UK - Government - 2011 - Review of Sewerage Planning and Drainage Area Plans

Review of sewerage planning and
drainage area plans

Final Report
A report prepared for Ofwat
November 2011
Review of sewerage planning and drainage area plans
Final Report
Atkins Final Report | Version 5 | November 2011

Final Report
Notice
This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for Ofwat’s information and use
in relation to the review of sewerage planning and drainage area plans (DAPs),
Atkins Ltd assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with
this document and/or its contents.
This document has 57 pages including the cover.
Document History
Job number: 5104912 Document ref: Final Report
Revision Purpose Description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date
Rev 0.6 Internal draft for review EIZ/KH JAJ MR <Initials> dd/mm/yy
Rev 1 Draft issue to client EIZ/KH JAJ JPA JPA 01/09/11
Rev 2 Draft issue to client EIZ/KH JAJ GJ JPA 09/09/11
Rev 3 Draft issue to client EIZ/KH 22/09/11
Rev 4 Final draft to client EIZ JPA
Rev 5 Minor amendments EIZ JPA
Client signoff
Client Ofwat
Project External review of sewerage planning and drainage area plans
Document title Final Report
Job No.
Copy No.
Document
reference

Final Report
Executive summary
Introduction
Sewerage planning is largely targeted at resolving and avoiding the adverse consequences of failure of the
sewerage system in terms of flooding and pollution. Water and sewerage companies have adapted their
approaches to these tasks over time. Variation in responses by companies as part of historic regulatory
reporting led Ofwat to seek a more detailed understanding of company practices.
Additionally, Ofwat wish to understand how sewerage planning tools are used by companies, both in
planning for the long term and on a business as usual basis.
Objectives
The objectives of the review were:
1. To understand what processes, systems and tools companies have to support robust long term
sustainable planning. Highlight good practice.
2. To clearly articulate the approaches and common themes across the industry to a wide range of
stakeholders.
3. To identify improvements that could be made to incentivise:
 Proactive management of the sewerage system to prevent failure occurring
 Robust decision making to ensure that developments are located in the most sustainable way
 The greater understanding of drainage systems required if companies are to implement demand
reduction rather than increasing capacity.
The objectives are reflected below.
Methodology
The review was based on structured interviews with all ten water and sewerage companies in England and
Wales. In addition, meetings with Defra and the Environment Agency were held to elicit the views of both
organisations on current and future practices to support a sustainable drainage industry.
Key observations
 Companies have differed in their interpretation of the term DAP for reporting purposes
 The majority of companies are no longer commissioning new DAPs for sewerage planning
 Different systems are being used to deliver the outputs previously delivered by a DAP, although
hydraulic analyses of the network are undertaken to understand pollution and flooding issues by all
companies
 All companies are moving towards parallel procedures covering structural, operational and hydraulic
analysis of the network with variable degrees of integration
 When updating hydraulic models, drainage area or sewerage management plans, the most common
triggers are
o In response to emerging issues
o On a risk-based approach
o On a rolling programme basis
 Hydraulic models are maintained rather than rebuilt where appropriate
 The information obtained through sewerage planning is used by all companies to support their
investment planning process
 The degree to which sewerage planning tools are used to support the development of long term
sustainable solutions is variable
 Generally companies use separate planning tools for sewage treatment and sewer networks,
although some companies are evaluating investment needs in an integrated approach.

Final Report
Understanding what processes, systems and tools companies have to support robust long term
sustainable planning
Companies use drainage area plans (DAPs), drainage area studies (DAS), sewerage management plans
(SMPs) or other approaches developed for sewerage planning. When reporting “DAP updates”, companies
are generally referring to updating of the hydraulic model associated with the DAP, SMP or other.
AMP5 approaches to sewerage planning can be grouped into three types:
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3
Hydraulic, structural and Hydraulic issues considered in Hydraulic, structural and

operational issues considered specific catchments; structural operational issues considered in
on a company wide basis and operational issues defined catchments (traditional
considered on a company wide DAP approach)
basis
Companies have a range of tools for carrying out hydraulic assessments of the network ranging from
headroom calculators to verified hydraulic models. Where hydraulic modelling is used, companies undertake
this in accordance with the WaPUG Code of Practice (2002), which is the industry standard reference.
Coverage of hydraulic systems ranges up to 100%. Companies with less than 100% coverage focus on
having cover in larger catchments. Companies with 100% coverage use a risk based approach where more
detailed information, such as verified Type II or III models, is available for areas considered high risk and
lower risk areas are covered by a more simplified model or headroom calculator.
Systems for managing structural and operational failures tend to be regional rather than catchment based.
These tend to make use of business as usual data such as CCTV surveys and registers of flooding and
pollution incidents.
The review considered the way in which the outputs of the sewerage planning process are used by
companies both internally and externally. The key internal uses are capital and operational maintenance
planning and for defining wastewater supply-demand investment. In some cases systems based on current
or live data are used for planning operational maintenance activities such as jetting. Company systems for
capital maintenance planning, such as sewer rehabilitation, may be integrated with the sewerage planning
process or informed by it. Longer term investment planning for wastewater infrastructure supply-demand is
generally based on a 25 year horizon. The main issue faced by companies is the uncertainty of planned
development.
External uses for the tools and processes used in sewerage planning include informing the development
process and providing information for surface water management plans (SWMPs). All companies use
information on hydraulic capacity to support their planning liaison processes, but the extent to which
engagement in planning is a pro-active process varies across companies. Company engagement in the
development of SWMPs is predominantly through the provision of hydraulic models.
The majority of companies consider the sewerage network and sewage treatment separately although
common data on population and flow is generally used for both.
Good practice examples
Planning on a regional basis: Historically, DAPs considered failures within a given catchment. Where
DAP coverage in a company was low, this meant that issues were not being considered in a large part of the
company area. A regional approach enables all issues within an area to be appropriately prioritised.
Use of risk-based approaches to assess hydraulic capacity: Analysis using less complex tools can help
to inform where a more detailed model is required and allows companies to effectively target investment in
hydraulic tools on a risk basis.

Final Report
Confidence scoring of hydraulic models: A confidence scoring system allows the user to determine
whether the model is suitable for the purpose for which it is intended, thereby avoiding costs associated with
unnecessary model rebuilds. It also allows targeted model maintenance to address the issue that will make
the model fit for purpose.
Use live and/or real-time data in the process: This results in live plans which can be used in operational
management of the network as well as investment planning, enabling technology such as real-time network
control. Also, this means decisions are being made using the most up to date information and remove the
need for periodic updates of models or plans.
Pro-active engagement in the planning process: This enables companies to make an informed
assessment about the scale of future development for their own planning purposes, develop appropriate
tools where needed, influence the location of planned development and facilitate the planning process. It
supports a risk based assessment of planning.
Integrated asset planning: In their move away from DAPs, some companies have developed a very
integrated system based approach to identify and prioritise the investment to deliver the business outcomes
needed e.g. serviceability. Integrating the business as usual systems with those used for longer term
planning is both efficient and effective.
Articulation of the approaches and common themes across the industry to a wide range of
stakeholders
The review identified a number of common themes and differences in the approaches to sewerage planning
now being taken by companies including:
Common themes Key differences
planning on a regional rather than a how the impacts of urban creep and climate
catchment basis change are considered in planning
taking a risk based approach to the level of integration of non-infrastructure and infrastructure
detail in a given area planning
the use of quality assurance procedures for the degree to which systems and data can be
the management of hydraulic models considered live
the way in which updates to hydraulic models the use of sustainable techniques and planning
are triggered for sustainable solutions
the use of WaPUG Type II and Type III how pro-active companies are in planning
models
headroom calculators and /or hydraulic the scale of charges levied on developers.
models being used to assess the impacts of
development
the use of business as usual data and

planning on a 25 year horizon
Company practices can be summarised in a stylised process:

Final Report
Recommendations for proactive management of the sewerage system to prevent failure occurring
1. It is recommended that companies use live / real time data for flow monitoring and operational control to
enable headroom to be fully utilised
2. It is recommended that companies should consistently account for the impacts of climate change and
urban creep in sewerage planning,
3. It is recommend that all material assumptions associated with climate change and urban creep impacts
should be transparent and explicit by companies,
Recommendations to support robust decision making to ensure that developments are located in the
most sustainable way
4. It is recommended that the use of consistent planning horizons should be investigated by companies.
5. It is recommended that strategic planning liaison (ahead of development control) with the local planning
authorities, is considered separately from the current and future demand assessment in any outcomes-
based reporting framework. This would give greater visibility of the extent to which companies have

Final Report
proactively been involved in the development planning process and provide a framework for the
integration of future development.
6. Companies should integrate infrastructure and non-infrastructure planning including water quality
considerations, such that the impacts of resolving flooding can be evaluated against increased
intermittent or continuous discharges.
Recommendations to support the greater understanding of drainage systems required if companies

are to implement demand reduction rather than increasing capacity.
7. Using a risk based approach to assess hydraulic capacity e.g. headroom calculators in low risk areas,
verified hydraulic models in high risk areas is recommended as a cost-effective way of obtaining 100%
coverage of a company area.
8. To facilitate the development of sustainable, holistic, integrated solutions , it is recommended that the
SWMP to approach flooding consequences and severity on the same basis as sewerage planning.
9. The concept of a (sustainable) economic level of infiltration may benefit the industry in a similar way to
how and economic level of leakage has benefited water supply. The UKWIR work in this area could form
the basis for developing the concept further.
10. The promotion of solutions to flooding using a benefits approach rather than a return period can lead to
lesser standards being implemented for almost the same benefits to customers. It is recommended this
approach is carried forward to the next price review.
11. Approaches that consider structural and operational needs on a regional rather than catchment basis
should be promoted.
Other recommendations to improve the understanding of drainage systems include:
12. It is recommended that, in addition to conventional terminology, companies could also describe rainfall
as mm of rainfall over a certain number of hours. It would then be easier to explain peaky events and
sustained high rainfall patterns. If this concept were also extended to develop solutions to flooding in
these terms as well as a storm return period event, there would be much more visibility on the rainfall
intensities and peakiness of events that can be tolerated by the system. This supports the knowledge
required to enable future demand management to be proposed as a potential solution to flooding.
13. It is recommended that an outcomes-based reporting framework is implemented to promote

transparency of the planning process. The outcomes from the stylised industry process presented in this
document could be modified to fulfil this purpose.

Final Report

Final Report
Table of contents
Chapter Pages
Executive summary 4
Executive Summary 11
1. Introduction 12
1.1. Acknowledgements 12
1.2. Background 12
1.3. Aims and Objectives 13
1.4. Scope 14
1.5. Purpose of this document 14
2. Review of company processes 15
2.1. Methodology for the review 15
2.2. Key observations 16
3. Sewerage planning processes 33
3.1. Prologue 33
3.2. Process overview 33
3.3. Operational needs assessment 35
3.4. Structural needs assessment 36
3.5. Hydraulic needs assessment 37
3.6. Water quality assessment 39
3.7. Plan development 39
3.8. Comparison to WRMP and other long term planning processes 40
3.9. Regulation and sewerage planning 48
3.10. SWOT analysis 48
4. Conclusions & Recommendations 51
4.1. Conclusions 51
4.2. Recommendations 54
Tables
Table 1.1. Document structure 14
Table 2.1: Scope of AMP5 planning approaches 19
Table 2.2. Example approaches for coverage by hydraulic models 22
Table 2.3. Approach to update of hydraulic models 23
Table 3.1. Summary of similarities between WRMP and stylised sewerage planning process 43
Table 3.2. Key differences between the water resources management planning process and the generic
industry sewerage planning process 44
Figures
Figure 1. Drainage area plan data for 2011 June Return (sources: Table 16 Lines 18 and 19 of public
domain June Return publications) 13
Figure 2. The sewerage management plan (SMP) process (source: SRM5, WRc) 17
Figure 3. Hydraulic failure 18
Figure 4. Structural & operational failure 18

Final Report
Figure 5. Utilisation of DAPS or their equivalent 27

Figure 6. Stylised industry process for sewerage planning 35
Figure 7. Mapping of the water resources management planning process to the stylised industry
process for sewerage planning 41
Figure 8. The common framework for capital maintenance planning (© UKWIR source: The Common
Framework for Capital Maintenance Planning in the UK Water Industry) 47
Figure 9. SWOT analysis 49
Executive Summary
Summary text

Final Report
1. Introduction
1.1. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all ten water and sewerage companies (Anglian Water, Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water,
Northumbrian Water, Severn Trent Water, Southern Water, South West Water, Thames Water, United
Utilities, Wessex Water and Yorkshire Water) for allocating time and resources to this review and for aiding
our understanding of current practice.
We would also like to thank the Water Services Regulation Authority (Ofwat), the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Environment Agency (EA) for contributing their views to
this report.
1.2. Background
1.2.1. Ofwat’s sustainable drainage project
This review of sewerage planning and drainage area plans was commissioned by Ofwat to support its
sustainable drainage project. Ofwat’s long term aspiration is:
“A sustainable water cycle in which we are able to meet our needs for water and sewerage services while
enabling future generations to meet their own needs”.
Ofwat has defined six goals to meet this aspiration. The sustainable drainage project forms part of the goal
of contributing to sustainable development.
The objectives of the sustainable drainage project are to:
 Understand what is required to incentivise the sector and customers to adapt drainage systems so
that the challenges of climate change and growth can be addressed
 Adapt the present regulatory environment to help water companies provide reliable and fair drainage
services now and in the future
 Provide evidence-based options to government on beneficial changes that could be made to the
roles and responsibilities involved in delivering drainage services in the longer term
 Produce clear and credible evidence to inform and justify any changes required
Work to date has included a project on the evidence base for SuDS, which has forecasted up to around 2040
how population growth, urban creep and increases in rainfall linked to climate change will influence future
demand on the wastewater network. Initial conclusions are that increases in rainfall, population and urban
creep will lead to increases in predicted flood volumes and flooding will be more frequent if no action is
taken. The median increase in 1:10 year flooding across 97 catchments was 51% in volume for 16% (8.9
million people) of the population of England and Wales.
1.2.2. June Return data on drainage area plan coverage

Problems on the sewerage system can result in
 poor performance of assets i.e. performance failures such as pollution incidents

 service failures such as flooding of customer property from sewers
In order to understand the reasons behind such problems and whether the risk of incidents occurring is
increasing, companies undertake sewerage planning activities. These activities were traditionally
coordinated in a drainage area plan, which highlighted the investment needs within each drainage area.
Historically, water and sewerage companies were required by Ofwat to report on two indicators associated
with drainage area plans:
 Cumulative % drainage area plans updated in the last five years to date
Atkins Final Report | Version 5 | November 2011 12

Final Report
 % population/properties covered by updated studies
Figure 1 shows the data reported by the 10 water and sewerage companies for the final June Return in
2011.
Figure 1. Drainage area plan data for 2011 June Return (sources: Table 16 Lines 18 and 19 of
public domain June Return publications)
100% Cumulative % drainage

90% area plans updated in the
80% last five years to date
70%
% Population/properties
60% covered by updated
50% studies
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
This shows significant variability in the data reported. For example, United Utilities reported both the
cumulative percentage drainage area plans updated in the last five years and the percentage of
population/properties covered by updated plans as zero whereas Northumbrian Water reported 100%
against both measures. This indicated variability in the approaches taken by companies to drainage area
planning. From historic June Return data alone it was not clear whether the variability was due to different
processes, interpretation of the June Return guidance or the company definition of DAPs.
The variation in June Return responses led Ofwat to seek a more detailed understanding of company
practices. This review considers actual methodologies applied, rather than being constrained to company
activities against the defined set of reporting requirements.
1.3. Aims and Objectives

The aim of this review is to provide Ofwat with a clear understanding of how companies undertake sewerage
planning and use tools such as drainage area plans in their long term planning. The specific objectives of the
review are:
 To understand what processes, systems and tools companies have to support long term sustainable
planning. Highlight good practice.
 To clearly articulate the approaches and common themes across the industry to a wide range of
stakeholders.
 To identify improvements that could be made to incentivise
o proactive management of the sewerage system to prevent failure occurring
o Robust decision making to ensure that developments are located in the most sustainable way
o The greater understanding of drainage systems required if companies are to implement demand
reduction rather than increasing capacity.

