KH3.1

Photo: A1(M) southbound exit to Leeming Bar Services and signage to MSA

Appeal by plc for a Proposed on the A1(M) at Kirby Hill

Kirby Hill RAMS Objection

Written Statement of Dr. Andrew Ramsden on Need & the Effect on Existing MSAs 5th May 2020

PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE: APP/E2734/W/20/3245778

Written Statement of Dr Andrew Ramsden on Need & the Effect on other MSAs KH3.1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 I am Dr Andrew Ramsden. I have been a resident of Kirby Hill for 23 years. During that time, Three

generations of my family have been involved with, and supported, Kirby Hill RAMS’ campaigns.

The proposed Kirby Hill MSA site is approximately 750m from my home.

1.2 As a founder member of Kirby Hill RAMS, I submitted proofs of evidence and appeared as a

witness on behalf of the local community at the 2003 and the 2010/11 MSA Public Inquiries.

1.3 While I have no professional qualifications in the field of planning I am qualified to provide the

Inspector and the Secretary of State with a common-sense layman’s approach to the problem. As a

member of the local community at Kirby Hill for many years and a user of the local road network on

a daily basis, I am well placed to provide an informed, first-hand, local perspective on the issues

under consideration regarding the need for further MSA provision.

1.4 I object to the proposed MSA.

1.5 In this proof, I set out my evidence that the Appeal should be dismissed because, overall, there is

no need for the proposed MSA and it is associated with increased harm and reduced benefits,

when compared with previous MSA proposals at this site that have been rejected.

Page 2 of 11 Written Statement of Dr Andrew Ramsden on Need & the Effect on other MSAs KH3.1

2. BACKGROUND TO THE CURRENT INQUIRY

2.1 At Inquiries in 1994, 1997 and 2003, Planning Inspectors assessed the need for MSA provision

over roughly 70 miles of the strategic road network. The Inspectors’ reports of the 1997 and 2003

Public Inquiries concluded that the compelling need for further MSA provision would best be met by

a single, centrally located site.

2.2 In 2003, the Inspector specifically rejected a two-site option involving Kirby Hill, concluding that a

single new MSA at Wetherby would meet the need over this 70 mile stretch.

2.3 Kirby Hill RAMS believe that the seemingly endless applications to build an MSA at the proposed

site are a direct result of the Government’s decision in 1992 to deregulate MSA development,

resulting in speculative developers attempting to fit an MSA into the land they have been able to

find, with little regard to its true suitability with regard to need or spacing. This is certainly the case

with the Kirby Hill site, where permission has been repeatedly refused and yet another attempt is

being made by the Appellant, despite the site’s obvious unsuitability.

2.4 At the 2012 Inquiry, a proposed MSA at Kirby Hill was again refused and permission was granted

for a second MSA at Leeming Bar, thereby providing twice the MSA provision that the Secretary of

State had concluded in 2005 was needed.

2.5 Now, the Appellant is claiming that a third MSA is required to meet the need, when in 2005 it was

deemed that one MSA would suffice. The Appellant must therefore be expected to justify the need

for three times the MSA provision than the Secretary of State said was required in 2005, just 15

years ago. Kirby Hill RAMS submit that such a need simply does not exist.

3. ROAD IMPROVEMENTS SINCE THE 2003 INQUIRY

3.1 Since the 2003 Inquiry, the stretch of the A1(M) under consideration has undergone a number of

major improvements. It was envisaged at earlier Inquiries that the upgrading of the A1 would alter

the need for MSA provision, in that the upgraded motorway would operate more smoothly and

benefit from quicker journey times and easier driving conditions, leading to a safer and more

Page 3 of 11 Written Statement of Dr Andrew Ramsden on Need & the Effect on other MSAs KH3.1

efficient road. The approximate cost of these upgrades totalled more than £840 million. The overall

effect of these improvements has been to increase safety, reduce journey times and therefore

reduce the need for an MSA.

