C724

Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) is an approach to design that delivers greater
harmony between water, the environment and communities. This is achieved by
integrating water cycle management with the built environment through planning and
urban design. WSUD prioritises water management considerations during the early
conception of developments creating multiple benefits and opportunities to overcome

Creating water sensitive places - scoping the potential for Water Sensitive Urban Design in the UK
challenges. WSUD is not a set of solutions or measures, but a process and philosophy to
optimise water management and urban design.
This scoping study together with the ‘ideas booklet’ Water Sensitive Urban Design in the
UK – ideas for built environment practitioners (C723) provides details of the drivers,
benefits and vision of WSUD in the UK. It is based on findings from a collaborative project
that included extensive consultation and a literature review to understand the role of
WSUD in the UK.
Creating water sensitive places
- scoping the potential for
Water Sensitive Urban Design in the UK

CIRIA

C724 9 780860 177333

 Who we are
Established in 1960, CIRIA is a highly regarded, industry-responsive, not for profit research and information
association, which encompasses the construction and built environment industries.
CIRIA operates across a range of market sectors and disciplines, providing a platform for collaborative projects
and dissemination by enhancing industry performance, and sharing knowledge and innovation across the built
environment.
As an authoritative provider of good practice guidance, solutions and information, CIRIA operates as a knowledge-
base for disseminating and delivering a comprehensive range of business improvement services and research
products for public and private sector organisations, as well as academia.

How to get involved

CIRIA manage or actively participate in several topic-specific learning and business networks and clubs:

zzCore membership zzProject funding

Allows your employees to assist with the development of Project funders influence the direction of the research
and access to good practice guidance, formal networks, and gain early access to the results.
facilitation, conferences, workshops and training.
zzLACL (Local Authority Contaminated Land
zzAssociate membership Network)
Allows your employees to access CIRIA’s services. LACL helps local authorities address responsibilities
Members are able to access exclusive content via the under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
CIRIA website.
zzEMSAGG (European Marine Sand and Gravel
zzThe CIRIA Network Group)
A member-based community where clients and CIRIA provides secretariat support to EMSAGG, including
professionals meet, develop and share knowledge management of the Group’s conferences, workshops and
about specific topics relevant to construction and the website and producing its newsletter.
built environment.
zzBRMF (Brownfield Risk Management Forum)
zzCIRIA Books Club
Promoting sustainable and good practice in brownfield
Members can buy most CIRIA publications at half projects in the UK.
price and can attend a range of CIRIA conferences at
reduced rates.

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

Post Griffin Court, 15 Long Lane, London, EC1A 9PN, UK

Telephone +44 (0)20 7549 3300
Fax +44 (0)20 7549 3349
Email enquiries@ciria.org
Website www.ciria.org
(for details of membership, networks, events, collaborative projects and to access CIRIA publications through
the bookshop)
CIRIA C724 London, 2013

Creating water sensitive places

– scoping the potential for Water Sensitive
Urban Design in the UK
J Abbott, P Davies, P Simkins of ARUP
C Morgan, D Levin, P Robinson of AECOM
Summary

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

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

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

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

CIRIA

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

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

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

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

Reader interest Classification

Water Sensitive Urban Design Availability Unrestricted
(WSUD) integrates water cycle Content Advice, recommendations
management with the built
Status Committee-guided, established knowledge
environment through planning and
User Policy makers, investment planners, water managers,
urban design providing multiple
engineers, spatial planners, urban designers, landscape
benefits and opportunities to
architects, architects, SuDS practitioners, green
overcome challenges with water
infrastructure practitioners, ecologists, regulators
management

Published by CIRIA, Griffin Court, 15 Long Lane, London, EC1A 9PN

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information on the subject matter covered. It is sold and/or
distributed with the understanding that neither the authors nor the publisher is thereby engaged in rendering a specific legal or any
other professional service. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the publication, no warranty
or fitness is provided or implied, and the authors and publisher shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity
with respect to any loss or damage arising from its use.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
photocopying and recording, without the written permission of the copyright holder, application for which should be addressed to
the publisher. Such written permission must also be obtained before any part of this publication is stored in a retrieval system of any
nature.
If you would like to reproduce any of the figures, text or technical information from this or any other CIRIA publication for use
in other documents or publications, please contact the Publishing Department for more details on copyright terms and charges at:
publishing@ciria.org Tel: 020 7549 3300.

ii Creating water sensitive places

Acknowledgements

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

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

Paul Simkins BA (Hons) MEng MArch Dip.Arch CEng MICE RIBA

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

Paul Davies BEng (Hons) CEng MCIOB

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

Celeste Morgan BA BE MIPENZ

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

David Levin BCom (Hons) MPL

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

Peter Robinson BEng (Hons) MSc CEng MICE

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

CIRIA, C724 iii

Project Steering Group
Richard Ashley (chair) University of Sheffield/Ecofutures Ltd
Richard Allitt Richard Allitt Associates
Richard Behan Environmental Gain
James Berryman Micro Drainage (now ACO)
George Bond South West Water
Victoria Botcherby Ofwat
Simon Bunn Cambridge City Council
Aaron Burton Ricardo AEA (was Natural Resources Wales)
Alan Corner Hydro International
Aaron Dixey Environment Agency
Kieran Downey Scottish Water
Derek Dunsire Glasgow City Council
Martyn Evans Natural Resources Wales
Martin Fairley ACO
Elliot Gill Halcrow Group
Chris Glass Banks Property
Gary Grant Green Roof Consultancy
David Harding Thames Water
Sue Illman Illman Young Landscape Design
Jeremy Jones Dwr Cymru Welsh Water
Lutz Johnen Aquality
John Lloyd Formpave
David Martin Wessex Water
Richard Martin Defra
Brian Morrow United Utilities
Marc Pinnel Jeremy Benn Associates and E Water
Bob Sargent Independent Consultant
Jason Shingleton Polypipe
Brian Smith Yorkshire Water
Mike Vout Telford and Wrekin Council
Sarah Ward University of Exeter
Nikki Wood Environmental Gain

Corresponding members
Robert Barker BACA Architects
Lorna Fewtrell Aberystwyth University
Adam Ingleby Environment Agency
Gaye Mckaye MWH
Phil Mills Policy Consulting Network
Alex Nickson Greater London Authority
Jacob Tompkins Waterwise
Carrie Williams Environment Agency

iv Creating water sensitive places

CIRIA managers
Louise Clarke
Paul Shaffer

Funders
ACO Natural Resources Wales
Defra Polypipe
Dwr Cymru Welsh Water Richard Allitt Associates
Environmental Gain Scottish Water
Formpave South West Water
Glasgow City Council Thames Water
Halcrow United Utilities
Hydro International Wessex Water
Jeremy Benn Associates and E Water Yorkshire Water
Micro Drainage

Supporting partners for the WSUD ideas booklet

Robert Huxford Urban Design Group
Adam Kirkup Institution of Civil Engineers
Sarah Lewis Royal Town and Planning Institute
Paul Lincoln Landscape Institute
Justin Taberham Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

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

CIRIA, C724 v
Executive summary

Introduction to the scoping study

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

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

What is Water Sensitive Urban Design?

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

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

vi Creating water sensitive places

 Definition
Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) is the process of integrating water cycle management with the built environment
through planning and urban design.
Two principles are essential to its application:
1 All elements of the water cycle and their interconnections are considered concurrently to achieve an outcome that
sustains a healthy natural environment while meeting human needs. This includes managing:
a Water demand and supply.
b Wastewater and pollution.
c Rainfall and runoff.
d Watercourses and water resources.
e Flooding and water pathways.
2 Consideration of the water cycle is made from the outset, and throughout the design and planning process.
Accordingly, water management solutions seek to meet the expectations and aspirations for design of successful
places, such as:
a Celebrating local character, environment and community.
b Optimising the cost-benefit of infrastructure and built form.
c Improving liveability for communities.
d Providing resource security and resilience in the future.

Why would WSUD benefit the UK?

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

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

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

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

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

CIRIA, C724 vii

Figure 2 Benefits of Water Sensitive Urban Design

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

1 Presence of a co-ordinating body.

2 Evidence base, guidance and training.
3 Presence of Water Sensitive Urban Design champions.
4 Supportive planning and design process and legislation.
5 Reliable science and research.
6 Fostering environmental expectations.
7 Strategic funding and incentives.

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

1 CONNECT the water cycle: seek the best solution for all aspects of the water cycle by thinking
about water supply, wastewater, surface water runoff and flood management
2 COLLABORATE with other disciplines: seek out others built environment practitioners who can
bring new perspectives and expertise
3 CREATE great solutions for great places: plan and design the built environment to respond to
urban form, community needs and water issues.

viii Creating water sensitive places

Contents

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Abbreviations and acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii
1 Water, places and people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 The evolving UK context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 Introducing Water Sensitive Urban Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 Introducing Water Sensitive Urban Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 How does WSUD differ from SuDS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 How does Water Sensitive Urban Design seek to improve water management? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.1 Water supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.2 Surface water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.3 Wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4 How does Water Sensitive Urban Design seek to improve urban design? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5 A process and a product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.6 What are the opportunities for Water Sensitive Urban Design? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3 How has Water Sensitive Urban Design been applied elsewhere? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1 Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.3 Other countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4 How successful has the UK been in applying a water sensitive approach? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.1 Current level of application of WSUD principles in the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5 How does Water Sensitive Urban Design interact with current regulation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.1 Legislative context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.2 European legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.3 UK policy and strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.4 Future direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.5 Regulatory barriers and opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
6 Building a case for action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6.1 Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6.2 Understanding value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6.3 The benefits of WSUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
6.4 Identification and analysis of key stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.5 Developing a business case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
7 What is the potential for change in the UK? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
7.1 Agent for change 1: presence of a co-ordinating body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
7.2 Agent for change 2: evidence base, guidance and training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
7.3 Agent for change 3: presence and characteristics of champions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
7.4 Agent for change 4: supportive planning and design process and legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
7.5 Agent for change 5: trusted and reliable science and research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
7.6 Agent for change 6: fostering environmental expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94
7.7 Agent for change 7: strategic funding and incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
8 Route map and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
8.1 How should the definition of WSUD be adapted for the UK? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98

CIRIA, C724 ix
 8.2 Definition of Water Sensitive Urban Design for the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
8.3 Vision statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
8.4 Recommendations and route map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Case studies
Case study 3.1 Coomera Waters Development, Gold Coast, Queensland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Case study 3.2 Troups Creek Surface water runoff harvesting project, Narre Warren North, Victoria . . . . . . 20
Case study 3.3 Green City, Clean Waters, Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Case study 3.4 Hohlgrabenäcker, Stuttgart, Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Case study 4.1 New Heartlands Project in Cornwall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Case study 4.2 Wastewater recycling plant, London Olympic Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Case study 4.3 Caerau and Brynglas Market Garden, Wales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Case study 4.4 Tooley Street redevelopment, London, UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Case study 6.1 Partnership funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Case study 6.2 Exploring partnership funded landscape retrofit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Case study 6.3 Building a shared language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Case study 6.4 Understanding the value of good water sensitive design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Case study 6.5 Building a platform for water-related action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Case study 6.6 Developing exemplar guidance and research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Case study 6.7 Building a case for multi-functional GI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Case study 6.8 Social housing retrofit for SALIX homes in Manchester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Case study 6.9 Community Green Deal URBED Sustainable Housing Action Partnership (SHAP) carbon retrofit . . 82
Case study 7.1 Northwest Cambridge master plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Figures
Figure 1 WSUD uses a holistic approach where various considerations come together . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Figure 2 Benefits of Water Sensitive Urban Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Figure 1.1 Water is central to the public image of London and most other UK cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Figure 1.2 The most pressing issues relating to water in UK according to questionnaire respondents . . 3
Figure 2.1 Integration of recreation space, built form and a wetland edge alongside a watercourse
in the London Olympic Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 2.2 Concept diagram for water sensitive urban design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 2.3 Conceptual design of a rill transferring treated runoff through a development, creating
interaction and playfulness along the way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 2.4 Conceptual water sensitive home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 2.5 Conceptual water sensitive flat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 2.6 Conceptual water sensitive existing neighbourhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 2.7 Conceptual water sensitive new development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 2.8 Conceptual water sensitive city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 3.1 The Australian model for the urban water cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Figure 3.2 Urban wetland used to harvest surface water runoff for irrigation in
Melbourne Docklands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 3.3 Evolution towards a water sensitive city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 3.4 Integrated bioretention corridor and seating area in Southport, Brisbane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 3.5 Integrated street rain gardens in Portland, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 3.6 Living machine system designed to treat wastewater locally, combining mechanical
and vegetative treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

x Creating water sensitive places

Figure 3.7 Water sensitive green corridor in San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 3.8 Visualisation of Philadelphia Green Streets retrofit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 3.9 Industrial wastewater wetland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 3.10 Waitangi Park Wetland, Wellington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 4.1 Rainwater harvesting tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Figure 4.2 Rainwater collection channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Figure 4.3 The wastewater recycling plant at Old Ford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Figure 4.4 Breakdown of questionnaire respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 4.5 Main type of work undertaken by respondents from each disciplinary group . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure 4.6 Geographic representation of questionnaire responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 4.7 Associations of water sensitive urban design according to respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Figure 4.8 Consideration of outcomes through the planning and urban design process currently
in the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Figure 4.9  uDS integrated with green corridors and open space to influence layout in the Upton
S
Sustainable Urban Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Figure 4.10 Feeling of influence on aspects of water management and the built environment from
the responding disciplinary groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Figure 4.11 Key drivers and barriers for WSUD according to questionnaire results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Figure 6.1  xample of the diagram used to summarise the priorities that may influence each key
E
stakeholder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Figure 6.2 Indicative balance of priorities for government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Figure 6.3 Indicative balance of priorities for local authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Figure 6.4 Indicative balance of priorities for environmental regulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Figure 6.5 Indicative balance of priorities for water companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Figure 6.6 Indicative balance of priorities for developers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Figure 6.7 Indicative balance of priorities for local community and third sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Figure 6.8 Indicative balance of priorities for designers and consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Figure 6.9 Indicative schematic diagram showing the potential misalignment the WSUD investment costs
by an organisation, and the return of WSUD benefits, using a water company example . . . . . . . 77
Figure 6.10 Indicative schematic diagram showing the potential misalignment the WSUD investment
costs and the return of WSUD benefits, using a water company example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Figure 7.1 Northwest Cambridge master plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Figure 7.2 Cross-disciplinary working for to integrate water sensitivity into a development . . . . . . . . . . 92
Figure 8.1 Flood risks and water supply opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Figure 8.2 WSUD concept that brings together a range of considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Figure 8.3 Route map to promote and deliver WSUD in the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Tables
Table 2.1 Urban design objectives in applying WSUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 3.1 Key transition factors in the journey of Melbourne towards current application of WSUD
principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 3.2 How LID initiatives have been delivered across the US . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 6.1  eview of sample of published benefits of green infrastructure and surface water
R
management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Table 6.2 Potential Benefits of WSUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Table 6.3 Breakdown of WSUD cost elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Table 7.1 Analysis of desired characteristics of WSUD champions in the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Table 8.1 Changes in approach required to deliver WSUD in the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Table 8.2 Summary chart of actions to achieve agents for change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

CIRIA, C724 xi
Abbreviations and acronyms

AISC Average incremental social cost

BMP Best Management Practices
BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology
CABE Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
CAPEX Capital expenditure
CCANW Centre for Contemporary Art and the Natural World
CIRIA Construction Industry Research Information Association
CIWEM Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
CNT Center for Neighborhood Technology
CSH Code for Sustainable Homes
CSO Combined sewer overflows
CSR Corporate Social Responsibility
EA Environment Agency
EC European Commission
ESCo Energy services company
EU European Union
FD Flooding Directive
GHG Greenhouse gas
GI Green infrastructure
HA Hectares
HCA Homes and Communities Agency
ICE Institution of Civil Engineers
LDP Local Development Plans
LLFAs Lead local flood authorities
LID Low Impact Development
LIUDD Low Impact Urban Design and Development
LNP Local Nature Partnerships
OPEX Operational expenditure
PES Payment for Ecosystem Services
RBMP River Basin Management Plan
RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects
ROI Return on investment
RTPI Royal Town Planning Institute
RUDI Resource for Urban Design Information
RWH Rainwater harvesting
SEPA Scottish Environment Protection Agency
SROI Social Return on Investment
SuDS Sustainable drainage systems
UWWTD Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive
WCS Water cycle study
WFD Water Framework Directive
WSUD Water Sensitive Urban Design

xii Creating water sensitive places

1 Water, places and people
1

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

Water is central to people’s way of life. Cities, towns and villages all have a
Water is often central to
long and intimate relationship with water resources and were historically
the identity of a place
located around a water source, watercourse or coastline as the focus point
for sustenance, transport and trade. In modern times, not only is there a
dependence on clean water supply for daily needs, but there is also dependence on water to grow food 3
and produce resources, to transport goods, beautify urban centres and provide fun and recreation.

The relationship between the places people live and the water they depend on is often not prioritised
in the design and evolution of those places. Water shortages, flooding and watercourse pollution are all
signs of stress where developed areas have a troubled interaction with the natural water cycle and where,
conversely, water has become a risk or a nuisance rather than an asset or an opportunity.
4
1.1 The evolving UK context
The effect of urban development on water systems has been clear for decades, but is becoming more
pronounced. With increasing population and a larger percentage of people living in cities and major
urban conurbations, pressure on existing water infrastructure and ecosystems is evident. Resource
depletion and environmental degradation are critical themes for the future, especially when considering
5

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

CIRIA, C724 1
the economic sustainability of major cities and the ongoing provision
Some five million people are claimed
of safe drinking water, resilient infrastructure and effective
to live or work in places that are at
sanitation. Flooding remains a major issue for the UK, with urban risk of flooding under current climatic
centres particularly vulnerable due to building densities, impervious conditions, due to a main river, coast,
or surface water runoff.
surfaces, concentrations of population and vital infrastructure.
Chapter 5 provides more information on the regulatory context and Environment Agency (2011)
potential barriers and opportunities for WSUD in the UK.

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

In the UK the average water consumption figures are quoted In the European Union (EU)
as almost 150 litres per person per day (Chapagain and Orr, (including the UK) over the past 30
2008). This grossly understates the water used to satisfy user years, droughts have dramatically
increased, rising by some 20 per
requirements. This takes no account of the water used by cent between 1976 and 2006 at a
agriculture to produce food, or water used by industry to cost of about €100bn.
provide the goods people use daily. Including the water used by EC (2010)
agriculture raises human consumption to about 4645 litres per
person per day (Chapagain and Orr, 2008), but even this overlooks water lost to evapotranspiration. A
significant amount of water is used to produce the energy used for heat, light and cooking that is also
not included in the consumption figures.

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

Increasing pressures on the water environment, due to climate change and population growth, are being
seen globally. In the UK, this is a major concern, with population growth of 17.5 per cent in England,
13 per cent in Wales, 11.5 per cent in Scotland and 11 per cent in Northern Ireland (ICE, 2012b). These
population rises are likely to compound a range of water issues in key urban areas. For example, in Wales
an additional 200 000 homes are predicted to be built by 2025 and
Worldwide annual operating
80 per cent of existing homes will remain by 2050. These existing
expenditure for water and wastewater
homes are often not water efficient and are increasing their paved utilities was some $222bn in 2010,
and impermeable areas, contributing to flooding and pollution so operation of these systems
is costly and alternatives to the
incidents due to surface water entering an ageing combined sewer
traditional prevailing centralised
system. Water supply that is twice the current household’s use systems could potentially result in
in Cardiff may be required for south east Wales by the 2030s. considerable cost savings.
This is the area with the most surface water flooding identified Cope (2011)
(Environment Agency Wales, 2011, now Natural Resources Wales).
Also, six per cent of UK carbon emissions are from water supply, use and disposal. The majority of this
is from heating hot water in the home. Pressures on water security are likely to be felt in the south east
of England where a 23 per cent rise in population is expected in an already water stressed area (ICE,
2012b). For these reasons, incorporating and retrofitting WSUD into new and existing developments
with permeable surfaces, lower carbon solutions, and other WSUD strategies will become increasingly
important if the outcomes of traditional water management are to be mitigated.

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

2 Creating water sensitive places

approach that restores the ‘ecological potential’ of urban water Water quality in the UK is being driven
bodies by addressing the suite of human-initiated effects unique to by compliance with EU legislation
the urban environment. like the Habitats Directive, Bathing
Waters Directive, Urban Waste Water

Longer term, the potential effects of climate change on water

Treatment and the Water Framework 1
Directive (WFD).
systems needs to be addressed. The largest of these is the predicted ICE (2012b)
changes in precipitation – a 33 per cent increase in the winter
and 40 per cent decrease in summer (Jenkins et al, 2009). This
most likely result is increased stress on existing water infrastructure, and greater risk of flooding. The
existing climate change issue is exacerbated when considering the population is expected to increase to
70 million, with many settling in the water stressed south east region. New, innovative thinking to meet 2
these challenges and maintain the delivery of core services is required.

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

3
Most

Flooding
4
Quality of watercourses

Drought
5
Human health and sanitation

Affordability of water
6
Least
Figure 1.2 The most pressing issues relating to water in UK according to
questionnaire respondents

7
Summary
66 water and the built environment have a complex and often interdependent relationship
66 water is essential to urban development, to provide sustenance, transport, identity, recreation and healthy
ecosystems
66 strains on the water cycle are particularly being felt in urban areas, including increased incidence of flood damage,
water use restrictions and water pollution. Climate change and population increase will exacerbate these issues.
8

CIRIA, C724 3
2 Introducing Water Sensitive
Urban Design

This chapter introduces the concept of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) as it is
understood internationally. It explains the principles of WSUD and provides
examples of how WSUD can be applied at different spatial scales.

2.1 Introducing Water Sensitive Urban Design

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

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

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

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

4 Creating water sensitive places

droughts and flooding, coupled with ever-increasing population and infrastructure intensities in urban
areas, cities and towns remain the most vulnerable to climatic changes. Managing water through a water
sensitive process makes urban areas more tolerant to increased precipitation, and better equipped to
supply water during times of drought. 1

2.2 How does WSUD differ from SuDS?

The similarities between the acronyms for sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and Water Sensitive
Urban Design (WSUD) can cause confusion. The use of SuDS is an integral part of Water Sensitive
Urban Design as it involves the management of surface water runoff within the urban form to mimic
natural drainage processes. In addition to the synergies in the acronym, each seeks to achieve better 2
management of surface water runoff while supporting broader biodiversity and amenity aims. SuDS can
have a very direct influence on placemaking, and good planning and urban design should create the
best examples of SuDS.

The key distinction is the breadth of scope of WSUD beyond surface

water runoff to also consider water supply, wastewater management SuDS can be a key part of WSUD

and the more extensive integration of built form with watercourses

to integrate surface water runoff
management into the urban form, but
3
and flood pathways to better plan for the impact of surface water WSUD brings in broader consideration
flows on land downstream. Through the consideration of the entire of the whole water cycle.

water cycle, synergies and efficiencies can often be identified.

For example, while SuDS aims to manage the discharge of surface water runoff from a site, a broader
consideration of water supply needs for the same site may highlight opportunities for use of treated
surface water runoff locally. WSUD also explicitly focuses on the planning and urban design process
to ‘build in’ a sustainable water approach from an early stage of new development, whereby SuDS and 4
other water management initiatives may be employed to tackle local water issues. However, as new build
represents only a small portion of drainage needs, incorporating WSUD into existing developments
is critical. The good news is that there are many options for retrofitting WSUD solutions into existing
developments providing potential synergies with other environment improvement initiatives like
reducing energy and carbon use.

5
2.3 How does Water Sensitive Urban Design seek to improve water
management?
WSUD promotes an integrated analysis of the whole water cycle and the influences of the built
environment. It considers the water cycle at all scales, and focuses on improving three aspects of the
water cycle in particular:
6
1 The selection and management of water supplies.
2 The management of surface water (predominantly surface water runoff in Australian definition but
could also consider flooding more broadly in the UK).
3 The management of wastewater.

2.3.1 Water supplies 7

To alleviate pressures on water supply, a WSUD process would first consider the use of water efficiency
measures and then consider all available water resources in an area and seek to match a supply of
suitable quality and availability to appropriate uses. In considering the suitability of a water source, the
environmental impact, cost and carbon content of that source should be understood. In situations where
centralised water supply resources or infrastructure are strained or at capacity, a WSUD approach could
support the delivery of alternative water supplies from harvested rainwater, greywater or wastewater to 8
supplement local supply (primarily for non-potable uses). To deliver both water efficiency and alternative
water supply options, these measures need to be considered through the planning and urban design
process, for both new developments and retrofits, to identify appropriate and deliverable measures.

CIRIA, C724 5
2.3.2 Surface water

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

2.3.3 Wastewater

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

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

2.4 How does Water Sensitive Urban Design seek to improve

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

This includes those dealing with the protection of aquatic

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

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

6 Creating water sensitive places

 Urban
Local climate and
human comfort
Design
Sustainable 1
buildings

Local
identity Carbon
reduction
Community
engagement Sustainable Lush
water supply landscapes
2
Water features Urban food
and art Rainwater Demand
production and
management +
and surface gardening
greywater and
water runoff
wastewater
recycling
Place Integrated recycling Productive
Making water cycle landscape
Surface water
management
3
runoff reduction Wastewater
Open spaces Local resource
and treatment Reduced reduction and
and recreation management
+ pollution treatment
flood water and flood
integration risk Local
Affordable infrastructure
water and efficiency
good service

Flood
4
Habitat
pathway creation and
integration enhancement
Street and Complimentary
highway land use
design Urban planning
Planning
5

Figure 2.2 Concept diagram for water sensitive urban design

CIRIA, C724 7
Table 2.1 Urban design objectives in applying WSUD

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

Greater provision of integrated green infrastructure (GI) in the urban form through the combination of vegetated water filtration
features and more extensive integrated permeable surfaces and open spaces promoting health, recreation and amenity.

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

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

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

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

Reduced costs of water through water efficiency measures and reduced strain on water supplies.

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

Long-term resilience of buildings and infrastructure through design that minimises flood risk.

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

2.5 A process and a product

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

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

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

66 temporal scales: longevity of need and resilience to future change
66 institutional, governance, regulatory boundaries and cultural scales: responsibility and ‘interest’
boundaries now and in the future.

WSUD initiatives should be considered to be interactive and

Water Sensitive Urban Design is the
synergistic between scales. Applications should be integrated
process...
together to produce an effective whole that achieves the aims of
...water sensitive places
both, supporting a successful built environment and population and are the outcome
also protecting and supporting natural water systems.

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

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

8 Creating water sensitive places

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

Figure 2.3 Conceptual design of a rill transferring treated runoff through a

development, creating interaction and playfulness along the way

What could a water sensitive home look like?

5
At the building scale, there is a very direct relationship between water and people. This is where people
can directly influence and select water supplies, and where these actions affect the level of water use
and wastewater generation. The design of a building and its surroundings also affects rainwater and
subsequent surface water runoff.

