100-RG-PNC-00000-900008 | Summer 2010

Appendix E
Potential Source Control and SUDS Applications Annex 1: SUDS Evaluation for Example Areas

100-RG-PNC-00000-900008

Printed 07/09/2010


London Tideway Tunnels Programme Thames Tunnel Project Needs Report

Potential source control and SUDS applications: Land use and retrofit options

28thApril2010

Richard Ashley Virginia Stovin Sarah Moore Louise Hurley Linda Lewis Adrian Saul

University of Sheffield

Potential source control and SUDS applications: Land use and retrofit options
TableofContents
Landuseandretrofitoptions................................................................................................................. 1 Figures.....................................................................................................................................................4 Tables......................................................................................................................................................6 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................8 Landuseandretrofitoptions................................................................................................................. 1 Executivesummary.................................................................................................................................1 1. 2. 3. Introductionandobjectives............................................................................................................ 5 Workcarriedout........................................................................................................................... 10 Methodologyforselectionofoptionsforretrofitting..................................................................12 3.1 3.2 Existingframeworksfortheselectionofoptions.................................................................12 Frameworkusedinthestudy............................................................................................... 15

3.2.1ReviewofavailableSUDSoptionsandrankingofperformancepotential..........................15 4. Identificationofsubcatchmentsandperformancecriteria..........................................................18 4.1 4.2 Identificationofsubcatchments........................................................................................... 18 Performanceandperformanceassessment......................................................................... 24

4.2.1HydraulicandotheraspectsoftheperformanceofSUDSelements..................................25 4.2.2Sewerageperformanceassessment.................................................................................... 32 5. PracticalitiesofretrofittingSUDS................................................................................................. 34 5.1 5.2 OverviewofbenefitsofusingSUDSretrofits....................................................................... 34 SummaryofdifficultiesinusingSUDSretrofits.................................................................... 38 Legalandregulatoryissues........................................................................................... 38 Transferofburdensandresponsibilities...................................................................... 38 Maintenance,operationalneeds,risksandhealthandsafety.....................................39 Incentivisation............................................................................................................... 39

5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4

5.2.5 5.2.6 6.

Practicalitiesofconstruction........................................................................................ 39 Acceptabilityandawareness........................................................................................ 39

Catchmentscaledisconnectionstrategies................................................................................... 41 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 InitialApproachANNEX1disconnectionscenarios...........................................................41 Landusetypesandsuitabilityforretrofit............................................................................. 41 Method1typicaldisconnectionprofilesbylandusetypes............................................41 Method2LandusecategorieswithinOSMasterMap......................................................43 AssignmentofImpermeable/PerviousAreas....................................................................... 45 Results...................................................................................................................................46

7.

Costbenefitassessmentofdetailedretrofitdesigns.................................................................48 7.1 7.2 CalculationofWholeLifeCosts............................................................................................ 48 SUDSUnitcosts..................................................................................................................... 50 Pocketraingardens....................................................................................................... 54 Permeableroadsurfaces.............................................................................................. 54 Detentionbasins........................................................................................................... 55 Swales........................................................................................................................... 55 Greenroofs................................................................................................................... 56 Roofdownspoutdisconnection.................................................................................... 56

7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.3 7.2.4 7.2.5 7.2.6

8. Usingexemplardesignstoevaluatethedisconnectionoptionsandcostbenefitsforthethree subcatchments......................................................................................................................................57 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 9. 10. LyttonGrovesubarea(AppendixE.1)................................................................................... 57 CarltonDriveSubarea(AppendixE.2) ................................................................................... 59 ChartfieldAvenueSubarea(AppendixE.3)........................................................................... 60 Summaryoflessonsfromexemplardesigns........................................................................ 61

Upscalingcosts.............................................................................................................................. 62 Disconnectionscenariosformodellingpurposes..................................................................... 63

10.1Initialresultsfromthemodellingofdisconnectionscenarios..................................................63 10.1.1Overviewofglobaldisconnectionscenarios...................................................................... 63 10.1.2Overviewoffeasibledisconnectionscenarios................................................................... 64 10.2 RefinedApproachFinaldisconnectionscenarios .............................................................65

10.2.1Introductiontorefinements.............................................................................................. 65

10.2.2Identificationofeasypickingmunicipalhousingareas...................................................65 10.2.3Disconnectionoptionsfortheremainingcatchment........................................................67 10.2.4Results................................................................................................................................67 11. 12. 12.1 12.2 13. Summary...................................................................................................................................70 Conclusionsandrecommendations.......................................................................................... 72 Conclusions.......................................................................................................................... 72 Recommendations................................................................................................................ 74 References................................................................................................................................76

AppendixATypesofSUDSandeffectivenessatreducingstormwaterinputs..................................81 AppendixBIllustrationofdisconnectionoptions ............................................................................... 85 1. 2. 3. Roads.........................................................................................................................................85 Buildings................................................................................................................................86 Land.......................................................................................................................................88

AppendixCWholelifecostassessment............................................................................................. 93 C.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 93 Theneedforchangeinthestudyarea......................................................................... 93 Stakeholderinvolvement.................................................................................................. 95 EvaluationofCosts................................................................................................................ 97 Evaluationofbenefits........................................................................................................... 99 DatasourcesforHRWallingfordsWLCspreadsheets......................................................101 SummaryofdifferencesbetweenthetwoWLCmodelsused............................................108

C.1.1 C.1.2 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.5

C5.1Similaritiesbetweenthetwomodellingapproaches........................................................109 C5.2Summary............................................................................................................................ 109 AppendixDPracticalitiesofretrofittingSUDS.................................................................................. 110 D.1 D.2 D.3 D.4 Ownershipandmaintenance.............................................................................................. 110 Retrofitting.......................................................................................................................... 110 Costs....................................................................................................................................111 Institutional/individualLockin;aresistancetochangetoamoreresilientapproach....111

D.4.1Regulation/governance................................................................................................... 111 D.4.2Cognition;stickingtothetraditionalapproachinthefaceofnewproblems...................112

D.4.3 D.5 D.6 D.7 D.8 D.9 D.10 D.11 E.1

Normativelockin;howtotransformsystems...........................................................112

Implementationofnonpiped/seweredsystems...............................................................113 Nonpiped/sewersystemsandwaterquality..................................................................... 113 Nonpiped/seweredsystemsandwaterquantity..............................................................113 Perceptionsofnonpiped/seweredsystems...................................................................... 114 Currentsurfacewatermanagementinitiatives..................................................................114 UseandadoptionofSUDSbySewerageUndertakers ....................................................115 Addedbenefitsofjoinedupsurfacewatermanagement............................................116 LyttonGroveSubarearetrofitSUDS................................................................................... 117

14........................................................................................................................................................132 E.2 CarltonDriveSubareaSUDS............................................................................................... 143

15........................................................................................................................................................148 E.3 ChartfieldAvenuesubareaSUDS........................................................................................ 155

16........................................................................................................................................................158 AppendixFphotographicrecordofareasusedinexemplardesigns...............................................159 ANNEX1SUDSEvaluationforExampleAreas.................................................................................. 168

Figures
Figure11TheplaceofSUDSwithintheWaterSensitiveUrbanDesignframework(adaptedfrom Landcom,2009andCIRIA,2007)............................................................................................................ 7 Figure31aSNIFFERFrameworkPhaseIFeasibilityAssessment......................................................13 Figure32GenerichierarchiesforSUDSretrofitSelectionproposedbyStovinetal(2007)...............14 Figure33Approachtakeninthisstudytotheselectionandevaluationoftheeffectivenessof retrofitSUDS.........................................................................................................................................15 Figure41Thethreesubcatchmentsinvestigated(nottoscale)(numbersrefertoimagesinFigure 4.5)........................................................................................................................................................18 Figure42WestPutneyMastermapsubcatchmentcharacterisation..................................................19 Figure43PutneyBridgeMastermapsubcatchmentcharacterisation................................................20 Figure44Frogmore(BuckholdRoad)Mastermapsubcatchmentcharacterisation...........................21 Figure45(a)PutneyBridgesubcatchment......................................................................................... 22 Figure46PocketraingardensinAucklandNewZealand .................................................................... 27 Figure47Permeableblockpaving(fromInterpavewebsite).............................................................28 Figure48Offlinelocaldetentionbasin(Orleans,France)..................................................................28 Figure49Swales..................................................................................................................................29 Figure410DownspoutconnectedtoperviousareainSeattle,USA...................................................30

Figure411GreenroofsinRotherham,Yorkshire................................................................................ 31 Figure412SlimlineRWHtanksinanaccesspathwaytoapropertyinMelbourne............................32 Figure61Comparisonofdrainage/disconnectionlandusecategoriesbylandusecategoryforSub catchments1&2..................................................................................................................................42 Figure81ExampleoftheextensivegreenareasinmunicipalhousingintheLyttonGroveareathat couldaccommodatedetentionbasins.................................................................................................. 58 Figure82ExampleofpavedhardstandingintheLyttonGroveareathatcouldbeconvertedto permeablepavement............................................................................................................................ 58 Figure83CarltonDriveshowingflatroofedapartmentblocksandwideroad..................................59 Figure84ChartfieldAvenueillustratingthewidthoftheroadandpotentialtofitpocketraingardens ..............................................................................................................................................................60 Figure101Examplesofmunicipalhousingsurroundedbygenerousgrounds...................................65 Figure102LandusecategorieswithineachoftheFrogmore(BuckholdRoad)subcatchments, comparedwiththeexemplardesigncase,LyttonGrovesubareas1to4..........................................66 Figure103Comparisonbetweenremainingimpermeableareaforfeasibleandrefined disconnectionstrategies....................................................................................................................... 68 Figure121WaterstoredtemporarilyonthehighwayinSkokie(Carr&Walesh.2008)....................75 FigureB01CriteriaforPocketroadSUDS .......................................................................................... 90 FigureB02Examplehousesdeemedsuitablefordisconnectiontogardens .....................................91 FigureB03Exampleofallpropertiesdeemedsuitablefordisconnectiontoadjacentland.............91 FigureE01LyttonGrovesubcatchmentwithsubareasshowingroadshighlighted......................117 FigureE02Option1detentionbasinsallinthelowestarea(1)adjacenttoLyttonGrove..........119 FigureE03Area2potentialforlocalstorageofsurfacewater.....................................................122 FigureE04Area3potentialforlocalstorageofsurfacewater.....................................................123 FigureE05Area4potentialforlocalstorageofsurfacewater.....................................................124 FigureE06requireddetentionbasinareaforareas14iflocatedentirelyinarea1.(Swalesand pipedconnectionsnotshown)........................................................................................................... 126 FigureE07Area5disconnectbackroofstogardens....................................................................... 133 FigureE08Area6 .............................................................................................................................. 134 FigureE09Area7 .............................................................................................................................. 135 FigureE010Area8 ............................................................................................................................ 136 FigureE011Area9 ............................................................................................................................ 137 FigureE012Area10 .......................................................................................................................... 138 FigureE013Area11 .......................................................................................................................... 139 FigureE014Area12 .......................................................................................................................... 140 FigureE015Area13 .......................................................................................................................... 141 FigureE016Mainandlocalroads.................................................................................................... 142 FigureE017CarltonDriveandadjacentproperties......................................................................... 144 FigureE018CarltonDriveArea1.................................................................................................... 149 FigureE019CarltonDriveArea2..................................................................................................... 150 FigureE020CarltonDriveArea3..................................................................................................... 151 FigureE021CarltonDriveArea4..................................................................................................... 152 FigureE022CarltonDriveArea5..................................................................................................... 153 FigureE023CarltonDriveArea6..................................................................................................... 153 FigureE024CarltonDriveRoads...................................................................................................... 154

FigureE025PocketraingardeninroadedgeinBrisbane ................................................................155 FigureE026Onstreetpocketraingardens(afterSmithetal.,2007).............................................155 FigureE027ChartfieldAvenue......................................................................................................... 156 FigureE028GenoaRoadleadingfromChartfieldAvenue(lookingsouthwithChartfieldAvenuein thedistance).......................................................................................................................................156 FigureF01AnewdevelopmentinthevicinityofLyttonGrove(ClockhousePlace)withsignificant hardstanding......................................................................................................................................159 FigureF02GaragesassociatedwiththedevelopmentinFigureF1(itisunlikelythatthisis permeable)..........................................................................................................................................159 FigureF03LyttonGrovelookingwesttowardsthelowestpoint....................................................160 FigureF04SomedrivesoffLyttonGrovearealreadypermeable ....................................................160 FigureF05LyttonGrovespeedhumpsmaybereplaceablebypocketraingardens....................161 FigureF06TheKersfieldEstateoffLyttonGrovehaslotsofgrassedareasanddisusedhardstanding areas(lookingSW).............................................................................................................................. 161 FigureF07lookingintheoppositedirection(NE)toFigureF6 .......................................................162 FigureF08KersfieldEstatelowerend.............................................................................................. 162 FigureF09KersfieldEstatemiddlearea........................................................................................... 163 FigureF010TopendofKersfieldEstate........................................................................................... 163 FigureF011ApartmentsoffCarltonDrive....................................................................................... 164 FigureF012AnexistingraingardenoffCarltonDrive..................................................................... 164 FigureF013PavedareasforcarparkingforapartmentsonCarltonDrive ......................................165 FigureF014SpeedhumpsinCarltonDrive...................................................................................... 165 FigureF015ChartfieldAvenueandadjoiningroads(nospeedhumps)..........................................166 FigureF016JunctionofChartfieldAvenueandGenoaAvenue.......................................................166 FigureF017PaveddriveonChartfieldAvenue(unlikelytobepermeable) .....................................167 FigureF018OneofafewapartmentblocksinthevicinityofChartfieldAvenue(GenoaAvenue) 167

Tables
Table31PotentialSUDS,preferenceandindicativehydraulicperformance.....................................16 Table41SUDSHydraulicandoverallperformance............................................................................. 25 Table51SummaryofthebenefitsofSUDSoptions(CIRIA,2007).....................................................36 Table52Summaryofpotentialbenefitsofstormwaterseparation(Cascade,2009)........................37 Table61RetrofitSUDSoptions,SQLqueriesandHydraulicpreferences...........................................44 Table62HydraulicmodellingoptionsforretrofitSUDS..................................................................... 45 Table63DistributionofimpermeableareabyMasterMaplandusecategory..................................45 Table64DisconnectionscenariosforInfoWorksmodelling...............................................................47 Table71Outlineofhydrologic/hydraulicparametersusedinUKWIR/WERFWLCmodel.................49 Table72SUDSunitcosts..................................................................................................................... 51 Table73Pocketraingardenwholelifecostings.................................................................................. 54 Table74Permeablepavementwholelifecostingforlightervehicleloading....................................55 Table75Wholelifecostingofdetentionbasins................................................................................. 55 Table76Wholelifecostingofswales .................................................................................................. 55 Table77Capitalcostsforroofdownspoutdisconnectionwithsomemaintenanceallowance.........56

Table91Unitcostsofmunicipalhousingareasotherthanroof,roadormanmadeland disconnections......................................................................................................................................62 Table92Ballparkestimatesforschemecostsallareasnearest1M ...........................................62 Table101Sampleperformanceimprovementsassociatedwith50%disconnectionofimpervious areafortheOctober2000event.......................................................................................................... 64 Table102AssumeddisconnectionratesandInfoWorksmodellingcategoriesfor'municipalhousing' areas......................................................................................................................................................66 Table103Assumeduptakelevelsfortherefineddisconnectionstrategies.......................................67 Table104Combinedareadisconnections........................................................................................... 68 Table105Finaldesignscenarioallocationsofexistingimpermeablearea(%)..................................68 TableA01ExamplesoftypesofSUDSavailableforsurfacewaterattenuation................................81 TableA02QuantityperformanceofselectedSUDS(source:SUDSmanual,CIRIA,2007,Table5.7)83 TableA03Effectivenessofsourcecontrolsonwaterquantitydownstream(adaptedfrom Weinsteinetal,2006)........................................................................................................................... 84 TableE01potentialsizesofdrainageunitsinArea1 ........................................................................ 120 TableE02potentialimperviousareasthatcouldbedisconnectedinareas14..............................120 TableE03presentvaluecostsofthedetentionbasinsADinArea1. .............................................120 TableE04presentvaluecostsforswalesandassociatedpipeworkinArea1................................121 TableE05costsofalternativepotentialdetentionstorageandconnectingswalesinareas24....125 TableE06presentvaluecostsofthedetentionbasinsACinArea1,FigureE.6............................125 TableE07ImperviousareasintheremainderoftheLyttonGroveSubcatchment.........................127 TableE08Optionsandcostsforalternativedrainageforsubareas513andtheroadsintheLytton GroveSubcatchment.......................................................................................................................... 129 TableE09LyttonGroveSubcatchmentretrofitSUDSsummary......................................................132 TableE010CarltonDriveandadjacentpropertiesdistributionoftypesofarea(m2)..................143 TableE011CarltonDrivecharacteristicsandcostsofretrofitsbySubarea....................................145 TableE012SummaryofCarltonDrivecostsofretrofitsbySubarea...............................................148 TableE013ChartfieldAvenueSUDSunitsandcosts ........................................................................ 157 TableE014ChartfieldAvenueareasattenuatedandsummaryofcosts.........................................158

Acknowledgements
The use and application of the Whole Life SUDS costing tool described in Section 7 and used in the detailed designs in Section 8, was supported by Bridget WoodsBallard of H R Wallingford under subcontract. The project team are also grateful for the input from and guidance provided by the projectsteeringgroupfromCH2MHill,HalcrowandThamesWater. AllmappingreproducedbypermissionofordnancesurveyonbehalfofHMSO.Crowncopyright anddatabaseright2009.Allrightsreserved.OrdnanceSurveyLicencenumber100019345. AllmapsproducedusingtheBritishNationalGridprojection.

Potential source control and SUDS applications: Land use and retrofit options

Executive summary

The Thames Tideway Tunnel has been designed to significantly reduce the spill flows from Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) and Pumping Stations into the River Thames. The planned intervention strategy to transfer the flow into the tunnel has, in many cases, resulted in costly diversion structures. However, in some instances the volumes and magnitudes of the spilled flow are relatively small and this has raised the question as to whether other options such as the introduction of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS), could see a potential benefit in the reduction of the spilled flow and hence in a reduced cost or the entire elimination of some diversion or overflow structures. This needs to be balanced against the cost and practicability of the implementation of SUDS systems within existing urbanised areas in the London Tideway Tunnels (LTT) catchment. This report provides an assessment of the potential of and options for stormwater disconnection using retrofit SUDS techniques for 3 of the subcatchments in the London Tideway Tunnels (LTT) catchment. These are the West Putney, Putney Bridge and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) Combined Sewer Overflow catchments. The objective of the study was to determine whether or not there was scope for stormwater disconnection that would be effective at reducing the frequency and spills from the Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) and comply with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) at less cost and potentially greater benefit than the traditional sewered approach. There is growing evidence globally that alternatives to piped or sewered systems, usually hybrid responses to stormwater problems, using combinations of natural drainage systems and piped or sewered where necessary, are more flexible, adaptable and ultimately more resilient to on-going major changes such as due to climate. These systems also have the added benefits of being able to improve the quality of the stormwater running off surfaces and can also be used to enhance the liveability of urban areas by the introduction of water features and more green space; also providing opportunities for cooling and carbon sinks, important responses to climate change. The retrofit stormwater options considered here are so-called sustainable drainage systems (SUDS), defined as: surface water drainage systems developed in line with the ideals of sustainable development (CIRIA, 2007). These systems comprise combinations of source controls, such as green roofs; local controls, including collective areas draining to permeable pavements; and end of system controls such as detention basins and ponds. These systems should be seen as part of a treatment train whereby a number of SUDS are used together in a combined portfolio of responses. Potential SUDS options that may be applicable in the relatively dense areas of London have been reviewed and selected within a preference hierarchy of applications based on published guidance on retrofitting. Their overall potential for reducing the CSO discharges was assessed using a computer model of the London drainage system, the InfoWorks CS London Tideway Tunnels sewerage simulation model. Initially global figures were used to test whether or not disconnection of stormwater inputs to the London Tideway Tunnels sewer network would potentially be useful. Assuming it were possible to remove the flows coming off 50% of the existing impermeable areas it was found that there could be significant improvements to the CSO spill behaviour. Some, but less significant, improvements in spills were also found for the use of SUDS systems that removed or attenuated the initial 50 millimetres of runoff from contributing areas. The greatest reduction in overflow was seen when 50% of the impermeable area was removed, reducing the overflow volume at West Putney by 55%, at Putney Bridge by 78% and for Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO by 77% during the typical year. The number of overflow events during the year was also reduced, but only slightly for the West Putney CSO, and 16 and 10 spill events per year respectively for the Putney Bridge and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSOs. Disconnecting 50% of the impermeable area from the entire LTT catchment reduced the total overflow volume by 54%, 1

however, this represents the disconnection of some 10,327 ha of hard surfaces such as roofs, drives, car parks, roads and pavements, a not inconsiderable amount. Estimation of the potential on the ground reduction in contributing impervious areas, as opposed to the theoretical reductions above, was carried out in two stages. Firstly an assessment was made by assessing the applicability of a retrofit SUDS option by physical, mapped, characteristics of the underlying surface and local topography by inspection using GIS OS Mastermap. A series of logical SQL queries were determined that could be used to automatically select areas of land that were apparently suitable for each potential retrofit option. From this a more realistic set of disconnection options than the global 50% was generated and found by modelling to be potentially valuable for reducing CSO spills. The assumed global disconnection figure of 50% and the GIS semi-automatic estimation of areas that could be disconnected outlined above, were further refined by a detailed investigation of the real potential for disconnection by undertaking feasibility designs for retrofitting a range of SUDS measures. These were in trial areas that included converting road surfaces to porous; fitting shallow basins in grassed areas to slow down the rate of flow into the sewer network; disconnecting the downpipes from back roof areas of houses and directing them on to lawns; installing pocket rain gardens in streets (which also serve to calm traffic); and converting paved and car parking areas from impervious to pervious surfaces. The opportunity to disconnect stormwater in these detailed areas was considered in terms of the practicability on the ground. In these areas, although chosen for their good potential, the practical use of SUDS, based on an evaluation of the realistic local opportunities for disconnection, was found to be considerably less promising than originally assessed. This more refined disconnection strategy resulted in approximately 37% of the existing impermeable area being disconnectable. The disconnected flows were diverted to a mixture of initial loss, pervious area and storage attenuation. The most receptive of the three trial subcatchments, Frogmore (Buckhold Road), was shown by modelling to spill 10 times in a typical year when the impermeable area was reduced by 50%. Correspondingly spill frequency for a 37% reduction would be more than 10 spills per year. In parallel with the above, the whole life costs (capital and operational) for the final disconnection options have been determined, at a cost of some 28M-59M over a lifetime of 50 years for each of the 3 subcatchments. This assessment has been based on the methodology and database originally developed for (new) SUDS by UKWIR/WERF in 2005 and subsequently updated by H R Wallingford. This has used data developed in a joint US-UK study with a time base of 2002. In the whole life cost assessments the unit costs have been scaled up by an inflation factor of 1.25 (to 2009) and the Treasury discount rate has been taken as 3.5% in the analysis. A review of the potential intangible and other costs and benefits in non-monetary terms has also identified where these may be significant and add considerable value to the application of retrofit stormwater disconnections. This is particularly significant for mitigating and adapting to future climate change, for which SUDS are much more resilient than piped/sewered drainage systems and can also bring added benefits in terms of green space and amelioration of heat island problems. As there are many associated benefits from using alternatives to piped and sewered drainage systems for stormwater management; not only benefits relevant to the duties of the Sewerage Undertakers, there may be a case for the costs of implementation being shared between the various beneficiaries, rather than borne by the Sewerage Undertaker alone. Overall it is concluded in the present study that it is technically feasible to retrofit stormwater disconnection measures using SUDS which could potentially be effective at reducing the CSO spills into the River Thames. However, spill frequencies are likely to remain above 10 events per typical year even in areas where the strategy is the most practical. There are also significant logistical, legal and regulatory impediments to the utilisation of SUDS as proposed, in the short to medium term. These include: It would be necessary to engage with the very wide range and large numbers of individual stakeholders who would become involved directly and indirectly to ensure acceptability of the alternative arrangements; There may be problems in defining responsibility for the long-term operation and maintenance of the retrofit SUDS. Although under the new Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and delivery of

Surface Water Management Plans , Lead Local Flood and other Authorities will play a main role in adopting and managing any new SUDS in the future; Using SUDS in the way proposed transfers the burden of stormwater management from the Undertaker to a variety of other stakeholders each of whom may be more or less competent to assume that responsibility and this would potentially increase the risks of poor performance and could lead to third party problems due to exceedences / overflows when systems fail to perform as expected; If the proposals were to go ahead, there would be widespread disruption to local areas as the wide number and types of SUDS proposed are constructed; Expenditure by the Sewerage Undertakers in England should be directed only to investment in sewerage assets, making investments in SUDS currently problematical; There would be a need to obtain planning and building regulatory approval for the retrofit SUDS and also the disconnection arrangements; Agreements would be needed to access and in some cases, purchase, the land needed for the retrofit SUDS; There would be a need to reach agreement with the roads/highway authority for the SUDS proposed in the roads and highways

Notwithstandingtheabove,itisexpectedthatthepassingoftheFloodandWaterManagementAct 2010couldaddresssomeofthesemajorimpedimentsfornewdevelopmentsandareasundergoing redevelopment.TheAct,however,doesnotdealspecificallywithretrofittingalteredstormwater managementmeasuresandhowthesewouldbedealtwithstillremainstobeseen.Theproposed approachisalsoinkeepingwithcurrentinitiativestopassonthetruecostsofstormwater managementfromOfwat,andasgivenintheWalkerReview(December2009)report.

1.

Introduction and objectives

TheTidewayTunnelsarebeingdesignedtosignificantlyreducethespillflowsfromCombinedSewer Overflows (CSOs) and Pumping Stations into the River Thames in London. The planned intervention strategies to transfer the flow into the tunnel have, in many cases, resulted in costly diversion structures. However, in some instances the volumes and magnitudes of the spilled flow are relatively small and this has raised the question as to whether other options, for example, the introduction of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS)1, could see a potential benefit in the reduction of the spilled flow and hence in a reduced cost, or the entire elimination of some diversion or overflow structures, balanced against the cost and practicability of the implementation of SUDS systems within the urbanised areas. The latter not only include the selection and design costs; the capital and construction costs but also the social, economic and environmental costs and impacts associated with their acceptance and agreed implementation with all stakeholders, particularly the public. This report considers the potential to influence the performance of the stormwater system by reducing the frequency, volumes and flows of overflow at certain of the CSOs, within three of the subcatchments Putney Bridge, West Putney and Frogmore (Buckhold Road), by use of source control and other SUDS techniques within the subcatchments. The report considers the performance and cost benefit potential associated with the application of SUDS within the three areas which collectively cover the highly urbanised inner urban areas and less urbanised, more peripheralareasthatformpartoftheoverallsewernetwork. The overall objective of the study has been to review the potential for source control and other SUDSoptionstoreducestormwaterflowstoCSOsintheThamescatchment,bythefollowing: Reviewinganddefiningpilotcatchmentsfortheevaluationoftheaboveasexamplesof whatmaybeachievable. Definingspecificopportunitieswithinthepilotcatchmentsintermsoftechnical, environmentalandpracticabilitycriteriaandevaluatingtheperformanceintermsof flowreductionandconsequencesfordownstreamCSOspillflows,volumesand frequencyreduction Evaluatingthesocial,regulatoryandotheropportunitiesandbarrierstoimplementation oftheuseableopportunities(asdefinedabove)basedondeskstudies. Estimationofthepotentialcostbenefitsoftheusableoptionsbasedonreadilyavailable dataandtools(e.g.WERF/UKWIR,2005) Recommendationsfortheselectionoftheprimaryretrofitoptionsinthestudied catchmentsandthepracticabilityandvalueofimplementation. Recommendfurtherworktosupportthebetterdefinitionandutilisationofsource controlandSUDSmeasuresfortheThamescatchmentasawhole.

There has been a growing awareness amongst policy makers and regulators that surface water drainage will become an increasing challenge in the future. In her recent interim report Walker (The Independent Review of Charging for Household Water and Sewerage Services, 2009), focusing on householders, points out that: The surface water drainage charge is on average 9 per cent of the combined household water and sewerage bill, but varies significantly between companies. Surface
Definedas:surfacewaterdrainagesystemsdevelopedinlinewiththeidealsofsustainabledevelopment (CIRIA,2007).
1

water drainage will be an increasingly significant issue in the future, as the likely effect of climate change bringing shorter and heavier periods of rainfall has potential implications for the necessarysizeofsewers,whichinturnhasimplicationsforfuturecosts. Thereview goesontosay:Implementingtheserecommendationswillhaveanimpactonthefuture costs for sewerage companies of surface water and highway drainage. In particular, sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) will reduce the amount of water that runs off into the sewerage system. These recommendations highlight the importance of ensuring the capacity of the sewerage system achieves an acceptably low risk of surface flooding in the future. It will be important to establish the rightincentivestoencourageSUDSwhereappropriate,asSUDSofferanalternativetoincreasingthe capacityoftheseweragesystem;itthereforereducestheneedto makeinvestmentin thefutureand helps achieve lower future bills. This would also accord with the fairness principles of complying with the polluter pays principle, reflecting in charges the costs that particular customers impose on the system.(Walker,2009). Whilst encouraging to the use of nonpiped/sewered drainage systems, these sentiments apply to new developments and the control of extensions to paving gardens and similar areas. Although it does recognise some of the problems: For existing households, it is difficult to exclude households from the benefits of rainwater drainage services; whether a property is flooded will depend largely on the drainage services supplied to all neighbouring properties, and not simply to their own property. On the other hand, the costs a particular property imposes on the system depend on its drainedarea. The interim recommendation in relation to households: looking to the future, it has to be recognised that households will need to be incentivized to consider SUDS as a way of alleviating the likely effects of climate change in rainfall patterns. It is important to start looking now at what can be done to minimise future problems caused by an increase in peak rainwater runoff. To achieve this, there needs to be an incentive for existing homes to reduce the amount of water runoff from a property. The review team recommends that Defra, the Assembly government, the Environment Agency, Ofwat and sewerage companies should consider how the future charging system could incentivise householders to minimise the amount of rainwater runoff from existing and new households,includingincentivestoinstallsmallscalesustainabledrainagesystems. In the present study the focus is on managing existing dense urban areas using retrofit stormwater drainage systems and is not restricted only to households, but covers all developed areas within the LondonTidewayTunnelscatchment. The use of retrofit SUDS to materially influence the use of the London Tideway tunnels, has been variously considered previously and their utilisation discounted for largescale benefits although there were some initial indications that there may be value in investigating these options further (Binnie,Black&Veatch,2002;Jacobs,2006). Globally there is widespread agreement that the use of SUDS or nonpiped/sewered drainage systemsaspartofamuchbroaderapproachtostormwatermanagementplanningwhereverfeasible for stormwater management is preferable and generally more sustainable as part of a whole systems approach (e.g. Weinstein et al, 2009) and can add a wide range of multibenefits to urban environments within a green infrastructure approach advocated by the Centre for Neighbourhood Technology (Wise et al, 2010). Outside the UK the approach is known variously as: Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) in Australasia (Engineers Australia, 2006); and as Low Impact development (LID) (and/orWaterSensitivePlanningandDesign) thatincludesBestManagementPractices(BMPs) in the USA (e.g. France, 2002). In continental Europe a number of initiatives have taken the same approach and recent and ongoing studies are attempting to develop guidance and decision support tools for the application of these approaches e.g. the panEuropean DayWater project (Thevenot,

2008) and the Danish 2BG project (Jensen, 2008). Even in the UK, the forthcoming Technology Strategy Board business case considering opportunities in the priority technology area of Integrated Urban Water Management (IUWM) has identified the need to manage the water cycle more holistically. As well as advocating the use of WSUD in land use planning, stormwater and wastewatersourcecontrolandpollutionprevention;stormwaterflowandqualitymanagementand theuseofmixturesofsoft(ecological/green)andhard(infrastructure)technologiesareidentifiedas threeofthemainwaysofrealisingthebenefitsfromIUWM(TSB,inprint). InAustraliatheapproachisembeddedinpolicyandpracticeandismandatoryinallStates.Itisseen as attractive to developers especially as it can help to offset drought problems by making stormwater runoff readily part of the supply chain (e.g. Landcom, 2009). These systems potentially providemultiplebenefitsasillustratedinFigure1.1.

Figure11TheplaceofSUDSwithintheWaterSensitiveUrbanDesignframework(adaptedfromLandcom,2009and CIRIA,2007)

For the first time a German study has reported the inherent flexibility and adaptability of SUDS compared with the ability of conventional drainage systems to cope with future climate change (Seiker et al, 2008); reinforcing the wider value of their utilisation. There are other multiple benefits from alternative stormwater management practices, such as the influence on property values but not all SUDS provide a positive benefit in this regard. However, a recent study from the USA has shown that where properties overlook detention basins (ponds) that have been provided for the single objective of stormwater attenuation, compared with properties adjacent to other multiple use basins, property values are adversely affected. Nonetheless, in the multiuse areas (quantity qualityamenity)propertypricesactuallyincreased(pre2009)(Leeetal,2009). A major (but not the only) component of alternative stormwater management systems are SUDS. In the UK the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) has been promoting theuseofSUDSthroughthedevelopmentofguidanceandbestpracticemanuals.Thelatestofthese istheSUDSmanual(CIRIA,2007)andaseparateguidancedocumentisalsounderdevelopmentfor planners (CIRIA, 2009), which states: Sustainable drainage is becoming the preferred approach to

managing rainfall and surface water in developments. Delivering sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) can provide a number of benefits for those that live, work and play in or around a development. They can help manage flood risk and water quality as well as provide better places to live by providing habitat for wildlife and improved amenity. In Figure 1.1 the CIRIA (2007) vision of the use of SUDS, shown in yellow, is related to the larger picture of WSUD as now being practiced elsewhereinmanypartsoftheworld. Unlike Australia, in the UK the use of SUDS techniques as part of this holistic and more integrated approach to urban water management, is only now beginning to emerge. In England, there is a preponderance of interest in the water quantity management aspects of these systems, despite the coming need to better control urban runoff diffuse pollution as required under the Water Framework Directive. The difficulties of taking an integrated approach in England relate to the fragmentation of responsibilities and different scope of the key players in the management of the urban water cycle. Hence much of the benefits of this approach cannot be readily realised despite attempts to encourage the use of SUDS in planning guidance. In the study reported here, TW are concerned to provide a better quality of water in the Tideway Thames by controlling the polluting impacts from the existing combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges, a requirement under the UrbanWastewaterTreatmentDirective,butalsotoenhancetheecologyandusabilityoftheRiver. Longer term there may be a wish to address the potential for potable and other water uses from stormwater in the Tideway Thames catchments and also to provide a system that will enable developers, local authorities and others to enhance amenity and other benefits as is now being promoted in the USA (Wise et al, 2010). This may include addressing climate change problems such as the better management of the urban heat island through greening (e.g. Mitchell et al,2008); the enhancement of streetscapes using water features and the direct use of stormwater for supply purposes. However, the immediate need is to manage the stormwater in the Thames Tideway (TT) catchmentssuchthatthefrequency,volumeandrateofspillsfromtheexisting CSOsarereducedto acceptable levels as indicated by the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD). Therefore this report concentrates on the potential use of SUDS retrofitted into the Thames catchments as a means of reducing the rate and volume of runoff into the sewer network, through stormwater disconnection. In this study no consideration is given to the additional value of managing the stormwater for local flood risk reduction or other purposes other than as possible additional potentialbenefitsfromusingSUDSasanalternative. A difficulty in applying the wide range of guidance for using SUDS, WSUD and LID approaches to the Thames catchments is that most of the available guidance is aimed at new developments, whereas what is required in this study is to attempt to retrofit SUDS into the existing urban areas in London. There is much less guidance available as to how best to do this. In the UK there is no specific guidance for retrofitting and the only studies have been those by SNIFFER (2006); Stovin & Swan (2007); Stovin et al (2007). Recently a number of pilot studies conducted by Defra but focused on flood risk management, have showed that the wellplanned use of retrofit SUDS is a feasible alternative toconventionalpiped/seweredsystems (Gill,2008)andretrofitting nonpipedsystemsis a key component of the first generation of Surface Water Management Plans (SWMPs, Defra, 2010) e.g. Falconer (2009). In the USA retrofitting is virtually standard practice employed to reduce the sizeoflargesewerstoragetunnels(NaturalResourcesDefenceCouncil,2006;Weinsteinetal,2006), although much of the approach relies on usable infiltration capacity. US Guidance is also available fromtheCenterforWatershedProtection(2007). The present report considers a much wider range of SUDS options than in the other recent studies looking at their use in London and shows that technically and hydraulically, there is scope for SUDS to reduce certain CSO spill volumes and frequencies. However, the practicalities of application on

the ground make their implementation difficult and not without considerable risk within current Governanceandregulatoryregimes.Thisreportislaidoutassummarisedbelow: Insection2theworkundertakenandmethodsusedareintroduced. InSection3theapproachtotheselectionofretrofitSUDSoptionsissetout. Section4dealswiththeperformancecriteriafortheSUDSunits Section5reviewsthepracticalitiesofutilisationofretrofitSUDSfortheThamescatchment. Section6illustratesbywayofexample,thedetailedapplicationofretrofitSUDSforselected areas. Section 7 outlines the approach used to assess the disconnection of stormwater potential at Thamescatchmentscale. Section 8 considers available information about the cost benefits of retrofitting SUDS and stormwaterdisconnection. Section 9 up scales the results from the detailed analyses in Section 6 from the three catchmentsinvestigatedindetailtoestimatethecostsofapplication. Section 10 considers the usage of the disconnection findings in Thames catchment hydraulic modelling. Section11summarisestheinvestigationandgivesconclusions.

RecommendationsaregiveninSection12. Appendicesareprovidedfor: The definition of the types of SUDS and their potential effectiveness for stormwater disconnectionisgiveninAppendixA TheSUDSconsideredindetailareillustratedinAppendixB An examination of the current costbenefit approaches available from UKWIR studies in AppendixC PracticalitiesofretrofittingintheareasinvestigatedindetailinAppendixD DetailsofthedesignsandcostingsfortheexampleareasinvestigatedinAppendixE AnillustrativephotographicrecordoftheareasexaminedindetailisgiveninAppendixF.

2.

Work carried out

This study has been undertaken by staff from the Pennine Water Group (PWG) at the University of Sheffield, supported by HR Wallingford Ltd over an intense period of time from March June 2009. This work has been carried out in association with CH2M Hill and Halcrow Group. The former undertaking computational modelling of the TT sewerage network to evaluate the effectiveness or otherwiseofthedisconnectionoptionsandthelattermanagingthisstudy. The core staff from PWG are amongst the leading UK proponents of the use of SUDS systems and collectively have experience that is particularly relevant in: SUDS modelling and design (flow quantity and quality); retrofit SUDS specification; accounting and economics of water systems and related asset management; integrated urban drainage system modelling; design and adaptation to climate change; futures and scenario analysis; sustainability assessment; local and catchmentwide flood risk management; water system governance; diffuse pollution modelling and management; and public engagement. Close working with a number of local authorities and water and sewerage managers in each of the countries of the UK and overseas, also ensures a wide vision and understandingofthepotentialfortheuseofSUDSsystemsandalsothebarrierstoimplementation. The PWG has also been previously involved in the development of the Thames (TTT) schemes through: involvement in the original Thames Tideway Strategic Study (TTSS) steering group; in the independent reviewofthe2007proposalsonbehalf ofOfwat,workingwithJacobsconsulting;inan initial computational model assessment of the regime proposed for sediment flushing from the operationaltunnels. Following an initial introduction to the scope and requirements of the study, an overview of the potential catchments to be examined was provided by the TT project team. From this, 3 subcatchments were selected as potentially providing benefits from retrofit stormwater disconnections as their sewerage system performance were such that relatively modest stormwater disconnections (removing, slowing down or reducing the volume of flows entering the systems) could potentially improve CSO spill performance. The subcatchments were also considered as areas where there may be opportunities for retrofitting in terms of available land, density of properties andopenspace.TheseareasareconsideredinSection3. The work concentrated initially on the technical, environmental and practicability aspects of selecting potential candidate retrofit options within each of the three test subcatchments. The approach followed a sequence of: reviewing land uses, potential sites for retrofitting following the framework given in Section 3 and using a GIS platform developed for and with PWG, in conjunction with CH2M Hill to make a coarse estimate of what disconnections might be feasible at a large scale based on a hierarchy of preferred SUDS options. This provided the information for CH2M Hill to make a first analysis of the potential effect of disconnection on the performance of the CSOs. A site visit was able to determine on the ground opportunities for carrying out detailed designs and costings as examples and then these were related to the wider Thames catchment GISbased analysis to determine a more realistic potential disconnection assessment and overall cost estimates. Option design had to utilise simple approaches in view of the time available, and outline SUDS design was provided through the HR Wallingford SUDS whole life costing tool (WERF/UKWIR, 2005)thatiscontinuallybeingenhancedasnewcostdatabecomeavailable. After selection of the feasible options, the other elements of retrofit option selection and design were considered. These relate to the local implications and practicability of utilisation (and construction) of each option. An overview of water quality and environmental implications was also undertaken(withoutanyattemptatqualitymodelling).Thisprovidedamoredetailedassessmentof

the likely regulatory, social, institutional (inc. adoptability) aspects of the primary candidate retrofit options and identified key barriers to implementation and potential future changes in regulation that may assist utilisation. To avoid raising undue adverse community reactions at this stage, the assessmenthasbeenentirelydeskbasedwithlimitedsitevisits. Itwasexpectedthatinordertocomparethecostbenefitsoftheretrofitvsthetraditionaloptions, it would be necessary to review the way in which the TTT costs and benefits have been determined. However, it proved not to be possible to interact with the TTT team sufficiently to do this. Hence, the review of costs and benefits in this report are standalone. Hence, there may be certain aspects of the costsbenefits and values presented here that are not commensurate with the interpretation andassumptionsmadeintheTTTstudies. Amasterlistofpotentiallyviableandcosteffectiveretrofitoptionshasbeendrawnupconsideredin terms of their implementation potential, including an assessment of taking a staged adaptive approach over a period of time and even potentially using these options in the future to supplement the TTT as climate and other demands increase with time. Recommendations for furtherstagedassessmentsoftheneedandopportunitiesforretrofittinghavealsobeendefined. The final conclusions provide recommendations for potential retrofit within the 3 studied catchmentsandalsothepossibilitiesforscalingupacrosstheLondonarea,drainingtothetunnelas awhole.

3.

Methodology for selection of options for retrofitting

There are no established approaches to the selection of options for retrofitting on a widespread scale published applications to date have related mainly to local interventions with details developed being focused on individual interventions in localised areas such as rain gardens (e.g. Smith et al, 2007) or SEA (Street Edge Alternative) streets (Seattle Government, 2009). These are also mainly concerned with the benefits for the improvement of water quality and less so with stormwaterquantitymanagement. Most applications to date relate to retrofits to enhance downstream water quality rather than dealing with quantity management as a means of CSO spill control (e.g. Center for Watershed protection, 2007). The few recent reports dealing with quantity management have shown potential forthisusing:onstreetpondingbyinflowregulation(Carr&Walesh,2008)updatingthesamecase study in the original TTT SUDS review report (Binnie, Black & Veatch, 2002) although this is not a conventional SUDS approach; using rainwater harvesting tanks (Kellagher & UdaleClark, 2008) modelled with time series rainfall. Although the approach being utilised in Philadelphia (Smullen et al, 2008) is using a range of approaches for the management of CSO spills the study details have not beenreported. There are several initiatives underway to take a catchmentwide approach to take e.g. Landscape based stormwater management (Jensen, 2008) but these sit easiest within the context of new developmentsorsignificantregenerationofurbanareas.InScotland,forexample,arecentsurveyof brownfield redevelopments (Smith et al, 2008) showed that without exception all new separate surface water drainage systems were ultimately connected into combined sewers, although for somesitesthiswasfollowingonsiteSUDS.

