Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Municipal Engineer 157 December 2004 Issue ME4 Pages 245 250

Paper 13862 Received 20/05/2004 Accepted 16/07/2004 Keywords: drainage & irrigation/environment/ oods & oodworks

J. Bryan Ellis Emeritus Professor, Urban Pollution Research Centre, Middlesex University, London, UK

Liane Scholes Research Fellow, Urban Pollution Research Centre, Middlesex University, London, UK

D. Michael Revitt Professor of Environmental Chemistry, Urban Pollution Research Centre, Middlesex University, London, UK

John Oldham Director, Countryside (Special Projects) Ltd, Brentwood, UK

Sustainable urban development and drainage

J. B. Ellis
MSc, FGS, MWA,

L. Scholes PhD, D. M. Revitt

PhD, MRSC

and J. Oldham

BSc

The recent Barker Report on housing supply has identied serious shortages which partly result from slow planning decisions and conservative interpretations of Planning Policy Guidance 3 (PPG3) development rules. Increased and wider stakeholder interests and associated consultation times are also stretching out medium- to large-scale development approval times. Sustainable development design for high-density masterplanning, based on enhanced lifestyle and environmental parameters and which incorporate sustainable drainage systems are proposed, which bring together the apparently contradictory objectives of PPG3 development and PPG25 ood risk regulations.

areas under the terms of Planning Policy Guidance 3 (PPG3) planning rules which stipulate where new developments can be built. There has also been a signicant shift in the predominant type of housing development, with the 19% detached housing to 46% ats distribution of 2002 2003 new house builds representing a complete reversal of the 1997 1978 distribution, reecting the recent strong push to higher-density browneld development. The UK House Builders Federation (HBF) also claims that councils are increasingly requiring ever-higher nancial contributions for physical and community infrastructure improvements in return for planning permission. The Council for the Protection of Rural England counter-claims that Britains 15 largest house builders already own enough land carrying planning permission to accommodate 278 866 new houses17.6% more than in 1998 according to the builders own annual reports. The Barker Report1 suggests the UK should be building an extra 325 000 houses per year to match supply in continental Europe and to avoid both increasing house price ination and homelessness. An additional 17 000 26 000 social housing units per year are also recommended with strict time limits set for planning approvals, although the HBF suggests that excessive social housing may threaten the economic viability of some developments. The current metropolitan London Plan has a target of 15 000 affordable units in London per year which is equivalent to some 50% of all new homes, with even large commercial schemes having to provide residential oor space. The Barker Report advocates that planners should practise greater exibility in changing Green Belt designations to avoid perverse environmental impact elsewhere, with local authorities making more land available for housebuilding thus liberalising PPG3 planning rules. While planning permission will still rest with local authorities, councils could be offered new nancial incentives to keep the council tax raised from new developments for up to three years. Developers might also be offered incentives through optional tariff-based charges to conventional Section 106 Agreements, which would enable local authorities to utilise the money on community infrastructure and environmental improvements. There are concerns, however, on whether councils would specically reserve such payments for those developments generating the charges. Streamlining of the planning process through increased funding to council planning departments may nevertheless help to push along decision making and reduce the planning-time problem. However, the possible introduction of a planning-gain tax or supplement for landowners following the Ellis et al. 245

1. HOUSING POLICY DRIVERS The recommendations for reform and improvement of the UK planning system contained in the Barker Review of Housing Supply,1 acknowledges the housing shortage which has persisted over the past ten years with the average number of homes being built remaining static at about 170 000 per annum. Over the past ten years, the number of new dwellings built in the UK has been 12.5% lower than in the previous decade. In addition, between 1995 and 2003 the number of social or affordable homes being built fell from 42 700 to 21 000. Housebuilding is currently at its lowest level since the Second World War with the gap between supply and demand widening by 60 000 annually and predicted to exceed 1 million in England by 2020. At the same time, UK prices over the past 30 years have risen by 2.7% per annum in real terms compared to a European average of 1.1%. Over the same time period, housebuilders have found it increasingly difcult to obtain development approval. In 1997, while only 15% of planning applications for large housing developments were refused, by 2002 some 25% of applications were turned down. In addition, only one out of six (16%) planning applications for new housing developments consisting of more than ten dwellings is decided upon inside the governments target deadline of eight weeks. The consultation process on large-scale developments, such as that proposed for the M11 corridor (where over 195 000 homes are planned in largely rural areas), can take several years prior to any specic planning application even being lodged. This slow planning process has been exacerbated by bans imposed by some local councils on large-scale housebuilding outside regeneration Municipal Engineer 157 Issue ME4

