As contributors to the original SuDS Manual, we’re excited to announce that EPG will be co-authors of the new Rainwater Management Platform (RMP) – a national initiative funded by Ofwat’s Water Breakthrough Challenge and delivered by a leading industry consortium including CIRIA, Wessex Water, HR Wallingford, and others.

The RMP will be a free, digital platform designed to transform how the UK manages rainwater – with updated guidance and best practice for planning, design, construction, and maintenance of SuDS.

EPG will bring our indepth knowledge of SuDS design and engineering to topics such as but not limited to Pervious paving, blue and green roofs, Soakaways and challenging site conditions.

Key goals of the new platform include:

• Minimising sewer discharges
• Prevent pollution
• Promote rainfall as a resource
• Enhance climate resilience
• Deliver better long-term environmental outcomes

We’re proud to bring our engineering expertise to this important project and help shape the future of rainwater management in the UK.

Severn Trent don’t do things by halves, and this was evidenced at the open event this week, where SuDS enthusiasts and professionals were invited to learn about the successes and challenges of the UK’s biggest SuDS retrofit scheme. In just three and half years, Seven Trent achieved delivery of getting 353 small and distributed SuDS interventions, through a supply chain that involved engaging numerous consultants, contractors and universities: no small feat herding that many big cats along with the smaller ones!

The day started with a visit to see a humble 3% of the SuDS interventions delivered throughout the town. Our group, led by SuDS champion nominee, Angus Smith, started with the scheme in the town centre. With nature coping well with the dry weather, and witnessing local workers enjoying the public space, our group were enlightened by Zac Tudor, the landscape architect behind Sheffield’s Grey to Green, about the secrets to the success of the vibrant and thriving planting scheme. It was clear that these city centre SuDS had turned a redundant car park, whilst intercepting drainage from the bus station, into a functional and well-loved public space.

From there we went to a raingarden build-out in a spot that was previously notorious for water to pool and cause a nuisance to highway users, as well as flooding the nearby low-lying garages. Our guide for this raingarden, the contractor from Kier, showed us photos of the historic flooding precisely at the location of the raingarden, and no one can negate that this opportunity to change a space where water pools and is a nuisance, into an attractive build-out by the highway, that can capture the nuisance water as part of its function, is a no-brainer.

The morning took us to see a number of larger interventions ranging from detentions basins that took advantage of housing estates with separate systems going into combined systems, that were plumbed into a retrofit basin, through to those collecting primarily highway drainage alongside green spaces converted into functional SuDS off the highway, to solutions which won the buy-in of allotment tenants by providing enhancements to their experience.

Heading back to the council chambers for an afternoon of talks, the air was charged with excitement. Witnessing firsthand what had been accomplished in Mansfield, and with several flood risk management authorities in attendance, there was a palpable sense of inspiration. Everyone seemed eager to return to their own regions and apply the same drive to make a difference.

With notebooks open and pens poised to take down the gold nuggets of success, we learnt more about the commercial design and delivery processes, key metrics, and the innovation and research resulting from this project. Reflecting on what I heard, my personal view is that Mansfield, as the demonstrator project that it was, has proven the possibilities and clear benefits of catchment wide retrofitting of SuDS.

These small interventions, dispersed throughout a huge watershed, all add up to provide a noticeable cumulative effect. To quote former SuDS champion, and in my eyes one of the founders of the SuDS movement in England, Sue Illman, Mansfield “got nibbling”, and by goodness did it nibble away at the flood risk by delivering a whopping 31 million litres of storage, by finding the undeniable opportunities to intercept overland flow and use up that storage.

The only saddening aspect about it, is the cost and funding stream. Mansfield was funded by a one-off funding stream created by Ofwat following the pandemic, to build-back better and

greener, known as Green Recovery. This funding stream allowed a bespoke cost benefit assessment to be developed which enabled the delivery at pace by speeding up the initial project stages of evidencing a business case before construction can commence.

