Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Good morning, folks, you are all very welcome to the Infrastructure Committee. We appreciate your coming along. We are joined by Robert Walsh from the Northern Ireland Marine Task Force; Dr Sharon Thompson from the RSPB; John Martin from the Woodland Trust; and Dr Brona McNeill from Northern Ireland Environment Link (NIEL), who is joining us online. You are welcome to brief us on your research, findings and thoughts on the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill. We will hand over to you for five or 10 minutes of contributions, however you wish to split that up between yourselves, after which we will go to questions from members.

Dr Brona McNeill (Northern Ireland Environment Link): Thanks, Chair and members of the Committee, for the opportunity to give evidence today. I am area lead for fresh water at NI Environment Link, which is a networking and forum body for environmental organisations across NI. In that sense, I am speaking on behalf of our members, who work to protect nature, improve climate resilience and tackle the environmental challenges that are raised by flooding and water pollution. I am going to make a couple of introductory comments for five or 10 minutes, and I am sure that my colleagues will be able to come in and answer any questions that you have.

Overall, it is important to say that we welcome the Bill's intent. NI urgently needs a modern, integrated approach to water management. Climate change, biodiversity loss and decades of underinvestment mean that the status quo is no longer viable, not just environmentally but socially and economically. Our core message this morning is that, if done properly, this Bill is a vital opportunity to improve homes, lives and nature, but only if it is sufficiently ambitious and properly resourced. As such, we feel that the Bill needs to be strengthened in order to ensure its long-term impact and to maximise the potential environmental benefits that it can bring.

If it is OK with members, I will go through a couple of areas in which we think the Bill could be strengthened. I am happy to take any questions afterwards. First, a couple of points about the use of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) generally. As we know, flooding is no longer an exceptional event. Across NI, we are seeing repeated surface-water flooding and overwhelmed drainage systems. We strongly support the Bill's recognition that conventional drainage solutions alone cannot cope with the more intense rainfall that we are likely to see over the coming years. SuDS have to be central to our response here. For SuDS to work effectively, however, they must be mandatory, not optional; designed for long-term performance; and maintained properly. We are concerned that, without clear statutory duties related to their use, SuDS risk being watered down in practice or value-engineered out of developments. We suggest that clause 2 could explicitly require that SuDS be the default for new development and retrofit.

The design stage of SuDS is critical, as is appropriate construction, operation and ongoing maintenance. For those reasons, we feel that regional guidance on the design and maintenance standards of SuDS is absolutely essential. Without clear and consistent guidance, there is a real risk that SuDS will be implemented unevenly, treated as an afterthought or reduced to tokenistic features that fail to deliver the full potential of SuDS. For that reason, we feel that clause 2 could be strengthened to say that regulations "must" rather than "may" make provision about the design, construction and operation of SuDS and issue clear and consistent guidance on design and maintenance standards.

I will say a couple of things about nature-based solutions. For us, the greatest opportunity represented by the Bill is the potential to embed nature-based solutions in law. I am sure that members are familiar with the concept of nature-based solutions, but we know that these approaches reduce flood risk, support biodiversity recovery, and improve well-being and place-making by enhancing public spaces. They are often more resilient to climate extremes and cheaper over their lifetimes than hard infrastructure. On this, we feel the Bill could be more explicit in prioritising the use of nature-based solutions as a category of sustainable drainage system and, rather than providing the option to use them, require decision-makers to provide justification in cases where they are not used. Nature-based solutions are already, as we know, embedded in the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, and SuDS provide a practical mechanism for delivering on some of those climate commitments. My colleague Robert will be able to say more about nature-based solutions and the source-to-sea approach in that context — the value of taking that wider view and thinking about a catchment-scale approach.

We have some comments to make about different water quality and the wider environmental context to all of this. I am sure that I do not have to rehearse the fact that Northern Ireland's water quality statistics paint a pretty sobering picture. The majority of our rivers and lakes are failing to meet good ecological status. Excess nutrients and sewage spills, as well as polluted run-off, are impacting not only our environment but our communities and our economy. Nature-based SuDS are not just about flood prevention. They are a really powerful tool for improving water quality by filtering pollutants, and they can contribute to both nature recovery and climate targets. We urge the Committee to ensure that the Bill explicitly links the use of SuDS for flood management with achieving water framework directive objectives, with nature recovery targets — we know that the nature recovery strategy is coming down the track — and with meeting climate legislation commitments. We also encourage stronger protections for high-value receiving waters, such as those in protected areas or those where there are sensitive fisheries, because even small changes in sediment, nutrients or flow can cause disproportionate harm to those areas. Therefore, an enhanced requirement for nature-based SuDS in those catchments or areas would ensure that the Bill delivers real, measurable environmental gains where they matter most. We also suggest that clause 8 could explicitly articulate some of those more specific risks.