A water sensitive house should be designed to provide comfort and to support self-sufficiency and a high
quality of life. In doing so, it could be resource efficient, using local water resources where possible, 6
supporting water efficient systems and behaviour and as a consequence reducing energy.

A range of ‘water sensitive’ measures can be delivered at a household scale at very little cost, and are
likely to benefit the householder in a number of ways. The use of water efficient fixtures and practices
as well as localised water harvesting will lower water bills, and could also incur significant savings in
energy bills by reducing use of hot water in particular. Simple measures can help householders take
greater social and environmental responsibility, but can also lend convenience. For example, rainwater 7
harvesting can provide a free supply of water for gardening that is unrestricted by hosepipe bans.
Surface water management measures like downpipe disconnection and the use of rain gardens can
minimise runoff from a property, and this can directly reduce drainage tariffs in some areas. Natural
water management measures can also be included that promote biodiversity and urban greening that
bring wider benefits to the community and often increase property values.

CIRIA, C724 9
Figure 2.4 Conceptual water sensitive home

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

10 Creating water sensitive places

 1

4
Figure 2.5 Conceptual water sensitive flat

What could a water sensitive neighbourhood look like?

For neighbourhoods, there are a range of opportunities that need to be designed to suit both the local
water challenges and the local community context. While retrofitting WSUD into existing developments 5
is more challenging than integrating into new development, there are a range of regeneration and
improvement activities through which water sensitive measures can be delivered. Improvement of public
realm and the delivery of GI provide a direct opportunity for better water management through retrofit
of SuDS features. The introduction of urban trees and landscaped spaces can easily be designed with
suitable soil mixes and plant species to support drainage and natural treatment of runoff from roads
and paved surfaces. Other urban improvement initiatives, such as the introduction of home zones and
pedestrian priority areas provide the opportunity to introduce more permeable spaces, green and blue 6
infrastructure that can contribute to a water sensitive place or space. The opportunity to retrofit existing
homes with water efficient fixtures is also important, and should be undertaken in co-ordination with
energy efficiency retrofits to minimise disruption to homeowners and to gain cost efficiency.

CIRIA, C724 11
Figure 2.6 Conceptual water sensitive existing neighbourhood

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

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

12 Creating water sensitive places

 1

4
Figure 2.7 Conceptual water sensitive new development

What could a water sensitive city look like?

At the larger scale, a town or city can apply strategic water sensitive measures that will support its
growth and resilience in the long-term. These measures could include improvement, or daylighting
of urban watercourses to improve their quality and function, but also to improve quality of life, urban 5
landscapes and recreation, tourism, wildlife, climate change adaptation, and economic opportunities.
There is great potential to create a positive aesthetic for an urban area through a focus on creating
pristine watercourses and water bodies, as demonstrated by the some of the most acclaimed urban
landscapes around the world. On a conurbation scale, there are also strategic opportunities for the
development of alternative water supplies and flood mitigation measures using the urban form as
a vehicle for natural water storage, treatment and management. Urban areas are a concentrated
demand on water supplies but also a natural generator of large amounts of surface water runoff and 6
wastewater. Strategically there are opportunities to use these as alternative water supplies.

Urban areas can suffer from concentrated flood damage, but smarter urban forms can be shaped to
accept and manage flooding more effectively through management, resilience and resistance. In the
face of climate change, it may be that coastal and riverside cities and towns will need to adapt as a matter
of need rather than preference, better accomplished through a placemaking agenda that also improves
the urban realm. Land use planning can be an effective tool in ensuring that the urban form considers 7
and respects the water cycle. Whether it is preventing development in flood zones, forming policies for
agricultural land near receiving bodies of water, or establishing blue and green corridors to treat water
and improve the sense of place, land use planning can have a substantial effect on adopting WSUD.

Great synergies with broader sustainability initiatives for renewable energy and GI can also be delivered
through the planning of water systems at a large scale.
8

CIRIA, C724 13
Figure 2.8 Conceptual water sensitive city

Summary
66 WSUD is the process of considering the whole water cycle through planning and urban design to seek better
solutions in the built environment that support placemaking objectives and provide for human needs while also
protecting and improving water resources
66 WSUD considers management of surface water, wastewater and water supplies and the synergies between these
aspects of the water cycle to create more beneficial solutions
66 SuDS is an integral part of the WSUD process to manage surface water runoff in a better way in the built
environment, but WSUD also considers the broader aspects of the water cycle, including water harvesting and
reuse, water efficiency, flood resilience and wastewater management
66 WSUD driven solutions should be tailored to context and scale. A range of examples of possible solutions are
demonstrated in this chapter
66 determining appropriate WSUD solutions included workshops where participants developed ideas and
visualisations of how WSUD could be incorporated at various scales of development.

14 Creating water sensitive places

3 How has Water Sensitive Urban
Design been applied elsewhere? 1

This chapter explores to what extent WSUD approaches have been applied and developed
globally, identifying the key drivers and barriers in the journey of other countries. This
analysis is intended to highlight ‘agents for change’ or important catalysts that
have engendered strong take-up of a WSUD approach, so that lessons can be
gathered for application of Water Sensitive Urban Design in the UK. 2

The application of WSUD in Australia is well documented and supported by a substantial academic
and scientific research programme and an active practitioner community. Encouragingly, significant
integration of the WSUD philosophy, at least in component parts, has been achieved in several countries
around the world, leading to new approaches to water management in the built environment. Significant
progress in addressing water cycle management though planning and urban design has been made in 3
the US under the guise of low impact development (LID) and green stormwater management, or GI.
This chapter focuses on the journeys of Australia and the US, examining the drivers for change, barriers
to change and examples of successful application. Several other countries around the world have made
notable progress and these are also generally discussed in this chapter. It should be remembered that the
climates in each of these countries may differ from the UK and as a result any WSUD process will need
to be tailored to account for these differences.
4
3.1 Australia
Drivers for change

“
WSUD began in Australia because of public outcry due to the deteriorating
health of the country’s major water bodies, especially Port Phillip Bay
One of the problems
with the UK psyche that 5
in Melbourne. Pollution from septic tanks was threatening the Bay, as we are not good at learning
well as other watercourses in Melbourne. Algal blooms in Melbourne’s from elsewhere. We like
to reinvent wheels. There
watercourses and across many water bodies in other parts of the country are good WSUD examples
highlighted the problem, bringing the issue to the forefront of the public elsewhere, why shouldn’t we
simply take them on board.
discourse. The problem was very much in the public eye with Melbourne’s
In this particular case it
beaches frequently being closed due to pollution, and soon the city’s means we have been terribly
watercourses slowly slipped into public ridicule (Brown and Clarke, 2007). slow in getting to grips with 6
this issue.”

The health of watercourses, or waterway health, quickly became an Michael Norton

Water engineer, ICE
important issue. With little local knowledge on the issue, research began to
develop environmental protection policies. Soon, public agencies concerned
with waterway health began developing their own expertise, galvanising support and recognition as
leaders and champions in their own right (Brown and Clarke, 2007). Water companies also took a strong
responsibility in delivering WSUD measures to benefit water resource availability, quality and protection. 7
With a strong grasp of improving environmental protection, the mandate then evolved to respond to the
pressures of drought by campaigning for more efficient water use and using integrated urban surface
water management features to harvest and treat surface water for use. Greywater recycling, sewer
mining (the process of tapping into a wastewater system and extracting sewage, which is then treated
and used as recycled water) and wastewater recycling have also become common design options under
a WSUD approach. Figure 3.1 shows the urban water cycle, with conventional water cycle management
connected with the solid arrows and the additional WSUD opportunities shown with dashed arrows. 8

CIRIA, C724 15
Figure 3.1 The Australian model for the urban water cycle (adapted from Hoban and Wong, 2006)

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

16 Creating water sensitive places

Table 3.1 Key transition factors in the journey of Melbourne towards current application of WSUD
principles (Brown et al, 2008)
Key transition factors
Champions Interplay
1 Vision for waterway health
A ‘common vision’ for protecting waterway health through
pursuing a largely co-operative, rather than directive,
approach for enabling change.
2 Multi-sectoral network
A network of champions interacting across government,
academia and the market.
3 Environmental values
Strong environmental protection values with a ‘genuine’
agenda for improving Melbourne’s waterways.
4 Public good disposition
An orientation to advocating and protecting ‘public good’.
5 Best practice ideology
Being more pragmatic and finding ways to help industry
implement best practice thinking.
6 Learning by doing
Wanting to foster and trial new ideas, and valuing the rapid
adopting of ongoing scientific insights.
7 Opportunistic
Continually thinking ahead and creating opportunities
through strategic advocacy and practice.
8 Innovative and adaptive
Prepared to challenge the status quo, and concentrating
efforts using an adaptive management philosophy.
Figure 3.2 Urban wetland used to harvest surface water runoff for irrigation in Melbourne Docklands
CIRIA, C724
The enabling context 1
1 Socio-political capital
Aligned community, media and political concern for
improved waterway health, amenity and recreation.
2 Bridging organisations
Dedicated organising entity that facilitates collaboration
across science and policy, agencies and professions, and
2
knowledge brokers and industry.
3 Trusted and reliable science
Accessible scientific expertise, innovating reliable and
effective solutions to local problems.
4 Binding targets
A measurable and effective target that binds the change
activity of scientists, policy makers and developers.
3
5 Accountability
A formal organisational responsibility for the improvement of
warterway health, and a cultural commitment to proactively
influence practices that lead to such an outcome.
6 Strategic funding points
Additional resources, including external funding injection
points, directed to the change effort
4
7 Demonstration projects and training
Accessible and reliable demonstrating of new thinking
and technologies in practice, accompanied by knowledge
diffusion initiatives.
8 Market receptivity
A well articulated business case for the change activity. 5
17
While Melbourne has been an active player in the evolution of WSUD, other Australian cities including
Brisbane, Sydney and Perth have also maintained an active movement backed by local champions and
expertise (Taylor, 2010). In each area, the need for consistent guidance, training and tools became
apparent and a series of co-ordinating bodies were developed to act as providers of guidance and training.

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

The movement gradually identified and proved the multiple

Examples of guidance
benefits of a WSUD approach in addressing a range of water issues
and training
while increasing the liveability of place. Academia in Australia
Clearwater capacity building and
developed the concept of a ‘water sensitive city’, conceived of as training programs:
the ultimate evolutionary state where urban environments and www.clearwater.asn.au
the water cycle operate in harmony while maximising benefits for Sydney’s water sensitive urban design
communities and building resilience to future change (whether program:
www.wsud.org
climate change, or urban development) (Brown et al, 2008). While
this might appear to be a major step change in the approach to Healthy Waterway’s Water by design
guidance
water management, it is better viewed as a part of the evolving www.waterbydesign.com.au/
relationship people have with water. Figure 3.3 outlines the
theoretical evolution of cities, beginning from water source needs, to
address problems of sanitation, drainage and waterway health, to eventually manage the water cycle as a
whole, and then gain the full secondary benefits through improvement to the built environment.

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

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

Barriers to change

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

18 Creating water sensitive places

on a piecemeal basis rather than being rationalised on a large centralised system. From a public
health standpoint, decentralisation can also impede the ability to implement controls, if necessary,
from a central authority (Brown, 2005). Often financial risks present an additional barrier due to the
unfamiliar nature of the technologies involved, Melbourne Water initially underwrote early adopters of 1
WSUD to overcome this hurdle. Finally, government structure separates environmental considerations
from engineering, planning, and urban design, creating barriers to communication and holistic water
management (Roy et al, 2008). There were also indirect barriers in changing the industry and creating
new knowledge among practitioners. Some of the widespread impediments to change appear to include:

66 insufficient professional skills and knowledge

66 organisational resistance 2
66 risk aversion
66 lack of political will
66 limited regulatory incentives
66 unsuitable institutional arrangements
66 a need to establish new cultures across multiple organisations, professions and tiers of government.
3
Addressing these barriers requires knowledge building and establishing new relationships, as well as
leadership in the form of WSUD champions. In Melbourne’s case, research into catchment hydrology,
freshwater ecology, wetlands, and litter management improved the depth of knowledge. Restructuring
the water industry set the stage for new agencies, and programmes to be developed. One of the
hallmarks of the Australian approach has been the reliance on WSUD champions. These champions
can come from industry, academia or government. The collaboration among these champions is
an important goal to overcoming many barriers and advancing WSUD (Taylor, 2008). One of the 4
misconceptions for applying WSUD is the notion that space constraints can prevent its successful
delivery. However, there is no evidence that space constraints have been an issue in applying WSUD in
Australia or elsewhere. As design should always adapt to local context, space should be a consideration
but not a barrier as good design and early engagement should help overcome challenges.

Successful application 5
Despite those existing barriers, Australia’s public support for improving waterway quality proved to be
vital for WSUD delivery. With public support mounting, politicians, academia and industry found a
cause easy to support. From their efforts, WSUD has been applied to achieve many successes in Australia,
including (Roy, et al, 2008):

66 rehabilitating and protecting watercourses, which were once heavily polluted

6
66 progressive policies and political bodies aiming to reduce wastewater overflows and improve
protection of catchments
66 adoption of surface water runoff management best practice into policy, as well as local, state, and
national guidelines
66 state-wide funding for WSUD research and design, including a AUS $120m investment in the
development of large scale rainwater harvesting
66 innovative market-based offset scheme
7
66 assessment tools for designers, planners, and regulators
66 dedicated WSUD training (eg Clearwater, Ewater, Healthy Waterways)
66 residential subdivisions that meet surface water runoff quality targets, and ensuring all subdivisions
include WSUD criteria.

CIRIA, C724 19
Figure 3.4 Integrated bioretention corridor and seating area in Southport, Brisbane

Case study 3.1 Coomera Waters Development,

Gold Coast, Queensland

The site at Coomera consists of a new residential development constructed around an existing lake and ecologically
significant wetland area. The aim of the project was to reduce the rate of water consumption and to develop alternative
water sources to substitute conventional water supplies. The development aimed to not affect the current hydrologic and
hydrogeological regime and so supported recharging the groundwater as well as not increasing the impervious area. The
site aims to reduce the effect of flooding by providing appropriate collection and conveyance systems around the site to
direct the surface water away from properties. These conveyance systems were required to be incorporated into the urban
design of the site allowing the GI to become aesthetically pleasing and educational, which provided a social benefit to the
scheme.
The surface water was treated using bioretention basins and swales along with a constructed wetland.
Residents use the recycled rainwater for non-potable purposes including toilet flushing and outdoor use, achieved by the
use of a dual reticulation pipe network (Water by Design, 2010).

Case study 3.2 Troups Creek Surface water runoff harvesting

project, Narre Warren North, Victoria

This is a residential development of 58 houses. The aim of the project is to provide the residential properties with an
alternative source of water for non-potable water use. The project also aimed to provide additional capacity for surface
water runoff treatment with the Troups Creek East catchment.
Water is abstracted from Troup’s Creek and also collected from catchment runoff treated within a wetland area. Also, water
from roofs is collected for use. The water is used for outdoor use, toilet flushing and washing machine cold taps.
The scheme is estimated to save 50 to 75 per cent of potable water use compared to conventional residential
developments of similar density and type.

20 Creating water sensitive places

3.2 United States
Drivers for change
1
In the late 1960s, observations of heavily polluted watercourses in many parts of the US became
common. The issue came to the forefront in June 1969 when the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio
caught fire due to a discharge of highly volatile petroleum from an oil slick floating nearby. The solution
came through national government regulation with the Clean Water Act (CWA) 1972, which gave the US
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) the power to develop and regulate water quality standards.
The CWA evolved in 1987 to require more urban areas to obtain surface water runoff discharge
permits, and was further expanded in 1999 to also cover smaller municipalities. In conjunction with 2
the evolution of federal water regulations, research highlighting the benefits of controlling runoff at its
source emerged for both environmental protection and flood risk management reasons and resulted in
the promotion of the use of best management practices (BMPs) (equivalent to SuDS). BMPs are seen as
part of the low impact development (LID) planning and design approach in the USA, which includes a
wider range of considerations such as water supply and energy management (US EPA, 2012) and is akin
to WSUD. LID is defined as “a comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach with a
goal of maintaining and enhancing the pre-development hydrologic regime of urban and developing 3
watersheds” (Low Impact Development Centre, 2011). The motive for taking this approach has been
environmental protection under the Clean Water Act 1972, although flood risk management is also
considered important. Most recently, BMPs have become synonymous with the use of GI or green
stormwater management in the USA due to the multiple benefits arising from using vegetated surface
water management systems (Ashley et al, 2011, US EPA, 2012, and Digman et al, 2012).

The Low Impact Development Centre <www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/> has been developed as a 4

non-profit organisation dedicated to the advancement of LID technology (Low Impact Development
Center, 2011), and similarly the Water Environment Research Foundation <www.werf.org/> promotes
best management practices for surface water runoff. In a similar fashion to those in Australia, these
co-ordinating bodies provide guidance and training. In a similar fashion to the ecosystem services
appraisals in the UK, several valuation tools, including the CNT Green Values Stormwater Toolbox
(CNT, 2012) have been developed to quantify the multiple benefits of GI and have helped to justify
decentralised water management interventions. 5
In terms of water supply, water scarcity issues, particularly in the west of the USA have driven demand
for alternative water supplies, requiring both large scale and small scale interventions. Decentralised
wastewater recycling systems such as membrane bioreactors and living machine systems (see Figure 3.6
integrated into the San Francisco water utility’s building) have been successful.

Barriers to change
6
In delivering LID the USA has experienced a number of barriers. Much like other areas,
uncertainties regarding cost and performance are most prominent. Many other barriers exist,
including (Roy et al, 2008):

66 many engineers, architects, landscapers and policy makers lack the knowledge, resources and
capacity to support, implement, and regulate LID. Educating professionals through targeted
7
workshops is fundamental for the increased adoption of LID principles
66 as watersheds are regulated at the county and city level, regulations vary across watersheds.
Grassroots efforts can help improve regulations for watersheds lacking effective guardianship
66 decentralised water and drainage infrastructure can transfer maintenance costs to different parties
and can be perceived as a cost increase. Many areas also require training and education costs to
deliver the required skills. Properly designed incentive-based policies were found to help mitigate 8
these additional costs.

CIRIA, C724 21
Successful application

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

Table 3.2 How LID initiatives have been delivered across the US

Location Low impact development initiatives

These cities first proved the principles worked through pilot projects on public sites. Soon
Portland and Chicago developers followed their example, and with the help of effective incentive programmes, good
practice surface water runoff management is now considered business as usual.

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

The Green City Clean Waters programme has embraced a city-wide program to manage surface
water runoff through GI in an effort to reduce combined sewer overflows (PWD, 2012). This
progressive approach will combine grey and green infrastructure to use green roofs, rain gardens,
Philadelphia
pervious pavements, and vegetated swales, and open spaces to manage surface water runoff
across its watershed. This approach provides US $2.8bn of benefits in contrast to US $122m for the
sole grey infrastructure approach.

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

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

22 Creating water sensitive places

 1

Figure 3.5 Integrated street rain gardens in Portland, Oregon

3

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

CIRIA, C724 23
Figure 3.7 Water sensitive green corridor in San Francisco

Case study 3.3 Green City, Clean Waters, Philadelphia

Philadelphia has a 25 year plan to enhance their watersheds by managing surface water runoff using GI. This is in the
hope to continue to meet customer expectations while still delivering a safe and affordable water supply. The aims of the
plan are to provide collection and treatment of wastewater and surface water runoff, provide flood protection, as well as
providing clean, attractive fishable, swimmable rivers and streams. As new challenges are faced the decision to shift away
from traditional solutions towards GI has been made.
At present the increase in population and urbanisation has led to an increase in the surface water runoff volume and
combined sewer overflow spills. The aim of the project is to better manage the surface water runoff with the use of GI.
This should lead to economic, social and environmental benefits for Philadelphia.
As part of this initiative Philadelphia Water Department introduced a Stormwater Management Incentives Program that
made $5m available for grants and $5m available for low interest (one per cent) loans for any commercial organisation
that wanted to implement schemes that reduced surface water runoff. Businesses can also get a tax credit for up to 25
per cent of the cost of green roofs
The plan is to use: surface water runoff tree trenches, surface water runoff build-outs in roads, surface water runoff
planters, pervious pavements, green roofs, rain barrels/cisterns, rain gardens and flow-through planters.
For more information go to: http://tinyurl.com/d3fxb4p

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

24 Creating water sensitive places

3.3 Other countries
Other countries have also made significant progress in integrating urban planning and design to
achieve water management objectives. Some of the more significant progressions are described in the
following sections. 1

Singapore

Singapore is a highly urbanised area that experiences high rainfall but suffers from a lack of water
supply bodies. Understanding the scarcity of water in the community, the country has embraced a
WSUD approach, and has gradually developed a pervasive network of waterways and reservoirs to 2
overcome its water challenges (Wong and Brown, 2008). Two-thirds of the nation now functions as local
catchment areas collecting and storing rainwater in 17 reservoirs, 32 major rivers and more than 7000
km of canals and drains to be directed and reused as the City’s water supply (Droege, 2009). With the
vision of converting Marina Bay into a surface water runoff reservoir, the Singapore Government is
leading the transition to a water sensitive city state. Through the development of the Active-Beautiful-
Clean (ABC) Waters Programme, Singapore is retrofitting its waterways into attractive places for the
community while at the same time functioning to filter surface water runoff (Singapore Government, 3
2012). In an effort to integrate urban planning, with the improvement, protection and management of
the water cycle, the ABC Waters Programme has grown to establish its own set of water design guidelines
(Droege, 2009).

New Zealand

New Zealand applies WSUD principles under the term Low Impact Urban Design and Development 4
(LIUDD) (van Roon, 2011). However, the LIUDD concept seems to emphasise the need to minimise a wide
range of adverse effects of a physiochemical, biodiversity, social, economic and amenity nature resulting
from conventional development (van Roon, 2011). This is in contrast to the benefits and opportunities that
WSUD promotes and seeks to use. Although LIUDD has also been used at a catchment scale, this is not
typical, and in contrast WSUD would bring together integrated catchment management with LID (van
Roon, 2011a). Application of LIUDD mostly consists of application of WSUD and urban planning to protect
and preserve ecological areas. Extensive areas of New Zealand are ‘off-grid’ and have a more self-sufficient
5
attitude to water management, with rainwater harvesting a common feature.

Figure 3.9 Industrial wastewater wetland

CIRIA, C724 25
Figure 3.10 Waitangi Park Wetland, Wellington

Germany

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

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

Case study 3.4 Hohlgrabenäcker, Stuttgart,

Germany (Switch, 2006)

The site is a residential site in the city of Stuttgart. The aim of the site is to create a residential site that is sustainable
and fulfils the requirements of the water related legislation in Baden-Württemberg and Stuttgart City Council while
considering the local hydrogeological conditions. This requires the reduction in site runoff by 30 per cent and on site
infiltration of surface water runoff. The site was tested as unsuitable for surface water infiltration and so a combination
of solutions has had to be adopted. These include green roofs, rainwater tanks and pervious pavements. Green roofs
are used for water detention and storage and also act as a cooling mechanism through evapotranspiration, as well as
providing habitats. Rainwater tanks are used for collection and reuse of water in the homes, for irrigation, toilet flushing
and clothes washing. Permeable paving is used on all streets on the site to reduce the quantity of surface water runoff.
An economic comparison of the scheme showed that the whole life costs for this scheme are less than the cost of a
conventional scheme.
The site provides an aesthetic and education benefit by visually reminding residents of the water savings. It is estimated
that the total savings over the next 30 years due to the implementation of the WSUD techniques will be over €1m.

26 Creating water sensitive places

The Netherlands

Situated six metres below sea level, Rotterdam has been at the forefront of sustainable water management
and flood control in the Netherlands. The risk of rising sea levels has provided the impetus for the city
1
to initiate the Rotterdam Climate Proof (RCP) programme, which has the goal to ‘climate proof ’ the city
by 2025. Rotterdam is focusing on sustainable drainage measures in combination with water storage to
mitigate flood risk and improve water quality. Green roofs are mandatory on all municipal properties,
while private properties are subsidised €30 per square metre of green roof installed. To mitigate impacts
from heavy rainfall, the city is investigating the opportunity for developing water squares. These
multifunctional spaces often take the form of a depressed sports field surrounded by a sloped field, with
the capability to attenuate and store water during wetter times of the year. Rotterdam is also investing in 2
other forms of surface water runoff storage. For example, a new car park near Museumpark includes the
Netherlands’ largest water storage facility with the capacity to hold 10 million litres of rainwater. Water
storage strategies like these will reduce pressure on the existing sewer system while mitigating flood risk
(Mackenzie, 2010).

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

3

Summary
66 WSUD has been applied with significant success in some countries, notably Australia and the US under the guise of
low impact development (LID)
66 many countries have examples of adopting WSUD, suggesting the process is gaining mass appeal internationally
66 the key ‘agents for change’ that aided the application of WSUD included:
4
66 heightened environmental awareness for water resource protection and water quality improvement in
watercourses
66 establishment of a clear movement for change led by a co-ordinating body
66 the development of guidance, tools and training for practitioners
66 active politicians and commitments
66 supportive policy instruments and direction
66 practitioner enthusiasm and demonstrative practice. 5
66 there are a series of common barriers that have been identified including:
66 lack of knowledge
66 absence of good cross-disciplinary working
66 mis-match of institutional scales of operation between the catchment, city and development level
66 multiple stakeholders receiving both costs and benefits making it difficult to structure initiatives
66 risk aversion and resistance to changing ‘business as usual’.

CIRIA, C724 27
4 How successful has the UK been
in applying a water sensitive
approach?
This chapter discusses the current level of application of WSUD principles in the UK, drawing on
available evidence and results from workshops, phone interviews and a questionnaire conducted
as part of this project to gain the views of a variety of stakeholders and practitioners.

4.1 Current level of application of WSUD principles in the UK

“
The realisation that water in urban areas can be managed differently to
Holistic consideration traditional approaches has been growing. This challenges the conventional
of water in the urban
catchment can deliver approach in the developed world where water supply and sanitation
significant benefits over systems are designed, operated and managed in isolation with the primary
traditional approaches to
design goal of ‘getting all waste(water) as quickly and efficiently out of
water management. By taking
an end-to-end view of water towns’ (Allen, 2008, and Nelson, 2012).
in the urban environment we
can find joined-up solutionsIt is now understood that traditional systems are resource consumptive
that look for synergies over
individual solutions.” and unsustainable, especially with regard to energy use (Kenway and
Lant, 2012). Also, they fail to use the wealth of opportunities to direct
Mike Keil
Climate change manager, water collection at source, enhance urban space (MacPherson, 2012, and
Severn Trent Water Wong et al, 2012) and recover resources. Traditional engineering of water,
surface water runoff and wastewater systems is still too often centralised
and constrained by a ‘problem-solving’ tradition, rather than taking an ‘opportunistic’ stance, where the
management of apparent problems is seen as a potential way to enhance urban living.