Final Report
1.4. Scope
The scope of this review was to consult each of the ten water and sewerage companies in England and
Wales. The purpose of the consultation was to ascertain the particular approach adopted. The review was to
be conducted at a high level, in order to understand the processes that apply in practice. The extent to which
the approach was evidence based was constrained by the time available and the information volunteered by
companies. Defra and the Environment Agency were also consulted.
1.5. Purpose of this document

The purpose of this document is to provide a summary of the review suitable for the public domain and to
communicate the findings of how companies approach sewerage planning to stakeholders, including Defra
and the Environment Agency. Views are expressed on what constitutes good practice and the reasons why it
is considered to be so. A stylised process has been developed and compared to the Water Resource
Management Plan process to highlight the similarities between the two processes and highlight where any
differences are appropriate. Included is an opinion on what could be improved to support a sustainable
sewerage industry in the future.
The document is structured as in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1. Document structure
Section Name Content

1 Introduction Acknowledgements, background, aims and objectives, scope and purpose
of document
2 Review of company Methodology for the review, observations including scenarios of differing
processes levels of coverage, definition of commonly used terms, summary of current
practice.
Company approaches to the management of sewerage planning are
described in more detail, covering data, QA, granularity, coverage, updating
and planning horizon. A summary of the different triggers for updates is
given.
Company utilisation of sewerage planning outputs is described in more
detail, covering development planning and supply/demand balance,
operational maintenance issues, capital maintenance, water quality, model
to plan and hydraulic issues. A summary of current utilisation is given.
Sewerage services into the long term examines company definitions of the
long term in the context of sewerage planning, how the tools are used in
company business plans and in long term planning, and role in assessing
sustainable solutions and impacts of climate change, growth and creep.
Defra and Environment Agency consultation.
Common themes and main differences.
Good practice.
3 Sewerage planning Generic, stylised industry process drawn together from common elements of
process company activities, describing the range of activities covered by each
element and the key outcomes expected from each stage.
Comparison to the water resources management plan process discussing
key differences and similarities.
Discussion of how the asset maintenance planning elements align with
Common Framework for capital maintenance planning.
Assessment of robustness of the stylised industry process for supporting a
sustainable sewerage industry, including a SWOT analysis.
4 Conclusions and Overall conclusions of the review
recommendations Suggested improvements to the overall process and also to the industry as
a whole supported by ideas gathered from the review.

Final Report
2. Review of company processes

2.1. Methodology for the review
The review was based on structured interviews with all ten water and sewerage companies in England and
Wales, along with an offline review of information supplied by the companies.
Following initial discussions with the companies to explain the background for the review, a generic
Notification of Meeting (agenda) was issued outlining the areas for discussion and requesting information
ahead of the meetings. The notification set out the terms of reference for the meetings, allowing the
companies to plan attendance and prepare any documentation for presentation during the review.
Offline reviews of relevant documents were completed for most companies. Examples of the types of
documents supplied by companies included:
 Drainage Area Plan or Sewerage Management Plan methodology

 Modelling specification
 Investment planning procedures
 Methodologies for assessing serviceability across operational areas (and at company level)
 Overview PowerPoint presentations setting out the main company processes
 Examples of multi-agency studies commissioned by local authorities to which the company has
contributed information
 Examples of drainage area plans and sewerage management plans
 Evidence of meetings to prioritise and scope investigations
 Evidence of external liaison for strategic planning and resolving third party issues (pollution and
flooding)
 Methodologies for assessing supply/demand balance
 Procurement documents and assessment criteria for modelling frameworks
 Example Information Agreements to be used with local authorities for data sharing in support of
surface water management plans (SWMP)
Some of the documents were supplied as evidence of the approaches being embedded in companies’
business as usual processes. Other documents described procedures or approaches to processes
underpinning drainage area planning. The offline review of documents included an assessment of the
modelling approach taken by each company.
Companies supplied information on their current approach and how this linked to the approach taken for
PR09 planning. Some companies have only started to use their current approaches since the start of AMP5.
Companies usually volunteered some details on their previous approach and how it has informed the
changes implemented for AMP5. The review did not focus on the detail of historic approaches. However, an
assessment was made of how embedded the new process was into business as usual.
Companies provided some information on their business processes for optimising their investment
programme based on benefits. However, in the majority of cases this was taken at face value due to the time
constraints of the review. The mechanics behind programme optimisation were not explored in detail.
Structured interview meetings were undertaken with each of the ten companies. Some of the interviews were
also attended by an Ofwat observer to facilitate knowledge transfer. The discussions at the meetings varied
in their complexity, often influenced by the responsibilities of company staff attending the meetings.
Companies presented demonstrations, examples and evidence of their approaches, although in some cases
this was not possible.
Due to the timing of the review, it was not possible in all cases to gain access to all the company staff
required to obtain a full picture of current practice. Therefore summaries of meetings were issued to confirm
the main points of discussion with the companies.

Final Report
Meetings with Defra and the Environment Agency were also held. The aim of these discussions was to elicit
the views of both organisations on current and future practices to support a sustainable drainage industry.
2.2. Key observations

This section sets out the definitions for terms commonly used in relation to sewerage planning and explores
the different interpretations of these encountered during the review. It goes on to describe the approaches
used by companies and how these have changed in comparison to those used in the AMP4 period. The
management and utilisation of DAPs or their equivalent is also presented where good practice is highlighted.
A summary of the views expressed by Defra and the Environment Agency is also included. The conclusions
of the review are set out in Section 4.
2.2.1. Definitions
2.2.1.1. Drainage Area Plan (DAP)
The original definition of a drainage area plan (DAP) was stipulated in the Sewerage Rehabilitation Manual
(editions prior to the 5th Edition). This describes a drainage area as having a defined boundary, draining to a
common hydraulic break point (e.g. a pumping station or a sewage treatment works). The DAP consists of
an investigation covering hydraulic, structural and operational failure mechanisms, which may result in
service (e.g. flooding from sewers) or performance (e.g. pollution of receiving waters) failures. The
investigations should cover CCTV of critical sewers, construction of a hydraulic model (usually but not
always verified against flow monitors for specific rainfall events) and analysis of operational and pollution
defects in the drainage area. The boundary of a DAP can be extended to cover wastewater treatment works
as well as the sewerage network.
The outcomes of the DAP are an understanding of the investment needs in the drainage area with notional
solutions (Needs Stage or Stage 3) or costed and prioritised options (Options Stage or Stage 4). Some
companies interpret the completion of the DAP as Stage 3 or equivalent, whereas others only consider a
DAP completed at Stage 4 or equivalent. Overall, the original purpose of the DAP was to identify defects in
the sewerage system and develop the solutions into a plan which would be implemented over the
recommended period. At the time of SRM1, the DAP definition did not give consideration to prioritising the
investment at a company level.
2.2.1.2. Drainage Area Study (DAS)

The definition of a DAS refers to an investigation in response to specific known problems or the need to
understand key issues, for example:
 if a capital scheme is to be constructed and its impacts are to be understood

 to understand unsatisfactory intermittent discharges better
 to understand the causes behind flooding from sewers affecting customer property
This may or may not cover an entire drainage area and will involve a hydraulic model, but not necessarily
any other analysis. The driver behind a study is better understanding of the sewerage network, and does not
necessarily culminate in a plan. As for a DAP, the DAS boundary can be extended to cover wastewater
treatment works as well as the sewerage network.
2.2.1.3. Sewerage Management Plans (SMP)

SRM5 defines a Sewerage Management Plan (SMP) as:
“A business plan covering all aspects of sewerage performance related expenditure for a defined number of
years and covering a complete drainage area and considering all relevant stakeholders”
SRM5 recognises the need to move towards a more risk-based approach for sewerage planning. In doing so
the process has become aligned more closely with the Capital Maintenance Planning Common Framework
(CMPCF) and serviceability monitoring. The boundary can now be flexible rather than rigid and some
companies have chosen to keep the drainage area plan boundaries, whereas others have moved to a
sewage treatment catchment boundary or river basin with sub-divisions. An SMP can include infrastructure
and non-infrastructure, as for DAPs and DAS, where the boundary is decided by the company.

Final Report
As with a DAP and a DAS, the main component of an SMP is the hydraulic model of the sewerage network.
The methodology diagram is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. The sewerage management plan (SMP) process (source: SRM5, WRc)
Some companies consider SMP completion to be at Stage 7 (Risk Priority List), others Stage 8 (Interventions
Study) or Stage 10 (Produce/Update Plan).
2.2.1.4. Interpretation for reporting purposes

As set out in Section 1.2.2, up to the June Return in 2011, companies reported annual data on DAPs to
Ofwat. The data reported covered: (1) Cumulative percentage drainage area plans updated in the last five
years to date; and (2) % population/properties covered by updated studies. The review confirmed that
companies used different interpretations of a DAP for reporting purposes. These included the following
variations:
 The term was used in strict accordance with the SRM definition. Although companies might
undertake DAS or other investigations instead of DAPs, these were not reported for the June
Return.
 Companies might have used other studies/investigations to fulfil the requirements of a DAP,
without actually undertaking DAPs in strict accordance with the SRM definition. For the purposes
of the June Return these were reported by the company as a DAP.
 A DAP might have been considered as complete up to Needs Identification (with generic
interventions) or up to Options Stage (with interventions evaluated). The plan element might
have been decided at a Company level under a different process for optimising investment
needs.
 There may have been a programme of prioritised hydraulic model maintenance and a DAP
reported as updated when the associated hydraulic model was updated.

Final Report
2.2.2. Approach
For AMP4, seven out of 10 companies used a DAP based approach to plan investment in sewerage
infrastructure. In six cases this was a DAP as defined in Section 2.2.1.1 and considered structural,
operational and hydraulic issues within defined catchment boundaries. At the remaining company, the DAP
approach was not directly in accordance with SRM, but based on similar principles. In all cases, the
consequences of these issues (current and future), such as sewer flooding and pollution, were considered.
As highlighted in Section 2.2.1.4 delivery of a DAP may be regarded as development up to Stage 3 (Needs
Identification) or to Stage 4 (Options Development). One company highlighted that they had considered
DAP completion as Stage 3 and another company that this was to Stage 4. Of the remaining three
companies, two companies used DAS as defined in Section 2.2.1.2, where targeted studies were used in a
mainly reactive approach. The remaining company implemented a revised approach to sewerage planning
in 2007 and the pre-2007 studies were largely a pre-cursor to their revised approach, following SRM
principles.
Eight out of 10 companies have implemented or are planning to implement a change in their approach to
sewerage planning for AMP5. This is to improve on AMP4 practices, to better align with business
requirements and/or to address some of the deficiencies of the AMP4 approaches. In some cases the
approach now being implemented aligns with that used to develop the company PR09 submission for
sewerage. As a result, the extent to which the approaches in use are embedded as ‘business as usual’ is
variable across companies.
The AMP5 approaches can be grouped into three types:
Type 1: Hydraulic, structural and operational issues considered on a company wide basis
Type 2: Hydraulic issues considered in specific catchments; structural and operational issues considered on
a company wide basis
Type 3: Hydraulic, structural and operational issues considered in defined catchments
As companies are using a combination of systems to deliver different elements of the planning process, it is
not possible to allocate each company to one of the types described above. For example, a company may
identify issues on a catchment basis (Type 3) that are then input to the system used to determine priorities
for investment that is regional (Type 1). All approaches consider the consequences of these issues on
service and performance.
The figures below illustrate the different approaches currently being employed or implemented by companies
in AMP5 to fulfil the function of DAPs. As the approach taken for hydraulic failure is different to that used for
structural and operational failure in some cases, these are presented separately.
Hydraulic Structural and operational
DAP DAS SMP Other DAP DAS SMP Other
Figure 3. Hydraulic failure Figure 4. Structural & operational failure

Final Report
As illustrated, no companies are now using DAS and a number of systems aside from DAPs and SMPs are
being used or implemented to deliver these approaches. The company specific systems highlighted by the
review in addition to DAPs and SMPs were:
 Sustainable Drainage Plans

 System Plans
 Area Asset Plans
 Sewerage Economic Assessment Model (SEAM)
 Catchment Priority System
 DAP Live
 Integrated Asset Plans
 Sewer Risk Model
 Hydraulic DAP
 Risk capture database
The scope of the systems and processes used by companies in terms of: (i) structural, hydraulic and
operational issues; (ii) catchment or company-wide basis; and (iii) network only or also include sewage
treatment is summarised in the table below.
Table 2.1: Scope of AMP5 planning approaches

Scope
Hydraulic Structural Operational Region/ Network and

Catchment treatment?
based
Sustainable    Catchment Network only

Drainage Plans
System Plans    Region Network and

treatment
Area Asset Plans    Region Network only
SEAM    Catchment Network only
Catchment Priority   Region Network only

System
DAP Live    Region Network and

treatment
Integrated Asset    Catchment Network and

Plans treatment
Sewer Risk Model   Region Network only
Hydraulic DAP  Catchment Network only
Risk capture    Region Network and

database treatment
DAP    Catchment Network only
SMP    Catchment Network only

Final Report
As highlighted, planning systems may be on a catchment or regional basis, but scope of the majority of
systems is limited to considering issues in the network.
2.2.2.1. Supply demand investment planning

