SuDS in schools – is conventional drainage alone a thing of the past?
Extreme flooding across the UK is something that people are experiencing with increasing regularity, and schools and education authorities are looking for cost effective, long-term solutions which can keep children safe, and avoid closures from these weather events.
Sustainable drainage systems, commonly known as SuDS, are designed to slow the flow of water and mimic nature’s defences. Unlike conventional drainage which directs water underground, SuDS keep the water on the surface and manage water where it falls. Future generations will need to look practically at how water is managed in urban and rural environments, as conventional drainage is creaking under the pressure of increased rainfall associated with climate change and increased urbanisation. SuDS address these issues through blue green design and provide a positive solution in combating climate change.
From recent storm events, schools have been forced to close due to extreme conditions and with having aging infrastructure in place to combat the quantity of water on site.
Funding is available to schools through the DfE website to encourage retrofit SuDS on sites which is recognised as a highly effective way of reducing surface water flooding following the PIT review and Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Natural disasters, flooding and the climate is part of the school curriculum and schools are taking responsibility for their own water management.
What are the benefits of SuDS in schools?
- Landscape legibility and enhance education opportunities
This is where pupils learn to read the landscape they’re observing and understand the flow of water. SuDS bring the curriculum to life by bringing water and biodiversity into the centre of the school and educate pupils so that they have a clear understanding of where the water is meant to go, banishing any misconceptions and raising awareness within the whole community.
- Holistic sustainability
Following the management train approach as demonstrated in the SuDS manual promotes the incorporation of source control techniques to collect, treat, store and control runoff prior to discharge, and improve the biodiversity in the area. By having a space for plants, this creates a nicer environment and helps bring down the temperature in the area. Planters and rain gardens bring the water cycle to life, as a reservoir is available for the plants to drink, and with the correct soil allows the plants to access water without the need for hosepipes, saving costs as well as creating a sustainable environment.
Blue green approaches encourage evapotranspiration and mitigates against the urban heat island effect.
- Maintenance
When water is kept on the surface, we know when it is at its capacity. The visible nature of SuDS means that it is apparent when it needs an outlet, avoiding unexpected problems. Maintaining SuDS is routine work and involves clearing leaves, pruning plants and is a great way to involving pupils. It is hugely beneficial and educational, and less costly to manage.
Phil Williams, Director at the Environmental Protection Group stated, “We have been working alongside schools for over 15 years implementing sustainable drainage designs across the UK, both new and retrofit. The joy it brings to the community is something we’re always thrilled to see, and if we can continue to mitigate the impact of flooding with natural flood management, we should start to see positive changes for our environment.”
The technicalities – how using the right suppliers gets you the right results
Simpler stakeholder engagement
Stakeholder engagement and good consultation is the key to avoiding misconceptions and banishing myths surrounding SuDS. The opportunity to incorporate SuDS in a project should be met with excitement. For planners, architects and engineers, it is their job to communicate and showcase how this vision will become a reality. Dealing with one stakeholder allows for a smooth, simple scheme delivery.
Collaboration
Co-design between landscape architects, SuDS designers, engineers and the schools is important to ensure engagement in the project and understanding. For the very best results, landscape architects need to work in harmony with engineers and then the contractors. With landscape architects working on the aesthetics and visuals alongside the school, the engineers are left to determine the flow rates and quantification of the impact the SuDS features will have for funders and authorities.
Safety
Safety considerations for any project is vital, however it’s important to recognise that for most of the time, SuDS feature will have no water in them, and when raining, only hold a small amount of water, usually between 100ml-300ml. This means no danger for pupils and simply becomes a learning aid. SuDS also work at removing pollutants and sediment from a water flow, all powered by nature.
Take a look at the video below to see how a school in Estcourt School in Hull put this into practice.
The Environmental Protection Group (EPG) co-authored the SuDS manual and is passionate about designing projects which can enrich people’s lives and their surrounding environments for the future. The introduction of SuDS in an area brings enhanced biodiversity, amenity, improves water quality and reduces water quantity. Conventional drainage can’t provide amenity or biodiversity to any area so sustainable measures should be implemented where possible.
Let’s design with nature in mind.
SuDS in schools – is conventional drainage alone a thing of the past?
Extreme flooding across the UK is something that people are experiencing with increasing regularity, and schools and education authorities are looking for cost effective, long-term solutions which can keep children safe, and avoid closures from these weather events.
