RPT Com201305drainagestrategy

Drainage Strategy Framework

For water and sewerage companies to prepare
Drainage Strategies
Good practice guidance commissioned by the

Environment Agency and Ofwat
May 2013


For water and sewerage companies to prepare
Drainage Strategies
Good practice guidance commissioned by the

Environment Agency and Ofwat
May 2013
Halcrow Group Limited

Burderop Park, Swindon, Wiltshire SN4 0QD
tel 01793 812479 fax 01793 812089
halcrow.com
Halcrow Group Limited is a CH2M HILL company

Halcrow Group Limited has prepared this report in accordance with
the instructions of The Environment Agency for the client’s sole and specific use. Any other persons
who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk.
Ordnance Survey mapping: © Crown Copyright and database right 2013. Ordnance Survey licence
number 100024198.
© Halcrow Group Limited 2013

Document history


This document has been issued and amended as follows:
Version Date Description Created by Verified by Approved by
012 03/05/13 Final Elliot Gill Paul Conroy Elliot Gill

Contents
1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background and Purpose 1

1.2 Attributes of a Drainage Strategy 2

1.3 Suggested Elements of a Drainage Strategy for Sharing with Partners and
the Public 3

1.4 Links with Established Drainage Planning Processes 5

1.5 Statutory Obligations and Regulatory Drivers 8

1.5.1 Government 8

1.6 Six Guiding Principles for a Drainage Strategy 10

1.6.1 Partnership 11

1.6.2 Uncertainty 11

1.6.3 Risk based 11

1.6.4 Whole life costs and benefits 11

1.6.5 Live process 12

1.6.6 Innovative and sustainable 12

1.7 Mapping the Framework to Current Planning Processes 12

1.8 Who will benefit from the Framework? 13

2 Drainage Strategy Framework 13

2.1 Principle One: Partnership 14

2.1.1 Recommended good practice 15

2.1.2 Good practice example – South West Water working with local authorities 16

2.1.3 Good practice example – Northumbrian Water partnership working in Tyneside 17

2.2 Principle Two: Uncertainty 18


2.2.2 Good practice example – Severn Trent Water’s MICAS 21

2.3 Principle Three: Risk Based 22


2.3.2 Good practice example – United Utilities risk assessment 24

2.3.3 Good practice example – Northumbrian Water risk assessment 25

2.4 Principle Four: Whole Life Costs and Benefits 27


2.4.2 Good practice example – Severn Trent Water making the case for surface water
separation in Stoke-on-Trent 29

2.4.3 Good practice example – New York City comparison of grey and green
infrastructure drainage strategies 30

2.5 Principle Five: Live Process 31


2.5.2 Good practice example – Thames Water live DAP 32

2.5.3 Good practice example – Wessex Water Water live data 35

2.6 Principle Six: Innovative and Sustainable Solutions 36


2.6.2 Good practice example – Welsh Water surface water reduction and removal
strategy for Gowerton and Llanelli 38

Appendices
Appendix A Glossary

1 Introduction
1.1 Background and Purpose
Water for Life1 recognised that longer term planning for water and sewerage company drainage
infrastructure has had less focus than water supply infrastructure. It set out a commitment to
ensure a more strategic approach to drainage planning. This is important, to demonstrate that
economic growth is supported, the environment continues to be protected and that climate change
adaptation2 is planned for appropriately.
Since privatisation, water and sewerage companies have invested to achieve significant
improvements to the environment and the service customers receive, notably reducing the number
of properties known to be at risk of flooding. This investment has been a reaction to the issues
inherited at privatisation. It is now appropriate to look forward to ensure that water and sewerage
companies, working together with other partners, are able to deliver the outcomes that customers
need and want.
For the next price review water and sewerage companies will propose a number of high level
outcomes that they will deliver. An outcome should reflect their customers’ priorities, identified
through appropriate customer engagement, and deliver the best long‐term, sustainable solution for
customers and the environment. An outcome may not be bound by a single price control period and
should be set in the context of customers’ and the environment’s long term needs.
Outcomes are likely to be framed at a high level for each water and sewerage company’s area.
However, the way in which these outcomes are delivered in a particular drainage catchment will
depend on the characteristics of that catchment and the partners that the water and sewerage
companies work with.
Companies will set out the measures they will use to demonstrate delivery of outcomes. An UKWIR
study3 has described example measures that include: the number of properties which experience
sewer flooding; the number of properties at risk of flooding; the number of properties at risk from
sewerage asset failure; risk indices that capture both the probability and consequence of failure;
customer satisfaction with regards to clean rivers and beaches; the number of pollution incidents;
the frequency of combined sewer overflow operation; and compliance with discharge permit
conditions3. Most measures are likely to be meaningful at a catchment scale, as well as at the overall
company level. This Drainage Strategy Framework illustrates good practice in how to prepare a
Drainage Strategy for a particular catchment that is in line with it delivering its outcomes in that
location. It is based around established planning approaches and emphasises six key principles. It
has been designed to be informative and flexible so that it can be applied in different circumstances
to suit companies’ needs and customers’ expectations. Most of the elements of the framework are
taken from existing good practice in water and sewerage companies. However, articulating and
communicating a clear Drainage Strategy for an area is not yet common practice. By adopting the

1 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/water/legislation/whitepaper/
2 Ofwat has published research illustrating the predicted scale of increased sewer
flooding risks due to climate change and growth
http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/sustainability/climatechange/rpt_com201106mottmacsewer.pdf
3 UKWIR has published guidance on Defining and Incentivising Outcomes and Measures of Success
http://www.ukwir.org/ukwirlibrary/96066
205240txt012|May 2013
1
Framework principles and developing Drainage Strategies, water and sewerage companies will be
better able to provide greater confidence to all stakeholders that outcomes can be achieved in the
long term.
A Drainage Strategy should help customers and other stakeholders understand how a water and
sewerage company intends to deliver its statutory functions over the long term within a particular
area in a sustainable and economic manner. The Drainage Strategy should explain how a water and
sewerage company will do this in conjunction with other organisations (e.g. The Environment
Agency, Natural Resources Wales, local authorities, highways authorities, housing developers)4 and
how the company, in turn, will support these organisations in delivering their own responsibilities
as well. For example, the Drainage Strategy should signal to housing developers and other
interested parties how sewerage infrastructure will develop so that they are able to plan accordingly
and contribute to economic growth.
The Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and Ofwat expect that Drainage Strategies will
be developed (following a risk based approach) in accordance with the six principles in a way that
suits local circumstances and customers’ expectations. In England, Defra has described5 the
requirement for companies to continue their investment in Drainage Area Plans for the period 2015
to 2020 and subsequent planning cycles so that these can be used as the basis for the development of
Drainage Strategies. The Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and Ofwat believe that
companies completing Drainage Strategies will be well placed to deliver their long term outcomes.
1.2 Attributes of a Drainage Strategy

A Drainage Strategy should be accessible and understandable to customers, local authorities,
developers, the Environment Agency (in England), Natural Resources Wales and other stakeholders
that may be interested in what the water and sewerage company intends to do in the future. It will
give confidence to all stakeholders that the water and sewerage company will deliver their duty of
providing a public sewerage system that will deliver stated outcomes. The Drainage Strategy will
encourage a more strategic approach that is less reactive and more proactive in providing what
customers and environment requires.
A Drainage Strategy should normally cover the drainage area containing public sewers serving a
single wastewater treatment works, although in large cities it may be prudent to sub‐divide into
smaller areas. Adjacent drainage catchments, impacting on the same receiving water, ought to be
considered together. When planning to accommodate growth, allow for climate change and
maintain or improve water quality (in rivers and the sea) it will often be necessary to consider the
interaction of public sewers and wastewater treatment works.
A Drainage Strategy should be developed by the water and sewerage company with a primary focus
on its network of foul, combined and surface water sewers. However, the company should work
with other organisations so that their role in controlling the demand on sewers is confirmed and the
company plays its part in the resolution of wider drainage, surface water flooding and water
pollution issues in the catchment.

4 The Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales already collaborate with local authorities
to undertake strategic planning for flood risk management from rivers and the sea. (e.g. through the
control of development in floodplains)
5 http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2012/10/05/pb13829‐statement‐obligations/
205240txt012|May 2013
2
The following section (1.3) is provided as a generic illustration of how companies might choose to
communicate the process of developing, selecting and delivering a Drainage Strategy in a location.
Full technical analysis and documentation demonstrating how the six principles have been followed
needn’t be made publically available as this may contain confidential, complex and sensitive
information. It is envisaged that a Drainage Strategy could be communicated within up to 20 written
pages depending on size and complexity.
1.3 Suggested Elements of a Drainage Strategy for Sharing with Partners and the Public
The following is provided as an example of the type of information that could be shared publically
to communicate the Drainage Strategy for a catchment.
1. Provide a catchment description and map illustrating principal drainage and related water
infrastructure (e.g. larger sewers, combined sewer overflows, wastewater treatment works,
rivers and ordinary water courses). Explain how wastewater and stormwater are collected and
treated.

2. Describe company aims and outcomes and how these relate to the drainage system. Indicate the
performance measures that will be used to monitor progress towards the achievement of
outcomes. Report on current and historical patterns in performance measures for the catchment
(e.g. number of flooded properties, number of pollution incidents, and frequency of combined
sewer overflow operation).

3. Summarise the wider drainage issues in the catchment, their relation to the company’s assets
and the organisations consulted in the development of the Drainage Strategy (e.g. describe areas
of significant surface water flooding).

4. Describe and quantify any pressures in the catchment that will affect the achievement of
outcomes – e.g. population change, urban creep, new development, climate change, asset
deterioration, water consumption and environmental legislation.

5. Describe how the pressures identified will influence predicted future performance measures (a
do nothing scenario). Show the rate of change over time and discuss any uncertainties.

6. Describe a short‐list of alternative strategies that are technically feasible and result in the
achievement of outcomes for the catchment. Explain the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities
and threats of alternative strategies considering societal benefits, whole life costs, programming,
uncertainties, and the role of other organisations. Consider the perspectives of customers and
other organisations (e.g. with reference to Local Flood Risk Management Strategies or River
Basin Management Plans).

7. Explain the selection of a preferred strategy (with reference to SWOT analysis) and illustrate this
in more detail with plans, timelines and images so that stakeholders understand what might be
involved and how it will impact on them. A full disclosure of strategy appraisal is not necessary.
The roles of other organisations should be agreed and described.