The Bramham to Wetherby A1M upgrade - completed in August 2009

3.2 In November 2015, Highways England published ‘The Post-Opening Project Evaluation A1(M)

Bramham to Wetherby Five Years After Opening Study’ [CD8.42]. The report’s key findings that are

relevant to this Inquiry, shown on Page 5, are that:

a) Traffic flows on the A1(M) have decreased since opening (due to re-assignment of traffic onto

the Local Access Road).

b) The observed traffic flows on the A1 are lower than forecast.

c) A1(M) traffic is experiencing more reliable journey times and journey times have reduced

slightly.

d) The number of collisions has reduced since the scheme opened, but this saving is lower than

forecast.

The Dishforth to Leeming A1M upgrade – completed in March 2012.

3.3 In July 2015, Highways England published ‘Post-Opening Project Evaluation - A1 Dishforth to

Leeming One Year After Opening Study’ [CD8.43]. The report’s key findings that are relevant to this

Inquiry, shown on page 3, are that:

a) Traffic flows on the A1 have decreased since the scheme opened and are lower than forecast.

This reduction is in line with a nationwide reduction in traffic coinciding with the economic

downturn.

b) A1(M) traffic is experiencing more reliable journeys together with time savings in the region of

2 to 3 minutes.

c) The numbers of collisions on the A1(M) have reduced since the scheme opened and the

impacts are better than forecast.

Page 4 of 11 Written Statement of Dr Andrew Ramsden on Need & the Effect on other MSAs KH3.1

d) Monetary benefits are lower than expected, due to the lower than forecast traffic volumes.

3.4 With regard to the safety benefits of the upgrade project, the same report states that: ‘The number

of serious collisions has fallen by a slightly greater amount than the average of all collisions,

with a 74% reduction.’

3.5 These findings relate to the very section of the A1(M) where this MSA is now being so aggressively

sought. The reports from Highways England, produced less than 5 years ago, clearly confirms a

reduced need at Kirby Hill compared to when the Secretary of State issued his 2012 decision.

The Leeming to Barton A1M upgrade - completed in 2018.

3.6 This new stretch of motorway was opened in March 2018 and I have been unable to find any ’Post-

Opening Project Evaluation’ produced to date. However, Highways England’s ‘A1 Leeming to Barton

Improvement Scheme’ document [CD8.44], published when the scheme opened in 2018, includes

the following statements:

a) ‘The A1 Leeming to Barton scheme has taken 4 years to construct and brings big benefits to

the region - improving safety, relieving congestion, and supporting economic growth.’

b) ‘replacing the existing dual carriageway with a new 3-lane motorway,

c) ‘Before this major upgrade, there were many side road junctions, farms and field accesses

joining onto this stretch of the A1.’

d) ‘Through our scheme we’ve made access to the motorway much safer via a new junction at

Catterick and an improved junction at .’

e) ‘The scheme is predicted to save around 20 lives and prevent around 450 accidents over a 60

year period’

3.7 Therefore this motorway upgrade can be expected to have the same beneficial results as the others

and contribute to the overall reduction in need.

3.8 Highways England’s major improvements to this stretch of the A1/A1M over the last eleven

years have negated the need for any further MSA provision.

Page 5 of 11 Written Statement of Dr Andrew Ramsden on Need & the Effect on other MSAs KH3.1

4. NEED FOR ANOTHER MSA

The Secretary of State’s 2012 decision letter

4.1 The Secretary of State made clear in his 2012 Decision Letter that he considered a need existed for

just one new MSA on the A1(M) between Wetherby and Barton. None of the parties disagreed with

this position at the Inquiry, nor subsequently at the High Court. In the 8 years since then, there has

been no increase in need that would justify granting planning permission for another MSA. In fact, if

anything, since 2012 the need for MSAs on this part of the road network has decreased.

