do they fit with current responsibilities? How else might a strategic approach to surface water flood risk management be achieved? Figure 1 Model for the Integration of Surface Water Management Plans into Water-Related Strategic Planning 3. 3 Marston Vale Surface Waters Group Presentation Page 3

5 ADA strongly supports the creation of surface water management plans that clearly define the role of stakeholders within them. ADA considers that Water Cycle Strategies and Strategic Flood Risk Assessments must feed into and guide Surface Water Management Plans which should be enforced as supplementary planning guidance. A suitable model for how all three documents should sit together is provided in Figure 1. ADA is aware of a need for SWMPs to be enforceable which has proved an important issue in several of the current integrated urban drainage pilot studies. Q.2 Could the principles set out in Surface Water Management Plans be delivered through a voluntary arrangement? Or should producing such plans be a requirement in critical drainage areas? ADA considers that the production of surface water management plans should be a requirement across all of England and should not be limited to critical drainage areas. Indeed surface water flooding is inherently unpredictable and dictated by a mosaic of local geography and events interacting with localised weather patterns. Only producing SWMPs in critical drainage areas would either result in a fine patchwork of critical drainage hotspots across the country which cannot be strategically managed or a situation where areas hit by surface water flooding are not required to produce SWMPs because they are deemed not critical. Another problem that will come from limiting SWMPs to critical drainage areas, will be a failure to adhere to a catchment approach to flood risk management. Consequently the SWMPs produced are unlikely to fully consider the impacts that management practices may have on other parts of the catchment. SWMP documentation should be appropriate to the scale and nature of the location and its drainage challenges. ADA members strongly agree that SWMPs should be a statutory requirement rather than a voluntary arrangement, to ensure they are delivered fully. Q.3 If the principles of Surface Water Management Plans were a voluntary code of practice, how could we ensure that drainage stakeholders engage in the process? ADA disagrees with the voluntary production of surface water management plans. A voluntary arrangement would need a leader with neutral interests such as an Internal Drainage Board or Local Delivery Vehicle with an ability to liaise, persuade and coordinate amongst stakeholder interests and to sustain momentum. A voluntary arrangement brings no guarantee of success and indeed stands open to risk of failure. Q.4 If production of Surface Water Management Plans was required in critical drainage areas, what would be the best way to ensure this took place? ADA does not consider that SWMPs should be restricted to critical drainage area alone; indeed a SWMP should be prepared for all areas as part of the Local Development Framework process. Q.5 Do you think that local authorities are the appropriate body to take the lead on producing a Surface Water Management Plan? ADA is concerned with the positioning of individual local authorities taking the lead on the production of surface water management plans. It is the view of ADA that water management on a catchment basis should be the key principle in determining a strategic approach to flood risk management. Providing surface water drainage management on a local authority basis will divide catchments where rivers are often boundaries to local authority areas. Thus, the implications of any actions delivered to aid surface water drainage may not fully consider their impacts to the wider catchment under single local authority leadership. Both the European Union Water Framework Directive 4 and recently 4 EU Water Framework Directive. Page 4

6 launched Future Water The Government s Water Strategy for England 5 cite a catchment based approach to flood risk management as core objectives. Furthermore, numerous local authorities lack the necessary expertise to facilitate this role. If this position is to be fulfilled by local authorities in the future, adequate funds would need to be sought in order to invest in expertise and training. The considerable investment required in order to grasp this role should not be underestimated and it should be made clear where Defra expects this extra funding will be found. It is the view of ADA members that if local authorities are to take a management role in flood risk management, internal drainage boards are suitably situated to act in the lead role in partnership with local authorities within an internal drainage board s catchment. IDBs have a proven track record of working alongside local authorities providing flood risk management works, advising planning authorities, and generally implementing government policy for making space for water across local authority boundaries. Please see ADA s response to Question 10 for our full vision of the role for IDBs in surface water drainage. Where IDBs do not exist ADA considers that local authorities acting in close co-operation with adjoining authorities within catchment basins would be a suitable alternative for leadership as long as they are appropriately financed and skilled and a responsibility for whole catchments is the