3.1

Existingframeworksfortheselectionofoptions

So far the only consistent attempt at a methodology for catchment scale planning for UK retrofit of stormwater management is that of SNIFFER (2006), Figure 3.1a and 3.1b. However, this has never beenapplied beforeatthescalerequiredforthestudyreported hereand hasrequired modification forapplicationinthepresentstudy.


MCDMMulticriteriadecisionmaking Figure31aSNIFFERFrameworkPhaseIFeasibilityAssessment

In a later study, Stovin et al (2007) built on an earlier methodology developed by Swan (2003) and devised a hierarchy for selection of SUDS site for retrofit, Figure 3.2. This indicates a preference system for looking for the sites/SUDS options that will provide quickwins first, in terms of being themoststraightforwardtoimplementandalsohavingapotentiallysignificantimpact.

Data review and detailed data gathering

Consider other options

Consult stakeholders

Outline design and costing of retrofit options

Hydraulic modelling

Decision making Apply MCDM if necessary

Are retrofit SUDS best way to meet objectives? yes

no

Pursue other options

Detailed technical feasibility and design

Implementation phase

Figure3.1bSNIFFERFrameworkOutlinedesignandimplementationPhaseII

*Waterqualityimprovementsmaybemaximisedbydisconnectingindustrial/commercialroofsand/orhighways;however adequateprotectionagainstlocalcontaminationneedstobeensuredinthedesignofSUDSoptions.
Figure32GenerichierarchiesforSUDSretrofitSelectionproposedbyStovinetal(2007)

3.2 Frameworkusedinthestudy
Inthepresentstudy,theapproachtakenisillustratedinFigure3.3.

Figure33ApproachtakeninthisstudytotheselectionandevaluationoftheeffectivenessofretrofitSUDS

ThestagesintheanalysisshownintheFrameworkareconsideredfurtherbelow.

3.2.1 Review of available SUDS options and ranking of performance potential

The details of potential SUDS options that may be selected for retrofit are outlined in Appendix A and illustrated in Appendix B in relation to different categories of use for either roads, buildings or land. A wide range of alternative and conjunctive use SUDS could in principle be considered for retrofit for the various land uses and catchments being studied. Ideally, a comprehensive analysis should be undertaken in which each option and combination of options (including retaining piped/sewered drainage) is evaluated based on whole life costs and other considerations (e.g. Weinstein et al, 2006). However, there was not time in this study to do this and hence only single options were identified in terms of their likely potential applicability and effectiveness. In the

detailedanalysis,Section8,onlyoneoptionwasexaminedindetailforeachlanduseinvestigatedas there was not time to compare alternatives. Expert judgement has been used to select what were consideredlikelytobethemostoptions. A preference hierarchy was developed based on expert judgement of the likely effectiveness of applicationasshowninTable3.1.
Table31PotentialSUDS,preferenceandindicativehydraulicperformance

Surfacetype Roads

Primaryoptions Pocketstreetinfiltration

Hydraulicperformance

Preference rank 3

Nonroadhard standing(inc.car parks)Contiguous areasofmanmade surfaces>200m2 Manmadesurfaces otherthanabove Roofs

c)removesfirst12mmof stormrunoffwithsubsequent draindownintonetwork Toadjacentpervious/SEAStreets b) Permeableroadsurface c)removesfirst25mmof stormrunoff&d) Offsitelocaldetentionandswale d) conveyance Permeablesurfacestorage c)&d) Adjacentpervious b) Offsitee.g.localdetention d)

2 1 4 1 2 3

Adjacentpervious Green/blue

b) c)bluecanremovefirst25 mmofstormrunoff b)greencanactaspervious storageforsmallerstorm events a) b)

1 4

Soakaways Disconnecttolawn(Classifiedas mixedpermeability) Waterbutts/RWH c)canremovefirst25mmof Wherethereisadjacentgreen stormrunoffifoversized spaceorhardstandingtositethem cisternused

1 2 3

Key:seebelowforexplanationofa)d)and13 The initial starting point for selecting the most preferred option was to choose the option likely to deliver the best hydraulic performance, i.e. remove, retain or detain stormwater flows most effectively.Fourdifferenthydraulicmechanismswereconsidered,andthesewereinitiallyrankedin preferenceorderasfollows: a) b) c) d) Completeremoval Transfertopervious Initiallosses(xmm) Storage/attenuation 1st 2ndequal 2ndequal 3rd

Preference between b) and c) depends on local infiltration (pervious) characteristics, level of initial lossesandonthepreciseperformancecriteriabeingassessed.Ifthereispoorinfiltration,compared withpotentiallygoodinitiallosses,thenc)ispreferabletob). This preference order has been applied whenever more than one disconnection option was consideredtobetechnicallyviable.

The initial evaluation considered source control options only, in keeping with the preference hierarchy promoted by the Center for Watershed Protection (2007) and Weinstein et al (2006). This was because regional controls (CIRIA, 2007), such as storage ponds, detention basins an inter linking swales were considered as endofsystem options, collecting runoff from a succession or number of contributing areas. Given the available guidance, the study concentrated initially on source controls as the best options as part of potential downstream treatment trains. This assumption was found subsequently to be too limiting in the subcatchments investigated as these had considerable areas of green space that was found to be suitable for regional, or near end of system, SUDS (Section 8). This led to a reevaluation of the potential stormwater disconnections from the initial appraisal and the final analysis (Section 9) and a refinement of the preference order (Section4.2.1).

4.

Identification of subcatchments and performance criteria

4.1 Identificationofsubcatchments
ItwasintendedthattheretrofitstudywouldinvestigateareaswithintheLondonThamescatchment that were as typical as possible of the overall catchment in order to be able to make some assessment of the overall potential for retrofitting stormwater disconnections across the Thames catchment.ThreesubcatchmentswereselectedintheLondonThames(LTT)catchmentforthestudy (Annex1),locatedinthewestoftheLondonTidewayTunnelscatchment,southoftheRiverThames and comprising the subcatchments contributing to the West Putney, Putney Bridge and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO). These CSOs are thought representative of the London Tideway Tunnels catchment as a whole. The subcatchments are shown in Figure 4.1, with moredetailofeachin4.24.4fromANNEX1.

CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey
Figure41Thethreesubcatchmentsinvestigated(nottoscale)(numbersrefertoimagesinFigure4.5)

Figure42WestPutneyMastermapsubcatchmentcharacterisation


Figure43PutneyBridgeMastermapsubcatchmentcharacterisation

20

Figure44Frogmore(BuckholdRoad)Mastermapsubcatchmentcharacterisation

Figure 4.5(a) 4.5(f) shows illustrative images and a brief overview of the types of areas in the Putney Bridge, West Putney and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) catchments. The numbers [ ] refer to locationsinthegeneralvicinityinFigure4.1.

[1]Characterisedbyhighdensitydevelopment,narrowroads,small/nofrontgardens,onstreet parking
Figure45(a)PutneyBridgesubcatchment

NorthernandSouthWesternareaofcatchmentisdominatedbygolfcourses[2]. [3]Centreofthecatchmentdominatedbylargeapartmentblocks,mediumrise,oftensetinlarge communalgrounds.

Figure4.5(b)WestPutneysubcatchment

22

Much of the Frogmore catchment is characterised by large apartment blocks [3], particularly in area [4]. Medium density housing, often with large back gardens is found in the NE Frogmore catchment [5]. These areas often have wider roads than other residential areas. Many houses have offstreet parkingwithpartiallypavedfrontgardens.
Figure4.5(c)Frogmore(BuckholdRoad)subcatchment

TherearealsoInstitutionalBuildings,suchashospitals.Largebuildings,oftenwithlotsoflandscaped groundsandpavedareas
Figure4.5(d)Frogmore(BuckholdRoad)subcatchment

The Southern part of the Frogmore catchment is dominated by apartments [3], [4] as well as high density housing, often terraced/semidetached with small rear gardens. Typically with onstreet parking.
Figure4.5(e)Frogmore(BuckholdRoad)PutneyHeath

[8]AttheheartoftheFrogmorecatchmentthereisalargeareaofmaintainedopenspacewoodland andgrass(PutneyHeath).
Figure4.5(f)Frogmore(BuckholdRoad)PutneyHeath

4.2 Performanceandperformanceassessment
Performance of the retrofitted systems has to provide appropriate stormwater management and also has to perform adequately within the urban landscape. Although TW are interested primarily in the improvement of the system in relation to the pollution in the River Thames, there are other aspects of performance that may militate against using SUDS systems or provide additional value to theiruse.

The main evaluation of the required performance of the London Tideway Tunnels system has been based on the potential for improvement to the performance of the individual CSOs. Each of these hastoperformbetterthanatpresentinrelationtothefrequencyandvolumeofspills.However,the precise performance specification is still under development, hence no target figures could be defined for the present study. Instead an evaluation of what waspossible in terms of improvements in CSO performance has been made for various scenarios of retrofit SUDS and stormwater disconnection. In the following sections the performance of the individual SUDS options used in the studyisreviewed.

4.2.1 Hydraulic and other aspects of the performance of SUDS elements

The design of SUDS for new developments is recommended to be based on critical design storms of 1 in 100 year return period (CIRIA, 2007). Ideally, time series rainfall events should also be used where there is significant storage in the SUDS (Kellagher & UdaleClark, 2008). However, when retrofitting SUDS, 1 in 100 year standards may not be achievable due to land space limitations. Consequently, when designing the detailed SUDS under evaluation in the present study a design storm with a return period of 1 in 30 years has been used as this is typical of the standard currently used for sewerage asset management planning. An uplift has been applied for climate change of 20%onrainfallintensity(Section6).ThehydraulicdesignhasutilisedtheHRWallingfordmodelalso used for Whole Life Cost evaluation and is a simplified approach using a 1node InfoWorks CS urban drainage model with a range of typical rainfall characteristics across the UK and by producing correlationequationstofittheresults(WERF/UKWIR,2005)(Section7.1). The SUDS elements utilised in the study are given in Table 3.1, together with the hydraulic performance assumed. Table 4.1 reproduces this information, together with more detail and also indicatesthenatureoftheSUDSdesigntoolavailableintheHRWallingfordwholelifecostingmodel (Appendix C). The overall performance is also summarised in terms of hydraulic, water quality, ecological,aestheticandsafetybenefits.
Table41SUDSHydraulicandoverallperformance

Surfacetype Roads Roads

Primaryoptions Pocketstreet infiltration

Hydraulicperformance c)removesfirst12mm ofstormrunoffwith subsequentdraindown intonetwork b)converts impervioustopervious surfaces

Overallperformance Hydraulic,water quality,ecological, aestheticandsafety benefits Hydraulic,water quality,ecological,and aestheticbenefits/SEA streetsnotusedin presentstudy Hydraulicandwater qualitybenefitsand canbeaesthetically attractive. Hydraulic,water quality,aestheticbut maybeperceivedas unsafe Hydraulic,water

HRWallingford modeltool Swalesand/or Detentionbasin (normallydry)

Toadjacent pervious/SEA Streets

Detentionbasin and/orfilterdrain, althoughmaybe flatgrassedarea Permeable pavement(with liner) Swale,detention basinorretention ponddepending onlocal circumstances Permeable

Permeableroad surface

c)removesfirst25mm ofstormrunoff&d)

Offsite local detentionand swaleconveyance

d)maximumoutflow constrainedto5l/s

Nonroad

Permeablesurface

c)&d)

Surfacetype hard standing(inc. carparks) Contiguous areasof manmade surfaces >200m2

Primaryoptions storage Adjacentpervious

Hydraulicperformance

Overallperformance quality,ecological, aestheticbenefits Hydraulic,water quality,ecological, aestheticbenefits Hydraulicandwater qualitybenefits

HRWallingford modeltool pavement(with liner) Detentionbasin and/orfilterdrain, althoughmaybe flatgrassedarea Swale,detention basinorretention ponddepending onlocal circumstances Detentionbasin and/orfilterdrain, althoughmaybe flatgrassedarea Notincluded

b)

Offsitee.g.local detention

d)

Manmade surfaces otherthan above Roofs

Adjacentpervious

b)

Hydraulic,water quality,ecological, aestheticbenefits Greenonlyused: Hydraulic,water quality,ecological, aestheticbenefits

Green/blue

Soakaways Disconnecttolawn (Classifiedasmixed permeability) Waterbutts/RWH Wherethereis adjacentgreen spaceorhard standingtosite them
Key a) b) c) d) Completeremoval Transfertopervious Initiallosses(xmm) Storage/attenuation

c)bluecanremovefirst 25mmofstormrunoff b)greencanactas perviousstoragefor smallerstormevents assume25mm a) b)

c)canremovefirst25 mmofstormrunoffif oversizedcisternused.

Notusedinpresent study Hydraulic,water quality,ecological, aestheticandsafety benefits Notusedinpresent studyalthough consideredoptionally. Hydraulicand ecologicalbenefits Aswellassupply supplementpotential.

Filterdrain/trench Detentionbasin and/orfilterdrain, althoughmaybe flatgrassedarea Notincluded

1st 2ndequal 2ndequal 3rd

OnlythoseSUDSunitsusedinthepresentstudyhavebeenreviewedintermsoftheirperformance inthefollowingsections.

4.2.1.1PocketStreetinfiltration(seeAppendixE.3)
This is illustrated in Figure 4.6. Provided these units in plan are at least 2% of the impervious area connected (Melbourne Water, 2005), these have recently been shown to provide on average some 33%reductionininflowvolumesandmayattenuate peakflowratesbyup to80%(Hattetal,2009). Although tested in Australian conditions, this study also showed no apparent changes to these quantitative benefits in different seasons. Nonetheless it has been considered prudent here to treat them as attenuation systems only. The specified outflow has been restricted to 5l/s and growing media (soil supported by sand and gravel) has been included. The attenuation is conservatively

expected to ensure that at the least the first 12mm of runoff willbe stored and only released slowly evenduringsuccessionsofstormevents. The management of the stormwater which originates in roads and adjacent areas will become more of a responsibility for the roads and highways agencies. It would be expected that much of the flow would still eventually reach the public sewerage system, although some would be lost through evapotranspiration. These systems are potentially very effective at improving runoff water quality andecologicallyandaestheticallybeneficialasvegetatedstreetfeatures.Theremaybeminorsafety considerations when in operation as ponding on the surface will occur. This should be similar to street surface puddles; although in extreme events may have a depth of up to 0.5m. These systems, which are green, can help with climate change due to carbon sequestration and potential to lower ambient temperatures. However, plant maintenance is not straightforward and requires skilled operation.Residentsmayalsoobjecttotheiruseifitimpairscarparkingoutsidetheirproperties. Construction would be dependent upon local conditions, but would be expected to be problematic inrelationtoexistingburiedservices,insomecasesrequiringrerouting.

Figure46PocketraingardensinAucklandNewZealand

4.2.1.2Permeableroadsurfaces/permeablepavedareas(seeAppendixE.1)
An illustration of these systems is shown in Figure 4.7. In the present study these units have been designed based on standard block paved systems, such as that produced by Interpave2 and are subsurface storage systems. The subbase provides storage for infiltrating runoff and the outflow can be constrained to a fixed rate (in this case 5l/s). Design in the present study has usually presumed that only the surface that is currently impervious will be drained to the same plan area that has been reconstructed as permeable. Hence there may be scope for additional disconnections into the system over and above the converted impervious area itself. However, this was presumed to provide a worst case scenario other than for one of the case examples, where properties were alsodrainedtothepermeablelocalroadway.

http://www.paving.org.uk/cost_of_paving.php(accessed10/07/09)


Figure47Permeableblockpaving(fromInterpavewebsite)

The assumption that these systems will remove the first 25mm of runoff is therefore believed to be conservative in the designs. As there is not a liner in the designs, there is also scope for infiltration intothesurroundingsoilandariskthatgroundwatermayinfiltratewherethereisahighlocalwater table.Removalofthesurfacewaterintothesubsurfacestoragenotonlyattenuatestheflowbutcan also provide for some improvement in outflow water quality. There are no other potential benefits except potential attractiveness in housing areas. There will be a transfer of responsibility away from thesewerageundertakertoeithertheroadsorhighwayauthorityortoprivateorotherlandowners currently responsible for road drainage, although, ultimately the restricted outflow will enter the public sewerage system. Construction of these systems will also be very disruptive and will be problematicintermsofundergroundservicesandtrafficdisruption.

4.2.1.3Offsitelocaldetention,storageandswaleconveyance(seeAppendix E.1)
An illustration of a vegetated detention basin is shown in Figure 4.8. These may or may not contain vegetation depend upon local need. Figure 4.9(a) shows a typical conveyance swale and 4.9(b) a vegetatedswale.

Figure48Offlinelocaldetentionbasin(Orleans,France)


(a)conveyanceswaleinDundee,Scotland (b)vegetatedswaleinSeattle,USA

Figure49Swales

In the present study the design of detention basins has assumed a restricted outflow of 5l/s and the temporary storage is entirely presumed within the basin, with no storage assumed in the interconnecting swales. The detention basin depth is assumed as 0.6m with 1:4 side slopes. These systems are presumed to be able to retain the critical design storm, with the outflow not exceeding 5l/s. Consideration will need to be given to ensuring that there is a clear exceedance flow pathway for whenthebasinisoverwhelmed,inaccordancewiththe(CIRIA,2006)guidanceonthis. Although providing good hydraulic attenuation and potential ecosystems with plant growth as in Figure4.8,thesesystemsmaybeperceivedashazardsbylocalresidentswhentheyareinoperation. Where the basin is dry and laid only to grass, there may also be a lack of awareness that it will at somepointfillwithwater.Whenoperational,these systemswillbeahazardandlocalresidentsand others will need to be included in the operation and maintenance planning to ensure caution and also to get community involvement. By maintaining natural vegetation (even grass) there will be benefits for climate change buffering and also if free of plants, opportunity to use the basins as recreationalareas. There will be considerable changes needed in responsibilities for stormwater management where these systems are used. They will become the responsibility of the local land owner/operator despite the outflows subsequently entering the public sewer system. There will also be a need for the sewerage undertaker to accept these flows which is contrary to the usual current arrangement,wheretheyareseenaslanddrainageandnottheresponsibilityoftheundertaker. Construction of these systems should not be too disruptive as they are not in roads, although there will inevitably be buried service problems. There may also be difficulties due to land ownership and convincing owners/managers of the need to agree to allow holes to be dug that will occasionally fill withwater.

4.2.1.4Transfertoperviousandroofdisconnection(seeAppendixE.2)
There may be opportunities to redirect existing pervious surface runoff on to adjacent permeable surfaces. In the present study these adjacent areas have not been modified and so they are only existing green areas such as gardens, green areas in municipal or other large institutions and public greenspace.Theredirectionarrangementswillbelocationspecificandmayentailsomeregradingof existinggradientsandfalls.

Figure410DownspoutconnectedtoperviousareainSeattle,USA

No cost of design allowance has been made for this as it is too site specific. The disconnection of roof drainage is more straightforward and simply requires an adjustment of downpipes, with an erosion preventer and redirection on to pervious surfaces, see Figure 4.10. The hydraulic behaviour ofthesesystemsistoconvertexistingimperviousareasintopervious.Therewillstillberunofffrom the latter, but at a reduced rate compared with the impervious condition. These systems redirect the runoff from the sewerage undertakers assets onto private and public property and hence will remove the responsibility other than for any pervious surface runoff that finds its way into the public sewerage system. Currently the sewerage undertakers have no responsibility to accept land drainage.TheFloodsandWaterManagementAct2010andassociatedNationalSUDSStandardswill maketheuseofthesetypesofsystemmorenormalinthelongerterm. In areas with water shortages and as a mitigator of climate change, this redirection of water will be beneficial for ecosystems and for greening in general. Coupled with water collection in butts or cisterns,thisoptioncouldbeespeciallybeneficialforsupplementingsupply. Construction of these systems should be relatively straightforward other than for the paved areas wheretheremaybeaneedtoregradetoensureadequateredirectionofflows.

4.2.1.5Greenroofs(seeAppendixE.2)
Green roofs, Figure 4.11, are used extensively in much of the rest of Europe, especially Germany where they are even installed on sloping roofs, and are seen as adding significantly to property values. There are now many installations in the UK although these are mainly on flat roof surfaces (CIRIA,2007a).Inthepresentprojectgreenroofshavebeenconsideredonlyasanoptiononexisting flatroofedapartments.Ineachcase theoverflowduring extremeeventsisalsodirected toadjacent pervious areas or in exceptional circumstances into a permeable pavement area. This is because the hydraulic performance during more extreme rainfall events is as yet uncertain, although flow attenuation (loss by retention, evapotranspiration and plant uptake) is known to be good for the smaller events and over an annual cycle, with runoff coefficients reduced to 70%, even with a thin

roof (2040mm substrate) (CIRIA, 2007a). It is also claimed (ibid) that the peak rate of runoff from a green roof can be less than or equal to that from a greenfield site for storm events with total volumesupto3xthemaximumwaterretentioncapacityofthesubstrateusedinthegreenroof.The retention will depend on the construction and substrate as well as the installation details. Hence in the present study a retention rainfall depth of some 25mm has been assumed for all storms, with the excess routed into adjacent pervious areas as these are expected to be most effective when combinedwithotherSUDScomponentstoformastormwatermanagementtrain(CIRIA,2007a). Greenroofretrofittingrequiresadjustmentstotheroofstructureunlesslightweightmediaareused, hence,herealightweightsystemhasbeenassumedappropriate.Greenroofscanaddecologicaland aesthetic value, can help mitigate climate change heat and insulation effects, but tend to be subject to extreme and polarised opinions as to their value. They should not be used where there are plans tocollectroofrunoffforuseasinwaterbuttsandareverydependentonpropertyowner/occupiers views and expectations as to their acceptability. This option also transfers responsibility away from thesewerageundertakertopropertyowners.

Figure411GreenroofsinRotherham,Yorkshire

Constructionoftheretrofitgreenroofswilldependentirelyinthepropertyowner/occupier. Incentivestoallowthismayberequiredoverandabovethetypical30currentreductioninwater chargesfordisconnectingstormwatersystems.InEnglandandWales,evenapartiallyconnected system,suchasanoverflowfromanotherwisedisconnectedsystem,disqualifiestheproperty ownerfromanyrebate.

4.2.1.6Rainwaterharvesting(seeAppendixE.1)
Although this is presented here only as an optional extra (due to added cost) it is outlined in some detailduetothepotentialfutureusageifclimatechangeencouragesonsitewatercollectionand/or watercompaniesprovidestrongerdisconnectionincentives. Thevalueof rainwaterharvesting (RWH)asameans ofattenuatingdownstreamflowsisthesubject of current research although this is subordinate to the interest in what the safe yield is from these systems. It is apparent that time series rainfall is needed to properly evaluate the performance of RWH systems. RWH can be effective at reducing downstream runoff volumes for all storms with only some 14% of the original (nonintercepted) runoff volume passing downstream for an extreme rainfall time series for a storage volume of 1m3 per person (equivalent to 29m2 of roof area per

person in a UK study (Kellagher & UdaleClarke, 2008). Another study found that storage of 0.75m3 perpersonreducesthedownstreamflowvolumeto20%oftheoriginal(KellagherandFranco,2005) andstorageof1.5m3perheadshoweda50%reductionindownstreampeakflowsformostevents. Overall it has been found that retrofitting RWH systems can significantly reduce flood frequencies andvolumesinareasthatsufferfromfrequentflooding(ibid)althoughitisnecessarytoincreasethe size of RWH tanks above what is required purely for RWH purposes. It can be concluded that RWH can significantly reduce volumes downstream provided tanks are of the order of 1m3 per head and that it is possible to assume an initial loss of 50mm for each event for modelling purposes; although inthepresentstudythishasbeenreducedto25mmtoaccountforuncertainty. To ensure effective flood volume reduction: Assume up to a 1m3 tank per person, although it could be smaller a 2m3 tank per property (3.3 dwellers). For modelling, an initial loss of 25mm at the start of the event is feasible in areas where there are a substantial number (>50%) of RWH installations. Although there are now lots of types of tank some that can double as garden fences (Figure 4.12) or be fitted into small roof spaces or under houses, Figure 4.13, meaning that lack of space may not be an impediment to retrofitting; there is no incentive for UK property owners and dwellers to fit theseatthepresenttimeasmainsprovidedwaterissocheap.

Figure412SlimlineRWHtanksinanaccesspathwaytoapropertyinMelbourne

Figure413Ecosac(www.ecosac.com.au)flexiblerainwaterstoragesystem

RetrofitoftheseRWHsystemsisbestdonebyaspecialistserviceprovider.Thereareanumberin theUKwithexperienceandconstructionshouldnotbeanimpediment.

4.2.2 Sewerage performance assessment

The London Tideway Tunnels catchment is being modelled using an InfoWorks CS computer simulationmodel.Becauseofthecomplexityofthesewernetworkithasnotbeenpossibletomodel every individual sewer and pipe length and the smallest diameter in the model is 375mm. SUDS units, especially those used for source control, operate at a very local scale and caution is required when using largescale sewerage models to represent SUDS. For this study no attempt has been

made to model the SUDS units themselves, rather their effects in terms of changing the current stormwaterrunoffandinputstothesewernetworkhavebeenmodelledbyCH2MHill. Descriptions of the application of the model to the retrofit SUDS options are given in ANNEX 1. For this work the London Tideway Tunnels model has been amended to represent the change in contributing areas produced by the various SUDS options. General disconnection options were modelled as reductions in impermeable contributing area which was modelled as both lost and transferred to permeable areas. Initial losses through rainfall capture techniques were also modelled before the site specific options (produced by PWG) were investigated for the three CSO testsubcatchments. In the London Tideway Tunnels studies, the December typical year and October 2000 rainfall events represent the most severe recorded events for the typical year and 154 event rainfall series respectively.TheLondonTidewayTunnelscatchmentmodelsimulationshavebeencarriedoutwith these and with the various specified SUDS options to produce the most extreme overflows at the CSOs. The complete typical year rainfall has also been simulated to provide a representation of the number of spills and total overflow that could be expected at CSOs during the annual series (Annex 1). The InfoWorks CS model for the London Tideway Tunnels has been modified to provide a better means of assessing the potential effect of removal and attenuation of stormwater runoff by the retrofitted SUDS (Annex 1). Assessment of changes in the effective impervious contributing areas and in initial storage (Table 3.1) from the retrofits was based on the contributing impervious area changes for each of the Subcatchment InfoWorks node IDs within each of the 3 test subcatchments Annex1. The potential changes to contributing areas were assessed by PWG (Sections 6 & 9) and used in the London Tideway Tunnels InfoWorks model to assess the changes in the system CSO performance. The process is described in LTTD, 2009: the model was first amended so that the areas for each source control option matched the areas provided by PWG. In InfoWorks this was done by adjusting area percentage in the various subareas contributing to the nodes in each of the subcatchments. For example in subarea 21757452 (West Putney subcatchment) the impermeable area was reduced from 22.0% (19.2ha) to 5.61% (4.9ha) based on detailed analysis of surfaces and source control optionsbyPWG. Areas with initial losses were also added to the model subcatchments. For example subarea 21757452(WestPutneysubcatchment)wasestimatedtohavepotentialfor4.81%ofthesubareato besubjecttoinitiallosses,equivalenttoanareaof4.2hectares. Any contributing area with storage was represented as being lost in the subcatchment as the flow would be captured by the SUDS storage volume and returned to the system slowly after the CSO event.

5.

Practicalities of retrofitting SUDS

The opportunities for and difficulties of retrofitting SUDS in urban areas are reviewed by SNIFFER (2006) and Stovin et al (2007). Technically, provided there is adequate land area available, virtually any of the options in Appendix A and B could be retrofitted. There are limitations as regards infiltration based SUDS, however, as these require sufficient infiltration capacity in the underlying soiltooperate.Theyalsoriskcontaminatinggroundwaterandcompromisingaquifersbeingusedfor supply purposes. Ironically, the guidance available from the USA for retrofitting (Weinstein et al, 2006; Center for Watershed Protection, 2007) promotes the use of infiltration BMPs preferentially for retrofits and also for the control of water quantity (Table A3, Appendix A). As it is unlikely that there is significant infiltration potential in the London Tideway Tunnels catchments (Binnie, Black & Veatch, 2002) this option has been discounted in the present study. As a consequence, all of the SUDS units used in this study have had any infiltration capacity discounted; although to save on costs, no impervious liners have been used in any of the designs so there may be some limited infiltration. In addition, in the designs the groundwater level has been considered to be low enough (typically 1mbelowgroundlevel)soasnottoimpedetheperformanceoftheSUDSunits. According to Stovin et al (2007): The lack of implementation (of retrofit SUDS) (associated with this project)reflectsalevelofcomplexityinthelegislationandmanagementofurbanstormwater. ThereportgoesontosuggesttheneedforlegislativechangeinEnglandandWales: 1. SimplificationofthecurrentsystemforstormwatermanagementinEnglandandWales. 2. Reviewsofboththerighttoconnectandpermitteddevelopmentrights. 3. Greater transparency and flexibility in drainage charging to provide incentives for property ownerstoimplementfullorpartialstormwaterdisconnectionortoprovideattenuation. Since the 2007 report was published there have been initiatives by Government and the main stakeholders to address some of the factors discouraging the use of retrofit SUDS to deal with stormwaterproblems.TheFloodsand Water ManagementAct2010,hasconfirmed theplaceof the Environment Agency as having a supervisory overview function in relation to all flood risk management in England. The Act has also addressed the right to connect problem, removing this as an automatic right and therefore preventing the reconnection to sewer of previously disconnected SUDS. As regards item (3) above, recent moves to implement full cost charging for large impermeable surface area contributors has been supported by Ofwat, although the implementation ofthis,especiallytopublicbuildingssuchaschurchesandcommunitybuildingshasprovenpolitically difficult and a more gradual introduction of fullcost charges increasing over time is now being implemented. However,thesearenottheonlyimpedimentstothewidespreadintroductionofretrofitstormwater measures. These are considered in Appendix D and summarised in the following sections, based on Stovinetal,2007.

5.1

OverviewofbenefitsofusingSUDSretrofits

TheSUDSmanual(CIRIA,2007)providesatablethatindicatesnotonlythehydraulicperformanceof thesesystemsbutalsothequalityandotherbenefits,Table5.1. Manyofthebenefitsaccruetosocietyratherthantheowner/operatoroftheSUDSunits.

Inaddition,thebearerofthecostsofretrofittingmaynotbethebeneficiary. The options used in the present study are shown with blue boxes in Table 5.1. It is apparent that these options all have potential environmental benefits as well as effective hydraulic and water qualitycontrol. The whole life costs of the retrofits in this present study are considered in Sections 7 and 9. The SUDSmanualgivessomeguidanceontheassessmentofintangiblebenefits: Theoretically,abenefitassessmentwouldaccountfor: 1. Thehydraulicbenefits,includingpeakflowratereductions,stormrunoffvolumereductions, andenhancementstoriverbaseflowandaquiferrecharge; 2. Thepollutantloadingreductionsachievedbythesystem,andassociatedbenefitstoin streamecology,humanhealth,andhumanvalueperceptions; 3. TheamenityandrecreationalbenefitenjoyedbythosewholiveclosetotheSUDSscheme; 4. TheadditionalvalueofpropertiesadjacentorwithinviewoftheSUDSscheme; 5. TheecologicalvalueoftheSUDSsystemsthemselves. The Government recognises that although there are techniques available to value the environment, environmental benefits have to be considered within a situationspecific context. The Green Book (HMTreasury,2003)statedthatwidersocialandenvironmentalcostsandbenefitsforwhichthereis no market price need to be brought into any assessment. They will often be more difficult to assess butareimportantandshouldnotbeignoredsimplybecausetheycannotbeeasilycosted. Table 5.2 gives a summary of the potential benefits from the use of measures for stormwater separation from the point of view of the sewerage undertaker from Cascade (2009) which shows a similar view of the potential benefits as the SUDS manual. In order to monetise the benefits into a decision support tool, the Cascade study has derived benefit values from WaSC stated preference surveys or as standard values (e.g. carbon emissions, traffic congestion) (Appendix C). No attempt hasbeenmadeinthepresentstudytousethisrathertenuousapproach.

Table51SummaryofthebenefitsofSUDSoptions(CIRIA,2007)

36

 Table52Summaryofpotentialbenefitsofstormwaterseparation(Cascade,2009) Intervention measure Realigningsurfacewaterconnections Conventional intervention measures Foul/surfaceseparation Landdrainageseparation Highwayrunoffseparation Surfacesewerseparation Watercourseseparation Riverrestoration Reduction in sewer flooding risk Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y + Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y + Y + + + Water quality improvement1 Other environmental benefits2

Green roofs Bio-retention areas Swales Balancing Ponds Detention basins Soakaways Infiltration Basin Filter strips Filter drains Sand filters Rainwater harvesting Constructed wetlands Pervious surfaces Sourcereduction Domesticdemandmanagement measure Industrial water efficiency Runoffattenuationmeasure

lternative measures based on disconnection

Y + + +

Y= primary benefit, + = secondary benefit 1 Excluding water quality benefits associated with a reduction in inflow or increase in capacity in the sewerage network, common to all intervention measures. 2 Categorised as amenity, aesthetics and ecology benefits (CIRIA, 2007b); excluding water quality benefits

Recently with the advent of climate change concerns, there is a growing awareness of the need for drainage (and other) systems to be adaptable i.e. to be able to be modified relatively easily as knowledge about climate change develops. A study has shown that SUDS are inherently more flexible (a key component of adaptability) than piped/sewered drainage systems and hence more likely to be useful in the process of adapting (Sieker et al, 2008). As many SUDS are relatively small scale and locally based, especially source control measures, their use as part of an overall strategy for coping with climate change is inevitable, most likely in conjunction with existing piped/sewered systemswhichwillhavelimitedexpansionpotential. As stated above, very few of the benefits will be seen as of tangible value to the SUDS owner or promoter,nonethelessitisstillbeneficialtohighlightpotentialvalues(notmonetised)aspartofthe present study and the assumption has to be made that the benefits will be relevant in the decision as to whether or not to proceed with retrofitting SUDS for stormwater disconnection. This issue is furtherconsideredinSection7.2andAppendixC.

37

5.2

SummaryofdifficultiesinusingSUDSretrofits

Appendix C considers the issues involved in assessing the whole life costs of these systems and Section7theapplicationtothispresentstudy.AppendixDconsidersthepracticalitiesofusingSUDS, with reference to the limited studies on retrofitting. Here a summary of the practical difficulties of application is provided. The following is not a fully comprehensive list, but includes the most significantpoints.

5.2.1 Legal and regulatory issues

In the present study, as in all their wastewater related actions, TW are responsible for effectuallydrainingtheLondonTidewayTunnelsarea.Disconnectionofstormwaterinputsas proposed here, may be construed as a dereliction of this duty as the responsibility will be passed on to others, many of whom will not have the capacity to manage their new alternativedrainagesystems. Evenifthereisdisconnection,thearrangementsmustcomplywiththeBuildingRegulationsin forceandunderSection106oftheWaterIndustry Act,therehasbeenarightbythe property ownertosubsequentlyreconnectatanytimeinthefutureiftheywish. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 will, once enacted fully, amend the right to reconnect.However,compliancewithBuildingRegulationswillremain. ThenewActwillalsoprovidethemeansforotherplayers,suchaslocalauthorities,tobecome more involved, with surface water management plans already encouraging the use of SUDS andastheSUDSApprovalBody(SAB)involvedinthedeliveryandmanagementofSUDS.They arealsoexpectedtotakeontheroleofmaintenanceandoperationalthoughthisisstillunder consideration.Atpresent,however,thisappliesonlytoredevelopmentandnewlyconstructed systemsthathavepassedthroughtheplanningandbuildingregulatoryapprovalprocess. Thetransferofcommunalprivatesewerresponsibilitiestosewerageundertakersinthenext5 year period will also incur a new and risky burden for local sewerage undertakers. This may potentially provide new opportunities to alter the existing drainage arrangements, disconnectinganyareasthataredrainingstormwatersystemsandmakingtheseintoSUDS. Road and highway drainage authorities have the right to connect their drainage to the public sewer network. In theory, but not in practice, there could be a charge levied for this. Whilst this charge is not made explicit there will be no incentive for these authorities to disconnect andusealternativedrainagesystems.

5.2.2 Transfer of burdens and responsibilities

There is only limited experience by property owners/managers/occupiers in managing their own drainage systems. It is unlikely that even where there is experience already, this will not have included management of SUDS. Hence any transfer of responsibilities by disconnection willneedto besupportedbyacapacitybuildingandengagementprocess.Thiswillhavetobe fundedbyTW. If the draft Floods and Water Management Bill is implemented (and this may not be for severalyears),theremay beadutyonlocalauthoritiesinparticulartotakeupresponsibilities for managing SUDS in their area. At present, however, any transfer will become the responsibility of the property/land owner/road or highway authority. There is no apparent incentive forany of theseto take up responsibility for their owndrainage systems rather than relyonTWtoprovideaserviceataverylowcost.

5.2.3 Maintenance, operational needs, risks and health and safety

There is only limited experience in operating and maintaining SUDS systems in the UK. There is even less experience in the potentially more complex management of retrofit systems. This meansthatretrofittingSUDSmayintroducegreaterrisksthatthesystemswillnotprovidethe expectedservice. Surface SUDS, such as open water bodies require special consideration as regards human health and safety. In the present study there are no SUDS that will have permanent open water surfaces, although in times of heavy rainfall, the detention basins, swales and rain gardens will have standing water in them. It is not practical to fence these off and arrangements will have to be made to ensure that residents and others in the locality are aware that they will from time to time fill with water and what precautions to take in that event.ThisshouldbetheresponsibilityofTW. AlthoughtheretrofitSUDSinthisstudyhavebeendesignedtocopewitha1in30yeardesign storm in the present study, to match the usual performance of urban sewers, there may be a greater risk that overland exceedance flows from the retrofit SUDS may be of greater magnitude than the flows that could occur when the underground sewerage system is no longer able to cope. Further consideration of the behaviour of SUDS under exceedence conditionsisrequiredtoensuresafesystems.

5.2.4 Incentivisation
Existing arrangements for charging for stormwater runoff and management are such that the real cost of this is not transferred to the user of the service. Recent attempts by sewerage undertakers to charge by impervious area connected, whilst supported by Ofwat, have met with considerable public resistance. The gradual ramping up of charges over time is to be welcomed and may provide an incentive, if appropriate reductions in these charges can be offered, to encourage the takeup of disconnection options. Current rebates of circa 30 per household disconnected do not apply to partial disconnection and are in any case too trivial forthehouseholdertowishtotakeonthepersonalresponsibilityfortheirowndrainage. Proper charging for highway drainage should be introduced so that this can be used to incentivisethedisconnectionofthissourcefromthepublicseweragesystem.

5.2.5 Practicalities of construction

Retrofitting of any large scale measures in urban areas is always problematic. The location of and need to move underground and buried services can be costly and at times almost impossible unless at great cost. This is a location specific problem and may if found to be too costly,completelyprohibitanotherwiseeffectiveandpracticableretrofit. As well as the usual problems of complying with environmental legislation and requirements in constructing anything, several of the options proposed in the present study entail digging up and working in roads. This will lead to traffic disruption, noise control problems and other environmental difficulties. When finalising any retrofit options these problems will need to be accountedfor.

5.2.6 Acceptability and awareness

As it is proposed to transfer the responsibility for stormwater management away from TW, it will be important to engage early on in the planning of this with the key stakeholders in order to get their agreement. By early engagement, rather than attempts to impose changes, it is morelikelythataconsensualapproachcanbedeveloped. It will be necessary to engage not only those directly affected (i.e. those whose drainage is to be disconnected) but the wider community. Most of the SUDS proposed here are surface

features and hence will affect the entire neighbourhood and local authority aspirations and activities in relation to streetscapes. Ideally the SUDS should be seen as an opportunity to enhance neighbourhoods as part of the new green infrastructure initiatives and it may be necessary to work with local planners, landscape architects and others to take advantage of this.

6.

Catchment scale disconnection strategies

Thissectionexplainsthethedisconnectionstrategiesthatwereinitiallydeterminedandmodelledby the London Tideway Tunnels Delivery Team (Annex 1), and explains how these have subsequently beenrefined(Section10).

6.1 InitialApproachANNEX1disconnectionscenarios
This section describes the methodology that was initially adopted to identify potential retrofit SUDS options, to select preferred retrofit SUDS options and, ultimately, to provide input data for InfoWorks to enable the hydraulic impacts of proposed disconnections to be modelled. OS MasterMap data was utilized to associate potential retrofit SUDS options with particular areas of land. Note that the anticipated use of Department of Communities and Local Government GLUD (Generalised Land Use Database) data, which would have provided additional information about Land Use characteristics than can be gathered from OS Mastermap data alone, was rejected at an earlystageduetosoftwarestabilityanddataincompatibilityissues.However,giventhewidespread useofMasterMapdata,theapproachdevelopedisexpectedtobemoregenericandtransferable.

6.2 Landusetypesandsuitabilityforretrofit
Inviewoftheinnovativenatureofthisstudy,twoalternativeapproacheswereinitiallyconsidered: 1. Assignmentoftypicaldisconnectionprofilestoasetofzonallandusetypes,suchashigh densityterracedhousing,detachedhouseswithlargegardens,municipalmediumrise housingblocks,etc. 2. UsingthelandusecategorieswithinOSMasterMap,combinedwithlogicalSQLqueries,to determinesuitabilityforarangeofretrofitSUDSoptions.

6.3 Method1typicaldisconnectionprofilesbylandusetypes
The disconnection strategies were initially evaluated by first identifying generic landuse types, then identifying the potential retrofit SUDS options associated with each type. This was done at a detailed level for two of the subareas within the Frogmore (Buckhold Road) subcatchment: 24743902 and 23749901. The remaining subareas were then classified according to the generic landuse types, and average disconnection opportunity profiles applied. However, this data is not presented here, as the approach has now been superseded. Two limitations of this approach led to itbeingabandonedinfavourofthesecondoption: It was not as straightforward as initially expected to derive classification criteria, and significant differences were observed between the characteristics of areas subjectively placed within the same nominal (land use and building type) category. This meant that the overall distribution of disconnection options by zonal landuse type was not as consistent as might have been hoped for. Five zonal landuse types common over the two sub catchments are compared in Figure 6.1. In most cases there is a reasonable correlation, but not always. Differences for categories 1 and 2 in (HighDensity, LowRise apartments), and for category 2 (pervious) in (Flat roofed apartments in grounds) and (Pitched roofed apartments in grounds) are significant, and therefore raise potential uncertainties/inconsistenciesintheinterpolationtechnique. The process of classifying areas into the generic landuse types is manual, timeconsuming andultimatelysomewhatsubjective.

HignDensity,LowRiseApartments
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Subcatchment1 Subcatchment2 Mean

MixedApartments
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Subcatchment1 Subcatchment2 Mean

FlatRoofedApartmentsinGrounds
0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 Subcatchment1 Subcatchment2 Mean

PitchedRoofedapartmentsingrounds
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 Subcatchment1 Subcatchment2 Mean

0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 0.2 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5

HighDensity,Lowriseapartments
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 Subcatchment1 Subcatchment2 Mean

1.Impervious 2.Pervious 3.Imperviouswithinitiallosses 4.Completeremoval 5.Imperviouswithstorage

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Figure61Comparisonofdrainage/disconnectionlandusecategoriesbylandusecategoryforSubcatchments1&2

6.4 Method2LandusecategorieswithinOSMasterMap
In the second approach, the applicability of a retrofit SUDS technique was determined by physical, mapped, characteristics of the underlying surface and local topography. For example, hydraulically effective retrofit SUDS options for roofs are governed by factors such as the pitch of the roof, and thepresenceofgarden/greenspace.AseriesoflogicalSQLquerieshavethereforebeendetermined that select areas of land that are suitable for each retrofit option. The main advantage of this approach is that it is consistent, replicable and less time consuming than the original approach, and can be readily applied to existing data with minimal preparation. In addition, the SQL queries can easily be linked to other GIS layers, such as geology, or topography; allowing the method to be furtherrefinedinthefuture. OSMasterMapdataareclassifiedinto3mainthemes:RoadsTracksandPaths(whichincludesroads, pavements, paths/tracks); Buildings; and Land (which is subdivided into manmade, natural and mixed permeability predominantly gardens). There is also an other category, giving rise to six landusetypesintotal. Table 6.1 highlights the options that were considered potentially feasible for retrofit to each of the three predominantly impermeable landuse types (i.e. Roads, Buildings and Manmade Land). These options are described and illustrated more fully in Appendix A and B and also introduced in Section 3.2.1. For each potential disconnection option, relevant SQL queries were generated. These are itemised in Table 6.1. In some cases additional manual digitization was required; this is also highlighted in Table 6.1. Detailed information on how suitabilities were evaluated using MasterMap/SQL may be found in Appendix B. It should be noted that the novelty of the SQLbased approachinthiscontextmeansthatthereremainsconsiderablescopetorefine it,andthefollowing limitationsshouldbeacknowledged: There is a need to be careful not to disconnect too many impermeable areas to the same areaofadjacentlandcurrentlythisischeckedformanually; Thisusesafairlycrudeselectionofbuildings/gardensmoreworkcouldbedonetoincrease thereliabilityoftheselection; Ideally the assessment would include other datasets, such as geology or topography, to producemorereliableandpracticablerepresentationsofthelikelydisconnectionoptions; Some options, deemed unlikely for application within this study, have not had the relevant SQLsdeveloped.