Current Traffic Volumes

4.2 CD8.43 states that ‘the A1(M) at this location carried between 48,400 and 49,800 vehicles on an

average weekday’. In comparison, when looking at average flow rates for motorways in general, the

RAC Foundation says ‘Motorways continue to have the highest average traffic flow in 2018 with 81.7

thousand vehicles for each mile of motorway per day.’ [racfoundation.org]

4.3 DfT Statistics - Table TRA0105 shows that there has only been an 8.7% increase in traffic on the

major road network over the Yorkshire and the Humber region between 2008 and 2018.

4.4 DfT Statistics - Table TRA0303 shows that over the entire length of the A1M, there has only been a

13% increase in daily vehicle flows since the 2003 Inquiry. It also shows that the A1M carries the fifth

least number of daily vehicles of the 26 major sections of the motorway network listed.

4.5 The A1M in this area is a lightly-trafficked motorway. No expectation of any suddenly-increased

capacity requirement from further afield can be demonstrated. Therefore, this section of the strategic

road network requires no exceptional provision of MSAs on traffic volume grounds.

Changes introduced by DfT Circular 02/2013

4.6 The Appellant argues that the new DfT Circular 02/2013, published since the Secretary of State’s

2012 decision, supports the need for a new MSA at Kirby Hill. Although policy changes in the new

Circular (lobbied for by the MSA industry) allow a new planning application to be brought forward,

that does not mean that there is automatically a proven need for another MSA at Kirby Hill. The Local

Page 6 of 11 Written Statement of Dr Andrew Ramsden on Need & the Effect on other MSAs KH3.1

Planning Authority is required to assess the planning balance of need/benefits vs harm. It did and

decided that there were good reasons to refuse the application.

4.7 Crucially, the criteria in the new Circular regarding MSAs being spaced a maximum of 28 miles or 30

minutes driving time apart are the same as when the Secretary of State took his decision in 2012.

However, Paragraph B5 of the new Circular says that this timing is not prescriptive because ‘at peak

hours, on congested parts of the network, travel between service areas may take longer’. Local

people, who travel the road daily to work or to visit friends and relatives, know that the motorway

between Wetherby and Leeming Bar does not meet this definition. The A1(M) in North Yorkshire is

not the M25. The Appellant’s need case is not supported by Circular 02/2013 policy.

4.8 A significant material change between Circular 01/2008 and the new Circular 02/2013 is that the

Government’s advice to motorists to stop and take a rest has been revised. The recommended break

from driving is now 15 minutes every two hours, whereas it was previously 20 minutes every two

hours – a 25% reduction. This policy change creates shorter duration visits to MSAs and a

corresponding increase in the total number of daily visitors an MSA can accommodate. The capacity

of existing MSAs is thereby increased by up to 25%. This has the effect of reducing the need for

new MSAs, compared to when the Secretary of State made his decision.

4.9 DfT Circular 02/2013 reduces, rather than increases, the need for an MSA at this location.

The Highways England Review of Strategic Road Network Service Areas – January 2010 [CD5.7]

4.10 This review [CD5.7, para 2.5] says that ‘In order to identify priority locations a distance of 40 miles

or greater has been defined to represent a gap between MSAs at which the HA would consider

informing a local authority of the potential need for a new MSA to be included in the Local

Development Framework.’ With regard to the Appellant’s claim that a 28+ mile spacing creates a

proven need for further MSA provision on the A1(M), the report also says [para 4.4, page10] that:

‘Distances less than 40 miles are coloured green with distances greater than 40 miles coloured red.

Those distances coloured green are deemed to be acceptable separations for MSAs’.

4.11 Furthermore, the report concludes [para 4.7, page 15] that ‘Overall, the Yorkshire & Humber is well-

served by MSAs, with a total of two routes having MSAs separated by more than 28 miles, of which

Page 7 of 11 Written Statement of Dr Andrew Ramsden on Need & the Effect on other MSAs KH3.1

only one is over 40. (The Wetherby to Leeming Bar separation does not feature in this list, because

Leeming Bar had not been granted permission to upgrade to an MSA at the time of the report.)

