Hi all
I always have to smile when I read about SUDS and infiltration into brownfield in as much as many of these sites have been contaminated for many years with continuing infiltration and no-one has really been that bothered with. If they are so badly contaminated they would be being dealt with as “contaminated land” or other, but in essence most are not even considered to be anywhere near that bad. In terms of planning we are looking for betterment to reduce pollution potential, hopefully with some sensible view on costs. If we consider cost/benefit here and we add up the costs of not allowing infiltration through contaminated soils, how does that measure up to the costs of flood defences, flood damage, impact on communities from diverting surface water rather than allowing infiltration? How do we calculate when it is sensible to use SUDS or not and is it purely based on a tiered risk assessment based on leachability etc. In this time of change (political,financial and environmental) should we not be changing our collective view on how we deal with this complex issue rather than polarising on one aspect ? J
Keiron Finney Grad IOSH, MSc, MCIWM, MRSC, CChem, CSci, CEnv, Chartered Waste Manager
Director
Exea Associates Limited
Mobile: 07939625002
Home: 01902 742639
Web: www.exeaassociateslimited.co.uk
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of F J Westcott
Sent: 10 January 2014 09:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: SUDs
The debate on SUDS has important implications for Brownfield professionals as well as for the wider water management and flooding issues.
The SUDS purists believe that all precipitation falling on a site should be held on the site until it can infiltrate into the ground. Thus, mimicking nature, cleaning up pollutants by natural processes in the vegetation/upper soil layers and maintaining the water cycle below ground. This view prevailed in the draft technical standards that are causing the current controversy, and, for most greenfield sites, it seems the most sustainable solution.
For brownfield sites, however it is another matter. Most of these sites were drained into sewers in their previous life, with infiltration blocked off by hard surfacing, Encouraging infiltration through compacted, contaminated soil may not be the best option, especially in schemes designed with a surface cover system. In these cases, the most appropriate option may be the underground tankage preferred by developers, typically placed below car parking areas and functioning by means of a throttled outlet, by storing water until the hydrograph peak has passed, then allowing it to discharge slowly into the sewer.
Perhaps the best compromise is to insist on the "pure" SUDS option when developing greenfield sites, but to allow flexibility to use underground storage on urban brownfield redevelopments ?
Regards
Frank Westcott
Technical Solutions for Sustainability and Brownfield Development
Magnolia House, 15a Fore Street, Roche, St Austell, Cornwall PL26 8EP
0330 330 8015
07973 616197
This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information and/or
copyright material which is intended only for the addressees named above.
Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised and copying, distribution
or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful.
Westenviro does not warrant that any e-mail messages and attachments are free from viruses or other defects and accept no liability for any losses resulting from infected email transmissions.
On 10 Jan 2014, at 08:49, Eve White wrote:
Interesting article today (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25676973) as to potential upcoming changes to drainage construction due to the recent flooding. It highlights different viewpoints between the developers and experts. The details of which measures get approval still seem to be delayed though as it may not be known until after April what the government will decide to do.
Under planning are the more sustainable measures (SUDs) being specified instead of the large holding tanks (the implied preference of the developers)?
Eve White (MSc)
Head of Contaminated Land & Soil Resources
<image001.jpg> Committed to unearthing value
Building 3
BRE
Bucknalls Lane
Watford
WD25 9BA
Tel: 01727 822500
Fax: 01727 821600
Mobile: 07825 999677
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?
This email together with any files attached is confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you have received this email in error please delete it from your system and inform the sender immediately or call 01727 822500.
<image019.jpg> <image020.jpg><image021.jpg> <image022.jpg> <image023.jpg><image024.jpg><image014.jpg><image025.jpg> <image026.jpg>
__________ Information from ESET Endpoint Security, version of virus signature database 9272 (20140109) __________
The message was checked by ESET Endpoint Security.
http://www.eset.com