Agenda item

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an application for the construction of Step 2 of the Leeds Flood Alleviation Scheme Phase Two, including a Flood Storage Reservoir (including plant and machinery) and flood defences to include; walls, sheet piling, earth bunds, scour protection and associated access, landscaping, demolition, building and construction works, located between Calverley Bridge in Leeds and Apperley Bridge in Bradford - Kirkstall Forge, Abbey Road, Kirkstall.

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which sets out details of an application for the construction of Step 2 of the Leeds Flood Alleviation Scheme Phase Two, including a Flood Storage Reservoir (including plant and machinery) and flood defences to include; walls, sheet piling, earth bunds, scour protection and associated access, landscaping, demolition, building and

construction works, located between Calverley Bridge in Leeds and Apperley Bridge in Bradford.

Site photographs and plans were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

The Planning case officer addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

·  Site / location / context

·  Background information/ historic flooding events

·  This application – Phase 2, Step Two - Seeks the creation of a new flood storage reservoir and upstream works in Apperley Bridge – Uplift areas (Phase 1 and Phase 2, Step 2) to provide a 1 in 200 year standard protection

·  An application had also been submitted to the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council consisting of linear flood defence to provide a 1 in 200 year standard of protection to Applerley Bridge and to also offset the impact of the FSR Works in the Leeds District

·  Phased approach

·  Flood Storage Reservoir (FSR) Zone 14

·  Access to the flood storage reservoir

·  Woodhouse Grove School (Zone 14)

·  Waterloo Crescent (Zone 15)

·  Examples of linear flood interventions

·  Apperley Bridge (Zone 15)

·  Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement

·  Proposed tree protection

·  Sustainable Development

·  Climate Emergency implications

The Planning Case Officer also detailed the holding objection that had been made by Sports England (a statutory consultee) following the publication of the Panel Report.

Members raised the following questions to officers/ applicants representatives:

·  The flow control structure, would this sit within the river.

·  Was it correct that the playing pitches at Woodhouse Grove School often suffered from flooding events.

·  Any trees removed would be replaced 3:1, would these trees be suitable for wet conditions

·  The flood storage reservoir together with the building on site, would these be safe and secure in terms of health and safety implications, would the facility be secure enough to prevent people getting in.

·  Would any footpaths be lost as a consequence of this facility.

·  There may be potential silting problems, who would be responsible for the removing of any silt.

·  How would spoil be removed

·  Could the canal system be used to transport any construction materials

·  How would the design of the flood retention walls at Waterloo Crescent be determined

·  Would there be any adverse impact on the canal towpath

In responding to the issues raised, officers said:

·  The Planning Case Officer confirmed that the flow control structure would sit within the river. Although it would be visible it was considered to be well designed. Members were also informed that the stretch of river where the flow control structure would be located would be straightened to provide optimum flow.

·  Officers confirmed that the playing pitches at Woodhouse Grove School were prone to flooding. As part of this scheme the flooding was likely to be deeper but the drainage of the pitches would only take 4 hours longer.

·  Members were informed that the trees to be lost would be replaced on a 3:1 basis and initially locally where practical and that the tree species would be native species that were suitable for wet conditions such as Willow, Alder and Birch.

·  Members were informed that the facility would be located on private land within the control of the Local Authority. There was a proposal to extend a nearby public right of way to stop trespassing. The site would be fenced and gated to prevent unauthorised access. All buildings within the site would be secured to a high level and the site would be monitored.

·  Officer’s confirmed that no footpath provision would be lost, but some new diversions may be created.

·  Members were informed that maintenance to address issues such as silting would be the responsibility of the Management Team

·  It was reported that any spoil would be put into existing pits within the site boundaries

·  Construction traffic would use local roads

·  The proposal is for glazed panels up to 1.4m high in places but the final details would be decided in consultation with the residents of Waterloo Crescent

·  There would be no adverse impact on the canal towpath

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

·  This was an exciting proposal and welcomed

·  It was acknowledged that the construction period may be difficult, but the facility would blend in, over a period of time.

In drawing the discussion to a conclusion, the Chair suggested Members appeared to be generally supportive of the development. He said this was a very important scheme for the protection of the city and thanked officers for their work in progressing the proposals.

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved in accordance with the report recommendation.

Upon being put to the vote, the motion was passed unanimously

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval, subject addressing the objection raised by Sports England and subject to the conditions specified at Appendix 1 of the submitted report (and any amendments to the draft conditions and other additional conditions which the Chief Planning Officer might consider appropriate)