4.12 The Appellant’s agent claimed that the 28.17 mile gap between Wetherby and Leeming Bar

highlighted in the Planning Officer’s report to Committee showed a ‘real and demonstrable need’ for

another MSA [CD1.29, page 10]. Yet this is not considered a priority by Highways England and the

LPA would not even be advised of a potential need for an MSA unless the gap were at least 40 miles.

On the basis of this documented policy from the Government Agency responsible for MSA provision

on the strategic road network, we conclude that there is no need for a new MSA at Kirby Hill.

4.13 The Secretary of State’s 2012 decision and Highways England’s policy, as set out in the 2010

strategic review of MSA provision, demonstrate that there is no need for an MSA at Kirby Hill. The

publication of DfT Circular 02/2013 is a material changes which increases the capacity of existing

MSAs and therefore reduces the need for another MSA at Kirby Hill, compared to when the Secretary

of State made his 2012 decision.

5. EFFECT ON EXISTING MSAS

5.1 The permission that the Secretary of State gave in his 2012 Decision Letter, to upgrade the existing

Leeming Bar Services to full MSA status, has been lawfully commenced. Completion of the Highways

England project to upgrade the A1(M) between Leeming and Barton to motorway by the target date

of end 2017 was a pre-requisite for completing the upgrade of Leeming Bar services to MSA status.

It completed late in 2018. The Appellant’s criticisms of ‘delay’ in bringing forward this MSA are

therefore unfounded. One cannot have an MSA without a motorway.

5.2 The Appellant’s planning application is in error when it says that Leeming Bar MSA will not achieve

signing from the A1(M). Moto’s reserved matters planning application for the Leeming Bar MSA,

approved by a Decision Notice on 20 November 2017 [Hambleton District Council planning reference

15/02200/REM], confirms that signing of Leeming Bar MSA from the motorway is already agreed

with Highways England.

5.3 The Secretary of State’s decision must be given time to be implemented, rather than approving

another MSA proposal now, before the Leeming Bar MSA, for which the Secretary of State granted

Page 8 of 11 Written Statement of Dr Andrew Ramsden on Need & the Effect on other MSAs KH3.1

planning permission in 2012, has even opened. If the proposed MSA at Kirby Hill were to be

approved now, it would adversely affect the viability of the new Leeming Bar MSA already approved

by the Secretary of State and undermine his 2012 decision. The Appellant’s planning application was

premature and at this point in time, is unnecessary.

5.4 The Appeal should be refused because approval would undermine the Secretary of State’s

decision on MSA provision on this stretch of the A1(M) before it has time to be implemented.

5.5 It is also necessary to consider the likely effects of a new MSA at Kirby Hill on the existing roadside

facilities: Wetherby MSA and Leeming Bar MRA. Despite their claim that they want to ‘increase

competition’, the Appellant has not included in the documents they have made public an assessment

of the trade or staff that would be displaced from these facilities, if there were an MSA at Kirby Hill.

The Wetherby MSA would of course have competition, but it is unlikely this would affect the viability

of one of the newest and most popular MSAs in the country. Leeming Bar MRA, however, is an older,

smaller facility that is likely to suffer more from the loss of trade and staff. If the permitted upgrade of

Leeming Bar to MSA status were not to happen, it is quite possible that Leeming Bar, which has

served motorists on the A1 for almost 60 years, would close, with the loss of 50 local jobs.

5.6 The Economic harm to Harrogate and Hambleton Districts from the adverse effects of the

proposed scheme on Wetherby MSA and Leeming Bar MRA must be weighed in the balance,

along with the lack of need for an MSA at Kirby Hill.

6. SPACING

6.1 The Appellant claims in their planning application that the distance from Wetherby to Leeming Bar is

28.8 miles. The Planning Officer’s report to Committee quotes it as 28.17 miles [CD1.25, para 9.20],

and this was not challenged by the Appellant when discussed at the Planning Committee meeting.