We have just a few comments on governance and funding, which is covered in the Bill. We suggest that the Bill should provide greater statutory clarity in relation to the approval, funding, adoption and maintenance of SuDS. In particular, it should clearly define responsibilities and require the Department to ensure that long-term, adequate funding arrangements are in place. On some of the governance and funding questions, we recommend a hybrid governance and approval model, with statutory approval of SuDS design and construction resting with local authorities and technical sign-off provided by NI Water where SuDS connect to or form part of the public drainage or waste water system. As I said, we know that nature-based SuDS are not just engineering assets; they also deliver place-making, biodiversity and community benefits. Local authorities are, therefore, best placed to integrate SuDS early into the development and design of wider blue-green infrastructure networks, while NI Water's engineering expertise is, of course, essential to ensure system performance.

We support a blended funding model, combining public funding with developer fees. We suggest that core policy, oversight and enforcement functions should be publicly funded, while transactional costs, such as those for application processing and inspection, should be covered through developer fees. That would protect public finances and incentivise good-quality design from the beginning.

On adoption and maintenance, we again suggest a hybrid approach. We suggest that NI Water adopts sewer-like or below-ground components, while local authorities should, where capacity allows, adopt accessible, above-ground features. We suggest that private management arrangements should only be used with robust legal safeguards in place. The key message here is that clear maintenance duties and funding arrangements are essential in order to avoid having poorly maintained or orphaned assets, which would undermine the whole objective of the Bill and its potential for environmental improvement.

Finally, I will make a wider point about the importance of using a place-based approach. I mentioned a place-based approach in relation to local authorities playing a vital role in SuDS approval and design and the importance of embedding that in the Bill. As I have alluded to, the Bill is not just about managing water; it is about how we plan places. It has the potential to deliver multiple environmental benefits, as we have said, and benefits for communities in respect of potential amenity value and the creation of greener and healthier environments and neighbourhoods. The Committee will be aware of the four pillars of sustainable drainage systems: water quality, quantity, amenity and biodiversity. We suggest that the Bill should more clearly ensure that all four of those pillars are delivered. Some of my colleagues will say a bit more about that.

In conclusion, we support the direction of travel of the Bill, but we urge the Committee to strengthen it by ensuring that SuDS are mandatory, with clear guidance as to their design and maintenance; nature-based solutions are prioritised; the Bill is adequately integrated with other environmental policy areas; the four pillars of sustainable drainage systems are delivered; statutory responsibilities are clear; and funding is realistic and long term. Thanks very much for giving us the opportunity to submit evidence. We are happy to take any questions that you have.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Thank you, Dr McNeill. Does anyone else from the panel want to make any contribution at this stage, or are you happy to move on to questions?

Mr John Martin (Woodland Trust): We are happy to take questions at this stage.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): No problem. That was really useful. I appreciate you covering some aspects of the Bill, clause by clause, that you think could be strengthened. That is always very beneficial for the Committee. I will try to cover some of the areas that were not discussed, and then we will open up to other members.

Clause 1 is on water bans. Do you have any concerns or feelings about the use of temporary water bans, particularly their potential impacts on wildlife or habitats? Do you think that it goes far enough, do you think it goes too far, or are you content with the general gist and purpose of that clause?

Dr McNeill: I do not have any specific comments to make about clause 1, so I will pass over to other panel members.

Mr J Martin: The sector does not have a particular position on that, but in line with climate predictions and climate adaptation and resilience, there should be read-across to the climate action plan when those clauses are due to come in. As with any legislation, an important part of this Bill is policy coherence and legislative coherence across a range of areas. Although the Department for Infrastructure will be the competent authority managing the Bill, there is read-across with a range of other areas that DAERA traditionally manages. It is important to have that in mind when thinking about bringing in any bans and the potential impact on wildlife and other areas of life that would be affected. Although the sector does not have a specific position on that, each event will be determined by the decision-making at the time. It is very important that there is read-across to those other pieces of legislation.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Thanks for that. You will be aware that SuDS currently do not contribute to the 10% of open space in new developments. Should that continue to be the case, or do you think that there is a creative way in which we could go about including them? Obviously, it has been prohibitive to developers up until this point, particularly when they have had to create a certain amount of open space while also factoring in SuDS. I am really interested to hear your thoughts on that.

Mr J Martin: If there were not a need for this clause in the Bill, it would not have been included. We see clearly the need for more open space and green space and the multiple benefits that that provides, both for biodiversity enhancement and in how it delivers sustainably for those places. There are also health and well-being benefits for the local communities that could benefit from those spaces. The Water and Sewerage Services Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 made provision for SuDS originally, and, in the past 10 years, we have seen very little development of that. Therefore, this legislation is being introduced to ensure that SuDS is enhanced and prioritised. We support more open-space SuDS going into those spaces, but not in the way that is currently provided for in legislation. As Brona said, the four pillars around what SuDS can deliver are really important. Sharon might want to say a bit more about that.