Financial success and governance were provided by a cost-benefit ratio which was seen to be quick and dirty, and called the “rule of thumb”, which negated the need for a long, drawn-out process developing reliable hydraulic models to demonstrate upfront that the interventions will provide flood risk alleviations. In Mansfield, a pragmatic approach was adopted using the “rule of thumb” which in essence was an excel based SuDS volume calculator. If it could be demonstrated, using knowledge of the topography and how water will flow, that an intervention can intercept a minimum amount defined by a cost beneficial threshold of overland flow, then the SuDS intervention could proceed.

I found myself asking, and posed the question to the panel, whether this pragmatic approach should be advocated and allowed within the flood risk funding decision makers such as the FCERM (Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk management) funding streams provided by Treasury. It could fast track projects into delivery by avoiding excessive model-building by the rightly so, perfectionist hydraulic modelling community, who often take great pride, at the expense of time and cost, in developing the best and closest model they can to represent reality, before they put their name to it and allow decision makers to use it as a basis to unlock precious construction funding.

Finally, the only downside to the Mansfield project I heard discussed, amongst the excitement of these beautiful green and functional spaces, was the cost. You could the sense the cash-strapped local authorities’ hearts sink as they learnt about how inflation in recent times had seen the total cost of these scheme soar.

Is there anything in the commercial strategy adopted by a multi-national listed company, that maybe the smaller authorities don’t necessarily have to follow, to deliver more cost-effective solutions. As mentioned in my introduction, Severn Trent engaged a large number of supply chain partners, with multi-tier contracting and complex project management and governance arrangements. I am hopeful that this aspect of Mansfield doesn’t necessarily have to be emulated by smaller authorities wanting to copy Mansfield’s approach.

Could an alternative approach be to work through a single source supplier, potentially with a local connection, appointed to a dedicated single intervention or group of interventions connected by the community (e.g. a street). Could this offer a cost-effective solution that would also go some way to addressing one the points raised by Mansfield about the need for successful community engagement and buy-in?

I look to the future with great anticipation on how the learnings from Mansfield will influence the future of retrofit SuDS. I’m committed to continuing to pursue the effective implementation of SuDS alongside like-minded colleagues and feel that there is no better time than now to really push the boundaries.

Severn Trent don’t do things by halves, and this was evidenced at the open event this week, where SuDS enthusiasts and professionals were invited to learn about the successes and challenges of the UK’s biggest SuDS retrofit scheme. In just three and half years, Seven Trent achieved delivery of getting 353 small and distributed SuDS interventions, through a supply chain that involved engaging numerous consultants, contractors and universities: no small feat herding that many big cats along with the smaller ones!

The day started with a visit to see a humble 3% of the SuDS interventions delivered throughout the town. Our group, led by SuDS champion nominee, Angus Smith, started with the scheme in the town centre. With nature coping well with the dry weather, and witnessing local workers enjoying the public space, our group were enlightened by Zac Tudor, the landscape architect behind Sheffield’s Grey to Green, about the secrets to the success of the vibrant and thriving planting scheme. It was clear that these city centre SuDS had turned a redundant car park, whilst intercepting drainage from the bus station, into a functional and well-loved public space.

From there we went to a raingarden build-out in a spot that was previously notorious for water to pool and cause a nuisance to highway users, as well as flooding the nearby low-lying garages. Our guide for this raingarden, the contractor from Kier, showed us photos of the historic flooding precisely at the location of the raingarden, and no one can negate that this opportunity to change a space where water pools and is a nuisance, into an attractive build-out by the highway, that can capture the nuisance water as part of its function, is a no-brainer.

The morning took us to see a number of larger interventions ranging from detentions basins that took advantage of housing estates with separate systems going into combined systems, that were plumbed into a retrofit basin, through to those collecting primarily highway drainage alongside green spaces converted into functional SuDS off the highway, to solutions which won the buy-in of allotment tenants by providing enhancements to their experience.