Sustainable drainage systems, commonly known as SuDS, are designed to slow the flow of water and mimic nature’s defences. Unlike conventional drainage which directs water underground, SuDS keep the water on the surface and manage water where it falls. Future generations will need to look practically at how water is managed in urban and rural environments, as conventional drainage is creaking under the pressure of increased rainfall associated with climate change and increased urbanisation. SuDS address these issues through blue green design and provide a positive solution in combating climate change.
From recent storm events, schools have been forced to close due to extreme conditions and with having aging infrastructure in place to combat the quantity of water on site.
Funding is available to schools through the DfE website to encourage retrofit SuDS on sites which is recognised as a highly effective way of reducing surface water flooding following the PIT review and Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Natural disasters, flooding and the climate is part of the school curriculum and schools are taking responsibility for their own water management.
What are the benefits of SuDS in schools?
- Landscape legibility and enhance education opportunities
This is where pupils learn to read the landscape they’re observing and understand the flow of water. SuDS bring the curriculum to life by bringing water and biodiversity into the centre of the school and educate pupils so that they have a clear understanding of where the water is meant to go, banishing any misconceptions and raising awareness within the whole community.
- Holistic sustainability
Following the management train approach as demonstrated in the SuDS manual promotes the incorporation of source control techniques to collect, treat, store and control runoff prior to discharge, and improve the biodiversity in the area. By having a space for plants, this creates a nicer environment and helps bring down the temperature in the area. Planters and rain gardens bring the water cycle to life, as a reservoir is available for the plants to drink, and with the correct soil allows the plants to access water without the need for hosepipes, saving costs as well as creating a sustainable environment.
Blue green approaches encourage evapotranspiration and mitigates against the urban heat island effect.
- Maintenance
When water is kept on the surface, we know when it is at its capacity. The visible nature of SuDS means that it is apparent when it needs an outlet, avoiding unexpected problems. Maintaining SuDS is routine work and involves clearing leaves, pruning plants and is a great way to involving pupils. It is hugely beneficial and educational, and less costly to manage.
Phil Williams, Director at the Environmental Protection Group stated, “We have been working alongside schools for over 15 years implementing sustainable drainage designs across the UK, both new and retrofit. The joy it brings to the community is something we’re always thrilled to see, and if we can continue to mitigate the impact of flooding with natural flood management, we should start to see positive changes for our environment.”
The technicalities – how using the right suppliers gets you the right results
Simpler stakeholder engagement
Stakeholder engagement and good consultation is the key to avoiding misconceptions and banishing myths surrounding SuDS. The opportunity to incorporate SuDS in a project should be met with excitement. For planners, architects and engineers, it is their job to communicate and showcase how this vision will become a reality. Dealing with one stakeholder allows for a smooth, simple scheme delivery.
Collaboration
Co-design between landscape architects, SuDS designers, engineers and the schools is important to ensure engagement in the project and understanding. For the very best results, landscape architects need to work in harmony with engineers and then the contractors. With landscape architects working on the aesthetics and visuals alongside the school, the engineers are left to determine the flow rates and quantification of the impact the SuDS features will have for funders and authorities.
Safety
Safety considerations for any project is vital, however it’s important to recognise that for most of the time, SuDS feature will have no water in them, and when raining, only hold a small amount of water, usually between 100ml-300ml. This means no danger for pupils and simply becomes a learning aid. SuDS also work at removing pollutants and sediment from a water flow, all powered by nature.
Take a look at the video below to see how a school in Estcourt School in Hull put this into practice.
The Environmental Protection Group (EPG) co-authored the SuDS manual and is passionate about designing projects which can enrich people’s lives and their surrounding environments for the future. The introduction of SuDS in an area brings enhanced biodiversity, amenity, improves water quality and reduces water quantity. Conventional drainage can’t provide amenity or biodiversity to any area so sustainable measures should be implemented where possible.
Let’s design with nature in mind.
Greening Brownfields: Unlocking the potential for SuDS on brownfield land
This International Women’s Day we are celebrating the inspirational women that contribute to our success. Leading the way are the heads of our Water and Geoenvironmental teams, Jacqueline Diaz-Nieto and Amy Juden, who share their collaborative thoughts on the potential for SuDS to be used on brownfield sites.
