Agenda item

Formation of flood storage area consisting of construction of earth embankment with spillway, excavation of two temporary and two permanent borrow pits, erection of river flow control structure, re-profiling of sections of the River Foss, realignment of short section of Black Dike, raising of section of Ings Lane, carriageway edge protection to part of Lilling Low Lane and associated new and improved access arrangements, drainage, accommodation works, landscaping and biodiversity mitigation (cross boundary application with Ryedale) [Strensall Ward]

 

Members considered a major full application from Richard Lever Formation of flood storage area consisting of construction of earth embankment with spillway, excavation of two temporary and two permanent borrow pits, erection of river flow control structure, re-profiling of sections of the River Foss, realignment of short section of Black Dike, raising of section of Ings Lane, carriageway edge protection to part of Lilling Low Lane and associated new and improved access arrangements, drainage, accommodation works, landscaping and biodiversity mitigation (cross boundary application with Ryedale) Foss Upstream Storage Area Brecks Lane Strensall York.

 

The Head of Development Services gave an update she advised Members of an update to Condition 2. This this change the planning balance and recommendation were unchanged from the published report. She gave a presentation on the application noting that it was a cross boundary application with Ryedale District Council. She gave an overview of the site location plan, general arrangement plan, Black Dyke realignment plan and section, slow control structure (structural design details of the sections), landscape master plan, landscape plan for area A and other examples of flood storage areas.

 

Officers were asked a number of questions to which they responded that:

·        The Environment Agency (EA) had put forward a number of flood alleviation schemes and this was the most effective scheme to protect 490 properties.

·        As it was a cross boundary application, consultation had been undertaken with a number of drainage boards.

·        Conditions 3 and 6 addressed the comments of the North Yorkshire flood risk engineer and paragraph 1663 of the NPPF. If approved the internal drainage boards would be consulted on those conditions.

·        There had been no objections from the ecology officer on the impact of the scheme on the Wheldrake SAC and SSSI. Appropriate conditions had been included for environmental mitigation.

·        The EA and Natural England had been consulted as statutory bodies. The Yorkshire Wildlife Trust had also been consulted.

 

Public Speakers

Samuel Wadsworth, landowner and farmer of land upon which the scheme was being constructed, spoke in objection to the application. He raised concerns about the red line used as the boundary being incorrect, concerns about flood base data from 2007 being used, the impact pf the scheme on his farm’s drain, biodiversity mitigation measures not being agreed with landowners, no agreement with the landowner over the use of clay pits, the proposed access unacceptably posing a biosecurity risk to his livestock.

 

The applicant, Richard Lever (EA) spoke in support of the application. He explained that the scheme was part of a number of flood alleviation schemes for York and there was currently no flood defences along the river Foss. He listed the benefits of the project which protected 490 properties. He explained that water would pass through without flooding the storage area, which would fill during flooding events and empty within two days. He added that most consultees had supported the scheme and that some objections had been received from landowners, who the EA would continue to work with.

 

In response to questions, Richard Lever and colleagues in attendance to answer questions clarified that:

·        There would be no permanent or temporary closure of path 16 within the York boundary. The potential flood risk damage to the footbridge would be reduced in the future with the flood storage area.

·        The EA engagement with the speaker in objection. It was noted that the EA funded independent advice regarding biodiversity and the EA had listened to and taken on board suggestions put forward by landowners.

·        The EA would work with the speaker to ensure that adequate provisions were made for biodiversity on his land. This had been included in the site management plan.

·        Regarding condition 5, the Head of Development Services advised that the decision regarding the wording of this rested with the Local Planning Authority.

·        There was legislation that enabled EA with the powers to undertake flood defences.

·        The EA did not need to import clay onto the site.

 

A Member then enquired as to the compensation paid from the EA to the speaker. The Head of Development Services and Senior Solicitor clarified to the Committee that this was not a material planning consideration and should be disregarded as part of the planning application.

 

Members then asked further questions of officers to which they responded that there was consultation with the drainage boards as part of the discharging of condition 5.

 

Cllr Fisher then moved and Cllr Widdowson seconded approval of the application subject to the conditions outlined in the report and additional information. Cllr Warters proposed an amendment to condition 5 to include the following wording at the end of the condition: ‘to meet the requirements of the Foss Internal Drainage Board maintenance requirements.’ Cllrs Fisher and Widdowson agreed the inclusion of the amendment. Members were advised by the Senior Solicitor that this was reasonable and if it was not, the condition could come back to committee for variation. Following debate, and in accordance with the revised Standing Orders, a named vote was taken with the following result:

·        Cllrs Baker, Barker, Daubeney, Douglas, Doughty, Fenton, Fisher, Fitzpatrick, Hollyer, Kilbane, Lomas, Pavlovic, Warters, Widdowson and Cullwick voted for the motion;

 

The motion was therefore unanimously carried and it was

 

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report and amended Conditions 2 and 5:

 

Updated Condition 2

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans and other submitted details:-