founding principle. This partnership approach should ensure that the management of water throughout a catchment is ensured. Formal agreements should be made to provide technical advice to be supplied by other Operating Authorities as appropriate. Q.6 Do local authorities have the appropriate levers to bring about effective participation in preparing Surface Water Management Plans by stakeholders? What more might be required to give local authorities a central role in coordinating surface water drainage? ADA considers that the term appropriate levers is a matter of interpretation. As stated in Q5, numerous local authorities lack the necessary expertise to facilitate this role. If this position is to be fulfilled by local authorities in the future, adequate funds would need to be sought in order to invest in expertise and training. The considerable investment required in order to grasp this role should not be underestimated and it should be made clear where Defra expects this extra funding will be found. Furthermore, many surface water management issues are covered by powers rather than duties. Thus local authorities will need supporting indication from Central Government of the comparative priority of SWMPs within their existing, extensive list of allocated tasks. Funding may on occasion need to be upfront for implementation of wider, landscape scale solutions to strategically serve development with inbuilt scope to bring betterment for future generations as has been proven by the Marston Vale Integrated Urban Drainage Pilot Study. Presently whilst Local Authorities can promote a strategic solution, it may not be possible to enforce implementation as opposed to individual developers producing piecemeal solutions, which are unlikely to provide the wider benefits and ability to design for exceedance. Providing SWMPs with supplementary planning guidance status would ensure that the benefits of strategic surface water management are implemented where appropriate. Q.7 In two-tier authorities what should be the respective roles of district councils and county councils in developing and implementing Surface Water Management Plans? ADA believes it is essential that all upper and lower tier local authorities within a catchment (without an IDB) should work in partnership together with one taking the lead. 5 Future Water. The Government s Water Strategy for England Page 5

7 ADA considers that where IDBs do not exist or could not lead the principal Local Planning Authority should take the lead role. Q.8 What role do you see water companies playing in the Surface Water Management Plan process? What would need to change in order for them to play their part in producing and implementing a Surface Water Management Plan? ADA considers that water companies are a well placed alternative to local authorities in taking the lead on the production of surface water management plans. They have the distinct benefit over local authorities of a broadly catchment based geographic demarcation and a secure repository of drainage knowledge which would allow a smoother transition to this role and are accountable through Ofwat. They already have responsibilities within urban drainage and would not require a significant broadening of their current remit, although a significant strengthening of legislative regulations would be necessary. Q.9 Do you agree that the Environment Agency would be well placed to play an advisory and/or regulatory role in producing and implementing Surface Water Management Plans? Are existing powers and duties sufficient to achieve this role? Are there other organisations that could provide the quality assurance role? ADA is concerned that allowing the Environment Agency a further enhanced advisory and regulatory role will limit its abilities to deliver on the ground and provide for those flood risk assets and maintenance activities it currently has responsibility. In the view of ADA members the benefits of providing the Environment Agency with an overview role have yet to be proven and must ensure that any additional responsibilities go hand in hand with accountability to ensure that benefit is transferred to the communities being served. As a National Agency the Environment Agency is an Operating Authority and statutory consultee under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and PPS25, and has an overview role under the Land Drainage Act Thus the EA could be perceived as having sufficient powers to oversee SWMPs without the need for additional powers. This is currently being demonstrated through the Agency s role in reviewing SFRAs. The Agency will however require direction from Government and additional personnel if necessary. Internal Drainage Boards, as an Operating Authority, are well placed to provide this advisory and regulatory role for development in and adjacent to their Drainage Districts. Q.10 Should Internal Drainage Boards assume active leadership in producing Surface Water Management Plans in areas where they have an interest? What would be the main opportunities and barriers to such an approach? ADA strongly considers that where Internal Drainage Boards exist they have an essential role in leading on surface water management issues in partnership with those local authorities that reside within an IDB s catchment. ADA considers IDBs to have several unique benefits over other alternative authorities which could lead on surface water drainage, but unfortunately IDBs are limited in