Civil Engineering Volume 165 Issue CE4 Lessons learned from Suds implementation at Peterborough, UK Henry

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Civil Engineering 165 November 2012 Issue CE4 Pages 179184 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/cien.11.00031 Paper 1100031 Received 25/05/2011 Accepted 18/04/2012 Keywords: drainage & irrigation / hydrology & water resource / sustainabililty ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

proceedings

Lessons learned from Suds implementation at Peterborough, UK

Ron Henry BEng, CEng, MICE, MIEI Partner, Peter Brett Associates, Northampton, UK

The Hampton mixed-used development south-west of Peterborough, UK was built largely on the brownfield site of a number of former brickworks. It was conceived around the need to manage surface water, which required creative thinking and a collaborative approach from the project team and key parties involved to realise delivery of a multi-functional surface water drainage strategy. The strategy was conceived prior to much of the sustainable drainage system (Suds) guidance and standards being produced, which are now considered commonplace. This paper looks at the development as a case study and assesses the lessons learned. To deliver Suds successfully, it is clear that comprehensive collaboration and communication are needed.

Figure 1. Hampton brickworks around 1900 clay excavations created a large number of lakes

179

Civil Engineering Volume 165 Issue CE4 November 2012

Lessons learned from Suds implementation at Peterborough, UK Henry

1. History and background

The historic uses of the Hampton site south-west of Peterborough, UK consisted of a number of brickwork operations dating back to 1881 (Figure 1). As a result of the former operations, many challenges were created for the development of the site including n n n n contaminated land demolition of stacks and kilns desiccated soil from heat of kilns filled ground including clay waste, brickbats and pulverised fuel ash n settling lagoons up to 12 m deep.

Development scheme proposals started to evolve approximately 20 years ago, before sustainable drainage system (Suds) concepts were fully established and at a time when the interface with water was discouraged for example, fencing of water bodies. Also, water cycle strategies, strategic flood risk assessment and the recent UK Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (2010) are all relatively new in respect of water management. Outline planning consent for the Hampton development was obtained in 1993. A drainage strategy was developed and agreed in principle with the outline planning consent, with the subsequent detailed drainage design strategy taking some 4 years to agree with the UK Environment Agency. The development is now over halfway through construction, with more than 4000 residential units consented and delivered.

Residential Commercial Community Open land Water Existing urban areas J3A Orton Woodston

J3

Cygnet Park J2 Serpentine Green

Crown Lakes Park

Edinburgh to London main line

km

London Road

Yaxley

Figure 2. The 1010 ha Hampton development includes 8000 houses, commercial and community facilities, 116 ha of water and Suds features, and 100 ha of nature reserves

180

Civil Engineering Volume 165 Issue CE4 November 2012

Lessons learned from Suds implementation at Peterborough, UK Henry

2. Scheme details
The Hampton development is a mixed-use development consisting of 8000 residential units with 165 ha zoned for employment and associated retail, community, education and leisure facilities (Figure2). The site area is 1010 ha and 50% is designated as open space, including a country park. The total area of lakes and Suds features within the development is 116 ha, with another 100 ha designated as a special area of conservation and nature reserve. The works associated with brick manufacture created ridge and furrow terrain across much of the site, which subsequently became home to the largest colony of great crested newts in Europe and became a special area of conversation (Figure 3). This protected area also holds the rare lesser bearded stonewort, an aquatic plant. As such, the surface water strategy had to accommodate this within the design and managed to keep water networks separate, which was a key design requirement.

