Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for Greater Manchester
Methodology for deriving SFRA SuDS Map
FINAL Report – August 2008
Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Methodology for deriving SFRA SuDS Map
Scott Wilson St James's Buildings, Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6EF, United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)161 236 8655 Fax: +44 (0)161 228 2581
www.scottwilson.com
This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of Scott Wilson's appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment. It is addressed to and for the sole and confidential use and reliance of Scott Wilson's client. Scott Wilson accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided. No person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part) use or rely on the contents of this document, without the prior written permission of the Company Secretary of Scott Wilson Ltd. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole. The contents of this document do not provide legal or tax advice or opinion. © Scott Wilson Ltd 2008
Revision Schedule Greater Manchester SFRA – Methodology for deriving SFRA SuDS Map August 2008
Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by
D1 May 2008 Draft Fay Tivey
Assistant Flood Risk Specialist
Michael Timmins
Principal Flood Risk Specialist
David Dales
Director
D2 August 2008 Final Fay Tivey Assistant Flood Risk Specialist
Michael Timmins Principal Flood Risk Specialist
David Dales Director
Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Methodology for deriving SFRA SuDS Map
FINAL August 2008 i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction.......................................................................................2 1.1 Background...................................................................................................................2 1.2 Aim ...............................................................................................................................2
2 Data Sources....................................................................................4 1.1 Data ..............................................................................................................................4
3 Methodology and Limitations ............................................................9 3.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................9
4 How to use the SuDS Map..............................................................12 4.1 Policy & Strategic Planning .........................................................................................12 4.2 Development Control ..................................................................................................12
5 SuDS Techniques Advice ...............................................................13 5.1 Overview.....................................................................................................................13 5.2 Infiltration Methods......................................................................................................15 5.3 Attenuation Methods ...................................................................................................16 5.4 Combined Methods.....................................................................................................18
Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Methodology for deriving SFRA SuDS Map
FINAL August 2008 2
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
As part of the sub-regional SFRA, a series of maps delineating the solid geology, superficial
geology and groundwater vulnerability of the Greater Manchester area were presented. The
purpose of the maps was twofold:
• firstly, to demonstrate where geological conditions may be conducive to groundwater
flooding and,
• secondly, to provide information regarding the general suitability of Sustainable Drainage
Systems (SuDS) across the sub-region.
To increase the usability of the mapping and the SFRA, a SuDS guidance map was created.
SuDS are a sequence of management practices and control structures designed to drain surface
water in a more sustainable fashion than some conventional techniques. Sustainable drainage is a
concept that makes environmental quality and people a priority in drainage design, construction
and maintenance.
The SuDS approach includes measures to reduce surface water runoff at source, prevent pollution
and provide a range of physical structures designed to receive the runoff. There are many SuDS
design options that can be tailored to fit all types of development. They can also be designed to
improve amenity and biodiversity in developed areas.
1.2 Aim
The purpose of the SuDS map is to help planners in each of the ten districts in Greater
Manchester to make decisions regarding the suitability of SuDS techniques into developments at
an early stage. The maps may also be used by developers to identify which SuDS techniques may
be suitable for areas and ensure that they are considered during the early stages of the site design
process and accommodated in site layout and landscaping.
It should be stressed that this map and advice is to provide a strategic tool to assist policy and
development control planners in seeking runoff limitations. The map has been created using large
scale datasets that make several assumptions and therefore has limitations when used in more
local or site based situations.
The starting assumption with the map is that all areas within CDC and WODC are suitable for
SuDS in one form or another. The general permeability of the underlying ground conditions
(bedrock, superficial deposits and soil) is then queried to determine which SuDS system is
suitable. Three generic categories of SuDS type have been used:
• Infiltration based systems,
• Attenuation based systems,
• Combined systems.
Finally, the vulnerability of groundwater resources (aquifers) and source protection zones is then
queried. For example, those areas that may have suitable geological conditions for infiltration
based systems may also overly a highly vulnerable aquifer and therefore the pollution risks may be
Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Methodology for deriving SFRA SuDS Map
FINAL August 2008 3
too great to allow widespread infiltration SuDS to be implemented. Consequently, attenuation
systems would be recommended.
This user guide highlights the methodologies, limitations and assumptions used to produce the
SuDS map.
Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Methodology for deriving SFRA SuDS Map
FINAL August 2008 4
2 Data Sources
1.1 Data
The SuDS map has been created based on three main sources of data:
• British Geological Survey (BGS) Permeability Mapping for Bedrock (solid), Superficial (drift), Mass Movement and Artificial deposits.