Heading back to the council chambers for an afternoon of talks, the air was charged with excitement. Witnessing firsthand what had been accomplished in Mansfield, and with several flood risk management authorities in attendance, there was a palpable sense of inspiration. Everyone seemed eager to return to their own regions and apply the same drive to make a difference.

With notebooks open and pens poised to take down the gold nuggets of success, we learnt more about the commercial design and delivery processes, key metrics, and the innovation and research resulting from this project. Reflecting on what I heard, my personal view is that Mansfield, as the demonstrator project that it was, has proven the possibilities and clear benefits of catchment wide retrofitting of SuDS.

These small interventions, dispersed throughout a huge watershed, all add up to provide a noticeable cumulative effect. To quote former SuDS champion, and in my eyes one of the founders of the SuDS movement in England, Sue Illman, Mansfield “got nibbling”, and by goodness did it nibble away at the flood risk by delivering a whopping 31 million litres of storage, by finding the undeniable opportunities to intercept overland flow and use up that storage.

The only saddening aspect about it, is the cost and funding stream. Mansfield was funded by a one-off funding stream created by Ofwat following the pandemic, to build-back better and

greener, known as Green Recovery. This funding stream allowed a bespoke cost benefit assessment to be developed which enabled the delivery at pace by speeding up the initial project stages of evidencing a business case before construction can commence.

Financial success and governance were provided by a cost-benefit ratio which was seen to be quick and dirty, and called the “rule of thumb”, which negated the need for a long, drawn-out process developing reliable hydraulic models to demonstrate upfront that the interventions will provide flood risk alleviations. In Mansfield, a pragmatic approach was adopted using the “rule of thumb” which in essence was an excel based SuDS volume calculator. If it could be demonstrated, using knowledge of the topography and how water will flow, that an intervention can intercept a minimum amount defined by a cost beneficial threshold of overland flow, then the SuDS intervention could proceed.

I found myself asking, and posed the question to the panel, whether this pragmatic approach should be advocated and allowed within the flood risk funding decision makers such as the FCERM (Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk management) funding streams provided by Treasury. It could fast track projects into delivery by avoiding excessive model-building by the rightly so, perfectionist hydraulic modelling community, who often take great pride, at the expense of time and cost, in developing the best and closest model they can to represent reality, before they put their name to it and allow decision makers to use it as a basis to unlock precious construction funding.

Finally, the only downside to the Mansfield project I heard discussed, amongst the excitement of these beautiful green and functional spaces, was the cost. You could the sense the cash-strapped local authorities’ hearts sink as they learnt about how inflation in recent times had seen the total cost of these scheme soar.

Is there anything in the commercial strategy adopted by a multi-national listed company, that maybe the smaller authorities don’t necessarily have to follow, to deliver more cost-effective solutions. As mentioned in my introduction, Severn Trent engaged a large number of supply chain partners, with multi-tier contracting and complex project management and governance arrangements. I am hopeful that this aspect of Mansfield doesn’t necessarily have to be emulated by smaller authorities wanting to copy Mansfield’s approach.

Could an alternative approach be to work through a single source supplier, potentially with a local connection, appointed to a dedicated single intervention or group of interventions connected by the community (e.g. a street). Could this offer a cost-effective solution that would also go some way to addressing one the points raised by Mansfield about the need for successful community engagement and buy-in?

I look to the future with great anticipation on how the learnings from Mansfield will influence the future of retrofit SuDS. I’m committed to continuing to pursue the effective implementation of SuDS alongside like-minded colleagues and feel that there is no better time than now to really push the boundaries.

A Better Solution: A Risk-Focused Design and Clear Responsibilities

When building a new basement, a sensible approach would focus on preventing water ingress into the reinforced concrete structure, achieved through a combination of Type A (external membrane) and Type B (watertight concrete) waterproofing. Utilising these options protects the concrete and steel from water ingress, resulting in increased durability. Any leaking construction joints, cracks, or other defects should be injected or repaired prior to the installation of the building finishes. Where the water table is low, a flood test could be performed to reveal defects that may result in future water ingress from burst water mains, heavy rainfall events, or any other changes in the external environment.