With a housing crisis that shows no sign of slowing, coupled with a desire to conserve our dwindling green spaces, there is a renewed push to find development space on brownfield land. The regulative landscape will soon see the introduction of Schedule 3 which means the industry will need to consider using sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) on every development site.
Using sustainable drainage systems on brownfield land brings advantages. Sustainable drainage systems can be designed to complement the ground conditions and constraints and bring multiple additional benefits to a project; greening brownfield sites. The wide-ranging positives of this approach shouldn’t be underestimated.
Schedule 3 requires designers to consider SuDS within a hierarchy that prioritises discharging surface water to ground, and with SuDS also serving a dual purpose of satisfying the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requirements, making SuDS work on brownfield sites makes financial and environmental sense and will ensure compliance with new requirements.
Resistance may exist against infiltration drainage on potentially contaminated sites. It is true that infiltrating water has the potential to mobilise soil contaminants and subsequently pollute rivers and groundwater, however, depending on the contaminants and their leachability (mobility in water), infiltration could be acceptable if properly assessed and designed. This is especially true for diffuse infiltration limited to pre-development rates, which is likely to be suitable on all but the most severely contaminated development sites. Concentrated soak-away drainage might not be suitable through made ground or contaminated materials, but it may still be possible to locate these to discharge at slightly greater depth into natural ground, or on a less contaminated part of the site. Even on development sites where leachable contamination has been identified it may be possible to plan the remediation strategy such that these soils are relocated to less sensitive areas or capped by hard surfacing.
Even on highly contaminated sites, SuDS designed not to infiltrate can bring significant advantages, and shouldn’t be ruled out. Waste disposal costs for contaminated soil, particularly if classed as hazardous can be a significant cost to development. Keeping drainage systems shallow and designing out deep drainage and large attenuation tanks can reduce the associated excavation and removal costs, particularly relevant for contaminated ground. Shallow water storage used in SuDS could include gravel layers or geocellular crates under permeable paving or lined landscaping features. These solutions can come into their own for redevelopment of former landfill sites, where not only is excavation and soil disposal costly, it may also come with specific environmental permitting requirements. With wait times for some bespoke environmental permit decisions extending over 24 months, this is not an appealing option for developers or contractors, and SuDS may provide the solution!
SuDS champions often talk about the four pillars of good SuDS being the design for quantity, quality, amenity and biodiversity. Whilst often overlooked by traditional drainage designers, the potential amenity and biodiversity benefits of SuDS on brownfield land is huge and can strengthen the case for making SuDS work on brownfield land. Well-designed SuDS not only provide the hydraulic attenuation requirements to achieve greenfield runoff rates, reducing the risk of flooding downstream, but vegetated SuDS (with the shallow attenuation below ground) provide much-desired urban greening, they also bring a myriad of other social and environmental benefits.
SuDS sells! SuDS provide multiple landscape and biodiversity benefits, making new developments an attractive place to be as well as providing amenity and social value along with the economic advantages of rejuvenating an area. Together these factors make developments much more desirable. This is particularly pertinent when a site was previously derelict, unused, or unloved. Getting SuDS onto your brownfield sites is literally turning brown to green!
Success in these designs depends on understanding the ground model, specific constraints in the ground from previous uses, levels of contamination and the pathways for contaminant migration. Drainage designs for brownfield sites therefore benefit massively from the input of geoenvironmental professionals from the start. Experts who understand all aspects and can advise SuDS designers on safe working depths for the SuDS attenuation layer and specify from the start whether leaky SuDS can be designed, busting the popular myth that SuDS on brownfield sites must be tanked.
At EPG, our combined skills and experience in drainage design, ground conditions and land contamination allows us to unlock the potential benefits of SuDS on brownfield sites and provide clients with a one-stop shop.
Our dynamic team is changing the narrative around holistic environmental designs for challenging sites. Don’t believe anyone who tells you that you can’t infiltrate on brownfield land. Challenge any design that includes a deep-dig through contaminated ground for a large attenuation tank. Get in touch with EPG to see if we can do better and provide you with a more cost-effective, greener design using our innovative approach.
Imagine a simple remortgaging conversation revealing that your house has no financial value. This was the harsh reality for one of thirteen residents in Bradford, who discovered that the developer not adhering to planning conditions had resulted in his home receiving a zero valuation on remortgaging.