The review considered the approach used by companies to develop the wastewater supply/demand element
of their PR09 Business Plan and the extent to which this was informed by DAPs or their equivalent.
The long-term planning horizon used by companies for wastewater supply-demand was typically 25 years
(six companies) with two companies using a 20 year horizon and one company 15 years. One company did
not state a specific horizon but used a number of different simulations. Two companies highlighted an
approach that considers issues under different scenarios. In one case these were current, tactical (0 to 5
years); and strategic (6 to 25 years). In the other case, the scenarios used were 5, 10 and 20 years. The
horizon a company uses may be aligned to that used in other systems such as Local Development
Framework (LDF) or Surface Water Management Plans (SWMPs).
During this review most companies commented that it is the “plan” element of a DAP that will become
outdated first; most of the needs will not change without intervention. This has led to many companies using
the tools and information generated from previous DAPs to inform their business without needing to
recommission the whole DAP.
Hydraulic models are generally used to inform investment plans, although a headroom assessment may be
made using other information on sewer capacity, for example where coverage by hydraulic models is not
100%. One company highlighted how investment in wastewater supply demand for PR09 had been
prioritised by categorising catchments as high, medium or low risk based on the risk of headroom erosion
and the risk status of existing issues such as flooding caused by hydraulic overloading.
Although not all companies used the UKWIR long term least cost planning for wastewater supply/demand
methodology for long term sewerage planning, all companies indicated that they had followed the principles
of identifying least cost lowest risk solutions to cater for different development scenarios. The extent to which
future development is certain was highlighted as an issue by a number of companies. In one example, a
company had sought to manage this uncertainty by pro-actively engaging with local authorities to make an
informed judgement as to what to include in the plan for the forthcoming five years.
The types of solutions that may be promoted to address hydraulic issues in the network include sustainable
solutions such as surface water removal and sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). One company
presented a system of real-time network control being piloted where permanent depth monitors are being
installed to enable real time flow monitoring in a number of large catchments. The monitoring will enable the
models for these catchments to be continuously calibrated and has the potential to be used to test
investment scenarios.
Aside from population growth, future flows in a catchment may also be impacted by urban creep and climate
1
change. Recent work on behalf of Ofwat highlighted that climate change is likely to drive the biggest
increase in flows. Some companies sized their PR09 schemes to reflect the forecast impact of climate
change on flow. In other cases, although the impact of climate change and/or creep can be assessed, the
information is not currently being used for solution design. The need for clear guidance on this for PR14 was
highlighted. In addition, customer expectations regarding flooding from sewers are often difficult to manage,
particularly with the current terminology for rainfall intensity being based on statistical return periods such as
1 in 10 year event. This makes it difficult to explain to customers the concept of exceptional rainfall events,
particularly if followed by another intense storm. In the context of climate change it also raises the question
of what is normal rainfall.
2.2.3. Management of sewerage planning

2.2.3.1. Data
Where DAPs or reports of some kind are produced, these are in electronic rather than hard copy form,
although all companies have the ability to produce hard copy reports if required.
1
Future Impacts on Sewer Systems in England and Wales (Mott McDonald, 2011)

Final Report
A range of data is used to inform sewerage planning, including both performance data such as information
on flooding or pollution incidents; and asset condition data e.g. from CCTV surveys. The data is largely
business as usual, but bespoke surveys may be commissioned where required, for example flow surveys to
verify hydraulic models.
The data is generally held in electronic systems and may be accessible to staff through the company intranet
or similar. The information may be available as read-only to all operational and planning staff, or access
may be restricted to individuals or teams. The extent to which the data is integrated in the system for
sewerage planning can be considered as three types. The first scenario is where business as usual data is
imported into the planning system on a periodic basis. For example, one company explained how CCTV
data was held in a central library, but imported into the model used to plan the jetting programme on a
periodic basis. The second scenario is where the system data, such as detail on capital schemes that are
ongoing or planned and areas highlighted for planned development, is accessed through a viewer or web
portal to give real-time information for planning purposes. The third approach is to use the live system data
for real-time control.
A subjective assessment of the companies suggest that five companies are using the business as usual
approach; three companies the live planning system approach; one company a combination of business as
usual data and live planning; and one company is in the process of implementing a real time control system
to manage the network referred to as ‘DAP live’.
2.2.3.2. Quality Assurance

All companies have some form of quality assurance process relating to the management of hydraulic
models. The checks carried out typically cover model build and development and may also include periodic
audits of the model or particular aspects of it. As companies outsource their modelling function to contractors
to a greater or lesser extent, the company may rely on the checks carried out by the contractor.
In terms of assessing model quality and/or assessing models for their suitability of use for different
applications, four companies highlighted their approach to confidence scoring of models. Models are
assessed using criteria such as age. Such assessments are then used to prioritise model updates. One
particular example presented uses a very granular confidence scoring system for models based on all the
elements that can affect confidence in the model, such as high degree of interpolation or poor verification
events. This means that the user can determine exactly what is required to make the model fit for purpose.
2.2.3.3. Granularity of modelling

Companies presented a range of tools used to carry out hydraulic assessments of the sewerage network.
These include the use of verified and un-verified hydraulic models alongside simple non-modelling
assessment tools based on dry weather flow and pipe volumetric capacity.
Two companies described the headroom calculator that they used to assess network capacity. In one case
we were shown a “rolling ball” analysis that is used to estimate overland flow paths. In the other case, the
calculator was also used to assess STW headroom. Three other companies highlighted that they had a tool
for assessing STW headroom but not network capacity. In one case the tool was demonstrated.
Such calculators may be used to make a preliminary assessment of the impact of planned development and
where this assessment indicates a potential capacity issue a more detailed study is carried out using
hydraulic modelling. In one example we saw, the use of a range of tools enabled the company to have basic
hydraulic information for 100% of its area. The degree to which it commissions more detailed investigations
or modelling is on a needs basis.
With respect to hydraulic models, all companies made reference to the model types defined by WaPUG
2
(2002) . These are:
 Type I: Skeletal Planning Model (also known as a coarse planning or macro model)
 Type II: Drainage Area Planning Model
 Type III: Detailed Design Model
2
Code of Practice for the hydraulic modeling of sewer systems, Version 3

Final Report
Companies typically use a combination of Type II and Type III models where Type III are used for scheme
design or investigations into problem areas requiring a more detailed level of understanding. In addition,
some companies carry out 2-D overland flow modelling where this is deemed appropriate. The complexity of
the model in a given catchment is generally determined on a risk basis. An example would be the extent of
known problems in the catchment. The size of the catchment may also be a determining factor; small and
very large catchments may have less complex models.
2.2.3.4. Coverage
As set out in 2.2.1.1, a traditional DAP considered hydraulic, structural and operational failures. Where
companies are considering failures on a regional rather than a catchment basis, coverage will be 100%,
although the level of detail available is likely to vary across the region.
In terms of coverage of a given system, this may be considered in terms of the population equivalent and/or
the number of catchments. The catchments covered by a DAP or equivalent in a company area tend to be
those with the larger population. This means that although the percentage of catchments covered is low, on
a population basis the percentage coverage is high. One example of this is shown below:
Percentage of catchments covered by DAPs: 22%
Percentage of population covered by DAPs: 95%
Most companies focus more on coverage by hydraulic models rather than by DAPs.
A hydraulic model will typically cover a sewage treatment works (STW) catchment, although large STW
catchments may have multiple models where a model covers a drainage area and vice versa i.e. where a
number of smaller catchments are covered by a single model.
The extent to which catchments are covered by hydraulic models is variable between companies. Although,
as highlighted in Section 2.2.3.3, companies generally have Type II and Type III models, they will not have
coverage of the entire area. One factor that may determine whether a catchment has a model is its size on a
population equivalent (pe) basis. Three companies highlighted a population equivalent based approach to
model coverage as shown in the table below.
Table 2.2. Example approaches for coverage by hydraulic models
Company Approach
F Aspiration for 100% coverage of all catchments. > 5,000pe
G All catchments > 20,000pe modelled
I All catchments > 2,000pe modelled
Where a catchment is not covered by a hydraulic model, companies will still have information about the
network such as sewer records. As highlighted in Section 2.2.3.3, two companies have tools to carry out
assessments of network headroom that cover their whole network. It is important to note that not all areas
with a low population equivalent are necessarily considered low priority for a hydraulic model. Network
headroom assessments can direct companies to develop a model where it is required.
2.2.3.5. Updates
When companies reported ‘DAP updates’ as part of the June return, this generally related to updating of the
hydraulic model associated with the DAP rather than the DAP itself. Hydraulic model updates generally
involve updating the network to reflect changes in the catchment and may also include flow surveys for
model verification.
There are a variety of ways in which a model update may be triggered. The main ones identified were:
 Risk based prioritisation process considering factors such as the age of model and the scale of
planned development; and/or
 In response to defined triggers e.g. a material change or emerging issue in a catchment; and/or

Final Report
 Updates on a defined time interval e.g. annually; and/or

 Other e.g. in response to model audit findings.
A company may use more than one of the four approaches detailed. For example, a risk based approach
may be used to prioritise the programme for business planning purposes but this will be re-prioritised in
response to emerging issues. A subjective assessment of the approaches taken by companies is given in
the table below.
Table 2.3. Approach to update of hydraulic models

A B C D E F G H I J
Risk based approach      
Defined triggers       
Time interval  
Other   
As shown in Table 2.3, the most common approaches used to update models are to either use some form a
risk based apporach or to update in response to defined triggers. For the two comapnies using a time
interval, the first carries out annual updates to refect changes in population and the second uses a rolling 20
year period.
2.2.3.6. Evaluating plan success

Only one company presented in its process a specific feedback mechanism to check that the strategy (and
the resulting plans) is working. Another company mentioned a review of action plans as part of its integrated
planning approach.
To a certain extent this will be picked up by the serviceability reviews undertaken by companies (and
reported on an annual basis). This triggers action if serviceability is trending towards marginal or
deteriorating.
Companies were not explicitly asked about this element of their process. But, the fact that so few companies
volunteered the feedback mechanism implies that this does not happen as a business as usual activity.
2.2.4. Utilisation
The review considered how DAPs or their equivalent are used in the following ‘business as usual’
applications:
 Operational and capital maintenance planning

 Water quality assessments
 Surface Water Management Plans (SWMPs) and Ofwat pilots
 Planning liaison
The extent to which the impact of climate change and/or urban creep is factored into planning was also
explored.
2.2.4.1. Operational maintenance

During the construction of a hydraulic model for verification against a flow survey, companies often import
data on operational incidents as these can affect the hydraulics of a system. For example, siltation may have
the effect of reducing capacity in a sewer, or repeat blockage hotspots could point to a hydraulic throttle on
the network.

Final Report
The process for identifying operational problems is a separate process for all companies, usually as part of
the serviceability assessment or operational review. All companies view operational issues as a business as
usual process at operational area level which roll up to company-wide review, particularly in the context of
serviceability. This review is usually informed by information obtained during a drainage area plan or study,
or a hydraulic model. However, for operational issues such as flooding from other causes (e.g. fats, oils and
grease) a hydraulic model is of limited use, but can still contribute useful information, such as flat gradient
sewers. Any operational issues identified from CCTV surveys as part of a DAP or equivalent are usually
passed on to the operational managers for action.
The role of the DAP in the diagnosis of operational problems has changed over time. The DAP used to be
the means by which the operational problems were identified and assessed. Advances in work management
technology and business needs means this is no longer the case, with the DAP or equivalent being informed
by the operational analysis as the norm. Activities such as hot spot identification are carried out as a
business as usual activity and not necessarily using the DAP. This is because companies have moved
towards analysing this data as part of normal operations rather than waiting for a DAP to be completed so it
can highlight the issues. If there are drainage area plans in existence for a particular area, all companies do
use the information available as part of this activity. But the analysis happens regardless of whether there is
a DAP available.
When it comes to risk planning for operational maintenance, drainage area plans (or equivalent) do appear
to be used by all companies regardless of the format. However, risk planning is not limited to those areas
covered by a plan.
2.2.4.2. Capital maintenance

Section 2.2.2 sets out the different approaches used by companies to consider hydraulic, structural and
operational failures. The review identified that the extent to which the process in place to consider structural
failures informs capital maintenance investment for sewerage infrastructure e.g. the sewer rehabilitation
programme is variable across companies. Although not specifically reviewed, companies typically consider
capital maintenance planning as long term (25 years and beyond), for the Price Review (5-10 years) and
then at the tactical level (0-5 years) where it is refined to meet business targets.
The investment plan for structural issues is usually determined through a process of probabilistic or
deterministic modelling, which considers asset deterioration and/or consequences of failure. CCTV surveys
inform this analysis, although many companies now are moving towards targeted surveys of high risk areas
only to inform the structural elements of the process rather than aiming for CCTV coverage of the whole
operational area. The review did not consistently explore this in detail because the scope of the review
focused on drainage area planning.
For non-infrastructure assets, deterioration modelling is also used, although this takes a different form and in
the majority of cases uses an approach that is common to sewage treatment assets. Indicators such as
equipment failures, cost of repair and power consumption are monitored and used to model deterioration,
which then informs an investment plan. The modelling element of a DAP is sometimes used to assess the
consequences of failure of non-infrastructure assets such as pumps. This area was not explored in detail as
it fell outside the remit of the review.
2.2.4.3. Water quality assessments

Although water quality modelling is not a default part of sewerage planning, companies do undertake this
analysis primarily where there are National Environmental Programme drivers on water quality. One
company highlighted that they were intending to upgrade their current modelling specification to incorporate
investment drivers arising from the Bathing and Shellfish Waters Directives. Water quality modelling is most
often carried out for sewage treatment works consent compliance reasons to examine the consent options to
achieve the required water quality objectives. All companies will carry out urban pollution management
(UPM) studies where business needs justify their development; this is assessed on a case by case basis.
Hydraulic models of the sewerage system are usually used in assessing intermittent discharge operation.
Impacts on receiving water quality are always assessed as part of the hydraulic, capital maintenance and
serviceability considerations, although this does not often involve water quality modelling. Companies do not
generally use modelling tools to assess deterioration in water quality over time, unless it is as part of
investigations to support the National Environmental Programme (NEP).

