Replace the demountable flood defences with permanent glass panel flood walls and flood gates. This aims to reduce the whole life costs of the defences and reduce the risk of failure to deploy during flooding. The new passive defences will be located entirely along the within the footprint of the existing defences, and will be designed to  fit into the existing supports. When open the floodgates will maintain  current access routes for pedestrians and maintenance.

The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Replace the demountable flood defences with permanent glass panel flood walls and flood gates. This aims to reduce the whole life costs of the defences and reduce the risk of failure to deploy during flooding. The new passive defences will be located entirely along the within the footprint of the existing defences, and will be designed to to fit into the existing supports. When open the floodgates will maintain  current access routes for pedestrians and maintenance.)

(Councillor Millmore joined the meeting after the start of the officer presentation and accordingly had no vote.)

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking for virtual meetings, Mr S Kerry, of Hereford City Council submitted a written submission in opposition to the scheme that was read to the meeting by the legal adviser to the Committee.   Mr R Binnersley, a local resident, spoke in opposition to the scheme, as a virtual attendee.  Mr D Throup of the Environment Agency, the applicant, made a submission by video recording in support of the application.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Tillett, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        He considered that the Environment Agency’s (EA) stated aim to reduce the whole life cost of the defences was a more significant factor in the application than the EA had indicated in its video submission.  The proposal would not improve the flood defence capacity.  The cost saving needed to be weighed against the impact on the appearance of the site.

·        There had to date been no failure to deploy the defences.

·        Discussions with the Environment Agency initiated by the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member – Infrastructure and Transport aimed at achieving more local control of the demountable defences, with a saving to the EA, had led nowhere.  The EA had rejected all proposals.  There had been no amendments to the proposals since December 2018.

·        The City Council, Herefordshire Council’s Executive, and local residents, with one exception, opposed the proposal.

·        The proposed glass Panels would be at risk of graffiti to the detriment of the appearance of the area.  The EA had been unable to offer a solution.

·        A disconnect would be created between the river and path alongside that was promoted as a tourism, walking and cycling route.

·        He questioned the arrangements for operating the new flood gates.

·        The major concern was the setting and appropriateness of the glass wall.  It would have an irreversible adverse impact on an historic, iconic view of the City.

·        The Core Strategy (CS) contained many policies designed to protect the visual environment and heritage and historic setting.  The site contained ancient monuments, historic and listed buildings, and a site of special scientific interest.

·        The proposal would provide no gain to the flood defences, and no improvement in addressing flood risk.  It was primarily a cost saving exercise by the EA.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        The approval of the left bank development set a precedent and the glass flood defence panels were not therefore inappropriate in themselves.  Their height would, however, be detrimental to the enjoyment of the area, separating people from the river.

·        A view was expressed that whilst the left bank development might be considered to make a positive contribution to the area it was to be doubted whether the proposed flood defences would be viewed in the same light.

·        The current demountable barriers were not complex to erect and had been effective.

·        There was a risk of graffiti.

·        The proposal would have an adverse impact on the view of the City.

·        The principal consideration was policy LD4 and the weight to be given to preserving, conserving and enhancing the listed buildings and scheduled monuments in the area.  Historic England may have said there was a “limited impact”.  However, that recognised that there was some impact.

·        The EA’s proposal had a limited benefit that was insufficient to outweigh the harm caused by the height of the panels that would remove a clear and unobstructed view of the river.

·        A view was expressed that a permanent barrier was needed and glass panels, as proposed, would be the least intrusive solution.  It was requested that consideration be given to requiring non-reflective glass. 

In response to questions the Development Manager commented:

·        His understanding was that the EA would retain responsibility for the maintenance and specification of the flood gates and glass panels and monitoring them and would meet the associated costs.

·        In terms of the discussions about more local control of the existing demountable defences he did not consider that this could be given weight.  The focus should be on whether the proposal was acceptable in terms of its environmental impact.  Similarly the whole life cost of the proposal was not a relevant consideration.

·        The demountable barriers had been deployed on only a few occasions.  They had remained in place for some time during the severe floods in February.

·        The specification of the glazing could be conditioned if the Committee requested it.

The Lead Development Manager commented that there were no objections from the statutory consultees or internal consultees.  The council’s Health, Safety and Resilience Team had stated that there was benefit in having permanent barriers as opposed to demountable defences.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated concern about providing an additional opportunity for graffiti.   Whilst the left bank development was in keeping with the area, the proposal was wholly out of keeping with the buildings and setting on which it would have an impact.  The demountable barriers had worked well and had only had to be deployed infrequently for a limited time.  The proposal should be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policies LD1, LD4, SS6, HD2 and E4.

A motion that the application be approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation was lost.

Councillor Watson proposed and Councillor Fagan seconded a motion that the application be refused with 12 votes in favour, 2 against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused and that officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers be authorised to detail the conditions and reasons put forward for refusal by the committee on the grounds that the proposal was contrary to CS policies LD1, LD4, SS6, E4 and HD2 – specifically stating that the natural, social, and cultural capital value outweighed the need or demand for the application.