8. Explain how progress towards delivery of the Drainage Strategy and the achievement of
outcomes will be monitored and reported.
205240txt012|May 2013
3

Figure 1 Water and sewerage company Drainage Strategy interactions with other strategies, plans and
processes relating to flood and water quality management.
Figure 1 illustrates how a water and sewerage company produced Drainage Strategy relates to the
strategies, plans and processes of other partner organisations in flood and water quality
management. The principal external (to water and sewerage company) relationships are between
Drainage Strategies and:
205240txt012|May 2013
4
• Local Development Plans (of planning authorities);
• Flood Risk Management Plans;
• Local Flood Risk Management Strategies (of Lead Local Flood Authorities); and
• River Basin Management Plans (led by the Environment Agency).
A Drainage Strategy should be risk and evidence based and should lead to companies minimising
whole life costs whilst still delivering outcomes for customers and the environment. It should
recognise that population growth, new development, urban creep, climate change and changing
customer behaviour all exert new pressures and demands on drainage systems.
A Drainage Strategy is there to facilitate both long and short term planning. While relatively few
Strategies are likely to be complete in advance of 2015, we expect companies to adopt a risk based
prioritisation approach to develop further Strategies in the coming years. Once complete, more
detailed planning should be consistent with the long term Strategy both up to and beyond future
price reviews (although it is recognised that competing priorities may affect the pace at which
outcomes are delivered).
A Drainage Strategy is likely to contain a mixture of responding to current problems, pro‐actively
reducing risks for predicted problems, improving operational responses and acting to improve data
and reduce uncertainty. An example structure for a Drainage Strategy is included in Section 1.3.
1.4 Links with Established Drainage Planning Processes

The Drainage Strategy framework encompasses and supplements established planning processes
and technical guidance which have been applied selectively and adapted by water and sewerage
companies (and Lead Local Flood Authorities) in recent years when planning for drainage systems.
These include:
• Common Framework for Capital Maintenance Planning6
• Sewerage Management Plans (Sewerage Risk Management 5)7
• Urban Pollution Management 38
• Surface Water Management Plan technical guidance9
• Local Government Association Framework to assist the development of the Local Strategy for
Flood Risk Management10
• Long Term/ Least Cost Planning for Wastewater Supply‐Demand (to be superseded in 2013)11
• Water Cycle Study Guidance (2013 revision in print) 12
These CIWEM13 Urban Drainage Group (WaPUG) published technical guides are also in widespread

use:

6http://www.ukwir.org/ukwirlibrary/80474 (££‐ indicating that a charge is made to access this

content)

7 http://srm.wrcplc.co.uk/ (££)

8 http://www.fwr.org/UPM3/

9 http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2011/06/10/pb13546‐surface‐water‐guidance/

10http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/local‐flood‐risk‐management/‐
/journal_content/56/10171/3618366/ARTICLE‐TEMPLATE

11 http://ukwir.forefront‐library.com/reports/07‐rg‐08‐2/91714 (££)

12 http://www.environment‐agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33368.aspx

205240txt012|May 2013
5
• WaPUG code of practice for the hydraulic modelling of sewers (3rd edition)
• WaPUG guide to quality modelling of sewer systems
• WaPUG integrated drainage modelling guide
The sewerage risk management and surface water management methodologies, in particular, share
a common phased approach to understanding drainage problems and developing cost effective
solutions. These phases are central to good practice in drainage planning and are central to the
development of a Drainage Strategy.
Generically, these phases include:
• Initialisation / Preparation phase; where data are collated to understand current issues in the
system and necessary partners are consulted with to agree success measures and objectives.
• Risk assessment phase; where predictive tools are used to quantify current problems and
predict how these problems will change in the future.
• Options appraisal phase; where the costs and benefits of alternative remedies that meet agreed
objectives are considered. This informs the selection of a preferred solution or solutions.
• Implementation phase; where drainage improvements are financed and delivered and the
effectiveness of improvements monitored.
The process is cyclical, indicating that it is periodically revisited to confirm previous decisions,
address uncertainties and adapt to a changing environment. Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate the
Sewerage Risk Management and Surface Water Management Plan planning processes.

Figure 2 Sewerage Risk Management Approach (Copyright WRc plc http://srm.wrcplc.co.uk, used with
permission)

13 http://www.ciwem.org/knowledge‐networks/groups/urban‐drainage/publications/modelling‐
guides.aspx
205240txt012|May 2013
6
Figure 3 Surface Water Management Plan Approach
Ofwat has previously commissioned research14 on current practice in sewerage planning and
drainage area plans, concluding that traditional drainage area plans are no longer widely
undertaken but that these activities are generally undertaken under different guises.

14 http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/future/sustainable/drainage/rpt_com20111208drainage.pdf
205240txt012|May 2013
7
1.5 Statutory Obligations and Regulatory Drivers
1.5.1 Government
Drainage planning is undertaken within a context established by a variety of Government policies
and instruments. These are succinctly detailed in Defra’s October 2012 Statement of Obligations15
(for England) which is to be referenced by water and sewerage companies in the preparation of
business plans for the 2015‐2020 price review period. More specific guidance over priorities for 2015‐
2020 is provided in Defra’s16 strategic policy statement for Ofwat. A Water Strategy for Wales17 will
be consulted on in 2013.
The key legislative drivers and Government priorities relevant to drainage planning are summarised
here:
• Section 94 of the Water Industry Act 199118 describes how every water and sewerage company is
under a duty to ‘provide, improve and extend … a system of public sewers … as to ensure that
the area is and continues to be effectually drained’. This is relevant to drainage planning
because it explicitly indicates that the sewerage system should be improved to keep pace with
growing pressures over the long term; this requirement is assured if a long term Drainage
Strategy is in place and implemented.

• The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive19 provides a further requirement to provide
sufficient capacity in wastewater collection systems.

• The Governments in England and Wales are committed to taking an ecosystems approach to
environmental management which accounts for the environmental, economic and social benefits
that result from an improved water environment. Water and sewerage companies are
encouraged to invest in natural as well as built infrastructure to deliver their desired outcomes.
The Natural Choice 20 demonstrated how this type of investment can deliver a wide range of
positive social, environmental and economic outcomes. Benefits can be determined using
‘payments for ecosystem services’ 21 methods. Water and sewerage companies are encouraged to
consider these approaches where they can deliver cost beneficial outcomes for their customers.
This is relevant to drainage planning because it encourages the use of retrofit sustainable
drainage systems in place of more traditional sewer upsizing and storage. Ofwat has supported
water and sewerage companies to investigate these approaches through pilot studies22 in the
2010 to 2015 price review period.

• Water and sewerage companies may work in partnership with other organisations to jointly
invest in shared outcomes and to discuss with customers their willingness to pay for wider

15 http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2012/10/05/pb13829‐statement‐obligations/
16 http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2013/03/07/pb13884‐sps‐seg‐ofwat/
17http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/epq/waterflooding/publications/water‐
strategy/;jsessionid=235D11ADCC6EEC8EE88886DD69CE0784?lang=en
18 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/56/part/IV/chapter/I
19 http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/water/waterquality/sewage/uwwtd/index.htm
20 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/natural/whitepaper/
21 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/natural/ecosystems‐services/
22 http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/future/sustainable/drainage
205240txt012|May 2013
8
benefits. This is relevant to sewerage planning because it encourages water and sewerage
companies to partner with local authorities to resolve complex storm water management
problems (for flooding or pollution control) through the use of retrofit sustainable drainage
systems. The wider benefits to citizens outside of the water and sewerage company’s customer
base can be accounted for.

• The governments of England and Wales are promoting a catchment‐based approach23 to River
Basin Management Planning to meet the water quality requirements of the Water Framework
Directive (WFD)24. The important aspect of the approach is that all interested parties should
work together to build consensus about the best way to improve water quality and habitats.
Water and sewerage companies should expect to be involved in the process of agreeing
objectives and the apportionment of responsibility for delivering those objectives within the
river basin districts they operate. The central requirements of the Water Framework Directive
are to prevent deterioration in water quality, aim to achieve good chemical status and aim to
achieve good ecological status. It additionally seeks to limit the discharge of priority substances.
River Basin Management Plans will undergo consultation in the second half of 2014 and be
published in December 2015; thereafter the programmes of measures included become statutory
requirements and the Environment Agency (in England) and Natural Resources Wales will use
permit and license conditions to ensure that water and sewerage companies deliver their agreed
contributions. This is relevant to drainage planning because misconnections, blockages,
mechanical failure, sewer flooding and combined sewer overflows (CSOs) can all contribute to
the deterioration of water quality and the failure to achieve good ecological status or meet
environmental quality standards for priority substances. Climate change and growth may
increase these risks but water and sewerage companies are not the only polluters and need to
partner to ensure that outcomes are met. Defra is consulting (closing February 2013) on
developing its policies with respect to the control of diffuse urban pollution.25

• A revised Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC)26 applies from 2015 and by then the
Government’s aim is for all bathing waters to achieve at least ‘sufficient class’; this is
approximately twice as stringent as requirements for the current Directive. Subsequent planning
should aim to achieve ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ classifications. This is relevant to drainage planning
because CSOs, other wet weather intermittent discharges, final effluent discharges and
misconnections can all contribute to bathing water failures. Climate change and growth may
increase these risks but water and sewerage companies are not the only polluters and need to
partner to ensure that outcomes are met.

• Under the Flood and Water Management Act (2010)27 water and sewerage companies (in
England and Wales) must act in a manner consistent with the National Flood and Coastal
Erosion Risk Management (NFCERM) Strategies28 for England and Wales and have regard to

23http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/water/legislation/catchment‐approach/
24http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/water/legislation/water‐framework‐directive/
25 http://www.defra.gov.uk/consult/2012/11/20/water‐pollution/
26 http://www.environment‐agency.gov.uk/business/regulation/107017.aspx
27 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/flooding/legislation/
28 http://www.environment‐agency.gov.uk/research/policy/130073.aspx
205240txt012|May 2013
9
Local Flood Risk Management Strategies29. NFCERM is based around six principles: community
& partnership; catchment based approach; sustainability; risk based planning; beneficiary
investment; and delivering multiple benefits. Companies should also co‐operate with local
authorities and the Environment Agency in the exercise of their functions in relation to surface
water management and combined sewers under section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991. The
Flood Risk Regulations 200930 implement the Floods Directive and give particular
responsibilities to Lead Local Flood Authorities. In ‘Flood Risk Areas’ Lead Local Flood
Authorities and the Environment Agency are expected to prepare Flood Risk Management Plans
that set out flood risk management objectives and measures to manage risk from local flooding.
The Environment Agency is required to prepare Flood Risk Management Plans for the whole of
England and Wales that cover flooding from main rivers, the sea and reservoirs. It is important
for all risk management authorities to work in an effective way to plan to manage flood risk
from all sources in a way that is well coordinated across catchments and coastal cells. These
duties are relevant to drainage planning because of the vital (but not unlimited) role surface
water and combined sewers play in reducing flood risk in urban areas. The Act also makes
provision for the compulsory drainage of new developments through sustainable drainage
systems (SuDS) and the ‘right to connect’ being conditional on SuDS being approved by the
SuDS Approval Body of the Lead Local Flood Authority.