Final Report
One company cited its aim to develop SIMCAT models for all receiving river basin waters in its area, in
partnership with the EA to assist the assessment of future consenting requirements.
2.2.4.4. Surface Water Management Plans and the Ofwat pilots

Company engagement in the development of surface water management plans (SWMPs) is predominantly
through the provision of hydraulic models but may be limited to the provision of information on assets and
flooding locations. All companies have responded positively to requests for data sharing despite some
reservations. SWMPs are not currently a legal obligation in Wales.
One company mentioned its use of confidentiality agreements for data sharing under SWMP. It is not clear
how widespread this is as not all companies mentioned it, but there was some sensitivity regarding
intellectual property belonging to companies. Another company highlighted that it has put in place data
sharing protocols to manage the sharing of information with the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA). This
acts as a two-way agreement to ensure the pooling of relevant data relating to flood risk management, and
promotes multi-agency working.
Aside from issues surrounding intellectual property, companies were sometimes concerned that information
from hydraulic models may be misinterpreted if not properly contextualised. This has led to one company
recommending to the LLFA that it uses the Company’s framework consultants for hydraulic modelling for any
work on SWMP involving Company models and data. Another company prefers to undertake any analysis
regarding its assets itself, and forward the results to the LLFA.
One limitation with current models owned by companies is the lack of information on surface water sewers.
One company highlighted that the model updates it is carrying out in AMP5 include importing information on
surface water sewers to address this issue.
Companies are starting to see the benefits from this cooperation, as it is providing greater visibility of where
the complex flooding interactions are and it is starting to promote two-way data sharing. However, a
frequently voiced concern was that SWMP does not appear to consider consequences and severity of
flooding, just whether flooding occurs. Companies report that flood authorities are in some cases not very
receptive to suggestions regarding consequence and severity. This is an issue that would ultimately need to
be addressed by the industry if the implementation of SWMPs is to be successful.
Ofwat is promoting a number of pilot projects within the industry for a limited number of schemes to alleviate
flooding. This is intended to encourage companies to deliver more sustainable solutions that reduce the risk
of flooding in other ways than just increasing underground capacity. This includes developing partnership
solutions to address surface water issues, as would most likely be required to address issues identified by
the SWMP. As well as the use of more sustainable solutions from a construction perspective, the intention is
that the solutions are sustainable in that they are forward looking and prevent problems occurring before
they emerge.
The review identified that not all companies are engaging in Ofwat’s initiative. In one case the company
explained that this was because the capital schemes to alleviate flooding and the solutions have already
been agreed. Another company highlighted that this was because flooding issues in its area were not
generally linked to surface water and solutions such as separation of surface water would not therefore be
applicable.
However, some companies are promoting alternative solutions even where this would entail work on third
party assets. Examples of projects being proposed for the pilots include:
 Surface water disconnections at customer drains

 Sustainable drainage solutions for flow balancing in the way of attenuation and retention ponds
 Removal of highway drainage from sewers
 Diversion and disconnection of surface water sewers
 Real-time control of surface water utilising network capacity
2.2.4.5. Planning liaison

Company involvement in the planning process ranges from involvement at a strategic level, for example up
front engagement with planning authorities to inform the Local Development Framework (LDF), to
involvement at a more tactical level, such as responding to pre-development enquiries. The degree to which

Final Report
engagement in planning is a proactive process varies across companies. For example, a more reactive
approach may be taken in an area where there is limited growth in terms of both housing and industrial
development.
It is not possible to make an objective assessment of company approaches in terms of how proactive or
reactive they are, but four companies in particular appeared to have a very proactive approach to the
planning process. This was characterised by:
 Working closely with local authorities and other stakeholders. This enables companies to both
inform the location of planned development and make an informed assessment about the scale and
timing of development for their own planning purposes;
 Well developed systems and processes to enable the impact of development to be assessed at
different stages of the planning process; and
 Proactive and effective monitoring of planned development to ensure availability of current data e.g.
through weekly transfer of planning lists
All companies use information on hydraulic capacity to support planning liaison processes. As set out in
Section 2.2.3.3, the tools used to make assessments of hydraulic capacity vary across companies, ranging
from simple headroom calculators to complex hydraulic models. The way in which the tools available are
used to assess the impact of potential development is also variable. Companies may use a headroom
calculator to make a rapid assessment of network capacity, potentially by non-modelling staff. And, if this
preliminary assessment indicates that the development might cause an issue, this may trigger more detailed
modelling. The headroom calculator may be used even in areas where the company has hydraulic model
coverage. In addition, different methods may be used at different stages of the planning process. A
headroom calculator may be used to assess a pre-development enquiry whereas a hydraulic model would
be used to inform the company response about a planning application.
Where companies have hydraulic model coverage in the planned development area, the models may be out
of date and /or unverified. However, most companies would make an initial assessment of the impact of
development using the model in its current format. As highlighted in Section 2.2.3.2, companies may score
models in terms of quality and this information can be used to inform their response. One company
highlighted that it supplements its proactive approach to developer liaison with weekly searches of planning
approvals granted to inform the hydraulic assessment scenario modelling for further development. One
company utilises its capacity information to proactively aid planning authorities to set the areas for
development within the LDF. This approach can also indicate priority areas for more detailed hydraulic
analysis early on in the planning process, ensuring that by the time planning applications are received, any
hydraulic issues have already been investigated.
Two companies highlighted the use of a threshold to trigger a hydraulic assessment in response to proposed
development. In one case this was an absolute value (10 houses). In the other case the threshold was
dependent on catchment size.
Another area of difference in approaches was in relation to the levying of charges for capacity assessments
in response to developer enquiries. A company may charge an administration fee to the developer to
process an initial enquiry. Subsequently, charges may be made for work required to update or develop
hydraulic models. A distinction may be made based on whether the proposed development is within the
adopted local plan or not i.e. if it is not in the plan, a charge will be made and vice versa.
2.2.4.6. Integration
The traditional boundary of a DAP is at the hydraulic breakpoint in the catchment and the sewage treatment
works (other than the inlet works) is not therefore included in the model or in the resulting plan, unless the
company uses an integrated approach. Three companies develop some form of integrated asset plan. One
company highlighted that its AMP5 model maintenance programme included adding a representation of
STW inlet works to enable storm tank spills to be modelled.
Although it appears that the industry is moving towards integrating models for sewage treatment works and
sewer networks, progress to date is limited, mainly because of differences in software and considerations. In
sewage treatment works both hydraulic and biological performance need to be modelled; in sewer networks

Final Report
only the hydraulic performance is a factor. Until recently software packages did not easily allow integration of
treatment works and sewerage.
At one end of the scale, capital maintenance planning is carried out as a separate process from the DAP or
equivalent. Other companies presented a fully integrated approach, where the sewerage planning system
both identifies issues and plans both operational and capital maintenance. A third approach is that the
outputs from the sewerage planning system are one source of information in prioritising capital maintenance
expenditure, but the system is not fully reliant on the outputs from the DAP or equivalent.
The companies with a more integrated approach are those where the system for managing structural and
operational failures covers the whole region. As highlighted in Section 2.2.2, most companies are changing
their approaches to sewerage planning for AMP5 and in some cases the implementation of the revised
approach is not very advanced. Such companies are therefore in the process of implementing systems to
deliver a more integrated approach, but the current approach is not fully integrated.
2.2.4.7. Current utilisation summarised

Figure 5 below summarises the different ways in which hydraulic models and/or DAPs and their equivalent
are used by companies.
Figure 5. Utilisation of DAPS or their equivalent
Capital and Wastewater

operational supply-
maintenance demand
External Operational
Liaison tool
2.2.5. Cross company comparison

2.2.5.1. Common themes
The review identified the following common themes in the approaches to sewerage planning now being
taken by companies:
 Companies have largely moved away from using DAPs / DAS and are conducting sewerage
planning using a variety of tools, which are electronic rather than hard copy.
 Most companies are now planning some or all elements of their investment at a regional rather
than a catchment level.
 Companies are taking a risk based approach to the level of detail for a given area. For example,
the type of hydraulic model covering a specific catchment may be more or less detailed
depending on the catchment size.
 All companies have some form of quality assurance process relating to the management of
hydraulic models. The checks carried out typically cover model build and development and may
also include periodic audits of the model or particular aspects of it.

Final Report
 Hydraulic model updates are most commonly triggered by emerging issues in a catchment or
using a risk based prioritisation process.
 Where available, most company hydraulic models are WaPUG Type II or III.
 Headroom calculators and/or hydraulic models are used to evaluate the impacts of potential
development on the network.
 Companies make use of business as usual data where possible with specific surveys
commissioned if required.
 Long-term planning for wastewater supply-demand is generally on a 25 year horizon but other
scenarios are used by some companies.
2.2.5.2. Differences
Key differences in the approaches now being taken by companies include:
 Whether the potential impacts of climate change and urban creep are factored into planning.
 The extent to which planning of investment for infrastructure and non-infrastructure is integrated.
Most companies consider infrastructure separately from non-infrastructure.
 To what extent the DAP or alternative is a live system.
 The use of sustainable techniques such as real time network control and surface water
separation.
 How pro-active an approach companies take in planning liaison and timing of their involvement in
the development planning process.
 The type and scale of charges levied on developers in relation to capacity assessments carried
out by the company.
2.2.6. Good practice

The review yielded some elements that can be considered good practice. It is important to note that the term
can be subjective; therefore reasons why the approaches are considered good practice are set out. The
views on good practice were informed from the information presented during the reviews; therefore it is
possible that more companies apply these principles than are named in the examples.
This section is not intended as a prescriptive set of approaches as it is recognised that all have to be viewed
in the context of the company strategy and specific issues facing each company. Areas of good practice
were identified in terms of approach, management and utilisation to link to Sections 2.2.2, 2.2.3 and 2.2.3.6
respectively.
2.2.6.1. Company-level planning

Current service and performance failures are now being reviewed at a regional level on a business as usual
basis by all companies. This means that although the analysis is undertaken on a bottom-up basis in either
operational regions or catchment areas, it is rolled up to give performance figures at a company level.
Companies do this on at least a monthly basis to feed into KPI reporting at a company level. This is
considered good practice because it contributes to having 100% coverage of the whole region and the
company performance as a whole can be monitored as well as identifying weak spots.
Structural deterioration is being modelled and monitored at a regional level, which again, gives good
coverage of companies’ operational areas as a whole and allows the investment plan to be targeted
accordingly. This is considered good practice because the prioritisation is conducted across the entire
company and not just those sewers for which a DAP has been completed.
It is considered good practice to have regional coverage where possible even though the level of detail may
vary between areas.
2.2.6.2. Risk based approach to assessment of hydraulic capacity

Companies presented a range of tools used to carry out hydraulic assessments of the sewerage network.
These include the use of verified and un-verified hydraulic models alongside simple tools to assess
headroom based on dry weather flow and pipe volumetric capacity and in the case of Northumbrian Water
“rolling ball” analysis to estimate overland flow paths. Analysis using less complex tools can help to inform
where a more detailed model is required and allows companies to target this type of investment on a risk
basis.

Final Report
The approach used in a given area may be determined from analysis of catchments or drainage areas
against several criteria, such as
 planned development
 flooding incidents
 pollution incidents
The entire area is reviewed at a time interval (typically 6-monthly or annually) which would trigger the need
for a more detailed plan. The basic analysis (termed Level 1 analysis by Northumbrian Water and Severn
Trent Water) is applied at a company level and is a quantitative assessment generating a risk-based score.
The Level 1 screening is used to indicate where a more detailed level of analysis is required (Level 2) with
some supplementary data collection. In some cases it may even highlight the need for a Level 3 analysis,
with more substantial supplementary data collection.
This approach means that the programme for DAPs, SMPs or hydraulic modelling is dynamic, with high risk
areas given priority over lower risk areas. This means that there are areas for which there will never be a
detailed investigation, but the company does have a basic understanding of the catchment as it has
coverage of its entire operational area. The Level 1 screening ensures that the companies can track whether
the risk has changed, i.e. problem-free areas continue to be problem free. This screening can also help to
spot emerging issues that have not yet manifested as problems, for example, as creep increases and infill
development progresses. It also means that for areas that are subject to substantial change, more than one
investigation can be progressed within the AMP period if needed.
A risk based approach is considered good practice as it is a cost effective means of increasing
understanding of a company area and directs expenditure on modelling where it is most needed. By
undertaking a high level assessment of the whole area, a company can have more confidence that the areas
where it has chosen not to invest in a DAP or hydraulic model carry a low risk and continue to be low risk. As
long as the limitations of the tools are understood, companies can very quickly make decisions on hydraulic
issues, and non-modelling staff are also able to use them. This is considered to be an improvement over
rolling time-based (e.g. five-yearly updates) programmes because it reflects the level of risk, allows 100%
coverage of the company area and allows limited budgets to be targeted in accordance to the greatest
benefits.
2.2.6.3. Model confidence assessment

Welsh Water, Severn Trent Water, Yorkshire Water and Wessex Water highlighted their methodology for
assessing the fitness for purpose of existing hydraulic models. In the case of Severn Trent Water, the
company assigns a confidence grade to historic models with the scoring undertaken with the end purpose in
mind against the deficiencies with the historic model. The company can have low confidence in a model for
several reasons, e.g. the source data was poor, the model was only partially verified as the storm events for
compliance with the WaPUG Code of Practice did not occur, or the catchment has changed, etc. The
company’s scoring system reflects all limitations with the model. In some cases a particular area may have
models for which there are different degrees of confidence. For some applications, the limitations of the
model may not matter, and it can still be used for certain types of analysis.
The confidence scoring system allows the user to determine whether the model is suitable for the purpose
for which it is intended, thereby avoiding costs associated with unnecessary model rebuilds. It also allows
targeted model maintenance to address the specific issue that will make the model fit for purpose. For these
reasons it is considered that a confidence scoring system is an example of good practice.
2.2.6.4. Live data

South West Water, Southern Water and Wessex Water use an approach that uses live data presented in a
viewer or portal to give the most up to date information on where the issues are, what schemes are ongoing
or planned, areas highlighted for planned development (at various stages of commitment) among other
criteria. This is considered good practice as it removes the need to update or complete DAPs or an
equivalent on a rolling cycle, as the business as usual updates result in “live” plans. It also ensures that the
same information is available to staff making decisions on different aspects, such as operational and
investment planning, encouraging a holistic approach to sewerage management.
This approach helps to bring together the hydraulic, operational and structural assessments into an
integrated plan, as it helps to highlight where the potential interactions are. It ensures that any plan reflects

Final Report
the real needs of the business. Other approaches still bring together the hydraulic, structural and operational
needs in terms of understanding the interactions and avoiding duplication of effort, but using tools resulting in
“live” plans means that this assessment can be considered at the intervention development stages.
2.2.6.5. Real-time control

Thames Water is implementing a system of permanent flow monitoring for flow balancing, making use of
available network capacity as part of real-time control. This is considered good practice because it makes
best use of the assets and the real situation is understood on a live basis. As well as network control, the
live system will also be able to test investment scenarios and have the facility to generate basic hydraulic
models for catchments not covered by a WaPUG Type I, II or III model.
Yorkshire Water is starting to roll out long term flow monitoring to give real-time information on intermittent
discharge operation. The intention is that this will ultimately be incorporated into real-time control to prevent
service failures.
2.2.6.6. Engagement with planners

Northumbrian Water, United Utilities, Severn Trent Water and Wessex Water appear to take a particularly
pro-active approach to engaging in the planning process. This enables them to make an informed
assessment about the scale of future development for their own planning purposes, develop appropriate
tools where needed, influence the location of planned development and facilitate the planning process.
A pro-active approach was characterised by:
 Working closely with local authorities and other stakeholders early on in the land use planning
process. This enables companies to both inform the location of planned development and make an
informed assessment about the scale and timing of development for their own planning purposes;
 Well developed systems and processes to enable the impact of development to be assessed at
different stages of the planning process; and
 Proactive and effective monitoring of planned development to ensure availability of current data e.g.
through weekly transfer of planning lists.
2.2.6.7. Integrated asset planning

Companies have moved away from hard copy formats for DAPs due to changes in technology and the drive
to make data more accessible to those who need it most. In doing so, some companies have developed a
very integrated system based approach to identify and prioritise the investment to deliver the business
outcomes needed e.g. serviceability.
Northumbrian Water uses a system planning approach which considers all the hydraulic, operational and
structural needs of a system (which is loosely based on river basin or a particular reach of river), for both
sewerage network and wastewater treatment works, in an integrated manner. The output is the integrated
System Plan. The method is well embedded into business as usual. It has been developed and evolved to
incorporate improvements since at least 2007. Southern Water has a similar approach with its area asset
plans.
United Utilities has developed the integrated asset planning approach for AMP5. This considers areas based
on river catchments and is based on identifying all the needs of the area into an integrated plan for water and
an integrated plan for sewerage. The resulting Integrated Asset Plan uses the results of the hydraulic,
structural and operational assessments to promote interventions to address serviceability, flooding and
pollution issues in a holistic manner.
Integration of the various approaches used by companies into a single plan is considered good practice
because it is an efficient and effective way of ensuring the outputs of different assessments and sewage
treatment assets are considered holistically.
Serviceability performance (current and future) can therefore be addressed holistically.
The priority for integration is considered to be