geographical coverage across England. Firstly, Internal Drainage Boards are largely based on the physical parameters of the catchment basin in which they reside (although none cover entire catchments), thus they adhere strongly to a catchment based approach and consider the impacts of any actions taken throughout the drainage district and not just a the immediate locality. The knowledge held within IDBs on surface water flooding and the hydrology of their drainage districts is considerable and significantly greater than the understanding held by the majority of other authorities. Certain Internal Drainage Boards are well placed to address development pressures as in the growth areas of the South Midlands, Humber Bank and Thames Gateway. Indeed there are merits to promote the expansion of Internal Drainage Boards into other, new areas. As IDBs are not universal across the whole of England they are currently inappropriate as a national solution, however where they exist ADA believes that they are best placed to Page 6

8 deliver leadership on surface water management plans (but in partnership with those local authorities within a catchment) and should be set this role as a requirement by Defra. In order to fully utilise Internal Drainage Boards in this capacity it may be practical to enlarge some Internal Drainage Districts to cover whole catchments, widening their geographical area beyond boundaries currently designated by the MAFF Medway Letter 6 of 1933 which sets most IDB boundaries at 8ft (2.438metre) above the highest known flood ( flood level ) at the time of formation in agricultural areas, at flood level for urban areas and 5ft above ordinary spring tides (1.524metres) for rural tidal areas (see Figure 2) 7. ADA notes that this need is considered by the Improving Surface Water Drainage consultation document in which Defra states Internal Drainage Boards currently have a limited role in managing surface water but some have taken the initiative in engaging with their respective local authorities; this could be replicated in other areas as appropriate and possibly extended to areas where Boards do not currently exist. 8 Figure 2 Internal Drainage Board Boundaries - Land Drainage Act Clarified by the Medway Letter of 28th June ADA therefore proposes that Defra consider the application of three possible actions outlined below (as originally appeared in ADA s response to the Pitt Review: Interim Report): Option 1. Encourage further contracted work by IDBs for local authorities outside of current IDB districts. This could provide a quick fix solution and allow cost effective local knowledge to be quickly applied in areas at immediate risk. However, it would raise questions of whether this is appropriate use of resources for an IDB whose primary concern is to the drainage district which it protects and raises levies from. Thus, ADA does not consider this approach to be a suitable long term approach in all cases. Option 2. Expansion of internal drainage districts. This approach would see a natural progression of internal drainage board responsibility higher up catchment basins outside of the 8ft (2.4metre) above flood level contour, which is by modern standards an arbitrary and 6 Letter sent by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to the Clerk of the River Medway Catchment Board on 28 June 1933 as a response to a public inquiry into schemes prepared by the Board for the Upper Medway and Lower Medway Drainage Districts under s.4(1)(b) Land Drainage Act The text of the letter appears as an appendix to A.S. Wisdom, Land Drainage (1966) and can be found at. 7 Flood Defence Law. Ch. Institutional Responsibilities: Internal Drainage Boards, p W. Howarth. Shaw & Sons Limited ISBN Improving surface water drainage, Defra. Consultation to accompany proposals set out in the Government s Water Strategy, Future Water. p30, paragraph /02/ Internal Drainage Board Boundaries Diagram courtesy of Tony Goodwin, District Engineer to Water Management Alliance, Broads Internal Drainage Board. Page 7

9 inappropriate designation. This is especially appropriate in finger boards where areas of isolated internal drainage board practice occur in narrow strips creating a piecemeal approach (see Figure 3). Applying option 2 would provide a joined up approach, compelling all land owners within the whole catchment to consider flood risk management whilst providing a suitable organisation (internal drainage boards) to provide this capability. This would provide significant improvements to the management of surface and fluvial flooding and provide tangible physical benefits. IDBs are currently undergoing a process of amalgamation through the IDB Review by Defra. Thus it seems an appropriate time to allow IDBs, EA and local authorities to assess the boundaries of internal drainage board districts. Figure 3 Map extracts of the IDB fingerboards in: Upper Great Ouse, Norfolk & Suffolk and Medway sub-catchments 10. Option 3. Creation of new internal drainage boards. This has been suggested by Hull City Council as an option it will pursue in light of the flooding it suffered in June and by Glasgow City Council who have created the Metropolitan Glasgow Strategic Drainage Board 12. The creation of new IDBs has been proposed by the National Farmers Union to the Environment Agency as an option in Cumbria and Lancashire. It is a course of action that may be considered necessary in areas that are geographically isolated from