This process generated layers indicating where each option might be feasible. Given that in some locations more than one option might be possible, it was necessary to rank the options according tothesetofpreferencesgiveninSection3.2.1.

Table61RetrofitSUDSoptions,SQLqueriesandHydraulicpreferences Surfacetype Roads RetrofitSUDS options Pocketstreet infiltration SQL Google Streetviewto assessroad widthand parking provision, manual digitisation Within2mof naturalland 2 (>100m contiguous area) Allroadsand tracksjudged eligible Hydraulic Modelling c)12mm Preference Notes rank 3 Assumedsmallareasof permeablecomparedwith drainedarea

Toadjacent pervious/SEAStreets

b)

Permeableroad surface

c)25mm& d)

Offsitelocal detentionandswale conveyance Manmadeland(inc. Permeablesurface carparksand storage hardstanding) Adjacentpervious Offsitee.g.local detention Adjacentpervious Green/blue

d)

Assumedengineered surfaceswithsubsurface storage.Nonatural infiltration. Conveyancelikelytobe difficult

>200m2 With1mof naturalland Aerial photography toidentify flatroofs manual digitization

c)&d) b) d) b) c)25mm

1 2 3 1 4

Manmadesurfaces otherthanabove Roofs

Soakaways Disconnecttolawn (Classifiedasmixed permeability) Waterbutts/RWH Wherethereis adjacentgreenspace orhardstandingto sitethem

a) b)

1 2

c)25mm

Needsoversizedstorageto ensureperformance (Kellagher&Franco,2005; Kellagheretal,2008)

44

As described in Section 3.2.1, the initial selection of the most preferred option was to choose the option likely to deliver the best hydraulic performance, i.e. remove, retain or detain stormwater flows most effectively. Four different hydraulic mechanisms were considered, and these were initiallyrankedinpreferenceorderasfollows: a) b) c) d) Completeremoval Transfertopervious Initiallosses(xmm) Storage/attenuation 1st 2ndequal 2ndequal 3rd

Preference between b) and c) depends on local infiltration (pervious) characteristics, level of initial lossesandonthepreciseperformancecriteriabeingassessed.Ifthereispoorinfiltration,compared withpotentiallygoodinitiallosses,thenc)ispreferabletob). Modelling is then required to determine the best option in terms of the overall benefits. In some casestwohydraulicoptionsareexpectedtoresult(seeTable6.2),givingrisetoacompletelistofsix hydraulicmodellingoptionsfordisconnectionscenarios.
Table62HydraulicmodellingoptionsforretrofitSUDS

1 2 3 4 5 6

ImperviouswithInitialLosses(12mm) ImperviouswithInitialLosses(25mm) Completeremoval Imperviousareawithstorage/attenuation Transfertopervious InitialLossesandStorage/attenuation

6.5 AssignmentofImpermeable/PerviousAreas
Specific areas to be disconnected were initially determined using the SQL queries. This generated a set of data for each InfoWorks node, comprising the six MasterMap landuse categories, plus up to six alternative InfoWorks SUDS hydraulic modelling recommendations. For all areas not deemed suitable for disconnection, the distributions of impermeable/pervious surface shown in Table 6.3 wereassumed.
Table63DistributionofimpermeableareabyMasterMaplandusecategory

MasterMaplanduse RoadsTracksandPaths Buildings ManmadeLand NaturalLand Gardens Other

Percentage Impermeable 70% 100% 90% 15% 50% 100%

The disconnection scenarios were therefore presented in terms of % impermeable, % pervious, or one of the six SUDS hydraulic model types indicated in Table 6.2. Table 6.1 highlights the complete range of disconnection options that have been evaluated for each of the MasterMap landuse categories. It also explains how each of these physical options may be modelled (i.e. through a
45

combinationofinitiallosses,transfertopermeableorstorage/attenuation).Inpractice,threeofthe categoriesthatcouldariseasoutcomesfromthepreferencehierarchywerenotinitiallyused: Imperviouswith12mminitiallosses(i.e.SEAStreets)thesameorbetterperformancecan beachievedbyusingperviousstreets; Completeremoval(i.e.soakaways)infiltrationcapacityisgenerallyexpectedtobepoor; Storage/attenuation(e.g.regionaldetentionbasinorpond)lowestinthepreferenceorder as considered as an endofsystem option of last resort, requiring significant landtake (althoughseeSection8).

Preliminarymodelling(Annex1)highlightedaproblemwiththeinitialdisconnectionassessments,in that these were formulated with reference to the (independent) impermeable/permeable categorization, rather than the types of catchment area used in the calibrated InfoWorks model. This mismatch resulted in a systematic overestimation of total impermeable area; with the result that the disconnection strategies generated total landuse distributions that did not differ significantly from the original surface areas. Model runs using these data generated performance improvements which appeared somewhat marginal, and certainly less impressive than the 25% disconnection found in the global scenarios. This did not provide a fair assessment of the potential benefitsassociatedwithdisconnectionandwasthereforerevisedforsubsequentanalysis. The disconnection area data submitted for subsequent modelling were therefore presented differently. In this case the disconnection options were calculated as a percentage of the impermeable area (as calculated from the MasterMap landuse data in combination with the assumedpercentageimpermeabilitiesshowninTable6.4).Thesewerethenusedtoredistributethe impermeable area for each InfoWorks node into the appropriate impermeable, pervious or newly definedsurfacetypes.

6.6 Results
Table6.4summarisesthedisconnectionoptionssuggestedforthewholeoftheFrogmore(Buckhold Road),WestPutneyandPutneyBridgesubcatchmentsrespectively.Eachvalueisexpressedasa percentageoftheexistingimperviousareawithintheInfoWorksmodel.

46

Table64DisconnectionscenariosforInfoWorksmodelling a)Frogmore(BuckholdRoad)
25740102 24749501 24743902 24736291 23749901 23741101 23732702 23731801 22749802 31.16 6.42 19.33 43.08 NodeID Disconnectionoption

RemainsImpervious Imperviouswith25mminitialloss TransfertoPervious 25mminitiallosseswith Storage/attenuation

27.44 9.56 20.93 42.07

17.13 13.69 17.72 51.45

22.43 8.50 24.14 44.93

22.73 9.34 21.40 46.53

20.39 11.91 21.88 45.82

43.87 0.54 2.96 52.63

18.33 3.72 36.96 40.99

30.28 8.41 25.56 35.75

b)WestPutney
24751451b 24751451a 21729601 21757452 21745701 21743201 21743001 82.36 1.03 0.78 15.84 NodeID Disconnectionoption

RemainsImpervious Imperviouswith25mminitialloss TransfertoPervious 25mminitiallosseswithStorage/attenuation

26.42 4.52 27.62 41.45

21.58 14.78 9.11 54.53

25.48 21.86 4.37 48.28

49.70 1.26 14.57 34.47

29.57 3.78 26.79 39.86

13.70 18.01 14.55 53.74

c)PutneyBridge
NodeID Disconnectionoption RemainsImpervious Imperviouswith25mminitialloss TransfertoPervious 25mminitiallosseswithStorage/attenuation 24750701 2475145d 2475145c 24751402 23.01 18.90 18.04 40.04 15.51 25.41 24.50 34.57 26.27 2.68 34.11 36.93 11.69 19.85 21.53 46.93

The modelling of the London Tideway Tunnels catchment using these data and proportionate disconnections of 25% and 50% of the impervious contributing areas are reported in ANNEX 1 and discussed further in Section 10. These results represent a first stage analysis of the potential for retrofit to remove or reduce the stormwater runoff and the CSO spills. Subsequent analysis as outlined in the following sections has been used to evaluate in more detail the practical levels of disconnectionthatmaybepossible.

47

7.

Cost - benefit assessment of detailed retrofit designs

7.1 CalculationofWholeLifeCosts
The SUDS manual (CIRIA, 2007) recommends the use of a Whole Life Cost (WLC) approach to evaluating SUDS in order that ongoing costs are taken into account at the planning and feasibility stage.Thisapproachincorporatesthepresentdayvalueoftheschemeandthecostsassociatedwith its operation over its expected useful life. The benefits that are likely to accrue over the lifetime of the scheme may not be apparent at installation, therefore a longterm view is required. The SUDS manualliststhebenefitsoftheWLCapproachasgiving: improvedunderstandingoflongterminvestmentrequirements,inadditiontocapitalcosts; morerobustdecisionmakingatprojectappraisalstage; improved assessment of long term risks to drainage system performance and inclusion of monitoringandmanagementplanstominimisetheserisks;and reduced uncertainties associated with the development of adoption agreements, and commutedsumcontributions. TherearelimitedsourcesofreliabledataforUKapplicationsthatdealwithallaspectsofthecostsof newbuild SUDS and there are even fewer dealing with retrofitting. Certain studies include direct costs (e.g. Swan, 2003, Swan & Stovin, 2007), and UKWIR investigations provide comprehensive attemptstolookatWholeLifecostsandbenefits(WERF/UKWIR,2005,UKWIR,2005;UKWIR,2009). The 2005 studies have been regularly updated since by HR Wallingford. The 2009 study is intended to help inform sewerage undertakers about the wholelife costs and benefits of stormwater disconnection especially from combined sewerage systems. In this report, the updated HR Wallingford methodology has been utilised for the detailed analysis and the results have then been reviewedinthelightoftheUKWIR(2009)study. TheUKWIR/WERF(2005)WLCassessmentasadaptedbyHRWallingford(UKWIR,2006a)isamodel basedapproachusingspreadsheettoolsthatallowforthesystematicandconsistentidentificationof capital costs and ongoing expenditure to estimate the whole life costs of individual components of SUDSbased drainage systems. The 2006 study made attempts to quantify the likely implications of future waste management strategies. The model has two complementary modes of application: site specificandgenericapplication.Itincludesseparateunitmodelsfor: retentionponds; detentionbasins; swales; filterdrain/trenches,and

permeablepavements. ThesemodelshavebeenmatchedtotheoptionsselectedforthestudyinTable7.1(fromStovinet al,2009). Thehydrological/hydraulicanalysisissimpleanduseslookuptables.Asanexample,itusesthe informationgiveninTable7.1fordetentionbasindesignandcosting.

48

Table71Outlineofhydrologic/hydraulicparametersusedinUKWIR/WERFWLCmodel

Catchmentarea type

Impermeability Hydrological parameters

R"residential;"C" Commercial;"Ro"Roads; "I"Industrial Catchmentsedimentyield % WRAPandSOIL

Parametersfor detentionpond Outletthrottlerate Climatechange

FEHRainfall Returnperiod(1/10/30/100)

3/5/10l/s Volumeincrease of40%

The detention volumes calculated by the model are given in a lookuptable and have been estimated from a simplified approach using a 1node InfoWorks CS urban drainage model with a range of typical rainfall characteristics across the UK and by producing correlation equations to fit theresults.DetailsoftheWLCassessmentmodelanditsdatasourcesaregiveninAppendixC. The model includes a range of benefits, some of them intangible and ranked by preference, giving a subjective view of environmental and amenity benefits for example, but a clear distinction between environmental and social is not made (re costs and benefits). In fact some of what are generally regardedassocialareincludedwithenvironmentalcostsandbenefits. The more recent report (UKWIR, 2009, in conjunction with Cascade Consulting) provides a more comprehensive mechanism for identifying criteria that produce a positive cost benefit for stakeholders andencouragesstakeholderengagementin the decisionmaking andtradeoffprocess. Optioneering can include comparison of schemes based on a range of policies and obligations such asenvironmentalandsocialbenefitaswellascarbonfootprintandcostbenefit. Overall the limitations and assumptions used in the present study in relation to the WERF/UKWIR modelmaybesummarisedas: Thehydraulicdesigninthemodelisverysimpleandsuitableonlyforaninitialassessmentor feasibility study as undertaken here. If more robust cost estimates are required to reduce uncertainty, generic simple models, representative of Thames Tideway pilot conditions shouldbedevelopedandthelookuptablesimprovedaccordingly. The design of the units is restricted to particular sizes and layouts as originally available for the data base and therefore the costs may not be aligned with the actual sizes and configurationsusedtofitintothesitesexamined. The cost database is limited by the available accessible data, which is limited especially for UKconditions. Constructionoverheadcostsareincludedas15%ofthecapitalcosts. Thediscountrateistakenas3.5%. Inflationfactorusedtoscalefrom2002pricesis1.25. Thedesignlifeistakenas50years. Inthepresentstudycapitalandothercostshavebeenscaledupfromanumberofaverage units designed using the model directly and based on the required storage volume or unit planarea

49

Not all of the elements of the associated infrastructure for each designed unit have been costedindetail;forexample,associatedandconnectingpipeworkhasbeencostedbasedon aggregatedestimatesandaveragedcostsfromthedesignofafewoftheunits The potential (and relative scaled) environmental and ecological benefit costs provided in the WERF/UKWIR model have not been used in the assessment, due to their potential subjectivity, nor has the associated pollution costs or flood damage prevention costs. The benefitcostapproachissimilarinbothHRWandtheCascademodelsintermsofneedingan intangible unit benefit value (Cascade uses a willingness to pay value from the most recent public surveys) which is scaled up by numbers affected. The values suggested in the HRW model are those available at the time (in 2003) and are therefore out of date. Both models require sitespecific data; otherwise the numbers are of limited value, being indicative only. Where appropriate, for certain units, the cost of sediment removal and associated maintenancehasalsobeenincluded. The analysis in this study draws on both approaches in order to provide a robust and comprehensive view of the whole life costs and potential benefits of the SUDS schemes proposed.

7.2 SUDSUnitcosts
AreviewofpublishedunitcostsofSUDSwasundertakenaspartofthecostingprocess.Thisrelies heavilyontheHRWallingfordwholelifecostingmodel(AppendixC)asshowninTable7.2.The costingsfortheSUDSusedareexplainedinthefollowingSections.

50

Table72SUDSunitcosts Surface type Primary options Wallingford Swancosts (construction) costs newrather thanretrofit (2002prices factored1.25)
Infiltration trench. Inc. membrane and distributor pipework. 92125 per m length. WLC: 229/m2 of constructed unit (7 x 5m) 29/m2 of road surface drained (construction costs 7.6/m2 & 112/m2 respectively) Does not include costs of road reinstatement or service disruption

Costsusedinthe present study/comments

Performance and HR Wallingford modeltool

Infiltration trench and/or Detention basin (normally dry).

Roads

Pocket street infiltration

225/m2 (112 construction cost) of unit area constructed (7 x 5m x0.9m depth). and 29/m2 (7.6/m2 construction) of road area drained. Not used so far in UK

To adjacent pervious/SEA Streets

Assume as for permeable road surface, but units may have larger plan area and smaller depth more like detention basins (see below).

Costs of redirecting road and other local drainage depend on local circumstances. Allow WLC of 121 per m2 as equivalent to permeable paving for roads below. Not considered feasible in short term in UK except for certain nonmain or trunk roads. Medium trafficked: WLC 121/m2 and 110/m2 capital cost. Potentially use permeable pavement with high loading (5000kg) 130/m2 and 118/m2.

Detention basin and/or filter drain, although may be flat grassed area

Permeable road surface

Medium trafficked: WLC 121/m2 and 110/m2 capital cost. Potentially use permeable pavement with high loading (5000kg) 130/m2 and 118/m2. These do not include service relocation costs

Permeable pavement (without liner)

51

Surface type

Primary options

Swancosts Wallingford (construction) costs newrather thanretrofit (2002prices factored1.25)

Swales: inc. costs of local connections. 22 - 25 inc. reinstatement Swale as connections costs 2125/m. Swale WLC, including pipework : 247/m length or 40 -70/m2

Costsusedinthe present study/comments

Performance and HR Wallingford modeltool

Swale, detention basin or retention pond depending on local circumstances

Roads

Off-site local detention and swale conveyance

SUDS manual: Swale 15 year design life. Capex - 12.50/m2. Regular Opex 0.1/m2. Occasional Opex 0.15/m2. Remedial Opex 2.0/m2 Monitoring 0.05/m2 Formpave suggest 100-1000 per year for maintenance. SUDS manual (2006) for 40 year life: Capex 54/m2 Opex 0.4/m2. 168/m2 ScottWilson Interpave Costs of redirecting road and other local drainage depend on local circumstances

Non-road hard standing (inc. car parks) Contiguous areas of man-made surfaces >200m2

Permeable surface storage

Grasscrete: 78/m2.

WLC: 121/m2 based on formpave (2009) data and light axle load (2000kg)

SUDS manual : 0.8m3 stored per m2 of pervious surface. Permeable pavement (without liner)

Adjacent pervious

Detention basin and/or filter drain, although may be flat grassed area Swale, detention basin or retention pond depending on local circumstances

Off-site e.g. local detention

Ponds: 4470/m3 unlined but including pipework.

WLC model gives 39/m3 for detention basin without pipework and with liner

Man-made surfaces other than above

Adjacent pervious

Costs of redirecting road and other local drainage depend on local circumstances take as the same for disconnecting roof downpipes 160 per 65m2 i.e. 2.50 per m2.

Detention basin and/or filter drain, although may be flat grassed area

52

Surface type

Primary options

Swancosts Wallingford (construction) costs newrather thanretrofit (2002prices factored1.25)

Costsusedinthe present study/comments

Performance and HR Wallingford modeltool

Blue roofs not included. Filter drain/trench

Roofs

Green/blue Soakaways Soakaway 3.6m2, 9m3: 560-690. Infiltration trench. Inc. membrane and distributor pipework. 92125 per m length. See design details from UKWIR/WERF model

150/m2 green roof capital costs

Disconnect to lawn (Classified as mixed permeability)

160/ 65m2 of roof surface (from cost of components from DIY store) and assumed as one 75mm downpipe per 65m2 maximum roof surface (Building Regulations, 2000 states that gutter limited to this). EN 12056 (part 3) gives maximum capacity as 2.2l/s for 75mm downpipe. For the rainfall required, 0.016l/s/m2 (Building Regs) this give a maximum roof area of 138 m2. Lower value taken of 65m2. 0.3m3 butt plus installation and feeder pipe. 125-302 Downpipe disconnection included in above costs. If water butts are used these will be an add-on. Allow 50 per butt.

Detention basin and/or filter drain, although may be flat grassed area

Water butts/RWH Where there is adjacent green space or hard standing

Not included in baseline costs.

Pipeworkcosts218/m 53

7.2.1 Pocket raingardens

DesignusingtheHRWallingfordcostmodels(AppendixC)hasutilisedacombinationofanalyses. The hydraulics were assessed using the detention basin model with a maximum outflow of 5l/s. Design costings were made with the swale model assuming unit side slopes of 1:2. Other assumptions were: Inlet structure assumed total cost of approx 1250 allowing for kerb adjustments and some sort of inlet sediment management (arrest) system. The construction comprises0.15mofsoil,0.45mofgraveland0.1mofsandwith0.2moffreeboard.Whilstnotbeing necessaryforhydraulicattenuation(anopenstoragevolumewouldhavemorevolume),theselayers are needed for plants and will also provide water quality improvements. The small size of the units may be outside the data base costs but there are no other data available. There are no costs included for traffic management during construction. Nor land take costs, risk costs, damage costs, VATorawiderangeofbenefitsincluded. Maintenance: assumed vegetation is 'managed' every 6 months. Regular maintenance costs estimated at between 350 and 450 a year which may be high. Irregular maintenance includes 150 every 5 years for sediment management. The details of the whole life costs for the units used inthedesignsinSection8aregiveninTable7.3.
Table73Pocketraingardenwholelifecostings

Length m 7

Width m 5

Outflow litre/s 5

Above ground depth m 0.5

Soil depth m 0.15

Sand depth m 0.1

Gravel depth m 0.15

Total depth m 0.9

Capital Cost 3,942

O&M (Whole Life, PV) 10,997

Whole Life, PV 14,939

7.2.2 Permeable road surfaces

There are two versions of this, depending on axle loading. For the lighter commercial vehicles (2000kg) assuming silty clay, with CBR value of 4, and water table not within 600mm of formation level.Thereare2versionsofeachmodel.Theoriginalversions(Version1inTable7.4)arebasedon using the Scott Wilson datasets on pavement maintenance done for Interpave which seem high. Theversion2modelsareusingsomemorerecent,simpleannual O&McostsfromFormpave(1000 pa for 2000 m2 pavements reducing to 100 pa for 50 m2 pavements for bulk operation) and these have been used in the study in preference. The costs are 121 whole life, with capital costs of 110/m2ofdrainedimperviouspavedsurfaceformedium,commercialroadtraffic.Withtheheavier industrialtyperoadtrafficthecostsincreaseto130and118perm2respectively. 54


Table74Permeablepavementwholelifecostingforlightervehicleloading Length Width Area Subbase depth for attenuation Subbase depth for loading m
468 468 468 468 468 468 468

Capital Cost

VERSION 1 O&M (Whole Life, PV)

83,389 57,405 28,715 11,486 5,743 2,872 689

VERSION 2 O&M (Whole Life, PV)

17,114 12,813 6,494 2,111 2,160 2,148 2,138

Whole Life, PV
248,834 187,340 98,776 45,712 27,814 18,109 11,241

Whole Life, PV
182,559 142,748 76,554 36,337 24,232 17,385 12,691

m
66 50 25 20 10 10 6

m
22 20 20 10 10 5 2

m2
1452 1000 500 200 100 50 12

m
155 155 155 155 155 155 155

165,445 129,935 70,061 34,226 22,071 15,237 10,552

Theunitcostsfortheheaviervehicleswith5000kgaxleloadinghavealsobeendeterminedusingthe samemodel.

7.2.3 Detention basins

Thecostingsfortheseincludeinletandoutletstructuresandmaintenance.Table7.5illustratesthe relativebreakdownofcosts.
Table75Wholelifecostingofdetentionbasins

Present Value () Basin A: 55m x 15m B: 22m x 20m C: 55m x 25m Capital 22,100 17,497 27,463

8 Reg O&M 20,135 17,809 22,749

9 Corr O&M 5,573 4,077 7,476

10 Waste 6,355 6,256 6,256 Total

11 Total 54,163 45,640 63,944 163,748

7.2.4 Swales
ThecostingsshowninTable7.6,fromtheHRWallingfordmodelalsoincludesectionsofpipework interconnectingtheseconveyanceswales.Theswaleshavesideslopesof1:4.
Table76Wholelifecostingofswales

Length (m) 40 50 10 10

top w (m) 7 7 7 7

Depth (m) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Capital 11,996 11,688 3,928 3,928

Present Value () Reg Total O&M 1,507 13,537 1,634 13,266 1,125 4,726 1,125 4,726

55

7.2.5 Green roofs

These are not included in the HR Wallingford model and the costs have been provided by reviewing a number of sources. The Green Roof Centre estimate costs of 60100/m2 for extensive (shallow) green roof systems. However, these are generic costs, not specifically retrofit, therefore likely to be low. Alumasc one of the UKs main suppliers for retrofitting suggest that costs could range from 50/m2 up to 150/m2 depending on whether the old roof needed to be stripped back and re waterproofedorwhethertheexistingroofwasinsufficientlygoodconditiontosimplyoverlay. DatafromLambethcouncil,whichisbasedonrealimplementationcasestudiesinLondon,suggests between120180/m2.TheEthelredestate,Kenningtoninstalledin2005;Bauderextensivesystem (4000m2)cost716,000or179/m2.PortlandGrove,961m2sedumroof94,673+scaffolding 20,300=120/m2. Lambeth have also conducted an independent study as part of their Decent Homes Programme, where they estimated that it would generally add 13% (60 yr wholelife costs) to incorporate green roofs compared to nongreen roof. Hence the estimated cost was taken a 150/m2 for retrofitting anextensivegreenroof.Notethatthisiscapitalcostonly.

7.2.6 Roof downspout disconnection

ThesecostswerebasedonDIYsuppliedcomponentsasillustratedinTable7.7.
Table77Capitalcostsforroofdownspoutdisconnectionwithsomemaintenanceallowance

Costcomponents Rainwatergoods Benching

Labour Minormaintenance(30 years) Total 156roundupto160 2 Assume1downspoutperpropertyupto65m then1downspoutper65m2. Theabovedonotincludecostsforblockingofftheexistingdownpipeconnectiontotheexisting drainorsewerasthesecostswillbeentirelysitedependent.Itisrecommended,however,thatthe connectingpipeiscompletelyandfullygrouteduptotheconnectionpoint.Thisisfortworeasons: todiscouragesubsequentreconnection;andalsotopreventrodentinfestation(UKWIR,2000).

units Straightpipe Bend Precastconcrete(similarto Portland) Gravel 2hours estimatedcosts

Unitcost 10 8 10(bulk) 3 100 25

56

8.

Using exemplar designs to evaluate the disconnection options and cost-benefits for the three subcatchments

FollowingtheinitialevaluationofthepotentialbenefitsofretrofittingSUDSintermsofreductionsin CSO spills (Section 6) based on GIS assessments of what might be feasible to disconnect, detailed designandcostingshavebeencarriedoutfor3exampleareasinordertotestthefeasibilityinmore detail. These areas were identified as being appropriate for detailed study during a site visit to the 3 subcatchments on 21st May 2009. Appendix E provides details of the designs and costings and AppendixFhasphotographsoftheareasconcerned. It was considered important to evaluate the options for SUDS designs and their costs for different types of area. The site visit revealed that there were many green spaces in the outer parts of the subcatchments and a lot of these were associated with what appeared to be municipally owned estates. In addition, there were many low rise flat roofed apartment blocks, often in areas with substantial gardens. Many of the roads in the area were also wide enough for either pocket rain gardensorevenSEAstreetsalthoughitwasassumedthatthelatterarenotgoingtobeviableinthe nearfuture. Three separate subareas were selected that were typical of these types of area: An area draining down to Lytton Grove (Figure E.1); the area surrounding Carlton Drive (Figure E.17) and the road itselfinChartfieldAvenue(FigureE.29). The approach to selection of which retrofit options were appropriate was based on expert judgement as there was not sufficient time to evaluate the relative performance of a number of alternatives. Hence the overall costs relate only to the particular options selected and should be further tested should retrofit options be deemed worthwhile in future. The options selected were also those which were considered to be the most viable in the short term. This meant that the originally proposed conversion of many of the roads to permeable roads (Section 6), was revisited and has resulted in considerable reductions in the size of the road surfaces considered viable for this.Thisoptionisstillconsideredpotentiallyviablebutinthemuchlongerterm.

8.1

LyttonGrovesubarea(AppendixE.1)

Appendix E.1 provides full details of the approach to and design and costing of the retrofit disconnection options for this area. The analysis has been based on the Mastermap data and the singlesitevisitandisthereforesubjecttoerrorandclarification.Thetypeofareainvestigatedinthe firstpartofthisdetailedstudyisillustratedinFigure8.1.

57


Figure81ExampleoftheextensivegreenareasinmunicipalhousingintheLyttonGroveareathatcouldaccommodate detentionbasins

Onlytheconclusionsfromthedetailedstudy(AppendixE.1)aresummarisedhere: Detention basins were considered viable in part of the area that consisted of considerable existinggreenspaceandhencesufficientroom.Theseprovidedanexemplar forwhatcould be achieved in other parts of the 3 subcatchments for these types of area. Therefore this wasusedinthescalingup(Section9). These areas were also local authority managed and hence retrofitting would require negotiations with only one landowner/manager and could therefore be expected to be potentiallyimplementableinthenearfuture. Astherewassomeuncertaintyaboutthepreciseextentoftheimperviousareasastheseare not all given in the MasterMap output, only the roofs and car parking/main paved areas were disconnected. Overall this resulted in some 80% of the (presumed) original impervious area of 67387m2 being disconnected and attenuated through 3 detention basins at a whole life and direct construction cost of 684,700. This gives a unit cost of 12.7/m2 per unit of municipalhousingdisconnected(attenuated).

Figure82ExampleofpavedhardstandingintheLyttonGroveareathatcouldbeconvertedtopermeablepavement

IntherestofthesubareaofLyttonGrove,asillustratedinFigure8.2,avarietyofoptionswereused (TableE.8): 58

Roof disconnections to adjacent garden areas for the rear roofs of properties only not for thefrontroofareas.Thesewouldrequireengagementwithindividualpropertyowners. Permeable paved areas converted from impervious surfaces (one for one), mainly in use for car parking and hard standing. Also for certain local roads, including both medium weight commercialandheavierindustrialvehicles.

Theseoptionsrequireagreementoflocallandandpropertyownersofwhichtherewouldbe several 1001000s. Although some of these are larger institutions, such as hospitals and colleges. Under current legislation, with the right to connect to public sewers, any disconnections made could be reversed in future by new owners/occupiers unless specific covenantsareplacedontheproperties. Overall, this detailed study was able to disconnect some 40% of the original 260591 m2 impervious area with the measures proposed. This was believed to be a realistic application of retrofit SUDS in the area. It would be possible to disconnect additional areas, but this would require further and property specific investigations. Overall the whole life costs were estimated at 7,249,100, with an additional construction cost only of 84,320, giving an overall unit cost of 58/m2 of the impervious areadisconnected.

8.2 CarltonDriveSubarea(AppendixE.2)
Appendix E.2 gives full details of the approach used and the designs and costings. This area was selectedasithasalargenumberofflatroofedapartmentblocksandawideroadwithoutanytraffic calmingmeasures,asshowninFigure8.3.

Figure83CarltonDriveshowingflatroofedapartmentblocksandwideroad

Theanalysishasbeenbasedonthe Mastermapdataandthesinglesitevisitandisthereforesubject toerrorandclarification.Onlytheconclusionsaresummarisedhere: The extensive flat roofed apartment blocks, set within their own grounds makes the utilisationofgreenroofsanobviousoption,withoverflowstothesurroundinggardens. There are substantial hard standing and car park areas and drives that could readily be converted to permeable paving. There may be opportunity to take additional inflows into these from adjacent properties following a more rigorous analysis using a dynamic simulationmodel,butthiswasnotconsideredinthisfirststageanalysis. The single and terraced properties are typically substantial in size with extensive surrounding areas that are either gardens or paved parking. It should be feasible to 59

disconnect at least 50% of the pitched roof areas to the surrounding areas and convert the hardstandingtopermeablesurfaces. The road width makes the implementation of pocket rain gardens feasible and would assist withtrafficcalming. As for Lytton Grove above, implementation would require agreement of local land and property owners, many of these being landlords and of which there would be several 100s. Inducements would need to be devised to make this attractive. Under current legislation, with the right to connect to public sewers, any disconnections made could be reversed in futurebynewowners/occupiersunlessspecificcovenantsareplacedontheproperties.

Construction of the rain gardens would have to be agreed with the local authority (as roads authority) but could be promoted as contributing to the greening of the area and the fulfilment of key sustainability indicators as well as mitigating climate change. Property owners who currently park in the street (Figure 8.3) may not be happy to see parking restrictedduetothelossofkerbsidespace. Overall the retrofits in this area would potentially remove some 27954m2 or 56% of the existing imperviousareaatawholelifecostof3,690,600andadditionalcapitalcostof 24,960;aunitcost of133/m2fortheremovalofimperviousarea. In this area it may have been possible to design an alternative mix of retrofit SUDS systems, which mayhavealteredthedistributionofcosts,however,theoptionsselectedwerethoseconsideredthe most feasible to implement other than the green roofs, which may not be feasible due to the need toconvincethevariouslandlordsofthevalueofgreenroofs.

8.3

ChartfieldAvenueSubarea(AppendixE.3)

Details of the design and costings for this area are given in Appendix E.3. This area was selected as an example of a wide road that could readily be retrofitted with pocket raingardens, Figure 8.4. If theseweremorecommonlyusedintheUK,thissitewouldbeamenabletothefittingofSEAstreets, although these are known to be very expensive (Seattle Municipality, 2009) they work extremely wellintermsofbothquantityandqualitymanagementandareanamenitybenefit.

Figure84ChartfieldAvenueillustratingthewidthoftheroadandpotentialtofitpocketraingardens

Chartfield Avenue is typical of many roads in the area (Appendix E.3) and hence the appropriate retrofits for this site would also be applicable elsewhere. The analysis has been based on the Mastermap data and the single site visit and is therefore subject to error and clarification. Only the conclusionsaresummarisedhere: 60

Retrofitting pocket raingardens is technically viable and the design here has shown that some 20 of these (plan size 7 x 5m) would be required over the roughly 1km length investigated. The precise number and shape of unit is open to adjustment and it would be expected that for a final design, these would be of varying size to suit the local circumstancesespeciallythepresenceofservicestobeavoided. There may be opportunity to take additional inflows into the rain gardens from adjacent properties following a more rigorous analysis using a dynamic simulation model, however, forthisfeasibilitydesign,thiswasnotincludedandtheadjacentpropertieswereconsidered separately. Only the back roof and hard standing drainage was considered disconnectable to the rear lawn/gardens for the properties adjacent to the road. The front of the properties roofs werenotdisconnected.

As above, Construction of the rain gardens would have to be agreed with the local authority (as roads authority) but could be promoted as contributing to the greening of the area and the fulfilment of key sustainability indicators as well as mitigating climate change. Property owners who currently park in the street (Figure 8.4) may not be happy to see parking restrictedduetothelossofkerbsidespace. Overall the retrofits in this area would potentially remove some 26274m2, 33% of the original impervious area at a unit cost 8/m2 of impervious surface drained with a whole life cost of 156,800andadditionalcapitalcostof39,100.

8.4

Summaryoflessonsfromexemplardesigns

It is clearly technically feasible to implement a range of retrofit SUDS to disconnect stormwater in the three subcatchments examined, based on the detailed investigations described in the subareas above, although these measures are applicable mainly in the outer, less densely builtup areas, as they require space. It is unlikely, for instance, that even roof downpipe disconnection is going to be viable in the denser housing areas such as northern Southfields. In the future, however, if there is increasing water stress due to climate or demographic changes, RWH and the imaginative use of innovative RWH collection systems, such as that shown in Figure 4.12, it may even be applicable in these areas. There may also be areas where green roofs are feasible and with time, the roads in these areas could potentially be converted to permeable surfaces, providing also the benefit of trafficcalming. The range of costs and disconnection achievements per unit costs as determined above, illustrate the diversity of options and costs in application of retrofit SUDS. Unlike piped/sewered systems, where the criteria and design details are largely standardised (e.g. Sewers for Adoption, 6th Ed.), even the SUDS manual (CIRIA, 2007) does not prescribe which systems should be used or are the mostapplicableunderwhichcircumstances.Moreexperienceandknowledgeisneededespeciallyin UK application before it will be possible to define a priori which retrofit options should be used under what conditions. The examples presented above should be taken as just that example, or illustrationsonly,ofwhatispossible,notthedefinitiveandbestdesignsfortheapplications.

61

9.

Upscaling costs

ThecostingsobtainedfromtheexamplesinSection8havebeenusedtogetherwiththeunitcostsin Section 7, to evaluate the possible costs for retrofitting the 3 subcatchments West Putney, Putney BridgeandFrogmore(BuckholdRoad). As there are a number of areas like the municipal housing area looked at in detail in the Lytton Grove study (Section 8.1) and as it is expected that these areas are potentially among the easiest to targetforretrofit,thesehavebeen consideredseparatelyusing theunit costsdeterminedin Section 8.1. A single lumped wholelife cost value of 12.7/m2 (for roof, road or manmade land disconnections) has been derived from (Section 8.1) (Lytton Grove areas 1 to 4, Appendix E.1) which suggests that a disconnectionof53,882m2isachievableatacostofsome684,700. Fortheremainingareas,unitcosts(/m2)asshowninTable9.1havebeenapplied,fromTable7.2.
Table91Unitcostsofmunicipalhousingareasotherthanroof,roadormanmadelanddisconnections

Roads,TracksandPaths Disconnectroadstoadjacentpervious Pocketinfiltration Perviousroads Buildings AreaofFlatroofs Disconnectroofstolawns Waterbutts(allbuildings,irrespectiveofsize) Manmadeland Manmadelandgreaterthan200mperviouspaving Disconnectsmallmanmadetoadjland

Construction (/m2) 110 7.6 118 150 160 50 110 2.5

WLC (/m2) 121 29 130 150+ 160+ 50+ 121 2.5+

Table92Ballparkestimatesforschemecostsallareasnearest1M

Costelement Construction(M) WLC(M)

Putneybridge 27 28

WestPutney 45 48

Frogmore (BuckholdRoad) 56 59

Overalltotal 127 135

62

10. Disconnection scenarios for modelling purposes

The InfoWorks model runs initially carried out (Section 6) were based on global amounts of disconnection of impervious areas of 25% and 50% and also initial assessments of the potential disconnection percentages in the 3 subcatchments: West Putney, Putney Bridge and Frogmore (Buckhold Road). These results were reported in Annex 1. Following the more detailed designs and assessment of practicalities given in Section 8, the likely percentages of disconnected impervious area could be revisited. This section reconsiders the potential amounts of disconnection in the 3 subcatchments and proposes percentages that are believed to be more realistic of what could possiblybeachievableintheshorttomediumterm.

10.1Initialresultsfromthemodellingofdisconnectionscenarios
Report (Annex 1) summarises the InfoWorks modelling work undertaken by the London Thames Delivery Team so far to evaluate the potential improvements to CSO discharges associated with variousretrofitSUDSstrategies. The modelling work was divided into three phases. The initial phase considered global disconnection scenarios. The second phase focussed on more practicable scenarios, in which technicallyfeasiblemechanismsforachievingspecificlevelsofdisconnectionwererecommendedby PWG. The second phase modelling corresponds to the disconnection scenarios outlined in Section 6.6. The third phase of disconnection scenarios (described in Section 10.2.4) were not specifically modelledasperformancewasinferredfromtheinitialphasemodelling.
The report includes an overview of the modelled catchments, and the existing systems hydraulic performance, which are not reproduced here. For all scenarios, the system performance was

evaluated against two worstcase storm events (December typical year and October 2000) and a typicalyearrainfallprofile(Section4.2.2).

10.1.1 Overview of global disconnection scenarios

Section 2 of the ANNEX 1 report concerned global disconnection scenarios, applied to the West Putney, Putney Bridge and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSOs. The purpose of this preliminary modellingexercisewastoassesstheextenttowhichthedisconnectionofsurfacewaterinputscould impactonCSOdischarges,andtogetsomeideaofthelevelofdisconnectionrequired.Clearlythere would be no justification for undertaking detailed design of retrofit SUDS schemes if it was evident that even high levels of disconnection would have no or limited impact on overall system performance(Section6).Giventhehighlyinterconnectednatureofthesewernetwork,andthefact that the system runs close to capacity even in dry weather, it would not be appropriate to assume thatwidespreaddisconnectionwouldachieveasmuchasmightbehopedfor. The global disconnection scenarios considered were: 25% impermeable area transferred to permeable area; 25% impermeable area removed; 50% impermeable area transferred to permeable area;50%impermeablearearemoved;and5mmofrainfalllostatthebeginningofthestorm.Asan example of performance improvements, 50% removal of impermeable area results in the following improvements in performance for the October 2000 event (approx 1 in 4 yr return period) as shown inTable10.1. 63

Table101Sampleperformanceimprovementsassociatedwith50%disconnectionofimperviousareafortheOctober 2000event

WestPutney CSO 3 Maximumflow(m /s) ExistingDisconnection 0.930.52 [%reduction] [39%] Totaloverflowvolume 3 13,9008,300 (m ) ExistingDisconnection [40%] [%reduction]

Subcatchment

PutneyBridge CSO 2.611.96 [31%] 9,1003,600 [60%]

Frogmore(BuckholdRoad) CSO 3.031.63 [45%] 17,7004,700 [73%]

The Putney Bridge and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) subcatchments show particularly promising results for the potential disconnection. For the typical year, the 50% removal option results in reduced numbers of CSO events, maximum flow rates and total overflow volume. For Frogmore (Buckhold Road) (which is the best case), for example, the number of events is reduced from 29 to 10(65%),andthetotaloverflowvolumefrom94,500m3downto21,400m3(77%).Thenumberof eventsproducingover1000m3issignificantlyreducedatallthreeCSOs.Theimpactofremovingthe first 5 mm of rainfall (via storage in blue/green roofs etc) has little impact on the large storms consideredhere.However,agreaterdepthof50mmwouldhavebeensufficienttocontaineach of therainfalleventsinthetypicalyear. The impact of removing 50% impermeable area was also assessed for the entire London Tideway Tunnels model. The number of individual CSOs producing overflow during the typical year reduces from 39 to 25, and the total overflow volume reduces by 55%. This would, it should be noted, be contingentonthedisconnectionof10,327haimpermeablearea.

10.1.2 Overview of feasible disconnection scenarios

Section 3 of the ANNEX 1 report provides the model results corresponding to the initial feasible disconnection scenarios (i.e. those outlined in Section 6.6). These were intended to provide a realistic representation of the level of disconnection that might technically be feasible, although without reference to costs and/or public acceptability issues. These scenarios included the introductionof25mminitiallossesandstorage/attenuationhydraulicmodellingoptions,inaddition tothepreviouslyconsideredremovalortransfertopervious.However,thesescenarioswereshown nottobeaspracticableasfirstassessed. In general these realistic scenarios produced better performance outcomes than the 50% global disconnectionscenarios. Forexample,totaloverflowvolumereductionswere49%,70%and83%at WestPutney,PutneyBridgeandFrogmore(BuckholdRoad)respectivelyfortheOctober2000event. The December event did not generate any spill at either Putney Bridge or Frogmore (Buckhold Road), although other events with different rainfall characteristics mean that spills are not completely eliminated from any of the CSOs in a typical year. The number of spills in a typical year at the Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO was reduced to 2 (93%), with the total volume being only 1700m3(2%oftheexistingsituation).Thiscouldhavebeensignificant,asitispossiblethatconsent might be issued for up to three (small) events per year/bathing season, avoiding the need for additional CSO control measures. The number of CSO events remains high at West Putney and Putney Bridge, and SUDS alone may not provide sufficient source control to eliminate the need for additionalCSOfacilities. 64

10.2 RefinedApproachFinaldisconnectionscenarios
10.2.1 Introduction to refinements
The initial preference rankings for retrofit options (Table 3.1) were based on hydraulic performance only; other factors such as cost, acceptability, environmental and social cost/benefit were not taken into account. The refined approach therefore aimed to generate more realistic options based on the example cases in Section 8. In particular it was apparent that sitescale options may have been discounted too readily in the initial preference ranking, and that further thought should be given to the feasibility of utilizing site/regionalscale controls especially on publiclyowned buildingsandland.Therefinementsherehavethereforefocusedon: Identificationofeasypickingmunicipalhousingareas; Morerealisticassessmentoflikelyuptakeratesfortheremainingcatchments

10.2.2 Identification of easy picking municipal housing areas.

During a site visit to the West Putney, Putney Bridge and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) catchments in May 2009, it was noted that there were large proportions of municipal housing within the catchments, especially Frogmore (Buckhold Road) and West Putney. These areas are characterised by large, often flat roofed buildings set in large communal gardens (Figure 10.1). It was believed that these areas had the potential to exploit a type of retrofit SUDS approach which had not fully been considered in the earlier optioneering and generation of preferences. The approach is more regional in nature, being based on detention ponds and swales and utilizing communal greenspace (Section8.1).