“
The water shortages experienced across England in the spring and summer
We typically manage of 2012 highlight some of the pitfalls of conventional water management.
water in different
stakeholder boxes and I don’t While a water sensitive city is still affected by unpredictable weather
think we are joined up. For patterns, the ability to store water and manage its use on a smaller scale
example we aren’t joining the means that local communities, neighbourhoods, and individuals can
dots on flood risk management
with water resource adapt their behaviour accordingly and have greater control over their
management, we could be water supply. Reorganising existing water management practices to take
holding onto more of our flood
advantage of these benefits will be a long-term strategy, and one that is in
water for reuse rather than
rushing it out to sea.” agreement with the WSUD process.
Michael Norton
Water engineer, ICEUrban designers, architects, and planners have identified the value of
combining water and GI in urban landscapes to increase multi-functional
land use, and help with adapting to climate change (Landscape Institute and Town and Country
Planning Association, 2012). In existing developments, SuDS and GI have been adopted as a means of
creating communities more resilient to future problems.

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

28 Creating water sensitive places

 Case study 4.1 New Heartlands Project in Cornwall

Heartlands is a community led regenerative social enterprise, part funded by a Big Lottery grant of £22.5m,
implementing RWH and SuDS in a mixed use development. 1
The development provides parks, playgrounds, cafés, learning centres, transport links and community buildings.
Alongside the historic centre are housing and business units.
A communal rainwater harvesting strategy has been used to collect rainwater from the roofs off buildings to be reused
for toilet flushing, water features and irrigation. Surface water management is used to prevent flooding and recharge
ground water. This includes rainwater harvesting as above and via basins, ponds, permeable paving, filter stripped
channels. The quality of the water is maintained through water quality management using artificial and vegetative
filtration.
Also water efficient fixtures and fittings have been used. In total, the reduction in potable water demand is around 60
2
per cent. The combination of water efficient fixtures and fittings and the rainwater harvesting system should provide a
60 per cent reduction in potable water demands. These help to ensure the buildings comply with the BRE Environmental
Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) Excellent rating levels.

Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2

Rainwater harvesting tank Rainwater collection channel

“
Surface water runoff is only one part of the water cycle, and initiatives
relating to water supply, wastewater treatment and flood resilience in Sometimes, engineers
can be enamoured with
towns and cities have been less consistent in application. There are few big technological solutions
examples of provision of alternative water supplies from rainwater, surface but sustainable water
water runoff, greywater or wastewater, with only the use of water butts management often requires
small, humble local solutions.
being considered commonplace in the UK. Water efficient fixtures are This requires lots of talking 6
fairly common in new developments, but retrofits of existing buildings and collaboration”
remains a challenge. There is guidance available to adjust housing design Tim Waterman
for flood resilience, but this is yet to be required through planning for Landscape architect and
lecturer, Writtle College
new developments or undertaken through extensive retrofit schemes.
There are some examples of urban landscapes designed to withstand and
accommodate flooding, mainly through the provision of green corridors alongside rivers that double
as recreational spaces. For example, the re-design of the Lee River Valley corridor for the Olympic 7
Park development in East London is one example of a retrofit of a flood adaptable urban landscape
and, similarly, in large scale regeneration in South Dalmarnock in Glasgow. Also, the use of roads and
highways as formal flood exceedance routes as is now being delivered in Dublin (streets as streams, roads
as rivers pilot study), and shows how flood management can be planned more effectively when water is
considered in concert with other urban services.

CIRIA, C724 29
 Case study 4.2 Wastewater recycling plant, London Olympic Park

The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) set a target of 40 per cent reduction in the use of potable water on the Olympic
Park. 30 per cent was achieved through water efficient devices in venues. The non-potable water supply network
provides a 10 per cent reduction in the use of potable network on the Olympic Park achieving the ODA’s sustainability
objective. Non-potable water is harvested from the northern outfall sewer and treated for reuse.

Figure 4.3 The wastewater recycling plant at Old Ford

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

Case study 4.3 Caerau and Brynglas Market Garden, Wales

Groundwork UK – Wales and the Caerau Development Trust are working in partnership to create a community market
garden on 1.4 ha of brownfield site behind Alexandra Road, Caerau near Maesteg in Wales. The site often experiences
flooding during bad weather, along with the houses along Alexandra Road. In order to manage the flooding issues and
support the future of the market garden, the site is being developed to help conserve and use the water coming off the
surrounding land.
This involves large storage units, which will be used to irrigate the raised beds. The water will be collected off the
surrounding hills and the roofs of the polytunnels of the site. A drainage ditch will be used to trap any excess water. This
is to avoid sending excess surface water to the main drainage system, and will only be used in times of high rainfall.
The overall project should provide a sustainable and carbon neutral business, which has a minimum environmental
impact.
For more information go to: http://tinyurl.com/cwl7yuw

Case study 4.4 Tooley Street redevelopment, London, UK

An innovative, award-winning mixed use development providing five floors of flexible office/commercial/retail/residential
space. A variety of technologies were used within the design to minimise the environmental impact of the building,
taking an integrated approach to the management of resources. A rainwater harvesting system, including a large
rainwater tank, was installed within the development to supply the non-potable needs for WCs. The project was one of
the first completed major office developments in London to meet the London Mayor’s 10 per cent renewable energy
policy and has achieved a ‘Very Good’ BREEAM rating.

30 Creating water sensitive places

Perspectives on the potential for WSUD in the UK

“
As part of the scoping study, gathering the views of the relevant professions
What I would say is
and stakeholders was seen as being critical to understanding how WSUD is
that water still does 1
viewed and incorporated in the UK. Phone interviews were conducted with not have the standing that
10 practitioners representing key disciplines and actors (or ‘stakeholders’), it needs to have in planning
and urban design. The scale
including practitioners involved in planning and design of the built
and implications of it are still
environment, regulators, community champions and developers. Key not fully understood. Hence
quotes and views from these interviews are dispersed through this report to we are still getting flooding,
we are still getting problems.
aid discussion.
We haven’t come to terms
with the full impact of getting 2
A questionnaire was also developed and circulated to gain views from a it wrong.”
wider body of professionals. The questionnaire was distributed to CIRIA Mike Vout
networks and also by Royal Town Planning Institute, Urban Design Group, Urban designer, Borough
of Telford and Wrekin
and the Landscape Institute to target views from a range of disciplines
involved in planning and designing the built environment. In total, 207
professionals responded to the survey. Figure 4.4 shows the breakdown of responding professions and
their disciplinary group. Figure 4.5 further outlines the percentage of professionals working in specific 3
types of work. Geographically, as shown in Figure 4.6, a relatively good spread of responses was achieved
across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Figure 4.4 Breakdown of questionnaire respondents

CIRIA, C724 31
Figure 4.5 Main type of work undertaken by respondents from each disciplinary group

32 Creating water sensitive places

 1

Figure 4.6 Geographic representation of questionnaire responses

CIRIA, C724 33
Application of WSUD in the UK

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

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

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

34 Creating water sensitive places

 1

Figure 4.8 Consideration of outcomes through the planning and urban design process currently in the
UK (green dot – important consideration, orange – reasonable consideration, red – low 5
consideration)

“
The results of the questionnaire show that water is not considered as a
Certain elements
high-enough priority in the planning and urban design process, especially of water are well
when considering the focus given to other pressing environmental issues considered in the planning
process, particularly flood
6
such as energy and carbon. These results emphasise the need to prioritise
risk management – both river
water in the urban design process and increase engagement among and surface water. But need
practitioners in the built environment sector. Equally, the impact of not to do more when it comes to
applying a water sensitive approach could have serious consequences, water efficiency, supply and
wastewater.”
where evolving urban areas are less able to cope with flooding, water stress
Simon Bunn
and pollution issues and basic quality of life is compromised.
SuDS engineer,
Cambridge City Council 7
While respondents suggested that WSUD is rarely applied in the UK (see
Figure 4.9), there were few areas where they believed they, as practitioners,
had a ‘strong influence’ that would allow them to implement WSUD.
Considering the inherent need for cross-disciplinary work to achieve
83 per cent of respondents believed
WSUD, this is not entirely surprising. Rather, it highlights the need that water was considered too late in
for collaboration – in combining areas of influence, each profession’s the planning process.
circle of influence will be crucial to delivery. 8

CIRIA, C724 35
Figure 4.9 SuDS integrated with green corridors and open space to influence layout in the Upton
Sustainable Urban Extension

“
Figure 4.10 outlines where survey respondents believed where they had
influence over water management. Generally, flood risk is an area where I do a lot of public
speaking around water
most professionals believe to have significant influence. While water security and I often quote the
company professionals considered themselves to have strong influence 2009 UN water development
report – water engineers and
over waste water, others believed they had no influence at all. There are
scientists really enjoy working
few areas where professionals thought they had strong influence, but many inside their ‘water box’ where
where they had some influence. This suggests that each profession has a we all gather together to talk
about technical things. Water
hand in effective management, but not total control. Collaboration will be
engineers and scientists
key to delivering effective WSUD solutions. need to get outside their box
and engage with planners and
policy makers and this is an
uncomfortable zone. I think
this is absolutely true.”
Michael Norton
Water engineer, ICE

36 Creating water sensitive places

 1

7
Figure 4.10 Feeling of influence on aspects of water management and the built
environment from the responding disciplinary groups

CIRIA, C724 37
Challenges particular to the UK context

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

66 understanding and cross-disciplinary working

66 economic incentives
66 regulatory requirements.

Figure 4.11 K
 ey drivers and barriers for WSUD according to questionnaire results

Most barriers seem to be institutional or process-based in nature, so can be overcome. Changes in

institutional structures and formation of partnerships may help to gain a holistic perspective.

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

38 Creating water sensitive places

Natural Resources Wales covers a unique mix of activities for managing, protecting and using natural
resources. The purpose of this single environment body is to ensure that the natural resources of Wales
are sustainably maintained, used and enhanced. This remit should therefore encourage integrated water
and ecosystem management. 1
However, there are a range of technical challenges for the UK that are worth noting. The general
density of urban areas is relatively high compared with other countries where a WSUD approach has
been more successful, though success has also been gained in very dense areas such as Singapore and
New York. WSUD is not a ‘one size fits all’ approach, and by its very nature it should lead to solutions
that are matched to its context as all good design should. Space-hungry solutions will only be suitable
in certain areas, but can often be designed in through good use of multi-functional spaces and through 2
early consultation. Designs also need to match the ‘water context’, and use robust environmental and
physical analysis to understand local geological and hydrological factors to select solutions and exploit
opportunities.

Chapter 7 provides further analysis of the main supporting conditions needed to deliver a WSUD
approach and possible catalysts for the UK. Chapter 8 formulates a UK-specific vision and definition for
the application of WSUD, and defines a route map to promote and deliver WSUD. 3

Summary
66 despite clear drivers and needs for a comprehensive and integrated approach to water management through
planning and design of the built environment, water sensitive urban design is not currently commonly practiced in
the UK
66 the management of the quantity of surface water runoff from new development is given significant and increasing
4
attention, but wider aspects such as water quality, water efficiency and water harvesting and reuse are rarely
considered
66 the ability for water to enhance and improve the public realm and bring a variety of benefits to communities
appears to be undervalued
66 cross-disciplinary working and a higher prioritisation of water in the planning and urban design process, particularly
early in that process, is needed to deliver integrated water cycle management.

CIRIA, C724 39
5 How does Water Sensitive Urban
Design interact with current
regulation?
This chapter provides a brief synopsis of the current legislative context associated with the
introduction of WSUD in the UK. It summarises the key elements of regulation across the water
cycle that impact WSUD and examines the influence of future trends in policy on WSUD.

5.1 Legislative context

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

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

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

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

5.2 European legislation

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

66 Water Framework Directive (WFD)

66 Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD)
66 Flooding Directive (FD)
66 Bathing Waters Directive
66 Habitats Directive.

In terms of WSUD a few key themes emerge:

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

40 Creating water sensitive places

is to manage water better across the whole water cycle and in this context there would appear to be
close alignment with the principles of WSUD. However, the European Commission (EC) is also aware
of cases in which policy consistency between WFD objectives and sectoral policies, such as energy and
agriculture, is not aligned. This is looking to be addressed through the Blueprint for Water, which is 1
discussed later in this scoping study. The WFD provides the legislative driver for an integrated approach
to water management. The first cycle of RBMPs is complete, and the development of the second cycle of
the RBMPs (due to be completed by 2015) with the focus on Significant Water Management Issues has
the potential to facilitate further integration across the water cycle. In particular, the identification of
significant water management issues during the consultation phase on the RBMP in the second half of
2013, could consider WSUD-led responses.
2
Water resources: the WFD looks to promote the sustainable use of water, it requires that sustainable
levels of abstraction from rivers to ensure the minimum flows necessary to support algae, plants, fish and
macro-invertebrates whose presence confers good ecological status on a water body. Reduced abstraction
and more stringent discharge consents are likely to lead to wider adoption of demand management
measures, including water recycling and reuse. The UWWTD also requires that waste water should be
reused ‘whenever appropriate’.
3
The EC’s White Paper sets out a framework to reduce the EU’s vulnerability to the effect of climate
change, including a potential intensification of extreme events such as floods and droughts. The impact
assessment carried out for the White Paper concluded that land use and land management measures
that strengthen the resilience of water and environmental resources had the potential for providing
cost-effective adaptation to climate change through increases in water retention by soil and ecosystems.
It also noted that such measures, which are consistent with WSUD, may provide multiple benefits in the
form of water resource retention, water self-purification, biodiversity benefits, flood management and 4
soil improvements. The assessment concluded that the current administrative setups do not seem to be
geared to take full advantage of this potential. This is an issue that is also being explored within the
Blueprint for Water (EC, 2012).

5.3 UK policy and strategy

5
Water White Paper and Draft Water Bill
The UK Government’s Water White Paper (Defra, 2011b) represents its response to three major reviews
of the water sector:

1 Cave (2009) Review of competition and innovation in water markets (The Cave Report).
2 Walker (2009) Review of charging for household water and sewerage services (Walker Review).
6
3 Gray (2011) Review of Ofwat and consumer representation in the water sector (Gray Review).

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

66 the introduction of a package of reforms to extend competition in the water sector by increasing
7
choice for business customers and public sector bodies and by making the market more attractive to
new entrants
66 encouraging water companies to introduce social tariffs to support vulnerable customers
66 with the Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and Ofwat, the provision of clearer
guidance to water companies on planning for the long-term, and keeping demand down.
8
Defra (2011b) represents a call to action for the water industry to protect the environment while still
providing water of good quality for an increasing population. It focuses on finding opportunities to

CIRIA, C724 41
reduce river abstraction and providing ways to incentivise less wasteful use of water. The paper seeks to
address the issues of pollution by a ‘catchment based approach’ and aims to tackle over-abstraction from
rivers by providing better incentives for the suitable management of abstractions. This is a significant
step towards the UK Government’s longer term objective to reform water abstraction, as introduced by
HM Government (2011). In terms of WSUD the document recognises the potential of working within
catchments and across stakeholders to manage water better: “Catchment-sized projects are local projects,
making use of local networks, tapping into local enthusiasm, addressing local concerns. Working at a catchment
level enables all those with an interest to see how they can tackle water issues together, in a way that not only
improves water quality but also delivers benefits to the whole area” (Defra, 2011b).

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

Natural Environment White Paper

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

66 protecting and improving the natural environment

66 growing a green economy
66 reconnecting people and nature
66 international and EU leadership.

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

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

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

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

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

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

42 Creating water sensitive places

66 developing an evidence base on mechanisms that will encourage innovation and a longer term shift
towards a system that recognises the value of the water resource available to Wales
66 promoting the deployment of SuDS to help ease the surface water burden on the sewerage system
and alleviate flood risk 1
66 promoting water efficiency through products and behavioural change linking messages on water
efficiency with climate change communications campaign in the context of living more sustainably
66 recognising that the WFD can support a more integrated, whole catchment approach to water
management
66 highlighting the impact of diffuse pollution on water quality, with a need for solutions to tackle the
problem in both rural and urban areas. 2
Sustaining a living Wales green paper
This green paper, published in 2012, explores a new approach to the management of natural resources
in Wales, recognising that one of the main challenges Wales faces in the 21st century is to find ways
of securing a healthy, resilient and productive environment that delivers for society as a whole. It also
recognises the importance of a regulatory and management approach having a strong spatial or place
3
based dimension because “the best use of land or water will vary hugely from place to place”.

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

Building a hydro nation – a consultation 4

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

66 Scotland’s expertise in governance of water resources will be recognised internationally and

Scotland will have partnered with other nations in developing their water governance framework
5
66 Scotland’s water industry will be known for its transformation in performance and for low carbon
sustainable approaches
66 Scotland’s research community will participate in international research programmes contributing
solutions to important issues
66 the value of water resources to the economy will be increasingly realised through the development
and marketing of technologies and services and the attraction of water intensive activities from
areas of water stress. 6
The focus of the consultation paper (Scottish Government 2012) is on water resources and delivering
economic gain, raising Scotland’s international profile and delivering on knowledge and research. Water
efficiency is referred to in the context of providing climate change mitigation.

Climate change 7
Following the Stern Review in 2005 the UK Government signalled a need for a clear strategic approach
to climate change and produced a legislative framework in the Climate Change Act 2008 (DECC, 2008).
The main provisions of this Act included a commitment to an 80 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions by 2050 and 26 per cent reduction of CO2 emissions by 2020. The UK Low Carbon Transition
Plan (DECC, 2009), published in July 2009, outlines the policies and proposals that will be put in place
to decarbonise the UK economy.
8
The Energy Act 2011 provided for a change in the provision of energy efficiency measures. In particular
it introduced the Green Deal Initiative, which is a new financing framework to enable the provision of

CIRIA, C724 43
fixed improvements to the energy efficiency of households and non-domestic properties, funded by a
charge on energy bills that avoids the need for consumers to pay upfront costs.

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

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

66 water resources
66 leakage targets
66 water efficiency
66 water quality and treatment
66 maintaining serviceability
66 drainage.

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

Climate Change Strategy for Wales

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

66 the current scientific evidence about climate change and the impacts we might expect to see in
Wales and across the world
66 the need for urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to prepare for the impacts of
climate change
66 the role in leading and supporting action on tackling climate change, and the roles of other
organisations in taking action
66 how the Strategy supports the Sustainable Development Scheme One Wales: One Planet (Welsh
Government, 2009), and how both together will help deliver Welsh Government’s vision of Wales in
the year 2050
66 the key target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by three per cent per year in areas Welsh
Government control.

Flood risk management

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

44 Creating water sensitive places

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

The Act aims to create a healthier environment, better services and greater protection for people and
their communities and business, consistent with the principles of WSUD. The Act will affect water cycle
management by:
1
66 delivering improved security, service and sustainability of water for people and their communities
66 clarifying who is responsible for managing all sources of flood risk
66 protecting vital water supplies by enabling water companies to control more non-vital uses of water
during droughts
66 encouraging more sustainable forms of drainage in new developments to make it easier to resolve 2
misconnections to sewers.

One of the main outcomes that will affect water cycle management in new developments is the shift
from building flood defences to flood risk management. Water on site will need greater consideration
especially as the Act ends the automatic right for a new development to connect to the sewer system for
surface drainage. Instead there will be the requirement to use SuDS to manage surface water.
3
Flood Risk Management Act (Scotland) 2009
This Act introduces a more sustainable and modern approach to flood risk management in Scotland and
creates a more joined up and co-ordinated process to manage flood risk at a national and local level.
Specific measures within the Act include:

66 a framework for co-ordination and co-operation between all organisations involved in flood risk
management 4
66 the assessment of flood risk and preparation of flood risk management plans
66 new responsibilities for Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Scottish Water and local
authorities in relation to flood risk management
66 a revised, streamlined process for flood protection schemes
66 new methods to enable stakeholders and the public to contribute to managing flood risk.
5
Guidance on delivering sustainable flood risk management has been published alongside the bill
(Scottish Government 2011). It talks inter alia about a new approach involving more collaboration across
agencies, a greater role for communities in managing the risks they face and a more integrated approach
to managing urban water.

Planning and development

6
England
Planning policy statements
In England, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (DCLG, 2012b) was published in March
2012. The rationalised planning policy in England contains much less detail in relation to water cycle
management. Within the NPPF, planning and development decisions are to be informed by the delivery
of Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRA). The framework focuses on the effect of new development
on flood risk and advises that SuDS should be given priority with references to the Flood and Water 7
Management Act 2012. The NPPF replaces the previous Planning Policy Statements (PPSs), which
contained almost 1300 pages of planning guidance.

Localism and local decision making

The UK Coalition Government in 2010 introduced an agenda of localism and decentralisation
with decisions and accountability being proactively passed down from central government to local
communities and local government. 8
The Decentralisation and the Localism Bill (DCLG, 2010) lists six actions for every department and
every level of government to:

CIRIA, C724 45
66 lift the burden of bureaucracy
66 empower communities to do things their way
66 increase local control of public finance
66 diversify the supply of public services
66 open up government to public scrutiny
66 strengthen accountability to local people.

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

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

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

Water cycle studies

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

66 water resources
66 water quality
66 flood risk.

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

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

46 Creating water sensitive places

Chapter 4 of the policy framework in Planning Policy Wales notes that good design is important to
ensure that areas offer high environmental quality, including open and green spaces. Landscape
considerations are identified as an integral part of the design process and “can make a positive contribution
to environmental protection and improvement, for example to biodiversity, climate protection, air quality and the 1
protection of water resources”.

Chapter 12 addresses infrastructure and services and states that:

66 development plans should promote increased efficiency and demand management

66 design approaches and techniques that improve water efficiency and minimise adverse effects
should be encouraged 2
66 a catchment wide perspective should be taken including the use of SuDS.

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

Scotland
Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) is a statement of Scottish Government policy on nationally important 3
land use matters. It was published in February 2010 and consolidates a series of topic specific policy
statements into a single, more concise statement. The SPP currently refers flood risk and drainage
and sets out aspirations for the creation of high quality sustainable places, and increased sustainable
economic growth. The Policy recognises that development can sometimes be constrained by a lack of
water supply or waste water infrastructure capacity and highlights the need for stakeholders to work
together to identify the best practicable option to accommodate the development. The Policy supports
the adoption of SuDS on new development to manage flood risk and water quality impacts. 4
A review of the SPP was launched in 2012 and it is likely that water related Scottish Planning Advise
Notes (PAN) will be consolidated into one document, potentially including reference to GI.

In 2012 the Scottish Government published the results of a consultation on architecture and
placemaking. The consultation was wide ranging, but in the context of WSUD it is pertinent to note
that one of the main themes emerging was around working in partnership with communities to deliver 5
sustainable places, while recognising the challenge of managing expectations in the current economic
climate. Other responses highlighted the role of GI, the need to raise awareness of good practice in
placemaking and the importance of taking a more holistic approach to delivering environmentally
sustainable places, moving away from the narrow focus on energy efficiency.

Buildings and sustainability standards

6
From a buildings perspective the Building Regulations and the Water Regulations control water using
appliances and include reference to rainwater harvesting systems and SuDS.

Building Regulations
In the UK, these regulations are included in the Building Act 1984 updated by the Building Regulations
2010 for England and Wales, Building (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Building (Scotland) Regulations
2004 for Scotland and the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012. In Wales the power to revise 7
and update Building Regulations was transferred to the Welsh Government in 2012. The first proposed
changes are intended to support the delivery of zero carbon new builds. Following a recent Welsh
Government consultation there were some proposals to remove the requirements for some developments
to comply with the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH).

The Approved Document G of the Building Regulations in England and Wales has since 2010 control the
water efficiency in buildings (HM Government, 2000a). 8
Part G makes reference to the ‘water calculator’ for domestic buildings. If a designer wishes to use low
water efficiency fittings (such as high flow rate showerheads and larger baths) then they must consider

CIRIA, C724 47
water savings elsewhere including the fitment of rainwater harvesting and greywater reuse. As water
efficiency standards are tightened more use of rainwater harvesting systems to ‘offset’ high water using
appliances and equipment.

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

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

1 Infiltration.
2 Discharge to a watercourse.
3 Discharge to a surface water sewer.

However, detention and attenuation are not explicitly mentioned.

Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH)

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

The CSH covers nine categories of sustainable design:

66 energy and CO2 emissions (mandatory)

66 water (mandatory)
66 materials (mandatory)
66 surface water runoff (mandatory)
66 waste (mandatory)
66 pollution
66 health and well-being (mandatory)
66 management
66 ecology.

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

BRE Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM)

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

New and emerging British Standards for water management

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

5.4 Future direction

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

48 Creating water sensitive places

of water building on the achievements of the WFD. Across the UK there is likely to be an increased
focus on diffuse pollution, including urban diffuse pollution, and there is a clear aspiration to work in
partnership to deliver multi-objective benefits. Regulation of the water sector in England and Wales is
also likely to push the industry into exploring new ways of working across the water cycle, potentially 1
in collaboration with others. In England, as noted previously, there is likely to be a focus on localism
whereas in Wales the recent and planned policy development around housing and planning are pushing
a strong regeneration agenda. These themes are discussed as follows:

66 the Blueprint for Water

66 water regulation (England and Wales)
66 developing diffuse pollution strategies 2
66 partnership
66 the regeneration agenda (Wales)

EC Blueprint for Water

In late 2012 the European Commission published its Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s waters. The overall
objective of the Blueprint is to improve EU water policy to ensure good quality water for all authorised
users. It will encourage a move towards ‘prevention and preparedness’ and will look to strike a better
3
balance between demand and supply. Some of the main policy measures relevant to WSUD include:

66 severity and frequency of droughts will increase in the future: to reduce the social, economic and
environmental impacts, there is a need for prevention and preparedness/response actions
66 buildings and water using appliances should take into account the need for water efficiency.
Labelling, performance rates, requirements for water efficiency and the best available technology 4
(BAT) concept are possible measures that can assist to reduce water waste, and give this
contribution to possible water stress
66 leakages in water infrastructure are especially a challenge in areas that are water stressed or at
the risk of being so. It implies a high (and increasing) shadow price of water that should call for
action to reduce leakages. Managing the access to finance could be a means of promoting such
investments, and development of better and joint methods for assessing leakages could enhance
transparency and support investment decisions 5
66 water reuse is a possible measure to reduce the pressure on water quantities in water stressed areas.
Without compromising public health, standards and certification guidelines could be measures that
could ensure a higher level of water reuse
66 assessing the costs and benefits of inaction and of water related measures are essential to develop
pricing schemes that take consider the effects of the different water uses on water services
including on environment, nature and ecosystems services. 6
Water regulation
The direction of economic water regulation in England and Wales is outlined in Ofwat’s discussion
document Beyond limits (Ofwat, 2010). The document identifies a shift in focus for water companies to
ensure that they deliver on the broader outcomes that customers and wider society value rather than
prescribing detailed inputs and outputs. In Ofwat’s associated discussion paper (Ofwat, 2011b) potential
outcomes identified include: 7
66 environmental sustainability
66 reduced carbon emissions
66 sustainable use of water resources.