current drainage districts where expansion of any one IDB s boundary would not be appropriate. However, the majority of IDBs currently exist in regional consortia groupings. These consortia could provide a suitable framework of expertise for new internal drainage boards to develop within. A further incentive for the creation of IDBs is likely to come from land owners, local authorities and other infrastructure providers in areas considered low priority by the Environment Agency, resulting in a reduction/removal of EA maintenance on watercourses. A framework for the application of all 3 options could be provided by expanding the terms of reference for the current Defra Review of Internal Drainage Boards. As true of all avenues for leadership, secured funding streams and personnel must be ensured for an Internal Drainage Board DB to take the lead. Q.11 Do you have any specific comments on the role that other operating authorities could play in Surface Water Management Plans? Where are synergies with existing responsibilities? What about the barriers? ADA members have noted that barriers within operating authorities include the divergent design standards of elements of the drainage network. Whilst design of a solution may 10 IDB Review Proposed Sub-catchments,Defra The June 2007 floods in Hull: Final Report by the Independent Review Body, 21/11/ Glasgow City Council submission to Scottish Parliament Rural Affairs and Environment Committee Page 8

10 appear holistic and complete in managing water from source to sink, if design capacity of any one element of drainage network (e.g. highway or public sewer as lesser design capacity) is temporarily exceeded then flow may not be readily conveyed downstream, generating a need to consider conveyance of overland flows. Further notable barriers include limited availability and access to highway drainage design details held by Local Highway Authorities and DG5 registers of at risk properties, coupled with asset models forecasting flood risk, held by water companies. Q.12 Do you think that the costs and benefits outlined in the Impact Assessment (Annex B) are reasonable estimates? Do you have further information to help refine the estimates? ADA has no comment to raise in regards to Q12. Q.13 To what extent can spatial planning resolve surface water flooding problems? Can it adequately address existing problems as well as emerging issues from new development? ADA considers an increase in the application of surface water drainage principles within spatial planning has great potential to mitigate and manage surface water flooding problems. However residual risks will always remain regardless of the design protection standards of the drainage solution as these standards could be exceeded under extreme events and hindered temporarily through unforeseeable blockages and temporary failures. Solutions with in-built contingency to manage extreme events (designing for exceedance) and the potential impacts of future climate change would add opportunities for diversions of flows within the system and consequently alleviate potential flood risk arising from a temporary blockage or failure. For spatial planning to be able to address both existing drainage problems and emerging issues from new development, existing problems need to be known, appraised and improvement options evaluated. As noted above, a strategic scheme may enable formal improvement of a known key problem or indeed introduce a diversion route to temporarily or permanently alleviate pressure on the site of weakness. Drainage difficulties may be encountered through infill development and regeneration projects and new development delivery can provide benefit to these existing problems. ADA wishes to emphasise that providing a secure spatial plan for surface water drainage is only half-way to resolving surface water flooding problems; the complete, holistic management approach requires an appropriate detailed design, implementation and longterm maintenance and management of operations on the ground. Q.14 What else might a Surface Water Management Plan include? What technical barriers still need to be overcome? A SWMP should identify the route towards successful implementation by providing direction, listing appropriate contacts, outlining consent procedures and an indication of a projected programme through to implementation. ADA believes it is vital to emphasise the need for early agreement for the adoption of the principal assets, which can often delay implementation. A SWMP must address the issue of ownership, both in terms of a leader and contributing parties to drive forward its objectives. A monitoring and review programme should be identified, with the SWMP serving as a living document subject to review in accordance with evolving allocations within a Local Development Framework and policy change at the local, regional and national level, coupled particularly with local lessons learnt from experience through operation and maintenance of surface water drainage solutions. Page 9