Dr Sharon Thompson (Royal Society of Protection of Birds): Yes, thank you. I was going to pick up on that point. It is about thinking about the wider value that the SuDS programme can bring to the development and the people who are living there and the wider benefits to nature and the environment. At the moment, we are seeing, predominantly, a situation in which the aims is to get the water off-site as quickly as possible, usually into a big hole at one corner of the development that then dries up for the rest of the year. If it is properly designed and produced, you can get lots of amenity value from it. You can have lots of nice green spaces and lots of nature, wildlife and water, which bring cooling benefits to the development in the urban area.

We have talked about the four pillars. Those are water quantity, which includes flow as well as volume; water quality; biodiversity; and amenity. We have quite a large concern that the definition of sustainable drainage system in clause 4(1) is not sustainable. It covers only water volume and water flow, so where are the other three pillars of sustainable urban drainage in this context? Without all those pillars, you will not get their benefits, and that is why people question SuDS. You are not actually delivering a SuDS programme; you are just delivering a pipe that gets the water out really quickly. To deliver the benefits that the Bill is trying to achieve, that is the starting point, because it is the definition and everything else will fall from that. All of the other points that Brona made will feed back into that definition. If we do not build in the other three pillars, why should the rest of the legislation speak to them?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): That is really useful.

Brona raised a point about the maintenance and upkeep, both underground and overground, and, to me, that is a key issue. It is all well and good having the rules and the legislation in place, but we know from developments where there is shared green space that it is often not maintained and that the residents who are on the fringes of developments or whatever they might be get very frustrated because it falls into a black hole of responsibility. How key is it that that is nailed down at the earliest possible stages, and where else does it particularly well? When we as elected representatives try to get hedges cut or get repairs to green spaces or parks that were part of open spaces, or anything that is for the shared use of that development, it is invariably very difficult, particularly after the developer moves on in a couple of years. I am really keen to dive into how you think that that could be done most effectively and efficiently.

Dr McNeill: As you said, that is absolutely critical to the overall success of the Bill. Our key point about governance and funding is that unclear responsibility would undermine the delivery of everything that follows. Therefore, we strongly agree that having those statutory responsibilities explicitly clear from the earliest possible opportunity is absolutely key to success. Just before Christmas, we submitted our response to the consultation on SuDS and new housing developments. We included some examples of where that has been done well. There are examples in Wales of where that type of hybrid approach has been adopted. As we mentioned, it is a place-based and site-specific approach to divvying up those responsibilities around ongoing maintenance and funding. That pragmatic approach to what would work best on the site is the best approach to take. Do any other panel members have case studies or examples of where it has been done well?

Mr J Martin: SuDS is not a new system of managing water; it has been around for 30 years, or maybe more. Part of this is about getting on and doing it, but, of course, the legislation needs to be right to set the baseline for how it should be managed. This is not new: there are countless examples of successful projects around the world. We are behind in this sort of development. It is really positive to see this legislation, but it is important that we get on and do it. Clause 2(6)(a) makes the case for adoption by public authorities. That is good, but, as you flagged, John, the maintenance bit is missing. Adoption and maintenance are important, because if the sites are left and not maintained, they become a problem.

I am speaking on behalf of the Woodland Trust, so I will, of course, talk about the role of trees. From a maintenance point of view, it is important that the right trees are put in the right place and that specific species are chosen for the outcome that we are trying to achieve. Sometimes, the role of SuDS in flood management can be overplayed. Flooding in an urban setting usually happens after an extreme rainfall event, and SUDS have a certain role to play in that, but actually, thinking about it holistically, SUDS need to be thought about at the catchment scale. Although trees and woodland will not prevent an extreme flooding event in an urban setting, trees and woodland at the catchment scale, upstream of the event, have a significant impact on reducing flooding and flood risk. When we are thinking about SuDS, yes, of course, think about adoption, maintenance and all that comes with it, but we also need to think about the catchment scale, especially in places where we are getting regular flood events and flooding is becoming more prevalent in the wider countryside.

Dr Thompson: I will add to that. One of the things that is interesting in this is that, in clauses 2(3)(a) and 2(4)(a), there is talk about the removal of SuDS. It is not me but my colleagues who are more expert in the area who have questioned why you would need to remove SuDS. It implies that they were poorly designed. Systems that allow easy access to the water are easier to maintain and look after than systems in which everything has been undergrounded and put through pipes. That is probably one area to consider as part of this: how much can the legislation push towards more open access to the water that helps that? Interestingly, Brona referred to the Llanelli example in south Wales, which tends to be quoted in every example when talking about SuDS. The Belfast City Council supplementary planning guidance is produced by people whom the RSPB and the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT) have worked with in terms of what best practice for SuDS looks like, so there is an at-home example that we can look at to say, "This is what a good SuDS scheme in an urban area looks like". I reiterate John's point that it is not just about dealing with the water when it has reached the conurbation. It is about how we are managing the habitats that absorb and reduce the flow of water and increase its quality etc — things like peatland restoration, wetland creation and stuff like that. That means that there is less water coming in the first place.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): That is really useful. One of my main concerns goes back to the maintenance. We often see that, when new developments are built, the open spaces are put in, and there is a period of goodwill with maybe local government or maintenance companies, but quite quickly that disappears, and a few years down the line we are asking who is responsible for their upkeep. That is a big fear, so I agree that that needs to be factored in.