• The Climate Change Act 200831 created a legal framework to cut greenhouse gas emissions and
build the UK’s ability to adapt to a changing climate. Water and sewerage companies are
expected to reduce carbon emissions and adapt to the impact of climate change over the next
decades. The Government published its first UK climate change risk assessment in January 2012
and this will be updated every 5 years. This is relevant to drainage planning because of the
carbon embodied in new drainage infrastructure, the carbon emitted during the pumping and
treatment of sewage and the increase in flooding and pollution that will occur if climate change
adaptations are not made. The Government expects Ofwat to work towards the targets of its
Adaptation Report and to ensure that its regulatory approach explicitly supports companies in
adapting to climate change

• From October 2011 the Water Industry (Schemes for Adoption of Private Sewers) Regulations
201132 transferred responsibility for existing private sewers and lateral drains to water and
sewerage companies. Pumping stations will be transferred by October 2016. This is relevant to
drainage planning because of the significant increase in assets now within the responsibility of
the water and sewerage company and the need to understand and respond to risks therein.
1.6 Six Guiding Principles for a Drainage Strategy

This Drainage Strategy Framework describes good practice themed around six guiding principles.
Adherence to these principles will help ensure a Drainage Strategy which meets the expectations of
Defra, the Welsh Government, the Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and Ofwat and

29 The Local Government Association has published guidance on Local Flood Risk Management
Strategies http://www.local.gov.uk/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=a2538b94‐d3c1‐4cec‐81b0‐
8aefd2996c5e&groupId=10171
30 http://www.environment‐agency.gov.uk/research/planning/125459.aspx
31 http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/legislation/cc_act_08/cc_act_08.aspx
32 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2011/9780111510933/contents
205240txt012|May 2013
10
will be an essential means of communicating with customers and other partners. Further details on
each principle are described in Section 2 of this document, along with examples of good practice.
The six principles are:
1.6.1 Partnership
Water and sewerage companies cannot develop optimal Drainage Strategies on their own and
therefore partnership is key to developing and defining objectives, performance indicators and the
milestones that will need to be achieved in order to achieve measures that will demonstrate the
delivery of outcomes. Strategies should be developed and implemented in partnership with
customers, developers, Lead Local Flood Authorities, planning authorities, the Environment Agency
and Natural Resources Wales. Strategies should align with (informing and informed by) River
Basin Management Plans, Local Flood Risk Management Strategies, Flood Risk Management Plans
and local plans (from planning authorities).
1.6.2 Uncertainty
Strategies should explain the reliability of data and knowledge about current and future
performance of drainage systems. They should explain what steps are planned to improve this
understanding and how this will benefit customers. Where future performance is uncertain (e.g.
because of sensitivity to climate change) they should explain how adaptive approaches will be used
to ensure outcomes are met. The uncertainty in predictions of future risks should be recognised and
accommodated within decision making.
1.6.3 Risk based

Strategies should be risk based. This means that planning, operational and investment activities
should be based on consideration of the probability and consequence of inadequate drainage
function (risks) as these relate to the achievement of measures that demonstrate delivery of
outcomes. A risk based strategy ensures that investment is made where risks are the greatest.
To aid communication, risks should be visualised through maps and plans (Figure 10 is an
example). To aid risk assessment, risks should be monetised, combined and predicted into the
future. To aid options appraisal the impact of interventions on the level of risk should be predicted.
The approach to Drainage Strategy development should be risk based itself. The degree of detail
included should be related to an understanding of the overall level of risks in the catchment, now
and in the future.
1.6.4 Whole life costs and benefits

Strategies should be informed by consideration of whole life costs and benefits. They should
promote a series of interventions which in view of the quantified uncertainties are most likely to
result in performance indicators which demonstrate the achievement of outcomes at lowest cost to
customers and the community more widely.
Costs relate to capital and operational expenditure to deliver interventions and the monetised
impacts of drainage failures such as flooding and pollution.
Benefits relate to the reduction in risks from drainage failures such as flooding and pollution but
should also include wider societal impacts such as those calculated using a ‘Payments for
Ecosystems Services’ approach.
205240txt012|May 2013
11
When considering the ‘whole life’, the strategy should consider climate, population and asset
deterioration trends. These are likely to increase risks over the long term if no interventions are
made. The strategy should state ‘what’ should be done but also broadly ‘when’ and in what
sequence interventions should happen.
1.6.5 Live process

The Strategy should be adaptable and periodically reviewed. Whilst outcomes are expected to be
relatively stable over time, the pace at which the strategy delivers outcomes will be linked to volatile
influences (like climate and population change) and the decisions made at each price review about
the priorities for the following period. The strategy should be reviewed at regular intervals to reflect
investments already made, the changing priorities of the water and sewerage company and
partners, and the presence of emerging risks. The review is also an opportunity to report drainage
catchment performance relative to performance measures designed to monitor progress towards
achieving outcomes.
1.6.6 Innovative and sustainable

The framework promotes the full evaluation of alternatives to traditionally engineered sewerage
solutions to test whether these offer lower whole life cost options or better responses to uncertainty.
It is anticipated that drainage solutions of the future will be different from the ones we are used to.
These should include (at least at a high level) real time control or active management, storm water
retrofit techniques, education to enable customers to change behaviour, enhancing incentives for
customers to reduce surface water flowing to sewers, and innovative permitting arrangements
across drainage networks and wastewater treatment works. Water and sewerage companies should
continue to review and develop other innovative solutions.
For example, where a company may historically have preferred to tackle sewer flooding or
combined sewer overflow pollution by increasing its underground equipment to store more rainfall
during storms, it might consider other options in future; such as working with customers to manage
the rainfall close to source, preventing it from entering the sewer system.
1.7 Mapping the Framework to Current Planning Processes

We assume that practitioners will be following a broad and generic four‐stage planning process
common to the Sewerage Risk Management (SRM5) and Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP)
processes when preparing Drainage Strategies.
Figure 4 is provided to guide water and sewerage companies in the development of Drainage
Strategies. It identifies each stage of the drainage planning process and highlights the good practice
principles (colour coded by theme) in the locations through the process where it is most important
that they are adopted.
205240txt012|May 2013
12
Drainage Strate
egy Frameworrk
Initialize/pre
epare Risk assessmen
nt Optionss appraisal Interventtion
Establish partne
ership Aligned delivvery &
Co
onsultation on risk
and consultation Consultt on options collaborative
issues
process solutions
Quantify Innovative and
Define uncertainties Plan for u
uncertainties
uncertainties sustainab
ble
Demonsstrate whole
Prepare risk data Quantify risks Live and vissible
life cost and benefit
Whole liffe
Innovaative &
Partnership Uncertainty Risk based costs & Live process
sustainable
benefitss

Fig
gure 4 Drainage Strategy frramework prin
nciples mapped to the draina
age planning process
1.8 Who will ben

nefit from the Framew
work?
Th
he Drainage Strategy Fraamework willl benefit:
• Water andd sewerage co ompanies loo oking to impprove their coompany speccific drainagge planning

approach and make it fit for purpo ose for the deelivery of lon
ng term outcoomes over multiple pricee
owards good practice and
review cyccles. It will point them to d provide exaamples as in
nspiration and
d
to promotte innovation n.
• Organisatiions and ind dividuals look
king to engage with the development of Drainagee Strategies
and scrutinise progresss towards th he achievemeent of outcom mes associateed with enab
bling growth,,
adapting to climate ch hange, manag ging flooding g and manag ging water poollution.
2 Drainage
e Strate
egy Fram
mework
k
Thhis section deescribes reco
ommended good practicee against each h of the six key principles necessary
o develop a Drainage Straategy. For refference, linkss are made to
to o relevant annd establisheed planning
prrocesses and emerging gu uidance whicch drainage planners maay find usefu ul. These exam
mples are
prrovided for innformation and reference only.
Water and sew werage comp panies should d work towa ards developiing Drainagee Strategies which apply

hese approach
th hes in a way
y that is consiistent with th nd those of th
heir needs an heir customeers and
ners should take note of this advice and prepare to engage wiith water and
paartners. Partn d sewerage
ompanies on this basis.
co
Thhe recommen nded good practice is org
ganised, with nciple, as it would be app
hin each prin proached
hronologicallly in develop
ch ping a Drainaage Strategy following th
he planning processes alrready
esstablished in the Sewerag
ge Risk Manaagement and d/or Surface Water Manag gement Plann
methodologiess.
205240txt012|May
y 2013
13
2.1 Principle One: Partnership

Water and sewerage companies cannot develop optimal Drainage Strategies on their own and
therefore partnership is key to developing and defining objectives, performance indicators and the
milestones that will need to be achieved in order to achieve measures that will demonstrate the
delivery of outcomes. Strategies should be developed and implemented in partnership with
customers, developers, Lead Local Flood Authorities, planning authorities, the Environment Agency
and Natural Resources Wales. Strategies should align (informing and informed by) with River
Basin Management Plans, Local Flood Risk Management Strategies, Flood Risk Management Plans
and local plans (from planning authorities).