This shift in focus potentially allows water companies the freedom to be able to invest money into
projects undertaken by others (such as local authorities, Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales) 8
that would result in a net benefit to the water company. These measures may include elements of WSUD
that could positively affect the water companies, for example reducing flows to the sewerage system.
Overall the direction of travel appears to be towards more flexibility, innovation and incentivisation

CIRIA, C724 49
within the sector. This, together with localism and the growing acknowledgement of the importance of
partnerships, could herald a new approach to managing the water cycle.

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

Developing diffuse pollution strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

66 industrial estates
66 small sewage discharges (private)
66 drainage misconnections
66 surface water drainage from developed areas
66 livestock management
66 land management
66 storage – slurry, fuel, oils and chemicals
66 mine waters.

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

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

50 Creating water sensitive places

Partnership
The new Defra Partnership Funding policy (Defra, 2012a) places increased emphasis on partnership
approaches. There is an increasing opportunity for stakeholders to build partnerships to deliver multi-
objective benefits, potentially including WSUD.
1
The option for local planning authorities to introduce a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), which
came into force in 2010, complements this approach. It is a tariff-based approach that allows local
planning authorities to raise funds from developers and can be spent on a wide range of infrastructure
that is needed because of development. This includes transport schemes, flood defences, schools, health
and social care facilities, parks, green spaces and leisure centres. The levy’s rate should be set in a
‘charging schedule’ that will be based on an assessment of infrastructure needs in the local plan.
2
The Regeneration Agenda (Wales)
In May 2012 the Welsh Government published its White Paper (Welsh Government, 2012), which sets out
an ambitious programme of action for the remainder of this term of government. Welsh Government’s
regeneration policies encompass a range of integrated activities. These aim to reverse economic, social
and physical decline in order to achieve lasting improvement, in areas where market forces will not be
sufficient to achieve this without some support from government.
3
The White Paper describes several proposals for new legislation and other, non-legislative, action, which
includes plans to:

66 increase the supply of new homes by:

66 7500 new affordable homes – 500 will be co-operative homes and 500 will be built on surplus
public sector sites 4
66 bringing 5000 empty properties back into use.
66 improve the quality of existing homes, including their energy efficiency, through the Welsh
Housing Quality Standard (Welsh Government, 2002) and other mechanisms.

This regeneration agenda provides a real opportunity for WSUD to be an integral part of the delivery
of the White Paper. Aligned to this is the intent of the Welsh Government to publish a White Paper
and Planning Bill in 2013. In advance of the Bill an Independent Advisory Group (IAG) has reviewed 5
potential future roles and responsibilities. In particular the IAG recommends that water and sewerage
companies are made statutory consultees to the planning system, including local development
planning. This could help a more integrated dialogue on management of the water cycle within the
regeneration process.

5.5 Regulatory barriers and opportunities 6

Barriers

The results from the questionnaires undertaken as part of this scoping study indicate that 42 per
cent of respondents consider regulation as a barrier to applying WSUD. There is clearly a view that
regulation may impede the delivery of WSUD. Specific legislative and regulatory barriers were not
identified, but there is an absence of legislation that recognises the full interactions of a truly holistic 7
water-based ecosystem. The framework of legislation that currently exists is very fragmented and
opportunities to broaden the approach have not been taken up. The Flood and Water Management
Act 2010 is an ambitious piece of legislation that attempts to resolve many of the issues raised by the
Pitt Review. Although the Act brings in a shift in focus to f lood risk management, and reinforces
the use of sustainable drainage, it fails to promote a more holistic approach to managing water, and
f lood risk.
8

CIRIA, C724 51
Opportunities

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

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

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

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

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

Summary
66 there is a vast amount of regulation in the UK that could affect the delivery of WSUD
66 there is similar legislation in all four countries, however, there are variations across England, Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland
66 many new pieces of legislation have been recently produced enabling and encouraging the use of WSUD in design,
including the Floods and Water Management Act (2010) and catchment-led regulations such as the WFD and the FD
66 42 per cent of the respondents to the questionnaire believe that regulation (or the lack of it) presents barriers to
the implementation of WSUD in the UK
66 the framework of national legislation is very fragmented. While the national strategies support sustainability at the
generic level they are weak on integrating policy across the water cycle
66 potential changes from outputs to outcomes present opportunities for more partnership approaches, supported by
engagement between stakeholders earlier in the planning cycle
66 while the application of regulation can create barriers, the flexibility within the latest legislation does give more
opportunities at the local level
66 in England, ‘localism’ and the increasing influence of the catchment, will support more local choices for
communities and the possibility of projects that deliver the additional benefits that WSUD seeks to provide.

52 Creating water sensitive places

6 Building a case for action
1
This chapter explores the multiple benefits that can result from WSUD and reviews, at a
high level, the type and quantification of those benefits. Case studies are included to support
the evidence base. Individual profiles for seven organisations that are likely to have an
important role in delivering WSUD are explored, to understand the benefits that
are likely to be more significant in supporting their respective business cases.
The building blocks of a potential business case are then presented.
2

6.1 Context
Developing a business case for WSUD can be challenging, particularly as some of the approaches are in
their infancy. The direct and indirect multifunctional benefits need to be assessed and quantified in a
way that allows them to properly inform decision making. Also, the alignment of costs and benefits may 3
not be straightforward, as costs incurred within one sector, or by one partner, in one catchment area may
result in benefits elsewhere.

High-level economic benefits of environmental actions can be demonstrated at international, national

and city-region scale. For example, the Stern Report (Stern 2006), the National Ecosystems Services
Assessment (Watson and Albon, 2011) and the Leeds City Region mini-stern (Gouddon et al, 2011). While
these can be useful at macro-economic level to attract investment and drive policy agendas, they can also 4
be quite abstract and the economic benefits dispersed across many stakeholders, some of whom may be
driven by economics more than others. The business case is not the same for all stakeholders, and for any
one party to realise meaningful economic returns, co-operation with others will be required.

The primary drivers for the various bodies to be attracted towards WSUD in a struggling economy
are, in reality, likely to be economic, but there are other reasons too. Where these exist it is important
to understand what these are and explore how and why different parties have been motivated to 5
take action. The multiple benefits need to be understood and quantified while avoiding the risks of
abstraction and double counting. Workshops conducted as part of this scoping study have started to
identify stakeholders and their priorities. This chapter builds on this work to look more closely at the
key stakeholders, with a view to trying to understand, benefits and ‘what’s in it for them?’ Some will
be driven more by the need for a business case than others, but in reality all will need any actions to
stack up economically. This may mean economic growth, for others profit, or covering their costs and
breaking even, and for others, mobilising sufficient resources in kind. They are the mixture drivers that 6
enable people to justify potential actions to others (trustees, executive boards, external funders etc).

6.2 Understanding value

The value of the economic, environmental and social benefits derived from assets and services associated
with WSUD can be considered:
7
66 in monetary terms – using economic valuation techniques
66 quantitatively – referencing, for example jobs, hectares of land, visitors
66 qualitatively – referencing evidence for economic societal or environmental benefit and other
externalities, but where the scientific basis for quantification and/or monetisation is not yet
sufficiently robust.
8
Economic appraisal plays a major role in public sector decision making. This is becoming of increasing
significance in the commissioning of infrastructure projects. In general there is usually an economic
driver underpinning these projects and their potential contribution to jobs and economic productivity

CIRIA, C724 53
is generally the focus of any business case. There are three aspects of decision making that explain this
(NEF, 2010):

1 Economic benefits are easier to measure and quantify and generally have established market prices.
This means that they are more likely to be accounted for while non-traded effects such as those on
public health, or natural habitats are harder to monetise. This often means that they are excluded
completely, or under-valued. Even where artificial markets are introduced, as with carbon, prices
vary and can be subject to controversy. A report by HM Government (2011) states that “too many of
the benefits we derive from nature are not properly valued. The value of natural capital is not fully captured
in the prices customers pay, in the operations of our markets or in the accounts of government or business”
2 Generally, appraisals focus on one stakeholder, usually the government, or the economy. When
this occurs the economic returns (increases in tax or personal income, and economic growth) will
take on greater importance relative to everything else than they perhaps merit. The assumption
is that these are good proxies for wider welfare. In some instances this may be true but not in all.
Forms of measurement are often based on narrow economic theories, or on causal relationships
that have not been empirically established. In addition, they are often incapable of taking into
account the ‘externalities’ linked to any economic gains – the social and environmental costs.
Such costs are often borne by specific groups, and these are not represented in the analysis as
separate stakeholders.
3 The imperative to maximise economic growth, jobs and productivity is paramount for decision
makers. The political culture makes it difficult for anyone to question the efficiency of these
arguments even where the costs generated in other areas are high.

Inclusion of ‘externalities’ in cost benefit analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

54 Creating water sensitive places

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

So one of the main challenges in delivering WSUD schemes is to find ways to quantify multifunctional
1
benefits, and importantly, bring them into mainstream practice to facilitate partnership delivery.

6.3 The benefits of WSUD

During the development of this Scoping Study the Water Sensitive Urban Design concept was tested
with practitioners to determine whether it is a readily applicable and beneficial process in the UK. A 2
collaborative approach was used in three workshops conducted during this study and participants were
asked to articulate and visualise what WSUD could bring to the UK when applied in various contexts
and at various scales (see Chapter 2). The workshops demonstrated that WSUD concepts could be readily
applied to all scales and to a variety of contexts, and that the benefits of such an approach were both
clear and wide-ranging. When asked to re-imagine a water sensitive place, participants identified several
urban design interventions, both spatial and material, and some that made fundamental changes to the
built form. A common theme was a greater celebration of water in the public realm, lending a strong 3
identity to communities and creating a more direct relationship between people and water resources.

The workshops and the questionnaires also explored views on the benefits of WSUD. The vast majority
of respondents highlighted reduction of flood risk as an important benefit. Other commonly identified
benefits include the creation of more attractive places, and the delivery of GI alongside other ‘urban
greening’ benefits such as support of urban food production, community engagement and mitigation
of the urban heat island effect. Improvement of water quality, water security and ecosystem health were 4
also identified. Around half of the respondents expected cost savings to result from a WSUD approach
and there was a general recognition that delivery of WSUD would require greater cross-disciplinary and
partnership working.

Identifying the benefits

There are several studies that have categorised the benefits associated with GI and the management of
5
urban water. Example references, mainly from the UK, include:

66 Grey to green (CABE, 2009)

66 The value of green infrastructure (Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2011)
66 The green infrastructure valuation toolkit (Natural Economy Northwest et al, 2009)
66 Green infrastructure guidance (Natural England, 2009) 6
66 A business case for best practice urban stormwater management (Water by Design, 2010).

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

For the purposes of this scoping study and the workshops it was considered that it would be helpful to
7
rationalise the benefits within a framework appropriate for water led interventions. Following a review of
the guides previously highlighted (see Table 6.1), 10 areas of benefit were identified:

66 water quality
66 flood risk management
66 food and urban agriculture 8
66 energy/carbon
66 wastewater

CIRIA, C724 55
66 water supply
66 health and well-being
66 economy
66 place and community
66 habitat and biodiversity
66 microclimate adaptation.

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

Green infrastructure and

Green infrastructure
surface water management
Benefit used A business case
in this study Green
The value of green for best practice
Grey to green GI valuation toolkit infrastructure
infrastructure urban stormwater
guidance
management
Flood attenuation
Flood risk Better flood Water and flood
and water resource Reduces flooding
management protection management
management
Reducing water
Reduces water
Water and flood treatment needs
Water quality Water pollution treatment needs
management Improvements in
Improves water quality
property values
Energy/ Climate change Energy production Reduces atmospheric
Biomass
carbon mitigation and conservation CO2

Increases available
Water supply water supply, increases
groundwater recharge
Premium on land
Land and property
values, avoided
Sustainable values, investment,
Economy development costs,
economy labour productivity,
tourism, industry
tourism
(seafood)

Avoided ecosystem
Habitat provision management costs,
Habitat and Support for
Biodiversity and access to Improves habitat watercourse and
biodiversity biodiversity
nature wetland health,
ecosystem services

Food and Food production

urban Land management and productive Urban agriculture
agriculture landscapes

Reduces water
treatment needs,
Avoided watercourse
Wastewater improves water
rehabilitation costs
quality, reduces grey
infrastructure needs

Cleaner air, Health and well- Access, recreation,

Health and Improves air quality,
improved being, recreation movement and Recreation
well-being reduces noise pollution
public health and leisure leisure

Improves aesthetics,
A beautiful Landscape setting Area’s general
Place and Place and improves community
well designed and context for liveability and
community communities cohesion, cultivates
place development amenity, education
education opportunities

Microclimate Climate change Reduces urban heat

Cooler cities Cooling effect Urban cooling
adaptation adaptation island

56 Creating water sensitive places

Quantifying the benefits

There is a considerable body of work available that reviews the evidence base for quantifying the wider
benefits of GI and surface water management, including several publications previously referred to. It
1
is not the intent of this scoping study to present these in detail but to provide an overview of the current
position. Natural England have completed a detailed research review of the economic benefits, including
the wider benefits to society (see box below). There is also an evolving strand within the Defra-led Green
Infrastructure Partnership to look at and place a value on GI.

Microeconomic evidence for the benefits of

investment in the environment – review 2
This literature research review was focused around GI interventions, based on
an ecosystems approach. It was commissioned to help Natural England staff
make the case to local authorities and local enterprise partnerships on the
case for GI. Each section provides a critical review of the literature and where
there are monetised studies these are identified. The review examines the
evidence of beneficial effect on economic competitiveness, health and society,
regulatory services and provisioning services.
Natural England (2011)
3

There is clearly considerable overlap between GI and WSUD in delivering the range of benefits
that these interventions can bring. For water management the GI-based frameworks recognise the
potential benefits associated with flood management and some of the more intangible benefits around
amenity and community, but do not account for the potential positive effects on other aspects of water
management associated with the supply and treatment of water. As noted any WSUD-based assessment 4
framework needs to take these into account. Quantifiable benefits associated with, for example, a
reduced CAPEX and OPEX investment (see box below), to manage the water supply/demand balance or
deferred investment on wastewater treatment infrastructure resulting from a reduction in load will be
important in developing the business case (particularly for water and sewerage companies (WaSCs).

Carbon and rainwater harvesting

5
The project evaluated the carbon implication of rainwater harvesting as part
of an integrated water management and urban drainage solution. Normally
rainwater harvesting solutions tend to have a greater whole life costs when
compared to carbon cost of supplying mains water. However, this comparison
does not take into consideration the carbon implication of any alternative water
supply solution, nor does it take into consideration the carbon implication of
surface water management. The project report provided a methodology to
evaluate and compare the carbon implication of integrated water management
solution with existing conditions. It concluded that in most cases using
rainwater to displace mains supply reduced the carbon footprint.
6
Environment Agency (2011)

Table 6.2 provides a high level initial overview of the 11 areas of benefit potentially resulting from the
introduction of WSUD. Each benefit is explained in more detail, and a short commentary is provided on
measuring the benefit, based on the findings of the literature review.
7

CIRIA, C724 57
Table 6.2 Potential Benefits of WSUD

Flood risk management

WSUD can be used to improve the management of surface water, by reducing the effect on the natural hydrologic
behaviour of catchments. This could primarily be delivered through the integration of SuDS and drainage exceedence to:
66 retain and delay flows
66 potentially reduce downstream peak flood flows
66 reduce the volume of runoff
66 reduce the flow rate of runoff.

WSUD also includes the design and planning of places to be more adaptable to flooding, such as buildings, infrastructure
and public realm in flood risk areas.

Measuring the benefits

66 the value of the benefits is highly dependent on local contextual factors, including local hydrology within the
catchment, the current level of flood risk and the characteristics of the water infrastructure system
66 average cost of flood damage per property is between £20k and £30k, using Environment Agency data
66 benefits could be quantified at a local level with sufficient investigation based on an estimation of reduced flood
damage
66 the 2007 floods killed 13 people and cost over £3bn. The frequency of extreme storms is predicted to increase. Any
reduction in potential flood risk will equate to significant savings in flood damages and improved safety of the public.

Water quality
Many WSUD components, particularly where natural, vegetative or bioretention treatment systems are used, provide
opportunities to improve water quality and treat diffuse water pollution by a variety of mechanisms such as sedimentation,
filtration, biological degradation etc. WSUD components can also reduce runoff in the catchment, which reduces the
amount of surface water getting into watercourses (reducing erosion and pollutant potential) and getting into sewers
adding to subsequent treatment requirements and possible CSO spills.

Measuring the benefits

66 the evidence base for the merits of managing erosion and enhancing water quality is dependent on other ecosystem
services, particularly regulating, supporting or provisioning services
66 benefits are associated with reduced infrastructure and operational costs for treating water at wastewater and water
treatment works
66 there are wider recreational benefits of having higher quality watercourses and waterbodies. There are a number of
studies in the USA looking at increases in the value of properties overlooking waterbodies where GI has been delivered
to improve water quality (CNT, 2011)
66 there is good evidence that wetlands bordering rivers are an effective method of managing diffuse pollution like
nitrogen and phosphorous (Gilliam, 1994), and metals (Gambrell, 1994).

Energy/carbon
GI associated with WSUD can remove greenhouse gas (GHG) from the atmosphere and sequester them over the long-term.
Shading and insulation effects can result in reduced use of mechanical cooling in the summer.
Decreasing the treatment and supply of water can reduce energy use associated with water supply, pumping and
wastewater treatment. The appropriate use of local alternative water may have a lower carbon content, particularly in
remote areas. Also, local harvesting of rainwater or runoff may have a lower carbon content.

Measuring the benefits

66 pricing mechanisms exist for carbon, including the social cost of carbon and the non-traded price of carbon. The non-
traded price of carbon can be used to estimate the ‘value’ of the energy savings
66 the effectiveness of carbon storage in soil depends on several factors, including soil type, condition and use. Current
evidence does not yet allow robust estimates to be made of the carbon storage capacity of different types of GI, and
are likely to be relatively minor unless linked to a wider GI programme
66 water supply and wastewater energy relative savings will be locally specific and could be quantified at a local level
based on an estimate of reduced demand/load.

58 Creating water sensitive places

Table 6.2 Potential Benefits of WSUD (contd)

Water supply

WSUD can lead to the reduction in consumption of mains potable water and can support demand management through 1
the use of water efficient fixtures and fittings. WSUD could also encourage the use of decentralised alternative water
supplies (rainwater and wastewater harvesting for reuse), which will reduce pressures on centralised water supplies. This
has the potential to reduce overall demand for potable water supply and treatment and could influence the need for new
supplies to be sourced in the future, resulting in benefits associated with deferred capital investment. Potential OPEX
savings associated with the reuse of water to non-potable standard.

Measuring the benefits

66 AISC (average incremental social cost) of water has been developed as part of the water resource planning and are
widely accepted by the water industry and regulators as the main method of comparing the costs and benefits of 2
various schemes
66 some generic data on AISC is available (Ofwat, 2011a). Good evidence of benefits for water retrofitting schemes, but
data on wider non-potable, rainwater harvesting interventions is less extensive
66 benefits will be dependent on local regional and contextual factor, requiring knowledge of the local system
66 evidence base for the relative merits of centralised and decentralised systems in terms of CAPEX, OPEX and risk is not
extensive.

3
Economy
Much of the evidence around economic competitiveness associated with natural capital is based on holistic impacts.
Potential multiple benefits associated with:
66 land and property values: covering proximity effects associated with views of quality urban green spaces and water
features as well as wider perceptions of an area or settlement, linked to quality of place
66 inward investment: again linked to proximity effects of the commercial value of property close to quality urban spaces
and wider regional effects based on perceptions of settlements 4
66 labour productivity: linked to the proximity of green space and overall labour productivity.

Measuring the benefits

66 isolating the impact of green space and natural capital on property values from other factors is complex. A study by
CABE (2005) showed that property professionals expect higher prices for properties with park views, but the benefit
was not quantified
66 open space potentially adds up to three per cent to the value of commercial property This area is difficult to quantify
in purely financial terms, but there are some studies from Australia that show areas that are demonstrably more
sustainable increase property values 5
66 splitting out green space impacts on labour productivity is complex, and the evidence is not directly available.

Habitat and biodiversity

Many of the elements with WSUD, particularly where natural systems are used to manage and treat rainwater or
wastewater, have been found to attract species including birds and invertebrates that are currently being pushed out of
urban areas. Diverse habitats can support a greater diversity of rare bird species and urban ecology, including bees, and
promoting green corridors allows the movement of wildlife within urban areas without interfering with the competing needs 6
of humans.

Measuring the benefits

66 ecosystem services approaches of urban interventions are less mature than other areas such as marginal wetlands
66 qualitative and quantitative approaches associated with habitat area and diversity indexes, such as area, or increase
in area, of local/regional priority BAP habitat types.

7
Food and urban agriculture
Potential opportunity associated with linking local water harvesting to water efficient landscapes, gardens and food
production. Environmental challenges, growing population and economic growth are expected to put a significant strain
on the food production system. WSUD can provide a means to integrate urban agriculture and horticulture with a natural
irrigation or an alternative water supply.

Measuring the benefits

66 benefits dependent on contextual factors
8
66 little direct quantifiable evidence around issues such as community cohesion around the development of gardening groups
66 multiple benefits associated with reduced ‘food miles’, potential reductions in pollutant loadings to water, and public health.

CIRIA, C724 59
Table 6.2 Potential Benefits of WSUD (contd)

Wastewater
A range of benefits including:
66 reduction in runoff from the catchment will reduce the amount of surface water getting into combined sewers,
resulting in fewer spills from combined sewer overflows (CSOs). With reduced pollutant loads
66 reduction in surface water volumes within sewerage networks, freeing capacity or potentially deferring investment
66 reduction in wastewater volumes transferred to wastewater treatment associated with either water efficiency or
greywater/wastewater recycling, reducing OPEX or deferring investment
66 reduced pollutant loads (nutrients) at wastewater treatment works affecting potential OPEX and CAPEX costs.

Measuring the benefits

66 indicative ‘rule of thumb’ for providing storage to manage CSO spills (£100 000 per m3)
66 potential to locally mine wastewater for reuse
66 potential local infrastructure savings associated with local sewerage connection and rates, values will be influenced locally
66 benefits will be dependent on local regional and contextual factors, requiring knowledge of the local system
66 evidence base for the relative merits of centralised and decentralised systems in terms of CAPEX, OPEX and risk
is not extensive.

Health and well-being

GI can absorb air pollutants such as nitrogen oxide compounds, sulphur oxide compounds, carbon monoxide, carbon
dioxide and other particulate matter.
There are studies that demonstrate a statistically significant correlation between green space and positive physical and
mental health outcomes. There is also evidence that nature promotes recovery from stress and fatigue.
Calming and recreational benefits of proximity to watercourses and water. There are health and well-being benefits directly
linked to the role of GI in microclimate adaptation, for example through shading and temperature control in urban areas.

Measuring the benefits

66 local contextual factors need to be taken into account and generalised findings may not be relevant
66 there is little accessible, existent or concrete valuation data on green space and mental health and well-being.
However, there are a number of studies that show a correlation between the quantity of green space and positive
health outcomes (Natural England, 2011)
66 in the US, ‘recreation and amenity’ and ‘health effects’ contributed US$5.882 and US$17.548 per hectare per year
respectively to the total average of US$29.475 per hectare per year provided by the seven identified ecosystem
services in the various studies (TEEB, 2011).

Place and community

There are strong potential social and community benefits associated with WSUD. Access to, exposure to, and engagement
with water can play a significant role in community well-being, and can bring people together.
Green space linked to water features offers opportunity for increasing social activity and there is evidence from studies
that park spaces can be active agents in improving community relationships and developing a shared sense of belonging.
River and water features can create a sense of place.
Opportunity to ‘daylight’ watercourses and manage water more sensitively above ground.

Measuring the benefits

66 no concrete evidence base for quantifying the impact
66 benefit likely to remain qualitative
66 potential to better understand social benefit through SROI approaches (discussed in Section 6.5).

60 Creating water sensitive places

Table 6.2 Potential Benefits of WSUD (contd)

Microclimate adaptation

Water and vegetation can reduce higher temperatures in several ways: 1

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

WSUD also encompasses the design and planning of places to be more adaptable to flooding.
Local managed water reuse can increase resilience to water scarcity and drought.

Measuring the benefits 2

66 benefits associated with reduced need for cooling, so energy demands on building could be quantified, and various
studies and toolkits are available
66 wider health benefits associated with heat stress and air quality are harder to quantify. Work undertaken in the US as
part of the Philadelphia CSO Plan (Green City, Clean Waters) evaluated the reduction in thermal heat/stress avoided
under different green CSO options and then monetised that value based on standard methods (PWD, 2009)
66 benefits will be dependent on local regional and contextual factors, requiring knowledge of the local system.

3
6.4 Identification and analysis of key stakeholders
Based on the workshop outputs, the following key stakeholders were selected for further analysis. There
were many more stakeholders, and this list will need to be refined during any follow on initiatives, but
for the purposes of this initial scoping exercise the following organisations emerged as those that need to
be engaged as a matter of priority:
4
66 UK Government
66 developers
66 environmental regulators (Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales, SEPA)
66 water companies
66 designers and consultants
66 local community and third sector
5
66 local authorities.

As discussed in Section 6.1, it will be important to build a case for action for each of these organisations.
This means understanding what motivates them and the relative priority they place on delivering each
WSUD benefit. This section takes each of these seven key stakeholders and undertakes a brief analysis
of their particular perspectives and drivers. After a short analysis, a summary diagram is produced for
each stakeholder indicating the overall profile of their interests and what may motivate them to act. An
6
example is given in Figure 6.1.

Sections 6.1 and 6.2 discussed how different stakeholders will build a case for action driven by a different
balance of monetary (£), quantitative (Qt), qualitative (Qu) returns. The grey column to the left of each
diagram indicates the relative importance placed on each of these by that particular stakeholder. The
coloured chart to the right indicates the relative priority placed on the various potential WSUD benefits
discussed in Section 6.3. These diagrams are a starting point for a discussion around building the
7
business case and have informed the evaluation of the overall business case in Section 6.5.

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

From the analysis and summary diagram a set of important needs is identified to help that particular
stakeholder to build a case for action.
8

CIRIA, C724 61
 High priority
Qu

Qt

Habitat and biodiversity

Health and well-being

Place and community

Climate change
Energy/carbon

Wastewater
Low priority

Economy
Flooding

Water

Food
£

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

Note: the bar on the left indicates the priority given to various potential returns (£= direct monetary return, Qt = quantitative return, Qu =
qualitative return). The chart indicates the relative priority given to each potential WSUD benefit

UK Government

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

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

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

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

62 Creating water sensitive places

UK Government and Devolved Administration are placing considerable emphasis on partnership
approaches. This is particularly evident with the new partnership funding context for flood risk
management (Environment Agency, 2012). The costs of many projects are now shared between local and
national funding sources (see Case study 6.1). Partnerships work together to assemble a funding package, 1
to develop, deliver and manage the project and maintain the resulting benefits into the longer term.
Such an approach that allows partners to deliver on multi-functional benefits through collaboration
could be highly relevant to WSUD schemes. The objectives of partnership funding are to better protect
more communities and deliver more benefits by:

66 encouraging total investment to increase beyond levels affordable to central government alone
66 enabling more local choice, and encouraging innovative, cost-effective options so that civil society 2
may play a greater role
66 increasing levels of certainty and transparency over the national funding for individual projects,
while prioritising action for those most at risk and least able to protect or insure themselves.