My last point is about clause 11, which gives powers to remedy unlawful sewer connections. How important will that provision be in protecting water quality and habitats, and is there any way that the wording could be strengthened?

Dr Thompson: I was not sure that I understood the clause correctly. Maybe some clarity is required, because the starting point is that there should be no connection of the water to the foul sewers in the process. As for surface water sewers, I was not 100% sure. The starting point is that water from SuDS should not be discharged back into the watercourse unless it has been cleaned fully by the SuDS management train. That comes back to making sure that the SuDS is properly designed and is not just a pipe taking otherwise dirty water and putting it somewhere at the end or straight back into the surface water system. Another of the benefits of SuDS is that it cleans the water as part of that process. That is not a definitive yes or no answer, but it is an area that needs more investigation to find out what is being proposed.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): That is useful to know.

Mr Robert Walsh (Northern Ireland Marine Task Force): The Committee might be aware that DAERA is introducing potential increased financial penalties under a fisheries and water environment Bill. We would not want to see this Bill having lower financial penalties than those that the DAERA Bill is proposing. That has the potential to undermine and almost permit for lower financial penalties for water pollution incidents through either miscommunication or other incidents.

Mr J Martin: In general, habitats are struggling as a result of a range of pressures, and water quality is one. If something could be strengthened in the Bill to add to the jigsaw puzzle of things that we are hoping to get in place from a legislative point of view to help to improve the outcomes of habitats and reduce those pressures, we would be supportive of that.

Dr McNeill: Just to underline what John said, we know that waste water infrastructure across the board is under enormous pressure. I am sure that we are all familiar with the issues. This is just one piece of the puzzle, and we welcome any opportunity to alleviate some of the ongoing pressures in that system.

Mr Stewart: The Committee would like to think that both Departments were talking to each other and not operating in a silo mentality. I am sure that that is not the case, but we will make sure that the issues are teased out to avoid overlap. On Sharon's point, I agree that it is important to tease out clause 11 to understand its exact purpose.

Mr Boylan: Thank you for your presentation. That in an important point about clause 11 because, if there is a wee bit of misunderstanding on it, as the Chair said, the Committee itself needs more clarity. I was going to raise that issue, but it has already been raised.

I return to clauses 2 to 5. We want to deliver something that is of the highest environmental standards. Is that what it says in clauses 2 to 5? Brona, you mentioned changing "may" to "must". We have done that before in legislation. The jury may still be out on how that rolled out. What are you views on those two things?

First, do clauses 2 to 5 provide enough on SuDS and high environmental standards for us to consistently roll that out? Secondly, what is your view on changing the wording of the legislation from "may" to "must"? I know that you touched on that a wee bit, but how important do you feel that that is?

Dr Thompson: I will go back to the point about the definition, because the points that Brona will bring up will hang from that. The definition talks only about water quantity, as in the amount and flow, and misses the other three pillars of SuDS. That effectively means that every other aspect of the rest of the legislation, whether good or bad, will struggle to deliver the benefits for biodiversity, amenity and water quality, because those pillars are not covered in the definition. Brona will have more to say, I am sure.

Dr McNeill: I will go back to Sharon's point about the definition. The definition, as it is given, is relatively one-dimensional. As I tried to emphasise in the presentation, the Bill has the potential to be much more multifaceted. So many other benefits can be gleaned from the implementation of nature-based SuDS. As I mentioned, it is about making them mandatory and trying to strengthen the Bill so that they are the default rather than the exception. It is also about trying to embed and prioritise the use of nature-based solutions. There is definitely scope to strengthen the Bill and make it more robust from that perspective.

I will go back to our overall point, which is that we view the Bill as a vital opportunity. This is the moment to make some really decisive moves on water management and have more integrated water management that will improve climate resilience and help us to meet our biodiversity and water quality targets. My overall sense and, I think, the sector's view is that there is room to strengthen clauses 2 to 5, as you mentioned. I am happy to go through any of the clauses again, but the overall sense is that there is scope to strengthen the Bill and add clarity.