Final Report
 Integration of sewage treatment planning with sewer network planning including supply/demand
balance issues followed by
 Integration of sewage treatment works and sewerage modelling. It matters less if the models are
separate so long as the needs are evaluated holistically.
The degree of integration in planning will influence how well a company is able to integrate across drivers,
such as flooding and water quality.
2.2.6.8. SIMCAT modelling

One company presented its approach to developing SIMCAT models for all river basins in its area, in
partnership with the EA. This is considered good practice because it defines future consenting requirements
for wastewater treatment works and assesses the impact of point pollution sources. This helps to direct
investment where it is going to be most effective in addressing water quality.
2.2.6.9. Data sharing model agreements for SWMP

Northumbrian Water gave us a copy of a model agreement for data sharing that it has developed to facilitate
knowledge transfer on surface water management plans. This is considered good practice because it is a
two-way agreement promoting the sharing of data relating to flood risk management. This then allows
holistic, integrated solutions to be developed by companies, not just solutions to address the impact of their
assets.
2.2.6.10. Good practice summarised

 Regional planning for structural and operational issues
 Risk based approaches to assessment of hydraulic capacity
 Model confidence assessment for historic models
 Live data portals and viewers
 Real-time control
 Proactive, upfront engagement with planners
 Integrated asset planning
 Use of SIMCAT modelling to understand future consenting requirements
 Data sharing model agreements for SWMP
2.2.7. Defra and EA consultation

2.2.7.1. Defra
The views of Defra officials on sewerage planning in the industry were solicited for inclusion in this report.
Defra’s role is to help the industry achieve better outcomes and facilitate change in the interests of
customers (domestic and business), the environment, and wider public interest such as economic growth.
A forward looking sewerage planning process that enables investors, customers, developers and other
stakeholders to see and comment on companies’ long term proposals forms an important element of the
overall framework for the industry.
Overall, Defra considers that the process for sewerage and drainage planning in England and Wales by
companies works well. However Defra supports this review which looks at where there could be
improvement, and is particularly interested in the benefits to be gained from a sewerage planning process
that provides greater transparency and consistency, and stakeholder engagement, without imposing
complex and costly processes.
The sewerage planning process is not a legislative requirement, but Defra is responsible for ensuring that
the legal framework assists the industry to deliver optimal outcomes for customers and the public interest.
Following discussions with Ofwat and water companies, is proposing to consult on a potential amendment to
S94 of the Water Industry Act 1991. This could facilitate companies adding new strategic infrastructure to
their regulatory asset base, i.e. capitalisation for regulatory purposes. Defra understands that this is
presenting a barrier to a sustainable drainage industry and is therefore happy to remove this barrier to
facilitate positive action.

Final Report
Defra has also helped to bolster local authority capability and skills in sustainable drainage systems by
providing training and skills workshops and is keen to continue this support.
Defra wishes to support behavioural change which encourages water to be seen as a resource rather than a
waste product. It recognises that the causes of flooding can be separate from where the problem manifests,
with complex interactions between systems owned by multiple stakeholders. Water companies have an
important role to play in working together and setting examples of how this can be addressed. The ongoing
Ofwat pilots are a good example of how this could work in future. Furthermore, if companies engage early in
the development planning process and work to plan actively for infrastructure to support potential new
development these effects can be maximised.
Defra acknowledges the existing positive activity in the industry, and welcomes the examples of best practice
which deliver positive short and long-term outcomes for issues such as flooding and sewer capacity. The
regulatory and planning framework should encourage companies to learn from each other and adopt
innovative and successful approaches to work towards the development of a sustainable, well-maintained
drainage infrastructure.
2.2.7.2. Environment Agency

The Environment Agency was consulted as part of this review given the complementary role it has to Ofwat
in sewerage regulation and the day to day relationship it has with companies in agreeing solutions to
address quality or customer service obligations, such as sewer flooding.
Overall the Environment Agency believes that there is a need for a defined framework to ensure a consistent
standard of sewerage planning to address pressures on networks either from new development, growth and
climate change. As part of this, some joint guidance from regulators on material assumptions (for example on
climate change) would be beneficial. The Environment Agency considers this framework should focus on the
outcomes required rather than setting process. It believes companies should be able to tailor their approach
to achieve these outcomes to accommodate the particular needs of their operating area as well have the
freedom to innovate.
In the view of the Environment Agency, examples of outcomes it might expect to see are:
 An understanding of the operation of the existing asset base

 Engagement with Local Authorities to understand pressures from new development
 Asset planning at a catchment level to define interventions required to maintain service to
customers and the environment (considering the sewer network and treatment work in an
integrated manner)
 Consideration of impacts of climate change and urban creep as part of catchment level planning.
This will entail close working with Local Authorities to deliver sustainable surface water
management, resilience and fulfil the new duties under the Flood and Water Management Act.
 Long term asset stewardship (looking at operational and capital maintenance interventions) to
maintain serviceability for future customers. This may best be managed at a company-wide level
but needs to be integrated with the catchment level planning considerations.
It considers there are technical and behavioural themes in achieving these goals. On the latter is the need
for close working with other organisations responsible for drainage and flood risk management for example
local authorities, the Environment Agency itself, highways authorities, and in cases internal drainage boards.
Wastewater systems are far more localised than water supply infrastructure and interact with systems
managed by others. This means effective engagement with other organisations - and transparency of asset
management processes - is far more important for wastewater than the water service. For its part, the
Environment Agency is committed to playing its full part in making these local partnerships work.
The Environment Agency has evidenced concerns that there are variable approaches taken across the
industry which leads to planning disputes, water quality problems and customer service issues. In cases this
seems to be a result of a more reactive approach to wastewater supply demand issues. It considers that
moving to a framework highlighted above would help address this.

Final Report
3. Sewerage planning processes

3.1. Prologue
This section draws together the common elements of the processes used for sewerage planning from each
of the companies into a stylised industry process. The process is suitably generic and endeavours to reflect
the main elements from all company approaches, acknowledging that there are variations in detail. A
comparison of the process to the Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) process is included to
illustrate how the two are aligned, even in the absence of any statutory requirement to undertake sewerage
planning in the same way as WRMP.
Since the SRM first defined the concept of a Drainage Area Plan (DAP), the industry has evolved such that
even though SRM5 describes a Sewerage Management Plan (SMP) approach rather than a DAP approach,
companies have needed to adapt and modify their methods in response to changing business needs and
financial pressures. The resulting mixture of DAPs, SMPs, etc and also differences in implementing these
methods means that the term “sewerage planning” is preferred for describing the stylised processes. The
review has considered the important criterion to be the information that a company gains from the
approach(es) taken and how that information is used to develop plans that will address the (future)
deficiencies of the system. The drainage area planning process is now used mainly as an analysis of
hydraulic needs, with the other functions (structural assessment and serviceability) monitored at company
level through other processes, which are usually separate but not exclusive of drainage area planning.
Capacity issues are one of the main drivers for investigation, particularly where this manifests as flooding
and pollution from unsatisfactory intermittent discharges (UIDs). For this reason, sewerage planning often
(but not exclusively) focuses on the construction of a hydraulic model.
Alignment with CMPCF principles i.e. the extent to which historic data is analysed to understand failures and
then projected forward to predict consequences in the light of interventions (including “do-nothing”), has also
been examined and compared against the stylised industry process.
3
Section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991 states the duty of the sewerage undertaker is
“to provide, improve and extend such a system of public sewers (whether inside its area or elsewhere) and so to cleanse
and maintain those sewers and any lateral drains which belong to or vest in the undertaker as to ensure that that area is
and continues to be effectually drained”
The objective of sewerage planning is to identify the investment needs of the sewerage system in an
integrated manner and hence fulfil this duty.
3.2. Process overview

Figure 6 summarises the stylised industry process for sewerage planning. Assessments shown are based on
current and future
 Hydraulic needs
 Structural needs including capital maintenance
 Operational needs which may require operational or capital interventions
Deficiencies in all three areas can manifest as service or performance failures. These include sewer flooding,
pollution from intermittent discharges and excessive operational costs.
Although separate streams are shown for hydraulic, structural and operational needs, companies do
consider the three streams holistically when assessing interventions and selecting options to create the
investment plan. In reality there are linkages between the streams; however, the degree to which this
happens and the point at which this happens, is variable between the companies. These cross-linkages have
not been shown in the diagram for simplicity. Examples of how the linkages happen are
3
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/56/section/94 - commentary-c1988104

Final Report
 serviceability data on blockages and collapses in the operational needs will feed into the structural
needs assessment stream
 operational (e.g. siltation) or structural problems (e.g. pipe deformation) can affect the hydraulics of
the system therefore companies usually take these into account during the verification of a hydraulic
model
 for companies using integrated planning, all issues within an area are considered in the development
of a plan, regardless of the level of detail available under each stream
 during plan development whereby companies pick up multiple projects on the same asset to avoid
abortive works, for example, rehabilitation to address dereliction on a sewer to be upsized for
hydraulic inadequacy
Water quality assessment has not been shown as a separate stream because water quality issues can arise
from operational, structural and hydraulic deficiencies. The section on water quality assessment describes
how this aligns with the process. Similarly, as other service and performance failures, such as flooding and
increased operational costs, can arise from deficiencies in the network, these are considerations within each
assessment stream.
It is important to note that the process is a generic illustration of sewerage planning activities, used to group
the activities undertaken by companies to produce the outcomes from each stage. It is not a prescriptive
process and is not intended to be used as such.

Final Report
Figure 6. Stylised industry process for sewerage planning
3.3. Operational needs assessment

3.3.1. Customer incident data and serviceability
All activities relating to the collection and verification (where applicable) of serviceability, sub-threshold
indicators and customer incident data is included here. This covers activities relating to the extraction of data
from corporate databases and works management systems. It includes data on flooding (hydraulic and due
to other causes), blockages, collapses, pollution incidents, equipment failures and unplanned maintenance,
and other indicators that might be used for monitoring service and performance.
The outcome of this element is reliable data on serviceability and customer incidents.
3.3.2. Understand operational issues

This covers analysis of serviceability indicators and sub-threshold indicators. All activities associated with
understanding the underlying causes and interactions manifesting as service and performance failures are
covered here. As such there is an overlap with the hydraulic assessment and structural assessment streams.
The analysis undertaken within this element serves to establish whether existing problems are as a result of

Final Report
operational issues. If there are also structural and hydraulic deficiencies contributing to the problem, the
investigation is redirected down the hydraulic and structural assessment routes, which can occur in parallel
or in combination with the operational assessment.
This also covers activities associated with monitoring trends and sub-threshold indicators to predict problems
before they manifest.
Through the analysis of serviceability indicators and sub-threshold indicators, companies can gain
information on how effective operational strategies, such as proactive jetting, have been.
The outcomes of this element are an understanding of the underlying causes relating to service and
performance failures and identification of service and performance deterioration for given future scenarios.
3.3.3. Operational needs

This covers all activities relating to the identification of operational needs resulting in flooding from other
causes, blockages, pollution incidents, equipment failures and unplanned maintenance. It covers activities
setting out the strategy to maintain serviceability as stable, or more targeted action plans to recover marginal
or deteriorating situations.
The assessment might identify capital solutions which would then feed into 3.4.3.
The outcomes of this element are a set of clearly defined operational deficiencies with costed operational
interventions. These might be optimised in 3.7.1 against a capital solution alternative.
3.4. Structural needs assessment

For the purposes of the stylised process, this section covers non-infrastructure capital maintenance as well
as infrastructure capital maintenance needs.
3.4.1. CCTV and serviceability data

This covers activities relating to the collection of data for the structural needs assessment and non-
infrastructure capital maintenance on the sewerage network. This includes targeted and rolling programme
CCTV surveys and serviceability data on collapses, equipment failures, unplanned maintenance and
pollution incidents related to these. Other observations on performance or service are also covered here,
such as cost to maintain.
The outcome of this element is data that can be clearly understood and where applicable, confidence
graded, to inform the predictive modelling processes used for capital maintenance planning.
3.4.2. Predictive deterioration modelling

This covers all forms of probabilistic modelling and in some cases deterministic modelling, to analyse historic
data and asset cohorts to determine the rate of deterioration of the assets. The purpose of this modelling is
to try to predict the rate of sewer rehabilitation that must be undertaken to maintain collapses stable across
the company’s region, or where collapses will occur. This also includes capital maintenance modelling for
non-infrastructure assets such as pumping stations based on e.g. equipment failures. Any analysis on
consequences of failure, such as failure modes and effects analysis is also covered here.
The outcomes of this element are infrastructure and non-infrastructure capital maintenance risk identification.
3.4.3. Structural needs

This covers all activities associated with defining the structural needs of the network and ancillaries. The
prioritisation on risk and consequence would be covered in 3.7.1 although activities to assign risk and
consequence might be included here and under 3.4.2. Activities to create regional programmes for similar
needs would be covered here, especially if no appraisal is required.
The outcomes of this element are defined needs and interventions to address infrastructure and non-
infrastructure capital maintenance-related issues.

Final Report
3.5. Hydraulic needs assessment

3.5.1. Current and future demand assessment
This covers all activities associated with establishing flows within the sewerage network, and also includes
sewage treatment works. This may be a separate process.
Dry weather flows are usually assessed using the standard formula PG + I + E, though if other methods are
used, such as directly measured discharges or flows, they would also be included here. Formula A (or other
pass-forward flow calculations) for intermittent discharges would also come under the remit of demand
assessment. This element covers future consenting requirements for both intermittent discharges and
sewage treatment works as both can impact on the future demand assessment. The flows are calculated on
population, per capita consumption, trade effluent flows and an allowance for infiltration (which may be
based on measured flows).
If a hydraulic model is to be verified against actual flows, companies conduct short term flow surveys to
collect this data. By examining dry and storm weather patterns, it gives visibility on how much infiltration
exists and whether connectivity has been assumed correctly. This helps companies to derive a more
accurate headroom estimate. All flow monitoring activities are covered here.
Activities associated with development planning liaison (both strategic and development control) to assess
and estimate future development, are currently covered here. However, it could be argued that given the
strategic importance of the activity it could be broken out as a separate element in future.
The outcomes of this element are current dry weather flow estimates, future dry weather flow estimates (for
given time horizons), current storm flows and future anticipated storm flows, and additional “demand”
(capacity requirements) arising from tightening future consents. Ideally assumptions on climate change and
reduced demand would be defined here; otherwise these would be covered in 3.5.3.
3.5.2. Headroom, sewer capacity & network features

This covers all activities associated with estimating and establishing sewer capacity. This includes the model
build stages of a hydraulic model and other simple assessments to derive sewerage capacity. This also
includes capacity assessments at sewage treatment works. Although all companies analyse sewage
treatment works capacity, not all consider it as an integrated part of sewerage planning.
It is important to note that the definition of headroom in a sewerage planning context refers to any existing
spare capacity in a sewer or sewerage system (or a sewage treatment works) to accommodate increased
flows from growth, urban creep or climate change.
Data is collected from databases such as sewer records and work management systems or through
dedicated surveys such as manhole surveys. The extent of data collection depends on the technique being
used. For example, pipe diameters and length extracted from sewer records might be enough to estimate
capacity for a simple DWF calculation or for a headroom calculator.
For more detailed hydraulic analysis, other data such as on gradients, hydraulic restrictions, siltation and
connectivity might be collected. Sewerage systems operate predominantly under gravity, therefore sewerage
hydraulic features are very sensitive to gradients, diameter and directional changes, obstructions and
intrusions.
If a hydraulic model is being constructed, information from the structural and operational assessments is also
imported as part of this data collection exercise. Topographical data is used to identify flood and pollution
paths as overland flow paths often dictate whether escaped sewage will manifest in flooding of property.
This element can be informed through CCTV survey in the structural assessment stream and the operational
assessment stream.
The main outcome of this element is an understanding of the actual capacity of the sewerage system, or,
where flows are already known, the headroom (capacity available to take increased demand) of the system.
This can be extended to include capacity at the sewage treatment works.