The proposals to manage surface water and flood risk were vital to the successful delivery of the development

3. Design strategy and technical details

The proposals to manage surface water and flood risk were vital to the successful delivery of the development (Figure 4). It involved taking the perceived constraints of the pits and lagoons and turning them into an opportunity, using them for surface water storage, reducing the flood plain area and thus enabling the new development to take place and maximise the actual developable area, as well as creating a sustainable community. The approved flood risk assessment and surface water management strategy was used as the overarching control document for the purpose of development control. Every single detailed planning application on the Hampton development is referred back to this overarching strategy and any detailed design is checked for compliance including aspects such as finished floor levels, allowable impermeable areas and rate of discharge. Earthworks across the site totalled 3 million m3 excavated and placed to maximise drainage by gravity (Figure 5). The final point of
A15 A1260 Flood risk areas

Figure 3. Ridge and furrow terrain left by the brickworks is now the home to the largest colony of great crested news in Europe and a special area of conservation

Proposed outfall Existing connection

Orton A1139 A605

Hampton Vale

A15

Farcet

km

1
0 500 m

Figure 4. Flood risk areas within the development site the strategy to manage these risks using Suds techniques took 4 years to gain Environment Agency approval

Figure 5. A total of 3 million m3 of earth was excavated and placed to maximise drainage from each of the development zones by gravity

181

Civil Engineering Volume 165 Issue CE4 November 2012

Lessons learned from Suds implementation at Peterborough, UK Henry

Figure 6. Serpentine Lake one of a network of 116 ha existing lakes that were retained in the development

discharge from the site is by way of a pumped solution. Whereas the need for a pumped solution may not always be viewed as sustainable, it is required in this specific instance to create the most efficient design solution for this site, due to the original land form profile, topography and levels. A detailed three-dimensional model was created (using Key Terra Firma software) to assess earthworks, overland flows and development platforms. The interaction between the earthworks strategy and drainage strategy was very important and the result was positive in respect of achieving a sustainable design solution, by creating an earthworks balance across such a vast development, thus minimising waste and large quantities of material having to be taken off site to landfill. The design strategy was reviewed in accordance with UK Planning Policy Guidance 25 (PPG25; Communities and Local Government, 2001), which came in to effect during the development of the design. The design was carried out to accommodate a 1:200 year storm event in accordance with specific Environment Agency requirements for the area. Sensitivity calculations were also undertaken to allow for climate change. The total discharge for the whole site is limited to 2 l/s per hectare. The pumped outfall option has the flexibility to be increased in times of drought (to help the wider area and ecosystems) or stopped completely in times of extreme events, or when the receiving watercourses Stanground Lode or the River Nene are in flood. Derivation of the limiting discharge flow (i.e. 2 l/s per hectare) was based on flows followed as part of the historic clay extraction for the brick-making operations. Prior to clay extraction, the run off rate was estimated at 7 l/s per hectare for a 1:100 year storm. The lower value adopted clearly provided improvement, which aligns with planning policy aspirations and requirements. Further improvement was achieved by designing to accommodate the 1:200 year storm event.
182

The study used the rainfall statistics from the UK Flood Estimation Handbook, available at that time. It also used the Environment Agency recommended hydrodynamic Isis modelling technique to assess the impact on Stanground Lode, the receiving watercourses and other water bodies. The general design scenario selected assumed the following n River Nene levels equivalent to the Easter 1998 flood event n 75% run-off across the whole catchment, including unpaved areas n a 1:200 year, 200 h storm duration with 150 mm rainfall depth was used for storage n a 10 h storm duration was used for analysis of impacts on the Stanground Lode (classed as main river). The design scenario adopted exceeds the general recommendation of PPG25 (Communities and Local Government, 2001), applicable at the time the strategy was developed, which suggested that a 100 year storm event be considered as the design case, with an additional assessment of the effects of climate change. The design was reassessed when UK Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25; Communities and Local Government, 2010) was issued and it was demonstrated that the requirements of this updated planning policy could also be accommodated by the Suds design solution that was delivered at Hampton. There was sufficient headroom within the network of lakes across the site The main driver for the macro-Suds option selected across the site was as a result of the historic brick making at Hampton: a network of lakes approximately 116 ha in area and up to 12 m deep was created. These existing water bodies were retained and used within the new development proposals (Figure 6).