Mr J Martin: I will add to that. The word "must" has to be seen in the context of the rest of the legislation. Clause 8 is about environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and making sure that any kind of SuDS or developments go through those. That is a really important element, because it will depend on how people interpret "must". Someone might go into a development in an area of green space that is adjacent to a protected area or an ancient woodland, see the word "must" in the legislation and, therefore, go ahead and put SuDS in. They might say, "Well, the legislation says that we have to put SuDS in", but that could be at the expense of the protected area or the ancient woodland. When I talk about ancient woodland, I mean trees that have been in the landscape since the 1600s, and protected areas cover a range of different things. Making those points mandatory for those who are looking at such developments needs to be seen in light of the rest of the legislation so that it is coherent. "Must" can go in, but you need to do your EIA. If that shows that SuDS will have an environmental impact on woodlands or other protect areas, it is about finding a way to do it that is holistic and environmentally sustainable. It should not be a case of having SuDS at all costs; that is not what we are saying. Yes, of course, prioritise SuDS, but make sure that they are in line with environmental impact assessments.

Mr Boylan: I appreciate that. This is my final point. I asked the question in that context to ensure that we get it right. I know that SuDS have been around for a long time. John, you have been coming to present at Committees for a few years. We have used terminology like that before, but it is about being consistent and getting it right. It is a small Bill with 16 clauses, but, at the same time, it is important legislation.

I agree with the point about DAERA, because we need to work across Departments to ensure that everything marries up. It should not just be a case of saying, "OK, we have done this before. It has been out there" and everything else. It is legislation that is going through the Assembly. We are now at Committee Stage, interrogating it and collecting evidence. Some of the stuff mentioned today —. I am not arguing about whether it should be a "must" or a "may, but we need to get it right. We need to ensure that we see the outworkings and delivery of it all. That is the most important thing. Thank you very much for your answers and your presentation.

Mr Harvey: You mentioned Wales and the fact that SuDS are not a new thing in the world. You touched on this a bit; what lessons can we learn on long-term maintenance, adoption and even design standards from other parts of the UK or Ireland?

Dr Thompson: I am not the expert, but my colleagues have said that the new SuDS guidance that has recently been published in England would be really helpful. They feel that, for the first time, it has taken that step change from a version of SuDS that involves a pipe going to a hole in the ground to something that delivers those wider benefits and is much more attractive in people's development.

The other point, which could be why there is some pushback, is that, although the concept of SuDS has been around for a long time and there are showcase places where it has been done, on the whole, not very many people have that knowledge and expertise in the engineering, planning and consenting sectors, whether they are professionals or in local government etc. How do we upskill people so that they are not afraid of it as a concept? Again, that is why Belfast City Council's supplementary planning guidance is very interesting; it does some of that myth-busting. As I say, being close to home, you have a home-grown benefit. My colleagues have worked with the people who produced that guidance. Without necessarily giving them a plug per se, they have sort of said, "Maybe the Committee should talk to those people, because they are the ones who could help to do it on the ground".

Mr J Martin: The Institution of Civil Engineers — I am sure that its representatives will be at Committee at some stage, if they have not been here already — has a good guidance document on SuDS and the different management trains that you have to bring in. It has lots of good examples of where successful SuDS projects have been delivered. Forest Research has a range of case studies online. One study, in particular, at Malmö in Sweden, found that bringing in SuDS had an impact not only on water quantity and quality in the area but on the local area's amenity, job provision and general value. A lot of those SuDS systems are set up to try to provide support during one-in-15-year flood events, but that SuDS scheme was shown to stand up to pretty good scrutiny during one-in-50-year flood events. The scheme was introduced in the mid-to-late nineties. It is still operating and is surviving one-in-50-year-type flood events, retaining 70% of the water as part of a holistic system.

There is a range of good examples everywhere. I suppose that, as with all those things, the frustration is about getting good examples from Northern Ireland to ensure that those things are in place to show that proof of concept. As we have said, legislation, of course, needs to be right, but SuDS are not new. We need to get on and do it, as opposed to looking at examples from elsewhere.

Mr Walsh: I will just come in on John's point. I have one bad example and two good examples. The poor planning example is Downpatrick. It is built on historical salt marsh and floods very frequently. A good example is Castle Espie, which is managed by the WWT. It has a reed beds system to deal with the grey water that comes off there and goes straight into Strangford lough. It has to ensure that the quality of the water that goes into that protected area is of a very good standard. There are also examples from the marinas at Belfast, Bangor, Glenarm and, most recently, Carrickfergus, where Ulster Wildlife has its native oyster nurseries. The Bangor example has been established the longest — since 2022 — and has seen a marked improvement in the water quality in the marina at the end of the pipeline.

Dr McNeill: On the lessons learned from other jurisdictions, we have seen the importance of integrating SuDS plans early in the design process. It is about emphasising the importance of integrating SuDS in plans and developments from the beginning. In evidence from other jurisdictions, we have seen that SuDS are often cost-neutral in comparison with conventional drainage. They reduce the need for expensive downstream flood defences, as John said, and they also significantly lower potential future public spending on flood damage and emergency responses. I echo what John said about urgency, and it is important to think about the continued cost of inaction. This is an important opportunity to get it right, and we must make sure that those decisions are made at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr Harvey: Thank you, Sharon, John, Robert and Brona, for the excellent answers, especially the examples from John. There is no better place to do good stuff than here because we have such wetlands. If we do well here, it could be used as an example of how to do things.