Sustainable urban development and drainage

granting of planning permission may serve as a counter-brake on development. A further major issue is that of increasing housing densities. Densities in UK 1920s/1930s surbubia were typically between 15 20 houses per ha, rising to 20 25 houses per ha in the 1980s/ 1990s compared to the current PPG3 target of 30 50 dwellings per ha. However, the upper density level of 50 dwellings per ha may relate to the net density for the areas of housing alone, with the gross density (with allowance for open space, schools, roads, etc.) for the overall development being closer to the lower limit of 30 per ha. Nevertheless, the higher housing density targets, combined with requirements for the inclusion of 3040% or more affordable units, are driving house builders to seek new and innovative architectural and associated landscape and drainage approaches for future developments. A major inuence on such future developments will be the presence of small but articulate local pressure groups who have both political and technical awareness as well as considerable local knowledge. They frequently consist of (semi-)retired professionals who have knowledge and time to lobby their links in local government planning departments. Developers will therefore need to put in place appropriate communication and liaison skills to interact with such groups as well as introducing increased consultation time in working up and following through their design proposals with a variety of stakeholders. Developers may be increasingly required to provide statements and checklists of sustainable development to accompany their planning applications, and pre-application discussion will need to be undertaken with a range of acknowledged stakeholders as well as council departments. The proposed new planning regulations which set out exactly how the local community is to be involved in the planning process, require planning authorities to produce Statements of Community Involvement (SCI), establishing public participation and community involvement in the planning approval process as a key part of scoping and creating sustainable communities. Given this increased momentum for community and stakeholder engagement in the planning and design process, the governments desire for reducing overall planning time may not be easily achieved, particularly for medium- to large-scale developments.

building design providing a measure of individual (or block) privacy. (b) Soft foundations: landscaping of individual blocks; provision of neighbourhood amenity open space with a blue-green prole of water and natural habitat; service facilities such as a village hall, shops and other landmark buildings. Greeneld housing may thus evolve as clustered quadrant or campus-collegiate-type developments with the land released on a controlled phase basis to various builders using different architects guided by a binding but exible design code or masterplan to avoid the bland conformity typical of many past new developments. Street and block landscaping, the provision of adjoining blue-green open spaces and control of car movement will assume greater importance in the development design, helping to create a more eco-friendly and pleasurable living environment. A characteristic of this medium- to high-density block clustering of varying house and apartment types is a reduced footprint, which leaves intervening and adjoining land available for open space and habitat development. This type of sustainable development design (SDD) is also becoming known as smart growth planning (SGP) in the USA.2 Compact, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use development patterns and land reuse with good accessible public transport optimise the application of such SDD. In addition, designing buildings to maximise solar light penetration, the judicious and mixed use of wood and modern materials, internal beams, oor-to-ceiling windows, green sedum roofs, etc., will collectively reinforce the urban countryside feeling to a volume-built development. The inclusion of affordable housing in such developments is, at times, a contentious management issue given the poor perception of some housing tenants and the difculties of dealing with antisocial behaviour. Housing associations and associated renting schemes need manageable housing blocks, so affordable units should not be too dispersed across the development site. However, the integration of differing tenures, including key worker accommodation, will help to deliver balanced sustainable communities. SDD development can additionally take into account the requirements of lifetime home standards of robust, durable design to meet ageing householder prolesfor example, internal lift access capability, easy removal of inner walls, and door widths. 3. MASTERPLAN DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DRAINAGE Planning applications need to provide detail of access, drainage and other infrastructure arrangements as well as landscape setting in support of the specic housing design and layout. In greeneld SDD cluster planning, secondary mews-type streets can lead from main thoroughfares providing intimacy and intensity of built form in contrast to the larger open landscape spaces offering leisure/amenity activity and ecological connectivity to surrounding habitats and countryside. In such clustered arrangements, the design of house types can be thought of in a different way. Each one can be designed to face both ways to the mews streets for primary access and with a landscape side for leisure and amenity (Fig. 1). With a more generous landscaping provision, the dwellings can be designed with more intimate private external spaces allowing Ellis et al.