Proper classification of the water table is essential for effective structural waterproofing design. Current industry practice includes design to a worst-case scenario (assuming the water table is at ground level), often leading to over- classification of certain aspects of, or the entire basement project, as high risk, which dilutes the focus on the actual high-risk areas of the construction. A more realistic water table assessment would allow contractors to prioritise critical areas that require the most attention. This assessment is best carried out by geologists or geotechnical engineers with a good understanding of the factors that can affect water levels in monitoring wells and whether it represents a free groundwater body.

The risk assessment shouldn’t only rely on the highest water level recorded in a monitoring well or assume a worst-case scenario of the water table at ground level. It requires an understanding of factors such as groundwater flow and the effects of artesian water in confined aquifers, as well as the risks posed to basements, for instance, if the confining layer above artesian water is reduced in thickness. If a basement is built into cohesive soil, such as London Clay, it should not automatically be categorised as “high risk”; in certain circumstances, the clay can protect the basement from water ingress.

There is a tendency in our industry to overdesign waterproofing systems on lower-risk projects, primarily driven by manufacturers and suppliers. This not only increases costs but also has a considerable environmental impact. Each additional layer of waterproofing requires manufacturing, transportation, and installation, all of which contribute to the project’s overall carbon footprint. A more representative risk assessment can result in a more appropriate design, ensuring that only the essential materials are specified.

The risk associated with the basement should be assigned using a well-thought-out conceptual site model that considers the high-risk aspects of the structure, including:

• Geology and groundwater conditions.
• What is the actual risk of water main failure, etc (eg is there a large high-pressure water main near the building, or is it just a local supply pipe).
• Joints between liner walls and capping beams.
• Tie bolt holes.
• Terminations into DPC details.
• Pipe penetrations.
• Continuity of waterbars.
• Below-ground isolation/expansion joints.

Repairability should apply to all parts of any waterproofing system and should not mean designing for failure; rather, there ought to be an emphasis on a higher standard of workmanship and proactive risk management. Often, the most stringent QA procedures are implemented at the project’s outset but tend to wane during the higher-risk elements later in the process (such as pipe penetrations and terminations into DPC detailing). A quality assurance plan is recommended for inclusion in the waterproofing design report and should be completed by the contractor throughout the construction process, documenting:

• the delivery, recording, and storage of materials on-site,
• the suitability of surface preparation,
• installation record sheets,
• photographic records,
• inspection and comments by system manufacturers.

A common misconception among contractors is that supplier site visits are formal sign-offs for waterproofing installations rather than advisory inspections. This misunderstanding often leads to a careless approach, with installers assuming that once the supplier has visited, they take on the responsibility for the installation. In reality, supplier warranties typically cover material defects only, not poor workmanship. While suppliers offer guidance, they do not usually assume responsibility for the installation. Responsibilities for each aspect of the waterproofing installation should be clearly outlined in the quality assurance plan to avoid miscommunication.

The application of guidance in BS 8102:2022 on repairability does not provide the client with the most effective solution; instead, it offers contractors a false sense of security that the system will not fail within the warranty period. A sensible design, paired with increased focus on the high-risk aspects of the project and a realistic risk classification, would enhance the structure’s durability and reduce the costly maintenance and discharge permit expenses associated with Type C waterproofing systems.

The long-term cost difference between a well-designed, properly installed waterproofing system and one that depends on the maintenance and replacement of pumps is substantial for the client but is often overlooked at the design stage. A Type C system requires annual inspection, and the pumps need replacing approximately every ten years. These costs accumulate to a significant fee over the design lifespan of the structure. Frequently, the maintenance of the Type C system is neglected, and water ingress will occur if the pumps fail or the system becomes blocked with free lime or other deposits. If discharging to a sewer, there are annual discharge permit costs.

