Flood defence for Eastfield planned

PLANS have been approved for a £70,000 flood defence system for Eastfield. A high developed draining system would be funded by and Environment Agency grant and would consist of wide shallow depressions and earth bunds which would control the flow rate into Eastfield Beck.

The news follows a recent announcement that £180 million funding has been put on hold for three major schemes in York, Leeds and Thirsk.

Members of Scarborough Council’s Planning and Development Committee discussed the plan at a meeting last Thursday (January 27) and Eastfield councillor Johan Zegstroo said: “People are looking forward to getting a permanent solution.”

The proposal was made following past events concerning Eastfield’s regular water problems – as recently as 2009 – and it was believed the flood defences would be a great investment to the area. It is hoped that the project would minimise the risk of water damage to an estimated 70 properties in the area where flooding is most common.

The council’s plan is to construct vegetated surface areas that will divert water away from the areas most effected by the floods. Planners are hoping to use this to intercept surface water to run-off agricultural land to the north of the residential properties and planning officers claim it could “change the risk of floods from one in five years to one in 100 years”.

The proposed plans are to be constructed to the north of Eastfield, covering 1.5 hectares, and would use Eastfield Beck as the main point of the structure. In a report considered by councillors several residents gave their views.

Mr Ward, of Overdale, said: “ The storage lake is directly behind our property, yet no consultation has taken place, and no details have been provided in the application. We object on the basis that this temporary storage area could increase the risk of flooding to ours and nearby properties.”

Mr Cooper, also from Overdale, said: “Plans are not very clear to understand. Is this a part of the Deepdale development?”

Planning officers responded to this claim and said: “The proposal should not interfere with any forthcoming proposals for the developments at Middle Deepdale.”

However there were concerns from the Environmental Agency as they feel they should see the detail of the plans, regarding the attention measures, because they did not want the problems of the flooding to “merely be pushed downstream”.

The agency also felt that heavy clay soils would not assist in water infiltration and had asked for confirmation that it would not hinder the effectiveness of the scheme before making a decision about the grant application.