Mr Boylan: That was a good plug, Harry.

Mr McHugh: Tá fáilte romhaibh uilig anseo inniu.

My question leads on from Harry's question. Are there any good examples in the North of Ireland of a SuDS programme that meets the four pillars? Just as there might be good examples, I am sure that we probably also have poor examples, as one of the witnesses mentioned. Will the Bill make it possible for authority to be given to local bodies, such as NI Water, or whoever, to revisit those poor examples to ensure that they address the four pillars?

Mr J Martin: I do not have any specific NI examples, but my colleagues around the table may know of some, and I am sure that there are examples out there. If we look retrospectively at examples in which things have not worked well, we see the importance of the legislation. As we have said, if we do not get the projects right from the start and integrate the four-pillared approach, it leads to a bad design, which negatively impacts on the proof of concept. We have seen examples in proofs of concept of where that has worked elsewhere. It will be up to the local authorities, and the legislation, to decide whether they can go back to fix some of the older programmes. Ultimately, it will be a political and a funding decision. Where there are bad examples that impact local communities negatively and do not bring environmental or biodiversity benefits, there probably is a rationale for looking at those older schemes. It very much depends on the legislation and the available funding.

Mr McHugh: How many poor examples exist? I got the impression from your presentation that there are more examples than would be desired of SuDS programmes that purely address the quantity of water as opposed to the other pillars of the approach.

Dr Thompson: On reading the legislation as its stands, we were not 100% sure about that. Will it apply only to new builds, or is it about retrofitting SuDS in existing developments? I do not know whether those developments have no SuDS provision or poorly planned provision. It is worth clarifying that in the legislation as well. My colleagues flagged to me that the issue of developments having no SuDS at all or poorly designed previous versions has been raised in England. Quite a significant number of retrofit projects are happening in many of the major cities in England, and they are costing millions of pounds. Those are priority projects that are happening. I do not have the case studies memorised, but I have access to some that colleagues have produced. I can share those with the Committee afterwards, if it would be valuable to you.

Mr McHugh: I would appreciate that. Go raibh mile maith agat.

Mr Walsh: May I add to that? It might be beneficial to look at the nature recovery networks and associated partnerships in order to see where amendments can be made retrospectively in areas where we see large-scale flooding and water quality issues.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Are you happy enough at this stage, Maolíosa?

Mr McHugh: Yes, thank you, Chair.

Mr McMurray: Thank you for your presentation, which was very comprehensive. I want to circle back to some of the things that have already been said. Mr Walsh, you talked about where things have been done badly, if that makes sense. Clause 7 deals with assessment and management of flood risk. Does that tie in with what needs to be elaborated on? Does the legislation need to be beefed up on that? I am not asking specifically about clause 7, but about anything in the Bill.

Mr Walsh: Ecosystem services and benefits can be gained by widening the definition and meeting the rest of the pillars so that we address flood risk and determine where nature-based solutions can form a core part of the assessment and management of flood risk in those areas. The appropriate planning of where developments take place should be a core part of that before anything starts moving forward.

Mr J Martin: There is some read-across to other bits and pieces of legislation. The Bill deals with flood assessment, but the Water Environment (Floods Directive) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009 makes provision for flood assessment. That legislation should already cover flood assessment. It is important that an obvious flood assessment is carried out before any new SuDS scheme is developed. You do not want to deliver a negative impact where you are trying to implement something positive. That goes back to that management train and the design phase. Again, the read-across to those other bits and pieces of legislation is important, so that there is coherence across the piece and we make sure that those things are going in and are doing what they are supposed to do.

Dr Thompson: To go back to John's point, we should not look at SuDS in isolation. SuDS are part of the wider catchment and how we are managing the habitats and areas beyond that. I realise that that is potentially beyond the scope of the legislation as drafted, but is there anything that we can add to the Bill so that it considers that aspect, those habitats outside conurbations that can help with flood management and those processes? We mentioned peatlands, wetlands and trees. However, the thing is that, because the Bill is quite small and targeted, we are looking only at a small piece of what the bigger picture needs us to look at to manage flooding properly.

Mr McMurray: John, you talked about the balance and mentioned encroaching on trees that have been that have been in the landscape since the 1600s. The environmental impact assessment is addressed in clause 8. Does anything in there need to be elaborated on or tightened up? I am conscious that we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater in that regard.

Mr J Martin: The EIA is a fairly well-proven process for developments. Your EIA is as good as the ecologist or consultancy firm that you get to do it. It is fairly well proven in being able to identify the different environmental challenges that might arise as the development goes forward.