11 ADA believes it is essential that a SWMP should consider the ability to secure funding for future maintenance, such as through a Section 106 Agreement of the Town and Country Planning Act Q.15 Should Surface Water Management Plans be the mechanism for delivering the Flood Risk Management Plans required by the EC Floods Directive (for surface water)? ADA believes that SWMPs with status as Supplementary Planning Guidance should be favoured as a mechanism for delivering Flood Risk Management Plans required by the EC Floods Directive. Q.16 How best should the costs of producing Surface Water Management Plans be distributed among the key stakeholders? Are there alternative funding options that could be pursued? ADA has no comment to raise in regards to Q16. Q.17 How should implementation of the Surface Water Management Plan be monitored? Should there be some degree of scrutiny in the process? ADA has no comment to raise in regards to Q17. Q.18 How might we ensure that such drainage partnerships are sustained? ADA recognises a need for clear guidance from Government with secured funding streams to direct the progression of SWMPs. A suggested example could be the creation of a new High Level Target to demand drainage partnerships are established. This would provide a goal to aim for within a fixed time period. This example would facilitate the establishment and longevity of drainage partnerships. It is important that any High Level Target set would be inclusive of all key stakeholders and allow flexibility to enable inspiration and innovation. Part 3: Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) Q.19 Do you have any comments on the costs and benefits identified in the partial Impact Assessment? ADA has no comment to raise in regards to Q19. Q.20 Do you agree that the property owner should have responsibility for property level SUDS features? If you have answered no, please provide reasons and indicate who you think should bear such responsibility. ADA agrees in principle that property level SUDS features should become the responsibility of the homeowner. However, ADA is aware that for SUDS to provide a suitable level of flood risk management to a community they should be developed on a more strategic scale. Leaving the maintenance responsibilities for major infrastructure under private management is dangerous and therefore wherever possible a SWMP should provide a strategic solution in order to provide a guaranteed service of protection which should be adopted by a suitable Operating Authority. Where a property level SUDS is the principle surface water management feature for a development area the general public cannot be relied upon to maintain to a high standard, or even to retain the feature and therefore a small percentage reduction in capability by each individual in a development could have a major impact on the ability of the system as a whole to achieve design standards. Page 10

12 Q.21 Do you have any comments on mechanisms by which property-level SUDS features can be efficiently regulated so that they remain effective? Please see ADA s response to Q20. Q.22 Do you agree that the options in Annex A should be discarded in favour of the three options set out? If you have answered no, please list in order of preference those options within Annex A that you feel should continue to be evaluated and, if possible, provide reasons. ADA believes that adding additional organisations to existing complexities regarding responsibilities within the drainage industry is not desirable. Where at all possible, the Group believe responsibilities should be left to existing Operating Authorities. Internal Drainage Boards have a proven track record for the management of surface water and where they exist they are ideally placed for this role. There could be a case for the introduction of new Internal Drainage Boards in additional areas of the country, or extending the extents of existing Districts for the management of strategic assets. Q.23 Do you consider that local authorities are the most appropriate party to take responsibility for adoption and management of SUDS? Please give your reasons. Please see ADA s response to Q22. ADA considers Internal Drainage Boards to be better suited. Q.24 If this option were to be implemented, which tier of local authority do you feel is the most appropriate one to take on the responsibility for the adoption and management of SUDS in two-tier areas, i.e. districts or counties? Please see ADA s response to Q7; where a Local Authority is appropriate ADA believes the principal Local Planning Authority is best suited. Please also see ADA s general comments in Q5 regarding the appropriate expertise within local authorities. Q.25 Would placing this responsibility on local authorities add to or detract from local authorities overall effectiveness in place-shaping and ensuring high quality service delivery in its area? Whilst ADA believes this responsibility would enhance Local Authority effectiveness it is important to stress that many may lack the appropriately skilled personnel to fulfil this function. Q.26 To what extent do local authorities have in place the skills and capacity that are needed for this work, and over what period of time would it be realistic to gain these skills and capacity? ADA is aware that since the dissolution of the water industry, many Local Authorities do not have the in-house capacity to deal with these issues as they lack the resources and expertise. This must be considered as an important factor in the decision making process when deciding whether an asset should be adopted by another Operating Authority such as an Internal Drainage Board. Q.27 Do you consider that sewerage undertakers are the most appropriate party to take responsibility for adoption and management of SUDS? Please give your reasons. Please see ADA s response to Q26. Whilst sewerage undertakers are not the most appropriate answer in every case, they should remain an option. Page 11

