Hillingdon SuDS Design & Evaluation Guide

Recommendations

Info

Outline Design 8.6 Affordability The design of SuDS is influenced by the type of development and how important each component is to the appearance and functionality of the scheme. An urban renewal project in the city will require a different approach to the visual quality than a simple SuDS design for a suburban layout. SuDS components are cost effective when compared to conventional drainage but cost savings are only realised through good SuDS design. more expensive but avoids extensive pipe work, gullies, manhole, dedicated SuDS storage and in some situations oil interceptors. The open graded sub-base provides 30% void storage which is confirmed by a flow control and a low level of maintenance into the future. Completing a cost comparison for permeable pavement demonstrates the wider considerations of drainage, surfacing and engineering profiles that have to be considered. A good example of cost effective SuDS design is the use of permeable pavement as a replacement for impermeable surfaces. The cost of the profile construction is marginally Evidence for the cost effectiveness of SuDS can be found here: http://www. susdrain.org/resources/evidence.html 63 8.7 Management of the SuDS resource The future maintenance of SuDS is influenced In other locations a SuDS feature can by design. Wherever possible the idea of contribute to landscape infrastructure e.g. ‘passive maintenance’ should be considered the ‘rain garden’ or ‘bio retention’ element in with SuDS components integrated into the design. everyday management. Wherever possible maintenance should be Although there will be situations where allocated to site care rather than SuDS dedicated SuDS components are appropriate management. e.g. a pond or wetland, many SuDS features This reduced dedicated maintenance can be incorporated into multifunctional obligation can sometimes be reduced to just space e.g. courtyards, play basins and checking inlets, outlets and control recreational space. structures. Design Note : Well designed SuDS are not ‘land hungry’ in that they can be integrated into both hard and soft landspace spaces which are available within development. Making SuDS cost effective reinforces the requirement to consider SuDS layout at Concept Design stage. London Borough of Hillingdon SuDS D & E Guide © 2018 McCloy Consulting & Robert Bray Associates
8.8 Outline information required for SuDS evaluation 8.8.1 The information required at Outline Design The Outline SuDS Design will show what the stage will depend on whether a Concept scheme will look like, how it will function and Design has been provided and the level of confirm any additional information provided information included at that stage. since Concept Design Stage. The design information should be provided in plan form, confirming site layout and SuDS infrastructure together with a SuDS Design Statement presenting all information that cannot be conveyed on plan. Outline Design 8.8.2 Outline Design – information checklist Information recommended in the LASOO (Local Authority SuDS Officer Organisation) Practical Guidance ■■ Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) – a review ■■ ground investigation review of critical elements ■■ evidence of third party agreement for ■■ ■■ Outline Design Strategy Statement Outline Design Plan – layout consent to discharge or agreement in principle. 64 ■■ the plan will incorporate preliminary landscape proposals Additional information to inform evaluation of the scheme: ■■ topographical information and flow route ■■ sensitive receptors for runoff where analysis appropriate e.g. SSSIs ■■ destination and discharge route of rainfall ■■ offsite works that may be required via infiltration or runoff ■■ general maintenance principles ■■ infiltration investigation results where appropriate ■■ design life of any products used and requirements for potential replacement. ■■ existing utilities plan confirming existing watercourses or sewer locations London Borough of Hillingdon SuDS D & E Guide © 2018 McCloy Consulting & Robert Bray Associates
