Sustainable Drainage Systems

Richard Foord Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered sustainable drainage systems.

It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Mrs Barker.

Flooding is a topical issue. In Devon, it feels like it has been raining for about a year; in fact, it probably has been since the beginning of the year. Every day we see more and more floods, and more and more problems with water. Most people will probably never have heard of sustainable drainage systems, or SuDS; when I began my career in local government, I had no idea what people who mentioned them were talking about. They first came to my attention when I was knocking on doors on a new estate in Newton Abbot called Hele Park. A chap said, “They’ve spent all this money building these fantastic flood prevention channels; there’s a nice set of attenuation ponds with steps down and all the rest. But it’s falling apart—trees are growing through it, as nobody’s doing the maintenance. Nobody’s looking after it. It falls into the grounds maintenance contracts so they send somebody out with a lawnmower to look after a complicated, engineered set of flood prevention measures.”

That does not happen only on that one estate of Hele Park; it is common across many estates. In my home town of Dawlish, in the Redrow estate the swale is currently filling up with trees. That issue is particularly important because the estate is in a critical drainage area, designated by the Environment Agency. All the water coming from the hills comes down into a single stream, which at high tide is tide-locked so there is nowhere for it to go. Consequently, it is really important that in this place the attenuation ponds do their job, which is to reduce the rate of water flowing off what used to be green fields.

Planning permission is always granted on the basis that water does not come off the hard surfaces any faster than it would off green fields, but it is not actually stated where that water has to go or what has to be done with it. For years, planners have highlighted the need for drainage systems, which take the form of bungs, ditches or all sorts of other things such as swales and attenuation ponds. Those have been put into planning applications for developers, who then spend a lot of time and money creating drainage systems.

In another development in my area, the developer is objecting because part of its site is being used to build the SuDS for an adjoining site. Normally, that would not be a problem but the original site is finished and maintenance fees are being paid for it, whereas the adjoining site is not yet finished and is building SuDS in a space that the original developer is paying to have maintained. The original developer is up in arms. But even then, the maintenance contract would not actually look after the SuDS; it would just involve cutting the grass on a bank used to access the SuDS.

The problem is: who maintains SuDS? I asked Redrow staff, “How are these SuDS going to be maintained on your site in Dawlish?” They said, “Ah, there’s a maintenance plan for all these.” They are right—there probably is, for the pumps, the tanks and the hard engineering. SuDS might be maintained by the maintenance company, but they might not be. Residents are often unaware of the need for the maintenance of SuDS and of what maintenance companies do. Again, I can see that this whole set-up could very quickly fall into disrepair. Who will be there to pick up the pieces? The developer will have gone a long time before then. The residents have already paid for maintenance, because its cost is absorbed into the cost of building the site and of buying their homes in the first place: they will be double-paying for the maintenance of the site. Then, when things go wrong, they will be the ones footing the bill to put things right again.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

What my hon. Friend has identified in his Newton Abbot constituency is a situation that exists all over the country. In July 2025, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wrote a report called “National standards for sustainable drainage systems”, which talked about a national shortage of skilled professionals to maintain SuDS over their lifetime, as well as to design and inspect them. Does my hon. Friend share my view that we need more professionals skilled in this area working at local authority level?

[Martin Wrigley]

I absolutely agree and will go on to quote the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, New Civil Engineer and a body that I discovered only recently: the Association of SuDS Authorities. I did not even know that it existed, but there we go.

We have one more estate, in Kingsteignton, where I was recently called because people were complaining. There is a lovely circular area; there is a circle of houses at the end of a cul-de-sac. It is a nice place. It was built on an old clay mine, so there are problems because of the fact that it is on a fairly difficult site, but it is a lovely situation, except that this circular area, which has a children’s playground in the middle, is always completely and utterly sodden. It never dries out. The areas around it dry out, but this particular bit does not, and people have worked out that that is because the SuDS has not been built properly and the pipes have not been connected.

The local planning authority says it looks fine on the plans, and from what we have seen it is okay. The builders are doing an investigation for me, because I have been jumping up and down and shouting, but the MP should not have to get involved for areas to have proper draining. The area is critical in drainage. It is not far above sea level. We have massive floods in the roads outside; indeed, they are ongoing. The last thing we want is the water from this estate going in and making all that worse.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) says, this is not just a problem in my Newton Abbot constituency. It is not just a problem with one or two estates; it is endemic. We have seen articles in New Civil Engineer saying that we desperately need a statutory obligation to look after SuDS. The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management says exactly the same. We need a solution to the problem of how SuDS are maintained, inspected and handed over—indeed, adopted—when the building site is finished, as the roads or drains would be. That is what residents want. It is what developers want, because they put a lot of time and effort into building these things and then see them going to rack and ruin. It is what the local authorities, the water companies and the Environment Agency want.