Great store is being placed by the Appellant on this figure being above 28 miles, because of its

claimed significance in DfT Circular 02/2013. However, in reality it is only a target spacing.

6.2 The Appellant’s claimed distances from Wetherby to Leeming Bar are stated as fact, yet with no

evidence of methodology, no indication of whether they have even been measured on the ground,

and no explanation as to why they differ from the distances formally verified by the Highway

Page 9 of 11 Written Statement of Dr Andrew Ramsden on Need & the Effect on other MSAs KH3.1

Authorities and agreed by all parties at the 2010/11 Public Inquiry, which are set out in CD8.37. In

the absence of such evidence and in the presence of official, verified data to contradict them, the

claimed distances should attract minimal weight. Certainly, they cannot be considered as a material

change that justifies a different decision on Need for an MSA. Neither site has moved since 2010.

6.3 At the 2010/11 Public Inquiry, the Highways Agency measured the relevant distances on the A1(M)

and their methodology, measurement points and results were agreed by all parties, including the

promoter of the Kirby Hill site, who is The Appellant’s partner in this latest application. The agreed

table of distances [CD8.37], to which the Secretary of State referred in his 2012 Decision Letter, gave

the following measurements:

 Northbound, Wetherby Services to Kirby Hill = 12.364 miles

 Northbound, Wetherby Services to Leeming Bar = 27.471 miles

 Southbound, Kirby Hill to Wetherby Services = 12.364 miles

 Southbound, Leeming Bar to Wetherby Services = 27.467 miles

6.4 Therefore the distance from Wetherby Services to Leeming Bar, as measured by the Highways

Agency and agreed to by all parties at the 2010/11 Public Inquiry, is 27.5 miles. This is the only

measurement that should be given credence and it is less than the 28 mile target spacing referenced

in DfT Circular 02/2013.

6.5 Even if we accept the Appellant’s distance figure of 28.8 miles, rather than the 28.17 miles cited by

the Planning Officer or the 27.4 miles verified by the Highway authorities, this represents a distance

of 0.8 mile or 2.85% over the target spacing, which cannot justify another MSA on spacing grounds

or the substantial harm that one would cause.

6.6 If approved, this proposal, alongside the existing provision, would result in MSAs at Barton Park,

Leeming Bar, Kirby Hill, Wetherby and Ferrybridge on the A1(M), plus the newly-opened Leeds

Skelton Lake MSA on the M1 south. Incredibly, this would mean that on either route from north to

south A1M or A1M/M1 there would be five MSAs on a 60-mile stretch of rural motorway which carries

an average daily mid-point traffic flow of around 50,000 vehicles. This would be over-provision.

Page 10 of 11 Written Statement of Dr Andrew Ramsden on Need & the Effect on other MSAs KH3.1

7. CONCLUSIONS

7.1 Kirby Hill RAMS’ conclusions on Need & the Effects on Existing MSAs are as follows:

 There is no need for another MSA at Kirby Hill.

 The recent upgrading of the A1/A1M to full motorway status has eliminated the need for any

further MSA provision.

 DfT Circular 02/2013 reduces, rather than increases, the need for an MSA at this location.

 Approving the proposed scheme would undermine the Secretary of State’s decision on MSA

provision on this stretch of the A1(M) before it has time to be implemented.

 Approving the proposed scheme would cause Economic harm due to displacement of trade and

staff from the existing Wetherby MSA and Leeming Bar MRAs.

 If the Secretary of State’s decision on Leeming Bar MRA is undermined and the permission for

an MSA there is not implemented, the Economic benefits of that scheme would not be realised.

Further, the facilities at Leeming Bar which have been serving motorists on the A1 for almost 60

years would potentially close, with the loss of 50 jobs.

 There is no evidence of lack of capacity at the existing MSAs that could justify another MSA,

7.2 Overall, there is no need for the proposed MSA. It is associated with increased harm and

reduced benefits when compared to previous MSA proposals at this site that were rejected.

For this reason, the Appeal should be dismissed.

Page 11 of 11