205240txt012|May 2013
14
2.1.1 Recommended good practice
No. Good practice Example references
1 Engage with partners in a drainage catchment to: Thames Water has
• Explain the purpose of developing a Drainage Strategy demonstrated good practice
and partners’ roles in its success & how each party will through the development of its
benefit from establishing a long term Drainage Strategy. Counters Creek sewer flooding
• Explain what outcomes are and how progress towards proposals. This website
achieving them will be measured. describes the engagement
• Share data and information so that a shared process and how customers
understanding of risks and opportunities is developed. have been kept informed.
• Explain what current drainage system performance is and
how this is expected to change in the future. Use risk
visualisation tools to do this.
• Explain significant uncertainties and how these affect how
interventions are delivered.
2 Engage with the following partners in the development of the SWMP guidance (Chapter 2)
Drainage Strategy: advises on the establishment of
• Lead Local Flood Authority (the drainage area may partnerships for urban flood
include more than one) because of its responsibilities for management and how to agree
local flood risk management and SuDS approval. and align local objectives.
• Planning authority (the drainage area may include more
than one) because of its role in determining the location
and pace of housing development.
• Highways Authority because of the connection of
highway runoff to public sewer systems
• The Environment Agency (in England) because of its
responsibilities for flood risk management (strategic
overview) and ensuring good ecological quality is met in
water bodies.
• Natural Resources Wales (in Wales) because of its
responsibilities for flood risk management (strategic
oversight) and ensuing good ecological quality is met in
water bodies.
• Regional Flood and Coastal Committees who help
develop a mutual understanding of flood and coastal
erosion risks in an area
• Bodies representing customers (e.g. Consumer Council
for Water, large local businesses, flood action groups,
faith communities)
• Bodies representing local environmental concerns (e.g.
Wildlife Trusts, Rivers Trusts)
• Water only companies and water and sewerage company
departments planning and operating water supply
systems. Water demand management practice can have
an important impact on sewerage headroom.
3 Understand alignment of planning cycles and what this means
locally (e.g. periodic review, River Basin Management Plan, Local
Flood Risk Management Strategy, Flood Risk Management Plan,
local plan).
205240txt012|May 2013
15
4 Be alert to opportunities for joint solutions and/or shared funding A guide to joint funding of
by understanding local plans for: new development; re‐ local flood risk management
development; improving street furniture and public open space; intervention has been
improving parks and green infrastructure. published by Defra33 and
Understand Lead Local Flood Authority and Environment Agency provides relevant advice to
programmes for the management of flood and pollution risks. water and sewerage companies
and other partners.
5 Consider water and sewerage company funded solutions which
deliver third‐party non‐sewerage assets that result in the long term,
least cost delivery of outcomes (e.g. water and sewerage company
funding of household rain barrels and rain gardens to prevent
surface water entering sewers).
6 Use data and mapping from the Environment Agency and Natural UKWIR has completed a
Resources Wales to understand exposure of drainage infrastructure project in 2013 ‘Resilience:
to extreme events (e.g. coastal, fluvial and surface water flood building a business case for
maps) so that network resilience can be understood and improved PR14 and beyond’.
if this is cost beneficial.
7 Work with LLFAs and the Environment Agency (or Natural The UPM3 manual (section 7)
Resources Wales) to understand the effectiveness of interventions advises on post project
at reducing risk and use this information to improve intervention monitoring needs for water
planning. quality driven improvements.
8 Share Drainage Strategies with partners and stakeholders so that
there is transparency around challenges, opportunities and the
roles expected of different organisations.
2.1.2 Good practice example – South West Water working with local authorities
These examples from South West Water illustrate how the company has worked with local
authorities to coordinate investments and to share resources and skills in the development of
integrated urban drainage management studies and Surface Water Management Plans.
• South West Water approached Devon County Council (DCC) to pool resources in delivering
two (of five) pilot integrated urban drainage management studies (IUDMs) for Exeter and
Exmouth. South West Water took the lead role for Exmouth but DCC led in Exeter. This
engagement shared costs across organisations and has facilitated the production of full Surface
Water Management Plans. The collaboration has resulted in a shared understanding of the
urban drainage challenges faced by both organisations and has opened dialogue around
investment priorities.
• In Lyme Regis, South West Water supported extensive coastal erosion defence works being
carried out by West Dorset District Council by accelerating a programme of sewer rehabilitation
and targeting renovation of sewers in vulnerable areas.
• In partnership with Cornwall County Council (CCC) and the Environment Agency, South West
Water has been working on a number of key drainage issues identified by CCC in its
Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA).

33 http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=17085
205240txt012|May 2013
16
• In Camborne, South West Water has taken the opportunity to invest in sewer separation works
which align with the aims of the Camborne, Pool, Redruth urban regeneration group, supported
by Cornwall Council, and to promote sustainable development, economic growth and a
strategic aim of ‘sewers for sewage’.
2.1.3 Good practice example – Northumbrian Water partnership working in
Tyneside
Northumbrian Water has led a sustainable sewerage study for Tyneside34 between 2010 and 2012. It
is a good example of how partner organisations can collaborate to understand and resolve drainage
issues in their urban area.
Its approach was informed by the fact that a shared urban drainage problem around flooding and
pollution was best addressed by a shared response from all the relevant organisations. The project
steering group involved representatives of Northumbrian Water, the Consumer Council for Water,
the Environment Agency and five Lead Local Flood Authorities. The urban drainage system collects
wastewater for a single wastewater treatment works serving a population of over 900,000.
Working together, the group studied the impact of growth, urban creep and climate change on
future urban drainage issues. Figure 5 illustrates how a city‐wide map of potential problem areas
was generated by the project team sharing data on sewer capacity (from Northumbrian Water),
population change (from the local authorities) and river flooding (the Environment Agency). It was
predicted that future problems were more likely to occur in the darker shaded areas. These became
focus areas for the project, where a range of traditional and novel drainage solutions were tested.

Figure 5 Future drainage problem areas indentified through data sharing

34http://communicatoremail.com/IN/fNLOjNRayfOA1rfrfYcdK‐S7UwRcYcNo/WebView.aspx
205240txt012|May 2013
17
The project team was keen to promote its work to customers and the community and prepared a
series of newsletters updating interested parties on progress and issues. An example is illustrated in
Figure 6.
C lic k h er e if y o u a r e h a v in g d if f ic u ltie s v ie w in g th is n e w s le tte r
Ho m e About us M e d ia c e n tre C o n t a ct
W e lc om e ...
Is s u e 2
...to th e s e c on d e ditio n o f S u s ta inab le s e we ra g e , a s ix-m on th ly
A p ril 2 0 1 2 n e ws le tte r p ro d u ce d to b ring yo u th e la te s t n e ws on o u r m a jo r s tud y
e xp lo rin g s us tain ab le s ew e ra ge o p tions in th e T yn e s id e a rea . I h o p e yo u
fin d th e in fo rm a tio n o f in te res t a n d wo u ld w e lcom e fe e db a c k o n an y o f
In th is e d itio n ... th e is s u es ra is e d .
U n d e rs tan d in g th e Ric ha r d W a r n e for d

fu tu re W a s te w a te r Dir e c tor
S u s tain ab le d ra ina g e
o p tio ns U n d e rs ta n d in g th e fu tu re
W e a ll kn o w th e diffic u lties o f a c c u ra tely p re d ic tin g th e fu tu re , h ow e ve r if
w e a re to p re pa re fo r it th e n it is s om e thin g we m us t a tte m p t. As p a rt o f
F in d o u t m o re th is s tu d y w e a re c o ns id e rin g w ha t d em a nds w ill b e p la c e d on th e
d ra ina g e s ys tem s a t 2 0 20 a n d a t 2 0 50 , in c o rpo ra ting g ro w th , u rba n
a b o u t... c re e p a nd c lim a te c ha n ge . B y w o rk in g clos e ly w ith o u r p a rtn e rs an d
u s in g th e la tes t te c h n ic al res e a rc h we h a ve d e ve lo p ed a n d c om p u te r
T h e 2 0 1 1 an n ua l re po rt. m od e lle d a num b e r o f s c e na rios to id en tify a n d d e fin e fu tu re ris ks . T h es e
ris ks in c lud e p red ic tions o f p o te n tia l floo d in g , p o llu tion o r b a rrie rs to
g ro w th . N o w th a t w e be tte r u n d e rs ta nd th e iss u es we a re a ble to p re pa re
p la ns p rom o ting o p po rtu n ities fo r s us ta in a ble d rain ag e s ys tem s in o rde r
to d e live r th e b es t p os s ible s e rvic e fo r o u r c u s tom e rs b a la n c ed a g ains t
e n viro nm e n tal n e eds a n d c os ts .
S u s ta in a b le d ra in a g e o p tio n s
W e b e lie ve o u r a pp ro a ch re p res en ts go o d p ra c tic e fo r th e m a n ag em en t
o f s u rfa c e wa te r, w h ic h is to d ea l w ith th e s u rfa c e wa te r as c los e to
s ou rc e as p os s ib le . A w id e ra n g e o f p o te n tial o p po rtu n ities a re b ein g
O u r e n viro n m e n ta l
id e n tifie d , in c lu d in g lo ca l a n d s tra te gic o p tions .
p o lic y.
O u r c o rp o ra te S tra te g ic o p tions a re typ ic a lly la rg e r th a n th e
re s p o ns ib ility s tra te g y. lo c a l on es a nd in c lu d e fe a tu res s u ch as ;
a re as o f la nd w h ich w o uld b e a llo we d to
flo o d d u rin g he a vy ra in (s a c rific ial s to ra g e )
a n d p e rm a n en t w e tla nd
fe a tu res .
L o c a l op tio ns , d es p ite b ein g s m a lle r th a n th e s tra te gic
o n es , w ill s till p la y a k e y ro le in th e p ro vis io n o f
s us tain ab le d ra ina g e . T h e ir n a tu re m e a ns de p lo ym e n t
c o u ld be m o re w id es p re a d th a n s tra te gic o p tions ,
fe a tu res s u c h as ; w a te r b u tts , ra in g a rde ns a nd
p e rm e ab le pa vin g c o u ld b e re la tive ly e a s y to fit in to

Figure 6 Newsletter promoting urban drainage partnership working
2.2 Principle Two: Uncertainty

Strategies should explain the reliability of data and knowledge about current and future
performance of drainage systems. They should explain what steps are planned to improve this
understanding and how this will benefit customers. Where future performance is uncertain (e.g.
because of sensitivity to climate change) they should explain how adaptive approaches will be used
to ensure outcomes are met. The uncertainty in predictions of future risks should be recognised and
accommodated within decision making.
205240txt012|May 2013
18
1 Data analysed and used in the development of the strategy SRM5 (S3‐03‐17) refers to Ofwat’s
related to asset location, dimensions, condition, failure and flood method for recording the reliability
and pollution incidents should be assigned a confidence grading. and accuracy of regulatory data in
The confidence grading should be related to its accuracy, bands A to D.
completeness, compatibility, credibility and currency.

