Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

Integrated urban drainage management: a partnership approach to urban flood risk management for England
E. J. Gill*, S. Catovsky2 and J. Hunter 3
Halcrow Group Ltd, Burderop Park, Swindon, SN4 0QD, UK. gillej@halcrow.com Flood Management Division, Defra, Ergon House, Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 2AL, UK. sebastian.catovsky@defra.gsi.gov.uk 3 Flood Risk Management, Environment Agency, 25th Floor Millbank Tower, 21-24 Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP, UK. jonathan.hunter@environment-agency.gov.uk
2 *

ABSTRACT

The UK Governments strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management, Making Space for Water (MSfW), set out a portfolio of approaches to ensure that flood risks are managed more effectively in the future by adopting an holistic, joined-up, and integrated approach. An area of particular concern in MSfW was flooding in urban areas from surface water due to inadequacies in drainage systems. Fifteen pilot projects across England were instigated in January 2007 to test out technical approaches to integrated urban drainage management (IUDM) and examine ways of making different stakeholder groups work in partnership to reduce urban flood risks. Evidence from the pilot projects is being used to inform new guidance to support the delivery of surface water management plans (SWMP), Governments proposed method for coordinating investment in drainage systems which are under increasing pressure from climate change and continuing urbanisation. The floods in England during summer 2007 served to illustrate the damaging effects of surface water flooding and re-emphasised the importance of a well planned and managed urban drainage system which integrates public sewer, highway, urban river and surface water storage elements.

KEYWORDS

Flood risk management, Integrated Urban Drainage; Pilot projects; Surface Water Management Plan.

INTRODUCTION

The UK Governments strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management, Making Space for Water (MSfW) (Defra, 2005), set out a portfolio of approaches to ensure that flood risks are managed more effectively in the future by adopting an holistic, joined-up, and integrated approach. An area of particular concern in MSfW was flooding in urban areas from surface water due to inadequacies in drainage systems; the need for integrated urban drainage management (IUDM) approaches was identified. The Foresight Future Flooding (Evans et al, 2004) report estimated that currently 80,000 UK properties are at a very high risk of surface water flooding (10% annual probability or greater) causing an average of 270 million of damage each year. Future pressures are predicted to exacerbate these surface drainage problems. Climate change is predicted to increase winter rainfall by 10 30% by the 2080s and rainfall intensity could increase by up to 20%. At the Gill et al. 1

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008 same time development pressures and the demand for new homes is increasing the extent and density of urban area and impermeable surfaces. Up to 3 million new homes will be built in England by 2016 and urban creep is increasing hard standing in established urban areas. In London alone, around two thirds of front gardens (equivalent to 22 times the size of Hyde Park) are already partially paved over to provide off-street parking (Greater London Authority, 2005). In combination, these two trends are set to significantly increase surface water flood risks. The Foresight report estimated that the number of properties at risk could increase to 300,000 400,000 by the 2080s, potentially leading to billions of pounds of damages on average each year. The events in England in the summer of 2007 were an illustration of what might become more common in the future. The Environment Agency estimates that two thirds of the 57,000 flooded homes were flooded from surface water (Environment Agency, 2007). In MSfW the Government recognised that the physical and institutional complexities of urban drainage systems make it difficult to plan and deliver systems with reduced flood risk. The urban drainage system is a complex interaction of the urban terrain, buildings, highways, public sewers, private sewers, rivers and in some cases the sea. Moreover, and uniquely in England within the UK, there are complex institutional and funding arrangements which divide responsibilities between water companies the Environment Agency, planning departments in local government, housing developers, householders and internal drainage boards. Therefore, urban drainage solutions have perhaps been less cost effective, sustainable and robust than might have been possible had a more integrated approach been adopted. Current practice is especially unsuited to respond to the increasing flood risk drivers of housing growth and climate change. Therefore, MSfW project HA2, Urban Flood Risk and Integrated Drainage (Defra, 2005), was initiated in 2005 to test, through pilot projects, three main objectives:

to understand the causes of flooding in urban areas and the best ways of managing urban drainage to reduce flooding; to examine the effectiveness of partnership working between various drainage systems currently and how this partnership can be improved to find solutions to flooding problems, and; test the effectiveness of new approaches to urban flood risk management, including: use of hydraulic models, surface water management plans, sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and the managed routing of drainage exceedance flows.

The principal output of the project will be new national guidelines for implementing IUDM (Defra, 2008b) together with evidence to support proposed changes to policy and regulation (Defra, 2008c).

PILOTING A PARTNERSHIP APPROACH

Following a scoping study (Digman et al, 2006) 15 locations, Figure 1, were chosen as pilot projects and are collectively named the IUD Pilots. The pilots commenced work in January 2007 and operated until April 2008. The range of projects addressed many of the issues and factors that are important to IUDM. In summary, some projects were principally concerned with planning issues associated with the provision of drainage to new development in greenfield (e.g. Forest of Marston Vale, Telford and Wrekin) and brownfield (e.g. Camborne & Lower Irwell) locations. Others modelled and mapped combined flood risks from fluvial, 2 Integrated urban drainage management

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008 surface and sewer systems in established urban areas (e.g. Hogsmill, Upper Rea, North Brent, Torbay & Lincoln). Others have investigated: the impacts of urbanisation and climate change (e.g. Aire); the problems associated with drainage assets in private ownership (e.g. West Garforth & Poringland); fluvial and drainage interactions on the urban fringe (North Gosforth); the collation and interpretation of flood incident data from different stakeholders (e.g. Hartlepool); and prioritising investment across different stakeholders (e.g. Lewes). It was clear from the beginning that the pilots would require unprecedented levels of crossstakeholder and cross-discipline cooperation.

Figure 1. Location of IUD Pilots The pilots have tested the leadership capabilities of different stakeholder groups with a principal stakeholder managing each project. Water companies (3 projects), the Environment Agency (4 projects), Local Government (5 projects), Internal Drainage Board (1 project), Engineering Consultancy (1 project) and a Development Agency (1 project) have all brokered partnerships that include all local stakeholders including members of the public in some instances. A great deal of benefit was gained from the sharing of asset data and models, reports of historical flood incidents, and information about different investment planning processes and drivers. While some issues remain over the sharing of data deemed confidential or sensitive, the exercise has been particularly useful and informative; highlighting the benefits of engaging the public in decision making and the vital role planners can play in IUDM. A partnership charter approach was found to be a useful way to gain buy-in from all stakeholders and align everyones behaviours to overall goals. However, in some instances a more formal memorandum of agreement was necessary to address confidentiality issues reflecting the weaknesses in an approach which is currently voluntary and non-statutory. Though some organisations, notably Local Government and Water Companies, are particularly well placed to take a leadership role it was clear that the presence of key, committed and imaginative individuals from any stakeholder grouping was a major success

Gill et al.

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008 factor. The recruitment and development of such individuals will be an equally important factor in the future implementation of IUDM. One barrier to successful partnership working was the absence of clear guidance on how to approach and deliver an integrated urban drainage study. Challenges and analysis were met in an imaginative but sometimes inconsistent manner. The pilot projects experience has, however, informed and provided evidence for Defras new Surface Water Management Plan guidance which will inform this type of work in future years. Throughout the project it was important to share knowledge within and between pilots and among nearly 300 professionals involved in the programme as a whole. The principal tool for sharing information within and between pilots was a bespoke project extranet which supported document publication, news items and discussion boards. This has proved very important for communication across a disparate group of professionals. In addition a series of five workshops has brought together key people in each pilot to share best practice and discuss barriers and difficulties.

PROJECT OUTPUTS

Individual pilot project outputs are available online (Defra, 2008a) so this paper presents some interesting case study examples to illustrate the range of activity that occurred. Risk Assessment Flood mapping. A number of pilot projects used the latest 2d flow routing software to replicate historical flooding events and predict the extent of flooding for extreme rainfall. Figure 2 illustrates flooding in Brent, North London, in a linked sewer (1d) and urban surface (2d) hydraulic model.

Figure 2. Modelled and observed surface water flooding in Brent, North London., during summer 2007. Damage calculations. It is one thing to map flood extents but a real challenge is to generate meaningful damage calculations which can be used to test the benefit of mitigation measures. 4 Integrated urban drainage management

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008 The Hogsmill pilot followed a basic but effective approach which powerfully illustrated the flood risk contributions from different sources of flooding and also showed how these might change under a climate change scenario (Table 1). The data show that annual average damages from pluvial flooding and drainage exceedance are around 33% of all flood damages and increase nearly 2 times under the climate change scenario tested. Table 1. Estimated damage from different sources of flooding in the Hogsmill pilot area Source of flooding Probability of No. Annual Annual flooding in 1 properties damages damages year (%) damaged in (000/year) (000/year) + 1% flood climate change Groundwater 2 18 5.5 16.0 Pluvial flooding from chalk Urban surface water Foul / combined sewer River Total 2 5 2 2 297 686 66 3902 91.5 437.7 20.3 2,468.0 3,023.0 263.8 1,017.3 58.6 5,751.0 7,106.7

Gill et al.

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008 Table 2. Prioritised list of flood risk mitigation measures in Lewes Flood location Proposed solution Capital Annual cost cost (000/year) (000) River Ouse Scheme constructed flooding 2,750 15.9 The Course Separate surface water from sewer and re-route to watercourse Minor works & maintenance Maintain overland flow paths Plough fields perpendicular to slope Increase maintenance of soakaways Grange Road Increase lateral sewer capacity Seasonal jetting regime Additional road gullies Investment planning In Lewes the damage calculation approach was taken a step further to prioritise investment across a variety of infrastructure types with major and minor works and improved operations and maintenance. The prioritisation system is adapted from the Environment Agencys standard practice for prioritising river defence schemes based on the benefit cost ratio of each scheme. Table 2 illustrates the approach with a range of interventions, ranked in descending priority of effectiveness and value for money, that forms an illustrative integrated drainage plan for Lewes. It demonstrates how an integrated delivery plan across all flood and drainage infrastructure could be developed. Public consultation An important aspect of some of the pilots work has been their engagement with members of public: in the aftermath of recent floods; to explain current institutional arrangements; and even to seek their ideas on options for separating surface water from sewer networks and altering the urban fabric to route exceedance flows. In West Garforth, near Leeds, a long standing cause of flooding has been an inadequate culverted watercourse which passes through hundreds of private properties where the householders are technically the riparian owners. Residents had, for a long time, been frustrated that each stakeholder body blamed the others for the lack of action in resolving the flooding issues. As part of the pilot project, a series of public meetings and newsletters informed and engaged the residents who were even involved in the identification of solutions. Figure 3 shows a sketch drawn by a resident showing flood pathways and an example of a newsletter. 30 0.2 19.1

Priority score 27.8

20 2 0.5

27.5 25.4

Cliffe culverted watercourse High Down Road

10

1.0

23.9

Integrated urban drainage management

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

Figure 3. Sketch drawn by resident showing surface water flood pathways & newsletter issued to residents following flooding in summer 2007 Master planning SuDS in new development An aspect of other projects was the development of local policies to ensure that SuDS are provided for new development in a strategic manner rather than in a piecemeal and unplanned way. This required a catchment-wide analysis of land allocations for development and calculation of maximum future runoff rates and volumes and the storage volumes required to attenuate new urban runoff. In the Camborne, Pool and Redruth pilot study, which is led by a development agency, significant brownfield land is scheduled for re-development. Through the pilot project a surface water plan was developed which described a strategy of not connecting future surface water flows to overloaded combined sewers but, rather, to new above-ground channels and strategic storage ponds owned and maintained by a drainage trust. The public sewer network is hence freed to handle the increased foul flows from many new homes which addressed a barrier to the originally planned development. Figure 4 illustrates an example output for a development plot with prescribed drainage parameters. This information will be made available to the future land developers and meeting the parameters will be a condition of their planning permission. The example shows that a surface water storage volume of 188m is required at the Church Road re-development site.

Gill et al.

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

Figure 4. Camborne, Pool and Redruth surface water plan showing drainage parameters for land allocated for re-development.

INFORMING THE POLICY RESPONSE

The IUD pilots and Sir Michael Pitts (Pitt, 2007) interim report on the 2007 floods have had a direct influence on Governments future strategy towards the management of urban flood risk. In February 2008, Government published its Water Strategy, Future Water (Defra, 2008d), which proposed that Surface Water Management Plans (SWMP) become the vehicle through which it will deliver IUDM and reduce urban flood risk. The proposals are set out in more detail in the Improving Surface Water Drainage consultation (Defra, 2008c) which asked for views on who should lead SWMPs and whether they should be statutory instruments. It is proposed that the SWMP should:

map and quantify surface flows and drainage with sufficient detail to enable local and strategic flooding problems to be tackled; produce a delivery plan that clarifies responsibilities and then directs resources at tackling surface water flooding prioritizing areas at greatest risk first; influence local planning policy such that new development occurs primarily in areas of low surface water flood risk or where risk can be managed effectively, making use of SuDS where appropriate, and; be periodically reviewed, possibly including independent scrutiny of planning and resource decisions to gauge progress in tackling the most serious problems first.

Integrated urban drainage management

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008 To achieve this, all stakeholders will be required to work together in a very similar way to that tested in the IUD Pilots. Once executed SWMP should deliver:

Investment strategies in drainage that are the most cost-beneficial to the community in terms of flood risk avoided. For example by removing surface water from sewers to prevent uncontrolled downstream sewer flooding. Greater clarity on roles and responsibilities with reduced duplication of effort across different stakeholders. New housing and commercial developments where the drainage has been strategically planned and does not increase surface water flooding downstream. Emergency plans which are informed by information of where surface water flood risks are greatest. Water quality benefits which result from the implementation of SuDS and reduced pressure on combined sewer systems. a risk assessment, where the likelihood and consequence of future flooding (factored by climate change and urbanisation effects) is quantified and presented in monetary or other ways, and; a rational decision making process where the most cost-beneficial mix of structural (engineering) and non-structural (policy and behavioral) measures are determined by the partnership and implemented by the appropriate stakeholder.

Specific elements of a SWMP would include:

Defras planned SWMP guidelines will provide technical advice on how to approach these challenges, apply the latest modelling techniques and match complexity and cost with the level of risk. The guidelines are published as a ' living draft' and will be updated with best practice experience once SWMP become commonplace and regulatory arrangements are confirmed. They will also set out how SWMP relate to other key flood risk and water infrastructure processes such as Catchment Flood Management Plans, Strategic Flood Risk Assessments and Water Cycle Strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

The UK Governments Department for Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has been conducting 15 pilot studies in integrated urban drainage management to inform the development of policy for England and provide evidence for new surface water management guidance. A new approach was considered necessary because flood risks in urban areas are increasing because of climate change and continuing urbanisation. Serious floods in England during summer 2007, where surface water flooding was a significant factor, illustrated what might become more commonplace in the future. Urban surface water flooding is difficult to manage not only because of physical complexities in the interaction of different elements of the drainage system, but also because of complicated institutional arrangements. The pilot projects have addressed a range of institutional and technical challenges to collate data, understand flood risk and develop mitigation measures. Much has been learned about the barriers to effective cooperation between stakeholders and pragmatic ways in which these can be overcome. This good practice together with the latest technical advice will be presented in new guidance for SWMP due for publication in Autumn 2008. This paper has used examples

Gill et al.

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008 to illustrate how the pilots have undertaken risk assessment, investment planning and public consultation. The Government is proposing through a consultation (Defra 2008c) that SWMP will be the new vehicle through which stakeholders will collectively deliver the benefits of IUDM. The IUD pilots are informing new guidance for SWMP which, when applied, will help deliver: cost beneficial investment strategies in drainage across stakeholder groups; greater clarity on roles and responsibilities; and strategically planned drainage for new development. In addition SWMP will inform emergency plans and help deliver water quality benefits through implementation of SuDS and reduced pressure on combined sewer systems.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This paper has been published with the kind permission of Defra, the Environment Agency and Halcrow Group. The views expressed in the paper are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of Halcrow, Defra or the Environment Agency. Thanks to P. Robinson (Entec), M. Graham (EA) and I. Clifforde (Black & Veatch) for contributing tables and figures.
Defra (2005). Making Space for Water developing a new Government strategy for flood and coastal erosion management in England. First Government response to the Autumn 2004 consultation exercise. www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/strategy/1stres.pdf Defra (2008a). Urban flood risk and integrated drainage. www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/strategy/ha2.htm Defra (2008b). Surface Water Management Plan guidance. http://www.defra.gov.uk (in preparation). Defra (2008c). Improving Surface Water Drainage. Consultation to accompany proposals set out in the Governments Water Strategy, Future Water. www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/waterdrainage/consultation.pdf Defra (2008d). Future Water. The Governments Water Strategy for England. www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/strategy/pdf/future-water.pdf Digman C.J., Balmforth D.J., Shaffer P. & Butler D. (2006) The challenge of delivering integrated urban drainage. Paper presented at WaPUG Autumn Meeting 2006 www.wapug.org.uk/past_papers/Autumn2006/A2006Digman.pdf Environment Agency (2007). Review of 2007 summer floods. http://publications.environmentagency.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO1107BNMI-e-e.pdf?lang=_e Evans E., Ashley R., Hall J., Penning-Rowsell, E., Saul, A., Sayers, P., Thorne, C. and Watkinson, A. (2004). Foresight. Future Flooding. Scientific Summary: Volume I Future risks and their drivers. Office of Science and Technology, London. Greater London Authority (2005). Crazy paving: the envrionemtnal importance of Londons front gardens. www.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports/environment/frontgardens.pdf Pitt M. (2007) Learning lessons from the 2007 floods. An independent review by Sir Michael Pitt. www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/upload/assets/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/flooding_review/flood_report_lowr es.pdf

REFERENCES

10

Integrated urban drainage management

Вам также может понравиться