Final Report
3.5.3. Climate change and urban creep

Ofwat recently commissioned a study to investigate the change in sewer flooding that may result from
climate change, urban creep and population growth up to about 2040. Initial conclusions are that increases
in rainfall, population and urban creep will lead to increases in predicted flood volumes and flooding will be
more frequent if no action is taken. The median increase in 1:10 year flooding across 97 catchments was
51% in volume for 16% (8.9 million people) of the population of England and Wales.
Therefore, this is an uncertainty buffer for issues such as climate change and creep factored into the
sewerage planning process. In future this can also include factors for variability in demand as customers use
less water or connect less surface water to sewer, so this could be renamed as additional factors. Over time,
as more certainty arises and assumptions are set out more definitively, any uncertainty buffer would be
reduced. Quantified assumptions would be expected to be set out in the demand calculation by companies
and this element of the process would relate to blanket percentage factors applied to accommodate
uncertainty.
It is acknowledged that not all companies currently apply climate change and urban creep factors in the
same way and the inclusion of this element in any future reporting framework would help with visibility of
approach.
The main outcomes of this element are justified assumptions for additional factors used in the hydraulic
analysis.
3.5.4. Hydraulic analysis

The assessment covers a range of techniques, from simple volumetric DWF assessments, through to full
Type III model verification. Water quality and 2D overland flow modelling are also included here, depending
on the level of analysis required to investigate intermittent discharge impacts and flooding mechanisms.
Tools and techniques can and should vary as they will be appropriate for the analysis being undertaken. The
analysis includes all methods employed to understand the consequences and severity of flooding and
pollution/aesthetics on receiving waters.
The main outcome of this element is an improved, appropriate understanding of the hydraulic needs of the
company’s area, with flooding and water quality impacts both considered.
3.5.5. Supply/demand balance assessment

This covers integrated sewage treatment and sewerage network processes and separate processes for
assessing supply/demand balance.
This includes critical duration analysis for different development horizons, long term least cost planning for
wastewater supply demand balance and other techniques deemed appropriate by companies to assess
supply/demand balance investment needs. This is usually informed by the hydraulic analysis stage. For a
critical duration analysis, simulations are run using hydraulic models for different storm intensities of rainfall.
This is applied using current population equivalents and also future forecasts for varying planning horizons.
The simulations show the duration of events which would result in flooding, for a given storm intensity (or
areas that are not sensitive to flooding).
Sewage treatment supply/demand balance assessments are also included in this element.
The main outcome is an assessment of the additional sewerage and treatment capacity required for future
planning horizons.
3.5.6. Deficit/surplus
This covers decisions on strategy based on whether there is a deficit or surplus in capacity. For example,
high level capacity assessments may indicate where development should be encouraged/discouraged at
strategic level, or may influence company asset rationalisation strategies.
The main outcome of this element is a view on where the (usually hydraulic) restrictions and extra capacity
exists, to inform planning decisions very early on during the formation of the LDF (or equivalent). This was
not widespread practice at the time of the review.

Final Report
3.5.7. Needs identification and generic options

This covers the confirmation of needs during a hydraulic assessment and the development of generic
interventions or notional solutions to address the problems. These might be refined during 3.7.1.
The outcomes of this element are defined hydraulic needs with generic interventions or notional solutions, as
appropriate.
3.6. Water quality assessment

There are potential water quality impacts throughout, as structural, hydraulic and operational problems can
all result in water quality issues. Therefore, this is not shown as a separate process in the stylised diagram,
but it is important to note that consideration to water quality impacts is given at each stage, although this
may not necessarily involve a water quality model. The results of this review in 2.2.4.3 show that water
quality modelling is undertaken mainly supporting work under the National Environmental Programme (NEP).
Water quality assessments to predict deterioration in receiving waters could be more integrated and more
proactive and not just for NEP drivers.
The outcomes of this element would be incorporated as water quality impacts arising from the structural,
operational and hydraulic assessments.
3.7. Plan development

3.7.1. Identification of feasible interventions
This covers all activities associated with the evaluation of operational against capital interventions. It includes
activities to derive a whole-life cost and fed into corporate investment optimisers used by companies to
develop the business plan and to develop the tactical investment plan. Some interventions may be
developed further in the post-planning stages as part of delivery.
The outcomes of this element are feasible interventions to address the issues identified in the assessments.
3.7.2. Options appraisal and decisions

This covers the appraisal of options in terms of business drivers, customer preferences and investment
optimisation. It also covers further work undertaken to refine and appraise options prior to inclusion in the
business plan or delivery (which might mean it occurs post-planning). There may be some iteration with
3.7.1. Activities associated with bundling of interventions into single solutions for a site or set of needs are
included here.
The outcomes of this element are options, usually appraised, costed and quantified in terms of benefits.
3.7.3. Wastewater supply/demand balance plan

This is a component of the wastewater investment plan and covers all expenditure proposals required to
accommodate future growth. It also covers optimisation of the investment plan using appropriate tools and
techniques. Optimiser outputs with supply/demand balance drivers will form the wastewater supply/demand
balance plan. This also includes alternative plans e.g. low, medium and high risk approaches based on
likelihood or defined, defined contingent or non-specific as in the long-term least cost planning for
wastewater supply/demand balance framework.
This plan covers interventions to address growth, new development and other issues such as quantifiable
urban creep impacting on sewer capacity.
Comparison with historic spending could lead to reiterations in options appraisal and decisions. Some
components of the plan e.g. non-specific may not be taken through 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 until after the planning
stages and as part of delivery.
This element is shown separately to reflect the supply/demand balance component of water company plans
in the comparison with the water resources management planning process. As the plan will include an
allowance for new properties added to the flooding register, it is formed through the investment category

Final Report
allocation. More commonly it is developed as a stand-alone plan using sewerage planning as an input to
identify the hydraulic deficiencies. However, at least three companies develop the wastewater investment
plan as a whole, out of which falls the supply/demand balance plan. Although corporate investment
optimisers at this and the subsequent stage will ensure that there is no duplication, synergies might not be
fully picked up if plans are developed along the separate streams without any cross linkages.
The outcome of this element is a wastewater (infrastructure and non-infrastructure) supply/demand balance
investment plan.
3.7.4. Wastewater investment plan

Interventions for all structural, hydraulic and operational deficiencies are covered here. This includes
planning at tactical (within five years), strategic (five to ten years) and long term (typically 25 years and
beyond) levels. The investment plan is usually live and dynamic; responsive to business needs and
unforeseen changes and covers proposals for capital maintenance, supply/demand balance, wastewater
quality and enhanced service levels.
Customer flooding is covered under supply/demand balance or enhanced service levels (for existing
properties on the flooding register) in accordance with Ofwat Reporting Requirements. Operational
investment is also covered and companies sometimes batch proactive operational work for capitalisation.
Investment categories can be assigned (if not already done so during previous stages). Theoretically there
may be schemes which address e.g. a single hydraulic deficiency but deliver benefits for enhanced service
levels, supply/demand balance and water quality. This stage helps to avoid duplication of projects e.g.
upsizing of a sewer to address hydraulic issues shortly after its structural renovation. During this stage
companies often optimise the procurement of delivery by batching similar work types or grouping schemes
by area, although this sometimes happens after the plan is approved and committed.
The outcome of this element is an integrated wastewater investment plan.
3.8. Comparison to WRMP and other long term planning

processes
3.8.1. Water resources management plan comparison
Figure 7 illustrates how the stylised industry process maps to the water resources management planning
process. The red-bordered boxes are the WRMP process. For a more detailed description of the water
4
resources management process, please refer to the Water Resources Planning Guideline .
4
Water Resources Planning Guideline, Environment Agency, April 2011 http://publications.environment-
agency.gov.uk/PDF/GEHO0411BTWD-E-E.pdf

Final Report
Figure 7. Mapping of the water resources management planning process to the stylised industry
process for sewerage planning
The WRMP process maps well to the hydraulic analysis and plan development elements of the generic
sewerage planning process.
3.8.1.1. WRMP summary of process

The following provides a very brief outline of the WRMP process. For more detail please refer to the Water
Resources Planning Guideline.
Consultation
The statutory water resources planning guideline outlines potentially 18 steps from inception to publication of
the WRMP (not shown). These are necessary to accommodate the consultation with the Secretary of State
or the Welsh Ministers, Ofwat and the Environment Agency.
Key components of WRMP
The EA water resources planning guideline highlights the following key components of a WRMP:

Final Report
 An assessment of water available for use based on the annual deployable output determined for a
company’s proposed level of service and for a critical period, if applicable.
 A forecast of daily water demand for a dry year and for a critical period, if applicable, outlining
material assumptions (based on EA guidelines) on leakage, water efficiency and meter optants
 An appropriate allowance for climate change
 A final planning dry year demand forecast (and a critical period demand forecast if applicable)
showing how the forecast will look once the preferred options are implemented in addition to savings
achieved through continuing current policies.
 A well argued, economically, socially, and environmentally justified final planning solution to meet
any potential supply-demand deficits and contribute positively towards sustainable development.
The guideline is also prescriptive in terms of the supporting elements that should be included in any plan.
The stages within which these components are generated are shown in Figure 7.
Supply forecast
This element assesses the different sources of water available to a company. The deployable output is
based on how much water is potentially available from all sources including surface and ground waters and
bulk supplies and should ideally be net of any restrictions through e.g. water quality issues, sustainability
reductions. Impacts of climate change must be accounted for using specific guidance.
The supply forecast element of the WRMP is analogous to the sewer capacity element of the sewerage
planning process. This is where the total capacity of the sewer network is assessed.
Demand forecast
Household and non-household consumption figures are estimated from billing data and occupancy surveys.
Leakage is estimated but based on assumptions which were reported through the June Return process until
2011 and for the base year should be at the levels agreed with Ofwat for 2010. Climate change impacts are
factored in, using specific guidance. Companies must consider demand management policies in making the
assessment; demand is on the basis of a dry year and a normal year, and should include a peak forecast.
There are different assumptions for the base year demand and forecast demand. For future forecasts
planning assumptions need to be justified.
This element maps on to the demand forecasting element of the sewerage planning process.
Headroom
In the context of WRMP, headroom is an uncertainty buffer, whereby an allowance is made for any
uncertainties that cannot specifically be accounted for in the demand forecast or the supply forecast. The
headroom element does however need to be justified appropriately, as companies are not expected to carry
too much or too little risk. Headroom is expected to decrease over time as uncertainties are better
understood. Headroom is actively designed in when planning new resources.
This element maps onto allowances for climate change and creep factored into the sewerage planning
process, i.e. the uncertainty element of the sewerage planning process. NB. The term “headroom” in the
sewerage planning context is different, referring to the capacity of the system to take increased flows, and as
such headroom is included with sewer capacity.
For this reason the Headroom element of the WRMP process has been mapped to the Climate Change and
Creep element of the sewerage planning process as it most closely resembles the uncertainty buffer.
Supply/demand balance
This is a calculation of the adequacy of the supply to meet the current and future demand. The calculation
considers a dry year and a critical period such that the demand situation is based on a stressed scenario.
This is analogous to assessing the critical duration of storms as part of the sewerage planning process.
This maps onto the hydraulic analysis element (leading to supply/demand balance assessment) of the
sewerage planning process.

Final Report
Deficit/surplus
This refers to the conclusion of the supply/demand balance assessment. Companies should present a
baseline scenario and the nature of the supply/demand balance problem, quantifying any deficits and
reasons why, relating them to timing. The consequences of doing nothing are also set out.
This maps on to the deficit/surplus (capacity) element of the sewerage planning process, although the
outputs are used differently.
Option identification
This refers to suitable options to solve the problems identified in previous stages. This is analogous to the
Needs identification stage where generic options are identified in the sewerage planning process.
Option appraisal
This stage covers an initial appraisal of options in order to select the preferred option, and does not preclude
any further development of more detailed options. This stage maps on to the options appraisal and decisions
stage in the sewerage planning process.
Water resources management plan
The plan constitutes a set of preferred options to solve the problems identified in the previous stages. This is
comparable to the wastewater supply/demand balance plan, although all the other sewerage elements are
combined to form the wastewater investment plan. Although this also happens with the WRMP outputs to
produce holistic plan for water, only the WRMP element is a statutory process.
3.8.1.2. Summary of similarities

Table 3.1 summarises the similarities between the two processes.
Table 3.1. Summary of similarities between WRMP and stylised sewerage planning process
Element Description
Supply forecast Assessment of maximum available supply for
WRMP and maximum available capacity for
sewerage planning
Demand forecast Assessment of current and future demand for
different time periods. Both based on
populations, per capita consumption, and trade
agreements, with leakage and infiltration as
assumptions (justifiable).
Headroom (WRMP) and climate This is an uncertainty buffer in both cases;
change/urban creep allowance (sewerage however, it is clearly defined for WRMP but not
planning) for sewerage planning
Supply/demand balance An assessment of current and future capacity
for given criteria (the future horizon for
sewerage is variable).
Deficit/surplus Calculated on both WRMP and sewerage
planning using stress conditions (critical period
for WRMP and critical duration analysis for
modelling analysis) but used differently
Option identification Common to both; often referred to as
interventions
Option appraisal Common to both
WRM Plan / sewerage plan The supply/demand balance component of the
sewerage plan is analogous to the WRMP

Final Report
3.8.1.3. Key differences

Key differences between the processes are summarised in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2. Key differences between the water resources management planning process and the
generic industry sewerage planning process
Water resources Sewerage planning generic Are differences appropriate?