Conclusion

Compliance with BS 8102 should not compromise good design practices and high standards of workmanship. Accurate risk assessments, designs that prioritise the protection of the structure for the design life with minimal maintenance, and waterproofing installations that prioritise quality should be the focus of our industry, rather than blanket worst-case approaches based on assumptions of failure.

Severn Trent don’t do things by halves, and this was evidenced at the open event this week, where SuDS enthusiasts and professionals were invited to learn about the successes and challenges of the UK’s biggest SuDS retrofit scheme. In just three and half years, Seven Trent achieved delivery of getting 353 small and distributed SuDS interventions, through a supply chain that involved engaging numerous consultants, contractors and universities: no small feat herding that many big cats along with the smaller ones!

The day started with a visit to see a humble 3% of the SuDS interventions delivered throughout the town. Our group, led by SuDS champion nominee, Angus Smith, started with the scheme in the town centre. With nature coping well with the dry weather, and witnessing local workers enjoying the public space, our group were enlightened by Zac Tudor, the landscape architect behind Sheffield’s Grey to Green, about the secrets to the success of the vibrant and thriving planting scheme. It was clear that these city centre SuDS had turned a redundant car park, whilst intercepting drainage from the bus station, into a functional and well-loved public space.

From there we went to a raingarden build-out in a spot that was previously notorious for water to pool and cause a nuisance to highway users, as well as flooding the nearby low-lying garages. Our guide for this raingarden, the contractor from Kier, showed us photos of the historic flooding precisely at the location of the raingarden, and no one can negate that this opportunity to change a space where water pools and is a nuisance, into an attractive build-out by the highway, that can capture the nuisance water as part of its function, is a no-brainer.

The morning took us to see a number of larger interventions ranging from detentions basins that took advantage of housing estates with separate systems going into combined systems, that were plumbed into a retrofit basin, through to those collecting primarily highway drainage alongside green spaces converted into functional SuDS off the highway, to solutions which won the buy-in of allotment tenants by providing enhancements to their experience.

Heading back to the council chambers for an afternoon of talks, the air was charged with excitement. Witnessing firsthand what had been accomplished in Mansfield, and with several flood risk management authorities in attendance, there was a palpable sense of inspiration. Everyone seemed eager to return to their own regions and apply the same drive to make a difference.

With notebooks open and pens poised to take down the gold nuggets of success, we learnt more about the commercial design and delivery processes, key metrics, and the innovation and research resulting from this project. Reflecting on what I heard, my personal view is that Mansfield, as the demonstrator project that it was, has proven the possibilities and clear benefits of catchment wide retrofitting of SuDS.

Are there other ways to assess infiltration that have fewer health and safety risks and a lower environmental impact? Afterall, determining infiltration rates is more than pouring water into a hole.

Health and safety is paramount, where risks can be removed, it is our duty to do so. Heavy plant digging holes is a high-risk activity.BRE365 tests are intensive, using heavy machinery and virgin aggregate. They can take significant time to complete, especially in lower permeability geology, potentially slowing progress on projects.

Addressing concerns from the BRE365 test method, we are looking at how infiltration is assessed.

Driving the industry forward in a pragmatic way, we think it’s vital to question and review set guidance and push for updated testing to be considered.

In the latest document with Susdrain, Steve Wilson and Jacqueline Diaz-Nieto discuss the alternatives to BRE 365 infiltration in collaboration with Susdrain.

Read the full article here: infiltration rates for SuDS: is it time to ditch BRE 365 tests?

If you would like to find out more about alternatives to BRE 365 infiltration and the options EPG can provide, please speak to Leo Phillips, Head of Commercial and he’ll be able to help – leo.phillips@epg-ltd.co.uk

Offering unrivalled expertise across a range of environmental engineering disciplines, the Environmental Protection Group (EPG) is excited to announce its move to a new office location at The Innovation Centre Sci-Tech in Daresbury, Warrington.

The move comes as part of the company’s continued growth and commitment to enhancing productivity, collaboration, and the overall work environment for its team. Other EPG colleagues remain based at a combination of Bingley and Basildon offices, as well as remotely.