The plight of the residents was shared in October 2020, on the BBC programme ‘Rip off Britain’. Details emerged that gas membranes had not been installed and verified as required by the planning conditions, and the developers had since ceased trading, leaving residents stranded and distraught.
With a wealth of experience in risk assessments and land remediation, EPG stepped in to examine the cases in detail. With an offer to investigate, free of charge, our Technical Director Steve Wilson sat down with some of the residents to discuss potential ways to resolve the problem. It became apparent that other planning conditions, relating to soakaways in the back gardens and an access road, had also not been complied with.
The homes are located adjacent to a former landfill site which is also an area of former coal mine workings. However, this does not automatically mean that there is a risk of gas ingress into the buildings. Using existing information, EPG built up a detailed conceptual site model (CSM). The CSM is a vital part of any gas risk assessment and crucially, the part where extra time and effort pays dividends.
It took over a week to drill down into the information and compile the model, which demonstrated that the risk of gas emissions was very low and gas membranes were not required. Furthermore, there was no need for further site investigation or gas monitoring to support this conclusion.
EPG can provide this service for developers, and the cost of the desk study is usually far less than the cost savings achieved by removing the need for gas protection or gas monitoring at the preliminary risk assessment stage. Even where gas monitoring is required, we can often reduce or completely remove the need for gas protection systems.
EPG also provided a revised specification and design for soakaways in the back gardens, with clients Alderburgh and JUTA (UK) kindly supplying the soakaway boxes and geotextile surround at no cost to the residents.
The final piece in the jigsaw was to meet with the Highway Authority and agree that the access road could remain unadopted (private), avoiding the need for remedial works to bring it up to highway standards. There was a small cross over strip at the entrance already owned by the Highway Authority and EPG designed and specified some simple works to resolve the issue.
EPG is part of a wider consultancy – STRI Group, and working alongside one of their senior planners, James Podesta, were able to submit a planning application to remove/vary the planning conditions to formalise amendments, and this was approved last year.
The work put into place will allow the homeowners to proceed as normal and we wish them all the best for the future.
Environmental Monitoring Manager, Leo Phillips, talks us through the work that EPG are carrying out during a ground gas monitoring visit on what will become part of an industrial estate.
As a company we are proud of the fact that we have contributed to much of the guidance on landfill, ground gas and VOC assessment within the UK; including British Standards BS8576, BS8485, CIRIA Reports C665, C735 and C748, Claire Research Bulletin RB17 and Claire Technical Bulletins TB16 and TB17.
The NHBC Foundation’s latest report, Hazardous ground gas – an essential guide for housebuilders, is available to download now. Compiled by experts in the field, this comprehensive report offers guidance and insight for housebuilders covering everything from what constitutes a hazardous ground gas, initial investigations and assessment of ground gas to gas protective measures. EPG’s Steve Wilson and Amy Juden contributed to the guide along with colleagues from Buro Happold, and the guidance will help housebuilders to:
- recognise high risk sites and the appropriate action to take
- avoid unnecessary gas protection on low/minimal risk sites
- appoint appropriate competent professionals at the right stage
- complete the process of assessment, design, implementation and verification
- and implement monitoring strategies suitable for the size, complexity and gas risk of sites.
The report guidance also addresses the current gap between the conclusions and recommendations of ground investigation reports and the structural design of buildings where gas protection measures are not always included.
Hugh Mallett, Director, Ground Engineering, Buro Happold said,
“This new NHBC guide on hazardous ground gas will help housebuilders and their advisors to better assess and manage gas risk and ensure the efficient building of new homes. Buro Happold, EPG and NHBC have worked hard to ensure the guide delivers current good practice and that the advice is practical and relevant to all housebuilders. Following the six-stage process and recognising the importance of competence at each stage will help housebuilders get it right first time and avoid potential pitfalls, saving time and money, whilst delivering homes safe from the potential risks of hazardous ground gas.”
“Adoption of the good practice procedures described in this report will lead to better quality practice, cost savings and a greater understanding of specific issues around detailing, construction and verification,” commented Richard Smith, Head of Standards, Research & Technical Competency at NHBC Foundation. “Early consideration of the risks of hazardous ground gas is essential for all developments and we are pleased to be able to guide housebuilders through this potentially complex process.”
Amy Juden, Associate at EPG added
“We are delighted to see this report published, and the guidance out there to enhance best practice in the industry. We’re looking forward to continuing to work alongside colleagues to increase awareness of these important and complex issues, and use our expertise to help mitigate against risks.”
