Vale of York, Kirby Hill and Hutton Conyers MSA Inquiry

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

Appeal By: MOTO HOSPITALITY LTD

Proposal: ‘Construction of new Motorway Service Area ("MSA") to comprise: Amenity Building, Lodge, Drive Thru Coffee Unit, associated car, coach, motorcycle, caravan, HGV and abnormal load parking and a Fuel Filling Station with retail shop, together with alterations to the adjacent roundabout at Junction 50 of the A1(M) to form an access point and works to the local highway network. Provision of landscaping, signage, infrastructure and ancillary works’. Site At: Land Comprising Field At 435074 475842 Hutton Conyers North Yorkshire.

LPA Ref: 18/02713/EIAMAJ

PI Ref: APP/E2734/W/20/3261729

PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF MARK SIMMONDS ON PLANNING MATTERS

JANUARY 2021

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction and Scope of Evidence………………………………………………… 2.0 Appeal Proposals and Reasons for Refusal...... 3.0 Appeal Site including Site History ...... 4.0 Policy Background...... ……. 5.0 Consideration of Appeal proposals against Development Plan and National policies and The Planning Balance………………………………………. 6.0 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………………

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

1.1 My name is Mark Simmonds. The evidence which I have prepared and provided in this proof of evidence is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I confirm that the opinions expressed are my true and professional opinions.

1.2 I hold a Degree in Town and Country Planning and a post-graduate diploma in Town Planning both from the University of the West of England. I am a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.

1.3 I am a Planning Consultant, I have 20 years’ experience in Development Management with 14 years’ experience working for a number of different Local Planning Authorities starting in 2000 including at Interim Principal Officer and Senior Planner level, and since 2014 I have had 6 years’ experience working as a self-employed planner at several authorities.

1.4 I am currently retained by Harrogate Borough Council as an Agency planner on a self-employed basis to act as planning witness in this Appeal.

1.5 My evidence covers an assessment of the planning balance.

1.6 I am aware of and have read the documentation produced by both the Appellant and Council in respect of the matters before this Inquiry.

1.7 I am familiar with the planning history and planning applications which relate to the proposals for a motorway service area (“MSA”) in this and nearby locations. In preparing this proof of evidence I have had regard to relevant background information.

1.8 I can confirm that the contents of my evidence are my professional opinion and are true and gained from my own direct knowledge except where indicated.

1.9 Nigel Rockliff, Director of DRaW will present evidence on Visual and Landscape Harm on behalf of the Council and I refer to Mr Rockliff’s Evidence in my Proof.

2.0 The development proposals:

2.1 The proposals subject to determination through this Public Inquiry are set out here:

2.2 The application as determined, taken directly from the Decision Notice dated 9 October 2020 was for:

‘Outline application for the erection of motorway service area comprising amenity building, lodge, petrol filling station, parking to include heavy goods and coach parking and associated infrastructure; Formation of access and landscaping’. The Inspector, at the Case Management Conference (CMC) held on the 16th December 2020 led a discussion on the correct description of the proposed development and it was agreed that the Appellant’s preferred description should be adopted for the Public Inquiry and this is set out here: ‘Construction of new Motorway Service Area ("MSA") to comprise: Amenity Building, Lodge, Drive Thru Coffee Unit, associated car, coach, motorcycle, caravan, HGV and abnormal load parking and a Fuel Filling Station with retail shop, together with alterations to the adjacent roundabout at Junction 50 of the A1(M) to form an access point and works to the local highway network. Provision of landscaping, signage, infrastructure and ancillary works’ 4

The application was described and explained in the Officer’s Committee report as being an Outline with access and layout to be considered at the Outline stage, this was clarified in the Committee report as representing:

‘Layout’ is the way in which buildings, routes and open spaces within the development are provided, situated and orientated in relation to each other and to buildings and spaces outside the development.

This is reflected in the Reason for Refusal which cites unsustainable nature of the proposal which would result in a significant encroachment into the open countryside causing harm to the landscape.

2.3 The Appeal proposals are set out on the submitted plans and described within the application/Appeal documents.

2.4 A general discussion of the proposals is set out here for the purposes of describing the proposed development for the Public Inquiry and to confirm that, as Planning Witness, I understand the development under scrutiny.

2.5 The development would be accessed from a new road which would be in a largely south-westerly direction, dropping in height by 5.2m from that of the raised roundabout and accessing a main car park area of 366 spaces, including 20 accessible and 6 electric vehicle charging bays and a further 14 motorcycle spaces. The proposals also include for provision for separate parking areas for:

- 66 HGVs, 13 coaches and 8 caravans.

2.6 The submitted layout plans, including parameters plans giving sizes and heights of buildings, show a number of buildings and other developments as being sited close to the eastern boundary of the site, from north to south these comprise: - a lodge - an amenity building containing several branded outlets towards the south-east corner of the site - ancillary buildings (accommodating a biomass boiler, fuel store, chiller, water tanks and refuse facilities along with LPG compounds) located beyond the service yard that would also include 13 staff parking spaces to the rear of the amenity building tight to the planted boundary with the A61.

2.7 A wide landscaped plaza is indicated between the lodge and amenity building. A further pedestrian plaza would extend forward of the amenity building towards the car park and there would be a picnic area to the south west.

2.8 To the west side of the vehicular access, lorry parking would be provided with the vehicular access looping around the rear back to the roundabout passing by caravan parking spaces, a drive thru coffee shop and a fuel filling station and an abnormal load lay by.