• EA Groundwater Vulnerability Maps.
• EA Source Protection Zones (SPZ).
The following descriptions of the datasets used are taken from documents and publications
provided by the data provider.
BGS Permeability Data1
The BGS Permeability dataset provides a qualitative classification of estimated rates of vertical
movement of water from the ground surface through the unsaturated zone (i.e. above the ‘water
table’) in geological formations underlying an area. It also provides a useful guide to the relative
permeabilities of the superficial and bedrock formations present at or near the ground surface.
The dataset contains three main fields:
• Predominant Flow Mechanism
• Maximum Permeability
• Minimum Permeability
The Predominant Flow Mechanism indicates how fluid will migrate from the ground surface
through the unsaturated zone of geological formations and has three classes, intergranular,
fracture or mixed (intergranular and fracture).
The Maximum and Minimum Permeability ratings indicate the range of flow rates of water likely to
be encountered in the unsaturated zone for geological formations at, and immediately below,
outcrop (rather than at any significant depth). Five qualitative classes have been used for each
rating:
• very high
• high
• moderate
• low
• very low.
Therefore an area may have a range of permeabilities within the maximum and minimum ratings
provided. For example, an area may have a maximum permeability of “Very High” and a minimum
permeability of “Very Low”. The actual permeability for a local site would have to be determined
using more detailed ground investigation.
1 BGS Geosure Data – Information Sheet: Recommendations for using the BGS ‘Permeability Indices’ data in site
assessment or environmental search reports. January 2008.
Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Methodology for deriving SFRA SuDS Map
FINAL August 2008 5
The Maximum Permeability represents the fastest potential vertical rate of migration of water
through the unsaturated zone likely to be encountered. The Minimum Permeability represents the
minimum, and in some cases more normal, bulk rate of vertical movement of water likely to be
encountered.
BGS Permeability Dataset Limitations
It is important to understand the assumptions made when creating the permeability dataset. The
main limitations associated with the BGS permeability dataset include:
• It is based on 1:50 000 geological data and hence should only be used for regional planning purposes.
• It can provide a useful guide to the relative permeabilities of the superficial and bedrock formations present at or near the ground surface. Formal evaluation of groundwater vulnerability requires additional information, including the physical and chemical characteristics of the soil, and the thickness of, and depth to water in, the different geological layers present.
• The indices should not be converted to saturated hydraulic conductivity values and used to provide quantitative values for rates of movement of pollutants to the water table.
• Slope and surface topography is not taken into account when assessing the permeability of an area.
Groundwater Vulnerability Maps2’3
Groundwater is an important strategic resource with three-quarters of all the groundwater pumped
from boreholes or taken from springs is used for mains water supply. It directly supplies nearly a
third of the drinking water in England and Wales. In some areas it is the only available drinking
water resource. It also supplies nearly all those who do not have mains water.
Groundwater is not just for private domestic use: many hospitals, bottling and food processing
plants also rely on their own groundwater supplies, as do major manufacturing and other
industries. There are advantages in using groundwater for both public and private supplies:
compared to surface water, it is of relatively high quality and usually requires less treatment prior
to use, even for drinking and other potable purposes.
The widespread presence of groundwater means that any material spilt on or applied to the ground
has the potential to reach the water table. Whether it will or not depends on the material involved
and the ground conditions at that site. Pollutants introduced by people can overwhelm the natural
capacity of the ground to deal with them.
If human activities do pollute groundwater, it is very difficult to return it to its original condition.
Processes that take days or weeks in surface water systems may take decades to centuries in
groundwater. This is because of the relatively slow rates of groundwater flow and the reduced
microbiological activity below the soil zone (due to the general lack of oxygen and nutrients).
Protecting groundwater is therefore essential. The subsurface environment is inaccessible and
complex and groundwater pollution can be very difficult to detect and may not become evident until
a water supply or spring is affected. Pollutants may take months or years to migrate from the
source to a receptor or to a point where they can be detected.
2 Environment Agency Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice, Part 2 – Technical Framework
3 Environment Agency description and guidance provided with dataset
Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Methodology for deriving SFRA SuDS Map
FINAL August 2008 6
The EA provided their Groundwater Vulnerability (GWV) Maps for the Cherwell and West
Oxfordshire District Areas. Published in 1998 and subsequently updated, the groundwater
vulnerability maps were designed to increase general public awareness and aid developers who
were planning new activities, and planners who were assessing new proposals or drawing up
development plans.
