KH/06 OPENING STATEMENT BY MR. GARETH OWENS KIRBY HILL RAMS 16TH FEBRUARY 2021 1. My name is Gareth Owens, Chair of Kirby Hill RAMS [Residents Against Motorway Services]. I am instructed to represent the local community in the matter of Applegreen’s Appeal regarding a proposed Motorway Service Area on the A1(M) at Kirby Hill. We object to the proposed Kirby Hill MSA and ask the Secretary of State to dismiss this Appeal. 2. Kirby Hill RAMS is an independent residents’ group formed for the sole purpose of objecting to the proposed Kirby Hill MSA. We represented the local community at the 1997, 2003 and 2010 Public Inquiries and have been granted the status of a Rule 6 Party to the Kirby Hill Appeal at this Inquiry. While we have no professional qualifications in the field of planning, our extensive local knowledge enables us to present a case based on evidence that accurately reflects the first-hand knowledge and day-to-day experiences of local people over many years. We are therefore in a unique position to provide the Secretary of State with a valuable, first-hand, local perspective on the issues under consideration. 3. Kirby Hill RAMS’ case represents the views of the local community and the views of all seven local councils surrounding the proposed site, namely, Kirby Hill & District Parish Council, Marton-le-Moor Parish Council, Langthorpe Parish Council, Dishforth Parish Council, Skelton-cum-Newby Parish Council, Roecliffe-with-Westwick Parish Council and Boroughbridge Town Council. Together, these seven local councils represent an electorate of 5,055 people, plus their families, who live in the vicinity of the proposed site. Page 1 of 11 KH/06 LOCALISM 4. The Localism Act 2011 introduced radical reforms to planning in England and promoted the creation of what Prime Minister David Cameron called the ‘Big Society’, in which local people and their local councils determine the shape of the places where they live and work, with minimum interference from central Government. The impact of Localism on the Planning System was felt very quickly, when the Secretary of State abolished Regional Spatial Strategies, in favour of increasing the weight attached to Local Development Frameworks and to the decisions of Local Planning Authorities. 5. Together with our Local Planning Authority - Harrogate Borough Council - Kirby Hill RAMS are the Big Society at this Inquiry. Despite the Kirby Hill Appellant’s frequent statements to the effect that we are not experts, the Government’s policy objective of empowering communities to shape and influence development in their local area requires that our views be afforded significant weight. I know that you understand this principle, Sir, because you have already gone out of your way to listen to the views of local people, as we shall see this afternoon and at the Evening Session you kindly agreed to. It is vital that we recognise, as we start this Inquiry, that planning decisions are best taken locally. To this end, I have today written to the Prime Minister, to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and to Sarah Richards, CEO of the Planning Inspectorate, making them aware that this Inquiry is an example of Localism in action at a virtual Inquiry. I have asked them, as I now ask you Sir, to ensure that the views and the decisions of local people in the matters before this Inquiry do not become trampled beneath the twin feet of a central Government agency such as Highways England and the commercial ambitions of the Appellant, who seeks to develop the proposed Kirby Hill MSA at any cost, without concern for the substantial harm that would be caused to the local area and to our community. Page 2 of 11 KH/06 6. At a local level, the decision in respect of a proposed MSA at Kirby Hill has already been taken three times over the last 25 years. Each time, the proposals have been rejected, because Kirby Hill is not a suitable site for an MSA. The promoters of the Kirby Hill site have appealed against the LPAs decisions three times before and the matter has three times been placed before the High Court, where permission has consistently been refused. The question that local people are asking, Sir, is ‘why are we even here again’? The answer, sadly, is that this site has a recalcitrant promoter who, despite 25 years of refusal, will not take ‘No’ for an answer, because they have no respect for the properly-taken decisions of the Planning System. Following the failure of their most recent High Court Appeal, they set out to undermine the Secretary of State’s 2012 decision, by partnering with Applegreen to bring forward yet another MSA application for the same site. 7. Kirby Hill RAMS wish to inform the