22 July 2025
I’ve been championing sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) for well over two decades now. Back when the first SuDS design manuals dropped in 2001, I was instantly hooked. The idea that we could manage water as a vital resource was both refreshing and compelling.
SuDS just make sense. Capture rain where it falls, manage runoff on the surface and unlock multiple benefits for people, places and the planet. It’s not rocket science, and there’s increasingly a growing fanbase for SuDS and better rainwater management, including it seems, Sir Jon Cunliffe through his Independent Water Commission report.
SuDS aren’t just about drainage and flood risk. They’re about people, nature, beauty, climate resilience, health, wellbeing and placemaking. It’s not a narrow technical fix, it’s a philosophy for joined-up thinking, collaboration and better places.
Visionary engineers and landscape architects worked on the 2015 SuDS Manual to frame the four pillars of SuDS benefits, these being water quantity, water quality, amenity, and biodiversity. In parallel, work was unfolding to provide an approach to put numbers and value to the benefits. Tools were created to estimate nearly 20 categories of social, environmental, and economic value.
When talking about the regulatory framework I have a tendency to become reflective and somewhat jaded. We’re in 2025, in England, and unlike Wales, we are yet to implement Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act (2010). This legislation would make SuDS mandatory, clarifying who’s responsible for approval and adoption, but it’s been sitting on the shelf for more than a decade.
Meanwhile, Wales, reflecting their stronger set of drivers and commitment, took the leap in 2019 and introduced Schedule 3 and statutory SuDS standards. They didn’t get everything right at first, there were issues with interpretation, resourcing and getting everyone up to speed. However, they acted. They’ve moved from theory to delivery and have had some valuable learning, which they’re acting on and which we could benefit from in England. Communities and the environment are better off because of their approach in Wales.
In England? We’re still talking. Still reviewing. Still waiting. Schedule 3 is like a stagnating butterfly - beautiful in potential, but stuck in a cocoon of delay and disappointment. I’m beginning to move on, no longer insistent on Schedule 3 – like many others I just want a mandatory process that has legal backing, sets clear requirements for approval, adoption and appropriately funded maintenance.
We have a pressing need to adapt to climate change - managing too much, and too little water. SuDS are one of the best tools we have in our toolbox to make robust adaptations. Government’s desire to enable housing growth is another significant pressure. SuDS can enable development, ensuring it doesn’t flood and doesn’t cause flooding downstream while also making housing desirable to live and invest in.
It’s hard to find anyone who seriously disagrees with the idea of SuDS. The benefits are well evidenced, widely acknowledged and consistently repeated in review after review. Yet… progress in England continues to stall.
Let’s rewind to the seminal Pitt Review in 2008. Commissioned in the wake of devastating floods, Pitt’s message was clear: we need to plan for flood risk properly. One of his 92 recommendations was the increased implementation of SuDS, backed by a clear regulatory framework. That helped shape the Flood and Water Management Act
A succession of reports from professional bodies followed: CIWEM’s A Place for SuDS (2018) exposed frustrations over inconsistent standards and enforcement failures; the Landscape Institute and Construction Industry Council’s Achieving sustainable drainage (2019) highlighted systemic implementation issues; and following a request from government David Jenkins’ 2020 review of floods confirmed that the planning-led approach was failing, particularly because SuDS implementation was inconsistent and adoption wasn’t mandatory.
Even government independent watchdogs, like the former National Infrastructure Commission (now the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority) and the Climate Change Committee, have made repeated calls for SuDS to be mandatory.
Then, in January 2023, the UK Government published its own review into Schedule 3. Its conclusion was clear: making SuDS mandatory is the right course of action. The review recommended implementing Schedule 3 – subject to final decisions on scope, thresholds, and detailed processes.
While Wales bit the bullet in 2019 and implemented Schedule 3, England, relied on “reasonably practicable” caveats buried in planning policy that seemingly opened us to excuses rather than action.
Whilst this approach has recently been replaced with stronger wording in the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 181 and 182) it’s still unclear whether this will have any significant impact. Particularly as we have evidence to suggest that there are many cases of developers and planners locked in prolonged, expensive arguments around the fundamentals of managing flood risk.