Civil Engineering Volume 165 Issue CE4 November 2012

Lessons learned from Suds implementation at Peterborough, UK Henry

Suds, when planned and executed correctly, offers many benefits as a truly multi-functional entity

Figure 7. Information boards provide details of walks and wildlife around Suds schemes helping to engender community buy-in and ownership

Also, the requirement, set out through the planning process, to provide storage for a 1:200 year storm event and limit discharge to 2 l/s per hectare necessitated a macro-Suds solution for such a large mixed-use land development project, with 8000 residential units across the 1010 ha site. The design also included a selection of micro-Suds options within the design, appropriate to the developments mixed land uses. Other Suds options selected in addition to the network of lakes included swales, filter strips, green roofs, rainwater harvesting and permeable paving. The correct selection of Suds options, appropriate to the site conditions and environment is very important for example, infiltration was not an option selected at Hampton as the site overlies clay, hence the former brick-making use, and as such infiltration is clearly not a viable or efficient option. A robust treatment train has been delivered on the development from the macro- and micro-Suds measures. The large bodies of water (up to 1 million m3) also include vegetative treatment measures, such as reed beds and wetland systems, to provide pollution control and treatment, in addition to more traditional hard measures within the design such as trapped gullies, catchpits, interceptors and penstocks. Verification of the pollution control and water treatment measures was achieved by a water quality monitoring regime, carried out every quarter. This was a requirement of the planning consent and accords with the EU water framework directive (EC, 2000), including testing for dissolved oxygen, faecal coliform, pH level, biochemical oxygen demand, temperature, total phosphate, nitrates, turbidity and total solids.

4. What worked well and what could be improved

Suds, when planned and executed correctly, offers many benefits as a truly multi-functional entity. The key benefits include not only the engineering function (attenuation, flood risk mitigation, water quality and so on) but also biodiversity benefits, ecological and landscaping enhancement, public amenity and health and wellbeing advantages. Other successful alternative uses at Hampton also include creation of a local angling syndicate, zorbing (rolling on water in large balls) and skating during winter. There are also marketing benefits to be gained in respect of attracting buyers and increasing value.

Communication is vital in order to maximise the integration of Suds within a development scheme and community, to gain local buy-in and engender a spirit of ownership. Information sharing was achieved by way of environment forums, signage schemes, community events and community uses. Signage has been provided which not only conveys the health and safety aspects but also highlights walking routes and health benefits (calories used for a given route), provides contact details for any queries and identifies the wildlife to be observed in and around the Suds features (Figure 7). Tree planting days were arranged with the local community and local school children. An appreciation and understanding across the professional team of each others specific needs and requirements helped to produce a comprehensive design solution in terms of flood risk, Suds, urban design, landscape and ecology. Pollution control has been delivered successfully at Hampton, by a series of hard and soft measures, which include vegetative treatment measures such as reed beds. Every 3 months water quality monitoring has been carried out to ensure the measures conceived in theory and put in place on site actually work in practice which they have proven to do successfully. The importance of health and safety can never be understated. When mixing water and residential development, the perceived risks are obvious. Historically, the attitude was to segregate people from water, restricting access, fencing off areas and discouraging any alternative use. The creation of shallow (slack) gradients to the waters edge allows for easy and safe access/egress. Designing the Suds features in as part of the development layout created good surveillance. In addition to the designers risk assessments, health and safety file (for operation and maintenance aspects) and post-construction review, weekly inspections are continued after completion to ensure continued improvement. For a number of years, an independent inspection by The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents was commissioned, with a formal report prepared and acted on where necessary. The agreed strategy assisted with the release of individual parcels and smooth process of sales to third parties helping define and guide the detailed drainage designs, ensuring that the required discharges are achieved, allowable impermeable areas are maintained and the necessary floor levels delivered, in accordance with the
183

Civil Engineering Volume 165 Issue CE4 November 2012

Lessons learned from Suds implementation at Peterborough, UK Henry

agreed strategy. This provided confidence for all parties including builders, purchasers, the local planning authority, Environment Agency and the wider community as a whole. The design incorporated a mixture of formal and informal lakes, with different levels of access (open access and managed access) allowing for different uses, various types of environments to be created and species established (Figure 8). There have been many challenges, as is to be expected with such a major development. The revised drainage strategy took 3 years to agree with the approving authorities. Additionally, while the strategy agreed gives some security and comfort going forward, it can also be restrictive by not being flexible enough to deal with any change during implementation that might be for the better. The national flood mapping could have been updated quicker (they are still to be fully updated for some parts of the development) and this has caused marketing and sales problems, especially during the conveyancing of new properties. Finally, adoption has proved to be the biggest challenge with the landowner or developer still maintaining the Suds. There is an agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (1990) for the Suds to be adopted by the relevant local authority, but this has yet to be confirmed and finalised in practice. It is hoped that the implementation of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (2010) and specifically the creation of Suds approval boards will create a successful route to achieving the adoption of Suds. Discussions are being held with the local water authority, Anglian Water.