Written specifically for housebuilders wanting to get up to date and widen their knowledge on this important subject, Hazardous ground gas – an essential guide for housebuilders is available to download here.
Imagine a simple remortgaging conversation revealing that your house has no financial value. This was the harsh reality for one of thirteen residents in Bradford, who discovered that the developer not adhering to planning conditions had resulted in his home receiving a zero valuation on remortgaging.
The plight of the residents was shared in October 2020, on the BBC programme ‘Rip off Britain’. Details emerged that gas membranes had not been installed and verified as required by the planning conditions, and the developers had since ceased trading, leaving residents stranded and distraught.
With a wealth of experience in risk assessments and land remediation, EPG stepped in to examine the cases in detail. With an offer to investigate, free of charge, our Technical Director Steve Wilson sat down with some of the residents to discuss potential ways to resolve the problem. It became apparent that other planning conditions, relating to soakaways in the back gardens and an access road, had also not been complied with.
The homes are located adjacent to a former landfill site which is also an area of former coal mine workings. However, this does not automatically mean that there is a risk of gas ingress into the buildings. Using existing information, EPG built up a detailed conceptual site model (CSM). The CSM is a vital part of any gas risk assessment and crucially, the part where extra time and effort pays dividends.
It took over a week to drill down into the information and compile the model, which demonstrated that the risk of gas emissions was very low and gas membranes were not required. Furthermore, there was no need for further site investigation or gas monitoring to support this conclusion.
EPG can provide this service for developers, and the cost of the desk study is usually far less than the cost savings achieved by removing the need for gas protection or gas monitoring at the preliminary risk assessment stage. Even where gas monitoring is required, we can often reduce or completely remove the need for gas protection systems.
EPG also provided a revised specification and design for soakaways in the back gardens, with clients Alderburgh and JUTA (UK) kindly supplying the soakaway boxes and geotextile surround at no cost to the residents.
The final piece in the jigsaw was to meet with the Highway Authority and agree that the access road could remain unadopted (private), avoiding the need for remedial works to bring it up to highway standards. There was a small cross over strip at the entrance already owned by the Highway Authority and EPG designed and specified some simple works to resolve the issue.
EPG is part of a wider consultancy – STRI Group, and working alongside one of their senior planners, James Podesta, were able to submit a planning application to remove/vary the planning conditions to formalise amendments, and this was approved last year.
The work put into place will allow the homeowners to proceed as normal and we wish them all the best for the future.

As contaminated land risk assessors and designers, we have the greatest opportunity to minimise the carbon impact of developments on brownfield land. Similar to the waste hierarchy we learned at primary school, where the first priority is to Reduce, then Reuse, then Recycle, when it comes to remediation, the most sustainable option is often to do nothing. Better conceptualisation of a site and using detailed quantitative risk assessment (DQRA) can make this possible, but these tools are underutilised. Over-conservative assessments lead to over-engineered designs and unnecessary remediation works, contributing to the significant embodied carbon in the construction industry.
It should be considered environmentally irresponsible to specify remediation on the basis of a generic screening approach alone, without considering further assessment that could lead to a reduction in remediation. Remediation should not be used as a substitute for adequate investigation and assessment.
Most of the rhetoric and guidance/publications on sustainability in contaminated land to date (i.e. that produced by the CL:AIRE Sustainable Remediation Forum SuRF-UK) focuses on methods to minimise operational carbon emissions during remediation works. However, I argue that we could have a more significant impact on the carbon budget of a project if we consider the carbon impact earlier in the process and eliminate unnecessary remediation at the risk assessment stage.
As risk assessors and designers, we have a responsibility to design out carbon from our development projects wherever possible, in the same way that we have a duty to design out health and safety risks under CDM.
If climate change is causing deaths now at a rate of a few hundred tonnes of carbon dioxide per death, are our frameworks for assessing risk from contaminated land fit for purpose? Do we need to rethink the precautionary principles on which we operate? It also depends on people’s attitudes to risk. Perhaps climate change is so well-known and accepted in society now that we accept the fact that people all over the world are dying in climate related natural disasters. Our appetite for health risks associated with ground contamination (i.e. toxins in our garden soils, or carcinogenic vapours in our homes or workplaces) may be different.