Site Location Plan:

ENV0000381C-CAA-00-00-MP-EN-C0400:9 Rev P06

General Arrangement Plan:

ENV0000381C-CAA-00-00-DR-C- I0500_23 (Rev P02) dated 10/02/2020

Black Dike Re-Alignment Plan and Section:

ENV0000381C-CAA-00-00- DR-C- I0500_36a (Rev P02) dated 27/01/2020

River Foss Re-Profiling South Locations:

ENV0000381C-CAA-00-00-DR-C-I0500_41 Rev P01 dated 08/11/2019

Flow Control Structure Sections:

ENV0000381C-CAA-00-00-DR-C-I0500_36 Rev P01 dated 08/11/2019

Outlet Channel Plan and Section:

ENV0000381C-CAA-00-00-DR-C-I0500_35 Rev P01 dated 08/11/2019

Inlet Channel Plan and Section:

ENV0000381C-CAA-00-00-DR-C-I0500_34 Rev P01 dated 08/11/2019

Flow Control Structure Plan and Sections:

ENV0000381C-CAA-00-00-DR-C-I0500_33 Rev P01 dated 08/11/2019

Foss FSA - Embankment Cross Sections:

ENV0000381C-CAA-00-00-DR-C-I0500_31 Rev P01 dated 08/11/2019

Embankment Long Section:

ENV0000381C-CAA-00-00-DR-C-I0500_30 Rev P01 dated 08/11/2019

Foss FSA -  Primary Spillway Plan

ENV0000381C-CAA-00-00-DR-C-I0500_29 Rev P01 dated 08/11/2019

Site Access, Compound Area and Temporary Works:

ENV0000381C-CAA-00-00-DR-C-I0500_24 Rev P02 dated 02/12/2019

Services and Boreholes:

ENV0000381C-CAA-00-00-DR-C-I0500_25 Rev P01 dated 08/11/2019

Landowner Access Ramp:

ENV0000381C-CAA-00-00-DR-C-I0500_32 Rev P01 dated 08/11/2019

 

Landscape Masterplan:

ENV0000381C-CAA-00-00-DR-L-C0700_36 Rev P05 dated 11/02/2020

Landscape Area A:

ENV0000381C-CAA-00-00-DR-L-C0700_37 Rev P05 dated 11/02/2020

Planting Schedule: 

ENV0000381C-CAA-00-00- DR-L-C0700_43 Rev P04 dated 11/02/2020

Tree Constraints Plan:

ENV0000381C-CAA-1-XX-DR-C-001 Rev P01 dated 31/07/2019

Landscape Cross Sections:

ENV0000381C-CAA-00-00- DR-L-C0700_42 Rev P02 dated 02/12/2019

 

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out only as approved by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Amended Condition 5

No development shall take place until details of the means of operation, management, repair and maintenance of the flood storage area, associated apparatus/embankments and borrow pits have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Details to include; plans and schedules showing the flood storage areas, associated apparatus/embankments and borrow pits to be vested with the relevant Statutory Undertaker/s, land owner and highway authority with a clear understanding of who will operate, repair and maintain at their expense, and any other arrangements to secure the operation and maintenance of the approved scheme. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details to meet the reasonable satisfaction of the Foss Internal Drainage Board maintenance requirements

 

Reason: To prevent the increase risk of flooding and to ensure the future maintenance of the scheme throughout the lifetime of the development.

 

Reasons

 

a)   Paragraph 11 of the NPPF states local planning authorities should approve development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay. The proposal is for development in the green belt that is deemed to have a harmful impact on openness. As such, paragraph 143 of the NPPF states development of this kind should be refused unless there are very special circumstances to outweigh green belt harm and any other identified harm.

 

b)   The harm to the openness of the York green belt is considered to be modest in scale. Further minor harm is identified in the impact on mineral resources and moderate harm is identified due to through the permanent loss of over 9 hectares of BMV agricultural land across the York and Ryedale parts of the application site.

 

c)   Conversely, the benefits to the scheme include the protection to approximately 465 residential properties downstream of the application site, a further 30 commercial properties. Additionally, approximately 22 hectares of BMV agricultural land, much of which in York will receive additional flood protection. It is considered that great weight should be afforded to these significant flood protection benefits. The Environmental Statement and Biodiversity Impact Calculator also identifies there is no harm to the designated sites at Strensall Common and to biodiversity or hydrology that could not be overcome by appropriate planning conditions. Indeed, once mitigation is carried out, there are further benefits for example through the wildlife ponds and some weight is afforded to these benefits.

 

d)   The impact on amenity, archaeology, drainage and the local highway network are considered to be acceptable subject to appropriate planning conditions. Weighing the proposal up in the planning balance, it is considered that very special circumstances exist; the identified benefits of flood protection are considered to clearly outweigh the identified harms. Subject to the following planning conditions, approval is recommended.

 

[The meeting adjourned from 17:28 to 17:45. Cllr Pavlovic rejoined the meeting at 17:45]