Some optimistically argue that with the SuDS references in the NPPF, SuDS are a material consideration under planning law. Likewise, this is further strengthened with paragraphs 57 and 58 of the Planning Practice Guidance (of the flood risk and coastal change chapter) making explicit reference to the National SuDS Standards. It’s very possible that the legal status of the National Standards will be confirmed in the court room.
While these updated standards are a huge step forward compared to those from 2015 (and I’ve promised myself not to let perfect be the enemy of progress), I’m still wondering what’s the point? Are they legally enforceable? Or are they just a tantalising vision of what we could have?
If we’re serious about building water resilient, climate-ready, nature-positive communities, we need more than warm fuzzy words and well-meaning references in planning documents. We need a proper framework. One backed by legislation, funding and accountability. In terms of some principles for consideration, here’s a possible starter for ten:
CIWEM’s interest in SuDS goes back decades. Guided by our members, and our SuDS Policy Leadership Group we’ve developed a Policy Position Statement and we’re contributing to Defra’s SuDS Advisory Group on SuDS on both the technicalities of the standards and more recently the potential mechanisms and framework for SuDS delivery.
We’ve made continued representations to government ministers on the need for progress and clarity on the delivery mechanism for SuDS: If it’s not Schedule 3, what does the planning system and promised planning reform give us, are there other approaches too? Our repeated asks to government regarding new developments have been clear and include:
Even if legal opinion confirms that the SuDS Standards are, in effect, mandatory, and that opinion is commonly accepted, that alone will not be enough. The sector still needs a clear framework that makes adoption compulsory, backed by proper enforcement and a sustainable ring-fenced funding model for maintenance.
If Schedule 3 is the mechanism to achieve this, great! However, we remain sceptical whether the planning system can deliver the certainty and consistency needed. Which is why we’re tentatively considering alternative approaches that achieve the same outcomes as Schedule 3.
Yes, there are concerns about environmental requirements impacting government’s housing ambition. Effectively considered SuDS aren’t the problem – they can be part of the solution. Get SuDS right from the start and we will deliver on multiple fronts: managing flood risk, improving water quality, creating better places, and enhancing resilience to climate change.
Get SuDS wrong, or keep on kicking the can down the road, and we further lock ourselves into a cycle of missed opportunities, poor outcomes, poor resilience and developments that are not fit for the future.
Does government really want to keep bouncing between (headlines of) hosepipe bans and flash flooding? A news cycle reporting sewage spills, pollution and continued nature decline?
Does anyone want development that disappoints everyone on every level?
We have the evidence. We have widespread support. What we need now is the political will to lead and act on SuDS.
They cover requirements relating to their ability to manage everyday rainfall drainage and storage, flood risk, water quality, amenity and biodiversity alongside other considerations including their long-term maintenance and where they ultimately drain to. In other words, the specifications necessary to unlock the drainage equivalent of a Swiss army knife.
--
As Paul mentions above, we would welcome a solid legal opinion on whether the newly updated SuDS Standards published by Defra in June 2025 have any real teeth and legal standing, or are just ‘guidance’ and nice to haves. You can contact him about this via email.
You can read more about CIWEM's work on SuDS here and here.
| Paul Shaffer is director of projects at CIWEM | 
|
Whether you are studying, actively looking to progress your career, or already extensively experienced, our membership will add value and recognition to your achievements. We can actively help you progress throughout your career.
Become a memberWe organise a wide portfolio of UK and international thought leading events, providing an industry recognised forum for debate, CPD and sector networking. These events also support our policy work and inform key initiatives.
View our eventsCIWEM and CSL Ltd are part of the CIWEM Group.
CSL Ltd (CIWEM Services Limited). Registered in England and Wales. Company No. 3166701. Registered office address: 106-109 Saffron Hill, London EC1N 8QS.
CIWEM (The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management) Registered Charity No. 1043409 (England & Wales) Registered Charity No. SCo38212 (Scotland). Registered office address: 106-109 Saffron Hill, London EC1N 8QS.
Site designed and developed by Studio Republic