Secretary of State that Applegreen’s Appeal should also be dismissed, because the proposals represent unnecessary development in the open countryside and would cause substantial harm to interests of acknowledged importance, contrary to Local and National planning policies and to Section 54A of the Town & Country Planning Act. There should be NO MOTORWAY SERVICES AT KIRBY HILL. 8. Our case objecting to the proposed Kirby Hill MSA can be stated simply: there is no need for an MSA at Kirby Hill and the proposed development would cause substantial harm. NO NEED 9. The Appellant’s need case relies on their claim that the spacing between the existing services at Wetherby and Leeming Bar is marginally greater than 28 miles and that this automatically creates a proven need for another MSA. We disagree. Page 3 of 11 KH/06 10. We note that the Appellant has not followed the official Highways England distance verification methodology used at the last Inquiry for measuring this gap that is so crucial to their case. A less rigorous measurement approach has been adopted, apparently in a deliberate attempt to inflate the distance and claim a gap in excess of 28 miles. We will demonstrate that this is a flawed approach. Therefore the Appellant’s claim of a 28.8 mile gap cannot be relied upon. 11. In any case, we will show that the 28 mile maximum spacing in DfT Circular 02/2013 is only a recommendation, based on an approximate travelling time of 30 minutes between services. 12. We will further show that even if motorists have to travel a few hundred yards beyond the recommended 28 mile spacing, this is not sufficient justification to cause the substantial harm associated with the proposed Kirby Hill MSA. The Secretary of State knew what the gap between Wetherby and Leeming Bar was, when he issued his 2012 decision that one new MSA would meet the need and that it should be at Leeming Bar. He accepted the spacing, but he rejected the significant harm that would have been caused by a new MSA at Kirby Hill. 13. Dr. Ramsden’s evidence shows that he has analysed other factors affecting the need for an MSA at Kirby Hill, such as the recent £840 million upgrades of this stretch of the A1(M) to improve motorists’ safety and journey times. His analysis shows that safety and journey times have indeed improved since 2012 and that traffic flows on the upgraded motorway are lower than forecast. On this basis, the need for an MSA has actually decreased since the last Inquiry. 14. Finally on this topic of Need, even if the Inquiry were to accept the Appellant’s claim that the Leeming Bar MSA permission will never be implemented and that therefore a larger Page 4 of 11 KH/06 gap exists, common sense dictates that it would better to locate a new MSA in the middle of that gap, rather than off-centre to the south at Kirby Hill, just 12 miles from the existing Wetherby MSA. This is precisely the view that the Secretary of State took in his 2012 decision. 15. It is clear to us, Sir, that there is no need case for an MSA at Kirby Hill. This is the first ground on which we ask the Secretary of State to dismiss this Appeal. SUBSTANTIAL HARM 16. The second ground on which we will ask the Secretary of State to dismiss the Kirby Hill Appeal is the substantial harm that the proposed development would cause. 17. Mr. Harris’ will show in evidence that the proposed site forms part of a valued landscape. He will demonstrate that the Appellant’s LVIA is deficient and that it provides an assessment of the landscape that is completely at odds with the extensive local knowledge of people who have lived and worked here for many years. His evidence is that the harm caused to the landscape and to the character and appearance of the local area would be far more significant than the Appellant claims. The Local Planning Authority agrees with Kirby Hill RAMS on this point. We will show that this harm would in fact be worse than the impact of the double-sided MSA proposal rejected by the Secretary of State in 2012. Our case, Sir, is that on grounds of Landscape harm alone, the Secretary of State should dismiss this Appeal. 18. Mr. Pickering shows in his Written Statement that the harm caused to BMV agricultural land would also be more significant than claimed in the Appellant’s Environmental Statement. This significant impact on BMV agricultural land is contrary to Local Plan policy NE8 and to paragraphs 8 and 170 of the NPPF. Although the Appellant’s experts claim in their Environmental Statement that there are no suitable alternative sites for an Page 5 of 11 KH/06 MSA on this stretch of the A1(M), the UK’s leading MSA operator, Moto, has brought a site forward which uses no BMV agricultural land.