Trust attacks flood defence plans

The flood defence scheme could cost more than £100m

Plans for flood barriers up to six feet high in the centre of Leeds could have a detrimental effect on the rejuvenated waterfront, a community group has said.

In a letter to the Environment Agency, Leeds Civic Trust said current proposals would cut people off both physically and visually from the water.

The trust said that lower barriers and a flood alleviation channel would be more sensitive to the surroundings.

The Environment Agency stressed the defences would be unobtrusive.

The agency has said the risk of flooding in Leeds is increasing every year because of increased rainfall through climate change.

'Right balance'

It said a major flood could affect more than 3,700 households and 700 businesses.

Martin Slater, the Environment Agency's development manager, said the scheme was still in the early stages.

Our proposals for the city centre waterfront include flood protection landscaping that will blend in with the surroundings unobtrusively Martin Slater, Environment Agency

He added: "Getting the right balance for a scheme that will help to protect the important regional centre of Leeds whilst retaining the character of 19km of waterfront and also funding all the criteria for government funding will not be an easy task.

"Our proposals for the city centre waterfront include flood protection landscaping that will blend in with the surroundings unobtrusively, whilst greatly increasing protection and retaining access to the waterfront."

In his letter, the director of Leeds Civic Trust, Dr Kevin Grady, said the current scheme would be "highly detrimental to the amenity, accessibility and appeal of the Waterfront".

His letter stated: "Cost saving rather than quality is driving these proposals, and inadequate weight is being given to the value of additional options which could significantly reduce the levels of floodwater in the city centre.

"In essence the current proposals represent a pretty basic, 'low-cost' engineering solution to the problem."

Mr Slater said the scheme was estimated to cost around £130m.

He said if the agency adopted the trust's recommendations it could rise to more than £200m, which would beyond the reach of government funding.