Sometimes, with developments that have an environmental benefit, it can be thought that, because they are for an environmental purpose, they do not need an EIA. However, the EIA is clearly laid out here as something that is important and required. It helps to address some of the bits that we have all spoken to around having a holistic approach. We have talked about improving areas for biodiversity and improving water quality, but, looking across the piece, are there any specific species or habitats that we have not thought about? The EIA is the process that helps you to bring in that holistic approach that will not just impact on the development but have a long-term impact on its progress and maintenance. It also helps you look across to other bits and pieces of relevant legislation and policy. For a lot of the processes, you want to have multiple benefits. The EIA process essentially helps you to work those out.

Dr Thompson: If I may, I will add two things. First, my reading of clause 8, as drafted, is that it only really applies to the engineering-type aspects. Without changes to that definition, it may not cover the natural benefits that we are talking about or the natural aspects of a SuDS development. It comes back to the point that a lot of the stuff hinges on how the definition is improved. If it is not improved, we will not get those bigger benefits, and the EIA may not be required for a full-blown SuDS development in that sense. Either we solve that by improving the definition, or we need to look at that EIA clause again.

Secondly, I am not clear about whether it applies only to the SuDS bit of any development. There will be an EIA for the development, so are we duplicating, overlapping or, potentially, contradicting here? How do the various aspects of the EIA fit together? I suspect that, in the real world, a developer would produce one EIA with different chapters that relate to different aspects of the development. Again, however, because the legislation is targeted, you are only looking at a small bit of the wider picture.

Mr McNulty: Thanks, folks. Sharon, you mentioned the cooling effect of SuDS. In your presentation, you made SuDS sound cool, so thank you very much.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): SuDS were always cool, Justin.

Mr Boylan: This Committee is always cool.

Mr McNulty: Your presentation was very enjoyable. You are very much over the detail. Thank you very much for your evidence. From your perspective, what are the standards around quantity and volume? What quantity of run-off from a greenfield site is permissible?

Dr Thompson: I am not the expert, but my colleagues have told me that nothing in the legislation per se states that run-off from a new development must not exceed the existing greenfield run-off and that it needs to be designed to follow the existing flow routes across the site. I am reading out verbatim what I have been told rather than having specific knowledge myself. I am afraid that I do not have much more information than that.

Mr McNulty: You do not have a view as to what it should be? Perhaps 10 litres per second per hectare?

Dr Thompson: It should not exceed the existing greenfield run-off limits.

Mr McNulty: You are happy with that? OK.

Dr Thompson: The Bill does not say that there should be a cap on it, so that is potentially a gap in the legislation.

Mr McNulty: Is that universal, from your perspective? Should that be the case whether it is a one-off development, a development with 500 units or an industrial development site? What is your view?

Dr Thompson: If none of my colleagues have anything to else say on that, I can take that question away, put it to colleagues and feed back to the Committee, if that would be helpful.

Mr McNulty: Obviously, biodiversity is a huge part of what you propose. Biodiversity is a broad-brush term. Are you being specific as to what biodiversity wishes you want to see fulfilled on sites when it comes to animals and planting?

Dr Thompson: Yes. A lot of it will be case specific. John mentioned that you should make sure that your trees are appropriate to what you are trying to achieve on the site. Obviously, we are not necessarily expecting anybody to recreate a peat bog in the middle of an urban area, but it is about the multiple benefits that you can get from it. One would hope that what you are doing would also attract species. You can sometimes get what are considered to be relatively rare species in fairly populated and urban areas, particularly if you think of some species of insects and birds. It would be taken on a case-by-case basis.

I see Brona on screen; I do not know whether she wants to add something.

Mr J Martin: Very quickly, we should go back to the importance of EIAs in that consideration. Your EIA will flag where species-specific action is needed. It would probably be rare enough that a SuDS programme would be put in to try to remedy something super-specific for a protected species, because it is likely that that habitat would be protected specifically for that species and therefore would have a management plan associated with the species to help with its conservation. The EIA process would help you earmark something where species-specific action is required or where specific species nearby could potentially benefit from a certain SuDS scheme. As Sharon said, that would probably be taken on a case-by-case basis, and embedding the importance of the EIA in this process will help determine what sort of action is required.

Mr McNulty: Obviously, you cannot have an EIA for a one-off housing development, so it is also scale-related. John, you are obviously over the issues to do with trees. Do you have a position on mandated indigenous trees?

Mr J Martin: Absolutely, yes. Everything grown in Northern Ireland that we use is Irish-sourced and grown (ISG), so all the trees that we get are of that provenance. It is our expectation that everything is either UK-sourced and grown or ISG.

Mr McNulty: I want to talk about maintenance. There is this view in housing development that every area needs to be lawn. Surely there can be some design that uses wildflower beds, which are self-maintaining. Do you have a view on that?