Models used to predict blockages and collapses, flooding
locations, polluting discharges and water quality impacts should The SWMP guidance (Section 3.19)
be assigned a confidence grading based on their accuracy, describes an alternative system of
completeness, compatibility, credibility and currency. grading data and model results.
Model predictions should be assigned a confidence grading
depending on the confidence in the model and whether it is
being applied outside of its verification range (e.g. for extreme
events or for atypical geographies).
The purpose of confidence grading data and model results used
in strategy setting is to understand the likelihood that outcomes
will be achieved in a cost efficient manner. Where the outcomes
remain uncertain, knowledge of data confidence can be used to
target improvement programmes.
2 Use the Drainage Strategy to justify data and model CIWEM’s urban drainage group
improvement programmes. This should be focussed on areas has published a series of guides on
where risks are currently (or predicted to be) high and hydraulic and water quality
uncertainty in data or models reduces the ability to determine modelling. They discuss model
robust operational or capital solutions. Poor model verification in calibration, verification and uses.
high risk areas would be an indicator that model improvements
were required. SRM5 (S3‐04) describes how to
determine where the current
assessment of risk is sufficient to
proceed or whether data and
models should be improved.
3 Improve understanding of network performance (and improve Yorkshire Water discusses its CSO
models) by using long term flow and level monitoring on sewers monitoring programme here.
and CSOs.
4 Demonstrate how the uncertainty in both the underlying Treasury Green Book
data/models and in the future projections is addressed in options supplementary guidance illustrates
appraisal. Consider if this should be done implicitly (e.g. how to accommodate climate
through choosing conservative assumptions) or explicitly change uncertainties.
through the use of sensitivity analysis or scenario testing.
205240txt012|May 2013
19
5 Population growth, new homes and businesses, climate change UKWIR has published research on
and urban creep combine to make the future highly uncertain accounting for climate change35 and
but will almost certainly increase flooding and pollution risks urban creep36 in sewerage planning
from drainage systems. Use the Drainage Strategy to explore together with more general advice
different scenarios (combining the impact of these drivers) for a on accommodating climate change
near term (≤ 10 years) and future (≥ 30 years) epoch. in water asset management
planning37.
For example, combine modest growth and slight climate change
(a low impact case) and contrast with high growth and Ofwat has published research38
significant climate change (a high impact case). Where the predicting the combined impacts of
location of significant new development is unknown, include climate change, urban creep and
scenarios accommodating different possibilities. development on a national basis.
Running multiple scenarios is time consuming and costly. A risk
based approach should be adopted to focus efforts where
flooding and pollution risks are especially sensitive to changes in
demand.
6 In the face of significant uncertainties about future demands on Designing Resilient Cities A guide
the drainage system and their consequences, the Drainage to good practice DR Lomardi et al,
Strategy should identify low‐regrets interventions (i.e. ones that HIS BRE Press.
are robust no matter what the future holds) and ensure that
solutions can be adapted if greater certainty is achieved. For
example, through quickening the pace of SuDS retrofit activities
or using (previously identified and secured) land to extend
underground storage facilities. Strategies which remove surface
water from sewerage networks provide ‘headroom’ for
unpredictable increases in demand from population and climate
change.
7 Post project appraisal and cost monitoring should be used to
capture real costs and performance so that Strategies can be
updated and improved with latest information. It is especially
important to collate and understand the whole life costs of new
technologies where industry understanding is currently poor.

35http://www.ukwir.org/reports/03‐cl‐10‐0/90427/94658/90179,90198/90198 (££)

36http://ukwir.forefront‐library.com/reports/10‐wm‐07‐14/93273 (££)

37http://ukwir.forefront‐library.com/reports/12‐cl‐01‐16/94816/90001/90155,90145,90140,94658/90155

(££)

38http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/sustainability/climatechange/rpt_com201106mottmacsewer.pdf

205240txt012|May 2013
20
2.2.2 Good practice example – Severn Trent Water’s MICAS

Severn Trent Water has developed a process to measure confidence in hydraulic models of sewer
systems. Modelling Investment Confidence Assessment Scoring (MICAS) was developed to provide
an objective evaluation of model confidence. It uses information stored in the hydraulic model about
the provenance of each data element and the quality of model verification. Before the approach was
developed, the assessment of ‘fitness for purpose’ of models was subjective and based on modellers
judgment. This was not always reliable and certainly not repeatable and transparent. MICAS
provides an objective assessment of hydraulic model quality which can be used to inform its use and
prioritise improvements to input data and model verification.
Figure 7 and Figure 8 illustrate how an understanding of model confidence from the MICAS
assessment (right hand side images) can be used to interpret predictions of flooding (left hand side
images). In Figure 7 areas at predicted high risk of flooding (red in the left hand side image) are
shown to be in high confidence areas of the hydraulic model (green in the right hand side image). In
contrast, in Figure 8, areas at predicted high risk of flooding (red in the left hand side image) are
shown to be in poor confidence areas of the hydraulic models (orange in the right hand side image).
In the latter case, this information is used to identify where further model improvements would be
beneficial.
Flood Risk MICAS

Figure 7 Modelled flood risk and MICAS confidence scores (high model confidence)
Flood Risk MICAS

Figure 8 Modelled flood risk and MICAS confidence scores (lower model confidence)
205240txt012|May 2013
21
2.3 Principle Three: Risk Based

Strategies should be risk based. This means that planning, operational and investment activities
should be based on consideration of the probability and consequence of inadequate drainage
function (risks) as these relate to the achievement of measures that demonstrate delivery of
outcomes. A risk based Strategy ensures that investment is made where risks are the greatest.
To aid communication, risks should be visualised through maps and plans (Figure 10 is an
example). To aid risk assessment, risks should be monetised, combined and predicted into the
future. To aid options appraisal the impact of interventions on the level of risk should be predicted.
The approach to Drainage Strategy development should be risk based itself. The degree of detail
included should be related to an understanding of the overall level of risks in the catchment, now
and in the future.
1 Determine where a Drainage Strategy is required by combining The initialisation stage of a Sewer
current performance with external influences likely to result in Management Plan (SMP)
deteriorating performance. This stage requires no modelling or (described in SRM5) considers how
detailed assessment. a risk assessment can be used to
On a catchment‐by‐catchment (drainage area) basis, prioritise which spatial units (e.g.
understand current risks by collating data on current catchments) should be prioritised
performance: e.g. blockages, collapses, pumping station for a SMP study.
failures, pollution incidents, CSO spills, storm tank spills,
internal flooding incidents, external flooding incidents and
infiltration rates. Relate these risks to performance indicators
and the achievement of outcomes.
Combine with information about known growth rates,
predictions of urban creep, quantity of newly adopted ‘private’
sewers, surface water flooding risks (e.g. from flood map for
surface water), WFD water body status, and bathing water
status. Prioritise catchments with high current risks and/or
factors suggesting that risks are likely to worsen significantly in
the future. Consider normalising scoring method for size of
catchment (e.g. by unit area or unit length of sewer). Consult
with stakeholders to confirm correct prioritisation.
Commence with development of Drainage Strategies for the
highest ranked catchments.
Periodically revisit prioritisation (updating with new data) to
check that priorities are still correct.
2 Visualise catchment risks (from 1) to illustrate and explain to
partners the reasons for prioritisation. Accommodate their
views & consider changing prioritisation to aid wider drainage
planning requirements (e.g. increase prioritisation of a
catchment with significant surface water flooding problems
where close collaboration between water and sewerage
company and LLFA will benefit the community).
205240txt012|May 2013
22
3 Clearly relate sewerage risks to the performance indicators that SRM 5 (S3‐03) details approaches
will be used to measure progress towards achieving outcomes. to simple and more complex
e.g. relate blockage rates to flooding and pollution incidents. approaches to risk assessment that
e.g. relate increase in flows to increased CSO frequency, are consistent with CMPCF
breaches of permit conditions and deterioration in receiving guidelines.
water quality
Adopt a source–pathway‐receptor model and workshop
techniques to ensure that cause, effect and consequences are
fully captured.
Use performance indicators as the basis for a comprehensive
risk assessment that considers likelihood (frequency) and
consequence (extent, degree and duration of impact) of failure
expressed as risk scores. Monetise risks in GBP (£) to align with
principle four (whole life costs & benefits).
Use (verified) predictive models to understand near term (<10
years) and long term (>30 years) risks. The latter to align with
principle four (whole life costs & benefits).
Align complexity of method with level of risk, recognising the
needs of partners.
e.g. use complex 2D flood routing models to ascertain (with
greater certainty) flood mechanisms and damages where the
quantity and frequency of flooding is high and interventions
will be complex and costly. Elsewhere, more simple approaches
are appropriate.
e.g. use complex UPM3 water quality modelling methods
where compliance with river standards or discharge consents is
already failing or is expected to do so. Elsewhere, more simple
approaches are appropriate.
Combine risk scores from different risks to describe the total
level of risk in a catchment. Use visualisation techniques to
communicate combined level of risk.
Combine analysis from hydraulic, blockage and asset
deterioration models on a catchment basis.
In hydraulic analysis, consider flooding performance for rainfall
events beyond the usually provided standard of protection to
understand performance in extreme events in support of
partners (especially LLFAs) and in search of cost beneficial
interventions at a higher standard than normal.
4 Be alert to interactions between sewer networks and UPM3 guidance discusses
wastewater treatment plans. approaches to understanding these
e.g. by modelling the impact of changing sewer flows on interactions and applying more
wastewater treatment works’ performance and costs. complex water quality impact
Consider combined impact of different catchments on a single models.
or linked water body (e.g. an inland river, bathing water or
shell fishery).
5 Establish systems and apply methods to predict how
interventions can reduce risks.
e.g. how a targeted and pro‐active maintenance can reduce the
occurrence of sewer blockage and flooding from ‘other causes’.
e.g. how reducing infiltration can reduce CSO spills.
e.g. how reducing connected impermeable area can reduce
sewer flooding.
205240txt012|May 2013
23
2.3.2 Good practice example – United Utilities risk assessment

United Utilities has demonstrated a robust risk based approach in the development of sewerage
management plans used for long term planning across their area of operations.
Hydraulic models were applied in 235 catchments and configured to look at future performance and
to evaluate the consequences of inadequate capacity. Starting from a baseline of 2010, versions of the
models were built for 2020 and 2036 epochs. The following model input parameters were adjusted:
population, water consumption, infiltration, planned development, known sewerage improvement
projects, urban creep, rainfall (for climate change).
Two‐dimensional (2D) modelling was used to consider the consequences of sewer flooding resulting
from the changes made to reflect the future operating environments. As well as the impact on homes
and business (from internal and external flooding) the flood risk to critical infrastructure was also
considered. The operation of CSOs was considered by computing the annual spill volume, duration
and frequency.
Finally, predictions of the likelihood and consequence of sewer failure were added taking account of
sewer material, age and the incident records relating to similar assets.
All these data were combined and weighted to generate a Sewer Management Plan (SMP) Risk
Score for each length of sewer. The process is illustrated in Figure 9.

Figure 9 United Utilities’ process for calculating risk score in sewerage catchments

205240txt012|May 2013
24
Risk scores were summed spatially and monetised so that high priority locations could be identified.
Mapping and visualisation were used to communicate the results of this assessment, priority areas
for further investigation and how risks change through time (Figure 10).

