Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) in the UK

  • Andrew GreenEmail author
Part of the Applied Environmental Science and Engineering for a Sustainable Future book series (AESE)


Surface water and combined sewerage systems are traditionally used to collect and transfer storm water in the UK but have several disadvantages compared to Sustainable Drainage Systems (or SuDS). These disadvantages include a limited ability to treat water quality and a lack of adaptability to change, for example, the expansion of urbanised areas and increased frequency and severity of storm events due to climate change. Consequently SuDS have many features that potentially make them attractive to developers and local authorities, and, as a result, there is now a considerable emphasis on supporting the uptake of SuDS technologies in UK policy and legislation. However, a lack of commitment to the long-term delivery of SuDS is cited as a hindrance to more wide-scale uptake, coupled with an overarching sentiment that insufficient funds and other resources have been committed to flood resilience in the UK in general. Despite this, the number of potential component options that may be included in SuDS management trains in the UK is considerable, offering the identification and implementation of suitable combinations of options for a variety of situations. This chapter will identify and discuss these options, placing them in the context of current challenges to water supply and storm water management in the UK.


Attenuation tank Bioretention system Detention basin Green roof Infiltration trench Pervious pavement Soakaway Swale Urban flood mitigation Sustainable drainage system Water quantity management 


  1. AECOM (2013) Water, people, places: a guide for master planning sustainable drainage into developments. AECOM, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen A, Chapman D (2001) Impacts of afforestation on groundwater resources and quality. Hydrol J 9(4):390–400Google Scholar
  3. Anglian Water Services (2011) Towards sustainable water stewardship: Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) adoption manual. Anglian Water Services Ltd, HuntingdonGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashley R, Blanksby J, Chapman J et al (2007) Towards integrated approaches to reduce flood risk in urban areas. In: Ashley R, Garvin S, Pasche E et al (eds) Advances in urban flood management. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 415–432Google Scholar
  5. Barbosa AE, Fernandes JN, David LM (2012) Key issues for sustainable urban stormwater management. Water Res 46(20):6787–6798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertrand-Krajewski J, Chebbo G, Saget A (1998) Distribution of pollutant mass vs volume in stormwater discharges and the first flush phenomenon. Water Res 32(8):2341–2356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charlesworth SM, Harker E, Rickard S (2003) A review of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS): a soft option for hard drainage questions. Geography 88(2):99–107Google Scholar
  8. CIRIA (2013) Demonstrating the multiple benefits of SuDS – a business case (phase 2): draft literature review. CIRIA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. City of Austin (1990) The first flush of runoff and its effects on control structure design. City of Austin, AustinGoogle Scholar
  10. DCLG – Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) National planning policy framework. DCLG, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) (2014) Planning and flood risk – revised planning policy statement 15. Department of the Environment, BelfastGoogle Scholar
  12. Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) (2015) Strategic planning policy statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS): planning for sustainable development. Department of the Environment, BelfastGoogle Scholar
  13. Ellis JB, Shutes RB, Revitt DM (2003) Guidance manual for constructed wetlands: RandD technical report P2-159/TR2. Environment Agency, BristolGoogle Scholar
  14. Essex County Council (2016) Sustainable drainage systems: design guide. Essex County Council, ChelmsfordGoogle Scholar
  15. European Council (1991) Council Directive of 21 May 1991 Concerning Urban Wastewater Treatment (91/271/EC). J Eur Commun L 135:40–52Google Scholar
  16. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. J Eur Commun L 327:1–72Google Scholar
  17. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2007) Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks. J Eur Commun L 288:27–34Google Scholar
  18. Fletcher TD, Andrieu H, Hamel P (2013) Understanding, management and modelling of urban hydrology and its consequences for receiving waters: a state of the art. Adv Water Resour 51:261–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gassert F, Reig P, Luo T et al (2013) A weighted aggregation of spatially distinct hydrological indicators: aqueduct country and river basin rankings. World Resources Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Geiger J (2002) Is all your rain going down the drain? Urban forest research July 2002. Center for Urban Forest Research, DavisGoogle Scholar