In particular, funding for surface water flood risk management is now brought within the overall
funding for flood risk management. The new responsibilities of local authorities for managing local
flood risk (including surface water management) now rely on the partnership funding approach 3
being fully embraced by lead local flood authorities and their partners, including the Environment
Agency, Natural Resources Wales, water companies and developers. The latest Defra WFD Statement
(Defra, 2012) places great emphasis on partnership working and partnership solutions that deliver
multi-objective benefits. To some extent this is already being explored with the delivery of flood risk
management schemes and a growing aspiration to deliver more from less (Brouwer et al, 2010).

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

Operating scale Needs

The UK Government regulates and
sets policy at national scale. Though in
England they have recently abolished
regional scale plans and devolved
more power to local authorities, they
still shape the balance of power
between local and central government
making decisions such as to initiate
LEPs and, more recently, local nature
partnerships (LNPs)
5
66 more clarity linking national strategy to local. Need to retain some form of
regional planning, which is vital when implementing integrated catchment-
scale GI and WSUD
66 in England involve LEPs and LNPs
66 ensure that enterprise zones and other areas of relocation do not create
lasting damage to integration of GI
66 support shifts in water regulation and pricing structures through Ofwat
66 cultural shift, to promote wider partnership working 6
66 institutional and regulatory change as part of the move towards WSUD.

Case study 6.1 Partnership funding

Beam Parklands, Dagenham 7

A multi million pound project based in Dagenham, and delivered in a partnership between The Land Trust, Environment
Agency, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and the London Borough of Havering. It attracted multiple funding
sources including a £1.9m endowment from the Homes and Communities Agency’s (HCA) Parklands allocation for the
East London Green Grid and over £1.5m from the European Regional Development Fund. It transformed a derelict
open area into a recreational amenity. It provides flood risk management and includes 12 ha of new habitat including
reedbeds, ponds, wet woodland, lowland fen, traditional orchards and acid grassland.

CIRIA, C724 63
 High priority
Qu

Qt

Habitat and biodiversity

Health and well-being

Place and community

Climate change
Energy/carbon

Wastewater
Low priority

Economy
Flooding

Water

Food
£

Figure 6.2 Indicative balance of priorities for government

Local authority

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

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

“
In England, the local authorities have new responsibilities for local flood
risk management under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. The We feel that the growth
and sustainability and
Act promotes the use of SuDS to manage surface water, and these will be resource efficiency go hand in
required to be adopted and maintained by lead local flood authorities hand. What we don’t want to
through the new SuDS Approval Bodies. The new Defra partnership do is stifle growth in the future,
so it’s being smarter about how
funding policy places great emphasis on local flood risk schemes we plan as well as benefitting
(particularly surface water management) being now eligible for Flood the environment.”
Defence Grant-in-Aid (FDGiA). Previously, some projects were fully funded Simon Bunn
but many were declined. Projects will now be able to proceed by building SuDS engineer, Cambridge
City Council
partnerships and securing funding agreements with other parties such as
developers and water companies.

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

64 Creating water sensitive places

The retrofit project in Hull (see Case study 6.2) is exploring these wider benefits and associated delivery
mechanisms. Recent developments allowing local authorities to invest a proportion of their pension
funds in critical infrastructure may provide opportunities for funding WSUD, but will depend on a
strong demonstrable ROI and projects at the correct scale with credible governance structures in place. 1
Case study 6.2 Exploring partnership funded
landscape retrofit

Hull City Payment for Ecosystems Services (PES) pilot study

A research project is now underway to look at the potential wider benefits that urban and urban fringe green space could
provide to communities in Hull under new community management models. The research is based on a successful bid
to Defra as a PES pilot. The project will explore alternative funding and delivery mechanisms linked to models for energy-
2
saving retrofit of council housing stock and potential effects on job creation and skills development.
The project is led by the flood risk manager, but has drawn in representatives from housing and regeneration, climate
change and sustainability and other council departments. In this respect is an exemplary in demonstrating how the
multifunctional benefits of WSUD will only be disclosed if addressed in an integrated way.

Large scale planning is now undertaken by LEPs that are driven by economics but are interested 3
in potential returns justified through an ecosystems services approach and may emerge as a major
delivery path for co-ordinated interventions, including WSUD. In addition, the UK Government
Natural Environment White Paper emphasis on LNPs may result in them playing a key role as
integrators within England.

In England Public health and well-being are now merged with local authority responsibilities through
the Localism Act 2011. Local flooding responsibilities are now merged through the Flood and Water 4
Management Act 2010. The Green Deal and housing retrofit are also important new activities for
local authorities and their partners. These are positive shifts in a direction that could enable a more
integrated approach to WSUD, but much capacity building will be required in local authorities to
achieve this.

Operating scale Needs

Local authorities, primarily working 66 capacity building in integrated design and interdisciplinary practice 5
at city or district level in England, but 66 integration of SuDS Approval Bodies (in unitary or county authorities) with
wider remit through LEPs, city regions other departments (housing, spatial and economic planning etc)
and LNPs.
66 ensure that planning at catchment and bio-regional scale is not lost because
Necessary engagement at catchment of planning relaxation and localism (particularly in England)
scale – this may be difficult and 66 evidence to support policy, linked to ecosystems services and pilot projects
politically fraught.
66 finance mechanisms for landscape retrofit linked to an extended Green Deal,
WSUD offer opportunity for different investment from pension funds etc
departments working at differing scales 66 capacity building between departments to help integrate planning and policy.
to work in a more integrated way.
6

CIRIA, C724 65
 High priority
Qu

Qt

Habitat and biodiversity

Health and well-being

Place and community

Climate change
Energy/carbon

Wastewater
Low priority

Economy
Flooding

Water

Food
£

Figure 6.3 Indicative balance of priorities for local authorities

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

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

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

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

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

66 Creating water sensitive places

 Case study 6.3 Building a shared language

Interdisciplinary capacity-building workshops

Arup initiated, designed and facilitated a two-day workshop with flood risk managers and delivery teams in Exeter,
1
looking at the benefits of alternative, interdisciplinary approaches to design and involving wider stakeholders on flood
risk management projects. The event was run at the Centre for Contemporary Art and the Natural World (CCANW), in
collaboration with the CIWEM Arts and Environment Network and was based around a real case-study provided by the
Environment Agency. Attendees included environmental scientists, ecologists, engineers, architects, landscape and
urban designers, artists, curators and policy experts and members of regulatory bodies.

4
Scotland
SEPA is a non-departmental public body, accountable through Scottish Ministers to the Scottish
Parliament and is Scotland’s environmental regulator. SEPA is responsible for managing environmental
quality and is also an important player in the new arrangements for managing flood risk in Scotland,
working with the Scottish Government to co-ordinate the involvement of local partnerships and advisory
groups and also defining sustainable policies and actions for flood risk management. Responsibility for 5
managing flood risk in Scotland is shared across SEPA, local authorities, Scottish Water and also the
Scottish Government.

Wales
In Wales, Natural Resources Wales (Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru) is the principal adviser to the Welsh
Government on the environment, enabling the sustainable development of Wales’ natural resources for 6
the benefit of people, the economy and wildlife.

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

The purpose of this new environmental body is to ensure that the natural resources of Wales are 7
sustainably maintained, used and enhanced, now and in the future. They will do this by:

1 Working for the communities of Wales, protecting people and their homes as much as possible
from environmental incidents like flooding and pollution. They will also provide opportunities for
people to learn, use and benefit from Wales’ natural resources.
2 Working for Wales’ economy, enabling the sustainable use of natural resources to support jobs and
enterprise. They will help businesses and developers to understand and consider environmental 8
limits when they make important decisions.

CIRIA, C724 67
3 Working to maintain and improve the quality of the environment for everyone. They will work
towards making the environment and natural resources more resilient to climate change and other
pressures.

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

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

Operating scale Needs

Environmental regulators working at
national, regional and local scale.
Generally engages at larger scale
except through consultation. However
there is a recent drive to encourage
partnership funding, which requires
engagement with smaller-scale
organisations.
66 better integration between capital delivery (mainly finance/engineering led),
with environmental and landscape services
66 expansion of disciplines to include urban planners and sociologists as well
as environmental professionals and landscape architects
66 continued exploration of integration of PES methods into cost-benefit
analyses.

Qu
High priority

Qt
Habitat and biodiversity

Health and well-being

Place and community

Climate change
Energy/carbon

Wastewater
Low priority

Economy
Flooding

Water

Food

Figure 6.4 Indicative balance of priorities for environmental regulators

68 Creating water sensitive places

Water sector

For the most part financial returns influence decisions in the water sector, and while more enlightened
companies recognise the potential effects on the wider economy, such as the study undertaken by
1
Yorkshire Water (2010) these wider effects are not core to the regulated business. Regulated by Ofwat the
majority of water companies are driven by their own pricing and investment cycles, which are relatively
short-term and rarely coincide with political or economic cycles. Welsh Water, is slightly different than
the water companies in England because its parent company Glas Cymru is the only not-for-profit
organisation in the water industry. This means it has no shareholders and profits are either reinvested in
the business or returned to customers.
2
In England and Wales an Ofwat discussion document (Ofwat, 2010) provides a focus for the sector to deliver
broader outcomes that customers and wider society value rather than prescribing detailed inputs and outputs.

As part of these changes Ofwat needs to look at the economic analysis used for developing a business
case. Currently water companies are constrained to five year AMP periods, meaning the economic
analysis does not necessarily incentivise long-term solutions, especially solutions with benefits that are
difficult to quantify in monetary terms. The outcome based approach should seek to find new methods 3
of economic analysis that allow the long-term benefits associated with the outcomes for society to be
quantified. This will enable water companies to provide and approve different types of solutions that
are more in-line with WSUD principles and help partnered approaches. Defra (2012) in their Statement
of Obligations recognises that water and sewerage companies can invest in natural systems to deliver
outcomes, and suggest that payment for ecosystem services could be used to inform options. It is likely
that similar principles will be carried forward in Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland enabling similar
opportunities to develop. 4
A credible, valuation of WSUD is necessary to be coherently included in the regulated business. WSUD
address some supply security, network capacity, surface water management and energy use issues and
may provide new business opportunities.

Defra has also emphasised the responsibilities of water companies for WFD measures, with a
requirement that they include this in their current pricing review. 5
Operating scale Needs
Water companies have tightly defined 66 building more evidence for the business case, including pilot studies
catchment-scale boundaries and 66 exploration of a water-related Green Deal
generally act within these though there
66 more flexibility from regulators, allowing alternative costing methods in
are selected cases of cross-boundary
pricing review, such as longer timescales for returns on investment and
trading and collaboration, which may
increase in future. differential pricing for non-potable water 6
66 more research into centralised versus decentralised systems of water and
Generally focused on centralised wastewater treatment
municipal treatment processes.
66 more research into different approaches to determining costs and benefits.

CIRIA, C724 69
 Qu

High priority
Qt

Habitat and biodiversity

Health and well-being

Place and community

Climate change
Energy/carbon

Wastewater
Low priority

Economy
Flooding

Water

Food
£

Figure 6.5 Indicative balance of priorities for water companies

Developers

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

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

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

70 Creating water sensitive places

 Case study 6.4 Understanding the value of
good water sensitive design

The Canal Rivers Trust and Igloo Developments 1

The Canal and Rivers Trust (formerly British Waterways) own part of the Lancaster Canal in Kendal, and were looking to
restore a three to four mile section of the restoration of the Northern Reaches, extending into Kendal. They undertook
extensive economic and environmental studies as part of a full master plan and area action plan developed with South
Lakeland District Council and Cumbria County Council. Fundamental to this phase of the project was identifying what
Kendal needed in terms of commercial and leisure facilities while allowing landowners and the community to benefit
from the opportunity to develop around a high quality, vibrant water space. Income from the development would fund
restoration of the remaining section. During the economic analysis it was found that construction of houses near to high
quality waterside development could raise values by up to eight per cent.
This project is one example of the general approach taken by the Trust. Their development arm, Igloo, is seen as one of the
2
industry leaders in developing high quality developments that takes far-sighted view on the integration of ‘intangibles’ such
as place and community and other benefits to create sustainable development. They have established a framework for
sustainable development with a sustainable investment committee selected to oversee its delivery.

Considerable existing evidence for the value of WSUD is based around new build developments but
there is larger challenge and opportunity in relation to retrofitting. Developers remain important for
new build spaces and increasingly will take a role in retrofitting properties and surrounding landscapes. 3
To make this beneficial for property developers, work needs to be done to explore similar financial
incentives extending and expanding such mechanisms to cover water efficiency measures, and the
possibility of landscape retrofit at a larger scale.

Operating scale Needs

Industry bodies may play a national and
strategic role in representing developer
interests. However all but the largest
developers are likely to operate at the
level of a specific site and are likely
to interact with wider systems only in
so far as they constrain or open up
opportunities to make a monetary ROI.
66 more case study evidence to support developers to invest upfront in making
quality places linked to WSUD 4
66 linking of WSUD measures to current provision for public open space within
development
66 ensure that SABs are integrated with planning not a side-lined technical
department
66 development of financial incentives, such as the Green Deal in England, to
allow developers to engage in water related retrofit
66 investigate possibility of incentives/obligations linked to insurance industry.
5

Qu
High priority

Qt

6
Habitat and biodiversity

Health and well-being

Place and community

7
Climate change
Energy/carbon

Wastewater
Low priority

Economy
Flooding

Water

Food

8
Figure 6.6 Indicative balance of priorities for developers

CIRIA, C724 71
Local community and third sector organisations

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

Increasingly, it will be a requirement to demonstrate local engagement and mobilisation of local

resources to supplement wider investment, with local communities and the third sector as key players.

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

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

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

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

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

72 Creating water sensitive places

Operating scale
Local communities and third sector
organisations operate at small scale,
with potential to have increasing
influence on larger scale planning
decisions.
Needs
66 further research into what motivates individuals and communities to act in
relation to WSUD related benefits. Working with community groups and third
sector organisations 1
66 possible project with Third Sector Research Centre
66 capacity building among professional and communities
66 mechanisms to demonstrate direct and indirect monetary returns for
individuals through bills, property values and SROI
66 developing models for collaboration between large and small organisations,
including pilot projects to test scenarios.

2
High priority

Qu 3
Habitat and biodiversity

Health and well-being

Place and community

Qt

Climate change
Energy/carbon

Wastewater 4
Low priority

Economy
Flooding

Water

Food

Figure 6.7 Indicative balance of priorities for local community and third sector
5

Case study 6.5 Building a platform for water-related action

(from Incredible Edible Todmordon Unlimited)

This well-known scheme involved citizens in taking actions to plant food when and where possible throughout the public
realm. This was a self-initiated and self-funded action with the main aims being sustainable food production, motivated
by ideas of community and place, health and well-being, habitat and biodiversity. In time the project has also delivered 6
tangible economic benefits through development of small business. Water was not considered important, but as the
project has developed and built political and institutional support at local and national level, it has become something
that could deliver major water-related benefits. This would offer a ready-made platform for injection of water-related
funding into landscape retrofit, with the associated WSUD benefits already being delivered.
For more information go to: www.incredible-edible-todmorden.co.uk

CIRIA, C724 73
Designers and consultants

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

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

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

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

“
Despite these limitations and occasional conflicts of interest, designers and
consultants, professional bodies and academics remain in a unique position It’s impossible to
separate WSUD from
to encourage conversations and knowledge exchange, and by influencing wider sustainability issues.
clients and funding bodies, regulators and politicians where possible. This The modes that we need
community plays a key role in educating, training and developing and to employ for WSUD are
exactly what we need to
disseminating good practice. It is in a strong position to influence change. employ in all other realms
The role of designers and consultants in the planning and urban design for good design.”
process is discussed in Chapter 7. Tim Waterman
Landscape architect
This community may not be in a position to carry out immediate actions and lecturer
without other key bodies such as government, local authorities, water
companies and developers, and perhaps have a strategic long-term view.

Operating scale Needs

Designers and consultants operate at
national and local level, with networks
extending internationally.
Potential role in developing
neighbourhood plans and assisting
‘bottom up’ action
66 consider a WSUD co-ordinating body to assist with integrated conversation
across disciplinary boundaries
66 review disciplinary boundaries and entry criteria (long-term)
66 preparation and dissemination of good practice. Awareness raising and
lobbying all levels of government
66 facilitate long-term culture change towards integrated design.

74 Creating water sensitive places

 High priority
Qu 1

Qt

Habitat and biodiversity

Health and well-being

Place and community

2

Climate change
Energy/carbon

Wastewater
Low priority

Economy
Flooding

Water

Food
£
3
Figure 6.8 Indicative balance of priorities for designers and consultants

Case study 6.6 Developing exemplar guidance and

research (from the LiFE Project)

The LifE project was one of six projects funded by Defra’s Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Innovation 4
Fund. The Innovation Fund seeks to improve future delivery of flood and coastal erosion risk management, by promoting
innovative approaches that contribute towards the development of more holistic and sustainable policy making in the
future.
Two example sites have been suggested, the first at Hackbridge where the suggestion would be to use amenity play
areas as flood storage. The second project is in Peterborough, where there is suggestion to create amenity islands
between development plots to divert flood waters away from homes.
The aim is to help manage and reduce unacceptable levels of flood risk by raising awareness and assisting in promoting
more sustainable development. This should be used by all parties from an early stage in design. This is a great example 5
of interdisciplinary collaboration, supported by government funding to initiate practical and cultural change.
For more information go to: www.lifeproject.info/

Case study 6.7 Building a case for multi-functional

GI (from CABE, 2009) 6
The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) ran a campaign and produced a report that called for
“…a shift in funding and skills from grey to green infrastructure…moving a proportion of investment in projects like road
building and heavy engineering to networks of green spaces to provide flood protection and cut carbon emissions.”
The main idea was to promote GI, which can provide multifunctional benefits such as cleaner air, flood management,
cooler cities, local food, sustainable waste management and renewable energy, improved public health, biodiversity
support, sustainable economy and beautiful places. Indeed, CABE’s emphasis was on the need for the design
professions to adopt this way of thinking and encourage these skills to be developed. It recognises the significant
change from the normal for many professionals and the ideas require a change in culture. This kind of cultural shift 7
will be central to delivery of WSUD. This campaign and other similar are laying the groundwork for a shift towards more
integrated approaches. It is an important example the kind of role that a WSUD co-ordinating body could play.

CIRIA, C724 75
6.5 Developing a business case
WSUD takes an all-encompassing view of water and how it should be managed, and necessitates a
more detailed consideration of the value of ecosystems and GI. While clear lines of responsibility can
be proportioned on who does what to implement WSUD successfully, determining the economic and
social benefits can be harder to determine and distinguish between interested parties to develop a robust
business case.

Misalignment of cost and benefits

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

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

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

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

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

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

76 Creating water sensitive places

 Other actors and
wider society 1

Local
authority Climate change
Food and urban
adaptation
agriculture 2
Economy
Habitat and
Investment in WSUD biodiversity

3
Health and
well-being Flooding

Place and
Energy/carbon community
4
Wastewater

Water

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

CIRIA, C724 77
 Other actors and
wider society

Food and urban

agriculture
Water Climate change
Company adaptation

Place and Water

community
Investment in WSUD
Habitat and
biodiversity

Wastewater
Flooding

Energy/carbon

Health and well-

being
Economy

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

78 Creating water sensitive places

Establishing the elements of the business case

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

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

1
66 benefits encompassing direct financial benefits and indirect benefits
66 funding that could support or share investment and risk.

Cost
In addition to the direct costs of building and maintaining WSUD related infrastructure, the delivery 2
of a WSUD approach will also involve a variety of indirect costs associated with lost opportunity cost,
training costs and risk related costs. The breakdown of potential costs has been examined by Water by
Design (2010) and are summarised in Table 6.3. As discussed in the previous chapter there is often a
mis-alignment with who will incur these costs, and who will benefit.

Table 6.3 Breakdown of WSUD cost elements

3
Item Description of cost elements

Direct financial
The sum of an asset’s cost over its life span with future costs discounted to a base date.
Total life cycle
Includes acquisition, annual maintenance, operational renewal and decommissioning costs
Capital costs of construction and establishment of the WSUD measures
Acquisition Costs of design and assessment of WSUD measures
Site acquisition costs, where relevant
4
Maintenance during the first two years (elevated cost) and ongoing maintenance (eg
Annual maintenance
weeding, replanting, sediment removal)
Operation Costs associated with running WSUD measure (eg rainwater tank pumps)
Re-setting or rebuilding the infrastructure once the design life is reached (eg replacing
Renewal
media in the bio-retention system and re-planting it)
Decommission In some circumstances WSUD measures will be decommissioned
5
Indirect financial

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

Environmental costs
Training and education
costs
Hidden costs of
development
Associated with obtaining raw materials, construction and maintenance
Capacity building within government and the development industry to assist in the delivery
of WSUD
Environmental monitoring, delays in gaining development approval, environmental permits,
6
insurance

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

Non-market
Maintenance burden for Maintenance burden for residents and landowners where WSUD assets are held in private
residents ownership
Nuisance flooding Inconvenience associated with nuisance flooding 7
Community health and safety The health and well-being of nearby residents who may be affected by potential nuisances.

Unit costs for surface water runoff and for WSUD management measures are available from various
studies around the world, but are very contextual and tend to be focused on direct financial costs
during the ‘acquisition’ phase. The relevance of collating Australian or US data on WSUD elements for
application to the UK is questionable. Local databases of costs for the elements of a WSUD scheme are 8
still relatively new (see Woods-Ballard et al, 2007). Further work should be undertaken as part of the
next phase of this project to compile a composite database of the latest UK figures available. This should
cover direct and indirect costs together with comparative costs for conventional solutions.

CIRIA, C724 79
Benefit
The possible benefits from WSUD range from the financial benefits a utility company get from reducing
the amount of surface water runoff and wastewater they treat to the benefits a homeowner will get from
having improved air quality. To develop a business model for WSUD, an understanding of how the
present benefits are measured is required. The misalignment of costs to benefits needs to be addressed
to develop a fairer means to distribute the benefits to those who pay for them. For example, a water
company could pay part of the cost of replacing permeable paving in public realm through a joint WSC/
LA fund set up to finance such schemes. The challenge is to interpret these non-monetised benefits and
quantify how they can be assessed side by side with financial benefits.

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

Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES)

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

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

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

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

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

Social Return of Investment (SROI)

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

80 Creating water sensitive places

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

SROI requires the direct involvement of stakeholders, which brings an added dimension of transparency
1
and accountability to the process. In assessing environmental and socio-economic benefits that
come from WSUD, SROI provides a ‘social value’, which incorporates positive and negative social,
environmental and economic effects as defined by the stakeholders. SROI does not value items in pure
economic terms.

An SROI approach aims to ensure that all issues of concern to stakeholders but which other stakeholders
may not appreciate or value or items that might be difficult to value, are counted. Case study 6.8
2
demonstrates the use of SROI on retrofit projects. SROI builds on conventional forms of traditional
financial and economic analysis, and cost benefit analysis. SROI is based on seven principles:

1 Involve stakeholders
Stakeholders are the people or organisations that experience change because of WSUD. These
should be committed and be best placed to describe the change. The stakeholders are identified 3
and then involved in the entire consultation process.
2 Understand what changes
The different benefits from WSUD are created by the different processes and stakeholders
involved. Some benefits will be positive and others negative. This process requires a detailed
description of each and how in changes are influenced. The changes come from the actions of
stakeholders. It is important to have the correct data reading for all parameters as the resulting
benefits indicate that change has taken place. 4
3 Value the things that matter
As mentioned previously in this chapter, some benefits are not easily quantifiable in financial
terms. So using financial proxies to recognise the value of these benefits allows for more balanced
trading between vested stakeholders.
4 Only include what is material
This requires an assessment of whether a stakeholder would make a different decision if a 5
particular piece of information were excluded. Stakeholder need to decide on what material is
required to be reviewed. This will depend on the stakeholder’s commitments, views, policies and
financial input.
5 Do not over claim
This requires a balanced interpretation of the benefits and the requirement to use benchmarking
to help assess the change caused by the activity. It should also consider the contributions of other 6
stakeholders to provide a balance mechanism to evaluate benefits.
6 Be transparent
Each decision and every step of the process should be documented and explained. The
responsibilities of the stakeholders, the outcome of discussions and proposals, the indicators
and benchmarks identified and used, all need to be identified. The basis of the SROI method of
measurement is that it will achieve greater buy-in if the stakeholders have the same access to the
information provided and the decision making process.
7
7 Verify the results
SROI involves subjectivity, however, the SROI analysis provides the opportunity for a more
complete understanding of the value being created by an activity. Independent verification is
thought to be preferable to ensure that stakeholders assess whether reasonable conclusions have
been reached.
8

CIRIA, C724 81
 Case study 6.8 Social housing retrofit for
SALIX homes in Manchester

Arup recently carried out SROI analysis to demonstrate, examine and understand the value created from investment
in retrofit. The study used energy data and information from in-depth interviews with a representative group of tenants
and other stakeholders. Arup used the New Economics Foundation’s (NEF) SROI methodology (NEF, 2010) to map and,
where possible, monetise the environmental, economic and social value of results from the works. The study estimated
that for every £1 that had been invested in the retrofit programme, a social return worth £1.58 will be made to the
stakeholders.

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

Case study 6.9 C

 ommunity Green Deal URBED Sustainable
Housing Action Partnership (SHAP) carbon retrofit
The URBED report sets out how low carbon retrofitting can be delivered on a large scale across whole communities.
The community Green Deal is proposed as a locally-based, area-wide response to the delivery of the Green Deal and
ultimately the UK’s medium- to long-term carbon reduction targets. It would deliver whole-home retrofits to achieve
80 per cent CO2 reductions for communities of between 750 and 3000 homes. It would be delivered by trusted
local delivery bodies working in partnership with local communities. Local delivery bodies would bring together local
authorities, and registered providers to pool resources.