Figure 10 Visualisation of sewerage risks
2.3.3 Good practice example – Northumbrian Water risk assessment

Northumbrian Water completes an annual assessment of hydraulic capacity in its sewerage network
at the drainage area scale. Its approach does not require hydraulic models to have been completed
and yet can reliably highlight areas of under‐capacity in need of further investigation through more
detailed analysis, including hydraulic modelling. New and emerging risk areas can also be
identified by applying data for population growth which occurs through development. ‘What if’
scenarios can be run to test when capacity limits may be overcome and flood risks potentially set to
increase. It demonstrates good ‘risk based’ planning principles because it shows the drainage
planner where more detailed analysis is warranted.
The approach uses the following data from company records: population connected to sewer P,
water consumption rate G (l/h/d), trade discharge E (l/s), pipe diameter and gradient, pipe
connectivity, CSO consent pass forward rate (l/s), pumping station rate (l/s), sewage treatment flow
rate (l/s). A wastewater dry weather capacity map calculates pipe full capacity, dry weather flow
(PG+E+I), and Formula A flow for fully combined (1360P+2E+DWF) and separate (4PG+3I+E) areas
of the network. Infiltration (I) is assumed to be 50%* PG +E.
205240txt012|May 2013
25
A theoretical assessment of network capacity is then calculated by comparing Formula A with pipe
full capacity, flow consent values at CSOs and wastewater treatment works, and pumping rates.
This determines areas of the network with a capacity shortfall, with a potential capacity shortfall
and with no capacity shortfall.
When run across the whole company area, approximately 100 out of 500 drainage areas were found
to be under capacity. Over 60% of these areas had recorded sewer flooding incidents. In over 300
drainage areas there was no forecast capacity shortfall. Only 7% of these drainage areas had
recorded sewer flooding incidents. Overall, the system proved to be very reliable at predicting
drainage areas likely to have sewer flooding problems because of sewer under‐capacity.
In under capacity drainage areas an intermediate (hydraulic model based) assessment is then carried
out. Figure 11 shows the results thematically mapped for an example drainage area. Red areas are
predicted to have a very high risk of sewer flooding. Yellow and green areas are predicted to have a
low risk of sewer flooding.

Figure 11 Example of a drainage area capacity map
205240txt012|May 2013
26
2.4 Principle Four: Whole Life Costs and Benefits

Strategies should be informed by consideration of whole life costs and benefits. They should
promote a series of interventions which in view of the quantified uncertainties are most likely to
result in performance indicators which demonstrate the achievement of outcomes at lowest cost to
customers and the community more widely.
Costs relate to capital and operational expenditure to deliver interventions and the monetised
impacts of drainage failures such as flooding and pollution.
Benefits relate to the reduction in risks from drainage failures such as flooding and pollution but
should also include wider societal impacts such as those calculated using a ‘Payments for
Ecosystems Services’ approach.
When considering the ‘whole life’, the strategy should consider climate, population and asset
deterioration trends. These are likely to increase risks over the long term if no interventions are
made. The strategy should state ‘what’ should be done but also broadly ‘when’ and in what
sequence interventions should happen.
1 Predict risks into the future for at least two epochs: ≤10 years (to
understand what the company needs to do now and how this fits
with longer term outcomes), and ≥30 years to understand long term
needs in light of changing population and other pressures.
Account for the following changes in demand:
• Growth ‐ new homes and businesses
• Urban creep – uncontrolled addition of connected
impermeable area
• Climate change – affecting design events (flood
predictions), time‐series (CSO and treated effluent
quantities), river flows and temperatures
• Infiltration/exfiltration – through deteriorating sewer
condition
• Dry weather flows – through changes in water
consumption rates
2 Combining monetised risks (associated with sewerage failures), UKWIR will publish in 2014 a
determine whole life costs for a ‘do nothing’ scenario (i.e. no revision to their Long Term/
interventions). Least Cost Planning for
Wastewater Supply‐Demand
Include costs associated with electricity consumption (in the
guidance. This may provide
network and at the wastewater treatment works) and CO2
tools and methods for
emissions.
expressing costs and benefits
to support the development
of a Drainage Strategy.
205240txt012|May 2013
27
3 Test intervention strategies which keep performance indicators on SRM5 (Section 8) defines and
track to deliver outcomes by adding capacity (supply), reducing contrasts cost benefit analysis,
flows (demand) or altering operational regimes. cost effectiveness analysis,
whole life cost analysis, and
Include the costs of interventions and the benefits of reduced risks risk cost benefit analysis.
to inform selection of the most cost beneficial strategy over the
whole life. HM Treasury Green Book39
sets out a framework for the
Have regard to the timing of interventions, recognising that appraisal of long term
uncertainty may require low‐regrets (insensitive to uncertainty) projects which can be applied
solutions and that delaying major interventions may be more to the development of a
affordable and attractive in the short term. Discounting should be Drainage Strategy.
used to compare the costs and benefits of interventions occurring at
different times.
Recognise that some interventions will be obligatory and defined
(e.g. maintenance of a spill frequency standard at a CSO) whilst
others will be more discretionary, focused on achieving outcomes
rather than specific outputs.
4 Don’t, at first, be concerned with the distribution of costs and UKWIR research outputs40 in
benefits between partners who may be sharing costs. Identify the 2013 (SW01) will provide a
most cost beneficial solution first, and then debate and agree an framework for making a
equitable sharing of costs. business case for separating
storm water from combined
Give equal weighting to OPEX (operating expenditure) and sewers.
CAPEX (capital expenditure) costs so not to cause bias towards
capital intensive solutions. Properly consider the costs and benefits
of pro‐active maintenance regimes and campaigns to influence
customers to reduce fats, oils and greases (FOG) build‐ups and the
misuse of sewers.
Consider the affordability of solutions, the impact on customers’
bills and the resources of other organisations to play their part.
5 Where interventions include the provision of green space, public Supplementary Green Book41
amenity and improved habitats then Payment for Ecosystem guidance describes methods
Services approaches should be used to identify further monetised for accounting for
benefits in the appraisal. Customers should be consulted to help environmental impacts
value these benefits. including the ecosystems
approach.

39 http://www.hm‐treasury.gov.uk/data_greenbook_index.htm
40 http://www.ukwir.org/publishor/system/component_view.asp?LogDocId=96116
41 http://www.hm‐treasury.gov.uk/d/accounting_environmental_impacts.pdf
205240txt012|May 2013
28
2.4.2 Good practice example – Severn Trent Water making the case for surface
water separation in Stoke-on-Trent
In this example42 Severn Trent Water compared alternative ways of addressing sewer flooding
problems by looking at a range of costs and benefits not all of which were directly associated with
its specific responsibilities as a water and sewerage company. Whilst the example does not express a
monetised value for all costs and benefits over the whole life, it does illustrate the types of factors
which could be included in an appraisal of this type, scaled to address problems at a catchment
level. It also demonstrates how working collaboratively can help identify solutions which are cost‐
beneficial for the community at large.
In an area of Stoke, served by a combined sewer system, five properties were at risk from sewer
flooding in cellars for events equal to and less frequent than the 1 in 10 year probability. A
conventional sewer pumping station based solution was presented as the standard option.
However, a nearby former hospital site was also undergoing re‐development which would result in
reduced runoff to the combined sewer. The new drainage regime in the redevelopment site was
sufficient to remove the flood risk at the five properties (this was a do nothing strategy).
A third option completely separated the development site runoff from the combined sewer and also
addressed local flood risk issues nearby. The solution required a new storm sewer and a network of
swales and other SuDS features connecting with an ordinary watercourse.
Table 1 illustrates how costs and benefits were compared across the three alternative strategies. Each
provided the same benefit in terms of the number of homes (5) relieved from sewer flooding. The
novel SuDS and surface water management solution additionally gave local flood risk relief to 3
further properties. The separation/SuDS strategy came at a higher capital cost but delivered greater
social cost benefits, savings in annual operating costs and a bonus improvement water quality
(because of reduced CSO spill volume). Severn Trent selected the separation SuDS solution because
the higher capital costs were offset by other benefits.
Table 1 Costs and benefits of drainage improvements in part of Stoke-on-Trent
Do nothing Standard SuDS

option
Sewer flooding benefits 5 5 5
Other flooding benefits 0 0 3
Change in runoff to combined sewer (m3/year) 0 0 ‐40,000
Estimated cost (£) 0 168,000 419,000

http://www.ciwem.org/media/695460/Paper%203_Creating%20Sewer%20Capacity_Presentation%2
42
0by%20Mike%20Wood.pdf
205240txt012|May 2013
29
Do nothing Standard SuDS

option
Social Cost Benefit (£) 16,000 5,000 51,000
Change in electricity costs (£/year) 0 +75 ‐525
Programme impact (years to deliver solution) + 4 0 +4
CSO spill volume (m3 in 1year event) +298 0 ‐397
2.4.3 Good practice example – New York City comparison of grey and green
infrastructure drainage strategies
This example is taken from New York in the United States of America. It’s an illustration of how
whole life costs have been compared for alternative strategies to solve urban drainage issues on a
mega‐city scale. The key data are summarised in Table 2.
Table 2 Comparing drainage strategies in New York
Grey Green
Strategy Strategy
CSO spill volume reduction (billion gallons 10.1 12.2

/year)
Wider benefits over 20 years ($ million) 0 139 to 418
Whole life costs over 20 years ($ billion) 6.8 5.3
The information is taken from the New York City Green Infrastructure Plan43 produced by the
Mayor’s Office in 2010. The Plan (and recent updates) provides a comprehensive evidence base
around costs and benefits of different approaches to address the city’s drainage problems. It is
therefore an excellent example of how drainage strategies can be described in plain language for a
non‐specialist audience concerned with their environment and the cost of providing infrastructure
to enhance it.
It is becoming commonplace for North American cities (e.g. Portland and Philadelphia) to address
the issue of frequent combined sewer overflow (CSO) operation by using a combination of grey
infrastructure (sewers) and green infrastructure (sustainable drainage systems). The wider health

43 http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/stormwater/nyc_green_infrastructure_plan.shtml
205240txt012|May 2013
30
and ecological benefits of green infrastructure approaches, and the reduced reliance on materials
and energy are attractive to utility planners and cities alike.
New York has 422 CSOs and an agreed Long Term Control Strategy to significantly reduce the
impact wet weather discharges have on aquatic systems throughout the city. Annual discharges are
currently (2010) estimated to be 30 billion gallons (114 million cubic meters) per year. Building on
existing and committed new sewer plans, an agreed grey infrastructure based strategy to this
problem is set to reduce these discharges to 19.8 billion gallons per year (a 34% reduction) by the
2030s. An alternative green infrastructure approach based around intercepting the first inch (25mm)
of rainfall across 10% of the impermeable city area by 2030 is predicted to reduce CSO spills to 17.9
billion gallons per year.
Planners have calculated that the whole life costs after 20 years of the grey infrastructure solution
will be $6.8 billion (2010 prices) compared to the green infrastructure whole life costs of $5.3 billion.
The green infrastructure strategy reduces CSO spills by more than the grey alternative for $1.5
billion less in terms of whole life cost. Further, planners have calculated that New Yorkers will
benefit by up to $41844 million (accumulated over 20 years) in additional benefits associated with
lower energy bills from control of urban heating, increased property values and improved health.
Based on this analysis, New York City has committed itself to an aggressive green infrastructure
based runoff control strategy to provide long term reductions in CSO spills. The plan is to achieve
interception of 1.5% of impermeable area by 2015, 4% by 2020, 7% by 2025 and 10% by 2030.
2.5 Principle Five: Live Process

The Strategy should be adaptable and periodically reviewed. Whilst outcomes are expected to be
relatively stable over time, the pace at which the Strategy delivers outcomes will be linked to volatile
influences (like climate and population change) and to the decisions made at each price review
about the priorities for the following period. The Strategy should be reviewed at regular intervals to
reflect investments already made, the changing priorities of the water and sewerage company and
partners, and the presence of emerging risks. The review is also an opportunity to report drainage
catchment performance relative to performance measures designed to monitor progress towards
achieving outcomes.

Estimated using methods from the New York Municipal Forest Resource Analysis (MFRA)
44
prepared by the US Dept. of Agriculture.
205240txt012|May 2013
31
1 Regularly repeat screening exercise to determine catchments SRM5 illustrates how improved
requiring a Drainage Strategy and modify programme of Strategy and updated knowledge of
development accordingly. system performance should be
applied to establish Strategies.
Check for changes in measured rates of flooding and pollution
incidents, blockages, collapses, pumping station failures etc.
Check for changes in extent and location of new development.
Check for activities being undertaken by partners (e.g.
redevelopment, urban realm improvements, and flooding and
pollution management activities).
2 In ‘live Strategies’, repeat risk assessment when data and models
improve and adjust confidence scores accordingly.
Confirm that Strategy will still achieve performance indicators and
outcomes at least cost. Revise Strategy as necessary.
3 Periodically refresh Strategy accommodating impact of
interventions already delivered, using re‐verified predictive tools
as appropriate.
Confirm that Strategy will still achieve performance indicators and
outcomes at least cost. Revise Strategy as necessary.
Triggers for a wholesale review of the Strategy are likely to be
significant changes to the location or extent of planned
development.
4 Monitor, report and share (with partners) the measures used
to demonstrate delivery of outcomes. Example measures
may include: the number of properties which experience
sewer flooding; the number of properties at risk of flooding;
the number of properties at risk from sewerage asset failure;
risk indices that capture both the probability and
consequence of failure; customer satisfaction with regards to
clean rivers and beaches; the number of pollution incidents;
the frequency of combined sewer overflow operation; and
compliance with discharge permit conditions.
2.5.2 Good practice example – Thames Water live DAP

Thames Water has initiated a DAP (drainage area plan) Live approach. It’s a good example of how
companies are continuously monitoring and updating the status of drainage area risks. It provides a
‘live’ snapshot of the current health of all drainage areas in Thames Water’s region, allowing real
time planning as part of a strategic approach. It enables drainage planners to view the effectiveness
205240txt012|May 2013
32
of intervention strategies and compare incident rates across varying geographies and development
types in the Thames Valley.
DAP Live will be available for all catchments in the Thames Water area thus enabling:
• high level monitoring of risks across the business;
• a live and strategic review of catchment performance;
• prioritisation of catchments based on risk; and
• an ability to share data with partners collaborating in drainage planning and improvements
Figure 12 illustrates the types of data managed through the DAP Live system. These include: asset
data, political and drainage boundaries, environmental data, operational data, property & growth
data and modelling data. As new data become available the DAP Live system is updated so that
drainage planners have the most current view on emerging risks and issues.
Asset data
Operational data
Boundaries (SDACs,
operational, political)
Environmental data
Property and growth data
Modelling data

Figure 12 Data types held in the DAP Live system
Figure 13 illustrates how the system can provide analysis at a variety of scales from local authority
boundaries, sewage treatment works catchments, drainage areas or a regular grid.
205240txt012|May 2013
33
NE PROVINCES
WESTERN PROVINCES
• Ops areas / local W LONDON

NE LONDON
Large
authorities SE LONDON
TIDWORTH SE PROVINCES
• STW Catchments
• Drainage areas
(SDACs)
• Regular grid
Small

Figure 13 DAP Live reporting performance at different scales

205240txt012|May 2013
34
2.5.3 Good practice example – Wessex Water Water live data

Wessex Water is regularly using data geospatially to proactively identify and respond to risk. Theirs
is a good example of how data can be used to provide an adaptable approach that is regularly
reviewed to plan investment.
The risk‐based and live approach uses a set of likelihood and consequence models, which are built
up from all currently available data; asset data (e.g. CCTV data, material, age), operational data (e.g.
flooding and pollutions incidents) and information (e.g. locality near hospital or downstream of an
overflow). All these data are collated for the entire Wessex region, updated regularly and analysed
geospatially.

Figure 14 Sewer risk scores presented in a risk matrix and geospatially
This allows a risk score (Figure 14) to be calculated for each mapped sewer length, which directs
investigation more efficiently by allocating each mapped sewer a planned CCTV inspection date.
This risk‐based approach has been successful in targeting problematic sewers, increasing
identification rates threefold. Density analysis is performed using asset failure and operational
information, which allows planning of both proactive structural and operational investment.
Proactively found structural issues are far more cost effective to repair before failure and can also
prevent serviceability issues.
205240txt012|May 2013
35
Drainage Strate
egy Frameworrk

Fig
gure 15 Hotsp
pot analysis
Thhe hotspot an nalysis (Figuure 15) showss where operrational clustters have beeen calculated
d. This
hootspot analyssis is made available on the Wessex Water corporrate GIS, to allow operational staff to
target their effforts to mitig
gate against further repea
at incidents. Additional innformation from asset
nd operation
an nal activities can be added o the databasses which drrive the models enabling
d regularly to
rissk scores to be kept as liv
ve as required.
2.6 Prrinciple Six

x: Innovativ
ve and Sus
stainable Solutions
Thhe Drainage Strategy Fraamework pro omotes the fuull evaluation
n of alternatiives to traditionally
enngineered sewwerage soluttions to test whether thesse offer loweer whole life cost options or better
reesponses to uncertainty. It is anticipaated that dra
ainage solutio
ons of the futture will be different
froom the ones we are usedd to.
Thhese should include (at leeast at a high
h level) real time control, storm waterr retrofit tech
hniques,
ducation to enable custom
ed mers to chang ge behaviour, enhancing g incentives for
f customerss to reduce
urface water flowing to seewers and in
su nnovative permitting arraangements across drainag ge networks
nd sewage treatment worrks. Water an
an nd sewerage companies should contin nue to review w and
deevelop other innovative solutions.
or example, where a com
Fo mpany may hiistorically ha ave preferred
d to tackle seewer flooding
g or
ombined sew
co wer overflow pollution by y increasing its undergrou und equipm ment to store more rainfalll
uring stormss, it might con
du nsider other options in fuuture – such as working with custom mers to
manage the raainfall close to source, preeventing it fo
orm enteringg the sewer sy ystem.
205240txt012|May
y 2013
36
1 Use cost‐benefit methods to demonstrate that innovative and UKWIR will publish new
sustainable solution types provide best value for customers and the research and guidance in 2013
wider community. addressing active control and
storm water removal;
demonstrating how these
technologies can be justified
and included within Drainage
Strategies.
2 Consider integrated water resource management. Work with CIRIA has published a
partners (especially developers and local authorities) to examine scoping study for water
whether use of stored stormwater reduces potable water sensitive urban design45 in the
consumption AND need for capacity in sewers. UK.
3 Consider a mix of conventional and new technologies, using more CIRIA has published
adaptive approaches as low‐regrets responses to uncertainty, ‘Retrofitting to manage
e.g. prevent current sewer flooding with underground tank storage surface water’46 ; a
but address future risks (worsened by climate change) with retrofit comprehensive guide to
SuDS implemented progressively. planning and delivering this
type of project.
4 Use carbon accounting methods to compare embodied and emitted UKWIR47 has and continues
carbon in alternative intervention strategies so that these impacts to publish detailed guidance
are accounted for in whole life costs. on carbon accounting for
water and sewerage company
Consider the benefits of surface water removal on the costs use.
(including carbon) of pumping and sewage treatment

45http://www.ciria.org/service/research_information/AM/ContentManagerNet/
ContentDisplay.aspx?Section=research_information&ContentID=23581
46http://www.ciria.org/SERVICE/Home/core/orders/product.aspx?catid=5&prodid=1909
47http://ukwir.forefront‐library.com/reports/08‐cl‐01‐6/92341/90001/90269,90265,94658/90269
205240txt012|May 2013
37
5 Where interventions include the provision of green space, public The Environment Agency
amenity and improved habitats then Payment for Ecosystem will publish data in 2013 on
Services approaches can be used to claim further monetised costs and benefits of retrofit
benefits in the appraisal. Customers should be consulted to help stormwater projects to
value these benefits. promote understanding and
uptake.
6 Share data within the industry on innovative solutions to increase EA retrofitting SuDs costs
knowledge of new technology and SuDs approaches. and benefits database48
accommodating data from
Ofwat AMP5 SuDS pilot
initiative and other examples.
2.6.2 Good practice example – Welsh Water surface water reduction and removal
strategy for Gowerton and Llanelli
Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water and partners are applying innovative storm water removal methods to
address capacity problems in the sewer network in Gowerton and Llanelli49 (population 140,000).
Current under capacity leads to localised sewer flooding and excessive combined sewer overflow
(CSO) spill to the Burry Inlet, a protected shellfish water and special area of conservation. The
capacity problems in the system were a concern for the Environment Agency (Wales) and there was
a risk of widespread restrictions to economic development being imposed. Dŵr Cymru Welsh
Water, Carmarthenshire County Council, City and County of Swansea, Consumer Council for
Water, Environment Agency Wales and the Welsh Government all worked in partnership to resolve
the situation.
A brand new hydraulic model was built for the entire sewerage network with particular attention
paid to accurately representing the sources of storm run‐off and infiltration. The model was verified
against data from flow monitors and observed CSO spill frequencies into the Burry Inlet.
To begin with, a traditional sewer storage solution was proposed that would result in an average 10
spills a year into the shellfish water from all 90 CSOs in the two catchments. Although this reduced
spills and dealt with some of the flooding and growth issues, the storage requirements would have
been unaffordable, provide no protection against long term climate change and would not tackle the
fundamental problem of too much surface water getting into the combined network.
An alternative approach, based on the reduction and removal of storm water from the combined
sewer system, was also developed. This was in accordance with Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water’s
Rainscape50 (surface water elimination and reduction) strategy. To identify areas with the most

48http://evidence.environment‐
agency.gov.uk/fcerm/en/Default/HomeAndLeisure/Floods/WhatWereDoing/IntoTheFuture/Science
Programme/ResearchAndDevelopment/FCRM/Project.aspx?ProjectID=15515be8‐bbed‐4204‐ae56‐
3e810ba47694&PageID=56bad68e‐dcb1‐4bf8‐84cc‐cbfd03ab63a2
49 http://www.ciwem.org/media/674511/Paper%208%20Stephen%20Ollier.pdf
50http://www.dwrcymru.com/_library/leaflets_publications_english/
205240txt012|May 2013
38
potential for effective storm water removal a flow/area/flooding thematic map was developed. This
was used to focus attention on areas which would deliver the most benefit if storm water removal
was carried out. These areas are coloured red in Figure 16.