Figure101Examplesofmunicipalhousingsurroundedbygenerousgrounds

MunicipalhousingestatesmayprovideoneoftheeasiestandmosteffectiveroutesforretrofitSUDS application. The buildings are large, set in large amounts of communal green space, and therefore have greater potential for treatment train SUDS. The buildings are also likely to be of single or not too many individual ownerships, notwithstanding the right to buy, which is more practical for implementation. Notwithstanding previouslystated reservations regarding the use of subjectivelydefined landuse types (Section 6), areas of similar coverage to Lytton Grove subareas 14 (Appendix E.1) were manually identified from the MasterMap data, and treated in isolation from the remaining area in each subcatchment. Figure 10.2 shows that there is a reasonable degree of correspondence between their landuse distributions. With the exception of InfoWorks node 23741101 which is atypicalinmanyrespects,asitlargelyservesthePutneyHeath/WimbledonParkarea. The detailed design for Lytton Grove subareas 1 to 4 generated a retrofit SUDS proposal based on swales and detention ponds which effectively disconnected all manmade land and roofs and approximately 25% of the roads (not main routes). It was assumed that 50% of the runoff would effectively be transferred to pervious, whilst the remaining 50% would experience storage and attenuation (restricted outfall to sewer). Hence the disconnection profile illustrated in Table 10.2 65

was applied to the digitized municipal housing areas within each subcatchment. The remaining area in each subcatchment was then assessed for disconnection options using a refined version of theSQLbasedareaidentificationandpreferenceframeworkoutlinedpreviously.
1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
25740102 24749501 24743902 24736291 23749901 23741101 23732702 23731801 22749802 Lytton Grove Other Gardens NaturalLand Manmade Land Buildings RoadsTracksandPaths

Figure102LandusecategorieswithineachoftheFrogmore(BuckholdRoad)subcatchments,comparedwiththe exemplardesigncase,LyttonGrovesubareas1to4

Table102AssumeddisconnectionratesandInfoWorksmodellingcategoriesfor'municipalhousing'areas Percent disconnection 1 RoadsTracksandPaths Buildings ManmadeLand NaturalLand Gardens Other 26% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% Disconnectionstrategies 2 3 4 5 6

Landusetypes

0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50%

Disconnectionstrategies16correspondto(fromTable6.1):

1 ImperviouswithInitialLosses(12mm) 2 ImperviouswithInitialLosses(25mm) 3 Completeremoval 4 Imperviousareawithstorage/attenuation 5 Transfertopervious 6 InitialLossesandStorage/attenuation

66

10.2.3 Disconnection options for the remaining catchment.

The main refinement to the earlier framework is the introduction of uptake levels. These were intended to indicate practical levels of uptake of each SUDS retrofit that might realistically be expectedfor eachoption.Table10.3showstheadopteduptake levels,withsomeexplanationasto whythesevalueswerechosen.
Table103Assumeduptakelevelsfortherefineddisconnectionstrategies Roads,TracksandPaths Disconnectroadstoadjacent pervious Pocketinfiltration Perviousroads Buildings Greenroofs Disconnectroofstolawns Waterbutts(allbuildings, irrespectiveofsize) Manmadeland Manmadelandgreaterthan 200mperviouspaving Disconnectsmallmanmadeto adjacentland 50% 50% 50% Thismaybeoptimisticandwilldependontheinducements availabletolandlordsandowners Potentiallyonlyrearhalfofroofeasilyconnectedtolawnarea Asabove Assumeduptake level 40% 10% 0% Justification

Manyoftheareasidentifiedassuitablemayhaveunfavourable localsiteconditions(access,traffic,presenceofservicesetc) Localresistancebecauseofcarparking,roadwidthsuitabilityand thecostofdealingwithservices Notgenerallyapracticalsolutionintheshortterm

75%

75%

Potentiallyfeasiblealthoughthiswillbeabigtasktodealwiththe 1000sofpropertyandlandowners.Thiswillalsorequire significantinducements. Asabove.

Note that the implementation of the preference hierarchies makes the simplifying assumption that the disconnected areas associated with second and subsequent priority options are determined from the eligible area that is remaining after the higherranked option has been allocated. The impliedassumptionhereisthatthesamebuildingwasinfacteligibleforbothoptions.Ifithadbeen assumed that each option were independent, then higher levels of disconnection would have been proposed, but at the risk of some doublecounting. At this stage the degree of overlap has not explicitlybeeninvestigatedandnosensitivityanalyseshavebeenundertaken.

10.2.4 Results
Table 10.4 shows that, for the combined area (Frogmore (Buckhold Road) + West Putney + Putney Bridge), 20% of the roads can be disconnected, 72% of building roofs and 83% of manmade land. Despite these impressive disconnection rates, the impact on impermeable area reduction is less impressive than might have been expected, and notably lower than the feasible disconnection scenarios (LTTD, 2009), Figure 10.3. This is largely because significant areas of the catchment are categorized as either gardens or natural land, for which 50% and 15% impermeable has been assumedrespectivelyduetotheMastermapuncertainties(Section6andTable10.4).

67

Table104Combinedareadisconnections

Landuse Totalarea(m2) Disconnectedarea(m2) %Disconnected RoadsTracksandPaths 1548170 317304 20 Buildings 1457971 1047957 72 ManmadeLand 869328 719561 83

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
May28 values Currentvalues

Note:Percentofimpermeablearearemaining;Secondphasemodellinginblue,finalphasemodellinginred Figure103Comparisonbetweenremainingimpermeableareaforfeasibleandrefineddisconnectionstrategies Table105Finaldesignscenarioallocationsofexistingimpermeablearea(%)

Node

PutneyBridge

Disconnection Strategy

Remains Impervious 2 5 6

64.77 56.84 55.06 58.50

52.85

82.77

24.43

60.24

68.73 65.71 59.11

10.15 10.95 7.86

10.81

7.56 19.05 20.54

1.36 5.80 10.07

0.00 38.33 37.25

10.90 13.18 15.68

7.86

13.91 6.64

11.82 11.78 18.23 13.52 13.25 20.44 18.86 17.17

12.66 11.00 16.33 10.75 9.38 17.91

WestPutney

25740102

24749501

24743902

24736291

23749901

23741101

23732702

23731801

22749802

68

The refined disconnection breakdown (Table 10.5) would be expected to lead to significantly reduced levels of improvement in the overall CSO performance of the modelled subcatchments, comparedwiththoseoutlinedinANNEX1. The refined disconnection strategy corresponds to approximately 37% removal of the existing impermeable area, with the disconnected flows being diverted to a mixture of initial loss, pervious areaandstorageattenuation.Giventhatnoneoftheimpermeableareaiscompletelydisconnected, this suggests that a reasonable estimate of the system response would correspond to the midpoint between the 25% and 50% global scenarios for which disconnected flows were rerouted onto pervious areas. Some key interpolated performance characteristics for the most promising of the three subcatchments Frogmore (Buckhold Road) are presented in the second column of Table 10.6. An alternative means of estimating the potential performance levels of the refined disconnection scenario is by reference to Figure 10.3. This indicates that the levels of disconnection are generally around 50% of the levels associated with the first (lessrealistic) scenario. Hence the estimates presentedinthethirdcolumnofTable10.6correspondto50%oftheperformanceexpectedforthe initialsetofdisconnectionoptions. It should be noted that nonlinearities in system response mean that neither of these interpolation approaches provides more than a very crude estimate of performance. However, the interpolated data suggests that the refined disconnection scenarios will nonetheless provide significant improvementsinsystemperformance,potentiallyhalvingthenumberandvolumeofannualspills.
Table106EstimatedperformancelevelsforFrogmore(BuckholdRoad)correspondingtotherefineddisconnection strategies

Existing

Performance estimate based on 37% disconnect to pervious (i.e. mid-point between 25% and 50% disconnect to pervious global scenarios) 400 900 >10* >21,400*

December typical year event total overflow volume (m3) October 2000 event total overflow volume (m3) Typical year event number of spills Typical year event Total overflow volume (m3)

4,000 16,900 27 76,700

Performance estimate based on 50% reduction in the level of disconnection (i.e. half the level of improvement modelled for the initial disconnection scenario 2,000 [-50%] 10,100 16 48,100 [-50%]

*25%disconnectionscenarioswerenotmodelledforthetypicalyearevent.

69

11. Summary
This report provides an overview of the potential for stormwater disconnection using SUDS with particular emphasis on 3 subcatchments within the overall London Tideway Tunnels catchment. The study has followed a procedure for examining the potential for retrofitting as shown in Figure 3.3. This entailed an initial assessment of the potential benefit of disconnection through retrofitting SUDS based on global percentage reductions of 25% and 50% in impervious areas connected to the main sewerage network. In addition, model runs were made to assess whether or not SUDS options thatworkedbyremovingorattenuatingtheinitial12mmand25mmofstormeventswereeffective. This was followed by specific assessments of disconnection possibilities based on a series of logical SQL queries used in OS Mastermap to determine the selected areas of land that were suitable for eachprioritisedretrofitoption.Atthisstage,however,thepracticalitiesofapplicationofthevarious SUDS options were not considered in detail. Nonetheless these various options for disconnection were found to be effective at reducing many of the CSO spill event volumes and numbers of spills; althoughnotallCSOsbenefitted. In order to evaluate the practicalities of retrofitting SUDS as part of any future disconnection programme a number of detailed studies were made based on site visits to the 3 subcatchment areas and on data provided from the OS Mastermap GIS database. This resulted in a revised set of priorities as to which of the SUDS options was likely to be the most useful. This has then been applied across the 3 test subcatchments, with the identified most likely to deliver option of detention basins, being considered separately. The result has been a significant downward revision of the potential for disconnection of the existing impervious areas which may result in a much poorerrelativeperformanceasregardsCSOoperation.Thisrevised,butwhatisbelievedtobemore practicable, disconnection rate needs to be retested using the London Tideway Tunnels InfoWorks model. The unit and overall costs of the revised disconnection scenarios have been determined using a combination of a whole life cost model originally developed jointly between UKWIR and WERF and since updated by HR Wallingford and unit cost models for additional SUDS units not included in this model.Theoverallcostsestimateddonotincludelandpurchase,serviceandutilityproblemsduring construction and other location specific costs. Hence the costs for retrofitting, which overall exceed 100million,areexpectedtobeconservative. There are considerable added benefits in using SUDS instead of piped/sewered drainage systems, including improvements to water quality; amenity and ecological benefits and greater resilience to climate change, although none of these is really relevant to TW as these benefits accrue to other stakeholders such as property owners and communities. There are also many difficulties in implementingtheseapproaches.Theseincludelegalandregulatoryproblemsinregardtotransferof ownership of the redirected stormwater from TW to a myriad of property and land owners and road and highway operators. Many ofthese stakeholders do not have the experience and hence the capacitytotakeonthisresponsibilityandwouldneedtobeassistedbyTWtodevelopthiscapacity. Withtherevisedlegislativeandregulatoryarrangements,anydisconnectedpropertyordrainedarea isexpectednolongertohavetheautomaticrighttoreconnecttothe publicseweragesystemin the future. Hence, depending on the timing of enacting this, TW may no longer run a risk that in future an enhanced sewerage capacity is going to be needed to cope with any reconnections. However, it appearsthatTWwouldhavetoundertaketoacceptanythroughorexceedanceflowsfromanynew or retrofitted SUDS, contrary to normal practice whereby land drainage is not accepted into public sewers. 70

The legislative changes in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, the Environmental Regulations2009andtheSurfaceWaterManagementPlanspotentiallymaketheutilisationofSUDS easier and place more of the responsibility for local stormwater management on local authorities. ThiscouldpotentiallymakedisconnectionmoreattractivetoTWandothersewerageundertakersas theriskswouldnolonger beassignificanttothemselvesiflocal authoritieswereresponsibleforthe operation and maintenance of SUDS. Although there still would be risks that are as yet poorly quantifiedasTWwouldstillbeobligedtoacceptthroughandoverflowsfromanySUDSinstalled. If these systems are to be introduced in the near future it is apparent that there will be a need to engage extensively with a wide range of stakeholders including individual property owners, communities,localauthorities(severaldepartments),plusthekeymajorstakeholdersOfwatandthe EnvironmentAgency.Forsuccessfulimplementation,retrofitdisconnectionproposalswouldneedto bedevelopedinconjunctionwiththesevariousactorsandstakeholders,notimposeduponthem. Therehavebeenanumberoflimitationsinthepresentstudy,themostsignificantofwhichare: The timescale and resources available have only allowed a feasibility study to be carried out usingreadilyavailabledata,modelsandtools; estimates of contributing areas by type and extent have been made fairly crudely using OS MastermapandGISinspection; the location and practicability of fitting retrofit options into the space available and to appropriate line and level has only been made using digital maps and Google streetview, followingasinglesitevisit; the whole life cost estimates have been based on simplistic hydraulic analysis of the units utilisedandonavailablelimitedcostdatabases,albeitdevelopedfortheUKwaterindustry; no trains of units have been considered, with only single options used for the more detailed designstudies; no attempts have been made in the detailed designs to provide for surface overflows from theretrofittedunitsoncethedesignflows(1in30years)havebeenexceeded; no attempts have been made to include any increases in paved surfaces within the areas examined and there has been no attempt to include any aspects of the local development plans; climate change has been considered only as a simple 20% scaleup on rainfall intensities usedinthehydraulicdesignoftheretrofitsystems; no future socioeconomic scenarios have been considered in terms of changes to future behaviour, acceptability or affordability, hence the designs cannot be considered robust in thiscontext; simplified and approximate estimates have had to be made in the scaling up across the 3 catchments of the costs and applicability of the units considered in detail as examples of whatcouldbedone.

71

12. Conclusions and recommendations

12.1 Conclusions
1. Therangeofpotentialretrofitoptionsisbroadanddiverse.Differentoptionsexistforroofs, roadsandmanmadeland.Theoptionsdifferintheirhydrauliceffectiveness,theircosts, andtheirpotentialtoenhancewaterquality,toprovideamenityandotherbenefitssuchas mitigationtoclimatechangeandtoproveacceptabletostakeholders.Thisreporthas consideredalloftheseissuestoagreaterorlesserextentwhenevaluatingthe necessarilybroadrangeofpotentialoptions.Mostexternalauthors/casestudiesrecognize theneedformultipletechniquesandapproachestogeneratecredibleretrofitscenarios. Indeed,manyofthepotentialbenefitsassociatedwithSUDSaremaximisedthroughtheuse oftreatmenttrainmultipletechniquebasedapproaches.Inmostcasesitislikelythata hybridsourcecontrol/pipe/seweroptionwillbethemostsustainableapproach.Inmany othercountriesretrofittingnonpipedsystemstoreduceCSOspillshasnowbecomethe norm.Thiscanalsoprovideconsiderablemultibenefitsviatheprovisionofgreen infrastructurewhichaddstothequalityofurbanlife;forexampletheaddedvaluemonetary benefitsofsuchanapproachbeingimplementednowintheCityofPhiladelphiaUSAhas beenestimatedassome$2.8bncomparedwithastoragepipesolution,bringingonlysome 133minaddedvalue(Wiseetal,2010).Thereisaneedtobetteraccountfortheseadded valuebenefitsinalternativewaysofmanagingsurfacewaterinEnglandandWalesandfind waysofincentivisation. 2. ThreesubcatchmentsofthewholeTidewayInfoWorksmodelwereidentifiedfordetailed investigation:PutneyBridge;WestPutneyandFrogmore(BuckholdRoad)CSOs.Thesewere selectedbasedondiscussionsinthesteeringgroupandassubcatchmentsthatmay potentiallyhavesomeobviousbenefitsfromtheuseofstormwaterdisconnection. 3. InthefirstphaseoftheassessmentGlobaldisconnectionscenarios,50%impermeablearea removed;50%impermeableareadivertedtopervious;25%impermeablearearemoved; 25%impermeableareadivertedtopervious;and5mminitiallossesweremodelledinorder togetaninitialideaofthepotentialimpactsassociatedwithimpermeablearea disconnection.Inthiscase,theglobaldisconnectionscenariossuggestedthatallthree CSOswouldbenefitfromremovalof50%impermeablearea. 4. Thesecondphaseassessmentfocusedonmorepracticaldisconnectionoptions,i.e.specific mechanismsthatmightbeutilizedtoachievetherequiredlevelsofimpermeablearea disconnection.TheprojectteamhasdevelopedapreliminaryGISbasedframework,utilizing OSMasterMapdataandSQLqueries,togeneratecatchmentscaleprofilesofpotential retrofitSUDSoptions.Thisnovelapproachoffersapowerfultoolatthepreliminary appraisalstage.Duringthecourseoftheprojectthishasbeenrefinedtosomeextent,and thereisclearlypotentialtorefineitfurther. 5. Theinitialdisconnectionscenariostestedinthemodellingcorrespondedtooptionswhich wereperceivedtobephysicallypossible,butwithoutconsideringcostoracceptability issues. 6. Inonecaseonly,Frogmore(BuckholdRoadCSO),theinitialmodellingscenariosuggested thattheretrofitSUDSoptionmightprovidesufficientcontrolthatnoadditionalCSO 72

interventionwouldberequired;inthetwoPutneysubcatchmentsanySUDSrelated improvementswouldneedtobesupplementedwithadditionalCSOcontrolmeasures. 7. Thefinalsetofdisconnectionscenariospresentedinthisreportattemptstoincludecostand acceptabilityissueswithinthecatchmentscaleassessmentframework.Thisprofileoffers levelsofdisconnectionthataresignificantlyreducedwhencomparedwiththeinitially assumedoptions.Althoughtheyhavenotbeenmodelled,itisobviousthatreducedlevels ofCSOreductionwouldbepredicted.Neverthelessitislikelythatallthreesubcatchments wouldrequireadditionalCSOcontrolmeasurestobeimplemented. 8. Withinthisspecificcatchment,asitevisitrevealedthepotentialadvantagesoffocusingon municipalhousing.Thereweremanylowmediumrisehousingblocks,oftenflatroofedand setinextensivegrassedgrounds.Spaceandownershipissueswouldneedtoberesolvedto makeapplicationfeasible.Specificdesignsandcostingshavebeenundertaken,which suggestthatthisprovidesarelativelypracticalandcosteffectiveoptionatsome12.70per m2ofroofandpavedsurfacedivertedintodetentionbasinsthatattenuatetheflowrate. 9. TechnicallythedisconnectionofimperviousareasusingSUDSisfeasibleintheLondon TidewayTunnelssubcatchmentsstudied.Therewouldappeartobepotentialbenefitsin termsoftheperformanceofthesubcatchmentCSOsprovidedthatsignificantproportions (oftheorderof50%)oftheimperviousareascouldbedisconnected. 10. Thewholelifecostsofdisconnectionhasbeenevaluatedandfoundasaminimumtobeof theorderof2059millionineachsubcatchmentforadesignlifeof50years.Inthe absenceofinformationaboutthecostsofimplementationoftheproposedsewertunnelsit isnotpossibletoassesswhetherornotthisiscomparablycosteffective.Havingreviewed theavailableguidanceonassigningvaluetothebenefitsofusingretrofits,itwasconcluded thatthereisinadequateinformationtomonetisethevalueoftheoptionsconsideredatthis timeandtoproperlyaccountforthewiderangeofpotentialbenefits. 11. Notwithstandingtheapparentpotentialvalueofretrofitstormwaterdisconnection,there areconsiderableimpedimentstoimplementationintheshorttomediumterm.Anumberof theseimpediments,suchasarrangementsforlongtermmaintenance,mayberesolvedin thenearfutureduetothepassingoftheFloodandWaterManagementAct2010,although howthismayapplytoretrofittingisasyetunclear. 12. ThereareconsiderableadditionalpotentialbenefitsthatmayariseifretrofitSUDSareused fordisconnectionalthoughthesewillnotonthewholeaccruetoTW.Theseincludewater qualityimprovements,whichwouldassistwithdeliveryoftheWaterFrameworkDirective requirements;enhancementstogreenspacesinurbanareasthatwouldcontributeto ecology,addenvironmentalbenefitsandhelpmitigateandadapttoclimatechangethrough amenityandheatislandmitigation.Inadditiontheywillalsoprovideopportunitiesforwater suppliesinareasthatbecomewaterstressedinthefuture. 13. Retrofittingstormwatermanagementsystemsisalsoinvariablymucheasiertoincorporate inregenerationofurbanareasthanconventionalpipedandseweredsystems. 14. ItisnowinevitablewiththepassingoftheFloodandWaterManagementAct2010that therewillbewidespreaduseofSUDSinEnglandasnewdevelopmentsareencouragedto usethemandasexistinghousingandpropertystockisrenewed.Thereforeovertimethese systemswillbecomethenorm.Thequestionremains,however,astowhetheritissensible towaitformorethanacenturyforthistocomeaboutasnormalturnoverofpropertystocks 73

occurs.Theconstructionofnewsewerageisknowntorequireconsiderableenergyuse, emittingsignificantgreenhousegasesandlockinginusersforlongperiodsandhencewhere thiscanbeavoidednowthereareimportantopportunitiestocontributetothemitigationof climatechangeandmaximisethemanymultibenefitsofusinggreeninfrastructureinurban areas(MayorofLondon,2009).

12.2 Recommendations
Thefollowingarerecommendations: 15. Twophasesofdisconnectionmodellingassessmentarerecommended.Aninitialphaseof globaldisconnectionscenariorunsprovidesausefulpreliminaryindicationoftheexpected levelsofhydraulicimprovementtobeexpectedinresponsetodifferentlevelsof disconnection.Onlyifthisrevealsstrongevidenceofpotentialbenefitsshoulddetailed assessmentbasedonspecificdesignoptionsbepursued. 16. AtthisstageitisnotrecommendedthattheLondonTidewayTunnelsmodelisrerunwith thereviseddisconnectionscenariosmodellinguntilthereismorecertaintythattheoptions beingconsideredareactuallypractical,affordableandlikelytobeofvalue. 17. Inviewofthecrudeassumptionsembeddedinthewaythatthecatchmentnodeprofiles havebeengeneratedthereisaneedforlongertermrefinementoftheGISbaseddesignand decisionsupporttoolusedintheanalysis. 18. Aspotentialquickwinshavebeenidentifiedfortheuseofdetentionbasinsinmunicipal housingareasthathaveextensivegreenspaces,thesecouldbeusedtoundertakeatrial thatwouldfirstlyredesignthesystemsusingtimeseriesrainfallanddynamiccomputer modelsandinparallelbegintheprocessofstakeholderengagementtotestthefeasibilityof implementation.Ideallyapilotshouldbeidentifiedandactuallyconstructedtogain experienceoftheopportunitiesandbarriers. 19. TheassumptionsusedintheWLCassessmentsshouldbefurthertested,bysensitivity analysisandatthesametimealternativeretrofitoptionstothosetrialledhere,shouldbe examined,takingintoaccounttheenhancedopportunitiesfromastormwatermanagement trainapproach.TheWLCmodelcouldbeimprovedbytheuseofmorecontextspecific assumptionsandwillingnesstopaylocalsurveydatawhichneedstobeupdatedandwould necessitateearlyandconsideredstakeholderengagement. 20. Thelimitedvalueoftheguidancesofaravailabletomonetisethebenefitsfromnon piped/seweredretrofitstormwatercontrolshavepreventedanyestimatebeingmadeofthis inthepresentstudy.ItisrecommendedthatthepreliminaryUKWIR(2009)modelbefurther evaluatedandifnecessary,enhancedaspartofthemoreindepthassessmentofthecosts andbenefitsofretrofittingstormwatermanagementsystemsintheThamescatchment. 21. AsonlyconventionalSUDSsystemshavebeenexaminedinthisstudy,alternativeoptions shouldalsobeconsidered,suchasthepotentialforstorageofstormwaterrunoffonstreets asisbeingdoneinSkokieintheUSA,Figure12.1.Thiswillrequirecomputationalmodelling ofthepotentialusingatleast2Dmodellingsoftware.Alsoreviewofinnovativegullyinlet systemsthatcontroltheinflowrate.Dialoguewillberequiredwithroadauthoritiesto assesswhetherornotthiscouldbeafeasibleapproach. 74


Figure121WaterstoredtemporarilyonthehighwayinSkokie(Carr&Walesh.2008)

75

13. References
ANNEX1.SUDSEvaluationforExampleAreas.100RGMDL00000000002|AF|10Feb2010. Ashley,R.M.,Newman,R.andHurley,L.(unpublished)DrCymruWelshWaterSurfaceWater ManagementStrategyPhase2:SurfaceWaterManagementStrategyinWales,recent developmentsaliteraturereview.May,2009.Internalreport. Ashley,R.M.andBrown,R.R.(2008)Entrappedincommonsense:whywatermanagementby currentregimesisnotsustainableandwhatwecandoaboutit.WorkingGroup8:Water9thNESS: Knowledge,learningandactionforsustainability,10th12thJune2009,London Binnie,BlackandVeatch.(2002).ThamesTidewayStrategySustainableUrbanDrainageSystems (SUDS)Study.AvailablefromOfwatwebsite. BlackmoreJM.,PlantRAJ.(2008).Riskandresiliencetoenhancesustainabilitywithapplicationto urbanwatersystems.J.WaterResourcesPlanningandManagement.ASCE.Vol.134,No.3,May.
Brown,R.,Mouritz,M.andTaylor,A.2006.Chapter5:Institutionalcapacity.T.H.F.Wong(ed.),Australia. RunoffQuality:AGuidetoWaterSensitiveUrbanDesign,Canberra,EngineersAustralia.pp.5.15.22.

Brandes,O.M.&Kriwoken,L.2006Changingperspectiveschangingparadigms:takingthesoft pathtowatersustainabilityintheOkanaganBasin.Can.WaterRes.J.31(2),7590. CarrRW.,WaleshSG.(2008).MicromanagementofStormwaterinaCombinedSewerCommunity forWetWeatherControlTheSkokieExperience.Proc11thIntConfonUrbanDrainage.Edinburgh. Sept. CascadeconsultingwithEftec(2009)ExploringTheCostBenefitOfSeparatingDirectSurfaceWater InputsFromTheCombinedSewerageSystem.UKWIRreport.Draft,April.Unpublished. CaveM.(2008).Independentreview:ofcompetitionandinnovationinwatermarkets.November. ISBN9781845325244.UKCrowncopyright. CenterforWatershedProtection(2007).UrbanStormwaterretrofitPractices.Version1.0.Manual3. August.AvailablefromCWPwesbsite. CIRIA(2004)ModelagreementsforSuDS.CIRIA,London,2004,ReportC625.ConstructionIndustry researchandInformationAssociation. CIRIA(2006)DesignforExceedance.CIRIARP699. CIRIA(2007).TheSUDSmanual.CIRIAC697.ISBN0860176975. CIRIA(2007a).BuildingGreener.CIRIAC644.ISBN0860176444. CIRIA(2009).Deliveringsustainabledrainageguidanceforplanners.RP784March(unpublished draft). Defra(2008)1NorthBrentIntegratedUrbanDrainagePilotStudy.FinalReport.June.Availablefrom IUDwebsite. 76

Defra(2008)2RiverHogsmillIntegratedUrbanDrainagePilotStudy.FinalReportVolume1.June. AvailablefromIUDwebsite. Defra(2009)Factsheet.DraftFloodandWaterManagementBill.Whatitmeansforthewater industry.http://www.defra.gov.uk Defra(2010)SurfaceWaterManagementPlanTechnicalGuidance.March. DTI/EA(2006)TheSUDSmanual.FundersReport/CP/110,October.AvailablefromCIRIAwebsite. EA(2007)ScienceReportSC060024AreviewofthecostbenefitofundertakingSUDSretrofitin urbanareas.EnvironmentAgency,Bristol.ISBN:9781844328888 EngineersAustralia(2006).AustralianRunoffQuality:Aguidetowatersensitivedesign.WongTHF (Ed.)ISBN0858258528.EngineersAustralia,Canberra. FalconerRA(2009)LondonBoroughofRichmonduponThamesandRoyalBoroughofKingston uponThamesFirstEditionSurfaceWaterManagementPlan.Proc.WaPUGconference,Blackpool, November. FranceRL.(2002).Ed.HandbookofWaterSensitivePlanningandDesign.LewisPublishers.CRC PressISBN1566705622. Gill,E.(2008)MakingSpaceforWater.UrbanFloodRisk&IntegratedDrainage(HA2).IUDPilot SummaryReport.Defra,June.AvailablefromIUDwebsite. GuillonA.,KovacsY.,RouxC.,SenechalC.(2008).Rainwaterreusingforwateringpurposes:what storagecapacityisneededandwhatbenefitforseweragenetworks?Proc.11thInternational ConferenceonUrbanDrainage,Edinburgh,Scotland,UK.ISBN9781899796212&1899796215. Hatt,B.E,Fletcher,T.D.Deletic,A(2009)Hydrologicandpollutantremovalperformanceof biofiltrationsystemsatthefieldscale.J.Hydrology(365),p310321.HMTreasury(2003)TheGreen Book.AppraisalandEvaluationinCentralGovernment.TSO,London. Ison,R.,andD.Watson.2007.Illuminatingthepossibilitiesforsociallearninginthemanagementof Scotlandswater.EcologyandSociety12(1):21.[online]URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art21/ Jacobs(2006).EconomicReviewtoassesswhetherthereareeconomicpartialsolutionstoproblems causedbyintermittentstormdischargestotheThamesTidewayPhase1.Finalreport [incorporatingTTSSNovember2005supplementaryreportupdate]OfwatrefPROC/01/0021. AvailablefromOfwatwebsite. JensenMB.(2008).Stormwatermanagementintheurbanlandscape.Proc11thIntConfonUrban Drainage.Edinburgh.Sept.Seealso:www.2BG.dk. KellagherRBB&FrancoEM.(2005).WaND:Rainfallcollectionanduseindevelopments;benefits foryieldandstormwatercontrol.HRWallingfordreportSR677;WaNDbriefingnote19;WP2 briefingnote2.15.pub.HRWallingford. KellagherRBB.,UdaleClarkH.(2008).SustainabilityCriteriafortheDesignofStormwaterDrainage Systemsforthe21stCentury.Proc11thIntConfonUrbanDrainage.Edinburgh.Sept.

77

KTN(inprint).IntegratedUrbanWaterManagementBusinessCase.KnowledgeTransferNetwork/ EnvironmentalKnowledgeTransferNetwork.(forthcoming) Landcom(2009).WaterSensitiveUrbanDesign.4books:Policy;PlanningandManagement;Case Studies;Maintenance.http://www.landcom.com.au/whatsnew/publicationsreports/water sensitiveurbandesign.aspx(accessed10/07/09). Lee,J.S.,&Li,M.(2009).Theimpactofdetentionbasindesignonresidentialpropertyvalue:Case studiesusingGISinthehedonicpricemodeling.LandscapeUrbanPlan,89(12),719. Marsalek,J.,Q.Rochfort,andD.Savic.(2001).Urbanwaterasapartofintegratedcatchment management.Pages3783inC.Maksimovic.andJ.A.TejadaGuilbert(eds.),Frontiersinurban watermanagement:Deadlockorhope.IWAPublishing,Cornwall. MayorofLondon(2009)PracticalSteps:Bettergreenandwaterspaces.GLA. McEvoyD.(2006).ClimateChangeandCities.JournalofBuiltEnvironmentVol33No1.p59. MelbourneWater(2005).WSUDEngineeringProcedures:Stormwater.CSIROpublishing. MillyPCD.,BetancourtJ.,FalkenmarkM.,HirschRM.,KundzewiczZW.,LettenmaierDP.,Stouffer RJ.(2008).StationarityIsDead:WhitherWaterManagement?SCIENCEVOL3191FEBRUARY [www.sciencemag.org]. MitchellVG.,CleughHA.,GrimmondCSB.,XuJ.(2008).Linkingurbanwaterbalanceandenergy balancemodelstoanalyseurbandesignoptions.Hydrol.Process.22,28912900(2008).Published online16November2007inWileyInterScience.(www.interscience.wiley.com)DOI: 10.1002/hyp.6868. NationalSUDSWorkingGroup(2004).InterimCodeofPracticeforSustainableDrainageSystems, NSWG,http://www.ciria.co.uk/suds/icap.htm,2004. NaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil(2006).ROOFTOPSTORIVERSGreenStrategiesforControlling StormwaterandCombinedSewerOverflows.June.AvailablefromNRDCwebsite. PageB.andBakkerK.(2005).Watergovernanceandwaterusersinaprivatisedwaterindustry: participationinpolicymakingandinwaterserviceprovision:acasestudyofEnglandandWales.Int. J.Water.Vol.3,No.1.p3855. Newman,P.(2001)Sustainableurbanwatersystemsinrichandpoorcitiesstepstowardsanew approach.WaterScience&Technology,43,9399. PahlWostl,C.,J.Sendzimir,P.Jeffrey,J.Aerts,G.Berkamp,andK.Cross(2007).Managingchange towardadaptivewatermanagementthroughsociallearning.EcologyandSociety12(2):30.[online] URL:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art30/ RouseM.J.(2007)InstitutionalGovernanceandRegulationofWaterServices.IWApublishing.ISBN 1843391341. Saal,D.S.,Parker,D.,WeymanJones,T.(2007)Determiningthecontributionoftechnicalchange, efficiencychangeandscalechangetoproductivitygrowthintheprivatisedEnglishandWelshwater andsewerageindustry:19852000.JournalofProductivityAnalysis.Vol28(12)pp127139.

78

SeattleGovernment(2009).StreetEdgeAlternatives(SEAstreets)project. http://www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/Natural_Drainage_Systems/Str eet_Edge_Alternatives/SPU_001805.asp[accessed10/07/09]. Sefton,C.J.(2008).Publicengagementwithsustainablewatermanagment,UniversityofBradford. PhDThesis(unpublished). SiekerH.,HelmB.,KrebsP.,SchlottmannP.,TrnknerJ.(2008).Flexibilityaplanningcriterionfor stormwatermanagement.Proc11thIntConfonUrbanDrainage.Edinburgh.Sept. Smith,N,Allen,R,McKenzieMcHarg,A,Deletic,A,Fletcher,T.D,Hatt,B.E(2007).Retrofitting FunctioningStormwaterGardensIntoExistingUrbanLandscapes,CairnsInternationalPublicWorks Conference,Cairns,Australia,August2007. SmithS.,JefferiesC.,BlackwoodDJ.(2008).Disconnection/MinimiseSurfaceWaterEntering PublicDrainage.Proc11thIntConfonUrbanDrainage.Edinburgh.Sept. SmullenJ.T.,MyersRD.,ReynoldsSK.MaimoneM.(2008).AGreenApproachtoCombinedSewer OverflowControl:SourceControlImplementationonaWatershedScale.Proc11thIntConfonUrban Drainage.Edinburgh.Sept. SNIFFER(2006)Retrofittingsustainableurbanwatersolutions,UE3(05)UW5.AvailablefromScotland andNorthernIrelandForumForEnvironmentalResearchwebsite. Stovin,V.S.andSwan,A.D.(2007)SuDScostestimatesanddecisionsupporttools.Proceedingsof theInstitutionofCivilEngineersWaterManagement160December2007IssueWM4Pages207214 doi:10.1680/wama.2007.160.4.207 StovinV.,SwanA.,MooreS.(2007)RetrofitSUDSforUrbanWaterQualityEnhancement.EA/BOC FoundationMay.37pp(unpublished) Swan,A.D.,StovinV.R.,Saul,A.J.andWalker,N.(2001)ModellingSuDSwithdeterministicurban drainagemodels.Proceedingsofthe1stNationalConferenceonSustainableDrainage,Coventry, 2001,202213. Taylor,A.C.(2008).LeadershipinSustainableUrbanWaterManagement:AnInvestigationofthe ChampionPhenomenonwithinAustralianWaterAgencies.ReportNo.08/01,NationalUrbanWater GovernanceProgram,MonashUniversity,August2008,ISBN:9780980429855. ThevenotD.(2008)(Ed.).DayWater:Anadaptivedecisionsupportsystemforurbanstormwater management.IWApublishingISBN1843391600. UdaleClarkeH.,KellagherRBB(2008).WaND:ElvethamheathcasestudyTestingofSustainability MeasuresforStormwaterDrainage.HRWallingfordreportSR684,Rev.2.0.pub.HRWallingford. UKWIR(2000).RodentControlinsewers.AshleyRM.,WatsonN.,BlackwoodDJ.,MarrI.Reportref. No.00/WM/07/4.AvailablefromUKWIR. UKWIR(2005)PerformanceandWholeLifeCostsofBestManagementPracticesandSustainable UrbanDrainageSystems,Ref:05/WW/03/6,ISBN:1943397439.AvailablefromUKWIR. UKWIR(2006).BarrierstoinnovationintheUKwaterindustry.London: www.ukwir.org/ukwirlibrary/91297 79

UKWIR(2006a)SUDSIncreasedliabilityforthewaterindustryPhase2(06/WW/03/8)ISBN1 840574178.London:http://www.ukwir.org/ukwirlibrary/91153 UKWIR(2009)ExploringtheCostBenefitofSeparatingDirectSurfaceWaterInputsfromthe CombinedSewerageSystem.CascadeconsultingwithEftec.(draft)(unpublisheddraft) WalkerA.(2009).TheIndependentReviewofChargingforHouseholdWaterandSewerageServices http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/water/industry/walkerreview/finalreport.htm. DefraPB13336December2009 WATERUKandWRc(2006)SewersforAdoption6thedn,WRcPublications,Swindon. WeinsteinN.etal(2006).Decentralizedstormwatercontrolsforurbanretrofitandcombinedsewer overflowreduction.WERF.IWApublishingISBN184339748x. WeinsteinN.etal(2009).Decentralizedstormwatercontrolsforurbanretrofitandcombinedsewer overflowreduction:PhaseII.WERF.IWAPublishing.ISBN9781843393535 WERF/UKWIR(2005).PostprojectMonitoringofBMPs/SuDStoDeterminePerformanceandWhole lifeCosts:Phase2.WERF/UKWIR,IWALondon,2005,Report01CTS21T.AvailablefromUKWIR. WiseS.,BradenJ.,GhalayiniD.etal(2010)IntegratingValuationMethodstoRecognizeGreen Infrastructure'sMultipleBenefits.Proc.Conf.LowImpactDevelopment2010:RedefiningWaterin theCity2010ASCE.[http://logan.cnt.org/calculator/calculator.php] WongTHF(2006)Introduction.In:WongTHF(ed)Australianrunoffqualityaguidetowater sensitiveurbandesign.EngineersAustralia,Sydney,Australia.

80

Appendix A - Types of SUDS and effectiveness at reducing stormwater inputs

TheSUDSmanual(CIRIA,2007)definesSUDSas:surfacewaterdrainagesystemsdevelopedinline withtheidealsofsustainabledevelopmentanditliststheirattributesas: Reducingrunoffrates,thusreducingtheriskofdownstreamflooding; Reducingtheadditionalrunoffvolumesandrunofffrequenciesthattendtobeincreased asaresultofurbanisation,andwhichcanexacerbatefloodriskanddamagereceiving waterquality; Encouragingnaturalgroundwaterrecharge(whereappropriate)tominimisetheimpacts onaquifersandriverbaseflowsinthereceivingcatchment; Reducingpollutantconcentrationsinstormwater,thusprotectingthequalityofthe receivingwaterbody; Actingasabufferforaccidentalspillsbypreventingdirectdischargeofhigh concentrationsofcontaminantstothereceivingwaterbody; Reducingthevolumeofsurfacewaterrunoffdischargingtocombinedsewersystems, thusreducingdischargesofpollutedwatertowatercoursesviaCSOspills; Contributingtotheenhancedamenityandaestheticvalueofdevelopedareas;and Providinghabitatsforwildlifeinurbanareasandopportunitiesforbiodiversity enhancement.

The manual states that through effective runoff control at source, the need for large flow attenuation and control structures is minimised, and that the variety of SUDS available allows the considerationofcurrentandfuturelanduseandtheneedsoflocalpeopleindesignoftheschemes. ExamplesofSUDStypesavailableforsurfacewaterattenuationaregiveninTableA01.
TableA01ExamplesoftypesofSUDSavailableforsurfacewaterattenuation

SUDS Filterstrips* Swales*

Description Wide,gentlyslopingareasofgrassorotherdensevegetationthattreatrunoff fromadjacentimpermeableareas. Broad,shallowchannelscoveredbygrassorothersuitablevegetationthatconvey and/orstorerunoff,andcaninfiltratethewaterintotheground(ifground conditionsallow). Depressionsinthesurfacedesignedtostorerunoffandinfiltratewatertothe ground;mayalsobelandscapedtoprovideaestheticandamenityvalue Basinsthathaveapermanentpoolofwaterforwaterqualitytreatment.They providetemporarystorageforadditionalstormrunoffabovethepermanentwater level;mayalsoprovideamenityandwildlifebenefits. Usuallydrycentralbasinswithsmallpermanentpoolsattheinletandoutlet. Designedtodetainacertainvolumeofrunoffaswellasprovidingwaterquality treatment 81

Infiltration basins* Wetponds*

Extended detention basins*

SUDS Constructed wetlands* Filterdrains and perforated pipes* Infiltration devices* Pervious surfaces* Greenroofs* Soakaways Raingardens Seastreets Streettrees PocketSUDS

Description Shallowwaterwithwetlandplantsthatimprovepollutantremovalandprovide wildlifehabitat Trenchesfilledwithpermeablematerial;surfacewaterfromtheedgeofpaved areasflowsintothetrenches,isfilteredandconveyedtootherpartsofthesite.A slottedorperforatedpipebuiltintothebaseofthetrenchcancollectandconvey thewater. Temporarilystorewaterandallowittopercolateintotheground(whereground conditionsallow) Rainwaterinfiltratesthroughthesurfaceintoanunderlyingstoragelayer,where waterisstoredbeforeinfiltrationtothegroundforreuseorreleasetosurface water(canbedriveways,pavements,roads,carparksetc.) Systemswhichcoverabuildingroofwithvegetation.Theyarelaidoveradrainage layer,withotherlayersprovidingprotection,waterproofingandinsulation. Smallareasof(permeable)landdedicatedtothepercolationofrainwater Plantedareasoftenactingastrafficcalmingislandstothesidesofwideroadsthat collectroadrunoff,watertheplantsandprovideinfiltration (StreetEdgeAlternatives)roadswithadjacentgreenspacethatcanbeusedfor detention/retention/swales;canbeusedinconjunctionwithpermeablepaving Treesplantedinthepavementthatarewateredbypavementrunoff SmallscaleSUDSimplementedopportunistically

Disconnection Directionofroofrunofftolocalgreenspaceforinfiltrationtothegroundrather thanpiped/seweredcollection Rainwater harvesting Blueroofs General greening Typicallytheuseofwaterbuttstocollectrainwaterforgardenwatering,butcan alsobedoneonamuchlargerscaleandrainwatercanbeusedwithinabuilding fornonpotableuse(e.g.toiletflushing) Collectionofrainwaterindedicated(flat)roofreservoirs,providinginsulation, coolingandhabitat Restoringgreenspacewhereeverpossibleinthelocalareatoprovideopportunity forsurfacewaterinfiltration

Daylightingof Locatingnaturalwatercoursesthathavebeenculvertedandopeningthemupwith thepotentialtoprovideincreasedheadroomaswellasaestheticand culverted watercourses environmentalbenefits Domestic/ industrial demand management Legislation Theuseofvariousfinancialorlegislativemeanstoreducepotablewaterusefor nonpotablepurposesandencouragerainwaterharvesting

Suchastherecentlyintroducedplanninglegislationrequiringplanningpermission topaveoverafrontgardengreaterthan5m2withanonperviousmaterial (www.planningportal.gov.uk)

*AsdescribedintheSUDSmanual(CIRIA,2007) 82

The precise forms of SUDS, the terminology and the way they are defined varies internationally and TableA01isnotinclusiveofallthetypesofsystemsclassifiedasSUDS,BMPs,LIDs.Inthisstudy theapplicationofalternativesystemshasbeenconsideredaswellasthoselistedinTableA01. TheSUDSmanual(CIRIA,2007)alsogivesanindicationoflikelyperformanceofthedifferenttypes ofSUDSwithrespecttoqualityoftreatmentpotentialandhydrauliccontrol(TableA02).
TableA02QuantityperformanceofselectedSUDS(source:SUDSmanual,CIRIA,2007,Table5.7) Capacitytotreatfine suspendedsolidsand dissolvedpollutants Hydrauliccontrol Suitabilityforflow ratecontrol (probability) 0.1 0.5 0.01 0.3 (1/2 (100 (10/30 yr) yr) yr) H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H M M M M M M H H H M M M M H H H H H H H L L L L L L L H L L L L L L H H H H

Totalsuspended solidsremoval

Bacteriaremoval*

Nutrient (phosphorus, nitrogenremoval)

SUDS group

Technique

Retention pond Retention Subsurface storage Shallow wetland Extended detention wetland Pond/ wetland Wetland Pocket wetland Submerged gravel wetland Wetland channel Infiltration trench Infiltration Infiltration basin Soakaway Surface sandfilter Subsurface sandfilter Filtration Perimeter sandfilter Bioretention /filterstrips Filtertrench Detention Detention basin Conveyance swale Open Enhanced channels dryswale Enhanced wetswale

H L H H H H H H H H H H H H H M H H H

Heavymetals removal

M L M M M M M M H H H H H H H H M M H H

M L H H H H H H H H H H H H H H L M H M

M L M M M M M M M M M M M M M M L M M H

H L H H H H H H H H H H H H H H L H H H

Runoffvolume reduction L L L L L L L L H H H L L L L L L M M L

83

Totalsuspended solidsremoval

Capacitytotreatfine suspendedsolidsand dissolvedpollutants

Bacteriaremoval*

Nutrient (phosphorus, nitrogenremoval)

SUDS group

Technique

Heavymetals removal

Runoffvolume reduction H M H

Hydrauliccontrol Suitabilityforflow ratecontrol (probability) 0.1 0.5 0.01 0.3 (1/2 (100 (10/30 yr) yr) yr) H H L M H H H L L

Source control

Greenroof Rainwater harvesting Permeable pavement

N/A M H

N/A L H

N/A L H

N/A L H

H N/A H

In the USA, stormwater disconnection is often utilised to improve downstream water quality with less interest in water quantity control. However, the WERF project reported by Weinstein et al (2006) is also interested in using retrofits to reduce CSO spills. Table A03 shows a qualitative assessment from this report of the effectiveness of certain BMP measures on volumes and peak flows.
TableA03Effectivenessofsourcecontrolsonwaterquantitydownstream(adaptedfromWeinsteinetal,2006)

Sourcecontrol Downspout disconnection Infiltration practices Pocketwetlands

Effect on Effect on peak Responsibility volumes discharges M M owner M H L H owner owner

Maintenanceeffort Minimal Mediumtohigh Moderatetohigh removalofdebris, vegetationwatering, sedimentremoval Asinfiltrationmayneed vacuuming Minimal MinimalVegetation management Minimal Includedinother applications ModerateVegetation management Asabove

Porouspavement Rain barrels/cisterns Raingardens Rooftopstorage* Soilamendments Vegetatedroofs

H M H H M M

H L H H M H

owner owner owner owner N/R owner

Vegetatedswales M M owner Key:HHighimpact;MMediumimpact;LLowimpact *ThisoptionwasmissingintheoriginalTableES1inWeinsteinetal(2006). The options in Table A02 are mainly source controls and the performance applies in conditions foundintheUSAandthereforeneedtobeconsideredcarefullywhenappliedelsewhere.Alsointhe UK, the ownership may be private, collective or municipal and responsibilities could change in futureoncetheFloodandWaterManagementAct2010isfullyimplemented. 84

Appendix B - Illustration of disconnection options

The following sheets aim to show the retrofit potential for a series of current land use characteristics. All street level images are courtesy of Google Streetview (Copyright 2009). Aerial photographyisThamesown.