13 Q.28 To what extent do sewerage undertakers have in place the skills and capacity that are needed for this work, and over what period of time would it be realistic for them to gain these skills and capacity? ADA has no comment to raise in regards to Q28. Q.29 Do you consider that new specialist drainage undertakings or companies are the most appropriate party to take on responsibility for the adoption and management of SUDS? ADA does not promote a totally new entity, but rather foresees that existing powers and duties should be utilised to achieve end objectives. Q.30 If such an approach were to be followed, please identify how you feel such an organisation might best be established and how it might be structured by electing one of the models in paragraph 3.52 and providing further details or by stating other and providing supporting details. Please see ADA s response to Q29. Q.31 Do you think it would be necessary to specify which configuration should apply or could this be determined area by area? If so, by whom? ADA considers this should be determined area by area and as appropriate to the scale and nature of development. As all the relevant parties would have assisted with the development of the SWMP, the Plan would identify the appropriate party for future management. A standard matrix detailing the site and situation of SUDS against scale of SUDS could be drawn up as guidance to inform the SWMP process when these decisions are made. However these must be considered flexible to specific areas. Q.32 Do you consider that it would be a satisfactory outcome if there were to be different organisations with the responsibility for the adoption and management of SUDS in different areas? Yes. Please see ADA s response to Q31. Q.33 Do you consider that it would be effective and workable for there to be locally agreed solutions (with an identified default organisation) for the organisation most appropriate to take on responsibility for the adoption and management of SUDS? Yes. Please see ADA s response to Q31. Q.34 What are your comments and views on the above good practice principles and their role in ensuring that SUDS can be implemented in redevelopment schemes and can contribute effectively to making existing sewerage systems more sustainable? A SWMP must identify suitable and appropriate good practice principles for implementation in a specific location. Q.35 Are there any other principles you feel might usefully be applied? ADA has no comment to raise in regards to Q35. Q.36 Do you feel that the principles should be provided as good practice guidance or should they have stronger status? If you feel the latter please indicate how you feel this might ideally be achieved. ADA has no comment to raise in regards to Q36. Page 12

14 Q.37 How important is it that the responsibilities for the adoption and management of SUDS should rest with the same organisation to which the responsibility for Surface Water Management Plans is allocated and why? ADA has no comment to raise in regards to Q37. Q.38 To what extent do you consider that each of the options proposed and SUDS techniques in general could impede new development or the amount of development that could be accommodated within a given area? The introduction of SUDS should be prior to the construction of new development and therefore there can be funding and deliverability implications for strategic SUDS. Q.39 Are there any forms of development that might need to have some flexibility over whether all elements of SUDS (both source control and public SUDS) are employed in the surface water infrastructure? If so, what criteria could be used to judge such situations and how should the adverse environmental impacts of new developments without SUDS be mitigated? Strategic (public) SUDS should be the principle means of surface water management for any development or wider development area. Building source control will not always be a practical solution that can be relied upon in all circumstances, be it due to landscape conditions, type of building, and potential occupation of building or capabilities of occupiers. Thus source control should only be considered an element of storm water management. Q.40 What legislative issues would need to be resolved to facilitate the wider uptake of SUDS? Further to ADA s response to Q39 specifying the difference between source control and development area SUDS. An established SWMP within a Local Development Framework should contain all the guidance needed and be considered as supplementary planning guidance. Part 4: Drainage of surface water to the public sewerage system review of Section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991 Q.41 Do you agree that the ability automatically to connect surface water drainage from premises under section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991 should be amended? If you do not, please give your reasons. ADA agrees that the automatic right to connect surface water drainage from a premises should be amended, but notes that situations do exist where this may be the most appropriate action. It is always important consider especially where large developments are planned by several developers over a number of years that piecemeal solutions on individual plots may not work depending on infiltration feasibility. Q.42 How realistic do you consider this option to be? Please give reasons for your answer and any alternative option you think should be considered. ADA has no comment to raise regarding the feasibility of Q41. Q.43 Do you consider that having a conditional ability to connect is more appropriate than option 1? Please give your reasons for your answer. ADA believes that giving a conditional ability to connect surface water drainage to the public sewerage system is the most appropriate action. ADA believes that the presumption Page 13