The GWV maps are only available in digital GIS layers from the EA and are based on printed
maps originally developed for strategic land use planning. The maps use existing geological and
soil maps and databases held by the British Geological Survey and the National Soil Research
Institute and cover England and Wales at a scale of 1:100,000.
The GWV layers describe the aquifer type, vulnerability and soil leaching potential for an area.
The combination of all three produces the full vulnerability classification.
GWV Aquifer Type and Vulnerability Classification
There are three aquifer types shown on GWV maps:
• Major Aquifer: Highly productive and used for potable supply on a regional scale.
• Minor Aquifer: Variably permeable and potentially important for local water supplies.
• Non – Aquifer: Negligibly permeable, containing insignificant quantities of groundwater.
As well as an aquifer type, a vulnerability classification is assigned to each area on the map.
Vulnerability is classed as High, Intermediate and Low and refers to the contaminant leaching
potential through the soil and into the rock.
Factors that will influence the vulnerability of an aquifer to contamination include whether the
aquifer is classed as confined or unconfined; the depth of the aquifer; whether the Major Aquifer is
overlain by a Minor Aquifer that is in hydraulic continuity with; and the soil vulnerability.
Some strata have a high leaching potential and have very little ability to slow or halt the progress
of contaminants and transmit them readily to the underlying aquifer. Other strata have a low
leaching potential and are thus either impermeable or have a number of natural factors that can
slow or stop the leaching of contaminants
GWV Soil Classification
There are two main types of soil classification used in conjunction with the aquifer and vulnerability
ratings in the GWV maps. These include Soils of High Leaching Potential and Soils of Low
Leaching Potential.
“Soils of high leaching potential” – these soils have little ability to attenuate diffuse source
pollutants and in which non-adsorbed diffuse source pollutants and liquid discharges have the
potential to move rapidly to underlying strata or to shallow groundwater. They are further classified
into the following three sub-classes:
(1) Soils which readily transmit liquid discharges because they are either shallow, or
susceptible to rapid flow directly to rock, gravel or groundwater.
(2) Deep, permeable, coarse textured soils which readily transmit a wide range of
pollutants because of their rapid drainage and low attenuation potential.
(3) Coarse textured or moderately shallow soils which readily transmit non-adsorbed
pollutants and liquid discharges but which have some ability to attenuate adsorbed
pollutants because of their clay or organic matter contents.
Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Methodology for deriving SFRA SuDS Map
FINAL August 2008 7
Soil information for urban areas and restored mineral workings is based on fewer observations
than elsewhere. A worst case vulnerability classification (high / H) is therefore assumed for these
areas and for current mineral workings. All are given a designation HU until proved otherwise.
“Soils of low leaching potential” – soils in which pollutants are unlikely to penetrate the soil layer
because either water movement is largely horizontal, or they have the ability to attenuate diffuse
pollutants. Lateral flow from these soils may contribute to groundwater recharge elsewhere in the
catchment. They generally have high clay or organic matter contents.
GWV Dataset Limitations
As with the BGS data, it is important to understand the main limitations associated with the GWV
dataset. These include:
• The maps use existing geological and soil maps and databases held by the British Geological Survey and the National Soil Research Institute and designed to be used at a scale of 1:100,000. They are therefore suitable for strategic planning purposes but not for site-specific assessment.
• More specific vulnerability information can always be determined following more detailed site investigation.
• There are many areas, especially across restored mineral workings and urban areas, where the data is scarce and therefore it has been assumed that a worst case vulnerability exists.
• Slope and surface topography is not taken into account when assessing the vulnerability of near surface deposits.
Source Protection Zone Maps4’5
In addition to the general groundwater vulnerability that is defined across widespread areas using
the GWV maps, there are also specific areas where protection measures are needed for individual
sources, such as springs, boreholes and wells. In these areas, the EA restrict activities that may
pollute the groundwater resource (especially to major public water supplies or other potable water
uses such as brewing) and defines Source Protection Zones (SPZs) to delineate the most critical
areas requiring protection. This is relevant to SuDS as it can potentially restrict the use of
infiltration based techniques such as soakaways.
Generally the closer a polluting activity or release is to a groundwater source the greater the risk of
pollution. According to the EA, of the estimated 100,000 groundwater abstractions in England and
Wales, there are nearly 2,000 major public and food production supply sources with bespoke
SPZs. Most of these are sources producing more than 500,000 litres a day.
