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]

[Cllrs Melly and Clarke stepped off the Committee for the consideration of Items 4a and 4b.]

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 Officer Development Management gave a presentation on the plans and the Development Management Officer provided an update to Members which summarised four further representations received in objection to the application and changes to conditions 9 and 13.  These did not affect the officer recommendation contained within the report.

In response to Members’ questions on the plans, officers clarified the pedestrian access and confirmed that the pavement was to be retained and there were no plans to improve the pedestrian route from the car park.

Public Access

Tim Mudd, a resident, spoke in objection to the application.  He raised concerns regarding the listed buildings that could be affected and the lack of consultation from the Environment Agency (EA).  He requested deferral of the application to allow for further modelling.

He confirmed, in response to questions from Members, that on the wet side of the barrier, approximately forty properties could be affected.

John Dench, a resident, spoke in objection to the application.  He raised concerns regarding a lack of information from the EA on water levels in the Peckitt Street area.

Cllrs Melly and Clarke, Guildhall Ward Cllrs spoke in objection to the application.  They questioned the location of the proposed barrier and highlighted that around fifty homes were on the wet side of the barrier, many of which were listed.  They felt that properties were less likely to be protected in the future with water levels expected to be deeper and to last longer.

In response to questions from Members they reported that the height of the barrier would be reduced, improvements to the wall would not be undertaken, public meetings had been held at short notice and ground water levels had not been considered.

Mark Fuller represented the Environment Agency and spoke in support of the application.  He explained that the scheme would reduce the flood risk for 1600 homes and would not increase river levels,  the barrier at Tower Street was more robust, and quicker and safer to deploy than the current arrangement. Modelling showed it would have no impact on drainage or ground water.

He responded to questions from Members and reported that their modelling showed no increase in the risk of flooding to properties.  There was not a viable cost benefit scheme for an accessible pedestrian ramp to exit the car park, due to the build costs, loss of parking spaces and the loss of flood storage.  On the demountable barrier, he confirmed that sandbags had been deployed in 2000 but had not been used in 2015 or 2018.

The council’s Flood Risk Manager responded to further questions from Members.  He reported that the wet side was a complex area in terms of how it flooded.  The EA had modelled fluvial flow and not ground/surface water levels.  The officer agreed with the EA, that the modelling showed the new scheme did not worsen the existing flood risk.

Officers also reported that they had examined why betterment of the pedestrian access could not be achieved but these were not considered grounds for refusal.  The senior solicitor advised that under the council’s equality duty, due regard was required but not duty to outcome.

Following debate, Cllr Fenton proposed the officer recommendation to approve the application.  This was seconded by Cllr Burton.  With Members voting 2 in favour and 5 against, this motion fell and was not approved.

Cllr Vassie proposed a motion to defer the item, so that the committee could receive more data modelling on the level of flood risk and to assess if an accessible ramp from the car park could be achieved.  This was seconded by Cllr Warters and on being put to a vote, there were six votes in favour and one abstention, it was therefore:

Resolved:             That the application be deferred.

Reason:               To ensure that the following information be provided:

                                                                            i.          Further modelling work to satisfaction of LPA and LLFA on the flood impact of the Tower Street barrier on Peckitt Street and surrounding properties

                                                                           ii.          Clearer drawings of the proposals

                                                                         iii.          More information on how the St Georges Field access ramp could be made accessible