Page 1 and 2:
Sustainable Drainage Design & Evalu
Page 3 and 4:
Contents 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Under
Page 5 and 6:
This development guide has the supp
Page 7 and 8:
1.2 SuDS today There have been a nu
Page 9 and 10:
2.0 Understanding Rainfall It is im
Page 11 and 12:
Where the ground is impermeable, wa
Page 14 and 15:
Overview 3.0 The Impact of Developm
Page 16 and 17:
Overview 3.3 Consequences of piped
Page 18 and 19: Overview 4.0 The Role of SuDS Susta
Page 20 and 21: Overview SuDS schemes offer diverse
Page 22 and 23: Overview 5.0 The SuDS Design & Eval
Page 24 and 25: Overview 5.3 The objectives of the
Page 26 and 27: Local SuDS requirements 21 6.0 Land
Page 28: Local SuDS requirements 23 Local Su
Page 31 and 32: Concept Design for Holyoakes School
Page 33 and 34: 7.4 Concept Design process 7.4.1 Fl
Page 35 and 36: Modifi Step 2 - Modified Flow Route
Page 37 and 38: 7.4.3 Collection of runoff from har
Page 39 and 40: 7.4.5 Conveyance of runoff between
Page 41 and 42: A flow control generally defines th
Page 43 and 44: Additional considerations for infil
Page 45 and 46: 7.4.9 Preliminary flow and volume c
Page 47 and 48: 7.4.11 Managing runoff from site If
Page 50 and 51: Concept Design 45 7.4.13 Flow rate
Page 52 and 53: Concept Design Long Term Storage Su
Page 54 and 55: Concept Design 7.5 Concept informat
Page 56 and 57: Concept Design 51 7.5.3 Preliminary
Page 58: Concept Design 7.5.6 Management and
Page 61 and 62: 5. Quality Confirm ‘treatment sta
Page 63 and 64: 8.2 Objectives of SuDS Outline Desi
Page 65 and 66: 8.4 Design criteria considerations
Page 67: 8.5.2 Aspects of Health and Safety
Page 72 and 73: Detailed Design 9.0 Design and Eval
Page 74 and 75: Detailed Design 9.3 Typical Detaile
Page 76 and 77: Detailed Design 71 Plan excerpt: pr
Page 78 and 79: Detailed Design 73 9.3.4 Detailed D
Page 81 and 82: 9.4 Critical levels Levels are impo
Page 83 and 84: 9.5.3 Calculation processes Calcula
Page 85 and 86: 9.5.4.3 Making allowances for inter
Page 87 and 88: 9.5.4.6 Accounting for Climate Chan
Page 89 and 90: 9.5.5 Calculating storage requireme
Page 91 and 92: Approach 2 Where volumes cannot be
Page 93 and 94: Detailed Design 88 Designers should
Page 95 and 96: Detailed Design Lamb Drove, Cambour
Page 97 and 98: Parameter Modelling of the SuDS lay
Page 99 and 100: 9.6.1 Design flexibility A framewor
Page 101 and 102: 9.6.4 Single, tiered storage compon
Page 103 and 104: 9.6.6 The importance of protected o
Page 105 and 106: the 1 in 100 flow rate - for exampl
Page 107 and 108: 9.7 Water quality Rainfall picks up
Page 109 and 110: For low to medium risk sites, the i
Page 111 and 112: 9.7.5 Water quality design checklis
Page 113 and 114: 9.8.2 Accessibility All parts of th
Page 115 and 116: Firstly the collection and conveyan
Page 117 and 118: 9.9.3 Key design criteria for biodi
Page 119 and 120:
9.10.2 The Principles of SuDS plant
Page 121 and 122:
Amenity grass An everyday grass sur
Page 123 and 124:
Meadow vegetation Meadow vegetation
Page 125 and 126:
Bioretention features are defined b
Page 127 and 128:
9.10.3.4 A place for trees and shru
Page 129 and 130:
Source Controls providing collectio
Page 131 and 132:
Raingardens The raingarden concept
Page 133 and 134:
Permeable surfaces Permeable surfac
Page 135 and 136:
Filter drains Filter drains, someti
Page 137 and 138:
Filter strips The hard edge from a
Page 140 and 141:
Detailed Design 135 The safety cons
Page 142 and 143:
Detailed Design 9.11.5 Storage stru
Page 144 and 145:
Detailed Design 9.12 Management of
Page 146 and 147:
Detailed Design 9.12.3 Example of S
Page 149:
Sheffield Grey to Green : an excell
show all

Hillingdon SuDS Design & Evaluation Guide

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?