Each zone has three subdivisions for each source (EA (1996)). The shape and size of a zone
depends on the condition of the ground, how the groundwater is removed, and other
environmental factors.
SPZ I - Inner Protection Zone:
Any pollution that can travel to the borehole within 50 days from any point within the zone is
classified as being inside this zone. This applies at and below the water table. This zone also has
a minimum 50m protection radius around the borehole. These criteria are designed to protect
against the transmission of toxic chemicals and water-borne disease.
4 Environment Agency Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice, Part 2 – Technical Framework
5 Environment Agency description and guidance provided with dataset
Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Methodology for deriving SFRA SuDS Map
FINAL August 2008 8
SPZ II - Outer Protection Zone:
The outer zone covers pollution that takes up to 400 days to travel to the borehole or 25% of the
total catchment area, whichever area is the biggest. This travel time is the minimum amount of
time that the Environment Agency estimate pollutants need to be diluted, reduced in strength or
delayed by the time they reach the borehole.
SPZ III - Total Catchment:
The total catchment (source catchment) is the total area needed support removal of water from the
borehole and to support any discharge from the borehole.
Prior to any SuDS techniques being developed within SPZ areas, consultation with the EA
groundwater resources team is recommended to determine up-to-date and accurate information
on local conditions.
SPZ Data Limitations
As with the other data highlighted above, it is important to understand the main limitations
associated with the SPZ dataset. These include:
• The maps use existing geological and soil maps and databases held by the British Geological Survey and the National Soil Research Institute and designed to be used at larger scales. They are therefore suitable for strategic planning purposes but not for site-specific assessment. Site specific assessment should be carried out in consultation with the EAs groundwater resources teams.
• As with all spatial geological data, there could be uncertainties in the boundaries and extents of SPZs shown on maps. Therefore detailed consultation should be undertaken with the EA for developments that overlap, abut or are adjacent to SPZs.
Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Methodology for deriving SFRA SuDS Map
FINAL August 2008 9
3 Methodology and Limitations
3.1 Methodology
Several steps and assumptions were made in creating the SuDS map. As a starting point, it has
been assumed that all new development and re-development across the sub-region is suitable for
SuDS implementation - infiltration systems, attenuation systems or combined systems (as required
and agreed with the EA). The following steps were then taken:
Step 1: All geological data was merged into one GIS layer. This produces one map with
numerous areas each with metadata relating to permeability, vulnerability and source
protection ratings (Figure 3-1).
Figure 3-1: Geological “Layers” used to create SuDS map
Some of the data on this map is based on data obtained from the British Geological Survey and the Greater Manchester Geological Unit. License No. 2006/1521 BGS Digital Data Licence 2008/151 - IPR/102-154DZ BGS Derived Material Copyright License 2008/151 – DMC – IPR/102-156DZ
Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Methodology for deriving SFRA SuDS Map
FINAL August 2008 10
Step 2: As each area has a minimum and maximum permeability for bedrock, superficial,
artificial and mass movement deposits, it is sometimes difficult to determine which
permeability rating should be used at a strategic scale.
To ensure that a single SuDS map could be created, the descriptive permeability ratings
were converted into numeric ratings so that average permeabilities across all deposits
could be determined for each area. The average rating is based simply on the average
between the minimum and maximum permeability for each deposit and then an average
across all deposits ignoring zero values.
Table 3-1: Numeric Values assigned to permeability ratings
Permeability Rating Numeric Rating
Very High 1
High 2
Medium 3
Low 4
Very Low 5
No Data 0
Step 3: Once average permeability ratings were calculated, they were then converted back into
a descriptive rating for each area.
Step 4: One of the three generic SuDS Systems was applied to each area using the average
permeability ratings. This is a subjective process that is designed to be as simple and
transparent as possible and provides an indication to planners of the potential categories
of SuDS system that could be applied to the area.
It is stressed again that this process is not designed to provide a detailed and
prescriptive result that can be used to condition planning applications or produce site
specific policies in the LDF. Detailed site investigation and consultation with the EA
would be required to determine exactly which type of SuDS system could be applicable
to a particular area.
Table 3-2: Determining SuDS Suitability based on average permeability
Average Rating Descriptive Rating SuDS Suitability
>0<=1 Very High
>1<=2 High Infiltration Systems
>2<=3 Medium
>3<=4 Low Combined Systems
>4 Very Low
0 No Data Attenuation Systems
Step 5: The vulnerability of the underlying geology is then taken into account using the GWV
and SPZ maps to produce a final SuDS recommendation for each area. This is to
ensure that future development proposals not only reduce runoff, but do not increase the
potential for polluting groundwater resources.
For example, where there are major aquifers with a high vulnerability, the SuDS
recommendation is restricted to Attenuation Systems until further information or data is
provided to suggest otherwise. If the SuDS suitability based on permeability alone
Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Methodology for deriving SFRA SuDS Map
FINAL August 2008 11
suggests infiltration systems are suitable for the area, then the final recommendation is
“Attenuation Systems – Highly Vulnerable Aquifer”.
Table 3-3: Final SuDS Recommendation taking into account GWV
Groundwater Vulnerability
Description SuDS Recommendation
MAJOR_H Attenuation Systems
MINOR_H
High Vulnerability Aquifer Attenuation Systems – Highly Vulnerable Aquifer
MAJOR_I Attenuation Systems – Potentially Vulnerable Aquifer
MINOR_I
Potentially Vulnerable Aquifer Combined Systems
MAJOR_L
MINOR_L
Low Vulnerability Aquifer
Infiltration Systems
SPZ I Inner Zone
SPZ II Outer Zone
SPZ III Total Catchment
Attenuation Systems – SPZ
No Data No Data No Data – Further Investigation Required
The recommendation categories have been thematically mapped to create a final SuDS
recommendation map.
Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Methodology for deriving SFRA SuDS Map
FINAL August 2008 12
4 How to use the SuDS Map
It is recommended that SuDS are assumed to be applicable across the whole study area in the
first instance. The SuDS map can be used as a guide by strategic planners and also in
development control activities to give an indication as to which SuDS method is thought to be most
suitable.
4.1 Policy & Strategic Planning
The SuDS map for the AGMA sub-region is designed to be used at a strategic scale to give users
of the SFRA an overview of the potential SuDS applicability across the districts. The map is based
on permeability data at the 1:50,000 scale and groundwater vulnerability at the 1:100,000 scale.
The map does not take into account slope, urban areas or more local ground conditions.
In conjunction with the sub-regional SFRA, it is envisaged that policy and strategic planners within
the ten AGMA districts will use the detailed maps to specify SuDS requirements for strategic land
allocations. For example, if a large strategic site is shown to be in a location where only
attenuation SuDS techniques are suitable, the incorporation of a suitable system, such as a
detention basin, should be included in the development brief and proposed layout design from an
early stage in the development process.
As a result, the map is not intended to be used as a definitive and detailed specification on the use
of SuDS across the two districts.
4.2 Development Control
The SuDS map can be used as a reference guide for Development Control to identify which SuDS
techniques would be suitable for a development site and therefore allow the request for specific
information from a site-specific FRA. In addition, the maps can be used by Development Control to
advise developers which SuDS technique is thought to be suitable in an area. This is particularly
prudent in situations where only attenuation techniques are suitable and therefore the subsequent
land-take needs to be considered to incorporate this into the site layout design.
Following receipt of detailed site specific FRAs and consultation with the EA, it may be apparent
that SuDS are not the most suitable way to address surface water runoff from a development. In
these situations, development runoff would need to be discharged in accordance with Approved
Document H: Drainage and Waste Disposal of the Building Regulations 2000, Section 3 or to
British Standard BS EN 752 Drain and Sewer Systems for Outside Buildings, Part 4.
Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Methodology for deriving SFRA SuDS Map
FINAL August 2008 13
5 SuDS Techniques Advice
5.1 Overview
There are numerous solutions to the implementation of sustainable drainage techniques. A
summary of commonly used SuDS techniques is presented in the proceeding section. In
accordance with the six categories presented in Section 3.1, common SuDS techniques have been
split into three broad categories:
• Infiltration,
• Attenuation,
• Combined.
Any proposed SuDS methods should be planned and incorporated in accordance with relevant
policy and guidance such as PPS25, National SUDS Working Group (2004), BRE 365, CIRIA
report C522 for SUDS, CIRIA 523 (SUDS Best Practice Manual) and CIRIA C697 (the SUDS
Manual). Information presented in the preceding section has been derived from these sources.
Table 5-1 presents a summary of commonly used SuDS techniques with regard to the appropriate
scale of implementation (e.g., regional level / site level) and associated biodiversity benefits.
Association of Greater Manchester Authorities
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
Methodology for deriving SFRA SuDS Map
FINAL
August 2008
14
Table 5-1: Summary of SuDS techniques and their suitability to m
eet the three goals of biodiversity
Management
Train
Component
Description
Water
Quantity
Water
Quality
Amenity
Biodiversity
Green roofs
Layer of vegetation or gravel on roof areas providing absorption
and storage.
●
●
●
Rainwater harvesting
Capturing and reusing rainwater for domestic or irrigation uses.
○
○
○
Site
Permeable pavements
Infiltration through the surface into underlying layer.
●
●
○
Filter drains
Drain filled with permeable material with a perforated pipe along
the base.
●
●
Infiltration trenches
Similar to filter drains but allows infiltration through sides and
base.
●
●
Soakaways
Underground structure used for store and infiltration.
●
●
Bio-retention areas
Vegetated areas used for treating runoff prior to discharge into
receiving water or infiltration
●
●
●
Area
Swales
Grassed depressions, provides temporary storage, conveyance,
treatment and possibly infiltration.
●
●
○
Sand filters
Provides treatment by filtering runoff through a filter media
consisting of sand.
●
●
Basins
Dry depressions outside of storm periods, provides temporary
attenuation, treatment and possibly infiltration.
●
●
○
Ponds
Designed to accommodate water at all times, provides attenuation,
treatment and enhances site amenity value.
●
●
●
Regional
Catchment
Wetland
Similar to ponds, but are designed to provide continuous flow
through vegetation.
●
●
●
Key: ● – highly suitable, ○ - suitable depending on design
Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Methodology for deriving SFRA SuDS Map
FINAL August 2008 15
5.2 Infiltration Methods
These type of SuDS rely on discharges to ground, where ground conditions are suitable.
Therefore, infiltration SuDS are reliant on the local ground conditions for their successful operation.
Various infiltration SuDS techniques are available for directing surface water run-off to the ground,
though some of these are covered in Section 5.4, as they also offer some level of attenuation in
addition to their infiltration capacity.
Soakaway
Soakaways are the most commonly used type of infiltration device in the UK. They store rapid
runoff and allow its efficient infiltration into the surrounding soil. Soakaways are sub-surface
infiltrations devices that require no net land take and which are best suited to the infiltration of
storm water runoff from small areas such as roofs of residential housing. When used to drain roads
and car parking areas, pre-treatment may be required to ensure that pollutants are minimised to
acceptable levels before passing flow into the device.
With regard to limitations of their use, soakaways should not be used:
• Within 5 metres of a building or road
• In an area of unstable land without full consideration of the impact of the infiltrating water
• In ground where the water table reaches within 1 metre below the base of the soakaway at
any time of year
• Near any drainage field, drainage mound or other soakaway which would result in the
overall soakage capacity of the ground being exceeded and the effectiveness of any
drainage field impaired
• Where the risk of contamination in the runoff could result in pollution of groundwater.
Permeable Surfaces
Permeable surfaces are designed to allow water to drain through to a sub-base at a rate greater
than the predicted rainfall for a specified event. Permeable surfaces act by directly intercepting the
rain where it falls and control runoff at source. Runoff during low intensity rainfall events is
prevented by permeable surfaces. During intense rainfall events runoff generation may occur from
permeable surfaces. Permeable sub-base can be used to temporarily store infiltrated run-off
underneath the surface and allow the water to percolate into the underlying soils. Alternatively,
stored water within the sub-base may be collected at a low point and discharged from the site at
an agreed rate.
Programmes should be implemented to ensure that permeable surfaces are well maintained to
ensure the performance of these systems is not reduced. The use of grit and salt during winter
months may adversely affect the drainage potential of certain permeable surfaces.
Types of permeable surfaces include:
• Grass/landscaped areas
• Gravel
• Solid Paving with Void Spaces
Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Methodology for deriving SFRA SuDS Map
FINAL August 2008 16
• Permeable Pavements
5.3 Attenuation Methods
Where ground conditions are not suitable for infiltration techniques, management of surface water
runoff prior to discharge should be undertaken using attenuation techniques. This technique
attenuates discharge from a site to reduce flood risk both within the site and to the surrounding
area. It is important to assess the volume of water required to be stored prior to discharge to
ensure adequate provision is made for storage. The amount of storage required should be
calculated prior to detailed design of the development to ensure that surface water flooding issues
are not created within the site.
The rate of discharge from the site should be agreed with the Local Authority and the Environment
Agency. If surface water cannot be discharged to a local watercourse then liaison with United
Utilities should be undertaken to agree rates of discharge and the adoption of the SuDS system.
Large volumes of water may be required to be stored on site. Storage areas may be constructed
above or below ground. Depending on the attenuation/storage systems implemented, appropriate
maintenance procedures should be implemented to ensure continued performance of the system.
Detention Basins
Basins are areas that have been contoured (or alternatively embanked) to allow for the temporary
storage of surface water run-off. Basins are designed to drain free of water and remain waterless
in dry weather. These may form areas of public open space or recreational areas. Basins also
provide areas for treatment of water by settlement of solids in ponded water and the absorption of
pollutants by aquatic vegetation or biological activity. The construction of basins uses relatively
simple techniques. Local varieties of vegetation should be used wherever possible and should be
fully established before the basins are used. Access to the basin should be provided so that
inspection and maintenance is not restricted. This may include inspections, regular cutting of
grass, annual clearance of aquatic vegetation and silt removal as required.
Retention Ponds and Wetlands
Ponds are designed to hold the additional surface water run-off generated by the site during
rainfall events. The ponds are designed to control discharge rates by storing the collected run-off
and releasing it slowly once the risk of flooding has passed. Ponds can provide wildlife habitats or
water features to enhance the urban landscape and, where water quality and flooding risks are
acceptable, they can be used for recreation. It may be possible to integrate ponds and wetlands
into public areas to create new community ponds.
Ponds and wetlands trap silt that may need to be removed periodically. Ideally, the contaminants
should be removed at source to prevent silt from reaching the pond or wetland in the first place. In
situations where this is not possible, consideration should be given to a small detention basin
placed at the inlet to the pond in order to trap and subsequently remove the silt. Depending on the
setting of a pond, health and safety issues may be important issues that need to be taken into
consideration. The design of the pond can help to minimise any health and safety issues (i.e.
shallower margins to the pond reduce the danger of falling in, fenced margins).
Various types of ponds are available for utilising as SuDS measures. These include:
• Balancing/Attenuating Ponds
• Flood Storage Reservoirs
Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Methodology for deriving SFRA SuDS Map
FINAL August 2008 17
• Lagoons
• Retention Ponds
• Wetlands
Green Roofs
Within urbanised areas, space is often a large constraint to the use of SuDS measures. However,
there is a large area of roof space that is currently under-utilised which lends itself to the use of
green roofs.
Green roofs are just that, they are a layer of vegetation, placed over a drainage layer that is
designed to intercept and retain rainfall leading to a reduction in the volume of runoff. The use of
green roofs can reduce the size of downstream SuDS and drainage infrastructure that is required.
According to the English Nature research report ‘Green Roofs: Their existing status and potential
for conserving biodiversity in urban areas’, 71% of rain falling on a 100mm turf layer can be
retained within the turf layer, greatly reducing storm water runoff.
There are two main types of green roof: ‘Extensive’ and ‘Intensive’.
An Extensive green roof is a covering of the whole roof area with low growing, low maintenance
plants. They usually comprise of 25 – 125mm thick soil layer in which a variety of hardy, drought
tolerant, low level plants are grown. Extensive green roofs are designed to be self sustaining and
cost effective and can be used in a wide variety of locations often described as an ‘ecological
protection layer’.
Figure 5-1: Illustration of an extensive green roof at Schiphol Airport, Amsterdam
(Source: The Green Roof Research Programme)
An Intensive green roof is a landscaped area which can include planters or trees and are usually
publicly accessible. They may include irrigation and storage for rainwater. They often require
more maintenance and impose a greater load on the roof structure than extensive green roofs.
Some city parks are in fact intensive green roofs such as the parks within the Canary Wharf
Estate, Canada Square and West Ferry Circus in London.
Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Methodology for deriving SFRA SuDS Map
FINAL August 2008 18
Figure 5-2 - Illustration of an intensive green roof in London
(Source ‘Living roofs’ website)
Rainwater Harvesting
The rainwater harvesting process is essentially the collection of rainwater from roofs into
containers, which can be stored above or below ground. The stored rainwater can then be re-used
as and when required for every day non potable uses such as washing machines and toilets.
Alternatively, collected rainwater can be released into the sewerage system once the rainfall event
has subsided to reduce the risk of flooding and sewerage overflows.