2. DEVELOPMENT AND LAND-USE MANAGEMENT Prime urban community concerns today are focused on quality-of-life issues which include access to work and schools, service/infrastructure facilities and surrounding landscape and environment. Many housebuilders are now using focus groups to provide basic market research on lifestyle needs, house style and architecture, affordable development, etc., prior to working up outline development designs. Higher housing densities need not necessarily be a drawback if homes are well designed and adaptable to changing needs and there is access to good environmental surroundings. Urban development is increasingly concerned with the long-term provision of an acceptable and sustainable lifestyle within an architecturally attractive urban-like community setting, with the core elements of this lifestyle consisting of the following. (a) Hard foundations: adequate drainage; controlled vehicular access and movement; leisure facilities for differing age groups; recreational/amenity spaces; car parking; and the 246 Municipal Engineer 157 Issue ME4

Sustainable urban development and drainage

sites as the existing drainage systems will frequently be at or near maximum capacity. This is also frequently the case with strategic greeneld landscaping, open spaces, pedestrian squares/linkages, pervious surfaces and providing sites where there is no existing infrastructure to drain into, and thus the development involves dealing with the soil and Fig. 1 Mews-style layout within a sustainable development design development environmental constraints associated with introducing an effective drainage system. open (and soft-landscaped vegetated) views from adjoining Sustainable urban development must aim to minimise rooms and visual (as well as actual) contact with the external environmental impacts and make best use of the local landscape. A variety of courts, terraces, balcony arrangements, environmental resources. SDD developments offer full etc. can be introduced to the design, opening each space to the opportunities for the incorporation of source control drainage outside while maintaining a high degree of privacy. The inclusion systems (or SUDS) within masterplan design and which are of lawns, open spaces and pocket parks can facilitate informal consistent with the rure in urbes concept of such high-density play areas of low-maintenance requirement for differing age housing clusters. Such SUDS systems are essentially concerned groups. Fig. 2 illustrates a conceptual SDD housing masterplan with sustainable control and management of not only ow designed to PPG3, 4050 dwellings per ha capacity, with internal quantity and quality but also amenity provision3 and are thus amenity and inltration opportunities. The design intends to compatible with SDD objectives. maximise ecological connectivity with the surrounding environment and utilise a combination of on- and off-site Most local councils are now incorporating sustainable sustainable drainage systems (SUDS). development guidelines within their Local and Structure Plans (or Local Development Documents as proposed under the new There will often be problems with handling the increased planning arrangements). The guidelines adopted by Cambridge quantities of surface water generated on higher-density housing City Council advocate that SUDS options for surface water
Mix of 2/5-storey house type and architecture Landscaped pedestrian linkage Mews access roads

Landscaped amenity corridor Open spaces and play areas

Balancing pond or wetland

Primary vehicular access roads of porous asphalt with swale planting lines or infiltration trenches

Affordable housing blocks

Car parking with porous paving/pavoirs or grasscrete Formal leisure courtyards Housing blocks with sedum roofs, car parking and landscaped terraces, courtyards, recycled rainwater, CHP, etc.

Landscaped pedestrian links receiving disconnected roof downspout rainwater

Mews access streets with pocket wetland chicanes

Fig. 2 Conceptual sustainable development design masterplan for new urban development

Municipal Engineer 157 Issue ME4

Sustainable urban development and drainage

Ellis et al.

247

drainage should be considered at the earliest stages of masterplanning.4

Development can cause many impacts on the water environment. One of the most dramatic of these is ooding. SUDS can help manage surface water runoff which might otherwise cause ooding and pollution by introducing drainage systems that mimic natural processes rather than piped solutions. SUDS principles deal with rain close to its source, can deal with polluted water, and slow down ows across sites and into watercourses, which also has ecological benets. The following principles should be considered early on in site layout and design. Minimise runoff and encourage groundwater recharge. . Use permeable materials in developments to minimise the amount of runoff, such as porous pavements and lter drains. . Reuse or recycle water on site (e.g. collect rainwater in water butts for domestic gardens; use grey water for toilet ushing). . Use grass swales and basins to provide temporary storage for stormwater and facilitate the ltration of pollutants. . Use balancing ponds and wetlands to accommodate variations in water levels and lter pollutants from the water, and to provide amenity and ecological benets. . Use inltration trenches for enhancing the natural ow of water through a development. . Consider green roofs (e.g. using sedum plants) to reduce the volume and rate of runoff.

