Agenda item

RCH introduced the application as above, adding that the site is in the AONB, at Committee because the applicant and proposer is CBC.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

PB:  this is his patch, and YouTube videos of recent heavy rainfall show Sandy Lane like a river, with water coming down from the golf course and the scarp.  This scheme will be a real benefit, protecting the homes and gardens of residents.  Would like to thank the officers involved, as this has taken a lot of officer time, particularly the second scheme for drainage.  It will be a real improvement, and looks forward to the Lilley Brook Golf site scheme later this year.

PJ:  also supports the application – any mitigation of flood water is good.   Notes that the report refers to planning for a 1-in-100 year flood event, plus 10%, as recommended by the Environment Agency, but we have had two 1-in-100 year events quite close together.  Can officers give some clarity?

BF:  this is a reasonable scheme, but as some residents have commented, we should remember that this is only a way of deflecting the water – it will go elsewhere and could cause further problems.  The YouTube video is certainly startling and frightening.  There was concern that the bund at Cox’s Meadow was not doing its job properly and water was leeching through; the same could happen with this scheme, though the Environment Agency has looked at it, so hopefully it will work properly.

MC:  anything to prevent flooding is a good thing.  Could not have determined this application without going on Planning View, and hopes it will do what it has to do.  Notes that CBC is the proposer and applicant; is CBC paying for the work to be carried out?  This needs to be public and clear.

CN:  supports anything which will help stop flooding in Cheltenham, so in principle, it is a big yes for this scheme.  Has heard that local residents were affected by a flash flood last month, and following the development of 205 Leckhampton Road in his ward, water rushes off the hill, mitigation measures don’t work, and the water affects properties in Collum End Rise.  Similarly at Brizen Lane – the TBC development – removal of top soil at the site has caused local flooding.  These are just two examples off the top of his head.  It would be nice to find a way to improve flood defences and make them more sustainable.  The weather is changing and we need to be sure that solutions will work for the area they are designed to protect without having knock-on effects elsewhere.  Would like some reassurance from officers on this.

CH:  councillors need to understand that this is a scheme for flood attenuation – not to re-route the water but to hold it back to allow drains more time to cope.  High rainfall in a short time period can cause flash flooding, which will quickly be gone.  This scheme aims to hold back the water, no more.  The Environment Agency is working to slow down rivers -  for example, by allowing little floods and trees to fall across waterways.  As long as the alleviation scheme slows down the flow of water, it is doing its job.  Is concerned over the ash tree and hopes it will be protected, even though it might later suffer from ash die-back.  It would be nice to see some imaginative landscaping around the bunds – Cox’s Meadow is quite nice, and although it was a shame to lose that field for the town, the flood alleviation work has saved many houses from flooding, but holding back a huge amount of water.  Wonders if willow could be planted rather than a grass bank, to make sure the scheme is done nicely.

PT:  there is talk of bringing wild beavers back into the north of the country to take down trees to form dams across rives etc.  Planting can also be used to ameliorate and alleviate the effect of water so it doesn’t get down as far as it could but stays higher up – though in some areas of severe flash flooding, there isn’t much time…

RCH, in response:

-       to PJ, preparing for a 1-in-100 year event is set out in guidance as a goal for any flood alleviation scheme to achieve, but this scheme is actually modelled on a 1-in-200 year event and would be successful at that level;

-       to BF, CH has answered his question – it isn’t about deflecting floodwater but about attenuation and slow release when the drains are able to cope;

-       to MC, regarding the cost of the work, DEFRA is the largest contributor, with GCC and CBC also sharing the cost.  Maintenance will be included in the management strategy and should not be very expensive;

-       regarding the ash tree, it could be impacted so a condition could be added to remove and replace it, should Members wish.

CJC, in response:

-       there is provision for the retention of the tree during the construction period, but it will not like a lot of soil on its root plate;

-       as CH has said, it would be vulnerable to ash die-back – has heard that there are cases of the disease at Seven Springs – so maybe the best option would be to replace the ash tree now.

RCH, in response:

-       to CH, grass meadow is considered the most robust way to maintain functionality and ensure that the scheme operates as it’s meant to, but a condition to protect the trees could be added.

SW:  protection for the ash tree might not work, so would it not be better to remove and replace it rather than spend money trying to protect it?

CJC, in response:

-       yes, it would.  Recommends that the tree is removed.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit, with additional condition re. ash tree

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT