A glimmer of hope for SuDS?

20 February 2026

Several housing ministry consultations offer the potential to move things forward on the approval, adoption and maintenance of sustainable drainage systems – could this mean real progress?

Many drainage practitioners and wider environmental stakeholders believe that to fix decades of sub-standard practice on sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) there needs to be a statutory approach, and nothing less will suffice. This debate extends to politicians, who seem increasingly mobilised around SuDS and their potential. A discussion of SuDS – and especially their maintenance – was included recently in a Westminster Hall debate.

For your sanity I won’t reprise the backstory of an un-implemented Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, the eventual commitment by the last government to finally implement it, and the subsequent volte-face by this government who wanted to “look again” at the options. It’s all very old news by now.

But you may also be aware that we‘ve looked at a potential ‘third way’ for a rules-based SuDS implementation mechanism.

Jigsaw pieces

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) is currently running several consultations with the potential to put together pieces of the missing SuDS jigsaw. They are happening at the same time that the government’s Water White Paper promised to put greater emphasis on ‘pre-pipe solutions’ like SuDS by way of response to systemic water challenges.

The first of these consultations is the latest iteration of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). There’s plenty of fine detail in there to occupy water managers but from a SuDS perspective the key thing is that it now requires SuDS to be delivered in accordance with the National Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems that were published last summer. No longer the old, rubbish, non-statutory technical standards.

The second is a consultation on reducing the prevalence of private estate management arrangements. This one is particularly interesting, because it focuses in on two aspects of SuDS delivery that has been perennially relegated to the bottom of the to-do list for governments: adoption and maintenance. But the thing that really catches the attention is the tone of the consultation document’s ministerial foreword and scene setting paragraphs.

The consultation came in response to the findings of the 2024 housebuilding market study by the Competition and Markets Authority in 2024. Housing minister Matthew Pennycook writes: “Roads, sewers, drains, green spaces and other amenities that historically would have been maintained by the local authority or utility companies, are now instead routinely left to be managed by private estate management companies, often with little transparency or accountability.”

And, “in many cases, the quality of the amenities on such freehold estates is inferior to those adopted by the relevant public authority and falls far short of what people have a right to expect.”

In other words, adoption and maintenance of SuDS (amongst other infrastructure types) isn’t working and would likely be done better by public authorities. The consultation postulates the importance and need for appropriate national standards (tick) and proposes that it may be appropriate for certain infrastructure types to be subject to mandatory adoption.

Adoption the lever?

I’m sure I’ve flagged the problem with the NPPF before. It’s guidance to planners, rather than the law, and as such is open to their interpretation. Its particular requirements must be weighed up against others in the ‘planning balance’. Its interpretation is open to challenge by developers and this will apply, ultimately, to how any beefed-up provisions on SuDS design is considered. And as was the case recently with consideration of the sequential test on flood risk, local authorities standing firm can have their decisions overturned.

But if SuDS were subject to mandatory adoption by public bodies to maintain them for the long term, and if that adoption were dependent on design and delivery according to national standards, then this could be the lever to ensure that SuDS schemes included as planning conditions would actually have to be built out, and to good standard. It could make the whole approach more robust.

Of course, this is all subject to consultation still, and the government deciding to go down a more mandatory route (which it could choose not to do in the case of SuDS). So, strong responses to the consultation by stakeholders will be important (the deadline is 12 March in case you were wondering).

Money talks

The other big outstanding piece of the jigsaw is maintenance, and specifically the funding for it (See ‘The maintenance challenge’, The Environment, Summer 2025). Defra has said that it will be publishing guidance on maintenance of SuDS by the summer, so that should provide greater detail on how government foresees maintenance funding working.

When CIWEM and colleagues considered our ‘third way’, we identified the water company surface water drainage charge as the mechanism with the greatest potential to fund SuDS maintenance in new build development. The challenge here is quantum. It’s likely that the charge as it currently stands – at roughly £40-£60 per year on a water bill – wouldn’t be enough to pay across to a local authority to maintain the SuDS on a new development.

But recent research conducted by the Enabling Water Smart Communities (EWSC) project suggests that there is a willingness among the public to pay more to maintain good quality SuDS on new estates. And let’s look again at the Water White Paper. Its emphasis on asset condition, ‘MOT-style’ checks and resilience standards points towards a recognition that we’re going to have to spend more on asset maintenance than we currently do, however the cookie crumbles.

Stats provided through research conducted by the EWSC project.

Other mechanisms like commuted sums are used to create a ring-fenced maintenance pot, but they don’t last forever and are often regarded as expensive by developers. Defra’s guidance will be instructive.

Mirage?

It feels like at the moment there is scope for a couple of solid steps forward on SuDS. But the jeopardy is very much there. MHCLG could err against mandatory adoption (the usual developer lobby groups suspects will no doubt rally against this) and maintenance funding could become the latest big sticking point.

So, is a vision of SuDS progress just a mirage in the absence of a legislative approach? Whatever transpires won’t be perfect. But with water policy making better noises around “rainwater management” and “pre-pipe solutions”, it feels like the pragmatic approach might be to push hard for progress, bank some small wins and continue piecing together the jigsaw.

--

Read about CIWEM's 'third way' approach for implementation of SuDS. For more CIWEM news updates, sign up to The Environment newsletter.

Alastair Chisholm is director of policy at CIWEM