 |
 |
Hi Keiron,
Just building on what you say below; I agree, but would say that SuDS come in many forms. Soakaway as a SuDS measure directing flows
into the ground may be of a particular concern on brownfield sites. There are many types of SuDS (my apologies if this is common knowledge) such as attenuation ponds (with ‘filter strips’ which apparently act as a screening area to remove pollutants particularly
running off hard-standing), swales, porous paving/parking etc; many of these can be design/engineered to restrict/prevent pollution migration; such as lined systems. The point I would make about SuDS are they don’t always result in flows going directly into
the ground and potentially affecting groundwater etc, they are a mechanism to slow storm drainage flows down, storing flows and slowly releasing then opposed to the old methods of discharge directly into main sewer.
Regards,
Stephen
Stephen Telford BSc (Hons), MSc, PGCE, CGeol, CSci, FGS, MIEnvSc
Principal Engineer (Environmental Engineering)
Engineering Design and Management
Direct Tel: 01429 523207
From: Contaminated
Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Keiron Finney
Sent: 10 January 2014 10:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: SUDs
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
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
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
Regards
Frank Westcott
Technical Solutions for Sustainability and Brownfield Development
Magnolia House, 15a Fore Street, Roche, St Austell,
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
WD25 9BA
Tel: 01727
822500
Fax: 01727
821600
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
Hartlepool Council
On the Web www.hartlepool.gov.uk
On Facebook www.facebook.com/hartlepoolcouncil
On Twitter www.twitter.com/HpoolCouncil
***************************************************************************************************************
This document is strictly confidential and is intended only for use by the addressee.
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other tion taken in reliance of the information contained in this email is strictly prohibited.
Any views expressed by the sender of this message are not necessarily those of Hartlepool Borough Council.
If you have received this transmission in error, please use the reply function to tell us and then permanently delete what you have received.
Please note: Incoming and outgoing e-mail messages are routinely monitored for compliance with our policy on the use of electronic communications.
***************************************************************************************************************