“Our new office offers a spacious and modern environment, equipped with facilities and grounds to support our team’s overall wellbeing and puts us alongside some fabulous, like-minded businesses” said Phil Williams, Director of EPG.

“This relocation marks a significant milestone in our journey as we expand our business and continue to provide exceptional service to our clients.”

As part of their ambitious growth plans, EPG has appointed Damian Watkin as an Associate in the geoenvironmental team. Damian comes with a wealth of industry knowledge and will be managing the delivery of geoenvironmental investigation and assessment projects. He will be maintaining key client relationships and mentoring the team, to continue to bring an unparalleled service offering in the industry.

EPG looks forward to continued growth and building stronger relationships with clients and partners in this new, dynamic environment.

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,

Amy Juden, Associate at EPG added

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.

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.

Click here to download

We are delighted to see the news that the government has accepted a review to implement Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which will mandate sustainable drainage (SuDS) in new developments.

The review recommends that the government must act and implement Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 as written, with the unitary authority or, if there is not one for the area, then the county council as approving bodies.

This follows the letter sent to Rishi Sunak encouraging him to implement schedule three of the 2012 Flood and Water Management Act as a matter of urgency. Phil Williams, who heads up EPG, was pleased to be one of the forty signatories on the letter, alongside other leading figures from engineering and environmental groups.

The review recommends implementation subject to final decisions on scope, threshold and process once a full regulatory impact assessment has been completed. The assessment will look at different options and the expected costs and benefits. This will ensure a consistent and more effective approach in using SuDS to help address the impacts of climate change, urbanisation and increasing population while achieving multiple benefits such as reducing surface water flood risk, improving water quality, and harvesting rainwater to meet current and future needs.

However, these benefits can only be realised if SuDS are designed, constructed, adopted, and maintained to national standards for the lifetime of the development.

Implementing Schedule 3 will guarantee this is achieved. The review recommends that successful implementation of Schedule 3 will require professionals with the skills and knowledge to design, construct, assess and maintain SuDS. It also recommends that actions are developed to ensure there is sufficient access to the right skills and capabilities to deliver and maintain SuDS

Defra will carry out a consultation in order to collect views on the impact assessment, national standards and statutory instruments in 2023.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sustainable-drainage-systems-review

The Environmental Protection Group (EPG) is delighted to have walked away with first prize in the SuDS Awards 2022, winning the ‘Regeneration and Retrofit – Small Scale’ category for their work at Bloc, Manchester.

Delivered alongside other businesses within STRI Group, STRI Ltd on design and Carrick Sports Construction on the install, EPG utilised Polypipe’s Polysync and Permavoid systems to retrofit a smart blue-green roof on to the office building owned by Bruntwood Works in Manchester.

This outstanding retrofit SuDS project is a fantastic demonstration of how we can capture and reuse surface water to enhance biodiversity, effectively manage storm water and mitigate some effects of climate change, whilst also adding natural beauty to an urban cityscape.

The project proved that smart attenuation tanks can be effective in significantly reducing discharge, as well as showcasing how to retrofit a blue roof onto an existing roof despite major weight constraints.

Polypipe’s Polysync system acts as a forecasting hub to hold and release water from the Permavoid tanks underneath the wildflower roof, combining the rainwater harvesting tank and the attenuation tank. The smart tank holds water for rainwater harvesting (more than a traditional harvesting system) and makes decisions on whether to discharge based on the incoming weather. The roof then discharges ahead of heavy rainfall, as well as not discharging during the storm event itself when the sewer is at capacity, mitigating the effects of climate change and reducing flood risk.

In addition to effective water management and sustainability, the roof also introduced a more diverse ecosystem, from the wildflower roof and the pollinators that it attracts. This wildflower roof also positively impacts the insulation, keeping the building cooler in summer and warmer in winter.

EPG and STRI Group are thrilled to have been recognised by this award and would like to extend their thanks and congratulations to all involved.