The existence of legislation that would automatically do what we need was brought to my attention when, as a county councillor, I served on the South West Regional Flood and Coastal Committee—yes, I get all the good jobs. It is about how we do flood defences in the south-west. As I come from Dawlish, that is particularly close to my heart—as people can imagine, given what happened with the railway line.

There absolutely needs to be a statutory obligation to put SuDS in, a statutory means of certifying that those SuDS have been built to a level that will work and a statutory responsibility to maintain them. Happily, there is legislation: the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, from 16 years ago, and it has a schedule 3 to it. The only flaw with the schedule is that no instigation date was specified; it is down to the Minister to say when that is to happen. Prior to the general election, the previous Government were in the process of having a plan to make it happen. There were big announcements and big expectations. Again, it is all written up in New Civil Engineer—a fascinating monthly read—about how great things were anticipated in 2024 and how we might see the implementation of schedule 3 in ’24 or ’25. Of course, we know what happened: the general election came along.

Last July the Government issued a new set of standards for sustainable drainage, which are a big improvement. This talks about seven principles. It talks about how to make sure that we are reusing water and there is a lot of good work in it. However, one thing is missing. The regulation says, “You could ask your local water company to adopt these drainage solutions”. People can, but there is absolutely no reason why any water company would want to do so, because there is no way that it fits into their business model. Most of these things run off natural rainwater into streams and rivers, and they are just not interested. They are finding it hard enough to maintain their existing structures for foul sewage processing. South West Water recently had three pumping stations break down in the middle of heavy rain in Kent and in Starcross in my constituency, and people were flooded with sewage. I would much rather it looked after that situation than SuDS.

We already have experts in flooding in district and county councils, and soon in the unitary councils that will replace them. Those experts have been involved in putting these schemes together, pushing for them to happen. They are responsible for managing flooding, and have a real interest in doing so. Let us go back to the solution, rather than what the Government’s guidance suggested last year. Let schedule 3 be enacted and let us get SuDS certified and adopted by local authorities.

I can see that the Government will say, “We cannot do that because it will cost money.” Yes, there will be an extra burden on local authorities that will need to be compensated. However, I put it to the Government that they are backing things like Flood Re, and this is actually a preventive measure. It costs a lot less to have the SuDS and drains built properly than for the Government to be asked for money to restore properties once they have been flooded.

In my constituency, the village of Kenton—just by Powderham castle, which itself is not in my constituency—flooded because a drain got blocked. That flood ripped through the local primary school and through half a dozen houses, which are still empty and still being restored, and that primary school is being replaced. Flood prevention is much cheaper than recovery from floods.

I urge the Minister to think about this as a necessary preventive measure. Too often over the last 60 years we have seen maintenance as the first thing people cut from budgets. Preventive maintenance is so important to keeping things working. If our drains were unblocked and small potholes fixed, and if our flooding systems worked, we would not be in some of the situations we are in now. This is a great opportunity for the Government to show a desire to increase early intervention, to make things better for residents.

[Richard Foord]

I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. He talks about maintenance, but design is also crucial. Margaret Leppard, from Seaton, set up the Seaton Flood Working Group. She points out that developers sometimes use outdated datasets when designing drainage systems. She says that rainfall data from the 2026 dataset needs to be used rather than the 2013 dataset, which Baker Estates in Seaton has been using. Would he share that view?

[Martin Wrigley]

I would entirely. That is another reason why it is vital that local authorities, as the flood responsible authorities, are actually involved in certifying SuDS as they are built and take them on afterwards.

Let me quote from the Chartered Institution of Water Environmental Managers:

“Despite promises to enforce the mandatory adoption of sustainable drainage schemes (SuDS) by 2024 through Schedule 3, regulations remain stalled, raising concerns among environmental groups and industry stakeholders about the government’s commitment to sustainable water management.”

The time is now. The Minister has it within her power —even if it is not necessarily exactly her Department—to push forward, through statutory instrument or whatever is required, the enactment of schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. I urge the Minister to take that on board as a real, positive thing, at a minuscule cost to the Government, that will make a massive difference to people’s lives.