Badbury Park SuDS

Residents’ Briefing Report – Current Position, Risks, and Estate Fee Implications

1. What are SuDS and why do they matter?

Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) are designed to manage surface water safely by:

• slowing down rainfall runoff,
• preventing flooding,
• filtering pollutants,
• providing green space and biodiversity.

Unlike traditional underground pipes, SuDS rely on visible features such as swales, basins, ponds, and landscaped areas. Because they slow water and trap silt, they must be inspected and maintained for their entire lifetime.

This is not optional. National planning policy has required SuDS on major developments since April 2015.

2. What should have happened under planning law?

Under national policy and Planning Practice Guidance:

1. Before occupation, the Local Planning Authority must ensure:
   • SuDS are built as approved
   • minimum operational standards are met
   • clear, legally enforceable arrangements exist for lifetime maintenance
2. This is usually secured by:
   • planning conditions and/or
   • a Section 106 agreement
   • sometimes supported by inspection certificates, as-built drawings, and maintenance plans
3. Importantly:
   • Flood-related planning conditions cannot be “deemed discharged”
   • Responsibility must be identified before homes are occupied
   • The system should be designed so maintenance costs are economically proportionate

3. What is the situation at Badbury Park?

Based on the information available to residents:

• Swindon Borough Council cannot produce evidence of a Final S106 Certificate relating to SuDS
• The Council has upheld a complaint confirming they do not hold records, yet still assert a certificate exists
• Residents have not been provided evidence that:
  • the SuDS were inspected under the SuDS Manual
  • inspections were carried out by a qualified SuDS engineer
• The SuDS land:
  • has not been transferred to residents
  • has not been adopted by the Council, Highway Authority, or Water Company
• The developer:
  • passed “maintenance and management” to Remus in 2022
  • did so without transferring land ownership or legal responsibility
• Developers are proposing major physical alterations (removal of trees and vegetation) without clarity on:
  • approvals
  • inspection
  • flood risk implications

4. Who is legally responsible if SuDS are not adopted?

The SuDS Manual and Susdrain guidance are clear:

Default responsibility lies with the landowner unless the SuDS are formally adopted.

This means:

• Responsibility does not automatically transfer to residents
• A management agent cannot assume responsibility unless legally empowered
• Estate fees cannot lawfully increase for assets residents do not own or control

If land ownership remains with the developer (or an unidentified party), they remain responsible.

5. Why the proposed estate fee increase is problematic

Residents are being told:

• current estate fee ≈ £250/year
• potential increase to £500+ per year
• justification: 14 SuDS requiring major maintenance every 5 years

However:

• There is no clear legal basis for residents to fund:
  • unadopted
  • uninspected
  • untransferred SuDS
• No evidence has been provided that:
  • residents agreed to this at purchase
  • costs are proportionate
  • maintenance scope reflects approved design
• Passing costs to residents without ownership or adoption conflicts with:
  • Planning Practice Guidance
  • the SuDS Manual
  • the Arup/Susdrain factsheet

This represents a risk transfer, not a lawful transfer of responsibility.

6. Risks if nobody formally accepts responsibility

If SuDS responsibility remains unclear:

• Flood risk may increase due to:
  • poor maintenance
  • unauthorised alterations
• Residents may face:
  • escalating charges
  • difficulty selling homes
  • mortgage and conveyancing issues
• Enforcement becomes unclear:
  • the Council may struggle to act
  • residents could be pressured to pay “by default”
• Liability in a flood event could become disputed and contentious

7. What options should have been used (but weren’t)

National guidance lists multiple lawful routes, including:

• adoption by the Local Authority
• adoption by a Water & Sewerage Company
• adoption by Highway Authority
• land transfer with commuted sum
• properly constituted management company with land ownership
• Section 106-secured occupier charging arrangements

None of these appear to have been completed transparently or evidenced.

8. Key points for residents and the Ombudsman

Residents can reasonably state:

• SuDS were required as part of planning permission
• The Council had a duty to ensure lifetime maintenance arrangements existed
• No evidence has been produced to show:
  • inspections were completed
  • conditions were lawfully discharged
  • responsibility was legally assigned
• Estate fee increases are being proposed without ownership, adoption, or consent
• This undermines the principle that SuDS maintenance must be economically proportionate

9. What residents are not saying

Residents are not refusing SuDS maintenance.

Residents are saying:

“Responsibility must be lawful, transparent, inspected, and proportionate — not imposed retrospectively.”

10. Summary in one paragraph

At Badbury Park, SuDS were required by planning policy, but responsibility for their inspection, adoption, and lifetime maintenance appears unresolved. Swindon Borough Council cannot evidence final discharge of SuDS obligations, yet residents are being asked to fund significant maintenance costs without owning the land or having a legal basis for responsibility. National SuDS guidance makes clear that maintenance responsibility must be defined upfront and tied to ownership or adoption. Until that occurs, proposed estate fee increases for SuDS lack a clear legal foundation.

Peter Eves

Coate (Badbury Park) Residents Working Group Coordinator