management plan process process
Statutory process Not statutory, although There appears to be some justification for
companies have an undertaking this difference. The added burden of the
to understand their assets. approvals process for sewerage issues
could mean that the plans or underlying
assessments are out of date before they
are approved. Issues on water resources do
not tend to change as quickly and in the
case where additional resources may be
required long lead in times are appropriate.
Companies referred to sewerage plans
outdating quickly because of changes in
catchments, design standards and
emerging new priorities.
However, a flexible approach to planning
would be resilient to changes as it would
consider different scenarios.
The focus is on All sewerage issues are There appears to be some justification for
supply/demand balance considered due to interactions, this difference. . Capacity issues can affect
although separate methods may water quality as well as flooding,
be employed for assessment. operational and structural issues can have
impacts on sewerage hydraulics, therefore
all issues need to be considered when
developing a plan for sewerage. Water
resources are not affected by issues on the
network to the same degree.
Deliverables are clearly Drainage area plans used to be There appears to be some justification for
defined and the plan is stand-alone documents in a this difference. . As the WRMP process is
considered as a stand-alone similar format, clearly defined by statutory and there is a lengthy approvals
document the SRM. The industry is moving process, it is important that the deliverables
away from this approach to contain the information required as a stand-
sewerage planning, preferring alone document. For sewerage the format
systems embedded into of the process is business-driven, therefore
business as usual to allow has evolved away from stand-alone
investment and operational documents. The industry needs the
decisions to be taken on the flexibility to innovate; however, it may be
basis of the same data. This appropriate to introduce a transparent
helps facilitate reporting against framework to ensure outcomes are met
KPIs. The generic process is rather than a prescriptive reporting format.
therefore based on high-level
outcomes delivered through
other company procedures,
rather than prescribing a set
process
Household population Household population usually Maybe. For WRMP it is necessary to only
estimated from billing data estimated through postcode data include customers connected to the supply,
and customer survey and ONS information on and using billing records is the most straight
occupancy information household occupancy forward way of doing this. However, the
WRMP process specifies companies should
reconcile this to ONS data.
For sewerage planning, surface water can
find its way into sewers even if the property

Final Report

is not connected to sewer. The downstream
processes would seek to determine
connectivity. Population density is imported
into hydraulic models using geospatial
tools. Some companies use consistent
sources for WRMP and sewerage planning
and may use the billing information as a
check.
Standard guidance on how to No clear guidance. The process Maybe. It would be useful for some
account for climate change in does have an element for this consistent approaches towards climate
supply, demand and but currently there is no change, but perhaps standard guidance is
headroom. consistency on how this is too rigid to reflect company-specific issues
applied. and associated uncertainty.
The use of the term Headroom is used to refer to the Maybe. The terminology is confusing as it is
“headroom” relates to an unused sewer capacity which important to understand the context to know
uncertainty buffer influenced can accommodate growth or the meaning. But each definition is quite
by the sensitivity of the creep. well-embedded in each of the water and
assumptions. sewerage industries; therefore it could be
even more confusing to change the term to
a consistent meaning.
WRMP must contain an For sewerage planning this There appears to be some justification for
assessment of water would be analogous to available the difference. An overall view of
available for use based on sewer capacity within a given deficit/surplus is used for water
the annual deployable output stress condition (e.g. a given supply/demand balance planning, but sewer
determined for a company’s storm return period or pattern of networks are sensitive to small changes
proposed level of service rainfall events). The hydraulic and problems can be experienced locally
(and for a critical period if needs assessment where even if there is no overall deficit (in
applicable). Deficit/surplus verified models are used does capacity) in an area. The concept is likely to
analysed and aim is to have look at critical duration analysis become more widespread with the
no deficit. for specific locations within an introduction of real-time control by some
area rather than the whole area. companies and surplus/deficit is used to
This is not widely used to inform balance flows using available sewer
the plan at a strategic level, capacity and storage tanks.
although it is shown in the Not all levels of hydraulic analysis involve a
generic process as it often verified hydraulic model.
informs connection points for
new development or whether
diversion of flows is more
appropriate.
Consultation steps included No specific consultation steps. Yes. Consultation is important in WRMP as
in statutory process Although companies do engage it is a statutory process and ensures the
with multiple stakeholders in the Environment Agency and Defra are
development of sewerage plans, engaged in the WRMP. It may be
the extent and timing of this appropriate to define separate consultation
consultation varies steps for the sewerage process for land use
planning, development control planning and
surface water management plans. The
extent of any consultation would need to be
on a risk basis so that it doesn’t add an
unnecessary administrative burden.
Preferably consultation can be ensured
through existing routes of communication
and stakeholder consultation. An example
of this is the Price Review process. Ofwat

Final Report

has recently published a policy statement
5
on customer engagement which addresses
some of the benefits of consultation.
Therefore, no new consultation process is
required for sewerage planning, but some
of the existing channels could be more
clearly defined.
3.8.2. Alignment to common framework for capital maintenance planning

The common framework for capital maintenance planning, otherwise known as CMPCF, is a set of principles
used by the water industry in England and Wales to identify, justify and promote investment into capital
maintenance, targeted on a risk-based approach to where it will be most effective.
The framework is summarised in Figure 8.
5
Involving customers in price setting – Ofwat’s customer engagement policy statement which can be found
at engagement

Final Report
Figure 8. The common framework for capital maintenance planning (© UKWIR source: The
Common Framework for Capital Maintenance Planning in the UK Water Industry)
The main principles of CMPCF are based on using historic data on service, performance and expenditure to
analyse the effectiveness of previous approaches. This is then used to perform a forward-looking analysis,
which involves setting the outcomes required to meet the planning objective selected, and assessing the
interventions required to meet these outcomes.
The sewerage planning process fits into the CMPCF in terms of the service and asset performance review,
preparation, service and cost forecasting, and intervention analysis. Although traditional-style DAPs
recommended a prioritised programme of work for each drainage area and did not fully embrace a risk-
based approach, consequences of failure were always analysed. In order to enable their sewerage planning
approaches to comply with CMPCF principles, companies have all adapted their capital maintenance
planning procedures to use risk-based approaches; this is now being reflected in risk-based infrastructure

Final Report
capital maintenance planning. This has led to the structural element being taken out as a separate stream,
enabling optimisation at a company level. Previously, the industry considered sewer criticality in accordance
with the SRM definition, whereas now, companies make their individual assessments of criticality based on
consequences of failure (covered under the predictive modelling element of the stylised process), supporting
a risk based approach.
Some companies are now also using risk-based approaches towards focusing the analysis itself.
The three streams of hydraulic assessment, structural assessment and operational assessment all use
historic data to understand the past and present and model future scenarios based on interventions.
Plan optimisation occurs during the Plan Development stages of the generic sewerage process, based on
whole-life costs and benefits.
In conclusion, the stylised generic sewerage planning process covering current practice does align well with
common framework principles.
3.9. Regulation and sewerage planning

Based on the results of the review, it appears that companies would undertake sewerage planning activities,
regardless of whether it was a regulatory requirement. This is because it is viewed as a fundamental part of
providing a sewerage service to customers. Nevertheless, it seems that the current activities making up the
elements of the generic process have been heavily influenced by the regulatory regime. One example is the
review of serviceability indicators in its current format; another is the move towards risk-based approaches
towards investment.
Economic regulation and the current legislation surrounding the recovery of costs from developers for
strategic infrastructure were cited by companies as the main reasons for adopting non-sustainable and
predominantly reactive approaches towards planning.
In relation to how companies deal with forecast changes in population, companies cited mixed experiences
in terms of how their proposals for investment had been dealt with by Ofwat as part of the recent price review
(PR09). The key issues appeared to be how the uncertainty around the scale and timing of new
development was treated and assumptions as to the extent to which costs would be recovered from
developers. Assumptions associated with climate change impacts are not consistent; as impacts will vary
between companies more transparency on these assumptions will be required for future price reviews. As
there is no clear guidance on how companies should account for climate change and urban creep,
transparency becomes paramount.
Defra is now proposing to consult on potential amendments to s94 of the Water Industry Act 1991 so that
strategic infrastructure can be capitalised for regulatory purposes. In order for this to work, proposals would
still need to be suitably justified; therefore very early up front involvement by companies with planning
authorities will become even more critical. Although some examples of this early involvement were observed
during the review, it was by no means widespread practice.
3.10. SWOT analysis

A SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) was carried out on the generic stylised process
reflecting current industry practice. Opportunities and threats were considered with regard to a sustainable
sewerage and drainage industry. The results are presented in Figure 9.

Final Report
Figure 9. SWOT analysis
Weaknesses
Strengths Proactive development planning liaison is not
Business as usual activity consistent – long term view not well defined
Comprehensive procedures covering structural, Hydraulic coverage across companies is variable
hydraulic and operational analysis Climate change impacts are not structured
Existing and future scenarios Infrastructure and non-infrastructure not always
Integrated into business plans for Price Review considered together
Data sharing to support SWMP process Water quality needs to be a consideration
throughout (not just Q drivers)
Opportunities
Use generic process as transparent outcomes-
Threats
based framework for reporting
Industry lacks appetite to change
Incentivise sustainable solutions
Proactive strategy not financially justified
Ofwat pilot projects
Beware “not invented here” syndrome
Defra White Paper consultation for changes
Insufficient funding for required changes
Removal of automatic right to connect
Learn from good practice identified
3.10.1. Strengths
Sewerage planning is a business as usual activity for all companies rather than being a standalone activity
carried out for the purposes of the price review. The processes and procedures underpinning the outcomes
are embedded as necessary activities to undertake the management of sewerage assets.
There are comprehensive company-specific procedures covering hydraulic, structural and operational needs
assessments, most of which have been adapted from industry standard publications such as SRM.
Sewerage planning considers both existing and future scenarios (although companies do not approach
future scenarios on a consistent basis), and modelling is undertaken to understand future impacts with and
without intervention.
Sewerage planning is a critical activity for producing business plans for the price review for all companies.
A data sharing stage, as currently undertaken by all companies in support of SWMP, could be shown
separate element in the generic process. This in itself is not a sewerage planning activity, therefore has not
been included in the generic sewerage planning process, but is an important use of sewerage planning
information.
3.10.2. Weaknesses
One of the most significant weaknesses of the current process is the lack of a proactive development
planning stage. This was not defined as a separate element during the process because companies vary so
much in the way this is undertaken. Flexibility on how this is done is important to reflect the specific
circumstances of each company. However, lack of company involvement very early on in the land use
planning stages (i.e. during spatial strategy development and well ahead of developer enquiries and
development control) has been cited as the most common cause of failure in defining the long term view.
Hydraulic model coverage is variable across companies. The weakness in the current approaches is that
often there is less visibility in areas outside of the modelling programme for the current AMP period.
Headroom calculators to assess network and/or sewage treatment works capacity can give good coverage in
the absence of a hydraulic model (although this can be reactive).The risk-based approach adopted by two
companies (and being rolled out by others to trigger model development) overcomes this.
Companies have approached climate change impacts in different ways, in the absence of guidelines on how
this should be accounted for. Guidelines would be useful to ensure consistency of approach. However, these
may not be necessary if assumptions relating to climate change impacts are set out by companies in a

Final Report
transparent and well-justified plan and reporting framework. This would allow Ofwat and the Environment
Agency to understand the basis for including climate change adaptation proposals and the consequences of
not doing so. To aid this visibility the generic process for sewerage planning could have outcomes relating to
climate change impacts broken out of where it currently sits with creep and uncertainty.
Infrastructure and non-infrastructure capacity issues are not always considered holistically. This can lead to
a disconnect between the infrastructure supply/demand balance plan and the treatment supply/demand
balance plan.
Water quality impacts need to be a consideration throughout the process, and not just under the remit of
companies’ investment programmes for waste water quality. Therefore the generic process needs to
emphasise the water quality considerations in the outcomes at each stage.
3.10.3. Opportunities
This generic, outcomes-based framework (with some adjustments) can be used as the starting point for use
in reporting what companies actually do. Improved visibility of company practices has been cited as a
requirement by the Environment Agency. There is the opportunity to use the generic process as the starting
point for a transparent reporting framework giving improved visibility on company practices, for
communication to key stakeholders.
Ofwat has encouraged companies to develop innovative solutions to alleviate flooding through a number of
pilot projects. This presents an opportunity for companies to propose sustainable solutions other than
increasing capacity and may include interventions involving third party assets, such as surface water
disconnections. This complements the facility for companies due use lower design standards where these
are justifiable on a cost-benefit basis. There is an opportunity to extend these principles for the PR14
business plan and beyond.
With the forthcoming Defra White Paper, there is the opportunity for the industry to identify any additional
outcomes that could be incorporated in the stylised industry process to support a sustainable sewerage
industry. The impacts of any proposed changes, particularly in terms of what the changes would mean to
company practices and decisions, should be communicated through the consultation, in order that Defra is
able to make the right decisions in this regard.
As far as Defra is concerned, the introduction of the SuDS Approving Bodies (SABs) under the Flood and
Water Management Act 2010 has removed the automatic right to connect surface water to sewers under
s106 of the Water Industry Act 1991. This presents an opportunity for companies, as statutory consultees of
the SABs, to incorporate this consultation into their processes. This encourages wider understanding of the
capacity issues in the sewerage network and more up front engagement with planning authorities at the land
use planning stages.
With the good practice identified during this review, there is the opportunity for companies to learn from
others while still meeting the outcomes of the generic process. It can also highlight areas where the
outcomes could be better managed.
3.10.4. Threats
In the past legislation, economic regulation and the reporting framework have often been cited as barriers to
a sustainable sewerage and drainage industry. If these barriers are to change, it raises the question of
whether the industry has the appetite to instigate the behavioural changes necessary to support the
collaborative and proactive approaches required. The results of the review show a lot of positive activity in
this area, though the momentum must be maintained.
Companies may take the view that a proactive strategy towards development liaison might not be financially
justified. The lack of early engagement undermines what may otherwise be a very robust and technically
competent procedure, as this means the approach becomes more reactive.
There is the risk that companies are suspicious of good practice developed by others, and this could hinder
progress and potentially lead to duplication of effort. However, the results of the review indicate that this is
not the predominant culture within the companies; therefore this is not considered to be a significant threat.

Final Report
4. Conclusions & Recommendations

4.1. Conclusions
4.1.1. Definitions and approach
Standard terminology for sewerage planning already exists in the industry, although company approaches to
the Reporting Requirements for the June Return and adaptation of the various methodologies in existence
mean that it is often difficult to understand what is carried out. The review confirmed that companies are
using different interpretations of the term DAP for reporting purposes. There is therefore a lack of
consistency in the data reported by different companies.
The majority of companies are no longer using DAPs for sewerage planning and a number of different
systems are being used to deliver the outputs previously delivered by a DAP. What is common is the use of
procedures by companies to undertake hydraulic analysis of the networks in order to understand existing
problems resulting in flooding and pollution and to predict future issues arising from forecast development,
creep and climate change.
All companies are moving towards three parallel procedures covering structural, operational and hydraulic
analysis of the network. The extent to which these are integrated within a single planning process is variable.
However, when it comes to determining the investment required, the three strands are integrated and
investment is usually prioritised alongside other business drivers through a central investment optimiser.
4.1.2. Management of sewerage planning

A range of data is used to inform sewerage planning. This is largely business as usual data but bespoke
surveys may be commissioned where required, for example flow surveys to verify hydraulic models.
The extent to which the data is integrated in the system for sewerage planning can be considered as three
types.
1. Business as usual data is imported into the planning system on a periodic basis.
2. System data, such as detail on capital schemes that are ongoing or planned and areas highlighted
for planned development, is accessed through a viewer or web portal to give real-time information for
planning purposes.
3. Live system data is used for real-time control.
Companies have a range of tools for carrying out hydraulic assessments of the network ranging from
headroom calculators to verified hydraulic models. Where hydraulic modelling is used, companies undertake
this in accordance with the WaPUG Code of Practice (2002), which is the industry standard reference. For
hydraulic modelling companies typically use a combination of Type II and Type III models.
All companies have model build procedures and some form of quality assurance process relating to the
management of hydraulic models. Some companies also have a process for confidence scoring models
where the scores are then used to prioritise model updates.
Coverage of hydraulic systems (DAPs or equivalent) ranges up to 100%. This may be measured in terms of
the percentage population or the percentage of catchments covered. Companies with less than 100%
coverage tend to focus on having cover in larger catchments. Companies with 100% hydraulic coverage
tend to make use of a risk based approach where a more detailed assessment is carried out for high risk
areas and vice versa, i.e. even though the company has hydraulic information on the whole of its area, it
might not have a model for low risk areas.
The majority of companies consider the sewerage network and sewage treatment separately although
common data on population and flow is generally used for both.
When historically reporting “DAP updates”, companies were generally referring to updating of the hydraulic
model associated with the DAP. The most common triggers for update are in response to emerging issues or
a risk based approach.

