Agenda item

Flood mitigation measures within St Georges Field Car Park and Tower Street to include a new flood defence wall from car park to tie into abutment wall of Skeldergate Bridge, the strengthening of the abutment walls of the bridge, the raising and strengthening of existing walls attached to the pumping station, the raising of the access ramp into the car park and the installation of support post to bridge masonry wall to enable deployment of temporary flood barrier across Tower Street. [Fishergate Ward]

Members considered a full application by the Environment Agency for flood mitigation measures within St Georges Field Car Park and Tower Street to include a new flood defence wall from car park to tie into abutment wall of Skeldergate Bridge, the strengthening of the abutment walls of the bridge, the raising and strengthening of existing walls attached to the pumping station, the raising of the access ramp into the car park and the installation of support post to bridge masonry wall to enable deployment of temporary flood barrier across Tower Street.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the plans and provided an update to Members on the additional representations received since publication of the report and an amendment to condition 4, as follows:

Amended condition

It is proposed to amend condition 4 of the Listed Building Consent and 5 of the Full Planning application to specifically include reference to the extent of the embankment around the retaining wall by the Crown Court.

New wording:

Large scale drawings of the proposed retaining wall, to include the coping, "Rubberwall" connection and the extent the embankment will cover the face of the retaining wall, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of this element of the scheme and the works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Public Speakers

John Dench, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  He stated that there had been no further consultation with residents, there was no additional modelling and no resident support for the proposal.  He requested that the application be rejected.

In response to questions from Members, he agreed that the proposal did not cover the properties in Peckitt Street.  He highlighted the problems with ground water and sump pumps.

Cllr Melly, Guildhall Ward Councillor, also spoke in objection to the application.  She stated that the reasons for the previous deferral had not been addressed by the applicant; there had been no resident engagement and no meaningful effort to assess the flood risk for homes in floodcell B15.  She raised concerns regarding the possible harm to listed buildings, noting the requirement to give considerable weight to harm to listed buildings. Finally, she referenced the Public Sector Equality Duty in relation to the ramp in the car park, stating that this also had not been addressed by the applicant.

Mark Fuller, Environment Agency, spoke in support of the application, on behalf of the applicant.  He referred to reasons for deferral and reported that modelling had been provided to support the application which showed there was no change to the flood risk for the community.  He stated that the barrier was to be employed only after the road had been closed and that a visualisation had been supplied.  The plans for the ramp gave marginal betterment and showed due regard to the Equality Duty.

In response to questions from Members his team stated that it had proved too challenging to engage with residents, the B15 cell was a very complex area, it was difficult to fully protect those properties and the benefit cost ratio could not meet the requirement of treasury rules,  the demountable barrier would replace the sandbags, it was a more robust and efficient barrier and would be deployed only after Tower Street had been closed.  They reported that they were confident in the flood risk analysis provided by their advisors.

Officers responded to further questions from Members and confirmed that the proposed scheme should be treated as separate to the flood risk to the properties in flood cell B15 and that the scheme would not result in the increase in the level of flood risk elsewhere.  Accessibility issues relating to the pedestrian routes to St Georges Field car park were the responsibility of the Highways team and not the Environment Agency.

Following debate, Cllr Cullwick proposed the officer recommendation to approve the officer recommendation contained in the report, subject to the amendment to condition 5 specified in the update.  This was seconded by Cllr Fisher.  On being put to a vote, members voted unanimously in favour and it was therefore:

Resolved:             That the application be approved, subject to the conditions contained in the report and update.

Reason:                In principle, the proposals are consistent with the environmental objective within the NPPF of adapting to climate change and given that the proposed flood defences will increase protection for an urban area, there are consequential economic and social benefits.  The scheme is in accordance with flood risk policy in the NPPF, in section 14.  The NPPF test in this respect is not whether the scheme is comprehensive (it has to be assessed on its own merits); it is whether consequently there is any increased flood risk elsewhere.  The scheme is fundamentally a change in the type of flood defence in Tower Street (deployment of demountable barriers opposed to sandbags) the EA and the Council’s Flood Risk Management Team are satisfied there is no increase in flood risk elsewhere.  Flood risk is not grounds to oppose the application.     

Only a low level of harm to designated heritage assets has been identified as a consequence of the works to tie the new wall to the grade II listed bridge abutment walls, the strengthening of the abutment walls the rubber-wall connection for fixing the temporary barriers to the bridge abutment walls, the stoplog at the entrance to Tower Park and through the new purpose-built retaining wall and associated infilling within the scheduled area of York Castle. Attempts have been made to reduce the harm where possible and measures to minimise the harm for instance through a selection of high-quality materials and workmanship and the requirement for an archaeological watching brief, would be secured by condition. The public benefit in improving the flood resilience of this area out-weights the harm even when giving considerable importance and weight to the harm to heritage assets, in accordance with the statutory duties.

Other matters, such as replacement tree planting and the provision of biodiversity enhancements post construction, would be agreed via a condition.

Officers have had due regard to the aims of the Equality Act 2010 and whilst noting that the proposed works provide no sufficient betterment to the gradient of the access ramp, it is not considered that this outweighs the material planning considerations.