Figure 8. Happy Hollows an informal Suds pond with a shallow gradient

References
Bavor HJ, Davies CM and Sakadevan K (2001) Stormwater treatment: do constructed wetlands yield improved pollutant management performance over a detention pond system? Water Science and Technology 44(1112): 565570. Bray RJ (2000) Design of the treatment train at Hopwood Park MSA M42. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Standing Conference on Stormwater Source Control: Quantity and Quality (Pratt CJ (ed.)). School of the Built Environment, Coventry University, Coventry, UK. Communities and Local Government (2001) Planning Policy Guidance 25: Development and Flood Risk. Department for Communities and Local Government, London, UK. Communities and Local Government (2010) Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk. The Staionery Office, London, UK. EC (European Community) (2000) 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. Official Journal of the European Communities L327/1. Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (2010) Elizabeth II. Chapter 29. Her Majestys Stationery Office, London, UK. Goodson (2011) Keeping up with the Suds revolution and legislative evolution. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Municipal Engineer 164(2): 6770. Heal K (2000) Suds ponds in Scotland performance outcomes to date. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Meeting of the Standing Conference on Stormwater Source Control: Quantity and Quality (Pratt CJ (ed.)). School of the Built Environment, Coventry University, Coventry, UK. Jones M (2002) Managing Suds ponds containing rare species. In Proceedings of the Twenty-third Meeting of the Standing Conference on Stormwater Source Control: Quantity and Quality (Pratt CJ (ed.)). School of the Built Environment, Coventry University, Coventry, UK. Martin P, Turner B, Waddington K et al. (2000) Suds Design Manual for England & Wales. Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London, UK, C522. Martin P, Turner B, Dell J et al. (2001) Suds Best Practice Manual. Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London, UK, C523. National Suds Working Group (2004) Interim Code of Practice for Sustainable Drainage Systems. National Suds Working Group, London, UK. Oldham J (1994) Sustainable developments for large, mixed-use developments. In Proceedings of the Ninth Meeting of the Standing Conference on Stormwater Source Control: Quantity and Quality (Pratt CJ (ed.)). School of the Built Environment, Coventry University, Coventry, UK. Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (1990) Elizabeth II. Chapter 8. Her Majestys Stationery Office, London, UK.

5. Conclusion
Planning successful developments today is invariably accompanied by public realm facilities focusing on high quality and accessible water spaces. This highlights the importance of ensuring the correct use and implementation of Suds techniques. Lessons learned from the Hampton development show that Suds can work successfully for multifunctional uses though good planning, design and execution are critical, along with good communication at all stages. The Hampton Suds strategy and detailed design have stood up to the test of time. The early concepts and designs were conceived prior to the Suds guidance and standards that are available and commonplace today (Goodson, 2011), yet the scheme rates more than satisfactorily when checked against these now. Using the Hampton development as a case study has proved that Suds can be delivered successfully to offer wider benefits over and above the basic engineering, technical, flood risk and drainage function.

Acknowledgements
The project team and key stakeholders include O&H Hampton (client), Peter Brett Associates (designer), David Lock Associates (planning and urban design), LDA Design (landscape and ecology), Peterborough City Council (local planning authority), Anglian Water Services (water authority), Environment Agency, Natural England, parish councils, schools and the local community, and local residents.

What do you think?

If you would like to comment on this paper, please email up to 200 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk. If you would like to write a paper of 2000 to 3500 words about your own experience in this or any related area of civil engineering, the editor will be happy to provide any help or advice you need.

184