Skip to main content

Nature

2.4.2 Design principles for SuDS in CW&C

The following principles apply to all SuDS in CW&C. Specific designs will vary due to specific site context, topography and geology.

MUST

In accordance with Policy F8 of the NPPF, development proposals which could affect drainage on or around the development site should incorporate sustainable drainage systems to control flow rates and reduce volumes of runoff, in ways which are proportionate to the nature and scale of the proposal.

MUST

SuDS systems must be considered from the outset of the design process to ensure they are suitably integrated into and woven throughout the site layout. In line with the National Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (June 2025), SuDS must be designed as sustainable placemaking features that deliver flood risk mitigation, improved water quality, amenity, and biodiversity — not merely as flood control measures.

SHOULD

Development should prioritise a variety of small scale SuDS elements located 'little and often' across the site, rather than large attenuation ponds (over 100m3) or ‘end of pipe’ drainage systems. SuDS elements include:

  • Rain gardens; shallow planting beds that capture water runoff from streets and roofs;
  • Swales and channels; landscaped conveyance features that direct surface water;
  • Tree pits; designed to support street trees and increase surface permeability; and
  • Permeable paving; porous materials (e.g. gravel, grass blocks, permeable bricks) that allow water infiltration.
SHOULD

If SuDS are to count toward open space provision, they should include grass or play areas that children can use.

SHOULD

SuDS ponds should feature low reeds and shrubs to define the water’s edge and provide a barrier to swimming. They should not be fenced off.

SHOULD

To support biodiversity and improve their visual quality, swales and rain gardens should include tree and/or shrub planting. They should not only be grass.

3.11 NMDC SuDS diagram Annotated
Fig 2.11 Types of SuDS (Credit: NMDC).
Good and bad SuDS diagram image
Fig 2.12 Development should use a mix of SuDS and not rely soley on peripheral attenuation ponds.
Examples of good SuDS image
Fig 2.13 Examples of well-designed SuDS, clockwise from top left: A swale in a development in Alford, Lincolnshire; a swale at Watercolour, Surrey; rain gardens along a pedestrian street in Leeds; and a swale at Upton, Northampton (Credit: Andy Cameron).
Fig 8.6 Watercolour Surrey image
Fig 2.14 An example of a large, well planted swale, creating a green corridor that is well overlooked by surrounding homes, Watercolour, Surrey.
Rills, Stamford image
Fig 2.15 Examples of hard landscaped rill channels integrated into a gentle density town centre development, Riverside Court, Stamford.
Alan Baxters_Loftus_Garden_Village_ Newport 1(Large) image
Fig 2.16 SuDs integrated into a green space well overlooked by surrounding homes. Loftus Garden Village, Newport (Credit: Alan Baxters).
Illustrations of houses with an opacity overlay
Fig 2.17 Placeholder
Good and bad SuDS ponds image
Fig 2.18 Examples of a large attenuation pond that is not integrated into the development (left) and a smaller, well-planted, attenutation pond surrounded by homes (right).
Example of good and bad swale image
Fig 2.19 Examples of a swale lacking planting, Lincolnshire (left) of a well planted swale, Cambridgeshire (right).
SuDS retrofit schemes image
Fig 2.20 SuDS retrofit schemes on a high street, Enfield (left) and residential street Cardiff (right).