15 should be to not connect unless accepted grounds are given that connection is necessary e.g. no provision of a suitable alternative or insufficient capacity within that alternative to accommodate the flows. Q.44 Do you agree with the circumstances set out in paragraph 4.19 where connection should not be allowed? Please give your reasons for your answer(s) and, if you wish, suggest other circumstances you also think should apply. ADA feels this approach will limit the situations where surface water is disconnected from the common sewer network and by stating situations where connection could be allowed, but expecting all other cases for it to be disconnected would result in a far greater application of this principle across the country. Q.45 Should connecting surface water drainage from premises to existing public surface water sewers also be controlled? Please give your reasons for your answer. ADA considers there should be a conditional ability for connection into surface water sewers. In each case the alternative method should be designed to cope with design flows and during periods of exceedance there must be available capacity without creating damage to property. It should be noted that the design, maintenance and supervision of construction of soakaways is considerable weak under present legislation. Q.46 The partial Impact Assessment at Annex C suggests that the options can be put in a hierarchy of effectiveness. Do you agree with the order? Please give your reasons for your answer. ADA believes that the aim of a SWMP is ultimately to maximise cost-effective solutions for surface water management from development that maximises the amenity provide other environmental enhancements to society. An impact assessment will address the various issues that determine the best solution. Q.47 Which option or options do you think should be taken forward? Please give your reasons for your answer. Please see ADA s response to Q46. Q.48 We invite respondents to provide any wider evidence they consider relevant of the costs and benefits of amending the current ability automatically to connect surface water drainage from premises and comment on the assumptions in Annex C. In doing so respondents are invited to weigh costs against environmental and societal benefits such as reductions in diffuse pollution and in flood damage. ADA has no comment to raise in regards to Q48. Q.49 Could the Government s aims be met other than by legislative change, such as through guidance to the water and sewerage companies and Ofwat on the circumstances in which connection might be considered prejudicial to the operation of the public sewerage system? Please give reasons for your answer. ADA has no comment to raise in regards to Q49. Q.50 Could the Government s aims set out at paragraph 4.15 be achieved by means of financial incentives alone? Please give your reasons for your answer. ADA considers that the Government needs to fully understand what they are promoting as SUDS, for example a 45 litre water butt for each household is a rainwater harvesting/water resource facility and is not a meaningful SUDS asset capable of flood relief. A 10 hectare open area for collecting surface water and attenuating flows will not only be a major asset Page 14

16 as a SUD, it will provide amenity and biodiversity opportunities. For single-property SUDS the principle of financial benefits are already in place, in that properties that do not connect to a public surface water sewer have reduced water company charges. Developing financial incentives for area-based SUDS may be beneficial but will be outweighed by the added-value provided through amenity benefits. Omissions When determining the position of critical infrastructure, the appraisal of all potential sources of flood risk to such assets needs to be made available to the utility provider and Local Authority. Individuals and Organisations who have assisted ADA in the production of this document: B Easom, Clerk to the Group - Bedford Group of Drainage Boards D Sisson, Engineer to the Board - Lindsey Marsh Drainage Board J Oldfield, Engineer to the Group - Bedford Group of Drainage Boards Members of the Marston Vale Surface Waters Group Photographic Acknowledgements Cover Photograph: Elstow Brook in Marston Vale, Bedford. J Oldfield - Bedford Group of Drainage Boards An urban watercourse through a new development, managed as part of the Marston Vale Surface Water Plan. Back Page Photograph: Cowbank Drain, nr Skegness. D Sisson - Lindsey Marsh Drainage Board A rural watercourse inferring flood risk management to: infrastructure, isolated communities and farmland, managed with a stepped profile to ensure: water conveyance, habitat creation and ease of maintenance. Contact Details Address: 12 Cranes Drive, Surbiton, Surrey, KT5 8AL Telephone: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) admin@ada.org.uk Website: Page 15 ASSOCIATION OF DRAINAGE AUTHORITIES - The membership body for those involved in water level management