Figure 16 Thematic map showing areas of maximum potential for storm water removal
The following interventions (181 in total) were combined into single strategy to be delivered in
phases by 2015, 2020 and afterwards:
• The management of surface water through swales, basins and soakaways rather than through
combined sewers, resulting in new amenity and ecological areas within the built‐up
environment.
• Implementing smarter flow control to better use existing storage and conveyance assets
• Relining of sewers to prevent groundwater ingress
• Removal of land drainage connections to sewers
• Household rainwater harvesting retrofit schemes

surface_water_management_strategy.pdf
205240txt012|May 2013
39
Figure 17 is an artist’s impression of what one of the sustainable urban drainage system solutions
may look like

Figure 17 Example retrofit SuDS solution proposed for Gowerton and Llanelli
Modelling has demonstrated that the alternative strategy will achieve the same CSO reduction
benefit as the storage strategy together with flooding improvements and additional less tangible
benefits at significantly lower cost than the traditional sewer storage solution.
Figure 18 illustrates the dispersed nature of solutions identified for central Llanelli.

Figure 18 Water sensitive urban design interventions planned for central Llanelli
205240txt012|May 2013
40
Appendix A
Glossary
205240txt012|May 2013
Appendix A Glossary

CAPEX Capital expenditure. Appointed water and sewerage
companies’ spending on new, replacement or refurbished
capital assets, such as construction or buying machinery.
CIWEM Urban Drainage Group (WaPUG) A group of the Chartered Institution of Water and
Environmental Management supporting professionals
working in urban drainage.
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) The discharge of untreated sewage diluted with storm
water into rivers and the sea. CSOs occur during heavy rain
and are necessary to reduce the risk of sewer flooding. The
physical overflow structure is also called a CSO.
Common Framework for Capital A planning approach developed for the water and
Maintenance Planning sewerage companies in 2002 which provides a robust basis
for assessing future capital maintenance needs. The
approach is consistent with the needs of Ofwat.
Defra The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
The Government Department with responsibility for water,
flooding and water quality in England.
Drainage Area Plan (DAP) A detailed plan for a drainage catchment that prioritises a
list of interventions based on risk using an approach
established in the WRc Sewerage Rehabilitation Manual.
This approach has been succeeded by Sewerage Risk
Management which guides the preparation of Sewerage
Management Plans (SMP). Companies vary in how they
prepare DAPs or SMPs (or their equivalents) following the
general principles that have been established.
Drainage Strategy Developed by water and sewerage companies to
demonstrate how outcomes will be delivered in drainage
catchments over the long term. Drainage Strategies will use
the information developed in producing a DAP/SMP and if
a drainage strategy has been produced, this should be the
starting point in producing a more detailed DAP/SMP
should this be required. It is likely that the activities
required to prepare DAP/SMP and Drainage Strategies may
overlap. Drainage Strategies might not refer to specific
interventions but instead outline a general approach.
Drainage Strategy Framework Guidance to describe the contents and intention of
Drainage Strategies.
205240txt012|May 2013
Flood Risk Management Plans Required by the Flood Risk Regulations in Flood Risk
Areas by December 2015.
Flood Risk Regulations The legislative instrument used to implement the
requirements of the Floods Directive in England and Wales.
Floods Directive DIRECTIVE 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and
management of flood risks.
Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) The Shire County or unitary authority with responsibility
for managing local flood risk.
Local development plans Developed by planning authorities to explain where and
what type of development (new homes and businesses) will
occur within their area. They are required to explain water
infrastructure needs to support this development.
Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Developed by the Lead Local Flood Authority to explain
(LFRMS) how local flood risk will be managed by the Authority and
in partnership with others.
Natural Resources Wales From 1 April 2013, Natural Resources Wales (NRW), a new
body formed by the Welsh Government, will take over the
functions previously carried out by the Environment
Agency (EA) in Wales, alongside those of the Forestry
Commission Wales and the Countryside Council for Wales.
Ofwat The Water Services Regulation Authority – the economic
regulator of the water and sewerage companies of England
and Wales.
OPEX Operating expenditure. Appointed water and sewerage
companies’ day‐to‐day spending on running the services,
for example, staff costs and power. This is likely to include
investment in joint projects that do not create or relate to an
asset that the company solely or jointly owns.
Outcomes Outcomes are the higher level objectives that a company’s
actions are intended to deliver. A company’s outcome
should reflect its customers’ priorities, identified through
appropriate customer engagement, and deliver the best
long‐term, sustainable solution for customers and the
environment. An outcome may not be bound by a single
price control period and should be set in the context of
customers’ and the environment’s long‐term needs.
205240txt012|May 2013
Price Review The process of setting appointed water and sewerage
companies’ price limits. The next price review will take
place in 2014 for the period 2015‐20. Ofwat currently sets
price limits every five years.
Real Time Control (RTC) Using actuated pumps, gates and weirs to actively control
flow in sewers. Better use can be made of existing
infrastructure and links can be made between network,
treatment and receiving water systems for operational
benefits. Sometimes referred to as Active Management.
River Basin Management (Plans) River Basin Management is a continuous process of
planning (to develop River Basin Management Plans) and
delivery. The Water Framework Directive introduces a
formal series of 6 year cycles. The first cycle will end in
2015 when, following further planning and consultation,
the River Basin Management Plans will be updated and
reissued.
Sewerage Management Plan A risk based approach to indentifying investment needs in
sewerage systems as described in the Sewerage Risk
Management (SRM) approach developed by WRc plc.
Storm water retrofit Releasing capacity in sewers by controlling stormwater at
the surface using disconnection, swales and other
sustainable drainage systems (SuDS).
205240txt012|May 2013

We are the Environment Agency. We protect and improve the environment and make it a better
place for people and wildlife. We operate at the place where environmental change has its greatest
impact on people’s lives. We reduce the risks to people and properties from flooding; make sure
there is enough water for people and wildlife; protect and improve air, land and water quality and
apply the environmental standards within which industry can operate. Acting to reduce climate
change and helping people and wildlife adapt to its consequences are at the heart of all that we do.
We cannot do this alone. We work closely with a wide range of partners including government,
business, local authorities, other agencies, civil society groups and the communities we serve.
www.environment‐agency.gov.uk
Environment Agency National Customer Contact Centre
Telephone: 03708 506 506 enquiries@environment‐agency.gov.uk

Ofwat (The Water Services Regulation Authority) is a non‐ministerial government department. We
are responsible for making sure that the water and sewerage sectors in England and Wales provide
consumers with a good quality and efficient service at a fair price.
www.ofwat.gov.uk
Telephone: 0121 644 7500 [email protected]
Halcrow Group Limited

Burderop Park, Swindon, Wiltshire SN4 0QD
tel 01793 812479 fax 01793 812089
halcrow.com
Halcrow Group Limited is a CH2M HILL company

Halcrow Group Limited has prepared this report in accordance with
the instructions of The Environment Agency for the client’s sole and specific use. Any other persons
who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk.

RPT Com201305drainagestrategy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RPT Com201305drainagestrategy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RPT Com201305drainagestrategy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Drainage Strategy Framework

Good practice guidance commissioned by the

Drainage Strategy Framework

Good practice guidance commissioned by the

Halcrow Group Limited

Halcrow Group Limited is a CH2M HILL company

© Halcrow Group Limited 2013

Drainage Strategy Framework

Version Date Description Created by Verified by Approved by

012 03/05/13 Final Elliot Gill Paul Conroy Elliot Gill

2 Drainage Strategy Framework 13

infrastructure drainage strategies 30

2.6.1 Recommended good practice 37

strategy for Gowerton and Llanelli 38

1.2 Attributes of a Drainage Strategy

1.4 Links with Established Drainage Planning Processes

Figure 3 Surface Water Management Plan Approach

1.5 Statutory Obligations and Regulatory Drivers

1.6 Six Guiding Principles for a Drainage Strategy

1.6.3 Risk based

1.6.4 Whole life costs and benefits

1.6.5 Live process

1.6.6 Innovative and sustainable

1.7 Mapping the Framework to Current Planning Processes

1.8 Who will ben

• Water andd sewerage co ompanies loo oking to impprove their coompany speccific drainagge planning

Water and sew werage comp panies should d work towa ards developiing Drainagee Strategies which apply

2.1 Principle One: Partnership

2.1.1 Recommended good practice

No. Good practice Example references

No. Good practice Example references

2.1.3 Good practice example – Northumbrian Water partnership working in

U n d e rs tan d in g th e Ric ha r d W a r n e for d

o f s u rfa c e wa te r, w h ic h is to d ea l w ith th e s u rfa c e wa te r as c los e to

s ou rc e as p os s ib le . A w id e ra n g e o f p o te n tial o p po rtu n ities a re b ein g

O u r c o rp o ra te S tra te g ic o p tions a re typ ic a lly la rg e r th a n th e

re s p o ns ib ility s tra te g y. lo c a l on es a nd in c lu d e fe a tu res s u ch as ;

a re as o f la nd w h ich w o uld b e a llo we d to

flo o d d u rin g he a vy ra in (s a c rific ial s to ra g e )

L o c a l op tio ns , d es p ite b ein g s m a lle r th a n th e s tra te gic

o n es , w ill s till p la y a k e y ro le in th e p ro vis io n o f

c o u ld be m o re w id es p re a d th a n s tra te gic o p tions ,

fe a tu res s u c h as ; w a te r b u tts , ra in g a rde ns a nd

p e rm e ab le pa vin g c o u ld b e re la tive ly e a s y to fit in to

2.2 Principle Two: Uncertainty

2.2.1 Recommended good practice

No. Good practice Example references

No. Good practice Example references

2.2.2 Good practice example – Severn Trent Water’s MICAS

Flood Risk MICAS

Flood Risk MICAS

2.3 Principle Three: Risk Based

2.3.1 Recommended good practice

No. Good practice Example references

No. Good practice Example references

2.3.2 Good practice example – United Utilities risk assessment

2.3.3 Good practice example – Northumbrian Water risk assessment

2.4 Principle Four: Whole Life Costs and Benefits

2.4.1 Recommended good practice