1.

Roads
Example Retrofitpotential SeaStreets Pocketstreet infiltration Permeablepaving Swales

Characteristic WideRoads greaterthan8m width

Narrowroads lessthan8m width Permeablepaving

85

Main(A)Roads (Hightraffic loading)

Littleretrofit opportunity Otherthanpermeable surfaces

Roadswith adjacentgreen space SeaStreets Disconnectionto adjacentland Potentialfor detention/retention Permeablepaving Swales

2.

Buildings
Rainwater Harvesting/Waterbutts (gardenpermitting)

Housing terraced Oftensmall gardens,on streetparking, oftennarrow streets

86

HousingSemi detached Oftenlarge backgardens, offstreet parking

RainwaterHarvesting Waterbutts

Housing detached Oftenlarge gardens,off streetparking. Rainwaterharvesting Waterbutts Gardensoakaways

Flats/ apartments Downspout disconnectionto surroundingland Potentialfordetention basins,pondsand wetlands Green/Blueroofs(flat roofs)

87

Flatroofs

Green/Blueroofs Downspout disconnectionto surroundingland

Opportunistic area Each catchmentwill haveseveral buildingsthat couldbe consideredas easypickings forretrofit SUDSschools, playingfields thatcouldbe redesignedfor dualuse VariedretrofitSUDS potential: Permeablepaving Downspout disconnection Green/blueroofs RainwaterHarvesting Waterbutts

3.

Land

NaturalLand

88

 Playingfields/school grounds Potentialforoffsite/ endofpipe solutions;for example,wetlands, retentionbasins, ponds.

Manmadeland greaterthan200m Permeablepaving Cellularstorage

Firstly, to ascertain the total area of roads that could be converted to permeable/pervious paving, the area of roads and tracks were selected from the total road track and path layer using the Select by Attributes function within ArcView. Sea Streets and Disconnection to adjacent pervious land were selected by selecting all areas of roads tracks and paths that were within 2m of natural land (greaterthan100m2,inordertoensurethatonlyareasthatcantaketheroadrunoffareselected.) In order to select roads that have the potential to retrofit pocket road SUDS/Traffic calming, the MasterMap data must be modified. Google Streetview was used to get an insight into the width of the roads, and the availability of on street parking (see Fig.B01), roads deemed suitable were then digitised within ArcView. Figure B01 also shows the criteria used to select roads for pocket road SUDS.

89

 PocketroadSUDSaredeemedtobesuitableforroadsthatarewideenoughtotakeoutsomeofthe carparkingandreplaceitwithengineeredraingardens.
FigureB01CriteriaforPocketroadSUDS

(ImagecourtesyofGoogleStreetviewCopyright2009Google) Roofs Several options are available for the disconnection of roofs. Perhaps the simplest option technically would be to disconnect roof drainage to surrounding gardens. For this option to be feasible, it is considered that the area of pervious garden must be at least equal to the area of the roof. From aerial photography of the Frogmore (Buckhold Road) area, there appear to be distinct types of roof within the catchment that may be suitable. Terraced housing with small courtyard gardens, Larger semidetached and detached properties with large, predominantly turfed/landscaped lawns, large pitched roofs (likely mixture of residential, commercial and institutional occupation) surrounded by grounds,andlarge,flatroofs,alsooftensetingrounds. In order to discriminate between these distinct types, an SQL query was used to select out all buildingsfromMasterMap.Thestatisticaldistributionwasthenconsulted,andthesmallestareafor a house was selected (for Frogmore (Buckhold Road) the mean building area was 60m2). This area was then used to select all gardens (mixed permeability land) that were greater than or equal to 60m2. In the absence of AddressPoint/Address layer data, it is necessary to create a series of assumptions about the use of the buildings. Studying the MasterMap data in conjunction with Aerial photography, residential housing (terraced, semidetached, detached and flats) were seen to approximatelyfallwithin20m2(terraced)590m2 (Flats).Thesebuildingswereselectedoutfromthe wholelayer. The Select by Location tool within ArcView (v9.3) was then used to select any houses within 1m of the gardens greater than 60m2 (this removed any houses within gardens less than 60m2). 60m2 was selected, as although this figure is quite large, it ensured that as many properties as possible in gardenswith anareasignificantlylessthanthebuildingfootprint areawereleftoutoftheselection. As there is often a correlation between house size and garden size, and the smaller the garden the less likely it is to be permeable enough for infiltration, this selection provides an indication of the roofs that could be disconnected to gardens. As communal grounds were included within the natural land layer, the same process was repeated as above to give all buildings assumed to be residentialwithin1moflanddeemedtobepermeable. 90

Key:

=Buildingsgreaterthan20m2butlessthan 590m2 =Gardenssuitableforinfiltration CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey

FigureB02Examplehousesdeemedsuitablefordisconnectiontogardens

Key: =Allland(naturalorgardens)greaterthan60m2

=Allpropertiesgreaterthan2m2butlessthan590m2,within1mofsuitableland. =Manmadesurface CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey

FigureB03Exampleofallpropertiesdeemedsuitablefordisconnectiontoadjacentland

From this, the resulting area of disconnectable roofs must be checked for double counts; that is, two or more roofs, both within 1m of the same area of land. These should be removed from the 91

total area to give a more representative area. A further option for retrofitting roofs, is also the installationofgreenroofstosuitablypitchedroofs. To get an estimate of the likely number of green roofs possible in the catchment requires modification of the existing MasterMap data. Unfortunately, data on the pitch of the roof is not available within MasterMap, therefore, by using aerial photography, buildings appearing to be flat were digitised within ArcView to create a layer of flatroofed buildings. This ignores any practicalitiesofapplication. Land MasterMap separates land into 3 groups; manmade (comprising; hardstanding, carparks); natural (parks, open space, golf courses, fields) and Mixed Permeability (gardens, accounting for homeownersindividuallandscapechoices). Natural and Mixed permeability land surfaces have been discussed in roads and roofs above. The retrofit SUDS options for manmade surfaces are the following; replace impervious surfaces with permeablesurfaces,withorwithoutadditionalcellularstorage.Forsmallerareasofhardstandingit maybepossibletodisconnectthedrainagetoadjacentland,whereappropriate. For this study, areas of contiguous manmade surface greater than 200m2 were selected from MasterMap. 200m2 was deemed the minimum area of hardstanding/carparking that would be worththecostanddisruptionofresurfacingtopermeablepaving. The areas of manmade surface smaller than 200m2, but close to adjacent natural land were subsequently selected. These areas are deemed suitable for disconnection to adjacent pervious land.

92

Appendix C - Whole life cost assessment

C.1 Introduction
WholeLife Costing (WLC) combines capital and ongoing operational costs to be incurred over a pre determinedlifecycleperiodofindividualinterventionsinordertodeterminetheirfullcost. Life cycle periods can be scaled for example to match the five year periodic financial reviews (PR) imposed on Water and Sewerage Companies (WaSCs) by their financial regulator, Ofwat. Longer term assessments may align with the new Ofwat requirement for WaSCs to produce 25 year StrategicDirectionStatements.AsignificantfeatureofWLCisthatitisbasedontheidentificationof future costs. In order to ensure that costs are comparable over the life cycle of the different interventions, all costs are discounted to determine their present value at todays prices. Future costs during the predetermined life cycle are anticipated and calculated with a discount rate. The Treasury Green Book (HM Treasury 2003) uses a discount rate of 3.5% for life cycles of 030 years (rates decline the linger the life cycle as high discount rates make future costs less important (SUDS Manual,CIRIA,2007)). The costs and benefits associated with each intervention are calculated and incorporate the financial, environmental/ecological and social impacts relevant to each intervention. Many of the financial capital costs are incurred by the installer (in this case Thames Water (TW)) but a significant proportion of future operational and maintenance costs are transferred to other stakeholders, this will primarily be to the Local Authority if the Draft Flood and Water Management Bill is enacted. Otherwise the distribution of costs will depend on arrangements made with the Local Authority at thetimeofdesigningandinstallingtheinterventions. According to The Green Book (HM Treasury, 2003) wider social and environmental costs and benefits for which there is no market price need to be brought into any assessment. They will often bedifficult toassessbutareimportant andshouldnotbeignoredsimplybecausetheycannoteasily becosted. Many social and environmental costs and benefits will not accrue directly to the installer of interventions but when considered over the life cycle of the interventions indirect benefits (such as reputation enhancement) may be offset against initial financial investment. Some costs that are inevitable with the use of conventional systems may be avoided by the use of innovations and this shouldberecognisedatthedecisionmakingstage. Monetisation of the environmental/ ecological and social costs and benefits (EESCB) is problematic buttechniquessuchaswillingnesstopay(WTP)onthepartofstakeholdershavebeenusedinother studies as contingent valuation (e.g. Ashley et al., 2004). Some of the WTP amounts may be ascertained from extant data sources such as preference state surveys conducted by WaSCs. It is important that if stormwater disconnection is seen as a viable option, the EESCB are identified for each intervention. In this way, consideration of how to minimise the costs and maximise the benefits, cost avoidance and long term cost savings become possible. Recognition of EESCB can also reducereputationalrisk.

C.1.1 The need for change in the study area

In order to understand where the cost burdens of systems of integrated retrofit SUDS lie and to whom the benefits accrue, it is essential to understand the broad picture of why change to the existingsystemisnecessarynowandinthefuture.TheDrivers,Pressures,State,Impacts,Responses (DPSIR) framework is a technique used by the European Environment Agency (www.eea.europa.eu) 93

and enables insight into complex environmental problems. Table C01 sets out some of the issues related to the implementation of retrofit SUDS in Frogmore (Buckhold Road), Putney and West Putney.
TableC01Drivers,Pressures,State,Impact,Responsesanalysisoftheneedtoupgradesurfacewaterdrainagein Frogmore(BuckholdRoad),PutneyandWestPutney

Drivers

Pressures

Impacts

Increased Needtocomply withEUDirectives populationinthe capital specificallythe urbanwastewater treatmentdirective Needtojustify pricingtoOfwat Needtoprovide highlevelofservice Increasedsurface Highdensity housing waterpollution Reducedgreen Customers demandmoreand space Infilldevelopment highquality drinkingwater, andbuildingof reducedleakage& extensions, affordability conservatoriesetc. Currentsystems Existingsewer notequippedto systemandstorm managehigh drainagenot intensityrainfall designedfor eventsortocomply currentpopulation fullywith density environmental directives Financialclimate reducingcredit availability. Planningforthefuturehasbecome heavilydependentoncompliancewith directivesandfinancialconstraints Needforbalancedplanningdecisions

Increaseduseof thecar

Climatechange

Pavingover gardenstoenable carparking Increased impermeableroad surfacearea Increasedlevelsof pollutantsin surfacerunoff

Increasednumber ofhighintensity rainfalleventsand uncertainty regardingfuture extremeweather events,including periodsofwater stress. Existinglow rainfallinthearea.

Responses 2010to2015BusinessPlan StrategicDirectionStatementfor2010to 2035

Greatlyreducedstormwaterinfiltration andincreasedsurfacewaterrunoff leadingto: Riverpollution;reduced aesthetic/amenity/environmentalquality Increasedbasementflooding(DG5 registeredproperties) Potentiallygreaterimpactsofallthe aboveinthefutureduetofurtherchanges indemographicsandclimate ResponsesavailabletotheSewerage Undertakerarelimitedto:containingand redirectingsurfacewaterflows(the conventionalresponse);andreducing surfacewaterrunoffatsource, attenuatingitsflowandreducingits pollutionburden(theSUDSresponse) 94

A SUDS approach would address a greater number of the pressures and impacts in Table C01 than would the conventional piped/sewered solution and would also provide systems that were more flexible and adaptable to future uncertainties (Seiker et al, 2008), although it clearly involves the co operationofagreaternumberoforganisationsandindividuals.

C.1.2Stakeholderinvolvement
Indepth WLC analysis requires the identification of all stakeholders affected by each of the SUDS measures proposed for each catchment, that is: any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organisations objectives (Freeman, 1984). Different stakeholders have different interest in, influence over and need for work to be carried out. These differences also need to be recognised in a transparent stakeholder analysis as part of the WLC approach. Once identified, the means of involvement of stakeholders in the implementation of the scheme should be considered. The North Brent Integrated Urban Drainage (IUD) pilot study (Defra, 20081) for example established a Steering Group for the project comprising representatives of local stakeholder groups that was independent but able to review issues relevant to the area and recommend what it considered to be beneficial solutions. Stakeholder involvement in the scheme is beneficial for its acceptance and long term success and whilst incurring an initial cost can greatly enhancethereputationoforganisationsinvolvedintheschemesimplementation. Due to the distribution of responsibilities there will be a distribution of costs and benefits. Many of the solutions to excess surface water runoff lie within different uses of the land which is the responsibility of the landowner or the local authority rather than the Sewerage Undertaker. Furthermore the installation of pipework incurs costs to the Sewerage Undertaker but that work becomes a tangible asset belonging to the company and one that requires only routine and definable maintenance as defined in the new Sewerage Risk Manual. Implementation of a SUDS schemeonlandbelongingtothelocalauthorityplacestheburdenofupkeepoftheschemewiththe local authority. A major part of the SUDS scheme is likely to be located in public open space and has the potential to help promote the sustainable development agenda, providing the public are aware of and are in support of the scheme, which requires their involvement from an early stage in the process of implementation. Although many open SUDS systems are potentially problematic as regardsrealandperceivedhealthandsafety. TableC02listsfinancialcosts(CapexandOpex)associatedwithroofdisconnectionandthelikely bearerofthecosts. 95

TableC02Generalisedfinancialcostsandtheirdistributionduetoroofdisconnectionandinfiltrationviadetention basin

Action Studyofarea

Costbearer ThamesWater

Involvementofstakeholders

ThamesWater

Redirectionofdownspout waterviapipetodetention basin

ThamesWater

Creationofdetentionbasin

ThamesWater

Maintenanceofgutteringand downspouts Maintenanceofconnection pipes Maintenanceofdetention basin MonitoringofSUDSscheme

WandsworthBorough Council ThamesWater WandsworthBorough Council ThamesWater, WandsworthBorough Council ThamesWater, WandsworthBorough Council,

Costs Datagathering Landuseanalysis Hydraulicmodelling Plansandpermissions Stakeholderidentificationandanalysis Hireofcommunicationspecialists HireofSUDSexperts Stakeholderconsultation(e.g. householders,conservationgroups, localauthority) Compliancecosts(health&safety) Compensationcosts(disruptionto residents) Designofsystem Landexcavation(labour) Materials:pipes,connections Potentialincreasedsewer maintenanceduetoreducedflow Landallocation Landexcavation(labour) Soilandseeding Maintenanceprogramme Maintenanceprogramme Mowing,littergathering,noticesof dangerwhenfull Waterquantityandqualitymonitoring

Ongoingcommunicationwith stakeholders

Dedicatedhelpline/website

Nonmonetarycostsofthispartoftheschemewouldbebornebythelocalpopulationand environmentandmayinclude: Social: Environmental: Shorttermhabitatdisturbance 96 Temporarydisruptionandnoise Perceivedthreatstohealthandsafety Changeinuseofpublicarea

Thebenefits,bothfinancialandnonfinancialofthispartoftheSUDSschemeareoutlinedbelow:
TableC03:Generalisedbenefitsandtheirdistributionduetoroofdisconnectionandinfiltrationviadetentionbasin

Action
Studyofarea

Benefitted stakeholder
ThamesWater

Benefits
Increasedlocalknowledge Datacapture,ofenormousbenefitforfuture schemes Informeddecisionmaking Enhancedreputationasanorganisation involvedinthelocalcommunity Workinginlinewithprinciplesofsustainable development Smallamountofpipedassets Reducedsewerinflowtherebyreducing carbonfootprint(assumingflowwouldbe treatedifpiped) InvolvementinSUDSschemetohelpwith localsustainabilitytargets Preparednessforextremeweatherevents Reducedbasementflooding Reducedoverlandflowofstormwater Potentialpositiveeducationalimpact Reducedriverpollution Opportunitytocommunicatewithresidents regardingSUDSscheme Opportunitytocommunicatewithpublic regardingSUDSscheme Feedbackanddatacollectionregardingan implementedscheme,valuableforfuture schemes Reputationenhancementandchannelfor feedback IncreasedknowledgeaboutSUDSandthe localcollectiveresponsetofloodingand pollution Ongoingworkinlinewithmoresustainable development

Involvementofstakeholders

ThamesWater

Redirectionofdownspout waterviapipetodetention basin Creationofdetentionbasin

ThamesWater

WandsworthBorough Council Localresidents

Maintenanceofgutteringand WandsworthBorough downspouts Council Maintenanceofdetentionbasin WandsworthBorough Council MonitoringofSUDSscheme ThamesWater, WandsworthBorough Council ThamesWater, WandsworthBorough Council, Allstakeholdersincluding localresidents

Ongoingcommunicationwith stakeholders

C.2 EvaluationofCosts
Costsareappliedtoeachtechnologyindividuallybeforetheconsiderationofanycrosssubsidisation when more than one technology is adopted. An assumption is that most, but not all (see maintenancecosts)financialcostsareincurredbyThamesWater(TW).

FinancialCosts:
Assumption: installation costs for each technology are incurred exclusively by TW including any constructioncostsnecessaryforeachintervention. 97

Some of the tangible costs will be offset not only by the financial benefits associated with cost savings as a result of surface water management but by the avoidance costs that will arise in relationtosomeoftheenvironmentalandsocialbenefits.

Capex:
Directcostsinclude: materials, labourand disconnectionfromexistingpipesunderground. Indirectcostsinclude: gainingplanningpermission, access/acceptance costs of any kind which may require negotiation/ consultation (engagement)withstakeholders(eg.householders,conservationgroups,localauthority); communicationcosts, compliancecosts(health&safety); compensationcosts(disruptiontoresidents), inspectioncostsduringinstallation; developmentofamonitoringsystemasthetechnologiesareinstalled; settingupacustomerinformation/helplineduringconstruction; financingcostsand landfill costs for waste disposal if digging up concrete (rain gardens/ sea streets) where waste materials cannot be reused/ recycled (this will include transport to landfill and costs pertonofwaste). Manyofthesecostswillbeoffsetbythefinancialbenefitsidentifiedbelow.

Opex:
Dependentonarrangementsmade,theinstalledinterventionsmaybecomethepropertyofthelocal authority. However, maintenance and monitoring costs may be borne in the short term at least by TW, particularly if there is a desire to minimise reputational risk by ensuring that the interventions become established and work as intended. Longer term costs to the local authorities may influence the nature of the agreement made between the organisations and the size of any commuted sums. SuchsumsmustreflectthecostofexpertiseindifferenttypesofSUDSaswellasfuturemaintenance coststobebornebythelocalauthority.

Otherrelevantcosts:
Thames Water may pay commuted sums to the local authority for the responsibility of future maintenanceoftheinterventions. Thames Water may suffer a loss of assets due to disconnection from existing pipe and sewer networks. This has implications for the asset base of the company and could affect the future funding of TW and its ability to raise finance as well as to its future revenue generation via the five yearpricereview.

98

Environmental/ecologicalandSocialCosts
In most cases environmental/ecological and social costs (EESC) will be incurred by stakeholders within (or immediately outside) the catchment area and include disruption and inconvenience during installation as well as potential future malfunction or inundation. These costs are difficult to monetise from the point of view of the affected stakeholders, but they are significant for TW and should not be ignored. Whilst these costs may appear intangible, they could lead to tangible damagelimitationcostsinordertominimisereputationalrisk. SomeEESCwillimpactdirectlyonTW,forexampleintheformofpotentialfinesfornoncompliance of pollution consents (where untreated water enters the Thames from surface water runoff due to thedisconnectionsundertaken). Other environmental factors to consider are noise pollution during installation, including the traffic impacts on both noise and carbon footprint in the area; the potential impact on flora and fauna/habitat given certain technologies involve change to existing green areas (though over the longertermpositiveimpactscouldoutweighinitialnegativeimpactsonhabitats). During installation, disruption that could lead to negative perceptions of changes to the area particularly when residents do not perceive there to be problems with surface water management orfailtoappreciatethebenefitandsignificanceoftheinterventions. Healthandsafetyimpactscouldincludemidgesormosquitoesaroundstandingwaterandtheriskof drowning in ponds and swales for example. To minimise the actual safety risk and at the same time to reduce stakeholder perceptions of such risks, TW could incur fencing costs around ponds at the time of installation and any other costs to comply with health and safety regulations in agreement withtheLA. The reduction in certain types of recreational green areas or the perceived change of use may lead toresistancefromresidentsandleadtoreputationaldamage. Complaints to TW that arise in relation to the negative perceptions of residents has financial implications if customers express these in the form or written complaints. To avoid the negative reactions by stakeholders, communication/ engagement and awareness campaigns should be undertaken, the costs of which should be considered as part of the interventions. Consultation with the Consumer Council for Water (CCW) should also be accounted for. The Draft Flood and Water Management Bill has for example already given this body cause for complaint by proposing that council tax payers cover the costs of transfer of asset ownership and responsibility from WaSCs to local authorities. Thames Water has conducted willingness to pay surveys which can provide some dataforanalysesofEESCandislikelytohaveadatabaseofcostsforawarenesscampaignsetc.

C.3 Evaluationofbenefits
There are benefits to TW, in the form of cost savings once the installation is complete and more intangible ones in the form of enhancing reputation if stakeholder perceptions are managed effectively and the benefits of the interventions are communicated and experienced by the stakeholders. There are also environmental/ ecological and social benefits (EESB) which will accrue more to the stakeholders in the catchment and may counterbalance any negative perceptions on their part. This couldleadtoareductionintheengagementandnegotiationcostsidentifiedabove. 99

Identification and promotion of the financial benefits to stakeholders will minimise the potential for resistancefromtheresidents,theLAandtogroupssuchastheCCW.

FinancialbenefitstoTW:
The potential asset management benefits as a result of the reduction in surface water runoff to TW arecontainedintheUKWIR(2009)report. A significant financial benefit will be achieved if attenuated flows to the Thames are reduced such thatfewerconnectionstotheThamesTidewayTunnel(TTT)willberequired. There will be a reduction in sewer flooding risk (internal and external) which will reduce repair and cleanupcosts. Attenuating flows into the Thames will also lead to environmental river quality improvements resulting in cost savings for TW which is currently under criticism for the condition of parts of the riverandhasincurredprosecutioncostsintheformoflegalfeesandfines. There will be benefits in increased headroom and a reduction in CSOs which will reduce the risk of flooding and untreated water overflows into the Thames, leading to further costs savings as a result ofthesuspensionofprosecutionifpollutiontotheThamesisreduced. The interventions will lead to WaSC efficiency savings in the form of reduced energy (therefore carbon)andchemicalcostsintreatmentworks. The interventions have the qualities of flexibility and adaptability. By their nature, the retrofit interventions offer no regret solutions which are easy to reverse and which will not involve significant costs in the future. Longterm resilience will reduce costs of opex in short, medium and longterm. Theenvironmental/ecologicalandsocialbenefits(EESB)identifiedbelowmayleadtocostsavingsto TWintheamountofengagementactivityandinitiativesitwillneedtoundertake. The interventions also reduce the risk of drought orders and hosepipe bans which has financial consequencesforTWwhenscrutinisedbyOfwate.g.forleakagerates. TherewillalsobecostsavingsbynotincurringDG5s.

Financialbenefitstoresidents:
The longterm cost savings generated to TW by the interventions and cost efficiencies through the positiveimpactdownstreamcouldresultinlowerwaterprices. The impact of lower prices for water would be offset, potentially, by increased council tax charges from the LA when the future maintenance of assets such as ponds and swales become its responsibility.However,thereshouldstillbeanetfinancialbenefittopropertyownersasaresultof enhanced property values resulting from improvements in amenity value of the area. For residents who have experienced problems with surface water runoff, there will be a reduction in basement flooding incidents resulting in savings in cleanup costs and insurance charges. The reduction in floodingincidentswillfurtherenhancepropertyvalues.

Environmental/ecologicalbenefits:
As well as the financial efficiency savings there will be reductions in chemical usage (conserving resources)andTWscarbonfootprint. 100

Anumberoftheinterventions,particularlythepondsandswales,willhaveapositiveimpactonflora andfaunainthelongtermandhavethepotentialtoenhancetheamenityvalueofthearea. The reduction in CSOs means there will be a reduced negative impact on river water quality downstream. Savingsinwaterusagethroughrainwaterharvestingcanreducetheriskofhosepipebansandavoid thepotentialnegativeimpactonTWsreputationandwrittencomplaintswhicharerecordedinJune returns to Ofwat. Conservation of water also increases groundwater replenishment which has implications for water availability in the longer term and will lead to cost savings in water abstraction. In addition, the nature of certain interventions will lead to traffic calming which will reduce carbon emissionsinthearea.

Social:
The reduced risk of basement flooding in some properties (see above) reduces health and safety riskstoresidents.Health andsafetyisfurtherenhancedbyareductioninthepotentialforaccidents asaresultofreducedpondingonroads. Theincreasedamenityvalueoftheareaisasocialbenefitasitimpactsonthehealthand wellbeing of the community. The nature of the interventions will enhance community and social cohesion (aroundpondsforexample)andleadtoenhancedstakeholderrelationships. A focus on the environmental/ecological attributes of the interventions has educational benefits as they could become the focus of school projects on ecology, water cycle, drought and flood risk managementaswellasanareaofinterestforavarietyofotherlocalgroupsandsocieties. The EESB to the area is likely to be perceived favourably as it will enable the LA to demonstrate it is meeting Agenda 21 commitments. At the same time, such benefits will also enhance the reputation ofTW. A more direct social benefit as a result of installing and maintaining the interventions is the development of transferable skills in the area, particularly in relation to future maintenance which hasthepotentialtocreatelongtermbusinessandemploymentopportunities. The distribution of many of the costs and benefits will depend on the means by which the SUDS schemes are implemented and agreements made between the Sewerage Undertaker and the local authority. There is great opportunity for enhanced communication and cooperation between organisations and the local community in line with the principles of sustainable development. The benefits of this are not made clear by calculations of financial costs alone. The organisations responsible have choices regarding cost and benefit distribution over the short and long term and thesechoicesmustbeweighedagainstreputationalrisk.

C.4 DatasourcesforHRWallingfordsWLCspreadsheets
Site specific data are used which include: agreed design criteria, precalculated system dimensions, agreedsystemcharacteristics,knownunitcostsandagreedoperationandmaintenancefrequencies. (Agenericapplicationisalsopossibleforwhichminimalinformationisrequiredfromthemodeluser and crude estimates of generic system types are made and entered in the model including default 101

entries for: dimensioning, system characteristics, best practice design, construction and maintenance activities, and unit costs that reflect average values of the costs collated in Phase 1 of theprojectandpresentedinthecostdatabase.) The costing model allows costs for different SUDS components to be built as it highlights all the important materials and processes and allows the user to incorporate costs where and when required.Sitespecificcostsandcharacteristicsshouldbeentered whereverpossible.Asaminimum, the assumptions and costs components should be reviewed for appropriateness prior to the generic modelapplication.Cellsthatareessentialforuserentrytoachieveamodelresultare: Essentialuserentry(nomodeldefaultvalueavailable) Userentry(datainthesecellswilloverridemodeldefaultvalues) Selectedoption(datatobetakenforwardinthecalculations(i.e.eitheruserormodel defaultvalue)

Default values are given where user (specific) values are unavailable and these have been used in thespreadsheets. Separatemodelsareavailableforcomponents: The spreadsheet for each model consists of 11 sheets included in the WLC model user guide (WERF/UKWIR, 2005) with an additional sheet (8) for Waste Management Options included which is notreferredtointheWLCuserguide(TableC04).

Retentionpond Detentionbasin(canbeadaptedtorepresentaninfiltrationbasinmodel) Swale(canbeusedtoformanappropriatebioretentionmodel) Filter/drainage Permeablepavement

102

TableC04Derivationofdatainputforeachoption

Sheetnumber anddescription
1. Designand maintenance options

Informationcategory

Datarequiredandunits (ifany)

Commentsondata(takenfromLyttonGroveanalysis(AppendixE)butapplicabletoallinputdata)

Catchmentcharacteristics Catchmenttype

Areaofdevelopment(ha) Tableofrepresentativesedimentyieldvaluestakenfromtheliteraturebasedonkg/ha/yrfor Residential(R) Roads(Ro) Commercial(C) Industrial(I)

differentcatchmenttypes.TablesoftypicalvaluesforBulkDensity(kg/m3)and%Porosityfor differentsoilsalsoused.WLCmodelassumedsedimentyieldcoefficientof350kg/ha/yrforR,C&I 3 catchments&bulkdensityof1200kg/m .Thisresultsinasedimentyieldof0.3m3/ha/yrfor residential(commercialandindustrial),asusedforLyttonGrove.

Catchmentsedimentyield

Sedimentyield coefficient(kg/ha/yr) Bulkdensity(kg/m3) e.g.length,width,height (m),area,areaof landscape(m2),volume (m3)slope(1inx)

Unitsandvaluesforinputdesign,geometricandlandscapeparametersareindicatedbasedonthe informationinsheet1. AccordingtotheWLCModelUserGuide,thiswillresultinaschematicofthekeygeometric parameterssuchthatifthegeometriccharacteristicsdonotleadtoanappropriategeometricshape thenvaluesinthesheetmayappearaserrorsandthefigurewillnotbevisualised(whichmeans dimensionshavetobereviewedandrevised).Intheexamplesheet2forLyttonGrove,thereisa graphicalrepresentationofacrosssectionprovided(e.g.forlengthandwidthofadetentionbasis). SUDSmanual(2006)identifiesSUDScomponentscapitalcostranges(p.410),inparticularsediment management,inlet,outletandmainsysteminfrastructure(usedinLyttonGrovecalculations). WLChasdefaultvaluesderivedfromHRWallingforddatabaseandmultipliedherebyinflationfactor of1.21.Theyrepresentaveragevaluesofdatacollectedfromdifferentconsultancycompaniesand literaturesourcesforUKandUSAdrainagepractice(p.18ofWLCuserguide)(Insterlingadjustedto 2002values).Modeldefaultvalueshavebeenusedastheselectedamount.Costsadjustedfor inflationxquantity=totalcostsineachcategoryofconstructioncostsinthissheettoderivetotal capitalcost(unadjustedforeconomiesofscale). Unitcostswilldependonthesizeofthesystembeingconsidered.Savings(/unit)willbemadeasthe systemsizeincreases,duetoinitialfixedcosts.Thissheetshowsacurvethathasbeenassumedto representcostefficiencies(economiesofscale)but,asacknowledgedbytheWLCmodel,itisbased onverylimitedinformation.Thecostefficiencyfactor(0.9)isincludedinthemodelcalculationsas defaultmode,butshouldbecheckedforappropriateness.Totalunadjustedeconomiesofscalecapital costx0.9=TotalCapitalCost(adjustedforeconomiesofscale).

2.

Design parameter calculations

Inputdesign,geometricand landscapeparameters

3.

Capitalcosting

Allcostitems,specificunit costsandquantities(user input)

Totalcapitalcost adjustedforeconomies ofscaleandinflation()

103

Sheetnumber anddescription
4. Associated capitalcosts

Informationcategory

Datarequiredandunits (ifany) 30%oftotalconstruction costs()

Commentsondata(takenfromLyttonGroveanalysis(AppendixE)butapplicabletoallinputdata)

Planninganddesigncosts, construction,overheads, (plusinitialsiteinvestigation costsifsignificant)

TheSUDSmanual(p.411)suggeststhatdesign,contingencyandplanningcostsshouldbeexpressedas apercentageoftotalconstructioncostsandthat30%isindicativeoftypicalfeecosts.Itisfurther suggestedthatifinitialsiteinvestigationcostsaresignificantthattheywillalsobeincluded. Modeldefaultvaluesare15%oftotalcapitalcosts(adjustedforeconomiesofscale)forbothplanning anddesignandconstruction(so30%intotalasperWLCuserguide). Forthedetentionbasincomponentonwhichthisanalysisisbased,noneofthefollowingcostsare relevant/identifiedthoughtheymightberelevanttoothercomponents.

landcosts

Landcostswillvarybetweensites.Whilstinsomecasestheeffectivecostoflandiszero(e.g.where thesitehasdualuseorwheretheschemeformspartofrequiredpublicopenspace),inhighdensity settingsthelandvaluemayoutweightheconstructioncostssuchthatthelandtakewillinfluencethe typeofdrainageoption.Inclusionofthecostoflandisdependentontheuseoftheland,the stakeholdersinvolvedandthepurposeoftheassessment. Riskmanagementcosts(p.23ofWLCmodeluserguide)includethecostsassociatedwithlimiting liabilityforrisksassociatedwiththedrainagesystem.Forexample,theremaybeadditionalcapital costsindirectlyassociatedwithimplementationofthesystemasaresultofhavingtoresizeexisting downstreamsewerageinfrastructuretoaccommodateadditionalflowsoraspartofexceedance infrastructure.

riskmanagementcosts

104

Sheetnumber anddescription
5. Environmental benefits

Informationcategory

Datarequiredandunits (ifany) Ranks(Min1Max5)or fulleconomicappraisal wheredataavailable

Commentsondata(takenfromLyttonGroveanalysis(AppendixE)butapplicabletoallinputdata)

Assessmentofenvironmental benefitslikelytobeassociated withthesystem.Examples usedinthisassessment: Hydraulic,waterquality, amenityandecology N.B.Significantly,these benefitsarenotusedin determiningtheWLCofthe component(seesheet9),i.e. evenwhenaneconomicvalue ispossibletheyarenotusedas anoffsetofanycapitalor associatedcostsincurred presumablybecausetheyare benefitsassumedtogoto stakeholdersandnottothe user(thedecisiontaker). HRWallingforddoesnot attempttoconsideranysocial benefits

Theusercanusearankingapproachorfulleconomicappraisalwhereappropriatedataisavailable. Here,costshavebeeninsertedforamenityandecologybenefitsbutnotforhydraulicandwater quality.However,arankassessmentisprovided(15)forthebasinswithhydraulicandwaterquality ranked5and4respectively,amenityisalsoranked5andecologyisranked2forthisdetentionbasin component. Inotherwords,itispossibletoeithercalculatetheeconomicvalueoftheseenvironmentalbenefits and/ortoundertakearankingassessmentifthebenefitscannotbemonetised. Amenitybenefitisbasedonthreelevelsofeconomicbenefit,relatingto: a)thosethatliveclosetothepondandactivelyuseisasrecreationalfacility b)thosewholiveclosetothepondandbenefitmorepassivelyfromitsexistence c)thosewholivefurtherawaybutvisitthepondforrecreationalpurposes. Thetotalisreferredtoaspotentialannualamenitybenefitavailable.Thecostisbasedona percentageofthenumberofhouses/visitorsetcmultipliedby/household/yror/visitorwiththese amountstakendirectlyfromtheWLCuserguide. Nootheraspectsofamenityvaluehavebeenconsidered(analternativeusedinUKWIR(2009)was theassumptionsofenhancedpropertyvalues).

Inrelationtoecologybenefitswhichareinfluencedbysystemdesign,thefollowingissuesare assumedtoimpactonthelevelofecologicalbenefitthatmayaccrue: Shallowbenching(nobenching,nobenefit) Bankside/barrierplanting(noplanting,nobenefit) Proximityofdrainagesystemtoundisturbednaturalareas(highbiodiversity) Permanentpondarea

Thevalueofuservalueenteredinsheet5isbasedon/m2/yrgiving0.5whichistakenfromthe WLCuserguide.Thepotentialecologicalprovisionbydesignisadefaultvaluebasedonthebarrier plantingwhichentersas40%.Thetotalpotentialannualecologicalbenefitcostsistheproductofthe 0.50andtotalofthem2identifiedinthesurfaceareaandthelandscapeparameterswithinsheet2.

105

Sheetnumber anddescription
6. Damagecosts

Informationcategory

Datarequiredandunits (ifany) Flooddamagecosts() Pollutiondamagecosts ()

Commentsondata(takenfromLyttonGroveanalysis(AppendixE)butapplicabletoallinputdata)

Wherethesystem owner/operatorisliablefor anydamageresultingfrom exceedanceorofpollution fromthesystem,the probabilityandnet consequencesintermsofcost liabilitycanbeentered.

IntheWLCuserguide,thesearedividedintotwocategories.Oneisflooddamagecostsbasedfrom1 5yearto1100yeareventsandaprobabilityofoccurrenceassigned,toarriveatthemaximum damageinanextremeevent+prosecutioncostsandfinesandanyotherrelevantitems.Thereareno flooddamagecostsforthiscomponentbuttheprobabilitiesshowingaretakenfromtheWLCuser guide. Theothercategoryispollutiondamagecosts.Thedrainagesystemowner/operatormaybeliablefor thecostsassociatedwithreinstating/rehabilitatingthesystemtogetherwithanyprosecutioncostsof finesfromtheenvironmentalregulatorasaresultoftheevent.Theprobabilityofoccurrencehasto beidentifiedorthemodeldefaultisusedof1in100yearsor0.01forannualprobability.Herethe possibledetentionbasin(pond)rehabilitationsidentifiedintheWLCuserguideandthedefaultcosts perunitforeachrehabilitationareused.Somehavehadthe100yearprobabilityappliedtothem, othershavetheannualprobabilityappliedafterthecostxquantityhasbeencalculated(quantity beingderivedfromthedesignparametersinsheet2).

7.

Operationaland maintenance costs

Ongoingcostsassociatedwith theoperationofthesystem, including: Regularmonitoringand maintenance Postconstructioninspection andrehabilitation Correctivemaintenance Irregularmaintenance(i.e. sedimentmanagement)

ExtensivedatawascollatedbyHRWinrelationtotheinformationnecessarytodeterminethesecosts andimportantinformationwasprovidedconcerningthedifferentmaintenanceactivitiestoensure performance;variationinactivitiestomeetdifferentaesthetic/amenityneedsandcostsfor maintenanceactivitiesbasedonlabour,machineryandmaterialsrequirements. Significantlyitwasfoundthatitisnotthesizeofthesystemthatinfluencescostbutarangeofother factorsincluding,forexample,proximityofnearestlittersource. MaintenancecostsfortheHRWallingfordprojectwerecostspermodulearea.Coststakenforward intothemodelarethemeanofthesecollatedvalueswhichincludescostscollatedfromnondrainage sites,andthecostscannotbeadjustedtoreflectthedifferentrequirementsoflow/medium/high maintenancecategories. Themodelgivestwooptionsforthecostingofmaintenanceactivities: OptionABasedontotalmodulerte(costpermodulexquantity).Defaultfrequenciesareadjustedfor H/M/Lrequirements(identifiedbyHRWinphase2oftheirproject).Theusercanentersitespecific quantities,ratesandfrequenciesforalltheactivities. OptionBBasedonlabour(hoursandrates),machinery(hoursandrates)andmaterialsrates.Though defaultvaluesexist,theusercanentersitespecificfrequencies. Inaddition,theusercanenteralumpsumcostforeachactivity(permaintenanceevent). Inthismodelcostforeachoptionareidentifiedbutonlyonecostsisselectedastheinputforthefinal result.

106

Sheetnumber anddescription

Informationcategory

Datarequiredandunits (ifany) Excavation Hazardouswaste treatment Pretreatmentto nonhazardouswaste Nonhazardouswaste managementunder exemption Nonhazardouswaste management

Commentsondata(takenfromLyttonGroveanalysis(AppendixE)butapplicabletoallinputdata)

8.AdditionalWaste Wasteaccumulationand management removalfrequency options

Supersedesmaterialinsheet7(whichistheoriginalmodelmaterial).

9.Costandbenefit summarysheet Fullsummaryofcostsand benefitsenteredinthemodel

Allowstheusertoflagwhichofthecosts/benefitstheywishtoincludeintheWLCcalculationinsheet 9.Thisfacilitatesanysensitivityanalysesorscenariotestingaspartoftheplanning/designprocess. Asindicatedabove,inthiscomponent(whichisconsistentwiththetreatmentofothercomponentsin thismodel)thoughenvironmentalbenefitsareidentifiedtheyarenotusedinthenextsheetwhich determinesthepresentvaluesofannualcostsincurredover50yearsandtotalsthesetofindtheWLC, i.e.thepresentvalueoftotalcosts.

10.WholeLifeCosts

Timeseriesofcostslikelytobe requiredforthesystemand NetPresentValue(NPV)of thesecosts

Identifiesannualcostsincurredineverycategory(asdrawnfromthesheetsaboveexceptforsheet5) overa50yearperiodtodeterminethecumulativepresentvaluecost(theWLC)

11.NPV 12.Hydraulic calculationtables (UKonly)

ChartingtheNPVofcostwith timepluscumulativecostcurve

Averysimplehydraulicappraisalroutinethatallowsanestimateofattenuationvolumetobemade. Requiredaspartofthecalculationtoolforthisprocess.

107

C.5 SummaryofdifferencesbetweenthetwoWLCmodelsused
ThefollowingisalistofthemajordifferencesbetweentheUKWIR(2009)approachtoWLC,devised byCascadeconsulting(C)andHRWallingfordsmodel(HRW) Creferstoenvironmentalandsocialbenefits,HRWtoonlyenvironmentalbenefits. C indicates that it produces a CBA for all stakeholders; HRW is from the perspective of the owner/operator.Thisdifferenceexplainssomeoftheothervariationsbetweenthetwo. C uses a literature review to identify more case specific values to overwrite default values in spreadsheet tool, HRW has more databases from actual case studies to do this, so arguably, couldbemorerobust. C recommends a partnership approach to scheme developments, as many intervention measures may be better applied either through partnership with others (e.g. local authorities)orthroughanintegratedframework. C explores adverse environmental and social impacts. The HRW spreadsheet model only refers to benefits in the context of improvements (in amenity and ecological values + hydraulicandwaterquality).Asaresultinthepilotstudiesconductedithasbeenpossibleto incorporateenvironmentalandsocialcoststoarriveatNPVoftotalcosts. C includes broader consideration of sustainability, in that it explores the change in carbon emissionsstatedintermsofCO2andincludedinmonetisedimpacts(thoughtheremaynot be a difference, given the nature of the disconnection components used by HRW). HRW has arestrictedviewofenvironmentalbenefits. C refers to financial benefits and generally all benefits are more easily identifiable being based on: reduction on sewer flooding risk, water quality benefits (direct economic, public health, recreational, aquatic ecology), other environmental benefits, operational cost savings,carbonfootprintreduction. C also refers to financial costs avoided. HRW recognises only actual costs incurred by the owner/operator. In the Cascade approach this would be because it considers all stakeholders. As a result, C acknowledges that there may be a wide range of non monetisablebenefitsofinteresttoWaSCsandtostakeholders. Calsoconsidersadversemonetisableenvironmentandsocialimpactsavoided. C suggests that its approach is based on both conventional upgrades to the sewerage networkanddisconnections.HRWisbasedonnewbuildsolutions.. HRW is based on new build solutions. C maintains that its pilot studies are based on both retrofit and those for new developments. Cs reportthen acknowledges that no suitable site for retrofit could be found so it undertook two pilot studies based on new developments because the two had site differences. C then went on to conduct a third study based on a theoreticalpilotsitewhichwasagainfocusedonanewdevelopments. C constructs the spreadsheet model to separate and identify the disconnection measures into realignment of surface water connection and runoff attenuation measures. HRW covers this separation in its design and maintenance options as additional pipework costs butnorealignmentcostsareincluded. Cpurportsthatitsdecisionsupporttool(DST)allowsanintegratedsetofinterventionstobe evaluated in one spreadsheet. This allows a range of interventions to be identified on a spreadsheet.HRWrequiresaspreadsheetmodelforeachcomponent(intervention). C provides a template of what can be included to derive a total costs which can then be discounted over 25 years. However, the data used is not robust (which is acknowledged). It

108

also does not convincingly include costs incurred beyond initial construction and it is thereforelessconvincingasaWLCapproach.

C 5.1 Similarities between the two modelling approaches

1. BothundertakeaCBA. 2. Bothusereportedmethodologies,datasets,guidanceanddefaultvaluesforderivationof theconstructionandoperatingcosts. 3. Cconsidersmonetisablebenefitsofimprovementdrivers.HRWdoesthesamewhere possiblewithinenvironmentalbenefitsincludedwithinthefourcategoriesofamenity, ecology,hydraulicandwaterquality.Bothexcludenonmonetisablebenefits/impactsfrom theCBA. 4. Bothidentifynonmonetisablebenefitstoallowthemtobeconsideredindecisionmaking evenifnotincludedintheCBA.Theuserislefttodecidehowrelevantthesefactorsareto theirdecisions. 5. Neitherprovidesguidanceontheselectionofinterventionmeasuresappropriatetoa particularstudyarea.TheyprovidetheCBAmethodologyandalloweitherexperienced engineers(C)oroperatorstoselectamongalternatives. 6. Neitheraddressesissuesofownershipandadoption. 7. Bothexplorefinancialconstructionandoperatingcosts. 8. Bothhaveaformofadvanceduserinputtoallowoverwritingofdefaultvaluesincluding theadditionofnewmeasuresandchangingparameters(e.g.theassessmentperiodand discountrate)orwhenmorespecificdatabecomesavailable(ratherthandefaultmode).

C 5.2 Summary
TheCascadeapproachgoesfurtherthanHRWinrelationtoanintegratedapproachtoWLCwith amuchbroaderrangeofenvironmentalandsocialimpacts(benefitsandcostsavoided),butitis not obvious from the report that this has actually been delivered. The HRW model was developed as a costing tool, to try to build up generic costs for individual systems. The quantification of benefits was not an aim of the original model. The Cascade report does deliver DST guidance and a data capture proforma which is acknowledged as only tested with small scale intervention measures and readily identified benefits (see p.17) and these are not interventionsbasedonretrofitbutfornewdevelopmentsites. The UKWIR (2009) Cascade report also acknowledges the limitations of being reliant on default unit values used in the intervention measures and for willingness to pay study values in the simplebenefitstool. Overall the Cascade approach provides a decision tool that has not been sufficiently tested and isdescribedasprovidingthemechanismforidentifyingthecriteriathatproduceapositivecost benefitforallstakeholders. Generic, simple models indicative of pilot conditions should be developed for more robust cost estimatesortoreduceuncertainties.

109

Appendix D - Practicalities of retrofitting SUDS

D.1 Ownershipandmaintenance
The implementation of comprehensive SUDS schemes is still relatively new in the UK even for new developments, although it is an important component of planning for the management of flood risk in new developments, described in Planning Policy Statement 25 (CLG, 2006). In practice the approach has faced barriers, particularly the issue of who is to take responsibility for ownership and maintenance (EA, 2007). The Construction Industry Research and Innovation Association (CIRIA) websitesummarisesthesituationasfollows: TheownershipandmaintenanceofconventionalpipeddrainagesystemsisclearlydefinedinSewers for Adoption (Water Services Association, 1994). However, by their nature, many SUDS can be considered either drainage or landscape features, and there is no clear guidance on who is responsible for the operation and maintenance of such facilities. A trial framework agreement has been drawn up in Scotland to remove this barrier to the greater use of SUDS. Due to the different legal duties, a countrywide agreement of this kind will take time to evolve in England and Wales. However there is scope for individual maintenance agreements to be negotiated on a sitebysite basis.(http://www.ciria.org.uk/suds/planning_england_and_wales.htm) Furthermore,SUDSarenotlegallydescribedassewersinSewersforAdoption(6thEdition)(Water UK and WRc, 2006), therefore water utilities have been unable to build or adopt them. Because of this, the national SUDS working group in England and Wales produced an Interim Code of Practice for Sustainable Drainage Systems (NSWG, 2004) as well as model maintenance agreements (CIRIA, 2004)inordertohelpovercometheseissues(StovinandSwan,2007). The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 was passed in April 2010. The Act will end the automaticrighttoconnecttosewersforsurfacewaterdrainageandrequiredeveloperstoputSUDS in place in new developments wherever practicable in accordance with new National SUDS Standards. Connection will be conditional on meeting these new national standards on SUDS and drainage to the satisfaction of the SUDS Approval Body. The water industry is currently involved in developing these standards and it is expected that new SUDS will be adopted and maintained by local authorities (Defra, 2009). Although there are concerns about how this will work with multiply owned SUDS trains and critical drainage systems and also about how existing systems will be managedretrospectively.Theadventof anew Governmenthas,however,delayedtherollingout of thenewlegislationandtheprecisedetailsofhowtheresponsibilitieswillbedelivered.

D.2 Retrofitting
New developments only account for around one percent per year of housing stock and SUDS implementedtherewillmakeonlyalimitedcontributionoveralltoreducingfloodriskandimproving water quality, although there are also opportunities in regenerating areas. There is an obvious need foracombinedstrategytoinstallSUDSinnewdevelopmentsaswellastoretrofitthemintoexisting ones(EA,2007). The philosophy of SUDS is to replicate as closely as possible the natural drainage from a site before development(CIRIA,2007),andSUDSshouldbeconsideredaspartofthewholewatercyclewithina catchment area. This is an easier task for a new development than retrofitting into an area where the drainage may already be far removed from its natural state. However, SUDS can be used to augment (or replace) existing drainage systems in a developed catchment and studies have 110

suggested (Swan et al., 2001) that SUDS could provide costeffective hydraulic improvement, either asfullySUDSbasedorpartiallySUDSbasedrehabilitationstrategies(StovinandSwan,2007). Arrangements for adoption and maintenance can be more complex for retrofit SUDS. The Environment Agency summarise issues for some of the stakeholders involved in retrofit SUDS as follows: Many of the decisions on SUDS retrofits are the responsibility of property owners. This includes private domestic and commercial properties, and public properties such as schools, leisure centres, hospitals and the associated hardsurfaced areas and roads. For instance, the responsibility toretrofitpermeablepavingresidesinorganisationsthatsitoutsidetheformalregulatoryprocessof water management; these include local authorities in a variety of roles as highway authorities, as planning authorities and as property managers in their own right, but also property developers and property owners and managers. A consequence of this is that incentives for change will need to be directedatchangingthebehaviourofpropertyowners.(EA,2007).

D.3 Costs
Whilst there is little practical experience of the implementation of wholesale SUDS schemes in Englandandeachisverycontextspecific,itispossibletocosttheschemes.TheSUDSmanual(CIRIA, 2007) recommends the use of Whole Life Costs (WLC) because many of the benefits of SUDS will accrue over the long term and to a broader range of stakeholders than those of the alternative piped/sewered drainage. This necessarily includes some evaluation of intangible benefits making comparisonofcostslessdirect.Itdoes,however,highlightandallowfortheinclusionofthemultiple benefitsofSUDSintermsofthesocialandenvironmentalaswellastheeconomic;thusemphasising their potential sustainability value. A methodology for the calculation of WLC of the retrofit case studyexamplesinthisreportisgiveninsection7.

D.4 Institutional/individualLockin;aresistancetochangetoamore resilientapproach

D.4.1 Regulation / governance
The move towards more sustainable management of water resources in the UK and particularly in England is slow for a number of reasons. This can be attributed in part to the complex way in which the interconnected parts of the water cycle are managed, with separate and diverse organisations involved at each stage, often with unclear responsibilities (Rouse, 2007). Public drainage responsibilities are divided between local authorities and internal drainage boards, highways authorities, sewerage undertakers and the Environment Agency. Regulatory bodies and other interest groups such as Ofwat, the Consumer Council for Water, Natural England and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds also have an influence on water management, mainly by direct contact with Government departments (Ashley and Brown, 2008). There is a reluctance to innovate due to lack of incentives and barriers (UKWIR, 2006; Cave, 2008) and major difficulties in working across organisations to deliver the best response to extreme events; especially as the private Sewerage Undertakers do not have to share vital information about both water resources and flood risk from sewers. European Directives also provide challenges to planning for security of water supplies in England (Rouse, 2007) in that they are apt to constrain best practice and compel investment into areas that may not be a priority when considered in the perspective of societys overallneeds. Differences in arrangements in Scotland appear more conducive to the social learning required to deliver transitions, regime change and total water quality management (Ison & Watson, 2007). Similarly, Dr Cymru Welsh Water can take a wider and more holistic view of the way in which it 111

manages the water cycle, supported closely by the Welsh Assembly Government. This is because although technically private, Welsh Water has been handed back to the people of Wales and is a notforprofitorganisationthathaslessincentivetoincreasethevalueofitsassetsforcapitalisation purposes than privatised Sewerage Undertakers. Welsh Water is showing signs of transition in its aspirations, including: motive (people not capitalisation); Governance (support and national identity);vision(championsattheheartoftheorganisation)(Blackmore,2004;Page&Bakker,2005; Saaletal,2007).

D.4.2 Cognition; sticking to the traditional approach in the face of new problems
The conventional regime, very often seen as the common sense approach (Ashley and Brown, 2008), essentially delivers a onesizefitsall design concept or bigpipesin and bigpipesout (Newman,2001),whichislargelyindependentofcontextsandtendstooptimisecontrolofthemost likelyfuturecondition(forexamplewatersupplyscarcityorexcessrunoff)withoutconsiderationof the rest of the total water cycle; leaving systems vulnerable to future changes (PahlWostl et al, 2007). This approach is grounded in the tradition of rational planning, which formulates design problems as tradeoffs of costs, risks, and benefits that are dependent on variables such as climatic conditions that change only slowly over time. Tradeoffs are then evaluated by optimisations or simulationsbasedonhistoricaldatasuchasrainfallrecords,whicharenolongerreliable(sometimes called stationarity philosophy (Milly et al, 2008)). This minimises the opportunity to create city specific urban water services and systems that could be integrated into the urban landscape in alternative and relatively radical ways that allow for substantially higher resilience and other benefits such as greener landscapes and heatisland sinks (McEvoy, 2007). Ashley and Brown (2008) suggest a critical and highly explicit reflection on these fundamental stationarity design and operational philosophy, assumptions and design as a starting point for transformation in the conventionalurbanwatermanagementapproach.

D.4.3 Normative lock-in; how to transform systems

Therehavebeenmanyadvancestowardsalternativeoptionsandprocessesfordesigningadaptation opportunities to uncertain future conditions in recent years. These can be integrated within, superimposed upon and/or able to replace the existing urban water infrastructure. Yet despite this substantial investment in developing technological and assessment alternatives, there is an increasing and overwhelming despondence within the urban water research community with the lackofchangeinconventionalpractice(AshleyandBrown,2008).Manyobservershighlighthowthe compartmentalisation of infrastructure and service provision is being reinforced and leaving the sector illequipped to respond and adapt to complex sustainability challenges (Marsalek et al. 2001; Newman, 2001; Brandes and Kriwoken, 2006; Wong, 2006). Emerging research in areas such as institutionalcapacitybuilding(Brownet al,2006),organisationaldevelopment(Brown,2008),public engagement (Sefton, 2008) and, urban water professional receptivity and leadership (Taylor, 2008) hasnotbeendrawnupon tohelpbridgesystem boundaries.Avisiontoreversethissituationisnow being implemented in a number of EU projects: SWITCH3 ; MARE4 ; SKINT and FloodResileinCity5, where as wide a range of stakeholders as needed in order to facilitate change and to engage in the active learning form a Learning (and action) Alliance. The core alliance can act to engage in both policy processes and on the ground delivery of responses needed to cope with future challenges. It alsoformsavehicleforprovidingknowledge,information,techniquesandconsensuallearning.
3 4

SWITCHManagingWaterfortheCityoftheFuture,http://www.switchurbanwater.eu/la_switch.php http://www.mareproject.eu/ 5 http://www.floodresiliencity.eu/en/about/

112

D.5 Implementationofnonpiped/seweredsystems
Pilot projects (e.g. those conducted under Defras auspices) have shown that alternatives to piped/sewerdrainageareafeasibleoption,althoughthedifficultiesofdeliveringthesegiven the complex relationships between stakeholders involved in implementation, should not be underestimated. The best mechanisms of effecting a paradigm shift to the use of nonpiped/sewer drainage systems is still under debate. Local authorities have a key role; in particular the planning authority is central in the promotion and specification of nonpiped/sewer systems for new developments. However, the place of WaSCs is still also crucial due to the need for excess flowsfromnonpiped/sewersystemstobedirectedintotheirpipedassets;thereforeWaSCs need to become statutory consultees in the planning process as is proposed in the F&W Bill and in the Ofwat recommendations for amendments to the regulatory and legal options for reducingsurfacewaterinsewers. In the UK, typically drainage considerations are a long way down the priority list for developments and developers. This needs to change. In the USA, responsibilities are usually at municipal level, or shared with a stormwater utility; hence this approach is easier to implementtherethaninEnglandandWales. Each individual situation (catchment) needs to be looked at specifically where disconnection ofnonfoulflowsfromfoulorcombinedflowsisbeingconsidered.Thereisnomagicbullet approach. In order for stormwater disconnection measures to offer an effective solution, change is requiredtofacilitatethe uptake;such astherefinementofseparatestormwaterchargingto provide increased financial incentive. Furthermore, the requirement for public and stakeholderengagementiscriticaltotheestablishmentofnovelwatersupplyandsanitation systems.

D.6 Nonpiped/sewersystemsandwaterquality

In general planning and implementing the technical aspects of planning, design, adoption and operation of nonpiped/sewered systems is now quite clear but their quantity/quality/amenityperformanceisstillnotproperlyunderstood. There is proportionate variability, but generally urban diffuse runoff pollution is potentially significant. Stormwater can be more polluting than foul flows discharging from combined seweroverflows. Interest in the quality performance of nonpiped/sewered nonfoul flow systems in England and Wales is not as prevalent as in Scotland. This represents a failure to provide the complete nexus of quantityquality and amenity that makes alternative drainage systems potentially more valuable (in both a tangible and intangible sense) than conventional systems. However, there is concern that implementation of the WFD will potentially add to otherenvironmentalimpactsasillustratedbycarbonfootprintstudiesshowingthepotential transferofpollutingburdensfromthewatersectortotheenergyandwastesectors.

D.7 Nonpiped/seweredsystemsandwaterquantity
Predicting even the likely changes in nonfoul flow rates and volumes in the future is increasingly uncertain, which supports the essential need to take an adaptive and flexible 113

approach. Emerging studies are now showing objectively that nonpiped/sewered drainage systemsareinherentlymoreflexibleandadaptable. Urban area form and layout need to be better managed to ensure that there are clear exceedence flow pathways as part of the synergy of the management of water with a multi functionalbenefitforurbanareas. Retrofitting rainwater harvesting systems could potentially significantly reduce flood frequenciesandvolumesinareasthatsufferfromfrequentfloodingprovidedtheRWHtanks arelargerthanisrequiredsimplytosatisfywaterdemand.

D.8 Perceptionsofnonpiped/seweredsystems
Thelikelyimpactsofclimatechangearestillnotbeingconsideredbymoststakeholders. Stakeholders have expressed concern about the performance of SUDS systems in the flood plainwhentheybecomeinundatedandnewguidanceisneededtodealwiththis. Utilisationofnonpiped/sewerednonfoulflowsystemsisstillseenbymanyasagreaterrisk thanpiped/sewersystems.Thereisgreaterconfidenceintheirperformanceregardingwater quantitythanwaterquality. There is confusion amongst stakeholders at all levels regarding the effectiveness of SUDS; the draft Flood and Water Management Bill appears to promote the use of non piped/sewered drainage systems in preference to piped/sewered, with often an unrealistic expectationofthelikelysuccess. Misdirected funding based on preconceptions about the best return for investments can be inefficientwhenretrofittingtoalleviatestormwaterpollutionproblems.

D.9 Currentsurfacewatermanagementinitiatives
The current initiatives in England regarding surface water management show a lack of appreciationoftheneedtoallowproperlyforadaptationtochangingcircumstances. The lack of provision for more flexible types of regulatory, technical and economic approachesforthefuturemaycompromisefutureresiliencetoflooding. There is still a degree of incompatibility across the various nonpiped/sewered drainage approaches to performance standards, although most now advocate a riskbased approach, thisisstilloftenonlyqualitative. There is little indication that joining up the water cycle is seen as the best way to manage surfacewaterandfloodingdespitetheemergenceofWaterCycleStudies. There is an apparent inability of surface water management deliverers to take a catchment wideperspectiveratherthanadopting(many)localisedmeasures Reducing the quantity of stormwater at source through strategies to reduce imperviousness and maximize infiltration and filtration can be more cost effective than capturing and improvingthequalityofvastquantitiesofurbanstormwaterrunoff. At municipal level, costs can be decreased when such techniques are incorporated into redevelopmentandongoingreplacementefforts. 114

D.10 UseandadoptionofSUDSbySewerageUndertakers
SUDS do not comply with the definition of a sewer (i.e. having a proper outfall) as stated in Sewers for Adoption (6th edition) therefore they cannot be included as part of a Sewerage Undertakers asset base. This will be perceived negatively by shareholders and Ofwat. However, it does not preclude a sewerage undertaker from deciding to take care of the structurenonetheless. The absence of formal mechanisms to enable Sewerage Undertakers to adopt SUDS (as assets recognised by OFWAT) is probably the most significant deterrent to the proper consideration of SUDS in new developments by developers and in retrofit applications to solve problems such as sewer flooding under DG5. Although SUDS could be adopted by parties other than the Sewerage Undertakers (e.g. local authorities) there is no obvious incentive for others to take on this responsibility unless for example a management companycanchargefeestobeneficiaries. The debate surrounding which organisation might be best placed to manage stormwater is ongoing, and is one of the key issues being tackled as part of the DEFRA IUD Pilot programme (Gill, 2008), but has come out in favour of local authorities having the responsibility under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, although there is strong pressure by a number of sewerage undertakers for them to be given the operation and maintenanceroleintheenablinglegislationforthenewAct.Inanycase,thenewActmakes provisionforthetakingofpreviouslyexcludedlanddrainageintosewersinevitable. Sewerage Undertakers are reluctant to implement SUDS structures because their maintenance requirements are not something they consider to fall within their normal line of business. Also, there is a perception that the lack of knowledge about the long term performance of SUDS makes their adoption very risky (WERF/UKWIR, 2005). However, the option of brokering agreements with third parties (e.g. local authorities, independent contractors) to undertake maintenance is being considered by several Sewerage Undertakers. Sewerage Undertakers might be wary of using SUDS (especially aboveground components) in retrofit applications because this may then establish a precedent for future adoptions associatedwithnewdevelopments. There is nothing to prevent a Sewerage Undertaker from retrofitting either surface or subsurface SUDS on land that they own. However, both the SNIFFER (2006) project and Stovin et al (2007) showed that constraining options to publiclyowned land would lead to only marginal improvement in the catchment as a whole. Mechanisms/incentives to include privatelyownedlandwithinSUDSretrofitschemesareneeded. Where SUDS options are proposed on privatelyowned land, a distinction needs to be made between surface and subsurface SUDS. In some cases it might be feasible to consider purchase of land deemed suitable for the retrofitting of surface SUDS, such as ponds, which makethelandunsuitableforfurtherdevelopment.Alternatively,alocalauthoritymayagree to designate land for dual use, such as playing fields which are also designed as detention basins for low frequency events. In the case of subsurface SUDS, oneoff deals to compensate landowners for disruption could be brokered to enable a Sewerage Undertaker to retrofit a SUDS structure on private land. However, the uncertainties surrounding the responsibilities for longterm maintenance of such structures would still need to be addressed. 115

At the present time there appear to be inconsistencies in the way private landowners are encouraged to implement source controls. Some Sewerage Undertakers offer to waive the stormwater management component of customers water bills if they disconnect their stormwater from the sewer system. However, this is usually a yes/no condition, with no scope to recognise partial disconnection. The waived charges are also very small (circa 30 p.a.). Banded charging schemes reflecting the actual level of connected impermeable area would be welcomed. The definition of disconnection is unclear, and it is understood that present charging schemes may imply that in situations where flow may enter the sewer under extreme events (exceedance flows) then strictly the landowner should be charged for connection. Legislation to support disconnection up to reasonable design events would be welcomed, although it is clear that strategies for dealing with the exceedance flows would needtobeformulatedandfundedinparallel. The system is complex, and there are conflicts within current advice. For example, PPS25 suggests design to 100 year return periods, whereas Sewers for Adoption uses 30 year returnperiodcriteria.Theforthcomingtakeoverof(communal)privatesewersbySewerage Undertakers may help to integrate certain aspects of sewer network management, but it mayalsoactasadisincentivetodeveloperswhoareconsideringtheuseofSUDStechniques as they would preferentially wish to install piped/sewered drainage systems as has happenedinScotland. Stovinetal(2007)proposedasolutiontoaDG5floodingprobleminAnglianWatersregion. This was achievable using a realistic budget and also appropriate timescale. However, it also resulted in a conflict between the normal engineering process (and time constraints) and thepracticalneedtoaddressthemanynovelissuesassociatedwiththeuseofSUDS. Thecasestudyabovealsohighlightedproblemsassociatedwithintegratingteamswithinthe sewerage undertaker. This showed that implementation and detailed design could not be managed effectively by people remote to the site nor the organisations that will ultimately be responsible for implementing and managing the new SUDS facilities. Scheme success is contingent on local champions, particularly where new approaches, such as SUDS retrofit arebeingtrialled.

D.11 Addedbenefitsofjoinedupsurfacewatermanagement
The introduction of multipleuse basins for stormwater management and the use of greeningapproacheshavehadapositiveeffectonpropertypricesbecauseofthepremium thatbuyersplaceonvegetationandconservationdevelopment. Studieshaveshownthattherestorationofrivercorridorscanactuallyleadtoareductionin localcrimealthoughbadlythoughtoutFRMmeasurescancreatespacesthatcanbe conducivetocriminalactivity. Thereareanumberofotherbenefitsaccruingtosocietyasawholethatareincreasingly beingrecognised,especiallyintheUSA,whereamajorprojectisenhancingthescopeof assessmentofthemonetaryvalueofgreeninfrastructure(GI),implementedbyretrofitting stormwatermanagementmeasurestorelieveCSOpollutioninmajorcities,suchas Philadelphia(Wiseetal,2010).ThishasshownthatGIdeliveredfromdisconnecting stormwaterfromthecombinedsewerscanhavemultipleUS$billionbenefitstourbanareas asawhole.ThisisimportantintheUScontextastheretheseweragesystemsaremanaged bythelocalauthorities,whocanthereforepromotemultibeneficialoutcomesforthegood oftheircities. 116

Appendix E - Design details for SUDS retrofits in exemplar areas

E.1 LyttonGroveSubarearetrofitSUDS
TheoverallSubcatchmentbeingexaminedisthatboundedbyLyttonGrovetotheNorth,PutneyHill to the West and West Hill to the East, Figure E01. For the purposes of the analysis this has been subdividedinto13subareaseachwithdifferentcharacteristiclanduses.

Mainslope direction

FigureE01LyttonGrovesubcatchmentwithsubareasshowingroadshighlighted

The first areas considered were areas 14 which were considered to be suitable to be collectively drained northwards, with areas 24 draining into area 1, as shown in Figure E1, and shown to a larger scale in Figures E02 E05. Three options have been considered for these areas, all based on detention basins and interconnecting swales and sewers between these and ultimately into a sewerassumedtoruninLyttonGrove(FigureE02). 117

Lytton Grove Option 1: drain disconnected impervious areas from areas 14 to detention basins situatedinthelowestpartoftheSubcatchmentinarea1. Subarea 1 is the lowest area of the overall Subcatchment, which drops some 20m over the 1km length from the southern end (Tibbets Corner) to Lytton Grove. Shown in Figure E.2 are the maximum potential areas for locating detention basins. This is Option 1 and has been used initially toassesswhetherornotthesewouldbeadequatetodrainalltheimpervioussurfacesforareas14. The potential areas for surface storage are shown as AD for option 1. These are linked by swales and pipes. The outflow from the system is controlled to a maximum of 5 l/s from each of the two connections to the main sewer in Lytton Grove for a 1 in 30 year storm. The initial design considers the potential for this area to also drain the runoff from the disconnected impervious areas from the surroundingareas24(FiguresE03E05). ThesizesoftheunitsinFigureE02aregiveninTableE01. LegendforallfollowingOSMastermapFigures:

118

Pipedconnectionsto mainsewer

D C

Linkingswaleswith pipesunderroads

Swalefromarea4(included indatafor4)
CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey FigureE02Option1detentionbasinsallinthelowestarea(1)adjacenttoLyttonGrove

119

TableE01potentialsizesofdrainageunitsinArea1 Sewers 35m 22m Swales 40m A 50m B Steppeddetentionbasins 80mlongx42mwide 3360m2 42mx6m 802m2 +48mx25x0.33m +x14^2/4 C 65mx26m 5820m2 +135mx20m +65mx22m D 35mx0.33x27m 315m2

10mlinkingswales

10mlinkingswales Smallerdrainsnotincluded

Thisprovidesamaximumpondplanareaof10,308m2. Thepotentialcontributingimperviousdisconnectedareasfromeachofareas14aregiveninTable E02. The intermediate roads are not included in this table. It is also assumed that the runoff from gardenareaswillnotbedirectlyconnected.
TableE02potentialimperviousareasthatcouldbedisconnectedinareas14.

Landuse buildings Internalroads manmadeland(carparks) Totalimperviousareas (m2)

Localplots(m2) (1) 7356 3435 6000 16,792

Catchmenttowest (m2)(2) 4615 1729 2945 9,291

Tosouthwest (3) 9587 0 7909 17,499

Immediate south(4) 5121 0 5175 10,300

The detention basins will have a maximum depth of 0.6m as will the conveyance swales. The total collective storage volume of the four units AD is approximately 4000m3 ignoring any additional swalevolumestorage.UsingtheHRWallingfordwholelifecostmodel,whichincludesasimpleSUDS analysis tool, this indicates a critical storm duration of 4 hours and a required storage volume of 1,400m3.ThewholelifecostsaregiveninTableE03,totallingsome300,000.
TableE03presentvaluecostsofthedetentionbasinsADinArea1.

Basin A B C D

PresentValue() Capital RegO&M CorrO&M 42,000 29,900 12,600 17,300 17,800 3,900 61,200 39,800 18,400 13,300 15,700 2,700

Waste 6,400 6,300 6,300 6,300

Total 90,900 45,300 125,700 38,000

TheswaleplusassociatedpipeworkcostsaregiveninTableE04. 120

TableE04presentvaluecostsforswalesandassociatedpipeworkinArea1.

Swale (m) 50 40 10 10

PresentValue() Reg Capital O&M 12,400 1,600 12,000 1,700 4,000 1,200 4,000 1,200

Total 14,000 13,700 4,900 4,900

These costs allow only for standard piped connections where crossing roads within the catchments and do not allow for smaller interconnections or complications with services. The costs also do not include any land purchase. The connecting swales for the other areas, 24, are not included in these costs. InOption2below,itcanbeseenthatthetotallengthofswalesandlocalsewersissome1500mand 100m (Table E05) respectively. Using the proportionate costs as for the swales and sewers above, this gives additional whole life costs of 423,000. Therefore the total costs of disconnecting the impervious parts of the four areas, 14, draining through area 1, as shown in Figure E2 is some 723,000.Thiswilldraintheseareascomfortablyandthesizesofthestorageunitscouldactually be reducedasdescribedbelow.

121

Option2:Potentialtoutilisegreenspaceintheotherareas(24),FigureE01.

CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey
Swales(m) Basins(m2) Drains(m) 150m,40,52,59,18,65,35,120. 30x18 3No.at10m=30m Total499m 540m2 FigureE03Area2potentialforlocalstorageofsurfacewater.

FiguresE03E05showwherethereispotentialforstoragefurtherupthesysteminareas24, ratherthansitingitallinthelowersubarea(1)asshowninFigureE02. 122

 CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey
Swales(m) 50,40,48,26,20,44,45,40,29,89,42.Total 473m Basins(m2) 36x12,40x15,26x10,31x10.Total 1602m2 Drains(m) 40m.Pluslocal connections

FigureE04Area3potentialforlocalstorageofsurfacewater

123

CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey
Swales(m) Basins(m2) Drains(m)

44,180,64,45,40,40,18.Total431m 40x15,30x10.Total900m2 2x12.Total24m

FigureE05Area4potentialforlocalstorageofsurfacewater.

124

TableE05showsthepotentialsurfaceareasforthedetentionbasins,togetherwithconnecting swales.
TableE05costsofalternativepotentialdetentionstorageandconnectingswalesinareas24.

AreaNo. Basinarea (m2)

Swale length (m) 499 473 431

Totalimpervious area disconnected (m2) 9289 17496 10296

Drains (m)

BasinCosts ()

Swalecosts ()

2 3 4

540 1602 900

30 40 24

46,800 178,100 90,700 305,600

153,700 145,100 124,500 423,300

Totalcosts

From this, it is apparent that the sizes of the detention basins in Area 1 (Figure E02) could be reduced accordingly by a total of 3,042m3 as the total available in the other areas as shown in Table E05, i.e. the original 10,297m2 of basin area in Area 1 could be reduced to 7,255m2 (saving 171,500) and still achieve a similar level of control. However, there would be additional costs due to the dispersed location of the storage. The swales shown in Figures E03E05 would be required whicheveroptionwasselected. Option3:minimisethestorageareas/volumesrequiredtodrainthedisconnectedareas14. For this option the storage required to drain each of the four areas 14, is known to be approximately 1400m3 (from above, Option 1). Hence the detention pond volume can be reduced overall to this figure; i.e. the costs for the storage units can be reduced from approximately 300,000 to some 163,700; the plan area for the basins required also reduces from the maximum availableof10,308m2to2,650m2takingupasmallerareainFigure6.6ifallofthestorageislocated in area 1. The costs of the swales and sewers will, however, increase because the swale length will increase by the shortened pond lengths of some 300m at a cost of 97,700. Resulting in an overall cost of 163,700 + 97,700 + 423,300 = 684,700. This option has the advantage that the required detentionbasinplanareasasshowninFiguresE02E05canbereducedbytwothirds.
TableE06presentvaluecostsofthedetentionbasinsACinArea1,FigureE.6.

Basin A B C

Capital 22,100 17,497 27,463

PresentValue() RegO&M CorrO&M 20,135 5,573 17,809 4,077 22,749 7,476

Waste 6,355 6,256 6,256 Total

Total 54,163 45,640 63,944 163,748

125

C A

CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey FigureE06requireddetentionbasinareaforareas14iflocatedentirelyinarea1.(Swalesandpipedconnectionsnot shown).

TheWLCforthesealternativedetentionbasinsaregiveninTableE06. 126

 Areas513androads:optionsfordisconnection The other Subareas numbered 513 comprising the Lytton Grove Subcatchment are summarised in Table E07 and shown in Figures E07 E015. Table E07 shows the different impervious disconnection areas, gardens and also the total road surface area in the Subcatchment (Figure E0 1).
TableE07ImperviousareasintheremainderoftheLyttonGroveSubcatchment

Landuse buildings roads manmadeland(carparks) gardens comments Landusetobedrained buildings roads manmadeland(carparks) gardens

(m2)(5) terraced housingtoSE 4340 0 0 11255 Draintogardens

Catchmentto SE(m2)(6) 5717 0 1461 14709 Also930m2 greentriangle SWedge(m2) (10) 7478 0 7719 5451+10097

Eastern corner(7) 3714 0 212 11181

Eastof(7)(8) 3891 0 84 9119

Smallareaon PutneyHeath Lane(m2)(9) 643 0 629 1379

Southof JustNorthof PutneyHeath area10(11) Lane(12) 1347 2618 0 0 552 1480 1610 291+5392

Landusetobedrained buildings roads manmadeland(carparks) gardens

Smallareato southof(12) (13)(m2) 1812 0 477 3719

Totalarea roads (m2) 88010

Table E08 summarises the subareas 513 and the roads and the potential retrofit options as alternatives to piped drainage within each discrete area itself. For example, it is proposed to disconnect as much as possible of the 4340m2 of roof drainage in Area 5 and reconnect it on to the gardenareas.Thismayalsoincludeuseofwaterbutts(enlargedcisterns)installedtotherearofthe properties. There may be other options to consider draining some of these subareas into adjacent areas, however, for this first level analysis, stormwater has been considered to be managed only locally withineachsubarea. TheassumptionsusedforthefollowingSUDSretrofitdesignsaresummarisedbelow. 127

1. Newperviouspavedareastoreplaceexistingimperviousareas: a. Onlyamaximumof75%ofthepavedareacanbeconvertedtoperviouspavements toallowforthepracticalityoffittingtheperviousareanottooclosetobuildings b. NotallpavedsurfacesareshowninOSMastermapandgoogle.Henceareas connectedtotheperviouspavementsalsoincludeanadditional5%assumedfor minorimperviousareassuchaspropertydrivesetc. 2. Disconnectingthepropertydownpipesfromroofareasandreconnectingthesetoadjacent perviousareas: a. Mostdisconnectedroofareastogardensareassumedonlyfromtheback(pitched) roofareas b. Nowaterbutts/cisternshavebeenincludedforcostreasons,however,unitcostsfor installingtheseareprovidedastheymaybeaddedlateroratapropertyowners wish. AsummaryofcostsandareasdisconnectedforLyttonGrovesubcatchmentisgiveninTableE09.

128

TableE08Optionsandcostsforalternativedrainageforsubareas513andtheroadsintheLyttonGroveSubcatchment

Sub AreaNo. 5

Characteristics TerracedHousing withreargardens andsmallfront gardens

Optionsfordraining disconnectedareas Disconnectroofsand draintogardenareas. Simplesttodothiswith backroofsandmaybeuse rainwatercisterns

Asabovebutsemi detachedandwith somepavedhard standing.

Disconnectbackroofs. Consideralteringpaved areastosubsurface storage.

7 8

Asabove

Disconnectbackroofs. Consideralteringpaved areastosubsurface storage.

Asabovebutlarger propertiessome detached

Disconnectbackroofs. Consideralteringpaved areastosubsurface storage.

HRWallingford Imperviousarearemoved model N/R Disconnect50%ofroofareasto Downpipe disconnection. backgardens. Optionallyinstall i.e.2170m2 rainwaterbarrelsor 40properties(each55m2). oversized rainwatercisterns (atadditionalcost) Infiltrationwith Remove50%ofroofsto Replacementof gardens:2858m2for37 hardstandingwith subsurface permeablesurfaces storage properties(77m2each). andsubsurface storage. Convert75%toperviouspaving: 1096m2 As:19x24m;16x26m;2x19 m;2.5x19m;2.5x41m;9x8.5 x0.5m Infiltrationwith Disconnect28propertyback Replacementof roofstogardens:1857m2(62m2 hardstandingwith subsurface permeablesurfaces storage each). andsubsurface storage. 75%Perviouspavedareas, 159m2:6x7m;9x7.5m;20x 2.5m Infiltrationwith 32propertiesdisconnect50% Replacementof backroofs: hardstandingwith subsurface 1986m2(each62m2). permeablesurfaces storage andsubsurface 75%Perviouspavement68m2 storage. 25x2.5m
129

Requirements

Costs 160@40No= 6,400. IfRWbarrelsused extracost2,000.

2x37@160= 11,840. RWbarrelscost 3,700 WLC145,900

2x28@160= 8,960. Additionalcostfor RWbarrels2,800. WLC32,200

32@160=5,120 Additionalcostfor RWbarrels1,600. WLC:21,100

Sub AreaNo. 9

Characteristics Separateproperty withlimitedlandto disconnectto.

Optionsfordraining disconnectedareas Disconnectbackroofs. Consideralteringpaved areastosubsurface storage. Partialdisconnectiononly forthisoneproperty.

Requirements Replacementof hardstandingwith permeablesurfaces andsubsurface storage.

HRWallingford model Infiltrationwith subsurface storage

Imperviousarearemoved 50%ofonerooftogarden, 321m2.

Costs 5No.@160= 800.Additional RWbarrelcost 250 Includedincost below WLC:76,400

10

Mixedlarge residential propertiesand institutional.

Institutionalproperties replacehardstanding withpermeable pavementdrainingto subsurfacestorage. Connectroofdrainage also.

Permeablepaving andsubsurface storagefor institutional properties. Disconnectroofsof privatehousesto gardens.

11

TerracedHousing withreargardens andsmallfront gardens

Disconnecttorear gardensonlyand considercisterns

Downpipe disconnection. ConsiderInstalling oversized rainwaterbarrels (cisterns) Permeablepaved areas

50%ofrooftopermeablehard standing.321m2. 75%Permeable(472m2)roads plustheaboveconnectedroof areainto:50x5m;10x4m;10 x4m;15x2m;40x3m Infiltrationwith 16buildingsdisconnected 8x2No.for16 wholeofroofstograssedareas. properties@160 subsurface storage =40,960;RW 7478m2. barrelcosts 12,800 Convert75%ofhardstandingto WLC:715,700 pervious:5789m2.30x3m;7x 15m;45x3m;30x3m;15x2m; 52x38m;32x30m;23x8m;15 x11m;80x6m;60x24m;65x 2m Infiltrationwith Disconnect14backroofsto 14@160= 2 gardens.50%is674m . subsurface 2,240. storage RWBarrelcost 700 WLC:63,100 Make75%ofpavedareas permeable:414m2 37x3m;27x3m;20x6m;22x 3m;6x6m 130

Sub AreaNo. 12

Characteristics Mixedhousing densitywithpaved hardstanding

Optionsfordraining disconnectedareas Consideroptions: disconnecttogardens; perviouspavementsin hardstandingareas; detentionbasins.

Requirements Keepwateronthe surfaceifpossible. Thenbelowground options.

13

Discrete developmentof semis

Makeaccessroad perviouswithsubsurface storage.Disconnectroofs bothbackandfrontand addcisterns.

Disconnect75%ofroofareasto gardens:24properties1964m2. Convert75%ofpavedareasto pervious1110m2: 20x4m;7x10m;70x3m;20x 8m;5x60m;7x28m;9x6m;7 x6m Infiltrationwith Disconnect50%of14No.roof areastogardens:906m2. subsurface storagebut withstronger Convertroadtopervious: construction 477m2. 14mdiameter:154m2 36x9m Includerestofroofareas (906m2). Infiltrationwith subsurface storagebut withstronger construction Assume50%ofroadsurfaces (nottrunkroads)canbeeither convertedtoporousordiverted intoadjacentgreenareas.Total 88,010m2less477m2area13 above&5,164m2forareas14. 25%foreach(20,592m2).Areas 14and13alreadydisconnected andalreadycostedabove. Conversiontoporousroad surfaceswithhighaxleloads: 20,592m2

HRWallingford model Infiltrationwith subsurface storage

Imperviousarearemoved

Costs 36No.@160= 5,760;RWbarrel cost1,800. WLC:147,600

14No.@160= 2,240 RWbarrels700 WLC:102,400

Roads

Mixtureofinternal accessandthrough roadsand peripheralmajor trunks.

Lookforopportunities for:divertingroad drainagetoadjacent permeablesurfaces;then inquieterroadswhere thewidthallows,street gardens.Longterm promoteporousroad surfaces.

Mixtureofoptions takenupinthe sequenceshown.

Diversioncosts: dependheavilyon localcircumstances WLCasbelow: 2,658,735

WLC: 2,658,735 131

TableE09LyttonGroveSubcatchmentretrofitSUDSsummary

Subarea

Total impervious area (m2) 21130 11903 21814 12540 9968 13072 12768 8486 4270 21063 2704 4640 4657 164736

Imperviousarea removed entirely (m2) %

Flow attenuation/reduction (m2) 16792 9291 17499 10300 1096 159 68 472 5789 414 1110 1383 20592 % 79 78 80 82 8 1 1 11 27 15 24 30 25

Imperviousarea directedtopervious (m2) 2170 2858 1857 1986 321 7478 674 1964 906 20592 % 22 22 15 23 8 36 25 42 19 22

WLC () 627,300

Directcost estimatesonly () 6,400 11,840 8,960 5,120 800 40,960 2,240 5,760 2,240

Reduced flow 14. Maximum outflowat 5l/s. Through flowoutof porous pavements 5l/s

1* 2* 3* 4* 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13* Roads otherthan inareas1 4&13 Totals

145,900 32,200 21,100 76,400 715,700 63,100 147,600 102,400 2,658,700 2,658,700

260591m2

Overall125771m2(40%)imperviousareaattenuatedataunitcostof 58/m2

7,249,100

84,320

*roadsincludedintheseareas 132

Disconnect50%ofroofareas tobackgardens. i.e.2170m2.

CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey
FigureE07Area5disconnectbackroofstogardens

133

Take50%ofroof drainagetogardens: 2858m2 Converthardstanding to75%pervious paving1096m2 19x24m 16x26m 2x19m 2.5x19m 2.5x41m 9x8.5x0.5m

CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey
FigureE08Area6

134

Disconnect28 propertyback roofs:1857m2. 75%Pervious pavedareas, 159m2: 6x7m 9x7.5m 20x2.5m

CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey
FigureE09Area7

135

32properties disconnect50% backroofs: 1986m2. 75%Pervious pavement 25x2.5m

CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey
FigureE010Area8

136

50%ofsinglerooftogarden: 321m2.Multipledownspouts. 50%ofrooftopermeable hardstanding.321m2. 75%Permeable(472m2) roadsplustheabove connectedroofareainto: 50x5m 10x4m 10x4m 15x2m 40x3m

CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey
FigureE011Area9

137

16buildingsdisconnectto grassedareas.7478m2. Convert75%ofhardstanding topervious: 30x3m 7x15m 45x3m 30x3m 15x2m 52x38m 32x30m 23x8m 15x11m 80x6m 60x24m 65x2m

CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey
FigureE012Area10

138

Disconnect14backroofstogardens. 50%is674m2. Make75%ofpavedareas permeable:414m2 37x3m 27x3m 20x6m 22x3m 6x6m CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey
FigureE013Area11

139

Disconnect75%ofroofareas togardens:24properties 1964m2. Convert75%ofpavedareasto pervious1110m2: 20x4m 7x10m 70x3m 20x8m 5x60m 7x28m 9x6m 7x6m

CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey
FigureE014Area12

140

Disconnect50%ofroof areastogardens:906m2. Convertroadtopervious: 477m2. 14mdiameter:154m2 36x9m

CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey
FigureE015Area13

141

CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey
FigureE016Mainandlocalroads

142

Parts of the main roadway network, Figure E016, can be connected into the porous paved areas in the adjacent Subareas (113) analysed above and also retrofitted with porous pavement taking highaxleloads(5000kg).ThisisincludedinTablesE08andE09.

E.2 CarltonDriveSubareaSUDS
Carlton Drive, Figure E017 is illustrative of a number of roads inPutney that have large houses and intermixed low rise flatroofed apartment blocks. This area has been selected as representing what might be done to retrofit the drainage systems in these types of areas. The northern part of the Drive slopes quite steeply down towards Upper Richmond Road as shown in Figure E17. Each Subarea (16) has been considered individually. The distribution of the surfaces in the subareas is giveninTableE010determinedfromOSMastermapandGoogle.
TableE010CarltonDriveandadjacentpropertiesdistributionoftypesofarea(m2)

SubareaNumber 1 2 TotalBuildings 1658 3320 OfwhichFlatroofed* 1140 1689 Manmade 1263 5258 Gardens 931 1865 Natural 80 77 Roadstracksandpaths 0.0 348 Water 245 0.0 OtherPavedFrontage* 0.0 0.0 *Manuallydigitisedfromaerialphotography TotalRoadsTracksandPaths OfwhichRoads 11338 7015

3 4727 0 4012 4794 983 1035 0 573

4 1963 1117 532 4156 0 18 0 0

5 3536 934 2020 7826 0 83 0 389

6 105 0 0 693 0 0 0 0

143

 CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey
FigureE017CarltonDriveandadjacentproperties

144

TableE011CarltonDrivecharacteristicsandcostsofretrofitsbySubarea

Sub AreaNo. 1

Characteristics Mixedlowrise apartmentblocks withflatroofsand pitchedroofs.With otherpavedareas,a pond,streetgardens andlimitedgarden areas.

Optionsfordraining disconnectedareas Greenroofsonflatroofed apartmentswithconnected overflowstothepond.Paved areasaroundpondconnected topondandstreetgardens. Perviouspavementtoreplace thehardstanding.Backroofs connectedtogardenarea.

Requirements Thingreenroof

Imperviousarea removed/attenuated 4Flatroofareasconvertedtogreen roofsandoverflowsconnectedto pond:1140m2. Imperviouspavedareaincourtyard reconnectedtoplantersandpond: 440m2disconnected. Frontpavedareaconvertedto pervious:550m2,alsorearpathway 270m2. 50%pitchedroofareaconnectedto gardens/pavedpervious:259m2. 7Flatroofsconvertedtogreen: 1689m2.Overflowstograssedareas andperviouspavements. 75%ofpavedareasconvertedto pervious:4205m2. 22x30m;9x22m;43x6m;16x8m; 8x15m;8x15m;4x4m;30x8m; 28x9m;30x6m;20x4m;32x26m; 62x8m;43x7m;18x18m.

Costs () WLC:171,000 Plus2,720

Onlyfeasibleifrelative levelsareappropriate

Couldbebuiltfor lighteraxleloading units Onlybackroofareas consideredfeasible

Assumesimilarcost todisconnectingroof downpipes: 960 WLC:99,200

480

Mixedlowriseflat roofedapartments withcarparkingand largepropertiesalso withcarparking. Limitedgreengarden areas.

Thinconstruction Greenroofsonflatroofed greenroof apartments.Overflowsto grassedareasandtopervious pavedareasreplacementsfor existinghardstanding. Porouspavement

WLC:253,350 Plus4,000

WLC:508,800

145

Sub AreaNo. 3

Characteristics Mixedproperties includingresidential andinstitutional. Significant proportionofpaved surfacesforthe latteranddrivesfor someoftheformer

Optionsfordraining disconnectedareas Disconnecthalfofthepitched roofstogardenareas.Convert hardstandingtopervious.

Requirements 36individual downpipes

Imperviousarea removed/attenuated

Costs ()

Porouspavement

50%ofpitchedroofbuildings 5,760 drainedtogardensorpervious pavedareas:2364m2. WLC:510,000 75%ofpavedareasconvertedto 2 pervious:4215m :26x5m;33x 28m;55x5m;35x9m;15x4m;27x 8m;45x8m;66x22m;62x5m;25x 7m.

Severalflatroofed apartmentblocks. Significantgreen spacessurrounding. Onelargeproperty. Somehardstanding.

Usegreenroofson apartments,withoverflowsto grassedareas.Replacehard standingwithpervious pavement.Additionalpaved areasdrainedtoadjacent grass.

Thinconstruction

Convert6flatroofstogreen: 1117m2withoverflowstogardens.

WLC:167,500 Plus2,720

960 50%of1pitchedrooftogardens: 423m2. WLC:36,100 Porouspavement 75%ofpavedareaconvertedto 2 pervious298m :2x6m;27x5m;8x 5m;19x3m;9x6m 25%ofpavedareadrainedto 320 Directconnection assuminggroundlevels adjacentgardens:138m2 areappropriate 14downpipes 146

Sub AreaNo. 5

Characteristics Flatroofed apartments,several pitchedroof properties.Some drivewaysand significantgreen space.

Optionsfordraining disconnectedareas Usegreenroofson apartments,withoverflowsto grassedareas.Replacehard standingwithpervious pavement.Additionalpaved areasdrainedtoadjacent grass.

Requirements Thinconstruction

Imperviousarea removed/attenuated 3flatroofsmadegreenand overflowstogardens:934m2. 50%of7pitchedroofsconnectedto gardens:1301m2. 75%ofpavedareasmadepervious: 1869m2:22x6m;8x26m;11x14m; 4x9m;15x6m;12x6m;29x9m;9 x10m;18x38m;35x4m 25%ofpavedareasconnectedto adjacentgardens:623m2. Disconnect50%of2roofareasto gardens:53m2.

Costs () WLC:140,100 Plus2,240 3,200

20downpipes

Porouspavement

WLC:226,100

9downpipes

1,440

Roads

Twopitchedroof properties.With largegrassedareas torear. Flatwesteastbut withagradientfor southnorthleg runningdownto mainroad

Disconnectrearhalfoftheroof drainage.Anypavedareasnot seeninMastermapcandrain togreenareas. Pocketraingardensalsouseful fortrafficcalming.

1downpipe

160

Roadwideenoughand hasnospeedbumpsat present

Disconnect7015m2ofroad drainageandreplaceexistingspeed bumpswithaminimumof14No. 12m2pocketraingardens.

WLC1,578,400

147

TableE012SummaryofCarltonDrivecostsofretrofitsbySubarea

Subarea

Total impervious area (m2) 3399 9522 11283 4573 9469 452 11138

Imperviousarea Flow removedentirely attenuation/reduction (m2) 1580 1689 1117 934 % 46 18 24 10 (m2) 830 4205 4215 298 1869 7015 24 44 37 7 20 63 %

Imperviousarea WLC directedtopervious (m2) 259 2364 561 623 395 8 21 12 7 87 % () 270,200 762,200 510,000 203,600 366,200 1,578,400 3,690,600

Directcostestimates Reduced only flow () 4,160 4,000 5,760 4,000 6,880 160 24,960 15. 5l/soutflow from attenuation SUDS

1 2 3 4 5 6 Roadsand tracks

Overallimperviousareaattenuated27954(56%)unitcost133/m2

148

4Flatroofareasconvertedto greenroofsandoverflows 2 connectedtopond:1140m . Pavedareaincourtyard connectedtoplantersandpond: 2 440m disconnected. Frontpavedareatopervious: 2 2 550m alsorearpathway270m . 50%pitchedroofarea 2 connectedtogardens:259m .

CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey
FigureE018CarltonDriveArea1

149

450%ImpermeableAreaReductionfortheEntireLTTModel

7Flatroofsconvertedtogreen: 1689m2.Overflowstograssed areasandperviouspavements. 75%ofpavedareasconverted topervious:4205m2. 22x30m 9x22m 43x6m 16x8m 8x15m 8x15m 4x4m

30x8m 28x9m 30x6m 20x4m 32x26m 62x8m 43x7m 18x18m

CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey
FigureE019CarltonDriveArea2

Page 150

AppendixESUDSreport_corrected_18Jun10v3.doc

Printed26/07/2010

450%ImpermeableAreaReductionfortheEntireLTTModel

50%ofpitchedroof buildingsdrainedto gardensorperviouspaved areas:2364m2. 75%ofpavedareas convertedtopervious: 4215m2: 26x5m 33x28m 55x5m 35x9m 15x4m 27x8m 45x8m 66x22m 62x5m 25x7m

CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey
FigureE020CarltonDriveArea3

Page 151

AppendixESUDSreport_corrected_18Jun10v3.doc

Printed26/07/2010

450%ImpermeableAreaReductionfortheEntireLTTModel
Convert6flatroofstogreen: 1117m2withoverflowsto gardens. 50%of1pitchedroofto gardens:423m2. 75%ofpavedareaconverted topervious:298m2 2x6m 27x5m 8x5m 19x3m 9x6m 25%ofpavedareadrainedto adjacentgardens:138m2

CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey
FigureE021CarltonDriveArea4

Page 152

AppendixESUDSreport_corrected_18Jun10v3.doc

Printed26/07/2010

450%ImpermeableAreaReductionfortheEntireLTTModel
3flatroofsmadegreenandoverflows togardens:934m2. 50%of7pitchedroofsconnectedto gardens:1301m2. 75%ofpavedareasmadepervious: 1869m2: 22x6m;8x26m;11x14m;4x9m;15 x6m;12x6m;29x9m;9x10m;18x 38m;35x4m 25%ofpavedareasconnectedto adjacentgardens:623m2.

CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey
FigureE022CarltonDriveArea5

Disconnect50%of2roof areastogardens:52.5m2. Alsolocalpavedareas(not seenonMastermap.

CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey
FigureE023CarltonDriveArea6

Page 153

AppendixESUDSreport_corrected_18Jun10v3.doc

Printed26/07/2010

450%ImpermeableAreaReductionfortheEntireLTTModel

Convertexistingspeed humpstopocketstreet raingardens:7015m2 roadrequiresminimum of14pocketrain gardensof12m2.

CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey
FigureE024CarltonDriveRoads

Page 154

AppendixESUDSreport_corrected_18Jun10v3.doc

Printed26/07/2010

450%ImpermeableAreaReductionfortheEntireLTTModel

E.3 ChartfieldAvenuesubareaSUDS
This is a typical wide road that currently has no traffic calming measures. This has been selected to investigate options for introducing onstreet pocket rain gardens. There may also be opportunities to connect a number of adjacent properties to these. The plan size is potentially variable. Figure E025 shows an Australian system in Brisbane, with a plan area of 20 m2, which is2%ofthecontributingimperviousarea.

FigureE025PocketraingardeninroadedgeinBrisbane

Itisrecommendedthattheseunitshaveaplanareawhichisatleast2%ofthecontributingarea, althougheffectiveperformancehasbeenobservedforsmallersizes.

FigureE026Onstreetpocketraingardens(afterSmithetal.,2007)

Page 155

AppendixESUDSreport_corrected_18Jun10v3.doc

Printed26/07/2010

450%ImpermeableAreaReductionfortheEntireLTTModel Chartfield Avenue is of a width suitable to install to install these units as both drainage systems and also to assist with traffic calming. Although the general slope of the land is from south to North (Figure E029), there are also local low points as shown in the distance in the photograph (FigureE027).

FigureE027ChartfieldAvenue

Othersadjacentroadsintheareahavesimilarcharacteristics,althoughtheymaybeslightly narrowerasillustratedinFigureE028.

FigureE028GenoaRoadleadingfromChartfieldAvenue(lookingsouthwithChartfieldAvenueinthedistance)

Page 156

AppendixESUDSreport_corrected_18Jun10v3.doc

Printed26/07/2010

450%ImpermeableAreaReductionfortheEntireLTTModel Chartfield Avenue is approximately 9.6m wide and 1030m long. The total road area is 10375m2. 2%ofthisissome208m2.FortherainfallinLondon,theHRWallingfordmodelshowsthata12m3 unit volume is required. A stepped unit (7m long x 5m wide at the surface), gives the required storage volume of total depth 0.9m, requires a minimum of 20 individual units located along the lengthoftheAvenue. If more than this minimum number is installed, then some of the adjacent properties could also be partly drained into them. For drainage purposes each of the units could be installed on the northern(lowest)sideoftheAvenue,however,iftheyareconsideredastrafficcalmingmeasures, then they would need to be on either, possibly opposite, sides. It may also be necessary to install 2 units at low points in the road, such as adjacent to the junction with Genoa Road. The SUDS unitsandcostsaregivenintableE013.
TableE013ChartfieldAvenueSUDSunitsandcosts

Subarea Road Northside Road Southside

Characteristics Thelandhasa fallfromSouth toNorth.

Optionsfor draining disconnected areas Pocketrain gardens

Requirements Designedasan infiltrationsystem withoutan impervious membranewith flowthroughof5l/s drains10375m2 Disconnectback roofdrainage(50%) togardens 9448m2plus 6451m2

Impervious Costs arearemoved () 20No.12m2 pocket raingardens. WLC: 78,400 WLC: 78,400

Adjacent properties houses

75individual propertiesin owngardens

Disconnect roofsto gardenareas

39,100 Potentialto alsoconnect adjacent propertyfront roofanddrive drainageto raingardens insome locations

Page 157

AppendixESUDSreport_corrected_18Jun10v3.doc

Printed26/07/2010

450%ImpermeableAreaReductionfortheEntireLTTModel
TableE014ChartfieldAvenueareasattenuatedandsummaryofcosts

Subarea

Total impervious area (m2)

Impervious area removed entirely (m2)

Flow attenuation /reduction %

Impervious areadirected topervious (m2) %

WLC

Directcost Reduced estimates flow only ()

16. 5l/s through flow fromrain gardens

% (m2)

()

Roads, 14667 10375 71 156,800 tracks& paths Adjacent 15899 15899 100 39,100 houses 48041 Other imperv areas Overallimperviousareaattenuated26274m2(33%)unitcost8/m2ofsurface drained

CrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2009.OrdnanceSurvey
FigureE029ChartfieldAvenueandadjacentproperties

Page 158

AppendixESUDSreport_corrected_18Jun10v3.doc

Printed26/07/2010

450%ImpermeableAreaReductionfortheEntireLTTModel

Appendix F - photographic record of areas used in exemplar designs

(AllphotographsweretakenbyRichardAshleyandarecopyright)

FigureF01AnewdevelopmentinthevicinityofLyttonGrove(ClockhousePlace)withsignificanthardstanding

FigureF02GaragesassociatedwiththedevelopmentinFigureF1(itisunlikelythatthisispermeable)

Page 159

AppendixESUDSreport_corrected_18Jun10v3.doc

Printed26/07/2010

450%ImpermeableAreaReductionfortheEntireLTTModel

FigureF03LyttonGrovelookingwesttowardsthelowestpoint

FigureF04SomedrivesoffLyttonGrovearealreadypermeable

Page 160

AppendixESUDSreport_corrected_18Jun10v3.doc

Printed26/07/2010

450%ImpermeableAreaReductionfortheEntireLTTModel

FigureF05LyttonGrovespeedhumpsmaybereplaceablebypocketraingardens

FigureF06TheKersfieldEstateoffLyttonGrovehaslotsofgrassedareasanddisusedhardstandingareas(looking SW)

Page 161

AppendixESUDSreport_corrected_18Jun10v3.doc

Printed26/07/2010

450%ImpermeableAreaReductionfortheEntireLTTModel

FigureF07lookingintheoppositedirection(NE)toFigureF6

FigureF08KersfieldEstatelowerend

Page 162

AppendixESUDSreport_corrected_18Jun10v3.doc

Printed26/07/2010

450%ImpermeableAreaReductionfortheEntireLTTModel

FigureF09KersfieldEstatemiddlearea

FigureF010TopendofKersfieldEstate

Page 163

AppendixESUDSreport_corrected_18Jun10v3.doc

Printed26/07/2010

450%ImpermeableAreaReductionfortheEntireLTTModel

FigureF011ApartmentsoffCarltonDrive

FigureF012AnexistingraingardenoffCarltonDrive

Page 164

AppendixESUDSreport_corrected_18Jun10v3.doc

Printed26/07/2010

450%ImpermeableAreaReductionfortheEntireLTTModel

FigureF013PavedareasforcarparkingforapartmentsonCarltonDrive

FigureF014SpeedhumpsinCarltonDrive

Page 165

AppendixESUDSreport_corrected_18Jun10v3.doc

Printed26/07/2010

450%ImpermeableAreaReductionfortheEntireLTTModel

FigureF015ChartfieldAvenueandadjoiningroads(nospeedhumps)

FigureF016JunctionofChartfieldAvenueandGenoaAvenue

Page 166

AppendixESUDSreport_corrected_18Jun10v3.doc

Printed26/07/2010

450%ImpermeableAreaReductionfortheEntireLTTModel

FigureF017PaveddriveonChartfieldAvenue(unlikelytobepermeable)

FigureF018OneofafewapartmentblocksinthevicinityofChartfieldAvenue(GenoaAvenue)

Page 167

AppendixESUDSreport_corrected_18Jun10v3.doc

Printed26/07/2010

100-RG-MDL-00000-000002 | AF | 28 April 2010

ANNEX 1 SUDS Evaluation for Example Areas

THAMES TUNNEL

SUDS EVALUATION FOR EXAMPLE AREAS

LIST OF CONTENTS Page Number 1 2 INTRODUCTION SUDS IMPERMEABLE AREA MODELLING 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5 Introduction Method Results Conclusion 1 2 2 2 2 10 23 23 23 23 28 32 37 38 42 48 48 48 48 51 52

PWG DISCONNECTION STRATEGY MODELLING Introduction Method West Putney Putney Bridge Frogmore (Buckhold Road) Typical Year Rainfall Analysis Design Storm Storage Conclusion

50% IMPERMEABLE AREA REDUCTION FOR THE ENTIRE LTT MODEL Introduction Method Results Conclusion

CONCLUSION

SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc

Printed 28/07/2010

LIST OF FIGURES Page Number Figure 2.1 CSO flow during the December typical year event for the existing system and 25% alteration to impermeable area in the contributing subcatchments ................................................. 11 Figure 2.2 CSO flow during the October 2000 154 event for the existing system and 25% alteration to impermeable area in the contributing subcatchments ................................................. 12 Figure 2.3 CSO flow during the December typical year event for the existing system and 50% alteration to impermeable area in the contributing subcatchments ................................................. 14 Figure 2.4 CSO flow during the October 2000 154 event for the existing system and 50% alteration to impermeable area in the contributing subcatchments ................................................. 15 Figure 2.5 CSO flow during the December typical year event for the existing system and with 5mm initial rainfall lost in the contributing subcatchments ........................................................................ 17 Figure 2.6 CSO flow during the October 2000 154 event for the existing system and with 5mm initial rainfall lost in the contributing subcatchments ........................................................................ 18 Figure 2.7 CSO volume during the typical year for the existing system and with 50% impermeable area disconnected in the contributing subcatchments ..................................................................... 20 Figure 2.8 CSO event flow during the typical year for the existing system and with 50% impermeable area disconnected in the contributing subcatchments ............................................... 21 Figure 3.1 West Putney Mastermap subcatchment characterisation ............................................. 25 Figure 3.2 CSO event flow during the typical year for the existing system and West Putney PWG disconnection strategy...................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 3.3 Putney Bridge Mastermap subcatchment characterisation ........................................... 29 Figure 3.4 CSO event flow during the typical year for the existing system and Putney Bridge PWG disconnection strategy...................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 3.5 Frogmore (Buckhold Road) Mastermap subcatchment characterisation ...................... 34 Figure 3.6 CSO event flow during the typical year for the existing system and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) PWG disconnection strategy ................................................................................................. 37 Figure 3.7 Putney Bridge event storage volume comparison for each subcatchment ................... 40 Figure 3.8 West Putney PWG disconnection strategy December typical year and October 2000 event results with existing system results for comparison ............................................................... 43 Figure 3.9 Putney Bridge PWG disconnection strategy December typical year and October 2000 event results with existing system results for comparison ............................................................... 44 Figure 3.10 Frogmore (Buckhold Road) PWG disconnection strategy December typical year and October 2000 event results with existing system results for comparison ........................................ 45 Figure 3.11 Total typical year overflow volume comparison for the existing system and PWG disconnection strategy system ......................................................................................................... 46 Figure 3.12 Number of typical year overflow events for the existing system and PWG disconnection strategy system ......................................................................................................... 47

SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc

Printed 28/07/2010

LIST OF TABLES Page Number Table 2.1 Existing system model results December typical year event ......................................... 3 Table 2.2 Existing system model results October 2000 event ....................................................... 3 Table 2.3 Existing system model results typical year .................................................................... 3 Table 2.4 West Putney CSO - December typical year event 25% area change ........................... 4 Table 2.5 Putney Bridge CSO December typical year event 25% area change ........................ 4 Table 2.6 Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO December typical year event 25% area change ... 4 Table 2.7 West Putney CSO October 2000 event 25% area change ......................................... 5 Table 2.8 Putney Bridge CSO October 2000 event 25% area change ...................................... 5 Table 2.9 Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO October 2000 event 25% area change ................. 5 Table 2.10 West Putney CSO - December typical year event 50% area change ......................... 6 Table 2.11 Putney Bridge CSO December typical year event 50% area change ...................... 6 Table 2.12 Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO December typical year event 50% area change . 6 Table 2.13 West Putney CSO October 2000 event 50% area change ....................................... 7 Table 2.14 Putney Bridge CSO October 2000 event 50% area change .................................... 7 Table 2.15 Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO October 2000 event 50% area change ............... 7 Table 2.16 West Putney CSO - December typical year event initial 5mm abstraction .................. 8 Table 2.17 Putney Bridge CSO December typical year event initial 5mm abstraction ............... 8 Table 2.18 Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO December typical year event initial 5mm abstraction .......................................................................................................................................... 8 Table 2.19 West Putney CSO - October 2000 event initial 5mm abstraction ................................ 8 Table 2.20 Putney Bridge CSO October 2000 event initial 5mm abstraction ............................. 9 Table 2.21 Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO October 2000 event initial 5mm abstraction ........ 9 Table 2.22 West Putney CSO typical year 50% impermeable area removed ............................ 9 Table 2.23 Putney Bridge CSO typical year 50% impermeable area removed .......................... 9 Table 2.24 Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO typical year 50% impermeable area removed ..... 9 Table 3.1 InfoWorks existing model subcatchment areas contributing to the West Putney CSO .. 24 Table 3.2 PWG West Putney disconnection strategies .................................................................. 26 Table 3.3 Comparison of CSO overflow results for the existing system and West Putney PWG disconnection strategy...................................................................................................................... 26

SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc

Printed 28/07/2010

Table 3.4 Comparison of CSO overflow results during the typical year for the existing system and West Putney PWG disconnection strategy ...................................................................................... 27 Table 3.5 InfoWorks existing model subcatchment areas contributing to the Putney Bridge CSO 28 Table 3.6 PWG Putney Bridge disconnection strategies ................................................................ 30 Table 3.7 Comparison of CSO overflow results for the existing system and Putney Bridge PWG disconnection strategy...................................................................................................................... 30 Table 3.8 Comparison of CSO overflow results during the typical year for the existing system and Putney Bridge PWG disconnection strategy .................................................................................... 31 Table 3.9 InfoWorks existing model subcatchment areas contributing to the Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO ....................................................................................................................................... 33 Table 3.10 PWG Frogmore (Buckhold Road) disconnection strategies (% area allocated to each surface type) ..................................................................................................................................... 35 Table 3.11 Comparison of CSO overflow results for the existing system and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) PWG disconnection strategy ................................................................................................. 36 Table 3.12 Comparison of CSO overflow results during the typical year for the existing system and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) PWG disconnection strategy ............................................................... 36 Table 3.13 SUDS subcatchment typical year and October 2000 event rainfall analysis ................ 38 Table 3.14 West Putney SUDS storage requirements based on the PWG disconnection strategy areas................................................................................................................................................. 39 Table 3.15 Putney Bridge SUDS storage requirements based on the PWG disconnection strategy areas................................................................................................................................................. 40 Table 3.16 Frogmore (Buckhold Road) SUDS storage requirements based on the PWG disconnection strategy areas ........................................................................................................... 41 Table 4.1 CSO Results during the typical year for the existing system and 50% impermeable area removed............................................................................................................................................ 48

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CSO FEH LTT PWG SUDS STW Combined sewer overflows Flood Estimation Handbook London Tideway Tunnels Pennine Water Group Sustainable drainage systems Sewage treatment works

SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc

Printed 28/07/2010

1 Introduction

INTRODUCTION

This report evaluates the implementation of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) on three subcatchments in the London Tideway Tunnels (LTT) catchment. The three example areas are located in the west of the LTT catchment, south of the River Thames and represent the subcatchments contributing to the West Putney, Putney Bridge and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO). These CSOs are thought the most suitable in the LTT catchment for SUDS selection. The December typical year and October 2000 events represent the most severe recorded rainfall events for the typical year and 154 event rainfall series respectively. The LTT catchment model simulations uses these with each of the SUDS options to produce the most extreme overflows at the CSOs. The complete typical year rainfall was also simulated to provide a representation of the number of spills and total overflow that could be expected at CSOs during the annual series. The LTT model was amended to represent the change in contributing areas produced by the various SUDS options. General disconnection options were modelled as reductions in impermeable contributing area which was modelled as both lost and transferred to permeable areas. Initial losses through rainfall capture techniques were also modelled before a site specific option (produced by PWG) was investigated for the Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO catchment. Model flow results less than 0.001m3/s are treated as zero flow. The population contributing foul flow to the system was unaltered throughout the SUDS modelling as were all other model parameters.

Page 1
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

2 SUDS Impermeable Area Modelling

2 2.1

SUDS IMPERMEABLE AREA MODELLING Introduction

The LTT Model of the existing system was used to represent the impact of SUDS on three CSOs in the west of the LTT catchment (an area contributing to the Crossness Sewage Treatment Works (STW)). The three CSOs are West Putney (CSO5X), Putney Bridge (CSO6X) and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) (CSO7B) and they are, based on review of LTT catchment and local area land use, the most suitable for SUDS selection in the entire LTT catchment. 2.2 Method

The system model splits the LTT catchment into individual subcatchments which are connected to model nodes. Each subcatchment produces flow estimates based on rainfall, subcatchment characteristics and baseflow values. Subcatchment characteristics include the total area of the subcatchment that is connected to the modelled sewer network and the percentage of connected area which is impermeable and permeable. The existing LTT model was refined by splitting a large subcatchment to better represent the system and to allow the impact of SUDS related changes to be calculated. The basins were simulated with the December typical year event and the October 2000 event which relate to a one in two year return period and a one in four year return period respectively and represent the most severe events (in term of CSO volume) of the typical year and 154 event rainfall series. The typical year is rainfall from October 1979 to September 1980. The model subcatchments upstream of the three CSOs were adjusted as follows to provide an initial evaluation of global SUDS impacts on peak flow and CSO volume for the two selected events: 25% impermeable area transferred to permeable area 25% impermeable area removed 50% impermeable area transferred to permeable area 50% impermeable area removed 5mm of rainfall lost at the beginning of the storm events

The typical year was also simulated for the existing system and with 50% impermeable area removed from the subcatchments upstream of the three CSOs. This provides a comparison of overflow volumes, flow rates and number of spills for each of the three CSO during the typical year. The transfer of impermeable area to permeable area changes the magnitude and how simulated flows reach the sewer system. With this change more of the rainfall over the subcatchments will fall onto a permeable area. The permeable area is still connected to the sewer network and therefore will, depending primarily on rainfall intensity, provide some inflow to the sewer during rainfall events. The removal of impermeable area represents a change where the removed area is no longer connected to the sewer network and no inflow is generated during rainfall events. The 5mm rainfall initial abstraction is representative of a local storage system (such as a blue-roof) which stores the first 5mm of rainfall and only when full does the flow contribute to the sewer network. 2.3 Results

The existing system model runs produced the following result for the two selected events.

Page 2
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

2 SUDS Impermeable Area Modelling

Table 2.1 Existing system model results December typical year event Result Maximum flow (m3/s) Average flow during event (m /s) Total overflow volume (m )
3 3

West Putney CSO 0.47 0.10 10,000

Putney Bridge CSO 0.50 0.11 2,300

Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO 0.52 0.11 4,000

Table 2.2 Existing system model results October 2000 event Result Maximum flow (m3/s) Average flow during event (m3/s) Total overflow volume (m3) West Putney CSO 0.93 0.18 13,900 Putney Bridge CSO 2.61 0.35 9,100 Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO 3.03 0.39 17,700

Tables 2.1 and 2.2 show that all three of the CSOs experience overflow during the December and October events and that this is far greater during the more severe October 2000 event. Putney Bridge and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) experience the greatest increases between the two storms and this is due to backing up of the system preventing flow from travelling downstream and forcing more overflows at these CSOs. Table 2.3 Existing system model results typical year Result Maximum flow (m3/s) Number of spill events Total overflow volume (m )
3

West Putney CSO 0.71 59 94,800

Putney Bridge CSO 1.71 33 54,800

Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO 2.75 29 94,500

Table 2.3 shows the model results for the entire typical year and shows the three CSOs experience a significant number of overflows and overflow volume during the 12 month period. West Putney experiences over twice the number of overflow events compared to the two other CSOs and the Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO experiences the lowest number of events. West Putney and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) produce approximately twice the overflow volume as that of the Putney Bridge CSO. 2.3.1 25% subcatchment alteration results for the December typical year event

The results of transferring 25% of the impermeable area to permeable and removing 25% impermeable area for each of the three CSOs during the December typical year event are shown in the following tables.

Page 3
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

2 SUDS Impermeable Area Modelling

Table 2.4 West Putney CSO - December typical year event 25% area change Result Maximum flow (m3/s) Average flow during event (m3/s) Total overflow volume (m3) Existing system 0.47 0.10 10,000 25% impermeable transferred to permeable area 0.42 0.10 8,700 25% impermeable area removed 0.38 0.08 7,500

Table 2.5 Putney Bridge CSO December typical year event 25% area change Result Maximum flow (m3/s) Average flow during event (m3/s) Total overflow volume (m3) Existing system 0.50 0.11 2,300 25% impermeable transferred to permeable area 0.31 0.06 900 25% impermeable area removed 0.28 0.05 700

Table 2.6 Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO December typical year event 25% area change Result Maximum flow (m3/s) Average flow during event (m3/s) Total overflow volume (m3) Existing system 0.52 0.11 4,000 25% impermeable transferred to permeable area 0.21 0.03 800 25% impermeable area removed 0.17 0.03 600

Tables 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 show the impact of transferring or removing impermeable area in the subcatchments contributing to the three CSOs during the December typical year event. The impact of transferring 25% impermeable area to permeable area in the model subcatchments is to reduce the total volume overflow at West Putney by 13%, Putney Bridge by 63% and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) by 80%. In each case the CSO would remain if 25% of the impermeable area is removed. The total volume overflow reduction during the event is 25% at West Putney, 69% at Putney Bridge and 86% at Frogmore (Buckhold Road). Figure 2.1 represents these model flow results. The tables 2.4 to 2.6 also show that maximum flow rates and average flow rates through the CSO during the event are also reduced by transferring or removing impermeable area from the subcatchments. 2.3.2 25% subcatchment alteration results for the October 2000 event

The results of transferring 25% of the impermeable area to permeable and removing 25% impermeable area for each of the three CSOs during the October 2000 event are in tables 2.7 to 2.9.

Page 4
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

2 SUDS Impermeable Area Modelling

Table 2.7 West Putney CSO October 2000 event 25% area change Result Maximum flow (m3/s) Average low during event (m3/s) Total overflow volume (m3) Existing system 0.93 0.18 13,900 25% impermeable transferred to permeable area 0.84 0.17 13,200 25% impermeable area removed 0.76 0.15 11,100

Table 2.8 Putney Bridge CSO October 2000 event 25% area change Result Maximum flow (m3/s) Average flow during event (m3/s) Total overflow volume (m3) Existing system 2.61 0.35 9,100 25% impermeable transferred to permeable area 2.30 0.29 6,600 25% impermeable area removed 2.26 0.29 6,200

Table 2.9 Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO October 2000 event 25% area change Result Maximum flow (m3/s) Average flow during event (m3/s) Total overflow volume (m3) Existing system 3.03 0.39 17,700 25% impermeable transferred to permeable area 2.45 0.35 11,500 25% impermeable area removed 2.32 0.31 10,200

Tables 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9 show the impact of transferring or removing impermeable area in the subcatchments contributing to the three CSOs during the October 2000 event. The impact of transferring 25% impermeable area to permeable area in the model subcatchments is to reduce the total volume overflow at West Putney by 5%, Putney Bridge by 27% and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) by 35%. In all cases the CSO would remain if 25% of the impermeable area is removed. The total volume overflow reduction during the event is 20% at West Putney, 32% at Putney Bridge and 43% at Frogmore (Buckhold Road). Figure 2.2 represents these model flow results. The three tables also show that maximum flow rates and average flow rates through the CSO during the event are also reduced by transferring or removing impermeable area from the subcatchments. 2.3.3 50% subcatchment alteration results for the December typical year event

The results of transferring 50% of the impermeable area to permeable and removing 50% impermeable area for each of the three CSOs during the December typical year event are shown in tables 2.10 to 2.12.

Page 5
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

2 SUDS Impermeable Area Modelling

Table 2.10 West Putney CSO - December typical year event 50% area change Result Maximum flow (m3/s) Average flow during event (m3/s) Total overflow volume (m3) Existing system 0.47 0.10 10,000 50% impermeable transferred to permeable area 0.33 0.08 6,500 50% impermeable area removed 0.28 0.06 5,000

Table 2.11 Putney Bridge CSO December typical year event 50% area change Result Maximum flow (m3/s) Average flow during event (m3/s) Total overflow volume (m3) Existing system 0.50 0.11 2,300 50% impermeable transferred to permeable area 0.12 0.03 100 50% impermeable area removed 0.08 0.03 100

Table 2.12 Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO December typical year event 50% area change Result Maximum flow (m3/s) Average flow during event (m3/s) Total overflow volume (m3) Existing system 0.52 0.11 4,000 50% impermeable transferred to permeable area 0.00 0.00 0 50% impermeable area removed 0.00 0.00 0

Tables 2.10, 2.11 and 2.12 show the major impact of transferring or disconnecting 50% of the impermeable contributing area. Transferring 50% of the impermeable area to permeable also removes all flows at Frogmore (Buckhold Road) and 96% of overflow volume at Putney Bridge. West Putney still has overflow during this event, but the transfer of 50% to permeable area reduces the total overflow volume by 35%. Disconnecting 50% of the impermeable area again shows the removal of discharge at Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSOs during the December typical year event and further impacts Putney Bridge so that 98% of the overflow is removed. The removal of 50% of impermeable area at West Putney reduces the total volume by 50%. Figure 2.3 represents these model flow results. The three tables also show that maximum flow rates and average flow rates through the CSO during the event are also reduced by transferring or removing impermeable area from the subcatchments. 2.3.4 50% subcatchment alteration results for the October 2000 event

The results of transferring 50% of the impermeable area to permeable and removing 50% impermeable area for each of the three CSOs during the October 2000 event are shown in tables 2.13 to 2.15.

Page 6
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

2 SUDS Impermeable Area Modelling

Table 2.13 West Putney CSO October 2000 event 50% area change Result Maximum flow (m3/s) Average flow during event (m3/s) Total overflow volume (m3) Existing system 0.93 0.18 13,900 50% impermeable transferred to permeable area 0.65 0.14 10,800 50% impermeable area removed 0.52 0.12 8,300

Table 2.14 Putney Bridge CSO October 2000 event 50% area change Result Maximum flow (m3/s) Average flow during event (m3/s) Total overflow volume (m3) Existing system 2.61 0.35 9,100 50% impermeable transferred to permeable area 2.04 0.27 4,400 50% impermeable area removed 1.96 0.26 3,600

Table 2.15 Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO October 2000 event 50% area change Result Maximum flow (m3/s) Average flow during event (m3/s) Total overflow volume (m3) Existing system 3.03 0.39 17,700 50% impermeable transferred to permeable area 1.88 0.23 6,500 50% impermeable area removed 1.63 0.19 4,700

Tables 2.13, 2.14 and 2.15 show the significant impact of transferring or removing 50% of the impermeable area in the subcatchments contributing to the three CSOs during the October 2000 event. However CSOs still occur at the three sites for the October 2000 event. The impact of transferring 50% impermeable area to permeable area in the model subcatchments is to reduce the total volume overflow at West Putney by 22%, Putney Bridge by 52% and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) by 64%. If 50% of the impermeable area is completely removed from the subcatchments the total volume overflow during the event is 40% at West Putney, 61% at Putney Bridge and 74% at Frogmore (Buckhold Road). Figure 2.4 represents these model flow results. The three tables also show that maximum flow rates and average flow rates through the CSO during the event are also reduced by transferring or removing impermeable area from the subcatchments. 2.3.5 5mm initial rainfall loss results for the December typical year event

Tables 2.16, 2.17 and 2.18 show the impact of removing the initial 5mm of the rainfall from the storm event. The model shows that during the December typical year event an initial 5mm abstraction of rainfall reduces the volume of overflow at West Putney by 10%, Putney Bridge by 4% and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) by 2%. This small reduction in overflow volume is representative of the severity of the December typical year event, where the initial 5mm of rainfall rapidly fills and then the model reacts to the rest of the storm rainfall as in the unaltered existing systems model. Figure 2.5 represents these model flow results in graphical form.

Page 7
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

2 SUDS Impermeable Area Modelling

Table 2.16 West Putney CSO - December typical year event initial 5mm abstraction Result Maximum flow (m /s) Average flow during event (m3/s) Total overflow volume (m3)
3

Existing system 0.47 0.10 10,000

5mm rainfall lost 0.47 0.10 9,000

Table 2.17 Putney Bridge CSO December typical year event initial 5mm abstraction Result Maximum flow (m /s) Average flow during event (m3/s) Total overflow volume (m3)
3

Existing system 0.50 0.11 2,300

5mm rainfall lost 0.50 0.11 2,200

Table 2.18 Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO December typical year event initial 5mm abstraction Result Maximum flow (m /s) Average flow during event (m3/s) Total overflow volume (m3)
3

Existing system 0.52 0.11 4,000

5mm rainfall lost 0.52 0.11 3,900

The three tables also show that maximum flow rates remain very similar to the existing situation and the average flow rates increase at West Putney and Putney Bridge due to the loss of initial low flows. 2.3.6 5mm initial rainfall loss results for the October 2000 event

Tables 2.19, 2.20 and 2.21 show the impact of removing the initial 5mm of the rainfall from the storm event. The model shows that during the October 2000 event this initial abstraction would reduce the total overflow at West Putney by 2% and no reduction in total overflow volume at Putney Bridge and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSOs. The minimal reduction in overflow again shows that the removal of the first 5mm of rainfall during severe rainfall events has little impact on model overflow volumes. Figure 2.6 represents this in graphical form. Table 2.19 West Putney CSO - October 2000 event initial 5mm abstraction Result Maximum flow (m /s) Average flow during event (m3/s) Total overflow volume (m3)
3

Existing system 0.93 0.18 13,900

5mm rainfall lost 0.93 0.18 13,700

Page 8
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

2 SUDS Impermeable Area Modelling

Table 2.20 Putney Bridge CSO October 2000 event initial 5mm abstraction Result Maximum flow (m /s) Average flow during event (m3/s) Total overflow volume (m3)
3

Existing system 2.61 0.35 9,100

5mm rainfall lost 2.61 0.34 9,100

Table 2.21 Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO October 2000 event initial 5mm abstraction Result Maximum flow (m /s) Average flow during event (m3/s) Total overflow volume (m3)
3

Existing system 3.03 0.39 17,700

5mm rainfall lost 3.03 0.39 17,700

The three tables also show that maximum and average flow rates remain very similar to the existing situation. 2.3.7 50% subcatchment alteration results for the typical year

Tables 2.22, 2.23 and 2.24 show the impact of removing 50% of the contributing impermeable area from the three CSO catchments during the typical year. This reduces the total volume overflow at West Putney by 55%, Putney Bridge by 78% and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) by 77%. Table 2.22 West Putney CSO typical year 50% impermeable area removed Result Maximum flow (m3/s) Number of spill events Total overflow volume (m3) Existing system 0.71 59 94,800 50% impermeable area removed 0.47 52 42,300

Table 2.23 Putney Bridge CSO typical year 50% impermeable area removed Result Maximum flow (m3/s) Number of spill events Total overflow volume (m )
3

Existing system 1.71 33 54,800

50% impermeable area removed 0.62 16 11,800

Table 2.24 Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO typical year 50% impermeable area removed Result Maximum flow (m3/s) Number of spill events Total overflow volume (m )
3

Existing system 2.75 29 94,500

50% impermeable area removed 1.26 10 21,400

In all cases the CSO would still operate during the typical year; however the number of spills is reduced. Figure 2.7 represents these model flow results.

Page 9
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

2 SUDS Impermeable Area Modelling

Tables 1.22, 1.23 and 1.24 also show that maximum flow rates through the CSO during the typical year are also reduced by disconnecting impermeable area in the subcatchments. Figure 2.8 compares each CSO event overflow volume based on volume range, during the typical year for the existing system and the 50% impermeable area removed system. The impact of removing 50% impermeable area in the West Putney CSO catchment is to significantly reduce the number of events which produce overflows greater than 1,000m3 and increase the number of events with lower overflow volume. The Putney Bridge CSO results show all ranges of overflow volume are reduced and overflows greater than 5,000m3 are removed. The Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO results show that all ranges of event overflow volumes are reduced, only one event produces an overflow volume greater than 5,000m3 and all events with less than 100m3 are removed. 2.4 Conclusion

The December typical year event and October 2000 event represent the most severe recorded rainfall events for the typical year and 154 event rainfall series respectively. The LTT catchment model simulations of these events therefore produce the most extreme overflows at the CSOs. The complete typical year rainfall was also simulated to provide a representation of the number of spills and total overflow that could be expected at CSOs during the annual series and with various SUDS assumptions. The December event has a return period of approximately one in two years and the results show that the disconnection of impermeable area has a far greater impact than the transfer of impermeable to permeable area. When 25% of the impermeable area is removed or transferred during the December event the volume and duration of spills is reduced at all three of the CSOs, but overflow is still observed. When 50% impermeable area is transferred to permeable there is no overflow recorded at Frogmore (Buckhold Road) for this event but there is still a small overflow at Putney Bridge and a significant overflow remains at West Putney. When the impermeable area is disconnected the impact is greater with overflow from Putney Bridge reduced by 98% and the West Putney overflow reduced by 50%. The October event has a return period of approximately one in four years and again shows the overflows reducing the most significantly when the impermeable area is disconnected rather than transferred to permeable area. The removal or transfer of 25% of impermeable area has an impact on overflow volume, with the greatest reduction of 43% seen at Frogmore (Buckhold Road), but all the CSOs produce overflow during the event. When 50% of the impermeable area is disconnected the reduction in overflow is far greater, however; all three CSOs still produce during the October 2000 event. The impact of removing the first 5mm of rainfall (via storage in blue-roofs etc) has little effect on severe storm overflows at the three selected CSO sites in the model. The rainfall quickly fills the 5mm depth of storage and the catchment then reacts in the same way as the existing system. It is likely that a far greater impact would be observed on lower intensity or intermittent storms where the 5mm rainfall removal represents a more significant proportion of the total rainfall event. The typical year series contains the December event and over 50 other rainfall events that are typical to the LTT catchment. The typical year results show the impact of disconnecting 50% of impermeable area is to reduce maximum flow rates, total overflow volume and the number of spill events recorded in the annual series. West Putney shows a small reduction in spill events but a significant reduction in total overflow volume, while Putney Bridge and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) show a significant reduction in both volume and number of overflow events. The individual event overflow volumes during the typical year are also greatly affected by the removal of 50% impermeable area, with the number of events producing over 1,000m3 reduced at all three CSOs. The overflow volume shifts in West Putney from larger to smaller overflows with a slight reduction in total overflow events, while the volume and number of events significantly reduces at both Putney Bridge and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSOs.