Final Report
Long-term investment planning for wastewater supply-demand is generally based on a 25 year horizon. The
main issue in planning is the certainty of planned development. Some companies seek to manage this by
working closely with Local Authorities in their area. The types of solutions promoted to address hydraulic
incapacity issues associated with new development include sustainable solutions such as surface water
removal and sustainable drainage systems (SUDs). Aside from population growth, future flows in a
catchment may also be impacted by climate change and urban creep. The extent to which companies reflect
this in planning is variable and the need for clear guidance at PR14 was highlighted.
Customer expectations regarding flooding from sewers are often difficult to manage, particularly with the
current terminology for rainfall intensity being based on statistical return periods such as 1 in 10 year event.
This makes it difficult to explain to customers the concept of exceptional rainfall events, particularly if
followed by another intense storm. In the context of climate change it also raises the question of what is
normal rainfall.
4.1.3. Utilisation
Operational issues are discussed in many companies’ processes, although issues are more likely to be
raised through business as usual serviceability analysis and operational reviews rather than through a DAP
or equivalent. This means that the DAP or equivalent is generally informed by operational analysis rather
than it being used to identify and assess problems.
The investment plan for structural issues is usually determined through a process of probabilistic modelling
which considers asset deterioration and/or consequences of failure. CCTV surveys inform this analysis,
although many companies now are moving towards targeted surveys of high risk areas only to inform the
structural elements of the process. The extent to which planning of capital maintenance investment is
integrated within the sewerage planning system is variable across companies. This ranges from only looking
at interactions (e.g. dereliction on a hydraulically deficient pipe) through to developing integrated plans for a
system or drainage area, which includes a delivery strategy.
Hydraulic models are used to assess operation of intermittent discharges but wider assessment of water
quality is not a default part of sewerage planning at most companies.
Company engagement in the development of surface water management plans (SWMPs) is predominantly
through the provision of hydraulic models. There is some concern among the companies that surface water
management plans (SWMP) only consider flooding during a rainfall return period, with no real assessment of
severity and consequence. This diverges from the risk and consequence based approaches being taken by
companies towards flooding and can discourages some sustainable solutions
Ofwat is promoting a number of pilot projects within the industry for a limited number of schemes to alleviate
flooding. This is intended to encourage companies to deliver more sustainable solutions that reduce the risk
of flooding in other ways than increasing underground capacity. The review identified that not all companies
are engaging in Ofwat’s initiative. However, some companies are promoting alternative solutions even
where this would entail work on third party assets.
Sewerage planning, particularly hydraulic modelling, has a critical role in the development of all solutions to
flooding. However, the majority of solutions being considered by companies until recently, have been
conventional increases to capacity rather than sustainable drainage planning. SRM5 introduces the concept
that the added benefit of a full solution e.g. to a 1 in 30 standard is often not significantly more than a lesser
solution e.g. to a 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 standard. Therefore it could be more cost-beneficial for companies to
implement a lesser standard. The main barrier to this was a company perception that DG5 properties could
not be removed from the flooding register if a lesser standard was implemented, leading to a risk-averse
approach within the industry. The conclusion from this review is that benefits-driven sustainable solutions are
now being considered by companies, but few consider they have sufficiently robust benefits data to support
the solutions at present. It is expected this will change for PR14 as Ofwat is keen to encourage solutions
justified on benefits.
All companies do use sewerage planning tools in their long term planning for sewerage, but the methods
used in accounting for future growth projections (and the development horizons) vary, depending on the
degree of engagement with the planning authority.

Final Report
All companies use information on hydraulic capacity to support their planning liaison processes, but the
extent to which engagement in planning is a pro-active process varies across companies. There is also
variability in the tools used to assess hydraulic capacity and the charges levied to developers.
Although it appears that the industry is moving towards integrating models for sewage treatment works and
sewer networks, progress to date is limited.
4.1.4. Cross company comparison

Although companies have largely moved away from using DAPs and DAS, the review identified a number of
common themes in the approaches to sewerage planning now being taken by companies including:
 planning on a regional rather than a catchment basis

 taking a risk based approach to the level of detail in a given area
 the use of quality assurance procedures for the management of hydraulic models
 the way in which updates to hydraulic models are triggered
 the use of WaPUG Type II and Type III models
 headroom calculators and /or hydraulic models being used to assess the impacts of development
 the use of business as usual data and planning on a 25 year horizon.
The key differences in approaches to sewerage planning between companies identified were:
 whether the impacts of urban creep and climate change are considered in planning
 integration of non-infrastructure and infrastructure planning
 how live systems or system data are
 the use of sustainable techniques and planning for sustainable solutions
 how pro-active companies are in planning
 the scale of charges levied on developers.
4.1.5. Good practice

The review identified the following elements of company processes that can be considered good practice:
 Planning on a regional basis
 Use of risk-based approaches to assess hydraulic capacity
 Confidence scoring of hydraulic models
 Use of live data in the planning process
 Real-time network control
 Pro-active engagement in the planning process
 Integrated asset planning
 SIMCAT modelling
 The use of data sharing protocols as part of the SWMP process
4.1.6. Stylised industry process

A stylised industry process for sewerage planning was developed based on existing company processes. A
comparison of this against the water resource management plan (WRMP) process highlights similarities in
terms of the supply and demand forecasts, the use of a headroom buffer and options identification and
appraisal. Where there are differences between the two processes, these are largely judged to be
appropriate.

Final Report
The main principles of the Capital Maintenance Planning Common Framework (CMPCF) are based on using
historic data on service, performance and expenditure to analysis the effectiveness of previous approaches.
The sewerage planning process fits into the CMPCF in terms of the service and asset performance review,
preparation, service and cost forecasting and intervention analysis.
4.1.6.1. SWOT analysis

A SWOT analysis of the existing industry process exposed the following:
Strengths
 Sewerage planning is a business as usual activity for all companies, with comprehensive procedures
covering structural, hydraulic and operational analysis.
 Sewerage planning is used to model existing and future scenarios for use in business plans for the
Price Review.
 Data sharing to support SWMP is a widespread activity.
Weaknesses
 Proactive engagement with land use and development planning is not widespread leading to
inconsistent levels of confidence in the long term view
 Hydraulic coverage is variable across companies
 Assumptions on climate change impacts have been approached differently between companies in
long term planning
 Infrastructure (sewerage) and non-infrastructure (sewage treatment works) are not always
considered holistically when evaluating capacity and/or water quality impacts arising from growth,
creep and climate change.
 Water quality impact assessments tend to focus on NEP-related issues.
Opportunities
 The generic, stylised industry process can be developed into a transparent framework for outcomes-
based reporting.
 Companies have the opportunity to justify sustainable solutions to flooding problems.
 The industry can present the consequences of any proposed changes outlined in the forthcoming
White Paper so that Defra is able to make the right decisions
 Companies can work towards sustainable solutions with the SABs and take the opportunity to
become proactively involved with land use planning ahead of SAB consultation.
 There is the opportunity for companies to learn from good practice identified during this review
Threats
 Lack of behavioural change would negate any benefits from the removal of legislative, regulatory
and reporting barriers to a sustainable sewerage industry.
 Perceptions that proactive strategies towards development liaison may not be financially justified can
undermine processes and procedures that may otherwise be robust.
 Suspicion of practices developed by other companies could hinder progress.
4.2. Recommendations
The following are suggested recommendations for improving the sewerage planning process. Some of these
recommendations have arisen from current good practice identified during the review. The suggestions cover
not only company practices, but also legislative and economic regulation issues which could change to
support a sustainable industry, and include ideas gathered from interviewees throughout the review.
1. It is recommended that, in addition to conventional terminology, companies could also describe rainfall
as mm of rainfall over a certain number of hours. It would then be easier to explain peaky events and
sustained high rainfall patterns. If this concept were also extended to develop solutions to flooding in
these terms as well as a storm return period event, there would be much more visibility on the
robustness of solutions. The terminology would not be sensitive to climate change impacts. It would also

Final Report
help to explain the limitations of hydraulic modelling analysis, such as critical duration analysis, in a more
transparent manner. It supports a greater understanding of the drainage system because it would give
clarity on what rainfall intensities and peakiness of events can actually be tolerated by the system. This
supports the knowledge required to enable future demand management to be proposed as a potential
solution to flooding.
2. An outcome-based reporting framework should be used to promote transparency of the sewerage

planning process when companies are communicating with stakeholders in this regard. The stylised
industry process presented in this document could be adapted to fulfil this purpose.
3. The feasibility of using a consistent planning horizon should be investigated to help promote consistency
and transparency within the sewerage planning process.
4. Proactive engagement by companies in the planning process should be encouraged. This will be of
benefit to both planners and companies
5. Water quality considerations need to be integrated into the outcomes of the three streams of the
process, such that water quality impacts are assessed at all stages even if there are no explicit quality
drivers. This would allow the effects on water quality (e.g. through increased discharges) of resolving
flooding problems to be understood.
6. SWMPs should approach flooding consequences and severity on the same basis as sewerage planning
to facilitate the development of sustainable, holistic, integrated solutions.
7. The concept of a (sustainable) economic level of infiltration may benefit the industry in a similar way to
how economic level of leakage has benefited water supply. The UKWIR work in this area could form the
basis for developing the concept further.
8. In an outcomes-based reporting framework for the sewerage planning process, it would be beneficial to
split out strategic planning liaison (ahead of development control) with the local planning authorities, from
the current and future demand assessment. This would give greater visibility of the extent to which
companies have proactively been involved in the development planning process. If Defra proposals to
remove the automatic right to connect surface water are implemented, this would encourage companies
to be proactive.
9. In the absence of clear guidance on how companies should consistently account for the impacts of
climate change and urban creep in sewerage planning, it is recommended that all material assumptions
associated with these impacts should be transparent and explicit, enabling risks to be assessed and
quantified by the Environment Agency and Ofwat. UKWIR CL 10 series on climate change and
sewerage provides a toolkit for companies but it is not guidance.
10. Scottish Water and Northern Ireland Water were not consulted as part of this review as these two
companies fall outside of Ofwat’s remit. It is recognised that these companies also follow a drainage
area planning process that is similar to those in England and Wales. Therefore, it is worth considering
extending the review to include these companies.
11. The planning framework should promote the following areas of best practice identified by the review:
 integrated infrastructure and non-infrastructure planning
 approaches that consider structural and operational needs on a regional rather than catchment-only
basis
 taking a risk based approach to assessing hydraulic capacity e.g. headroom calculators in low risk
areas, verified hydraulic models in high risk areas
 Live / real time data for flow monitoring and operational control to utilise headroom

Final Report

Elisa Zamora
Atkins Ltd
The Wells
3-13 Church Street
Epsom
Surrey KT17 4PF
Elisa.zamora@atkinsglobal.com
Switchboard: +44 (0) 1372 726140
Mobile: +44 (0) 7711 141387
Fax: +44 (0) 1372 754343
© Atkins Ltd except where stated otherwise.
The Atkins logo, ‘Carbon Critical Design’ and the strapline

‘Plan Design Enable’ are trademarks of Atkins Ltd.

UK - Government - 2011 - Review of Sewerage Planning and Drainage Area Plans

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UK - Government - 2011 - Review of Sewerage Planning and Drainage Area Plans

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of sewerage planning and

drainage area plans

Atkins Final Report | Version 5 | November 2011

This document has 57 pages including the cover.

Project External review of sewerage planning and drainage area plans

Document title Final Report

Atkins Final Report | Version 5 | November 2011

The objectives of the review were:

The objectives are reflected below.

Atkins Final Report | Version 5 | November 2011

AMP5 approaches to sewerage planning can be grouped into three types:

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3

Hydraulic, structural and Hydraulic issues considered in Hydraulic, structural and

Good practice examples

Atkins Final Report | Version 5 | November 2011

Common themes Key differences

the use of business as usual data and

Company practices can be summarised in a stylised process:

Atkins Final Report | Version 5 | November 2011

Atkins Final Report | Version 5 | November 2011

Recommendations to support the greater understanding of drainage systems required if companies

Other recommendations to improve the understanding of drainage systems include:

13. It is recommended that an outcomes-based reporting framework is implemented to promote

Atkins Final Report | Version 5 | November 2011

Atkins Final Report | Version 5 | November 2011

Atkins Final Report | Version 5 | November 2011

Figure 5. Utilisation of DAPS or their equivalent 27

Atkins Final Report | Version 5 | November 2011

The objectives of the sustainable drainage project are to:

1.2.2. June Return data on drainage area plan coverage

 poor performance of assets i.e. performance failures such as pollution incidents

Atkins Final Report | Version 5 | November 2011 12

 % population/properties covered by updated studies

100% Cumulative % drainage

1.3. Aims and Objectives

Atkins Final Report | Version 5 | November 2011 13

1.5. Purpose of this document

The document is structured as in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1. Document structure

Section Name Content

Atkins Final Report | Version 5 | November 2011 14

2. Review of company processes

 Drainage Area Plan or Sewerage Management Plan methodology

Atkins Final Report | Version 5 | November 2011 15

2.2. Key observations

2.2.1.2. Drainage Area Study (DAS)

 if a capital scheme is to be constructed and its impacts are to be understood

2.2.1.3. Sewerage Management Plans (SMP)

Atkins Final Report | Version 5 | November 2011 16

2.2.1.4. Interpretation for reporting purposes

Atkins Final Report | Version 5 | November 2011 17

The AMP5 approaches can be grouped into three types:

Type 3: Hydraulic, structural and operational issues considered in defined catchments

Hydraulic Structural and operational

DAP DAS SMP Other DAP DAS SMP Other

Figure 3. Hydraulic failure Figure 4. Structural & operational failure

Atkins Final Report | Version 5 | November 2011 18

 Sustainable Drainage Plans

Table 2.1: Scope of AMP5 planning approaches

Hydraulic Structural Operational Region/ Network and

Sustainable    Catchment Network only

System Plans    Region Network and

Area Asset Plans    Region Network only