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

Summary
66 WSUD is an easily understood and applicable concept that can be applied at all scales
66 one of the main challenges in delivering WSUD schemes is to find ways to quantify multifunctional benefits, and
importantly, bring them into mainstream practice
66 the benefits of WSUD are significant and wide ranging. Aside from the direct benefits to water resources, there are
likely to be benefits for places and communities, which will be primarily of interest to:
66 UK Government
66 devolved administrations (Scottish and Welsh Governments)
66 local authorities
66 water companies
66 Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and SEPA
66 developers
66 design communities and individuals.
66 as there are potentially many benefits and many beneficiaries, a partnership approach is needed for funding and
delivery of WSUD. However, a range of practitioners, particularly those who lead the planning and design of the
built environment will play an important role in delivering WSUD
66 it was not possible to provide a fully quantifiable cost benefit analysis due to a lack of good quality verifiable data at
this time, however strong evidence of cost benefits and wider benefits can be demonstrated for key stakeholders
66 unit costs have been compiled from SuDS studies that can be used to undertake more detailed cost comparisons
during follow on initiatives
66 further investigation researching how the SROI process could be developed to support WSUD is recommended
66 further work needs to be undertaken to demonstrate how benefits can be assessed, including the development of
pilot schemes.

82 Creating water sensitive places

7 What is the potential for change
in the UK? 1

This chapter develops and analyses possible ‘agents for change’ that could
enable the promotion and delivery of a WSUD approach in the UK. It suggests
possible actions and initiatives that could be undertaken, which are detailed
here then programmed in the route map in Chapter 8.
2

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

Generally, regulation is considered to be the most effective measure for delivering change. However,
sharing of professional good practice and increasing the expectations of the client body or beneficiary 4
were shown to have significant potential. These main areas for improvement will need to be addressed by
agents for change although it is recognised there is little appetite for initiatives that may adversely affect
economic growth. The workshops, conducted as part of this study, also identified a range of needs that
participants felt would help to increase take up of a WSUD approach in the UK. The most commonly
cited needs (in order of priority) were:

1 Development of an evidence base. 5

2 Development of standards and guidance.
3 Education of practitioners.
4 Partnerships and collaboration.
5 Training and skills development.
6 Quantification of benefits.
6
7 Funding of initiatives.
8 Engagement with key disciplines and stakeholders.
9 Development of supportive regulation.
10 Targeted marketing of the concept.
11 Pilot projects.
12 Development of local champions. 7
13 Research and development.

This chapter reviews the common agents for change identified in the international review and verified
through the UK-based questionnaire, workshops and analysis of key stakeholders and benefits. It
analyses the current and emerging UK context to identify possible pathways that could aid the uptake of
a WSUD approach. The agents for change discussed are:
8
1 Presence of a co-ordinating body.
2 Evidence base, guidance and training.

CIRIA, C724 83
3 Presence and characteristics of champions.
4 Supportive planning, design processes and legislation.
5 Trusted and reliable science and research.
6 Fostering environmental expectations.
7 Strategic funding and incentives.

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

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

Diagnosis

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

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

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

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

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

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

84 Creating water sensitive places

 “
having potential in Wales. In particular, where a possible new body, Water
Local authorities are
Sensitive Wales, is being scoped to aid the improvement of place and water
well placed to help
management in Wales. to co-ordinate application

Local authorities could also be well placed to take a central role as a co-
of Water Sensitive Urban
Design, as we are good at 1
looking at things holistically,
ordinator of WSUD initiatives in their area, though resource constraints are and we look wider than our
likely to mean they are unable to provide broader campaigns and promotion. responsibilities. We have a
very big role in influencing
delivery through the planning
Possible approach system and quite a big role in
working with other partners.
We represent our local
A co-ordinating body could be set up in the UK to provide advice, co- residents and we should push 2
ordinate research and stimulate debate around water issues in developed it forward.”
areas. This co-ordinating body could have an overarching remit for the UK Simon Bunn
but have regional networks and representatives. The co-ordinating body SuDS engineer, Cambridge
City Council
could be an existing entity, a newly formed focused body or a formalised
partnership between existing bodies. CIRIA has actively managed this
scoping study and has a well-developed network of practitioners
and a body of research to call upon in the area. However, it has Australian WSUD
3
been recognised that this existing audience and historical focus is co-ordinating bodies
predominantly based in engineering and environmental disciplines.
Victoria:
If CIRIA were to co-ordinate the promotion, dissemination, thought www.clearwater.asn.au
leadership and research of WSUD in the UK, it would need to build Sydney:
on its partnerships with other bodies involved in good practice, www.WSUD.org
dissemination and research in the built environment. Possible Southeast Queensland:
partners could include Landscape Institute, Urban Design Group, http://HealthyWaterways.org 4
RTPI, RUDI, RIBA, and the ICE. Alternatively, there may be an
opportunity to form a dedicated co-ordinating body with its own identity, but would draw on existing
partner networks to develop and establish profile in the short-term until funding could be established.

Key actions to establish a co-ordinating body

1 Identify interested networks/groups and supportive professional bodies: the success of movements often relies 5
on a co-ordinating body to provide information, guidance, and a central point for promotion, discussion and research.
2 Funding the establishment of a co-ordinating body: sourcing funds to kick-start the development of a co-ordinating
body is an important step, which will likely require support from a wide range of public, private, and third sector
organisations concerned with water management and the built environment. Once ongoing funding is achieved,
dedicated time and resource can be made available to carry out a range of the actions identified in the following
sections.

6
7.2 Agent for change 2: evidence base, guidance and training
Diagnosis

The consultation identified evidence, guidance and training as fundamental requirements for promoting
understanding and application of WSUD, and that they would need to be specific to the UK context.
This scoping study begins the process of articulating and demonstrating the need for WSUD, but more 7
comprehensive and actively instructive guidance is yet to be developed. Some guidance is available for
component parts of a WSUD approach, including extensive information on SuDS, however there is no
published guidance that brings the approach together.

The LifE project is a good example where guidance has been developed that aims at a multidisciplinary
audience. It includes useful studies and visualisations of typical UK towns that will experience or
contribute to flooding (see Chapter 6). 8
Currently, there is no training available on a WSUD approach in the UK, though a few conferences and
bespoke training sessions have incorporated the concept and sought to cover all aspects of the water

CIRIA, C724 85
“
cycle and its interaction with urban design. The provision of guidance and
Talking about the training has been important elsewhere. Melbourne’s Monash University
environmental benefits
and climate change is not Water Sensitive Cities Winter School is one example that provides an
getting the message across. opportunity for participants from a multidisciplinary background to learn
Explaining that water is finite
about WSUD from experts in the field. The five day workshop focuses
in this area and there is a
line in the sand that isn’t that on urban sustainability and WSUD practices, with the aim of engaging
far away where we cannot stakeholders and influencing behavioural change.
use any more water, that is
starting to focus peoples
mind on how to do things As yet, WSUD has not been explicitly integrated into academic courses,
differently in order to extend but there is scope to combine disciplines for such a course. Some landscape
that time frame”
architecture courses, including the University of Leeds and University of
Simon Bunn Sheffield, have recently included lectures on SuDS and a wider WSUD
SuDS engineer, Cambridge
City Council)
approach.

“
Possible approach
A lot of what’s needed
is around training. Local
authorities have a huge role It is recommended that further guidance and more detailed evidence base
and don’t have the skills or is developed to continue to raise awareness and foster skills in the industry.
resources to understand
the potential. Start there
and get planning officers, Ongoing training could be delivered (perhaps by the co-ordinating body)
green space, highways to to focus on a cross-discipline audience. To be successful, training would
break down barriers and see need to appeal to a broad audience but also provide sufficient detail for
opportunities. People are put
off by terms such as SuDS the various disciplines involved. A modular approach may be beneficial,
and rain gardens but when with compulsory joint sessions to manage cross-working. Online learning
you start to look at what they modules would also help greater accessibility. It may also be useful to
are the Local Authorities will
be more likely to get involved” ensure that WSUD and its philosophy are covered within university and
academic curriculums.
Lucy Geldard
Community engagement
officer, Groundwork UK

Key actions to develop evidence base, guidance and training

1 Develop full UK WSUD guidance manual: with ongoing research and development of an evidence base, a
comprehensive guidance manual could be produced to be used by a range of disciplines in both new development
and retrofitting projects.
2 Training professionals together: the importance of WSUD is gaining momentum across the many disciplines that are
concerned with water management and urban development. As an idea inherently reliant on effective cross disciplinary
collaboration, training that places relevant professions together to learn how existing water management practices can
be changed to be more water efficient and improve urban design is critical.
3 Update university curricula for professions working in the built environment exposing students to WSUD as part
of their training will enable them to incorporate its concepts once they become professionals. Integrating WSUD
into university courses for town planners, architects, urban designers, landscape architects, civil engineers,
environmental engineers, ecologists, and land developers will be crucial to amplifying buy-in for WSUD principles in
the future.

7.3 Agent for change 3: presence and characteristics of champions

Diagnosis

“
As reflected by the growing popularity and use of the term Water Sensitive Even though there is
Urban Design in the UK industry over the last 12 months, there are a series the desire to integrate,
market forces are working
of increasingly active champions in the UK calling for a better integration of against this. Silos are also
objectives. While a group of central champions is important, their influence reinforced in academia, they
aren’t just in industry.”
also needs to be wide reaching across disciplines and geographies. One
objective of this study was to identify and empower a series of champions Tim Waterman
Landscape architect
through involvement in the project steering group and workshops related to and lecturer

86 Creating water sensitive places

the project. It is expected that this scoping study will provide further
Further guidance
information and structure for future informal activity of champions.
The workshops also identified that the development of champions is a Long-term initiatives for Flood-risk
Environments (LIfE) Project:
high priority in prioritising WSUD in the UK. http://lifeproject.info 1
Monash University Water Sensitive
The socio-cultural analysis of the WSUD transition in Melbourne Cities Winter School:
identified a series of characteristics of champions (Brown and http://tinyurl.com/nz7fbac
Clarke, 2007), which are provided in Table 7.1, and based on
anecdotal observations in the UK.

Possible approach 2

“
There is a considerable and increasing base of champions to build from,
We were working with a
but greater connection and engagement is needed with planning, urban community in a housing
design and landscape architecture disciplines to foster champions. estate, it had very bland
green space, but through the
Champions are already building within the water engineering and
process of putting in a rain
water management sector, but it would be useful for these champions to garden, we are creating a
align across sub-disciplines and ensure there is good coverage in water much higher amenity resource 3
for community benefits, a
companies, consulting and government agencies. Champions would also be
more interactive play space
very valuable in ecology, development, and in architecture. Geographically, where you can work with
Wales has a strong emerging network of champions while England and water. Huge amounts can be
done if you use a little bit of
Scotland have a strong but small base to build from. Few active champions imagination.”
have been identified in Northern Ireland as yet. One of the tools used to
Lucy Geldard
encourage champions in Wales was the use of WSUD visualisations specific Community engagement
to the Welsh context enabling stakeholders to experience how decisions officer, Groundwork UK 4
can affect the water cycle within urban areas. Similar visualisations may
motivate others in the UK to become WSUD champions.

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

Champion
characteristic
Expected importance in the
Current characteristics of known
champions in the UK 5
UK context
identified in Australia Red = low performance green = good performance

There is some outreach across disciplines, but fairly limited

in most cases. Stronger presence is needed in the built
Multi-sectoral network Crucial environment fields, particularly planning, urban design and
landscape architecture. Some further joint working across
industry, academic and product sectors should be facilitated.
6
Important, but also needed
Environmental values Champions have developed a strong challenge culture to
for economic and social
and vision achieve beneficial outcomes.
awareness to drive change

Strong connection to public desire is needed. Most existing

champions are industry or academia-based and have little
Disposition towards
Crucial opportunity to link to community initiatives and wants. Some
public good
third sector champions are emerging that could help to link
better to communities. 7
Overcoming risk aversion is an important issue in the UK. Some
Pragmatic ideology and champions have demonstrated confidence by carrying out
Crucial
learning by doing pilot projects, though a better learning network needs to be
established.

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

Opportunistic Crucial
Champions in the UK are harnessing a range of opportunities
and connections, which need to continue.
8

CIRIA, C724 87
Third sector organisations and charities who work directly with
Further guidance
communities to highlight and address a range of issues could be
Groundwork UK:
effective promoters and enablers of WSUD as a ground-up, or www.groundwork.org.uk
bottom-up movement where communities deliver smaller scale
Sustrans:
initiatives and raise awareness. Sustrans and Groundwork are www.sustrans.org.uk
examples of organisations that are delivering sustainable drainage
pilots as well as water efficiency initiatives, urban horticulture and
GI projects that would be a natural promoter of water sensitive projects.

Alongside the establishment of a co-ordinating body, it is possible that a stronger network could also
be established for champions to diversify and nurture knowledge through existing initiatives and
organisations.

Key actions to foster champions

1 Develop network of champions across key disciplines: the WSUD process provides multiple benefits, so
engagement from a wide variety of disciplines is required. Champions from within each of the following professions
will need to be incorporated into the network:
66 landscape architects
66 town planners
66 ecologists
66 civil/water engineers
66 urban designers
66 architects
66 land developers.
2 Establish professional networking events: there is a vast network of professionals who need to be concerned with
effective water management and urban design. Establishing major networking events, and co-ordination between
private, public, and academic institutions could help establish WSUD as an imperative in the UK, and in the process
inspire and encourage professionals to lead it. A WSUD co-ordinating body could organise these events.
3 Connect different networks of champions across geographies: to ensure there is good coverage of activity across
England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, some areas may need specific focus and attention where active
champions are not in place. Once WSUD is widely recognised in the UK, establishing regional sub-groups could be an
effective way to ensure local catchment needs are met.
4 Identify and support third sector champions to work with communities: progressing WSUD in communities around
the UK will be substantially easier with community members supporting the movement from the ground-up. Working
with community-facing organisations, such as Sustrans and Groundwork UK, to identify and support communities in
applying WSUD initiatives is important for gathering momentum.

7.4 Agent for change 4: supportive planning and design process

and legislation
Diagnosis

“
Planning and urban design, particularly the early concept and master
Water is being designed
planning stages of new development and retrofitting, are the greatest out when really we should
opportunity to integrate holistic water management measures that be designing it in.”
maximise benefit to local communities and place-making. Mike Vout
Urban designer, Borough of
Generally, water is not a high priority in the planning and design Telford and Wrekin
process in the UK for new development or regeneration of existing areas.
Commonly, the inclusion of conventional water supply, wastewater drainage
and surface water runoff drainage infrastructure is primarily seen as an engineering-only task that is
undertaken relatively late in the urban design process once land uses, layout and the ‘vision’ for the site
has been determined. Within the urban design process, two primary aspects of water management are
given significant (and increasing) consideration due to legislative requirements:

66 the positioning of development in relation to flood risk zones, and the concurrent allocation of
appropriate uses depending on risk

88 Creating water sensitive places

66 the integration of surface water attenuation areas to meet SuDS requirements set out by local
planning policy or by recent requirements under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities)
Regulations (Scotland) 2005 and Flood and Water Management Act 2010 in England and Wales.

As discussed in Chapter 5, at the moment the achievement of CSH (DCLG, 2011) and BREEAM (BRE,
1
2011) can also help with the consideration of both runoff reduction and water use reduction. The
requirement to reduce potable water use to 80 litres/person/day to reach CSH Levels 5 or 6 has been
a driver for developments to seek alternative water supply solutions from harvesting of rainwater,
greywater or wastewater. To date, Levels 5 and 6 have only been achieved on a few small developments
that are pilot projects rather than the norm. However, higher code targets are beginning to be included
in planning policy documents and, as more policies are adopted and the development market improves, 2
water harvesting will be a major consideration for new developments. Despite the water efficiency
targets, there is a common belief in the industry that most efficiency measures (eg shower heads) and
water harvesting units will be disconnected by homeowners because of the management implications and
perceived restrictive effects on lifestyles and consumption (NHBC Foundation, 2010). Accordingly, water
reduction measures are seen as a capital outlay for developers with perhaps little real impact.

“
At a strategic planning level, water cycle studies (WCS) discussed in
The development 3
Chapter 5 have been developed in several areas in England. A WCS signals schemes we have
the strategic requirement for integrated water management, rather than seen that are investigating
provide guidance on design at a development scale, but combining these large scale water recycling
are driven by the Code
with development master plans provides a strong evidence base and for Sustainable Homes
framework for delivery. In England this combination was used as a pre- and looking at alternative
requisite for eco-towns (DCLG, 2009) where an integrated water cycle methods of reaching the
higher levels. Developers are
strategy was required for eco-town master plans, setting a vision to manage also driven by requirements 4
water more holistically. In areas of water stress, eco-towns were required from planning authorities and
to be ‘water neutral’, manage flood risks, and comply with CSH Level 5. water companies who are
trying to reduce pressure on
Significantly, some 40 per cent of a new eco-town has to be comprised infrastructure.”
of GI, providing opportunities for management of water on the surface.
Ray Farrow
As a result, most integrated water cycle strategies for eco-towns have Consultant, Home
explored significant site-wide water management measures, including Builders Federation
local wastewater harvesting. However, to date none have been significantly 5
progressed into development. A WSUD approach could be articulated (and required) through the
need for major developments to demonstrate an integrated water cycle strategy. Such a requirement
could bring this WCS concept down to a development scale to test and demonstrate how water sensitive
initiatives can be integrated and delivered in the built environment, bringing together surface water,
water supply, wastewater and flood risk strategies, and demonstrating how these have been considered
in the urban design process to reach integrated solutions. At an outline planning stage, it might be
appropriate that part of the design and access strategy addresses WSUD. Specific design initiatives 6
could also be detailed for master plans through a design code, whereby an overall framework of design
objectives is set out for the whole site across multiple parcels to allow an overall vision to be set.

The reduction of carbon continues to be a necessary criterion for achieving sustainable development
in the UK. The links between carbon and water are evident and traditional water cycle management
uses large amounts of carbon (Water UK, 2011, and Walker, 2009). The high energy consumption of
the water industry suggests the need for a more sustainable approach to water cycle management as a 7
means to reduce waste, carbon and energy use, GHG emissions and the loss of nutrients. For example,
when household and water service provider emissions are considered together, around 90 per cent
of these (35 million tonnes CO2 per year) can be attributed to ‘water in the home’ (Environment
Agency and Energy Savings Trust, 2009). Accordingly WSUD initiatives, that also demonstrate carbon
reductions, are likely to be well received in the UK.

Whether or not the current governance, institutional and regulatory processes prevalent in the UK 8
continue to be fit for purpose, it is likely to be the subject of much debate, especially as WSUD is
inevitably delivered. In Australia, changes in the governance regimes have been required (Brown, 2012)

CIRIA, C724 89
“
and in Philadelphia, significant re-writing of statutes and regulations
We need both
legislation and best
has been required to allow the widespread uptake of GI for surface water
practice. Policy should runoff management (Maimone, 2012). A particular trigger for more
encourage collaboration. effective integration of surface water runoff management into urban design
Designers get frustrated with
rules that don’t work – policy in Australia was water quality requirements that forced greater integration
needs to provide the intention of a ‘treatment train’ of SuDS features across a site. Conversely, attenuation
and the governmental based targets for SuDS in the UK have predominantly led designers to
support but it shouldn’t be a
rule book. Solutions need to mistakenly favour large and single storage solutions that are allocated as a
be community specific and ‘land use’ in master plans rather than a multi-functional and integral part
environment specific – design of the design concept. As discussed in Chapter 5, many believe regulation
has to be central. The good
news for designers is that could be a barrier to the implementation of WSUD. Accordingly, a clear
they are really part of that vision of integrated water management and the prioritisation of water as
process. You need designers
an opportunity for the built environment need some alignment and clear
who are used to working with
and understanding sites.” direction in the regulatory framework.
Tim Waterman
Landscape architect
and lecturer

Case study 7.1 Northwest Cambridge master plan (University of

Cambridge, 2012)

Proposals are being developed for the long-term expansion of the University of Cambridge to the north west of
Cambridge. It includes a mixed-use sustainable development of university research and academic facilities, housing,
community facilities and public open space on the 150 ha site.
Water has been a core shaping element in the evolution of the master plan. The layout is being designed around an
interconnected matrix of green corridors that capture and manage water in the public realm and feed a landscaped
wetland area near to the local brook. With the strategic water management design now integrated into the master plan
vision, the next stage of design will detail streetscapes, public spaces and building design to explore how water can
be treated and reused locally. Buildings on-site are targeting CSH Level 5 and BREEAM Excellent certifications, which
provide an opportunity to explore how water can be locally harvested, and how the public landscape can be used to
provide treatment and storage of water sources.
Initial explorations of communal water harvesting schemes on site, using site-wide surface water runoff supply for non-
potable use to homes or communal wastewater treatment and re-supply show potential cost reductions compared with
a plot by plot water harvesting solution.

Figure 7.1 Northwest Cambridge master plan

90 Creating water sensitive places

Possible approach

In England refinement of the design and planning process, and the accompanying legislation will need
to be sensitive to current structures, while also making key changes to general practice. Neighbourhood
1
planning provides an opportunity to develop locally relevant WSUD responses that engage local
communities. The challenge with this is the integration of consistent objectives for the wider good and
the provision of strategic advice to achieve a co-ordinated and effective response to development and
regeneration. To this end, local plans will continue to play a vital role in enshrining WSUD principles.
Cambridge City Council is currently developing its local plan by bringing all elements of water
management together, under the banner of WSUD, which is setting a good example.
2

“
In Wales, water companies, Natural Resources Wales, Welsh Government
My ideal would be to
and others need to work with local planning authorities to implement
call it an integrated
WSUD. Schemes need to be incorporated in to local development plans water policy and link it to
(LDPs), which require a sound evidence base. the development vision.
We have found in the past
that these elements are
There are already several LDPs in Wales that consider issues like surface something separate to
water flooding. This has provided the rationale for local projects to urban design but we want
to change that perception
3
implement WSUD solutions.
through the local plan.”

Understanding and expertise needs to be built among local authority Simon Bunn
SuDS engineer, Cambridge
planners to achieve integrated policy frameworks nationally. A strong City Council)
programme of training and a suite of resources will be needed to foster
policy development that supports a WSUD approach and this could be
delivered by a co-ordinating body working closely with local authorities. 4
A useful tool in integrating water management may be the refinement of sustainable design assessment
measures such as the CSH, BREEAM and CEEQUAL to cover and recognise all aspects of WSUD.
Involving BRE and the UK Government and a review of the current credit structure would be needed
to achieve this. Alternatively, a voluntary measure, target or award system that recognises good practice
could be created for WSUD and administered by a separate entity. These measures could then be
included in planning policy requirements locally. 5

“
Changes to national policies may also be productive. Legislation was
Cross-disciplinary
favoured by questionnaire participants as a means of encouraging WSUD working is essential –
in the UK. Given the holistic nature of WSUD, legislation could be difficult the more you can do upfront,
the easier it is to take it
if it makes design solutions too regimented. A broad aspiration similar
forward. If things are brought
to the commitment for zero carbon homes (Zero Carbon Hub, 2011) by into the process too late there
2016 could be set for new developments to require a change in water can be serious implications
so developers want to know 6
management practice.
what is needed up front.
We are used to a changing
While WCS have achieved some progress at a catchment scale, it seems that planning context, so our
a requirement to conduct an integrated water cycle strategy at development approach has to be flexible.”

scale to meet defined objectives, following the eco-town model, could be Ray Farrow
Consultant, House
beneficial. A strategy will encourage a WSUD approach to new development,
Builders Federation)
which could be linked to central or local government WSUD policy. 7
Water companies and local authorities are likely to play an important role in improving existing
communities and infrastructure, as discussed in Chapter 6. Unless regeneration is the main aim, these
initiatives will not be introduced through the planning process (though they may require planning
permission at some point). However, the involvement of practitioners who design the built environment is
likely to be vital for successful and appropriate retrofit solutions.

Ultimately, all of these measures will try to raise water as a priority in urban design and stimulate
8
widespread collaboration between engineers, urban designers, planners and other practitioners, involved
in the land development process. Also they will seek improved water management results that bring

CIRIA, C724 91
broader benefits to communities. This will require a strong and widespread campaign to build capacity
in taking a WSUD approach. This will need to identify and celebrate good practice examples and change
expectations for standard practice.

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

Key actions to create supportive planning and design process and legislation
1 Integrate WSUD principles into voluntary sustainability rating systems: a review of BREEAM, CSH and CEEQUAL
could be conducted to ensure the targets encourage and reward co-ordinated water management and integration of
water initiatives in the urban design process. These standards could then be used to monitor and stimulate a WSUD
approach.
2 Align legislation to promote WSUD principles: sustainable drainage has begun receiving the attention it deserves
within the UK, and have now been enshrined into policy, in England and Wales, with the passing of the Flood
and Water Management Act 2010. Building on Schedule 3 of the Act that introduces the National Standards for
Sustainable Drainage Systems (Defra, 2011a) this legislation will need to continue evolving to eventually fully align
with the greater ambitions in WSUD. However, as creativity and neighbourhood character are important for effective
WSUD, there will be a need for any legislation to be flexible and respond to local needs and typologies. There will be
a need to break down inherent ‘silos’ in legislation that become reflected in industry to encourage cross-working and
balance between prescription and encouragement.
3 Review local plans to align water management goals: by tailoring local policies with complementary and clear
design and water management aims will help local authorities lead and support WSUD. Good practice policy
examples and training for local authority planners will be important.
4 Develop new good practice standards for water sensitive developments: a measurable target that will gain UK-
wide recognition could be developed for water sensitive developments. Akin to zero carbon targets that were tested
in the market before being included in policy could provide a suitable model. A standard that minimises ‘water in’
and ‘water out’ could serve to test and demonstrate a range of WSUD initiatives in the interests of determining what
could work and what is suitable to different contexts.
5 Establish the expectation for integrated water cycle strategies for major developments: the UK will soon require
all new developments to incorporate SuDS. Even further, local authorities can require all new developments to
submit an integrated water cycle strategy, which establishes not only how surface water runoff will be managed, but
how all facets of the water cycle, ie wastewater, greywater, and surface water runoff, will operate together to reduce
the site’s potable water demand.

92 Creating water sensitive places

7.5 Agent for change 5: trusted and reliable science and research
Diagnosis
1
As demonstrated, in the review of the ongoing journeys of other countries (Chapter 3), academic and
practical research has been an important foundation in the development of a WSUD approach. Where
there are deviations from a conventional approach, trials and monitoring are vital for making the
unconventional commonplace. In terms of available science and evidence, there is substantial research to
draw on globally, but there is a pressing need for UK-specific evidence and demonstrations.

There are a few active academic practitioners in the UK who are researching WSUD, including from 2
the University of Sheffield, Exeter University, Imperial College London, University of Dundee, Heriot-
Watt University and University College London, but it is yet to be established as a coherent programme
of research. Recent journal publications on WSUD, including a call for papers for an ICE municipal
engineer issue on WSUD (ICE, 2012a) will help to capture academic and practical research in the area
so far. Practical research and application is less often captured and a lack of a co-ordinating body may
mean that lessons are not well documented or distributed. Several pilot projects are being developed,
primarily focused on SuDS. 3
These projects seek to capture and test urban design benefits as well as water management benefits.
These include a pilot neighbourhood and social housing developments in Wales (Natural Resources
Wales, Welsh Water and Cardiff Council), a selection of streets in London (Greater London Authority,
Lambeth Council and Thames Water) and development in Glasgow (Glasgow City Council, Clyde
Gateway URC and the 2014 Commonwealth Games).
4
The Environment Agency is also scoping a research study to monitor success of rainwater and greywater
harvesting in East Anglia. There is a need to bring research like this together to propose a clear site-
based methodology for assessment that could link to the development of guidelines for integrated water
cycle strategies for developments discussed here.