vegetation and role of tree planting in reducing surface water runoff and hence reducing ood risk. The council seeks to sustain the natural drainage processes within catchments . . . . . Policy statement on ood defence: . . . the council, acting as a local planning authority, will ensure that (ood) risks are further minimised; this includes ensuring sustainable urban drainage systems and watercourses. At the national level, PPG25, entitled Development and Flood Risk,6 advocates that all development plans should promote the use of SUDS drainage and that developers should be required to implement appropriate drainage systems to prevent an increase in ood risk. PPG25 indicates that local authorities should work closely with the Environment Agency, sewerage undertakers, navigation authorities and developers to coordinate surfacewater runoff control as near to the source as possible through the use of sustainable drainage systems.

4. SELECTING AND APPLYING APPROPRIATE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS SUDS include a variety of structural devices for ow and quality control within new urban developments and Fig. 3 illustrates their applicability in terms of contributing catchment area, soil type and associated inltration rate. The drainage area site provides a major exclusion factor for different SUDS devices with inltration practices being clearly dependent on the underlying soil characteristics which control the hydraulic conductivity. Extended detention basins and wet retention basins (including wetlands) generally provide the most efcient treatment for surface runoff from catchment areas in excess of 6 8 ha and can function effectively across a range of soil types, although increased impermeability is preferable. In specic circumstances, these SUDS devices can be designed to operate in smaller catchments, such as when pocket wetlands are used for receiving localised road drainage. This exibility with regard to the size of the contributing drainage area is also demonstrated by inltration basins. However, the most favoured SUDS for catchments below 3 ha in area are lter strips/swales, inltration trenches and porous/permeable paving. In addition, these systems generally require permeable soils (preferably possessing sand or loam characteristics) to facilitate efcient ltration. Supporting information on SUDS design and operation can be obtained from the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (2001) best practice manual.7 Porous asphalt or blocked surfacing can be readily applied to mews-streets, culs-de-sac and other lightly trafcked residential side streets in SDD-type developments. Driveways, parking bays/ areas, pavements, pedestrian and bicycle ways, courtyards, etc. can take advantage of porous paving, block pavoirs or open grasscrete structures to enhance on-site inltration and thus reduce off-site runoff. The introduction of balcony pergolas could also act to increase the area of vegetative cover for birds. There may be insufcient space to successfully incorporate grassed channels (swales) to intercept surface runoff from remaining paved areas, although tree/shrub-lined streets could utilise such swale runs as planting lines and also serve as wet/dry wildower habitats, perhaps fed by diverted rainwater from green roofs. The inclusion of swales and planted ditches with Ellis et al.

In addition to the promotion of SUDS, the section in the guidelines covering Managing the risk of ooding are very specic in terms of ood risk:
. The city council will not allow development to take place that may be at a signicant risk of ooding, or that increases the risk of ooding to property elsewhere (e.g. further downstream). . The city council will seek to ensure that the oodplain of the River Cam and other watercourses are protected from development, and that their role as areas for the storage of ood waters or for accommodating ood ows will be maintained. . Developers should work with the city council and the Environment Agency to incorporate SUDS in all new developments to reduce the risk of ooding, and pollution to watercourses. This should be considered at the earliest stages of masterplanning in layout design. . When introducing SUDS, developers must ensure that there is no risk to groundwater, particularly where this is abstracted for public water supply. . SUDS should be integrated into the landscaping of a development, and form part of the network of habitats and open spaces where possible.