Never-the-less there is far more that can be done within the existing frameworks and acceptable minimal risk levels. Remediation is being over specified on the basis of theoretical risks that are poorly determined.
In summary, as contaminated land risk assessors and designers, we have the power to minimise the carbon impact of developments on brownfield land. The most efficient way to do this is by intervening early. This means that before considering remediation, we should better conceptualise a site and use DQRA to determine if no action is the most sustainable option.
This is the approach that is always taken at EPG. We pride ourselves on delivering the most sustainable solution for a site, and are never afraid of offering an innovative assessment or bespoke approach to get there. This can have the added benefit of saving our clients significant sums of money in the construction phase.
But what will the future of contaminated land assessment look like in the context of climate destruction and the race to net zero? Should we incorporate the carbon cost of a human life into a new holistic framework for construction and remediation on brownfield land that considers the need for development and remedial intervention against the actual human cost? By changing the narrative and talking about carbon footprints in terms of death rates, we can increase awareness of the urgency of the climate crisis and the need to transition to net zero as quickly as possible.
Improving standards in contaminated land risk assessment through increased use of DQRA, education and training, and new targeted research, will allow for a reduction in the carbon footprint of our industry. As well as saving money on development projects. Development of standardised tools for measuring the carbon impact of remediation works, will allow us to manage this effectively. And incorporation of the concept of the “carbon cost of a life” would allow for comparison of carbon budgets, with human health risks.
Better risk assessment is integral to reducing carbon emissions in remediation of brownfield land. Let us work together to create a more sustainable and resilient future for all.
The Environmental Protection Group (EPG) is delighted to welcome their new Head of Water, Jacqueline Diaz-Nieto.
Jacqueline joins EPG to lead the water department and brings with her a wealth of experience in the industry. EPG has an established water team and is committed to ensuring innovative, sustainable solutions become a fundamental part of urban and sports designs. Jacqueline will use her extensive expertise in sustainable drainage (SuDS) to address flooding issues and deliver the multiple benefits of SuDS for communities.
A chartered water and environmental manager with CIWEM, she has over ten years’ experience in the water industry and is currently working towards Chartered Engineer status with the Institute of Civil Engineers.
Jacqueline has a BSc in Geography from UCL, which she followed with a MSc in Environmental Monitoring, Modelling and Management. Following time in a research role in South America, she then studied for a PhD in urban flooding and sustainable drainage at the University of Sheffield.
Jacqueline then worked for over 10 years in the water industry, first at Yorkshire Water and most recently at Severn Trent, as a technical specialist promoting and championing SuDS and then a senior design engineer.
The Environmental Protection Group (EPG) is now a registered Urban Design Practitioner with the Urban Design Group.
Founded in 1978, the Urban Design Group (UDG) is a campaigning membership organisation dedicated to raising the standards of urban design to improve the quality of life in our cities, towns and villages.
Through its work as a geo-environmental engineering design consultancy, EPG is well-placed to positively influence the built environment, and is committed to providing clients with futureproof solutions that help to protect and enhance our precious environments.
Phil Williams, EPG’s Technical Director, commented:
“Designing solutions that protect the environment is at the core of what we do, and being part of organisations which enable us to join forces with like-minded companies and individuals is key to making this a fundamental principle of urban design.
“The recent government decision to implement schedule 3 of The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 which will mandate sustainable drainage (SuDS) in new developments is an very positive step forward, but there is so much more we can do. I’m looking forward to working alongside others in the Urban Design Group to educate and influence decision makers.”
We are delighted to share the recently published CIRIA guidance, detailing the use of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and how they can be utilised in order to reduce phosphorus in surface water runoff. Finding effective ways to reduce phosphorus is important in improving quality of our water, and limiting the damaging impacts on local ecology. Over 100,000 homes are now being delayed across 74 local authorities as a direct result of potential excess nutrient pollution, of which phosphorus is a key contributor.
This document is co-authored by Phil Williams and Karolina Stachyra of the Environmental Protection Group, and provides good practice guidance on the use of SuDS for the reduction of phosphorus in runoff from new development to help developments become nutrient neutral. It sets out the necessary SuDS, deployed in ‘treatment trains’ to achieve phosphorus removal, particularly for sensitive receiving waters and nationally important nature conservation sites. It represents good practice surface water management through the use of SuDS and can be applied anywhere.