Perhaps the most extensive body of research that considers water management and urban design is
flood risk management. Academic research projects including CORFU, SMarTEST and FloodProBE 5
have developed built environment solutions that will improve flood resilience. A new EPSRC project
involving seven university partners may help to align flood risk and GI research further (University of
Cambridge, 2013).

Waterwise has conducted research into the effectiveness of water efficiency measures in both new
development and retrofitting into existing development (Omambala, 2009, and Watters, 2010). A
range of research has also been undertaken in the UK regarding community attitudes to water 6
(Doron et al, 2011).

Possible approach

Although most research is currently focused on a particular aspect of water management, some overlap
between research into water, GI and ecosystem services are becoming apparent. To draw the results of
these current research programmes and to highlight areas of WSUD that need further research and 7
development, a co-ordinated research programme for WSUD is needed that focuses on key questions,
opportunities and potential risks. This research needs to be collected and distributed by a co-ordinating
body. To ground WSUD in ongoing research programmes and to ensure that it is better integrated in
future curricula across disciplines, it is recommended that several university hubs are identified.

A range of practical research also needs to be distributed in the UK. The UK has strong and continual
drivers for redevelopment of urban centres and settlements, which will provide the opportunity to 8
integrate new approaches. While pilot projects of SuDS in particular are progressing, other aspects of
water management and urban design integration are lacking, including:

CIRIA, C724 93
66 effect of water efficient fittings (and post-occupancy certainty
Further guidance
of reduction)
Collaborative Research on Flood
66 surface water runoff harvesting on a plot and communal basis Resilience in Urban Areas (CORFU):
www.corfu-fp7.eu
66 greywater harvesting on a plot and communal basis
Smart Resilience Technology, Systems
66 communal wastewater harvesting for reuse and Tools (SMarTEST):
66 flood resilient construction in practice www.floodresilience.eu

66 adaptable public realm for multiple uses including flood Technologies for the cost-effective
Flood Protection of the Built
storage Environment (FloodProBE):
66 methodology to assess carbon effects of alternative water www.floodprobe.eu
supplies for sites.

Key actions to produce trusted and reliable science and research

1 Collate existing relevant research: before developing a research programme, it is necessary to understand what
research has already been undertaken. Doing so will require a systematic review of the evidence, collating the
existing research of WSUD in the UK. This action can be undertaken by a WSUD co-ordinating body, or a specific
research co-ordinating body.
2 Establish research funding: research will require funding to support developing an effective evidence base. Funding
sources for research can be obtained from many areas, including water companies, academic institutions, quasi-
autonomous non-governmental organisations (quangos), professional governing bodies, and EU funding streams.
3 Establish body to co-ordinate research: legitimising and highlighting research requires the development of a
university or partnership of universities to oversee and encourage ongoing research in areas of need. This body
could be linked to or be part of the co-ordinating body, and could be focused on establishing research funding.
Also, there is potential to create a journal or magazine to improve WSUD awareness. A possible approach for co-
ordinating research is the Defra/Environment Agency Flood and coastal erosion risk management model (Defra and
Environment Agency, 2009). Practitioners and water companies will also need to be included as part of the body to
ensure the research is applied.
4 Develop UK WSUD research programme: a programme of research would need to be established to focus on main
areas and reinforce confidence in UK appropriate WSUD initiatives.

7.6 Agent for change 6: fostering environmental expectations

Diagnosis

Environmental expectations for the quality of land, water bodies and oceans from both the public and
industry and a public willingness to change have been notable in Australia, New Zealand and the US
in particular. Convincing communities to recognise the need for change and to take actions is a vital
element of a local response. WSUD should not only lead to technical solutions, but also to societal
change. While environmental agencies in the UK have taken a legislative approach to point source
pollution prevention in the UK, public concern has not been particularly high profile in comparison.
Recent initiatives to improve the quality of watercourses in England have been primarily as a result of
requirements under EU Directives. The long history of urbanisation and change of watercourses and
bodies in some parts of the UK may account for lacking drivers, as perhaps the public expectation is low
and water quality problems are seen as too complex to change. However, initiatives to improve water
quality of watercourses do seem more prevalent in Scotland and Wales, where perhaps watercourses have
been less affected by development in the past.

Water quality of beaches receives some attention from campaigning bodies including Surfers Against
Sewage and there have been recent attempts to increase public awareness of the quality of bathing waters
through initiatives such as the BeachSelecta phone app <www.beachselecta.co.uk/>.

Results of the questionnaire suggest that the major water-related concern in the UK is flooding, followed
by water quality and water scarcity as second tier considerations. Accordingly, it is expected that concern
for harm to property, infrastructure and human life due to flood risk is likely to be vital for change in the
UK than it has been elsewhere. So, the successful development of a WSUD approach in the UK will need to
give a strong emphasis to flood prevention, risk mitigation and adaptation in the urban environment.

94 Creating water sensitive places

 “
Broader environmental expectations surrounding the promotion of
I see the potential
biodiversity and green space under the GI movement may also be needed for more of a
for a WSUD approach. GI projects and studies have also been widely ground-up movement
from communities driving
developed by local authorities, Landscape Institute, Natural England and
this. Though it depends 1
Glasgow Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership to demonstrate the on the demographics of a
need and advantages of introducing open space and vegetation into urban community. Movements
environments. However, ‘blue infrastructure’ and water management is such as transition towns
are pushing environmental
commonly included as an afterthought rather than central to this agenda. concerns through, but
However, commonalities with GI initiatives are seen as a natural platform these only reach a certain
demographic. Different
to promote a WSUD approach in academia and industry. However, the GI
hooks for different
movement at the practitioner level is yet to form a cohesive movement (or communities are needed.” 2
water management movement for that matter) at a community level in the Lucy Geldard
UK, though it is expected that urban greening would be of general appeal Community engagement
to most communities. officer, Groundwork UK

Possible approach

While watercourse quality has been a strong driver elsewhere, it is likely to be a secondary priority in 3
the UK. Instead, the impacts of flooding are a major concern and this is likely to remain a policy and
funding priority in the future. Accordingly a coherent WSUD definition and practice will need to be
developed that lends a stronger focus to surface water management including both runoff effects and
river and coastal flooding effects on local communities.

Community initiatives under an environmental improvement, urban greening or self-sufficiency banner

have shown good uptake of WSUD techniques internationally. This kind of community impetus does not 4
yet exist for water or GI in the UK, though current government structures under the localism agenda
and the Localism Act (CLG, 2011) are likely to be conducive to such an approach. The Transition Town
movement, whereby local groups initiate a range of community projects to ensure the town is sustainable
without reliance on oil, is one example that has been very successful in achieving environmental aims,
involving communities and lending a new sense of identity to a place.

The workshops conducted in this scoping project identified 5

Further guidance
similar ‘water sensitive community’ initiatives that could be used
to encourage change and communication with the general public. Transition Town movement:
www.transitionnetwork.org
Environmental drivers relating to local watercourse quality or
flooding will need to be identified in each community to provide UK Raingarden guide:
http://tinyurl.com/p5mfvq4
a clear objective for action. A recent rain garden guide has been
Surfers Against Sewage:
produced that focuses on householders as the main audience, and
promoting ‘do-it-yourself ’ rain garden retrofits (Bray et al, 2013).
www.sas.org.uk
6
In industry and academia, synergies with research and articulation of environmental benefits through
an ecosystem service approach are likely to be beneficial (see Chapter 6). However, there is a risk of
combining too many concepts together, and WSUD will need to keep its own definition, drivers and
objectives clear.

CIRIA, C724 95
 Key actions to encourage environmental expectations
1 Establish WSUD as an umbrella term to align relevant environmental movements for sustainable water
management in the built environment: the importance of flooding and surface water management has resulted in
several pieces of legislation and the Water White Paper (Defra, 2011b). Defra has also already written two reports
and a white paper in support of GI and valuing nature as a whole (Forest Research, 2010; HM Government, 2011a;
Natural England, 2011). As flood mitigation, SuDS, water efficiency and GI are all integral components under the
WSUD umbrella, there is an opportunity to package all of these complementary approaches as a single solution
to multiple issues. Establishing connections with Defra as well as other organisations that support GI, such as the
Landscape Institute, will help to improve knowledge and buy-in. The ability to solve multiple issues with one solution
should be attractive in an age of austerity.
2 Foster water sensitive community movements: internationally, the WSUD movement has benefitted substantially
when the community becomes concerned about and involved in the management of their water. The UK’s greatest
water concern is with respect to river and coastal flooding, but communities are also likely to be concerned about
water quality and water scarcity in some areas. Holding WSUD workshops in areas of the UK most at risk of
flooding, those in water restricted areas, and those with sensitive waterways would provide an opportunity to bring
concerned citizens together. Establishing connections with Flood Plan UK, as well as the Environment Agency and
Natural Resources Wales can lend legitimacy to these meetings. These organisations’ insight can also provide local
knowledge to help local action.
3 Market the wider benefits of WSUD: one of the strengths of WSUD is multiple benefits, ie it can appeal to a broad
audience. A focus on reduction of flooding, improvement of water quality and alleviation of water stress are likely to
be key considerations for most groups, though there is a need to tailor promotion of benefits to audiences. Urban
greening, where water management is included as part of the design, may be the side of WSUD that inspires and
excites communities the most.

7.7 Agent for change 7: strategic funding and incentives

Diagnosis

“
The current structure for funding typically reflects the institutional silos
that separate the various aspects of the water cycle, generally wastewater, I don’t talk to tree
officers about the
water supply, surface water runoff and flooding. Funding for regeneration value of trees as they already
and design quality are also predominantly separated. Incentives and know. I don’t talk to the
funding to encourage a more integrated approach would be beneficial. water engineers about the
importance of water as they
However, funding may need to be identified and orchestrated between a are already there. The people
variety of bodies as there is currently no co-ordinating body in place to that need to change the way
they think about these things
provide incentives.
are the Directors and Council
Members who are faced with
A good example of funding cross-working for better water management making challenging economic
solutions is the Drain London project, which brings together the GLA, 33 decisions and the planners
and designers who need to
London boroughs, the Environment Agency, Thames Water, Transport for make developments work and
London and London Councils to address flooding issues. Local authorities be viable.”
often play a central role in bringing funding together, as discussed in Mike Vout
Chapter 6. Other projects such as The GRaBS project (Green and Blue Urban designer, Borough
of Telford and Wrekin
Space Adaptation for Urban Areas and Eco Towns), a range of partnership
WSUD retrofit projects in Wales are beginning to demonstrate how cross-
funding can be aligned to support WSUD research.

In terms of economic incentives for developers and communities to take a WSUD approach, the value
of water in the UK is a major obstacle. While energy efficiency solutions are able to make an economic
case based on energy bill savings, water does not have the same luxury under current pricing. The short-
term interest of developers in investing in infrastructure that will not bring them direct financial benefit,
even if it will benefit future homeowners, remains a constant barrier. To make WSUD more attractive to
commercial investors who can own and manage WSUD initiatives and systems on an ongoing basis is a
possibility to be explored. One route might be through emerging methods of valuing ecosystem services,
but this is unlikely to become workable in the short-term. Water companies are a natural partner for
managing WSUD schemes, but a clear economic case needs to be made. Following the model of an ESCo
(energy services company) or MUSCo (multi-utilities service company) whereby residents pay for services
provided will only be successful if water charging mechanisms can be broken down. Currently, water
companies do not commonly charge residents for the supply of non-potable water and the regulations

96 Creating water sensitive places

in this area are unclear. This has been a barrier to alternative water
supply proposals. Combined charging for sewerage and surface Further guidance
water drainage is also an issue where different operators may Drain London project:
www.london.gov.uk/drain-london
provide those services in the future under a WSUD approach.
Green and Blue Space: Adaptation for
1
Urban Areas and Eco Towns (GRaBS):
www.grabs-eu.org
Possible approach
Strategic funding of research and retrofit projects may be
achievable through an alliance of bodies or co-funding of the co-ordinating body previously discussed.
Economic incentivising of new development remains a challenge and will require changes in water
charge structuring to encourage independent operators to become involved. It was urged that these 2
kinds of incentives are tested with developers to understand the initiatives that might interest them.

Key actions to establish strategic funding and incentives

1 Differential pricing for non-potable water: currently water companies in the UK do not commonly supply non-
potable water and the regulatory position on pricing mechanisms for such schemes is unclear. The result is that
water companies do not harvest and use rainwater or reuse wastewater on a large scale. Developing clear guidance
on sale of non-potable water could drive the development of local alternative water supplies and reduce the level of
3
stress on existing water supplies.
2 Introduce incremental water use pricing: the EA has noted that many regions of the UK are water stressed. If water
quantity and quality continue to be constrained, there will be a need to rethink how water is priced and to significantly
reward those who implement water saving measures. Installing water meters across the UK will be key to enabling
such measures.
3 Establish funding for pilot projects: funding streams that help pilot projects and creative applications of WSUD
strategies help to ingrain the process in the design and development of large developments or retrofit schemes.
Similar to the pilot projects for zero carbon homes, the development community would benefit from collaborative 4
learning.
4 Establish WSUD awards or incentives: making the inclusion of WSUD part of the regular development process
will require developer-specific incentives. Awarding development schemes that have done a superior job of meeting
WSUD goals should be recognised. This could be done for various categories for different development sizes, and be
overseen by either the co-ordinated WSUD governing body or research-specific body.
5 Open competition for professionals: many professions concerned with city development have design competitions
to transform a piece of property in a creative and inspiring way. Given that the concept of the water sensitive city is a
fresh idea, this could be an opportunity to capture new and inventive concepts and link to the provision of funding for
demonstration projects. 5

Summary
Seven possible agents for change have been identified in this scoping study. Each of these could play an important role
in developing greater application of WSUD in the UK. The seven agents for change are:
66 presence of a co-ordinating body
6
66 developing an evidence base, guidance and training
66 establishing presence and characteristics of champions
66 supportive planning and design process and legislation
66 trusted and reliable science and research
66 fostering environmental expectations
66 establishing strategic funding and incentives.

A series of actions have been formulated for each agent for change to capture possible next steps. These actions have
7
been programmed and are examined in Chapter 8.

CIRIA, C724 97
8 Route map and recommendations

This chapter summarises the recommended definition of WSUD for the UK, and sets out a
route map of actions to promote, embed, inspire and deliver WSUD practice in the UK.

8.1 How should the definition of WSUD be adapted for the UK?
As demonstrated in discussion throughout this scoping study, the central philosophy of WSUD remains
relevant and poignant for the UK given the current and future challenges it faces. This philosophy
being that there is a synergistic inter-relationship between the water cycle, communities and urban
development that requires an equally integrated and adaptable approach to identify beneficial solutions
that will sustain quality of life in the future.

The original definition of WSUD from Australia responded directly to watercourse health concerns and
water scarcity issues and focused primarily on the synergies between the three pillars of water supply,
wastewater management and surface water runoff management. These initiatives all remain relevant in the
UK, but the emphasis on both the objectives and the desired outcomes is different. In particular, surface
water, river and coastal flooding is a major and continuing concern for the UK, as highlighted in Chapter
5. Urban design has a central role to play in both flood prevention and flood resilience in all parts of the
UK, and this is a necessary addition to the definition of WSUD for the UK. However, demand on water
resources is also a strong, and recently highlighted, challenge for the UK. The interaction between flood
management and the provision of alternative water supplies shows great potential for new solutions to be
delivered. Building-based water efficiency initiatives, led by sustainability assessment mechanisms like
CSH, provide an immediate policy tool that encourages harvesting of local water resources as discussed in
Chapter 7. Figure 8.1 illustrates the interaction between flood risks and opportunities for water supply that
could become a central synergy for WSUD in the UK.

Figure 8.1 Flood risks and water supply opportunities

98 Creating water sensitive places

The expectations and priorities for sustainable design are also unique in the UK, and alignment with
these broader objectives will be essential to the success of a WSUD approach. In particular, movements in
the UK to increase delivery of GI for biodiversity, self-sufficiency, health and climate change adaptation
benefits have demonstrated momentum in the UK. The development of a new framework for valuing 1
GI through an appreciation of ecosystem services also provides a mechanism for the multiple benefits of
WSUD as discussed in Chapter 6. Another dominant sustainability driver in the UK is reducing carbon
(particularly energy-related carbon), which has been reinforced in binding UK Government targets and
policy (ie Climate Change Act 2008) and will remain a priority for the built environment profession.
Water supply and wastewater management is a significant, if not widely recognised, contributor of
carbon. WSUD provides an opportunity to incorporate inherent flexibility and adaptability to water
systems, which is not possible using traditional water assets (Sieker et al, 2008). WSUD may be able to 2
make progress through demonstration of how appropriate local initiatives can reduce embedded and
energy related carbon by alleviating pressure on existing infrastructure and deviating from assumed
need for conventional infrastructure expansion.

This study has also uncovered an inherent passion in practitioners and communities for the greater
integration and celebration of water in the urban environment. The potential to increase the quality
of urban places through the exposure of the ‘hidden water assets’ in communities has come across as a 3
clear desire to improve the quality and identity of places. There is an identified need to achieve greater
community awareness of water related issues as well as the potential solutions that could improve the
built environment. Currently, the benefits are well recognised in academia and industry in the UK, but
are rarely delivered from the ground-up. If WSUD is to be successful in the UK, it needs to gain support
from the general public and also needs to demonstrate how WSUD can be delivered through local
community initiatives in keeping with the sentiment of the neighbourhood planning system.
4
Another clear theme of the analysis is that while the benefits WSUD could bring are diverse, the parties
it could benefit are equally diverse and numerous. Chapter 6 has identified the key stakeholders, and the
benefits that will appeal to them to attract interest, funding and commitment. The creation of a coherent
movement will need a clear co-ordinating structure that can both involve and communicate benefits
to a wide-ranging audience. Greater awareness and leadership of WSUD initiatives is needed from the
professions in the built environment, but equally the engineering and ecology related disciplines with
technical awareness of water issues need avenues for improved cross-working in planning and urban 5
design, particularly in the early stages of strategic planning and master planning. To address issues in
existing areas, stakeholders need to come together to initiate retrofit schemes that could also deliver
community benefits. However, this collaboration requires the development of a common new language
that is both creative and strongly aligned to clear objectives. The fragmented institutional system for
managing disparate parts of the water cycle, especially in England, means that the development of such
an approach is challenging, but not insurmountable. WSUD could be an approach that defines the badly
needed vocabulary and common framework to address this fragmented situation. 6
The advancement of WSUD in the UK will require a change in culture, expectations and practice that is
based on sound research, engagement and creativity. The benefits to a range of parties and the general
public are extensive, but a conscious break from conventional working is needed to stimulate the scoping
and delivery of new solutions. The switch from traditional paradigms prevalent in the UK to a WSUD
approach is demonstrated in Table 8.1.
7
With both flooding and drought risk, along with the impacts of urbanisation being felt, a return to
community-led planning and resource management being promoted, the potential to stimulate new
WSUD thinking and ways of working in the UK has never been more opportune. Arguably, change is
critical to ensure urban development and water systems can be combined in a sustainable way.

CIRIA, C724 99
Table 8.1 Changes in approach required to deliver WSUD in the UK

Traditional UK approach Opportunities (what should be done under a WSUD approach)

Provide water supply, sewerage and Ensure that multiple benefits for water are used over long-term time
flood management for economic frames including environmental and other sectoral needs, ie transport,
and population growth and public recreation/amenity, micro-climate, energy and food production. Link
health protection water in cities more effectively to land use planning

Deliver adaptive, integrated, sustainable management of the total water

Compartmentalisation and
cycle (including land use) designed to secure a higher level of resilience
optimisation of separate
to future uncertainties in climate, water services requirements while
components of the water cycle
enhancing the liveability of urban environments

Narrow technical, environmental Engender and use trans-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder learning

and economic focused disciplines across social, technical, economic, design, ecological spheres

Delivery is centralised, linear and

Diverse, flexible solutions at multiple scales via a suite of approaches
predominantly technologically and
(technical, social, economic, ecological etc)
economically based

Water managed by government on Co-management of water between government, business and communities
behalf of communities within the context of providing multi-value benefits

Risk regulated and controlled by Risk shared and diversified via private and public instruments as well as
government individual property owners/dwellers

8.2 Definition of Water Sensitive Urban Design for the UK

Before implementing WSUD, the term should be clearly defined for the UK.

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

Two principles are important to its application:

1 All elements of the water cycle and their interconnections are considered concurrently to achieve
an outcome that sustains a healthy natural environment while meeting human needs. This includes
managing:
a Water demand and supply.
b Wastewater and pollution.
c Rainfall and runoff.
d Watercourses and water resources.
e Flooding and water pathways.
2 Consideration of the water cycle is made from the outset, and throughout the design and planning
process. Accordingly, water management solutions seek to meet the expectations and aspirations for
design of successful places, such as:
a Celebrating local character, environment and community.
b Optimising the cost-benefit of infrastructure and built form.
c Improving liveability for communities.
d Providing resource security and resilience in the future.

8.3 Vision statement

WSUD provides an opportunity to create beautiful, successful and resilient multi-functional places across
the UK. It is undeniable that the relationship between water and urban areas needs to be given a higher
priority to provide integrated solutions to flood management, sustainable water use and supply and the

100 Creating water sensitive places

improvement of water quality in valued watercourses. This priority needs to be applied in an integrated
way by those that plan, design and manage the built environment and the infrastructure within it. It
provides an opportunity to enhance the current built environment to incorporate nature and improve
the management of water resources. In doing so, the skills and creativity of practitioners are brought 1
together for the wider benefit of communities and the environment.

The application of WSUD will require technical rigour and creativity, but most of all it will require
collaboration to identify and integrate water management solutions and opportunities within the
urban form that complement wider design objectives and deliver multiple benefits. There will be some
design and delivery challenges to be overcome, but these can be addressed using existing science and
knowledge. The focus will be on inspiration, engagement and collective capacity building and active 2
learning by the key disciplines that shape the built environment, ie planners, urban designers, landscape
architects, engineers, ecologists, architects and developers.

There are a number of synergistic movements and initiatives that will bring great support to the
development of a WSUD approach. The promotion of GI planning and the valuation of ‘ecosystem
services’ has established good practice so that natural systems are integrated into the built environment
to provide multiple benefits. Concurrently, there is a strong body of expertise and knowledge in the 3
water sector that can help to promote and apply integrated water cycle management. There is also
rapidly advancing knowledge of water efficiency and sustainable drainage measures in the property
development industry, which is motivated by meeting sustainability targets. A comprehensive approach
to climate change is also being promoted by various sectors, addressing carbon reduction and climate
adaptation of urban areas. WSUD can bring these skills and initiatives together to give focus to a
collaborative approach to water management in the built environment that also links effectively to other
systems, services and infrastructure. 4
WSUD is not a set of solutions or measures, but a process and philosophy that seeks the best solutions to
optimise both water management and urban design objectives. The vision for the use of WSUD in the
UK draws significant attention to the risk of flooding, as well as a response to water quality management
and water security. The urban design priorities will also vary considerably, relating to location,
demographics, character, existing uses and the mechanism for change. WSUD also seeks to achieve
design and cost efficiencies in delivering a range of benefits through design collaboration. In applying 5
WSUD, the design response should be tailored depending on local and wider context.

The route map in the following section suggests initiatives and actions that will influence change and
help the design community promote and deliver water sensitive places.

Figure 8.2 WSUD concept that brings together a range of considerations

CIRIA, C724 101

8.4 Recommendations and route map
Table 8.2 outlines the key actions recommended to enable the agents for change to encourage greater
delivery of a WSUD approach. Each of the actions suggest a main party who should be responsible
for leading the action, as well as supporting partners who should be viewed as necessary in fulfilling
each action. These parties have been selected and aligned with the priorities identified in Chapter 6.
Results from the workshops, phone interviews and the questionnaire were used to identify the actions
that should be viewed as ‘essential’. Essential items are coloured in dark green, while important items
are coloured in light green. In terms of time-frame, short-term (S) is considered to be within a year,
medium-term (M) is between one and two years, and long-term (L) is longer than two years before the
action can be completed. Figure 8.3 shows the route map graphically.

In examining the route map, it can be seen that the actions share three common themes, which should
be the key messages to practitioners:

66 CONNECT the water cycle: seek the best solution for all aspects of the water cycle by thinking
about water supply, wastewater, surface water runoff and flood management
66 COLLABORATE with other disciplines: seek out other built environment practitioners who can
bring new perspectives and expertise
66 CREATE great solutions for great places: plan and design the built environment to respond to
urban form, community needs and water issues.