Filter Drains
A filter drain is a trench lined with a geotextile layer and filled with gravel into which surface water
runoff is directed either from the drained surface or via a pipe system. The gravel in the filter drain
traps some sediment, organic matter and oil residues that can be broken down by bacterial action
through time. The runoff rate is reduced and runoff storage is also provided. Stored water can also
pass through the geotextile membrane and some filter drains need not lead to a watercourse at all.
Filter drain systems have been widely used by the highway authorities for roads drainage. Hybrid
infiltration systems and filter drains have been used for a variety of developments, including both
residential and industrial sites.
5.4 Combined Methods
Pervious Pavements
Pervious pavements allow rainwater to infiltrate through the surface into underlying construction
layers where water is stored prior to infiltration to the ground, reused or released to a surface water
drainage system or watercourse at an attenuated rate. Pervious surfaces can be incorporated into
soft landscaping and oil interceptors can be added to improve pollutant retention and removal.
Where pervious pavements are located within 5m of foundations or basements, an impermeable
membrane liner is required to prevent infiltration.
Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Methodology for deriving SFRA SuDS Map
FINAL August 2008 19
Figure 5-3- Illustration of a Pervious Pavement using Block Paving
(Source: CIRIA website)
Sub-surface Infiltration
Where permeable surfaces are not a practical option more defined infiltration systems are
available. In order to infiltrate the generated run-off to ground, a storage system is provided that
allows the infiltration of the stored water into the surrounding ground through both the sides and
base of the storage. These systems are constructed below ground and therefore may be
advantageous with regards to the developable area of the site. Consideration needs to be given to
construction methods, maintenance access and depth to the water table. The provision of large
volumes of infiltration/sub-surface storage has potential cost implications. In addition, these
systems should not be built within 5 m of buildings, beneath roads or in soil that may dissolve or
erode.
Various methods for providing infiltration below the ground include:
• Geocellular Systems
• Filter Drain
• Soakaway (Chamber)
• Soakaway (Trench)
• Soakaway (Granular Soakaway)
Swales
Swales are linear, grass covered depressions which direct surface water overland from the drained
surface to a storage or discharge system. Swales are shallow and relatively wide, unlike a
conventional ditch. They provide temporary storage for storm water and reduce peak flows. They
are located close to the source of runoff and can form a network within a development linking
storage ponds and wetlands.
A swale is designed to be dry during dry weather but in wet weather rainwater flows into it along its
length and moves slowly through the grass area. Sediment is deposited while oily residues and
organic matter are retained to be broken down in the top layer of soil and vegetation. The
Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Methodology for deriving SFRA SuDS Map
FINAL August 2008 20
underlying aquifer can be protected if required by placing and impermeable lining in the soil
beneath the swale.
During a rainfall event a proportion of the runoff can be lost from the swale by infiltration,
evaporation and transpiration. Overflows can be provided to allow conveyance during periods of
exceptionally heavy rainfall.
Some regular maintenance is required to keep a grass swale operating correctly, mainly mowing
during the growing season.
Infiltration Trench
An infiltration trench is a shallow, excavated trench that is lined with a geotextile and backfilled with
stone to create an underground reservoir. Surface water runoff flowing into the trench gradually
infiltrates into the subsoil. An overflow may be required for extreme rainfalls that exceed the design
capacity of the reservoir.
The performance of the trench is dependent on the permeability of the soil and the depth of the
water table. Infiltration trenches usually serve small catchment areas up to 2-3 hectares. The
closer the proximity of the trench to the source of the runoff, the more effective they are. The
operational life of the trench may be enhanced by providing pre-treatment for the inflow, such as a
filter strip, gully or sump pit, to remove excessive solids. Regular maintenance will be required for
most pre-treatment designs.
Infiltration Basin
Infiltration basins are shallow features where surface water runoff is stored until it gradually
infiltrates through the soil of the basin floor. An overflow may be required for extreme rainfall
events which exceed the capacity of the basin.
The performance of the basin depends largely on the permeability of the soil and the depth to the
water table. Infiltration basins can serve larger catchment areas than infiltration trenches because
a larger volume of water can be stored on the surface. Typically, they can serve catchments of up
to 10 hectares. As with the infiltration trench, the lifespan of the basin may be increased by
providing pre-runoff treatment, such as a filter strip, gully or sump pit to remove excessive solids.
Regular maintenance will be required for most pre-treatment designs. Larger basins need to be
carefully designed to prevent sediment being washed out during storms.