Mr J Martin: Again, if it is taken on a case-by-case basis, absolutely. Each SuDS scheme should be designed to deliver those holistic benefits. It costs the local authorities that are potentially adopting those schemes money to maintain the sites. In the design phase, they will look to see where they can improve on maintenance, which might mean natural solutions that naturally maintain themselves. For all those schemes, there comes a level of risk and of maintenance, and their complexity requires a certain amount of maintenance. None of those schemes are maintenance free, so it is important that we flag that point. I am sure that, in the design phase, they will be able to pinpoint designs that require less maintenance than others.

Mr McNulty: I have a quick last question: what is your view on attenuation ponds?

Mr J Martin: It depends on the outcome you are trying to produce. If those ponds are for offline flood storage or for water quality, it depends, on a case-by-case basis, where they will be implemented, but they are an important part of the toolbox for SuDS, so the developer and whoever is implementing the SuDS will have a range of different options available to them. Sometimes, that might be one of them.

Dr McNeill: If may come in on that one, as could be said in answer to quite a lot of the questions that you have is that, going back to what John and Sharon have said, their use is very much on a case-by-case and site-specific basis, so it is important to have a toolbox of different mechanisms and SuDS available that can be deployed as appropriate. That links back to one of the points that we make: it is critical that guidance on the design and maintenance standards of SuDS is essential. It must be a requirement that that guidance is produced by the Department because that will help to inform how those decisions are made. We have talked about there being so many different considerations around biodiversity, climate targets and what the specific tool is that should be deployed in a particular place, taking into account that wider, holistic, catchment-level appreciation of environmental risks and benefits. It really does underline the important role that clear guidance would play in this context.

Mr McNulty: I thank you again. This is a very important evidence session. It has certainly informed my view of the Bill, so thank you all very much.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): I think that we all echo that. Thanks, Justin. Back to Cathal.

Mr Boylan: Thanks, Chair. Andrew raised an important point about the flood risk. He tried to tie it in with one of the clauses. John, you answered it. We had PPS 15 on planning and flood risk. That is all now tied up in the strategic planning policy statement (SPPS). I will ask one question. Sharon, you talked about Belfast City Council and the SPPS. I take it that that is what you were saying. There are all those policies out there, and we should be adhering to them. I mention this in the context of the fact that, whilst we are introducing this legislation ourselves, area plans will play a big part in all of this. People should know that the Bill is an add-on to what we are trying to do. I use this example: there is no point in having an area plan to build 1,000 or 1,500 units over the next 12 months, or whatever, without looking across the board at how the introduction of this legislation will impact on that. Plus, the old policy, the flood plains and everything else are there already. Clearly, some of those conversations have taken place. Maybe not. Your big organisations have been part of the system for a number of years. You mentioned Belfast City Council, which seem to be ahead with some of its ideas. Have you had any conversations with that sector? I ask because it is a key element too. Whilst today is about this policy and this legislation, other conversations should be ongoing on how to develop in the future, as well as on the retrospective stuff and all that has been mentioned.

Mr J Martin: I cannot comment for the whole sector. Those conversations are probably not happening as much as they need to be, but I suppose that the framework and the architecture around the climate action plans and adaptation plans provide a route map for having those conversations. They tend to look at that stepping-stone approach, where we have up to 2027 for the current climate action plan and up to 2032 for the next one, all the way up to 2050. We do have architecture that helps society to have those conversations in a way that means you deliver policy coherence that delivers for both climate adaptation and flood risk management.

Those conversations need to be had. Although I cannot comment on what happens at council level, I know that it is occupying the minds of local authorities. We have had our wettest January in 149 years. We are seeing more flood events, and a lot of the climate predictions are that what we are experiencing now is here to stay to a certain extent, so we need to have those conversations, not just in political circles but beyond.

Mr Boylan: Thank you for the answer. I appreciate that. It was a bit out of left field, but something is coming at us.

Dr Thompson: It is at the planning stage that the bigger picture can be taken into consideration. The nature-based solutions elsewhere in the catchment and the SuDS should be brought in at that early stage. As Brona mentioned, they should be brought in at the beginning not the end. That is not restricted to the project; it should be built in at the planning stage. As my colleagues have said, it is about reading across the range of policy objectives that we are trying to achieve and how the Bill will contribute to rather than contradict them.

Mr Boylan: Thank you. I know that that was a wee bit out of left field, Chair.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): As members have nothing else to ask, on behalf of the Committee, I thank you for your time today. You have been very generous. Brona, Sharon, John and Robert, we appreciate your written evidence and answers to questions today. I and other members find your evidence really beneficial. No doubt we will remain engaged as the scrutiny of the Bill goes on and we look to make amendments, and no doubt you will be happy to come back to us on that. Again, thank you for your time today; hopefully, we will see you again soon.