Flood escape concerns raised over plans for Shrewsbury's Riverside redevelopment

It says that currently due to a "high degree of uncertainty" the application could currently be refused on flood risk grounds.

The proposal from Shropshire Council outlines a complete redevelopment of the entire Riverside area of the town.

The plans include a new public park with 'pocket gardens, event space and an amphitheatre', which has already been approved by planners.

The latest application is for three buildings on top of a large podium - the buildings have a proposed mix of uses such as offices, potential hotel sites, housing, a doctors surgery, and food and beverage retail.

The application site sits alongside Smithfield Road, one of the areas of Shrewsbury most significantly impacted by flooding.

The potential for flooding is the reason the council wants to build the plots on top of a large podium.

But it has emerged that the the EA is concerned about the proposals for people to escape in the event of flooding.

In a letter the EA says the issue is more pressing due to the potential for the entire development to be taken up by housing, stating: "There is a strong possibility that the final use of the site could be entirely residential, given the flexibility required at the outline stage and the impact of market forces on the final development."

It says that for the scheme to be approved there must be plans for the safe escape of anyone living, working, or visiting at the site.

The letter states: "In this regard, the consideration of access pivots entirely around the ability of a development to deliver safe access and escape routes during a flood event. This relates not only to the occupants / users of the development but also whether the emergency services can reach people in need."

The EA highlights a document from the council putting forward five potential options for getting in and out of the podium area in the event of flooding, but says it has "concerns".

One proposal is for a new bridge linking the development to the former Pride Hill Shopping Centre site - with escape routes up Roushill Bank.

But the EA says that while it welcomes the proposal - it is concerned it would not be in place for the development to open.

The letter states: "A permanent structure like this would be a preferred approach for managing safe access/egress during a flood event.

"Providing the structure sat above the design flood level and landed outside of the floodplain, it would allow people to move freely during a flood event and the development to continue to function unrestricted."

It adds: "Unfortunately, this appears to sit outside of the current redevelopment proposals and is reliant on the redevelopment of the Pride Hill Centre. We are unaware of any emerging plans for the Pride Hill Centre and therefore question when and if this scenario would ever come forward."

The second scenario proposed an access and exit over Frankwell footbridge - although the EA raises a number of concerns about the plan.

The letter states: "In its current form, the footbridge descends via steps into Frankwell car park. In a design flood event, one flight of steps lands within an area at risk of significant depths of water with no escape route.

"The other lands behind a demountable section of flood defence. This is an EA operational compound that presents its own hazards and risks. The demountable flood defence does not provide protection to the design flood level and there is a risk of overtopping or breach to the defence.

"While it is proposed that the landing point could be repositioned in time and the defence updated, doing so is complex and there is no certainty of this coming forward.

"Furthermore, it is unlikely that we would be able to raise the defence to a 100-year plus climate change level due to the restrictions of the historic Welsh Bridge.

"We disagree with the suggestion that this scenario could be adopted until the effects of climate change are felt.

"The development should demonstrate from the outset a robust, safe and permanent means of escape in a design flood event."

It adds that the option also fails to provide a suitable route for people with restricted mobility.

Alternative options include "temporary footbridge links to other sites".

But the letter says the routes for the multi-storey car park, Darwin Centre and/or Pride Hill Centre, are not operational on a 24/7 basis.

It adds that they "would be reliant upon other parties opening the access routes in a flood event".

It continues: "The operation of such and how easy these would be to navigate for all users of the site during a flood event is unclear."

It adds: "Furthermore, these options are potentially uninviting and poorly connected which may result in people taking alternative routes and risk wading through flood water."

The letter concludes by saying the development is intended to be a 'flagship' project and that there should be certainty over the plans for the event of flooding.

It states: "The development includes ‘more vulnerable’ elements and could result in an intensification of this use, meaning more people are present within a high-risk flood area. We encourage you to secure the provision of a permanent access route that sits above the design flood level and lands outside of the design flood plain, through clarification or modification of option one. There should be certainty about this being delivered."

A decision on the proposal will be taken at a later date.