  21. Holman-Dodds JK, Bradley AA, Potter KW (2003) Evaluation of hydrologic benefits of infiltration based urban storm water management. J Am Water Resour Assoc 39(1):205–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. HR Wallingford (2004) Whole life costing for sustainable drainage: report SR 627. HR Wallingford, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Hydro International (2016) Engineering nature’s way – SuDS: the state of the nation 2016. Hydro International, Clevedon. Accessed 12 Jan 2018
  24. Jenkins GJ, Murphy JM, Sexton DM et al (2009) UK climate projections: briefing report. Met Office Hadley Centre, ExeterGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee JH, Bang KW, Ketchum LH et al (2002) First flush analysis of urban storm runoff. Sci Total Environ 293(1–3):163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller JD, Hutchins M (2017) The impacts of urbanisation and climate change on urban flooding and urban water quality: a review of the evidence concerning the United Kingdom. J Hydrol Reg Stud 12:345–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miller JD, Kim H, Kjeldsen TR et al (2014) Assessing the impact of urbanization on storm runoff in a peri-urban catchment using historical change in impervious cover. J Hydrol 515:59–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nascimento NO, Ellis JB, Baptista MB et al (1999) Using detention basins: operational experience and lessons. Urban Water 1:113–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. National Assembly for Wales (2004) Planning policy wales – technical advice note 15: development and flood risk. Welsh Assembly Government, CardiffGoogle Scholar
  30. Newton J, Gedge D, Early P et al (2007) Building greener: guidance on the use of green roofs, green walls and complementary features on buildings. CIRIA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Northern Ireland Environment Agency (2011) Managing stormwater: a strategy for promoting the use of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) within Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Environment Agency, BelfastGoogle Scholar
  32. Robert Bray Associates (2012) Promoting sustainable drainage systems: design guidance for Islington. Islington Council, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Scottish Government (2014a) Ambition, opportunity, place: Scotland’s third national planning framework. The Scottish Government, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  34. Scottish Government (2014b) Scottish planning policy. The Scottish Government, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  35. Scottish Water (2015) Sewers for Scotland – a technical specification for the design and construction of sewerage infrastructure, 3rd edn. Scottish Water, SteppsGoogle Scholar
  36. Sharma D (2008) Sustainable drainage system (SuDs) for stormwater management: a technological and policy intervention to combat diffuse pollution. Proceedings 11th international conference on urban drainage, Edinburgh, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
  37. Tourbier JT, White I (2007) Sustainable measures for flood attenuation: sustainable drainage and conveyance systems SUDACS. In: Ashley R, Garvin S, Pasche E et al (eds) Advances in urban flood management. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 13–28Google Scholar
  38. UN DESA – Population Division (2015) World urbanization prospects: the 2014 revision, (ST/ESA/SER.A/366). UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. UN DESA – Population Division (2017) World population prospects: the 2017 revision, volume I: comprehensive tables (ST/ESA/SER.A/399). UN DESA, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. US EPA (2005) National management measures to control nonpoint source pollution from urban areas. US EPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  41. van Dijk AIJM, Keenan RJ (2007) Planted forests and water in perspective. For Ecol Manag 251(1–2):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Welsh Government (2016) Planning policy wales: edition 9. Welsh Government, CardiffGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilson S, Bray B, Neesam S et al (2009) Sustainable drainage: Cambridge design and adoption guide. Cambridge City Council, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Woods Ballard B, Wilson S, Udale-Clarke H et al (2015) The SuDS manual. CIRIA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhou Q (2014) A review of sustainable urban drainage systems considering the climate change and urbanization impacts. Water 6(4):975–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Agriculture and Environment Research UnitUniversity of HertfordshireHatfieldUK

Personalised recommendations