Page 10
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

2 SUDS Impermeable Area Modelling

Figure 2.1 CSO flow during the December typical year event for the existing system and 25% alteration to impermeable area in the contributing subcatchments

0.8 0.7

CSOFlowduringtheDecemberTypicalYearEvent WestPutneyCSO

0 4

Rainfall

0.6 0.5
Flow(m 3 /s)

ExistingSystem 25%ImpermeableTransferedtoPermeableArea

8 12 16 20 24 28 32

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

Date and Time

0.8 0.7

CSOFlowduringtheDecemberTypicalYearEvent PutneyBridgeCSO

0 4

Rainfall

0.6 0.5

ExistingSystem 25%ImpermeableTransferedtoPermeableArea

8 12 16 20 24 28 32

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

Date and Time

Page 11
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

Rainfall (mm)

Flow(m 3 /s)

25%ImpermeableAreaRemoved

Rainfall (mm)

25%ImpermeableAreaRemoved

2 SUDS Impermeable Area Modelling

CSOFlowduringtheDecemberTypicalYearEvent Frogmore(BuckholdRoad)CSO
0.8 0

0.7
Rainfall Existing System 25%ImpermeableTransferedtoPermeableArea

0.6

0.5

0.4

16

0.3

20

0.2

24

0.1

28

0.0

32

Date and Time

Figure 2.2 CSO flow during the October 2000 154 event for the existing system and 25% alteration to impermeable area in the contributing subcatchments

5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5

Flow(m 3 /s)

CSOFlowduringtheOctober2000 154Event WestPutneyCSO

0 5 10 15

ExistingSystem 25%ImpermeableTransferedtoPermeableArea 25%ImpermeableAreaRemoved

2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

25 30 35 40 45 50

Date and Time

Page 12
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

Rainfall (mm)

3.0

Rainfall

20

Rainfall (mm)

25%ImpermeableAreaRemoved

12

Flow(m 3 /s)

2 SUDS Impermeable Area Modelling

5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5

CSOFlowduringtheOctober2000 154Event PutneyBridgeCSO

0 5 10 15

Existing System 25%ImpermeableTransferedtoPermeableArea 25%ImpermeableAreaRemoved

2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

25 30 35 40 45 50

Date and Time

CSOFlowduringtheOctober2000 154Event Frogmore(BuckholdRoad)CSO

5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5
Rainfall

0 5 10 15
Existing System 25%ImpermeableTransferedtoPermeableArea

2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

25%ImpermeableAreaRemoved

25 30 35 40 45 50

Date and Time

Page 13
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

Rainfall (mm)

Flow(m 3/s)

3.0

20

Rainfall (mm)

Flow(m 3 /s)

3.0

Rainfall

20

2 SUDS Impermeable Area Modelling

Figure 2.3 CSO flow during the December typical year event for the existing system and 50% alteration to impermeable area in the contributing subcatchments

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

Flow(m 3/s)

CSOFlowduringtheDecemberTypicalYearEvent WestPutneyCSO

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32

Rainfall ExistingSystem

50%ImpermeableAreaRemoved

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

Date and Time

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

CSOFlowduringtheDecemberTypicalYearEvent PutneyBridgeCSO

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32

Rainfall Existing System

50%ImpermeableAreaRemoved

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

Date and Time

Page 14
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

Rainfall (mm)

Flow(m 3 /s)

50%ImpermeableTransferedtoPermeableArea

Rainfall (mm)

50%ImpermeableTransferedtoPermeableArea

2 SUDS Impermeable Area Modelling

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

Flow(m 3/s)

CSOFlowduringtheDecemberTypicalYearEvent Frogmore(BuckholdRoad)CSO

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32

Rainfall Existing System

50%ImpermeableAreaRemoved

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

Date and Time

Figure 2.4 CSO flow during the October 2000 154 event for the existing system and 50% alteration to impermeable area in the contributing subcatchments

5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5

Rainfall

CSOFlowduringtheOctober2000 154Event WestPutneyCSO

0 5 10 15

Flow(m 3/s)

ExistingSystem 50%ImpermeableTransferedtoPermeableArea 50%ImpermeableAreaRemoved

2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

25 30 35 40 45 50

Date and Time

Page 15
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

Rainfall (mm)

3.0

20

Rainfall (mm)

50%ImpermeableTransferedtoPermeableArea

2 SUDS Impermeable Area Modelling

5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5

Rainfall

CSOFlowduringtheOctober2000 154Event PutneyBridgeCSO

0 5 10 15

Flow(m 3 /s)

ExistingSystem 50%ImpermeableTransferedtoPermeableArea 50%ImpermeableAreaRemoved

2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

25 30 35 40 45 50

Date and Time

CSOFlowduringtheOctober2000 154Event Frogmore(BuckholdRoad)CSO

5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0
Rainfall ExistingSystem 50%ImpermeableTransferedtoPermeableArea 50%ImpermeableAreaRemoved

0 5 10 15
Rainfall (mm)

Flow(m 3/s)

20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Date and Time

Page 16
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

Rainfall (mm)

3.0

20

2 SUDS Impermeable Area Modelling

Figure 2.5 CSO flow during the December typical year event for the existing system and with 5mm initial rainfall lost in the contributing subcatchments

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

CSOFlowduringtheDecemberTypicalYearEvent WestPutneyCSO

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32

Rainfall ExistingSystem

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

Date and Time

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

CSOFlowduringtheDecemberTypicalYearEvent PutneyBridgeCSO

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32

Rainfall ExistingSystem

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

Date and Time

Page 17
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

Rainfall (mm)

Flow(m3 /s)

5mmRainfallLost

Rainfall (mm)

Flow(m 3 /s)

5mmRainfallLost

2 SUDS Impermeable Area Modelling

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

Flow(m 3/s)

CSOFlowduringtheDecemberTypicalYearEvent Frogmore(BuckholdRoad)CSO

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32

Rainfall Existing System

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

Date and Time

Figure 2.6 CSO flow during the October 2000 154 event for the existing system and with 5mm initial rainfall lost in the contributing subcatchments

5 4.5 4 3.5

CSOFlowduringtheOctober2000 154Event WestPutneyCSO

0 5 10 15

ExistingSystem

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

5mmRainfallLost

25 30 35 40 45 50

Date and Time

Page 18
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

Rainfall (mm)

Flow(m 3/s)

Rainfall

20

Rainfall (mm)

5mmRainfallLost

2 SUDS Impermeable Area Modelling

5 4.5 4 3.5 Flow(m 3 /s) 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Rainfall

CSOFlowduringtheOctober2000 154Event PutneyBridgeCSO

0 5 10 15 Rainfall (mm) 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

ExistingSystem 5mmRainfallLost

Date and Time

Page 19
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

2 SUDS Impermeable Area Modelling

Figure 2.7 CSO volume during the typical year for the existing system and with 50% impermeable area disconnected in the contributing subcatchments

CSOEventVolumeduringtheTypicalYear WestPutneyCSO
14,000
ExistingSystem

12,000

50%ImpermeableAreaRemoved

10,000
Volume (m 3 )

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

Date

CSOEventVolumeduringtheTypicalYear PutneyBridgeCSO
14,000
ExistingSystem

12,000

50%ImpermeableAreaRemoved

10,000

Volume (m 3 )

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

Date

Page 20
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

2 SUDS Impermeable Area Modelling

CSOEventVolumeduringtheTypicalYear Frogmore(BuckholdRoad)CSO
14,000
ExistingSystem

12,000

50%ImpermeableAreaRemoved

10,000

Volume (m 3 )

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

Date

Figure 2.8 CSO event flow during the typical year for the existing system and with 50% impermeable area disconnected in the contributing subcatchments

25

CSOVolumeduringtheTypicalYearEvent WestPutneyCSO
Existing System 50% ImpermeableAreaRemoved

20

NumberofEvents)

15

Large eventsreducedinvolume, hence increase inthe numberof lowereventvolumes

10

TotalEvent Volume Range (m 3 )

Page 21
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

2 SUDS Impermeable Area Modelling

CSOVolumeduringtheTypicalYearEvent PutneyBridgeCSO
25
ExistingSystem 50% ImpermeableAreaRemoved

20

NumberofEvents)

15

10

TotalEvent Volume Range (m 3)

CSOVolumeduringtheTypicalYearEvent Frogmore(BuckholdRoad)CSO
25
Existing System 50% ImpermeableAreaRemoved

20

Number ofEvents)

15

10

TotalEvent Volume Range (m 3 )

Page 22
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

3 3.1

PWG DISCONNECTION STRATEGY MODELLING Introduction

The London Tideway Tunnels (LTT) Model of the existing system was used to represent the impact of the disconnection strategy options (supplied by PWG in May 2009) for the West Putney, Putney Bridge and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) catchments. The disconnection options are defined in the PWG Report Potential source control and SUDS applications: Land use and retrofit options. Although the results of the modelling of these options are included here, PWG subsequently developed a refined approach and identified final disconnection scenarios which had a reduced impact on impermeable area reduction. The refined disconnection strategy corresponds to approximately 37% removal of the existing impermeable area rather than the 70 to 80% reported in this section. However the methodology described would apply to the lower figures which as yet have not been modelled.

3.2

Method

The disconnection strategy for the three CSO catchments used the MasterMap mapping layer to split the contributing subcatchments into areas of permeable and impermeable. The impermeable area is then further spilt into areas where initial loss of rainwater (eg, with the use of blue-roofs) can be applied, areas where storage attenuation can be implemented, areas of impermeable surfaces which can be transferred to permeable and areas which will remain impermeable. No areas were identified by PWG for complete removal (through storm water separation). The contributing area with initial losses is representative of a SUDS retention device that provides 25mm of storage across its associated area. This was modelled as having 25mm depth of initial storage which when exceeded would then contribute to the sewer network in the same way as the impermeable area. The disconnection strategy was applied to each of the InfoWorks Model subcatchments which contribute to the three CSOs by modifying the subcatchment parameters (areas). The following section outlines the specific changes made to each of the three CSO areas. The typical year results for each of the three CSOs are shown alongside the Mastermap subcatchments in figures 3.11 and 3.12 at the end of this section. 3.3 3.3.1 West Putney Catchment Analysis

The InfoWorks Model has seven subcatchments upstream of the West Putney CSO with the properties shown in Table 3.1. The MasterMap characterisation of the West Putney subcatchment is shown in Figure 3.1. This exercise was undertaken for all of the seven subcatchments contributing to the West Putney CSO and the PWG disconnection strategy results are shown in Table 3.2.

Page 23
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

Table 3.1 InfoWorks existing model subcatchment areas contributing to the West Putney CSO Subcatchment InfoWorks node ID 24751451 a Total area (ha) Impermeabl e Permeable % ha % ha 19.9 48.0 9.6 52.0 10.3 2172960 1 95.2 2.7 2.6 0.0 0.0 2175745 2 87.2 22.0 19.2 78.0 68.0 2174570 1 24.6 1.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 24751451 b 28.4 48.0 13.6 52.0 14.8 2174320 1 84.0 4.3 3.6 0.0 0.0 2174300 1 86.0 2.0 1.7 98.0 84.3 Totals 425ha 12% 51ha 42% 177ha

Areas may not add to totals due to rounding and permeable area not connected to the system.

Page 24
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

Figure 3.1 West Putney Mastermap subcatchment characterisation

Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. Crown Copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345

Page 25
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

Table 3.2 PWG West Putney disconnection strategies (% area allocated to each surface type) Subcatchment InfoWorks node ID 24751451 a Total area (ha) Impermeabl e Permeable Impermeabl e with initial losses Impermeabl e with storage % ha % ha % ha % ha 19.9 12.68 2.5 65.26 13.0 2.17 0.4 19.90 4.0 2172960 1 95.2 0.58 0.6 0.25 0.2 0.40 0.4 1.47 1.4 2175745 2 87.2 5.61 4.9 78.96 68.9 4.81 4.2 10.62 9.3 2174570 1 24.6 0.83 0.2 0.24 0.1 0.02 0.0 0.58 0.1 24751451 b 28.4 14.19 4.0 64.86 18.4 1.81 0.5 19.13 5.4 2174320 1 84.0 0.59 0.5 0.62 0.5 0.77 0.7 2.30 1.9 2174300 1 86.0 1.65 1.4 98.02 84.3 0.02 0.0 0.32 0.3 Totals 425ha 3% 14ha 44% 185ha 1% 6ha 5% 22

Areas may not add to totals due to rounding and permeable area not connected to the system.

The model was first amended so that the areas for each source control option matched the areas provided by PWG. In InfoWorks this is done by adjusting area percentage in the nine subcatchments. For example in subcatchment 21757452 the impermeable area was reduced from 22.0% (19.2ha) to 5.61% (4.9ha) based on detailed analysis of surfaces and source control options. Areas with initial losses were also added to the model subcatchments. For example subcatchment 21757452 was estimated to have potential for 4.81% area subject to initial losses or an area of 4.2 hectares. The contributing area with storage was represented as lost in the subcatchment as the flow would be captured by the SUDS storage volume and returned to the system after the CSO event. All other current model parameters were left unchanged. 3.3.2 Results

The West Putney disconnection strategy model results are shown in Table 3.3 and graphical representation is shown in Figure 3.8.

Table 3.3 Comparison of CSO overflow results for the existing system and West Putney PWG disconnection strategy
West Putney CSO existing system December typical year event volume (m3) October 2000 event volume (m3) West Putney CSO PWG disconnection strategy Percentage (PWG vs existing)

10,000 13,900

3,300 6,000

33% 43%

Page 26
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

Table 3.3 shows the reduction in CSO volume caused by implementing the PWG disconnection strategy in the West Putney catchment. During both the December typical year and October 2000 event the overflow from the CSO is significantly reduced. This is expected given the reduction in impermeable area contributing runoff directly to the sewer network. When compared to the 50% removal of impermeable area (sections 2.3.3 and 2.3.4) the PWG disconnection strategy produces approximately 2,000m3 less overflow during both events.

Table 3.4 Comparison of CSO overflow results during the typical year for the existing system and West Putney PWG disconnection strategy
West Putney CSO existing system Typical year event total volume (m3) Typical year event number of overflow events (m3) West Putney CSO disconnection strategy Percentage (PWG vs existing)

94,800

21,900

23%

59

39

66%

Table 3.4 shows the effect of the disconnection strategy on West Putney overflows during the modelled typical year. The total overflow volume is reduced by 77%, while the number of overflows is reduced by 34%. Figure 3.2 shows the range of overflow volumes during the typical year and compares these to the existing system in West Putney. It shows a reduction in the number of event overflows that produce more than 1000m3 and the same number of events which produce less than 1000m3. This is representative of events which originally experienced greater overflow but which have fallen 1000m3 due to the PWG disconnection strategy reducing event overflows.

Page 27
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

Figure 3.2 CSO event flow during the typical year for the existing system and West Putney PWG disconnection strategy

25

CSOVolumeduringtheTypicalYearEvent WestPutneyCSO
ExistingSystem PWGDisconnectionStrategy

20

NumberofEvents)

15

10

TotalEvent Volume Range (m 3 )

3.4 3.4.1

Putney Bridge Catchment analysis

The InfoWorks Model has four subcatchments upstream of the Putney Bridge CSO with the properties shown in Table 3.5. The MasterMap characterisation of the Putney Bridge subcatchment is shown in Figure 3.3. Putney Bridge also is influenced by flows originating in West Putney. This exercise was undertaken for all of the four subcatchments contributing to the Putney Bridge CSO and the PWG initial disconnection strategy results are shown in Table 3.6.

Table 3.5 InfoWorks existing model subcatchment areas contributing to the Putney Bridge CSO Subcatchment InfoWorks node ID 24750701 Total area (ha) Impermeabl e Permeable % ha % ha 74.9 42.0 31.5 58.0 43.4 2475145d 29.6 48.0 14.2 52.0 15.4 2475145c 20.6 48.0 9.9 52.0 10.7 24751402 17.1 53.0 9.1 47.0 8.0 Totals 142ha 45% 65ha 55% 78ha

Page 28
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

Figure 3.3 Putney Bridge Mastermap subcatchment characterisation

Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. Crown Copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345

Page 29
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

Table 3.6 PWG Putney Bridge disconnection strategies (% area allocated to each surface type) Subcatchment InfoWorks node ID 24750701 Total area (ha) Impermeabl e Permeable Impermeabl e with initial losses Impermeabl e with storage % ha % ha % ha % ha 74.9 9.66 7.2 65.58 49.1 7.94 5.9 16.82 12.6 2475145d 29.6 7.44 2.2 63.76 18.9 12.20 3.6 16.59 4.9 2475145c 20.6 12.61 2.6 68.37 14.1 1.29 0.3 17.73 3.7 24751402 17.1 6.20 1.1 58.41 10.0 10.52 1.8 24.87 4.3 Totals 142ha 9% 13ha 65% 92ha 8% 12 18% 26

Areas may not add to totals due to rounding.

The model was first amended so that the areas for each source control option matched the areas provided by PWG. In InfoWorks this is done by adjusting area percentage in the nine subcatchments. For example in subcatchment 24751402 the impermeable area was reduced from 53.0% (9.1ha) to 6.20% (1.1ha) based on detailed analysis of surfaces and source control options. Areas with initial losses were also added to the model subcatchments. For example subcatchment 24751402 was estimated to have potential for 10.52% area subject to initial losses or an area of 1.8 hectares. The contributing area with storage was represented as lost in the subcatchment as the flow would be captured by the SUDS storage volume and returned to the system after the CSO event. All other current model parameters were left unchanged. 3.4.2 Results

The Putney Bridge disconnection strategy model results are shown in Table 3.7 and graphical representation is shown in Figure 3.9.

Table 3.7 Comparison of CSO overflow results for the existing system and Putney Bridge PWG disconnection strategy
Putney Bridge CSO existing system December typical year event volume (m3) October 2000 event volume (m3) Putney Bridge CSO PWG disconnection strategy Percentage (PWG vs existing)

2,300 9,100

0 2,300

0% 25%

Page 30
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

Table 3.7 shows the impact of implementing the PWG disconnection strategy in the Putney Bridge catchment. During the December typical year event the overflow from the CSO is removed and during the October 2000 event the CSO is reduced by 75%. This is expected given the reduction in impermeable area contributing runoff directly to the sewer network. When compared to the 50% removal of impermeable area (section 2.3.3 and 2.3.4) the PWG disconnection strategy removes the December Event overflow completely when the 50% removal still left a small overflow at the CSO. 1,300m3 less overflow is recorded during the October 2000 event than in the 50% removal of impermeable area model.

Table 3.8 Comparison of CSO overflow results during the typical year for the existing system and Putney Bridge PWG disconnection strategy Putney Bridge CSO
existing system Typical year event total volume (m3) Typical year event number of overflow events (m3)

Putney Bridge CSO disconnection strategy 8,500

Percentage (PWG vs existing)

54,800

16%

33

24%

Table 3.8 shows the effect of the disconnection strategy on Putney Bridge overflows during the modelled typical year. The total overflow volume is reduced by 84%, while the number of overflows is reduced by 76%. Figure 3.4 shows the range of overflow volumes during the typical year and compares these to the existing system in Putney Bridge. It shows the reduction in the number of events and event volumes. For example there are only five CSO events with a total volume less than 1,000m3 and no events with an overflow volume greater then 5,000m3 during the typical year with the PWG disconnection strategy. Figure 3.4 CSO event flow during the typical year for the existing system and Putney Bridge PWG disconnection strategy

CSOVolumeduringtheTypicalYearEvent PutneyBridgeCSO
25
ExistingSystem PWGDisconnectionStrategy

20

NumberofEvents)

15

10

TotalEvent Volume Range (m 3 )

Page 31
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

3.5 3.5.1

Frogmore (Buckhold Road) Catchment analysis

The InfoWorks Model has nine subcatchments upstream of the Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO with the properties shown in Table 3.9. The MasterMap characterisation of the Frogmore (Buckhold Road) subcatchment is shown in Figure 3.5. This exercise was undertaken for all of the nine subcatchments contributing to the Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO and the PWG initial disconnection strategy results are shown in Table 3.10.

Page 32
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

Table 3.9 InfoWorks existing model subcatchment areas contributing to the Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO

Subcatchment InfoWorks node ID 2574010 2 Total area (ha) Impermeable % ha 69.2 40.0 27.7 24749501 38.5 53.0 20.4 24743902 21.8 46.0 10.0 24736291 95.3 43.0 41.0 23749901 88.7 44.0 39.0 23741101 72.9 1.1 0.8
88% in parks (permeable) but area is not connected to system

23731801 and 23732702 10.4 39.5 4.1

22749802 57.5 34.0 19.5

Totals 454ha 36% 163ha

Permeable

60.0

47.0

54.0

57.0

56.0

60.5

66.0

48%

ha

41.5

18.1

11.8

54.3

49.7

6.3

38.0

220ha

Areas may not add to totals due to rounding. Subcatchment 23741101 has a large proportion of permeable area which is not connected to the system.

Page 33
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

Figure 3.5 Frogmore (Buckhold Road) Mastermap subcatchment characterisation

Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. Crown Copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345 Page 34
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

Table 3.10 PWG Frogmore (Buckhold Road) disconnection strategies (% area allocated to each surface type)

Subcatchment InfoWorks node ID

25740102 24749501 24743902 24736291 23749901 23741101 23732702 23731801 22749802 Frogmore subcatchments total

Total area (ha) Impermeable % ha % ha % ha % ha

69.2 10.98 7.6 68.37 47.3 3.82 2.6 16.83 11.6

38.5 9.08 3.5 56.39 21.7 7.26 2.8 27.27 10.5

21.8 10.32 2.2 65.10 14.2 3.91 0.9 20.67 4.5

95.3 9.77 9.3 66.20 63.1 4.02 3.8 20.01 19.1

88.7 8.97 8.0 65.63 58.2 5.24 4.6 20.16 17.9

72.9 0.49 0.4 0.03 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.59 0.4

1.4 7.24 0.1 75.10 1.1 1.47 0.0 16.19 0.2

9.1 11.96 1.1 70.60 6.4 3.32 0.3 14.12 1.3

57.5 10.59 6.1 72.57 41.7 2.18 1.3 14.65 8.4

454ha 9% 42ha 56% 254ha 4% 16ha 17% 78ha

Permeable Impermeable with initial losses Impermeable with storage

Areas may not add to totals due to rounding. Subcatchment 23741101 has a large proportion of permeable area which is not connected to the system.

Page 35
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

The model was first amended so that the areas for each source control option matched the areas provided by PWG. In InfoWorks this is done by adjusting area percentage in the nine subcatchments. For example in subcatchment 25740102 the impermeable area was reduced from 40.0% (69.2ha) to 10.98% (7.6ha) based on detailed analysis of surfaces and source control options. Areas with initial losses were also added to the model subcatchments. For example subcatchment 25740102 was estimated to have potential for 3.82% area subject to initial losses or an area of 2.6 hectares. The contributing area with storage was represented as lost in the subcatchment as the flow would be captured by the SUDS storage volume and returned to the system after the CSO event. All other current model parameters were left unchanged. 3.5.2 Results

The Frogmore disconnection strategy model results are shown in Table 3.11 and graphical representation is shown in Figure 3.10.

Table 3.11 Comparison of CSO overflow results for the existing system and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) PWG disconnection strategy
Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO existing system December typical year event volume (m3) October 2000 event volume (m3) Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO PWG disconnection strategy Percentage (PWG vs existing)

4,000 17,700

0 2,500

0% 14%

Table 3.11 shows the impact of implementing the PWG disconnection strategy in the Frogmore (Buckhold Road) catchment. During the December typical year event the overflow from the CSO is totally removed and during the October 2000 event the CSO volume is reduced by 86%. This is expected given the reduction in impermeable area contributing runoff directly to the sewer network. When compared to the 50% removal of impermeable area (section 2.3.3 and 2.3.4) the PWG disconnection strategy controls the December typical year event and results in 2,200m3 less overflow during the October 2000 event.

Table 3.12 Comparison of CSO overflow results during the typical year for the existing system and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) PWG disconnection strategy
Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO existing system Typical year event total volume (m3) Typical year event number of overflow events (m3) Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO disconnection strategy Percentage (PWG vs existing)

94,500

1,700

2%

29

7%

Table 3.12 shows the effect of the disconnection strategy on Frogmore (Buckhold Road) overflows during the modelled typical year. The total overflow volume is reduced by 98%, while the number of overflows is reduced from 29 to two for the existing and PWG models respectively. Figure 3.6 shows the range of overflow volumes during the typical year and compares these to the existing

Page 36
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

system in Frogmore (Buckhold Road). It shows the original system produces 6 CSO events during the typical year which are greater than 5,000m3, while the PWG disconnection strategy system produces no events with more than 5,000m3 volume. The impact of the PWG disconnection strategy on the Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO is due to the reduction (approximately 75%) in impermeable area draining directly to the combined sewer system during periods of rainfall.

Figure 3.6 CSO event flow during the typical year for the existing system and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) PWG disconnection strategy

CSOVolumeduringtheTypicalYearEvent Frogmore(BuckholdRoad)CSO
25
ExistingSystem PWGDisconnectionStrategy

20

Number ofEvents)

15

10

TotalEvent Volume Range (m 3 )

3.6

Typical Year Rainfall Analysis

In the InfoWorks LTT Model a single rain gauge (Gauge 14) covers all of the Putney Bridge and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) catchments and the majority of the West Putney catchment. Another rain gauge (Gauge 43) covers the remaining proportion of the north-western area of the West Putney catchment. The five minute typical year rainfall and October 2000 event rainfall data at Rain Gauge 14 is assessed in Table 3.13:

Page 37
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

Table 3.13 SUDS subcatchment typical year and October 2000 event rainfall analysis
Typical year December typical year event October 2000 event

Number of events Number of hours with rainfall Total rainfall depth (mm) Peak (5-minute) rainfall intensity (mm/hr)

63 855 565 67.7

3 31 44 10.4

1 12 43 23.6

Total rainfall volume in the 5,773,700 449,600 439,400 PWG catchment area (m3) *Separate events are categorised as having a preceding 24hr of no rain. The data is based on the 5 minute rainfall data series and the peak intensity (67.7mm/hr) was recorded at 23:10 on the 25th July 1980 in the typical year rainfall series.

The peak typical year event was recorded in late December and this lasts for approximately three days. The InfoWorks model runs the December event for 14 days starting on the 18th of the month and although producing a total of 44mm, there are extended periods at the start of the 14 days where no rain is observed. The main rainfall event in December falls over the 26th and 27th with a maximum rainfall intensity (for a 5-minute period) of 10.4mm/hr. The October 2000 event starts on the 29th, lasts just over one day and produces 43mm of rainfall with a maximum rainfall intensity of 23.6mm/hr. Overflows are a direct consequence of rainfall volume and intensity and the ability of the collection system to carry the flow. This is why, for the typical year results, the December event (large rainfall volume but over a long time) CSOs has been significantly reduced at Putney Bridge and removed entirely at Frogmore (Buckhold Road), but other overflows still occur at these locations during the year due to more intense storm events. During the typical year there are 63 individual rainfall events (characterised by a preceding period of at least 24 hours of no rain). Five of these events have a total rainfall depth greater than 25mm, which would exceed the initial loss SUDS storage depth and contribute runoff to the sewer network. However; only a relatively low number of the individual events have a preceding dry period of more than three days which means that for a significant proportion of the typical year the initial loss SUDS devices in the LTT catchment may not have time to completely empty between rainfall events. When the subsequent rainfall event occurs over the catchment there would be less than the total 25mm of storage depth available so events with lower rainfall depths could also exceed the SUDS storage and contribute flow to the local sewers. 3.7 Design Storm Storage

The storage option was modelled separately in InfoWorks so that the peak runoff and total storage volume for each subcatchment in the PWG disconnection strategy could be assessed for a selection of design storm events. The contributing area assigned to the storage option for each subcatchment was taken from the PWG disconnection strategy. The storage option also has an initial loss of 25mm applied to runoff, which when exceeded would feed into the SUDS storage device. In reality this would be a number of multiple storage devices, but for the purpose of modelling this is shown as total volume required for the entire subcatchment. The results for West Putney, Putney Bridge and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) are shown in the following tables. The results shown are for the December typical year event, the October 2000 event and the two design storms on which the storage requirements could be based.

Page 38
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

Table 3.14 West Putney SUDS storage requirements based on the PWG disconnection strategy areas

PWG SUDS subcatchment storage volume requirements 24751451a Total impermeable area with 25mm initial loss and storage December typical year event October 2000 event 15yr design storm 30yr design storm Volume (m3) Volume (m3) Volume (m3) Volume (m3) 4.0ha 21729601 1.4ha 21757452 9.3ha 21745701 0.1ha 24751451b 5.4ha 21743201 1.9ha 21743001 0.3ha

210 470 340 490

90 150 140 220

770 350 900 1,350

10 10 10 20

290 640 490 710

120 220 190 290

20 30 30 40

Page 39
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

Table 3.15 Putney Bridge SUDS storage requirements based on the PWG disconnection strategy areas PWG SUDS subcatchment storage volume requirements 24750701 Total impermeable area with 25mm initial loss and storage December typical year event October 2000 event 15yr design storm 30yr design storm Volume (m3) Volume (m3) Volume (m3) Volume (m3) 12.6ha 820 1,340 1,290 2,060 2475145 d 4.9ha 270 580 440 650 2475145 c 3.7ha 190 440 310 460 2475140 2 4.3ha 280 450 430 730

Figure 3.7 Putney Bridge event storage volume comparison for each subcatchment

ComparisonofEventStorageVolumeRequirementsforeach Subcatchmentin PutneyBridge

2,500 December TypicalYear Event October 2000Event 2,000 15yr DesignStorm 30yr DesignStorm

Volume (m 3 )

1,500

1,000

500

0 24750701 2475145d Subcatchment 2475145c 24751402

Page 40
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

Table 3.16 Frogmore (Buckhold Road) SUDS storage requirements based on the PWG disconnection strategy areas PWG SUDS subcatchment storage volume requirements
25740102 24749501 24743902 24736291 23749901 23741101 23732702 23731801 22749802

Total impermeable area with 25mm initial loss and storage December typical year event October 2000 event 15yr design storm 30yr design storm Volume (m3) Volume (m3) Volume (m3) Volume (m3)

11.6ha 740 1,270 1,190 1,830

10.5ha 700 1,110 1,060 1,770

4.5ha 280 500 450 700

19.1ha 1,110 2,190 1,840 2,740

17.9ha 1,020 2,070 1,710 2,530

0.4ha 30 50 40 60

0.2ha 10 30 20 30

1.3ha 70 150 110 160

8.4ha 500 950 820 1,230

Page 41
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

Tables 3.14 to 3.16 show the required storage is proportional to the contributing area. The initial 25mm loss during the event reduces the required storage but depending on the design storm used to size the SUDS storage device the required volume could be several thousand cubic meters. This could be split between a number of sites and provides a significant reduction in peak flow volume entering the sewer network and contributing to the CSO events. 3.8 Conclusion

The PWG disconnection strategy has a positive impact on all three CSOs and reduces the volume overflowing for all modelled events and reduces the volume and number of overflow events during the typical year. The reduction in overflow is greater than the 50% impermeable area removal in Section 2 of this report, which is due to the disconnection of approximately 75% of the subcatchments impermeable area into permeable, initial loss and storage areas. However, as shown by the development of the final disconnection scenarios, this level of disconnection is unlikely to be achievable in practice. The number of CSO events remains high at West Putney and Putney Bridge and SUDS alone may not provide sufficient source control to eliminate the need for additional CSO facilities. Source controls in the Frogmore catchment has the most significant impact at the CSO with the number of events reducing to two in the typical year. This potentially has a significant effect on the CSO control options for Frogmore (Buckhold Road). Source controls assessed for Frogmore (Buckhold Road) would appear to be sufficient to avoid additional CSO control facilities. PWGs refined approach concluded that the disconnection strategies reported in this section were not feasible in practice. Their refined disconnection strategy corresponds to approximately 37% removal of the existing impermeable area. This scenario was not modelled specifically but performance was estimated by PWG using the results for 25% and 50% area reduction as reported in Sections 2 and 4.

Page 42
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

Figure 3.8 West Putney PWG disconnection strategy December typical year and October 2000 event results with existing system results for comparison

0.8 0.7 0.6

WestPutneyCSOFlowduringtheDecemberTypicalYearEvent ExistingSystemandPWGDisconnectionStrategy

0 4 8

Rainfall

Flow(m 3 /s)

WestPutney Disconnection StrategyResults

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

16 20 24 28 32

Date and Time

5 4.5 4 3.5
Flow(m 3 /s)

WestPutneyCSOFlowduringtheOctober2000Event ExistingSystemandPWGDisconnectionStrategy

0 5 10 15
Rainfall (mm)

3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Rainfall WestPutney ExistingSystemResults WestPutney DisconnectionStrategyResults

20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Date and Time

Page 43
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

Rainfall (mm)

0.5

WestPutney ExistingSystemResults

12

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

Figure 3.9 Putney Bridge PWG disconnection strategy December typical year and October 2000 event results with existing system results for comparison

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

PutneyBridgeCSOFlowduringtheDecemberTypicalYearEvent ExistingSystemandPWGDisconnectionStrategy

0 4

Rainfall PutneyBridge ExistingSystemResults

8 12 16 20 24 28 32

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Date and Time

5 4.5 4 3.5
Rainfall

PutneyBridgeCSOFlowduringtheOctober2000Event ExistingSystemandPWGDisconnectionStrategy

0 5 10 15
Rainfall (mm)

Flow(m 3 /s)

3
PutneyBridge ExistingSystemResults

20
PutneyBridge DisconnectionStrategyResults

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

25 30 35 40 45 50

Date and Time

Page 44
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

Rainfall (mm)

Flow(m 3 /s)

PutneyBridge DisconnectionStrategyResults

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

Figure 3.10 Frogmore (Buckhold Road) PWG disconnection strategy December typical year and October 2000 event results with existing system results for comparison

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

Frogmore(BuckholdRoad)CSOFlowduringtheDecemberTypicalYearEvent ExistingSystemandPWGDisconnectionStrategy

0 4

Rainfall Frogmore (BuckholdRoad) ExistingSystemResults

8 12 16 20 24 28 32

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Date and Time

5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5

Flow(m 3 /s)

Frogmore(BuckholdRoad)CSOFlowduringtheOctober2000Event ExistingSystemandPWGDisconnectionStrategy

0 5 10 15

Frogmore (BuckholdRoad) ExistingSystemResults

2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

Frogmore (BuckholdRoad) DisconnectionStrategyResults

25 30 35 40 45 50

Date and Time

Page 45
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

Rainfall (mm)

3.0

Rainfall

20

Rainfall (mm)

Frogmore (BuckholdRoad) DisconnectionStrategyResults

Flow(m 3 /s)

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

Figure 3.11 Total typical year overflow volume comparison for the existing system and PWG disconnection strategy system

Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. Crown Copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345 Page 46
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

3 PWG Disconnection Strategy Modelling

Figure 3.12 Number of typical year overflow events for the existing system and PWG disconnection strategy system

Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. Crown Copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345 Page 47
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

4 50% Impermeable Area Reduction for the Entire LTT Model

4 4.1

50% IMPERMEABLE AREA REDUCTION FOR THE ENTIRE LTT MODEL Introduction

The LTT model (March 2009) of the existing system was used to represent the impact at each CSO location of removing 50% impermeable area from all subcatchments in the system. No discussion on how this could be implemented or if practical is included. 4.2 Method

The contributing impermeable area at each of the InfoWorks model subcatchments was reduced by 50%. This reduced the total contributing impermeable area in the LTT model from 20,654ha to 10,327ha. 4.3 Results

The results for the existing system with 50% impermeable area removed are shown in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 CSO Results during the typical year for the existing system and 50% impermeable area removed CSO Existing system Total overflow volume (m3) 611,700 2,200 2,027,300 94,800 54,800 18,300 94,500 Number of events 40 3 57 59 33 36 29 50% impermeable area removed Total everflow volume (m3) 135,400 425,700 42,300 11,800 4,200 21,400 Number of events 21 43 52 16 21 10

Referenc e no

Name

Percentag e change in overflow volume

CS01X CS02X CS03X CS04X CS05X CS06X CS07A CS07B CS08A

Acton Storm Relief Stamford Brook Storm Relief North West Storm Relief Hammersmith Pumping Stn West Putney Storm Relief Putney Bridge Frogmore SR Bell Lane Creek Frogmore SRBuckhold Rd Jews Row Wandle Valley SR Jews Row Falcon Brook SR Falcon Brook Pumping Stn Lots Rd Pumping Stn

78% 100% 79% 55% 78% 77% 77%

4,700

100%

CS08B CS09X CS10X

7,100 703,900 1,093,500

2 43 39

190,900 325,000

32 28

100% 73% 70%

Page 48
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

4 50% Impermeable Area Reduction for the Entire LTT Model

CSO

Existing system Total overflow volume (m3) 1,400 278,300 2,154,900 718,900 218,700 Number of events 4 27 39 35 12

50% impermeable area removed Total everflow volume (m3) 29,500 863,300 197,500 19,300 Number of events 15 27 22 2

Referenc e no CS11X CS12X CS13X CS14X CS15X CS16X CS17X CS18X CS19X CS20X CS21X CS22X CS23X CS24X CS25X CS26X CS27X CS28X CS29X CS30X CS31X CS32X

Name

Percentag e change in overflow volume

Church Street Queen Street Smith Street Ranelagh Western Pumping Stn Heathwall Pumping Stn South West Storm Relief Kings Scholars Pond Storm Relief Clapham Storm Relief Brixton Storm Refief Grosvenor Ditch Regent Street Northumberland Street Savoy Street Norfolk Street Essex Street Fleet Main Shad Thames Pumping Stn North East Storm Relief Holloway Storm Relief Earl Pumping Stn Deptford Storm Relief

100% 89% 60% 73% 91%

100 5,800 263,800 700 8,700 45,700 99,800 900 500,800 101,000 763,200 529,800 605,900 1,525,400

3 5 30 3 4 13 47 3 20 15 31 49 28 38

55,600 1,400 29,500 35,300 3,400 122,400 173,000 142,700 505,700

16 1 34 6 3 18 41 18 31

100% 100% 79% 100% 100% 97% 70% 100% 93% 97% 84% 67% 76% 67%

Page 49
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

4 50% Impermeable Area Reduction for the Entire LTT Model

CSO

Existing system Total overflow volume (m3) 7,026,300 24,900 19,340,600 100 800 1,300 200 8,800 12,800 Number of events 45 3 55 1 3 4 2 10 7 -

50% impermeable area removed Total everflow volume (m3) 3,780,400 10,302,900 100 1,300 Number of events 37 53 1 2 -

Referenc e no

Name

Percentag e change in overflow volume

CS33X CS34X CS35X CS36X CS37X CS39X CS40X CS42X CS44X CS45X CS46X CS49X CS50X CS51X CS52X CS53X CS55X CS56X CS57X

Greenwich Pumping Stn Charlton Storm Relief Abbey Mills Pumping Stn Wick Lane LL1 Brook Green Horseferry Wood Street Pauls Pier Beer Lane Iron Gate Nightingale Cole Stairs Bell Wharf Ratcliffe Blackwall Sewer Henley Road London Bridge Isle of dogs Pumping Stn Canning Town Pumping Stn

46% 100% 47% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 90%

Beckton Treatment Works Crossness Treatment Works

328,981,400 151,007,200

326,587,200 147,518,000

1% 2%

Page 50
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

4 50% Impermeable Area Reduction for the Entire LTT Model

Table 4.1 shows the impact of removing 50% of the impermeable area from all subcatchments in the LTT model. The number of individual CSOs producing overflow during the typical year reduces from 39 to 25 and the total overflow volume reduces from 38,952,000m3 to 17,420,000m3, a reduction of 55%. All CSOs experience less overflow volume, however the flow into both treatment works is only slightly affected as the primary influence on both STWs is dry weather flow. The original model showed the greatest number of overflow events at West Putney Storm Relief (59 events), Hammersmith Pumping Station (57 events) and Abbey Mills Pumping Station (55 events). After the removal of 50% impermeable area the CSOs with the most overflow events are the same but the number of overflows has reduced: West Putney Storm Relief (52 events), Hammersmith Pumping Station (43 events) and Abbey Mills Pumping Station (53 events). 4.4 Conclusion

Reducing the contributing impermeable area by 50% for the entire LTT model removes 55% of the CSO overflow volume during the typical year. The number of CSOs producing overflow reduces by approximately 36% and the CSO record less overflow events during the typical year. Removing 50% of the LTT catchments impermeable area runoff from the system would have a very positive impact on the CSOs, however this requires the disconnection of 10,327ha. The institutional requirements needed to disconnect this scale of area and how such a program could be implemented and accomplished will need evaluation.

Page 51
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010

5 Conclusion

CONCLUSION

The three subcatchments of West Putney, Putney Bridge and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) are the most suitable for SUDS selection in the LTT catchment and were modelled to show the impact of SUDS on CSO. The impermeable contributing area in each of the three subcatchments was first amended to represent a proportion both completely disconnected from the system and transferred into permeable area. This was done for both 25% and 50% of the impermeable areas. While the transfer of impermeable to permeable area reduces the overflow seen at the CSO, a far greater reduction was seen when the impermeable area was totally disconnected. The greatest reduction in overflow was seen when 50% of impermeable area is removed and this resulted in the reduction of overflow volume at West Putney by 55%, Putney Bridge by 78% and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) by 77% during the typical year. The number of overflow events during the annual series was reduced slightly for West Putney and by approximately 48% for Putney Bridge and 34% for Frogmore (Buckhold Road). Removing 50% of impermeable area from the entire LTT catchment reduces the total overflow volume by 55%, however this represents the disconnection of 10,327ha. The next alteration to the subcatchments was to apply an initial loss of 5mm across the entire catchment to represent source control of rainfall such as a shallow blue-roof. This had little impact on overflow volume due to the shallow depth, however; a greater depth of 50mm would have been sufficient to contain each of the rainfall events in the typical year. The PWG disconnection strategy was then modelled and represented areas in the West Putney, Putney Bridge and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) subcatchments which could implement appropriate SUDS techniques, based on local mapping analysis. The model subcatchment were then amended to represent contributing areas which were either impermeable, permeable, areas with 25mm initial loss of rainfall through source control or impermeable area going to storage. The results show that during the typical year the overflow volume is reduced by 77% at the West Putney CSO, 84% at the Putney Bridge CSO and by 98% at the Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSO. The number of overflow events in the typical year was reduced by 34%, 76% and 93% respectively. The greatest impact was seen at Frogmore (Buckhold Road) where the number of overflow events was reduced to two in the typical year. This shows that SUDS techniques can be used to reduce overflow volumes and occurrences at the three CSOs, however a significant level of impermeable surface disconnection is required to make a real impact.

Page 52
SUDS ANNEX 1_100-RG-MDL-00000-000002-AF-SUDS-Evaluation-for-Example-Areas-Report.doc
Printed 28/07/2010