102 Creating water sensitive places

Table 8.2 Summary chart of actions to achieve agents for change

Action description Main stakeholder(s) Support required from Time frame

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

Identify interested networks/groups Relevant organisations and
CIRIA S
and supportive professional bodies institutes
Funding the establishment of a co- Relevant organisations and
S
ordinating body institutes
Agent for change 2: evidence base, guidance and training
Develop further WSUD guidance (high
level guidance for planners etc and CIRIA Partners S 2
potentially a detailed manual)
Develop and collate a detailed
CIRIA Partners S
evidence base
Update university curricula for
Academic institutions,
professions working in the built WSUD co-ordinating body L
academic champions
environment
Existing professional bodies,
Training professionals together WSUD co-ordinating body
academic institutions
M
3
Agent for change 3: presence and characteristics of champions
Develop network of champions across
key disciplines:
Existing champions
a Landscape architects Landscape Institute S
Landscape institute

b Town planners RTPI

Existing champions
RTPI, TCPA
S 4
Existing champions
c Urban designers Urban Design Group RTPI, RUDI, Urban Design Group, S
Design Commission for Wales

Institute of Ecology and

Natural Resources Wales
d Ecologists Environmental Management S
Existing champions
Environment Agency 5
ICE Existing champions
e Civil/water engineers S
Water companies ICE, CIWEM
Existing champions
f Architects RIBA S
WSUD co-ordinating body
Existing champions
g Land developers Home Builders Federation S
WSUD co-ordinating body
Third sector community facing
6
Identify and support third sector organisations
WSUD co-ordinating body S
champions to work with communities Groundwork UK
Wales Council for Voluntary Action
Establish professional networking Existing professional bodies,
WSUD co-ordinating body M
events academic institutions
Connect different networks of
champions across geographies
WSUD co-ordinating body M
7
Agent for change 4: supportive planning and design process and legislation

Align legislation to promote WSUD National government, Devolved WSUD co-ordinating body
L
principles Administrations, Defra Ofwat

Review local olans to align water

Local planning authorities WSUD co-ordinating body S
management goals
Integrate WSUD principles into
BRE, Waterwise WSUD co-ordinating body M 8
voluntary sustainability rating systems

CIRIA, C724 103

Table 8.2 Summary chart of actions to achieve agents for change (contd)
Establish the need for integrated
water cycle strategies for
developments
Develop new good practice for water
sensitive developments
Agent for change 5: trusted and reliable science and research
Establish body to co-ordinate
research
Collate existing relevant research
Establish research funding
Develop UK WSUD research
programme
Agent for change 6: fostering environmental expectations
Establish WSUD as an umbrella
organisation for environmental
movements
Foster water sensitive community
movement
Market the wider benefits of WSUD
Agent for change 7: strategic funding and incentives
Introduce incremental progressive
water pricing
Differential pricing for non-potable
water
Establish funding for pilot projects
Establish WSUD awards
Open competition for professionals
104
Local planning authorities
WSUD research co-ordinating
body
WSUD co-ordinating body
WSUD co-ordinating body
Research co-ordinating body
Research co-ordinating body
WSUD co-ordinating body
Third sector community facing
organisations
Groundwork UK
Groundwork Wales
RTPI, Landscape Institute,
Urban Design Group
Third sector community facing
organisations
National government, Devolved
Water companies/authorities
Administrations, Ofwat, WIC
National government,
Devolved Administrations,
Ofwat, WIC
Defra, Welsh Government,
CLG, water companies/
authorities, businesses
WSUD co-ordinating body
WSUD co-ordinating body
Environment Agency, Natural
Resources Wales, SEPA, NI Rivers M
Agency, Water authorities/companies
Local planning authorities
Design Council S
Design Commission for Wales
Water companies/ authorities,
S
academic institutions
Academic institutions M
Water companies/ authorities,
Welsh Government, Natural
M
Resources Wales, Defra, academic
institutions
Academic institutions,
M
practitioners, water companies
Defra, Environment Agency, Welsh
Government, Natural Resources L
Wales, SEPA
Local authorities M
WSUD co-ordinating body
S
WSUD champions
L
Water companies/authorities L
WSUD co-ordinating body M
Existing professional bodies,
L
champion developers
Existing professional bodies M
Creating water sensitive places
 1

7
Figure 8.3 Route map to promote and deliver WSUD in the UK

CIRIA, C724 105

References

ARCHIBOLD, R (2007) “From sewage, added water for drinking”, New York Times, 27 November. Go to:
www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/us/27conserve.html?_r=0

ASHLEY, R M, NOWELL, R, GERSONIUS, B and WALKER, L (2011) A review of current knowledge.

surface water management and urban green infrastructure. A review of potential benefits and UK and international
practices, FR/R0014, Foundation for Water Research, Bucks. Go to: www.fwr.org/greeninf.pdf

BBC (2012) “Drought may last until Christmas: Environment Agency”, BBC News England, 16 April. Go
to: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17690389

BLOOMBERG, M R and HOLLOWAY, C (2010) NYC Green infrastructure plan: a sustainable strategy for
clean waterways, City of New York, USA. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/nhqdp4k

BRAY, R, GRANT, G, GEDGE, D and LEUTHVILY, L (2013) UK Raingarden guide, Green Roof
Consultancy Ltd, London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/o274zva

BRE (2011) BREEAM New construction non-domestic buildings technical manual, SD5073, BRE Global Ltd,
UK. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/q5l278r

BROUWER, R, OZDEMIROGLU, E, PROVINS, A, THOMSON, C, TINCH, R, TURNER, K,

DANGERFIELD, S and NOTTAGE, A (2010) Flood and coastal erosion risk management: economic valuation
of environmental effects. Handbook for the Environment Agency for England and Wales, eftec, UK.
Go to: http://tinyurl.com/pj3uud8

BROWN, R (2005) “Impediments to integrated urban stormwater management: The need for
institutional reform” Environmental management, vol 36, 3, Springer UK, pp 455–468

BROWN, R (2012) “Transitioning to the water sensitive city: the socio-technical challenge”. In: C Howe
and C Mitchell (eds) Water sensitive cities, IWA Publishing, UK (ISBN: 978-1-84339-364-1) pp29–42

BROWN, R, KEATH, N and WONG, T (2008) “Transitioning to water sensitive cities: historical, current
and future transition states”. In: Proc 11th int conf on urban drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, 31 August to 5
September 2008

BROWN, R R and CLARKE, J M (2007) Transition to Water Sensitive Urban Design: The story of Melbourne,
Australia, Report No. 07/1, Facility for Advancing Water Biofiltration, Monash University, Australia
(ISBN: 978-0-98034-280-2)

DROEGE, P (ed) (2009) Climate: design: design and planning for the age of climate change, Oro Editions,
Singapore (ISBN: 978-0-98206-071-1)

CABE (2005) Does money grow on trees? Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, London.
Go to: http://tinyurl.com/74rjxt6

CABE (2009) Grey to green: How we shift funding and skills to green our cities, Commission for Architecture
and the Built Environment, London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/pgotv8r

CAVE, M (2009) Independent review of competition and innovation in water markets. Final report (The Cave
Report), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London (ISBN: 978-1-84532-568-8). Go
to: http://tinyurl.com/5uf4z9m

106 Creating water sensitive places

CHAPAGAIN, A and ORR, S (2008) UK Water Footprint: the impact of the UK’s food and fibre consumption on
global water resources, Volume One, World Wildlife Fund (WWF-UK), Surrey.
Go to: www.wwf.se/source.php/1407043/wwf_uk_footprint%5B1%5D.pdf

CLARKE, A, GRANT, N and THORNTON, J (2009) Quantifying the energy and carbon effects of water
saving, Environment Agency, Bristol and Elemental Solutions, Hereford

CNT (2011) The value of green infrastructure: A guide to recognising its economic, environmental and social
benefits, Center for Neighborhood Technology, UK. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/qjkrh6d

CNT (2012) Technology green values stormwater toolbox, Center for Neighborhood Technology, UK. Go to:
http://greenvalues.cnt.org/

COPE, G (2011) “SWAN’s way – in search of lost water” Global water Intelligence, vol 12, Issue 6, CWC
Group, Media Analytics Ltd, Oxford

CORFU (2013) FP7 Collaborative research on flood resilience in urban areas: www.corfu-fp7.eu/

DCLG (2008) The Code for Sustainable Homes. Setting the standard in sustainability for new homes,
Department for Communities and Local Government, London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/cwjmpfa

DCLG (2009) Eco-towns. A supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1. Department of Communities and
Local Government, UK (ISBN: 978-1-40981-683-6)

DCLG (2010) Decentralisation and the Localism Bill: An essential guide, Department of Communities and
Local Government, UK (ISBN: 978-1-40982-662-0)

DCLG (2011a) Code for Sustainable Homes – technical guide, Department for Communities and Local
Government, UK (ISBN 978-1-85946-331-4)

DCLG (2011b) The Community Infrastructure Levy. An overview, Department for Communities and Local
Government, UK (ISBN: 978-1-40982-961-4)

DCLG (2012a) Technical guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework, Department for Communities
and Local Government, UK (ISBN: 978-1-40983-410-6)

DCLG (2012b) National Planning Policy Framework, Department for Communities and Local Government,
UK (ISBN: 978-1-40983-3413-7)

DCLG (2012c) Neighbourhood planning vanguards, Department for Communities and Local Government,
UK. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/om8kgas

DECC (2008) Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC), Carbon Zone Ltd, North Ayrshire, UK.
Go to: www.carbonreductioncommitment.co.uk/

DECC (2009) The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan: National Strategy for Climate and Energy, The Stationery
Office, London (ISBN: 978-0-10850-839-4)

DEFRA (2011a) Consultation on the Implementation of the Sustainable Drainage Systems provisions in Schedule
3. Flood and Water Management Act 2010, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,
London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/p2als64

DEFRA (2011b) Water for life, The Stationery Office, London (ISBN: 978-0-10182-302-9)

DEFRA (2012) Statement of obligations. Information for water and sewerage undertakers and regulators on
statutory environmental and drinking water provisions applicable to the water sector in England, Department for
the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/onnjdz8

CIRIA, C724 107

DEFRA (2012a) Principles for implementing flood and coastal resilience funding partnerships, Department for
the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/oc2s2p3

DEFRA and ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2009) Delivering Benefits through science, Joint Defra/Environment
Agency Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Research and Development Programme, Department
for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/ctp89jp

DEFRA and ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2011) Understanding the risks, empowering communities, building
resilience. The national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy for England, The Stationery Office,
London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/c7ujr8o

DIGMAN, C, ASHLEY, R, BALMFORTH, D, BALMFORTH, D, STOVIN, B and GLERUM, J (2012)

Retrofitting to manage surface water, C713, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-715-9). Go to: www.ciria.org

DORON, U, TEH, T-H, HAKLAY, M, BELL, S J (2011) “Public engagement with water conservation in the
Lower Lea Valley”, UK Water and Environment Journal, vol 25, University College London, UK, pp 555–562

EC (2009) Adapting to climate change: towards a European framework for action, European Commission.
Go to: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/adaptation/index_en.htm

EC (2010) Water scarcity and drought in the European Union, European Commission.
Go to: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/scarcity_en.htm

EC (2012) The blueprint to safeguard Europe’s waters, European Commission.

Go to: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/blueprint/index_en.htm

ELKINGTON, J (1994) “Towards a sustainable corporation: win-win-win business strategies for sustainable
development” California Management Review, vol 36, 2, University of California, US, pp 90–100

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2007) Water efficiency in the south east of England, retrofitting existing homes,
GEHO0407BMNC-E-E, Environment Agency, Bristol. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/pj9lmxw

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2010) Energy and carbon implications of rainwater harvesting and greywater
recycling, Environment Agency, Bristol (ISBN: 978-1-84911-198-0)

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2012) Principles for implementing flood and coastal resilience funding
partnerships, Environment Agency, Bristol. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/odl75yp

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY and ARUP (2011) Rainwater harvesting (RWH) and SuDS – carbon implications
for Wales, Environment Agency, Bristol and Arup, UK

FOREST RESEARCH (2010) Benefits of green infrastructure. Report to Defra and CLG, Defra research
contract number WC0807, Forest Research, Farnham. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/llm4gft

FLOODPROBE (2012) Technologies for the cost-effective flood protection of the built environment, European
Community, Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/pfufgtu

GAMBRELL, R P (1994) “Trace and toxic metals in wetlands a review” Journal of Environmental Quality,
vol 23, 5, ASA-CSSA-SSSA, USA, pp 883–891.
Go to: https://www.agronomy.org/publications/jeq/abstracts/23/5/JEQ0230050883?access=0&view=pdf

GILLIAM, J W (1994) “Riparian wetlands and water quality” Journal of Environmental Quality, vol 23, 5,
ASA-CSSA-SSSA, USA, pp 896–900

GOULDDON, A, KERR, N, TOPI, C, DAWKINS, E, KUYLENSTIERNA, J and PEARCE, R (2011) The

economics of low carbon cities. A mini-stern review for the Leeds City region, Centre for Low Carbon Futures,
York, UK. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/oe93g2s

108 Creating water sensitive places

GRAY, D (2011) Review of Ofwat and consumer representation in the water sector (Gray Review), Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/nnl8b64

GRIFFITHS, J (2011) Written Statement – Water Policy in Wales, Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff.
Go to: http://tinyurl.com/phpc584

HM GOVERNMENT (2011a) The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature, natural environment white
paper, CM8082, The Stationery Office, Norwich (ISBN: 978-0-10180-822-4)
Go to: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/natural/whitepaper/

HM GOVERNMENT (2010) Code for Sustainable homes; Technical Guidance, Communities and Local
Government, London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/q4995cv

HM GOVERNMENT (2000a) The Building Regulations. Approved Document G Sanitation, hot water safety
and water efficiency, RIBA Enterprises Ltd, UK (ISBN: 978-1-85946-323-9)

HM GOVERNMENT (2000b) The Building Regulations. Approved Document H Drainage and waste disposal,
RIBA Enterprises Ltd, UK (ISBN: 978-1-85946-208-9)

HOYER, J, DICKHAUT, W, KRONAWITTER, L and WEBER, B (eds) (2011) Water Sensitive Urban
Design: principles and inspiration for sustainable stormwater management in the city of the future, Jovis,
Hamburg, Germany, ISBN: 978-3-86859-106-4

ICE (2012a) “Call for Papers on Water Sensitive Urban Design”. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers – Municipal Engineer, Themed Issue. Go to: www.imesa.org.za/images/documents/ICE_WSUD.pdf

ICE (2012b) The State of the Nation: Water 2012, Institution of Civil Engineers, London.
Go to: http://tinyurl.com/cb4bblp

JENKINS, G J, MURPHY, J M, SEXTON, D M H, LOWE, J A, JONES, P and KILSBY, C G (2009) UK

Climate Projections: Briefing report, Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK (ISBN: 978-1-906360-04-7).
Go to: www.climatechangeandyourhome.org.uk/live/content_pdfs/883.pdf

KENWAY, S J and LANT, P (2012) “The influence of water on urban energy use”. In: C Howe and C
Mitchell (eds) Water sensitive cities, IWA Publishing, UK (ISBN: 978-1-84339-364-1) pp63–77

LANDSCAPE INSTITUTE and TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ASSOCIATION (2012) Green
infrastructure scoping study, Ref WC0809, The Landscape Institute, UK. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/oyznu6q

LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT CENTER (2011) LID technology. Low Impact Development Center,
Maryland, USA. Go to: www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/

MACKENZIE, L (2010) “Rotterdam: the water city of the future”, WaterWorld, US.
Go to: http://tinyurl.com/nl3a7q6

MACPHERSON, L (2012) “Water: Nature’s amazing reusable resource”. In: C Howe and C Mitchell (eds)
Water sensitive cities, IWA Publishing, UK (ISBN: 978-1-84339-364-1) pp123–138

MAIMONE, M (2012) “The SUDS Challenge – Philadelphia’s Green City Clean Waters Program”
(unpublished), Keynote presentation at IWA World Congress on water climate and energy, February 2012, Dublin

MORGAN, C, BEVINGTON, C, LEVIN, D, ROBINSON, P, DAVIS, P, ABBOTT, J and SIMKINS, P

(2013) Water Sensitive Urban Design. Ideas for built environment practitioners, C723, CIRIA, London (ISBN:
978-0-86017-726-5). Go to: www.ciria.org

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION (2011) Urban Water in Australia: future directions, Australian
Government. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/ogzpyft

CIRIA, C724 109

NATURAL ECONOMY NORTHWEST, THE NORTHERN WAY, NATURAL ENGLAND, THE
COMMISSION FOR ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, DESIGN FOR LONDON
and TEES VALLEY UNLIMITED (2009) The Green Infrastructure Valuation Toolkit:
http://tinyurl.com/6wdl53s

NATURAL ENGLAND (2009) Green infrastructure guidance, NE176, Natural England, UK.
Go to: http://tinyurl.com/nemz23e

NATURAL ENGLAND (2011) Microeconomic evidence for the benefits of investment in the environment –
review, research report NERR033, Natural England, UK
Go to: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/32031

NEF (2010) Grounded. A new approach to assessing Runway 3, New Economics Foundation, London (ISBN:
978-1-904882-74-9). Go to: www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Grounded_0.pdf

NHBC FOUNDATION (2010) Water efficiency in new homes, NF20, NHBC Foundation, Buckinghamshire,
UK. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/cy9km2t

OFWAT (2008) Preparing for the future – Ofwat’s climate change policy statement, Birmingham, UK. Go to:
http://tinyurl.com/oxh5mm6

OFWAT (2010) Beyond limits. How should prices for monopoly water and sewerage services be controlled? Ofwat,
Birmingham, UK (ISBN: 1-90465-575-0). Go to: http://tinyurl.com/qzh38z6

OFWAT (2011a) Valuing water – how upstream markets could deliver for consumers and the environment, Ofwat,
Birmingham, UK (ISBN: 1-90465-076-9). Go to: http://tinyurl.com/oqoq3ts

OFWAT (2011b) Inputs, outputs and outcomes – what should price limits deliver? A discussion paper, Ofwat,
Birmingham, UK (ISBN: 1-90465-590-4). Go to: http://tinyurl.com/pq96dsl

OMAMBALA, I (2009) Water efficiency retrofitting – a best practice guide, Waterwise, UK.
Go to: http://tinyurl.com/qzmdarc

PWD (2009) Philadelphia Combined Sewer Overflow Long Term Control Plan Update. Supplemental
Documentation Volume 2. Triple Bottom Line Analysis, SC11737, Philadelphia Water Department, US
Go to: www.phillywatersheds.org/ltcpu/Vol02_TBL.pdf

PWD (2012) Green city, clean waters, Philadelphia Water Department, US. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/2fxjqeo

PITT, M (2008) The Pitt Review - learning lessons from the 2007 floods, Cabinet Office, London.
Go to: http://tinyurl.com/aghrxo9

ROY, A H, WENGER, S J, FLETCHER, T D, WALSH, C J, LADSON, A R, SHUSTER, W D,

THURSTON, H W and BROWN, R R (2008) “Impediments and solutions to sustainable, watershed-scale
urban stormwater management: lessons from Australia and the United States”, Environmental Management,
vol. 42, 2, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, USA, pp 344–359

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT (2011) The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act; Delivering Sustainable Flood
Risk Management Guidance Document, Scottish Government, Edinburgh (ISBN 978-1-78045-221-0)

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT (2012) Scotland the hydro nation prospectus and proposals for legislation
consultation, Scottish Government, Edinburgh (ISBN: 978-1-78045-640-9)
Go to: http://home.scotland.gov.uk/home

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT (2012) A policy on architecture and placemaking for Scotland: public
consultation 2012, Scottish Government, Edinburgh (ISBN:978-1-78045-820-5)
Go to: http://home.scotland.gov.uk/home

110 Creating water sensitive places

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT (2010) Building a hydro nation – a consultation, Scottish Government,
Edinburgh (ISBN: 978-0-75599-863-0). Go to: http://home.scotland.gov.uk/home

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT (2012) Review of the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004: Technical
Handbooks (non domestic) – Section 2 (Fire), Scottish Government, Edinburgh (ISBN: 978-1-78256-092-0).
Go to: http://home.scotland.gov.uk/home

SIEKER, H, HELM, B, KREBS, P, SCHLOTTMANN, P and TRANKER, J (2008) “Flexibility – a

planning criterion for stormwater management”. In: Proc 11th int conf on urban drainage, Edinburgh,
Scotland, 31 August to 5 September 2008

SIEMENS AG (2011) German cities among Europe’s best in environmental protection, press release, Frankfurt,
Germany. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/nje2ys9

SINGAPORE GOVERNMENT (2012) ABC Waters Programme, PUB Singapore Government.

Go to: www.pub.gov.sg/abcwaters/Pages/default.aspx

STERN, N ( 2006) The Stern Review on the economics of climate change, H M Treasury, London.
Go to: http://tinyurl.com/3889zcz

TAYLOR, A C (2008) Industry report: Leadership in sustainable urban water management an investigation of
the champion phenomenon within Australian water agencies, Monash University. Melbourne, Australia (ISBN:
978-0-9804298-5-5). Go to: www.watercentre.org/education/leadership/attachments/8.pdf

TAYLOR, A C (2010) Sustainable urban water management: The champion phenomenon. PhD Thesis, Monash
University, Melbourne, Australia

TEEB (2011) TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Areas, TEEB – The Economics of
Ecosystems and Biodiversity, Switzerland. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/ntxr4gt

TSO (2004) Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004 Technical handbooks, The Stationary Office, London
Go to: www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/09/9995/1

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE (2012) Northwest Cambridge master plan and planning application,
University of Cambridge, UK. Go to: www.nwcambridge.co.uk/planning-application-full.php

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE (2013) Delivering and evaluating multiple benefits from flood risk strategies
in blue green cities, Centre for Sustainable Development, University of Cambridge, UK.
Go to: http://tinyurl.com/oxjj64o

USEPA (2012) Green infrastructure, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, US
Go to: http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/index.cfm

VAN ROON, M R (2011) “Water sensitive residential developments: Application of LIUDD principles
and methods in the Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand”, Urban Water Journal, vol 8, 6, Taylor and
Francis Ltd, UK, pp 325–335

VAN ROON, M R (2011a) “Low Impact urban design and development: Catchment based structure
planning to optimize ecological outcomes” Urban Water Journal, vol 8, 5, Taylor and Francis Ltd, UK,
pp 293–308

WALKER, A (2009) The independent review of charging for household water and sewerage services (Walker Review),
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/m8uc83d

WALKER, G and ZYGMUNT, J (ed) (2009) The water and energy implications of bathing and showering
behaviours and technologies, WaterWise, UK. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/oxk82ax

CIRIA, C724 111

WATSON, R and ALBON, S (2011) UK National Ecosystem Assessment. Synthesis of the Key findings, UNEP-
WCMC, Cambridge. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/pehfym2

WATTERS, C (2010) Water efficiency in new developments – a - A best practice guide, Waterwise, UK.
Go to: http://tinyurl.com/c6r47fo

WELSH GOVERNMENT (2002) The Welsh Housing Quality Standard, Welsh Government, Cardiff.
Go to: http://tinyurl.com/bpa5szs

WELSH GOVERNMENT (2009) One Wales: one planet. The sustainable development scheme of the Welsh
Assembly Government, CMK-22-01-163, D6840809, Welsh Government, Cardiff (ISBN: 978-0-75045-169-7).
Go to: http://tinyurl.com/px7krwh

WELSH GOVERNMENT (2010a) Climate change strategy for Wales, Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff
(ISBN: 978-0-75045-714-9). Go to: http://tinyurl.com/p28k342

WELSH GOVERNMENT (2011) Strategic policy position statement on water 2011, Welsh Assembly
Government, Cardiff. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/bu4s5kt

WELSH GOVERNMENT (2012) White Paper. Homes for Wales. A white paper for better lives and communities,
Welsh Government, Cardiff. Go to: http://wales.gov.uk/docs/desh/consultation/120521whitepaperen.pdf

WELSH GOVERNMENT (2012a) Planning Policy Wales, Edition 5, Welsh Government, Cardiff (ISBN
978 0 7504 8211 0). Go to: http://tinyurl.com/pbexxwe

WONG, T and BROWN, R (2008) “Transitioning to water sensitive cities: ensuring resilience through
a new hydro-social contract”. In: Proc 11th int conf on urban drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, 31 August to 5
September 2008

WONG, T and BROWN, R (2009) “The water sensitive city: principles for practice” Water Science
Technology, vol 60, 3, EDAW, Australia, pp 673–682

WONG, T H F (ed), ALLEN, R, BERINGER, J, BROWN, R R, DELETIC, A, FLETCHER, T D,

GANGADHARAN, L, GERNJAK, R, JAKOB, C, O’LOAN, R, REEDER, M, TAPPER, N, WALSH, C
(2012) blueprint2012. Stormwater management in a water sensitive city, Centre for Water Sensitive Cities,
Melbourne, Australia (ISBN: 978-1-92191-201-6)

WOODS-BALLARD, B (2012) “Where are we now (issues and opportunities)”. In: Proc Getting on with
SuDs. The National SuDS conference, 20–21 June 2012, Thame, UK

WOODS-BALLARD, B, KELLAGHER, R, MARTIN, P, JEFFERIES, C, BRAY, R and SHAFFER, P

(2007) The SuDS manual, C697, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-697-8). Go to: www.ciria.org

WATER BY DESIGN (2010) A business case for best practice urban stormwater management, Water by Design,
Australia. Go to: http://waterbydesign.com.au/businesscase/

WATER UK (2011) Sustainability indicators 2010/2011, Water UK, London. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/pb3rfsj

ZERO CARBON HUB (2011) Allowable solutions for tomorrow’s new homes, Zero Carbon Hub, London. Go
to: http://tinyurl.com/3tgtkoo

112 Creating water sensitive places

Statutes
British Standards
BS 8515:2009 Rainwater harvesting systems

BS 8582 Code of practice for surface water flood risk management (in development)

Acts
Building Act 1984 (c.55)

Building (Scotland) Act 2003 (asp 8)

Climate Change Act 2008 (c.27)

Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 (asp 6)

Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (c.29)

Localism Act 2011 (c.20)

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c.8)

The Energy Act 2011 (c.16)

Regulations
Building Regulations 2010 for England and Wales (No 2214)

Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (No 406)

Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 (No 192)

The Flood Risk Regulations 2009 (No 3042)

Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Scotland) Regulations 2008

Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005

Water Environment (Diffuse Pollution) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 (No 54)

Statutory Instruments
Climate Change, The CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme Order 2010 (No 768)

European Directives
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a
framework for Community action in the field of water policy (EU Water Framework Directive) (WFD)

Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (Urban Wastewater
Treatment Directive)

Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the
assessment and management of flood risks (Floods Directive 2007)

Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the
management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC (Bathing Waters Directive 2006)

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
and flora (Habitats Directive)

CIRIA, C724 113

 Core and Associate members
AECOM Ltd Morgan Sindall (Infrastructure) Plc
Arup Group Ltd Mott MacDonald Group Ltd
Atkins Consultants Limited Mouchel
Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Ltd MWH
BAM Nuttall Ltd National Grid UK Ltd
Black & Veatch Ltd Network Rail
Buro Happold Engineers Limited Northumbrian Water Limited
BWB Consulting Ltd Rail Safety and Standards Board
Cardiff University Royal HaskoningDHV Ltd
CH2M RSK Group Ltd
Environment Agency RWE Npower plc
Galliford Try plc Scottish Water
Gatwick Airport Ltd Sellafield Ltd
Geotechnical Consulting Group Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd
Golder Associates (Europe) Ltd SLR Consulting Ltd
Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd Tarmac
High Speed Two (HS2) Temple Group Ltd
Highways England Thames Water Utilities Ltd
HR Wallingford Ltd United Utilities Plc
Imperial College London University College London
Institution of Civil Engineers University of Reading
Laing O’Rourke Civil Engineering Ltd University of Sheffield
London Underground Ltd University of Southampton
Loughborough University WYG Group (Nottingham Office)
Maccaferri Ltd
Ministry of Justice November 2015
 C724
Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) is an approach to design that delivers greater
harmony between water, the environment and communities. This is achieved by
integrating water cycle management with the built environment through planning and
urban design. WSUD prioritises water management considerations during the early
conception of developments creating multiple benefits and opportunities to overcome

Creating water sensitive places - scoping the potential for Water Sensitive Urban Design in the UK
challenges. WSUD is not a set of solutions or measures, but a process and philosophy to
optimise water management and urban design.
This scoping study together with the ‘ideas booklet’ Water Sensitive Urban Design in the
UK – ideas for built environment practitioners (C723) provides details of the drivers,
benefits and vision of WSUD in the UK. It is based on findings from a collaborative project
that included extensive consultation and a literature review to understand the role of
WSUD in the UK.
Creating water sensitive places
- scoping the potential for
Water Sensitive Urban Design in the UK

CIRIA

C724 9 780860 177333