A further section of the guidelines (Reducing pollution to air, land and water; p. 22) states that all development must aim to prevent pollution at source as required under the EU Water Framework Directive. The guidance on SUDS provided by the London Borough of Harrow in its Unitary Development Plan similarly recommends the use of source control options as the rst approach for surface-water drainage on new developments.5 . Water quality, supply and disposal: SUDS should be considered in the rst instance for all sites over and above traditional piped systems. . Flood risk: Consideration should be given to the use of SUDS, retention of 248 Municipal Engineer 157 Issue ME4

Sustainable urban development and drainage

Catchment area Soil type Feasible Marginal Not feasible

Inlet device (Inc. oil/grit separators) Extended detention (dry) basins Wet retention basins and wetlands Filter strip/swale Infiltration basins Infiltration trenches Porous/permeable paving 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Catchment area: ha Sandy silt 14 20 40 60

Sand

Loam sand

Sandy loam

Loam

Silt loam

Silty Sandy clay loam clay loam

Sandy clay

Silty clay

Clay

General soil type

210

61

26

13

7 4 2 1.5 Minimum infiltration rate: mm/h

1.3

1.0

0.5

Fig. 3 Catchment area and soil type in terms of sustainable drainage systems suitability

their associated side slopes will enhance wildlife value by providing an interconnecting surface landscape drainage system, increasing the hydrological and ecological continuity within the development. Such habitat creation (and maintenance) can be viewed as a priority objective supporting local as well as regional Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs). Such amenity and ecological improvements within urban developments will also support and underpin community lifestyle quality, fostering social inclusion and local pride and thus becoming a key element in community strategy, translating benets into meaningful environmental terms. It is also possible to adapt pocket wetlands as trafc-calming measures within residential side streets. Roadside gullies can be daylighted to provide bollarded mini-wetlands of no more than 2 1 m in area, and set in a chicane fashion on alternative sides of the street. These structures have performed very effectively in new German urban developments and take on board key home-zone street design principles, including a reduction in the noise factor associated with more traditional trafc-calming road humps. These on-site measures can also extend to disconnection of roof downspouts from the separate sewer system, with splashpads provided to spread roof runoff over gardens, offering opportunities for potential secondary irrigation reuse and local groundwater recharge. A variant of such disconnection which is popular on the European continent, is to connect the roof gutter directly to the garden via a vertical link chain, down which stormwater can run as a miniature waterfall during rainfall, providing an aesthetic feature to the external house design. However, there have been to date relatively few attempts to fully utilise the aesthetic and civic architectural potential of stormwater SUDS designs which would combine art, water treatment and ecology in a more formal sculptural manner. Deliberate rainwater harvesting within new urban developments is rarely introduced as a planning objective Municipal Engineer 157 Issue ME4

and even where offered as an option in the housing design, the take-up is normally very limited. While green roofs have been widely advocated to improve both insulation and rainwater retention, their take-up within UK urban developments has been very slow, primarily due to an adverse perception regarding saturated hydraulic loading, degradation and corrosion of the underlying roof structure and possible maintenance burdens. However in Germany, the introduction of a specic stormwater tax on impermeable areas has served as a considerable incentive for the uptake of plot inltration and rainwater harvesting. On-site controls can be combined with off-site retention and detention facilities to provide ood attenuation, pollution treatment and amenity features. The use of balancing ponds for such end-of-pipe ow control is a well-recognised engineering approach,8 but the use of extended detention basins and/or wetlands can provide additional water quality treatment, amenity and ecological functions.9 This is well illustrated in the 188 ha Great Notley greeneld development at Braintree, Essex, UK which commenced in 1992 and is now substantially complete. It comprises around 2000 homes and a 37 200 m2 business park together with neighbourhood community facilities and surrounding landscaped amenity space.10 The development includes a 40 ha country park with a wetland and surrounding landscaped pasture and woodland providing wildlife habitats and a central focus for community relaxation and recreation. The 7900 m2 constructed wetland and adjacent 16 000 m2 recreational pond at the site have been designed not only to provide ood storage and stormwater treatment but also an integrated community facility. The wetland structures (inlet and outlet) have been adopted by Anglian Water, with the wetland itself and surrounding landscaping and amenity/park areas adopted under a Section 106 Agreement by the local authority. Ellis et al. 249

Sustainable urban development and drainage

The Village Liaison Forum, formed post-project, recently disbanded after 13 years, although the Residents Association and Parish Council will take over much of the forums role. The developer (Countryside Properties plc) has worked with Essex Wildlife Trust to undertake ecological surveys to quantify enhanced biodiversity resulting from the development project. There are still remaining concerns, however, regarding the provision and quality of long-term local authority management and maintenance provision, particularly given budget cutbacks and spending constraints. In the future it may be more appropriate that higher-density SDD-type development requires the more hands-on and sustainable management approaches that can be provided by corporate estate management companies, funded under annual service charge arrangements. Concern would still remain, however, over long-term maintenance liabilities should the private-sector management company fold up. 5. CONCLUSIONS High-density housing need not be incompatible with long-term sustainable development or with the objectives of sustainable drainage systems. The concepts of clustered sustainable development design (SDD) can resolve the apparent tensions between the planning requirements of PPG3 and the drainage objectives underlying PPG25 while at the same time offering opportunities for attractive and cost-effective environmental overprinting to new urban developments. The recent changes to the UK planning system (the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) could also provide opportune support for such SDD-type developments although due account needs to be taken of the long-term maintenance and management requirements of both SUDS and associated landscaping elements. Initial experience would indicate that it is unlikely that this can be left to individual householders, institutions or other single stakeholder groups, with even local authority adoption under Section 106 Agreements being questionable. This problem may be alleviated when the UK National SUDS Working Group nalises its framework document and accompanying SUDS Code of Practice, covering operation and maintenance principles together with a model Section 106 Adoption Agreement and sewerage undertaker deeds. 6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The results presented in this paper have been obtained within the framework of the EC-funded research project DayWater, Adaptive Decision Support System for Stormwater Pollution Control, contract No. EVK1-CT-2002-00111, coordinated by

CEREVE at ENCP (FR) and including Tauw BV (NL), Department of Water Environment Transport at Chalmers University of Technology (SE), Environment and Resources at Technical University of Denmark (DK), Urban Pollution Research Centre at Middlesex University (UK), Department of Water Resources Hydraulic and Maritime Works at National Technical University of Athens (GR), DHI Hydroinform (CZ), Ingenieurgesellschaft Prof. Dr Seiker GmbH (D), Water Pollution Unit at Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chausses (FR) and Division of Sanitary Engineering at Lulea University of Technology (SE). This project is organised within the Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development Programme in the 5th Framework Programme for Science Research and Technological Development of the European Commission and is part of the CityNet Cluster, the network of European research projects on integrated urban water management.

REFERENCES
1. BARKER K. Review of Housing Supply. HMSO, London, 2004. 2. FIELD R., HEANEY J. P. and PITT R. Innovative Urban Wet Weather Flow Management Systems. Technomic Publ. Inc., New York, 2000. 3. SCOTTISH ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AGENCY , ENVIRONMENT AGENCY and NORTHERN IRELAND ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE SERVICE . An Introduction: Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. SEPA, Edinburgh, 2000. 4. CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL . Cambridge Sustainable Development guidelines. In Managing the Risk of Flooding. Cambridge City Council, 2002, pp. 18 19. 5. See http://www.harrow.gov.uk/content/housing_planning/ planning/unitary_development_plan.jsp 6. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER . Planning Policy Guidance 25: Development and Flood Risk. ODPM, London, 2001. 7. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND INFORMATION ASSOCIATION . Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems: Best Practice Manual. CIRIA, London, 2001, Report C523. 8. HALL M. J., HOCKIN D. L. and ELLIS , J. B. Design of Flood Storage Reservoirs. Butterworth-Heinemann, London, 1993. 9. ELLIS J. B., SHUTES R. B. E. and REVITT D. M. Constructed Wetlands and Links with Sustainable Drainage Systems. Environment Agency, Water Research Centre, Swindon, 2003, R&D Technical Report P2-159/TR1. 10. OLDHAM J. Sustainable development for large, mixed-use developments. Proceedings of the Standing Conference on Stormwater Source Control, Coventry University, Coventry, 1995, Volume IX.

Please email, fax or post your discussion contributions to the secretary by 1 June 2005: email: kathleen.hollow@ice.org.uk; fax: 44 (0)20 7799 1325; or post to Kathleen Hollow, Journals Department, Institution of Civil Engineers, 1 7 Great George Street, London SW1P 3AA.

250

Municipal Engineer 157 Issue ME4

Sustainable urban development and drainage

Ellis et al.