2.9 Indicatively, as full details of scale along with appearance are amongst the matters reserved for subsequent approval, these buildings are shown, according to the parameters plans as being:

o lodge, 120m long, 49m wide and 8.7m high, 100 bedrooms. o amenity building 103.5m long, 67.5m wide, and 9.5m high. o ancillary buildings 37m long, 28m wide and 12m high. o LPG compounds 37m long, 14m wide and 5m high. o Drive thru coffee shop, 15.5m x 11m x 7m high. 6

o Fuel filling station 66.5m x 51m x 8m high

2.10 The indicated ground levels show that the proposed buildings would be generally constructed at, or close to, existing ground levels.

2.11 Reasons for Refusal

2.12 There was one reason for refusal stated on the formal notice, namely:

1) ‘The proposal is outside development limits and represents an unsustainable development that would result in a significant encroachment into open countryside causing harm to the landscape in conflict with Policies EC3 (A & C), GS3 and NE4 of the Harrogate District

Local Plan’. (CD9.99).

3.0 APPEAL SITE

3.1 The site forms part of an attractive, pleasant and undulating landscape characterised by large fields of arable farmland, few hedgerows and trees and scattered farmsteads. To the east of A1(M) / A168 corridor the low-lying gently rolling landscape stretches to the foot of the Hambleton Hills.

3.2 The site falls within Character Area 81, “Dishforth and surrounding Farmland” (CD7.4) of that Assessment and is described as “a large-scale landscape punctuated by villages, hamlets and farmsteads traditionally surrounded by small fields. The site forms part of an undulating landscape with limited tree cover characterised by large fields of arable farmland, few hedgerows and trees and scattered farmsteads.

3.3 A full description of the Appeal site is contained within the Statement of Common Ground and in more detail within the Proof of Evidence and Appendices of Nigel Rockliff.

3.4 The relevant Site History is set out here:

3.5 10/02490/EIAMAJ (6.21.86.EIAMAJ) Outline application for the erection of motorway service area comprising amenity building, lodge, petrol filling station, parking to include heavy goods parking with associated showers and toilet facilities, police post and associated infrastructure with access considered (site area 13.36ha) Refused 16.10.2012 on the grounds that:

i) the then development plan allowance for one motorway service area had already been fulfilled, ii) it would adversely affect the landscape character of the area, iii) it would result in the loss of some of the best and most versatile land, iv) insufficient information had been provided to show that it would not create conditions prejudicial to highway safety both on the local highway network and within the site, v) insufficient information had been provided to show that proposals to accommodate staff journeys to the site were sufficient to comply with then extant sustainable travel policies, and; vi) insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development would not pose an unacceptable risk of pollution to groundwater.

APPEALS 22/07/2010 Appeal & Public Inquiry APP/E2734/V/10/2133571 & 2133577 (CD6.2).

Appeal dismissed 16/10/2012; the Secretary of State agreed with an Inspector that the scheme then under consideration would cause moderate harm to the landscape

character which would soften over the years to slight and that it would, overall, be in conflict with development plan.

It is the Council’s position as set out in Nigel Rockliff’s Evidence that the site history has minimal relevance to this Appeal:

‘The scheme at that time was notably different to that currently proposed. The Baldersby Gate scheme had a different layout and different site boundary. The main buildings were located centrally within the site whereas the current scheme proposes buildings towards the eastern boundary, adjacent to the A61. The proposed landscape measures are also substantially different. Therefore, the two schemes cannot be compared and decisions made by the SoS/inspector at the time are not applicable to, or relevant the scheme currently under consideration. ‘ Source - Nigel Rockliff PoE Para 18.

4.0 POLICY BACKGROUND

4.1 In providing this evidence, I have had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.2 Central government guidance for Motorway Service Areas can be found in:

Strategic road network and the delivery of sustainable development

Ref: DfT Circular 02/2013 (www.Gov.UK). (CD5.3)

4.3 National planning guidance is contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and is a material consideration. (CD5.1)

4.4 The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.5 Achieving sustainable development is a key purpose of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and proposals for sustainable development should be approved without delay. There are three strands to sustainability, social, economic and environmental. Of particular relevance to this Appeal are:

• NPPF Para 127, Parts a, b, c, and d • NPPF Para 170, Part b

4.6 The Statutory Development Plan

4.7 The statutory development plan comprises the Harrogate District Local Plan 2014 – 2035. Policies EC3 (A & C), GS3 and NE4 of the Harrogate District Local Plan are most relevant. (CD4.1).

4.8 The policies referenced above can be considered to be fundamental to an appraisal of the proposal’s merits and carry maximum weight due the Local Plan having been recently adopted.

4.9 I consider that the proposal is contrary to the statutory development plan policies.

4.10 Also relevant are the following landscape character assessments set out in:

 National character Area 24 ‘Vale of Mowbray’, Natural England (CD9.106).  Landscape Character Area 81 ‘Dishforth and Surrounding Farmland’, Harrogate District Landscape Character Assessment, 2004. (CD7.4)

4.11 It is considered that the Harrogate Landscape Character Assessment 2004 is most relevant to the LVIA. (CD7.2).

5.0 The Appeal Site lies within National Character Area 24 Vale of Mowbray. The Vale of Mowbray is described as a broad gently undulating Vale defined by the higher land of the Yorkshire Dales to the west and North York Moors to the east.

6.0 Stated Environmental Objective 4 (SEO4) for the area is to “Protect the pattern and character of scattered villages and farmsteads, ensuring that new development is based on sustainable resource use and contributes to sense of place, while limiting intrusion and loss of tranquillity in this rural area”.

LCA 25 ‘Settled Vale Farmland North Yorkshire and York Landscape Characterisation Project, (North Yorkshire Council) (CD9.107).

7.0 LCA 25 ‘Settled Vale Farmland’ of the North Yorkshire and York Landscape Characterisation Project (CD9.107) in which the Appeal Site lies describes the landscape/cultural and visual sensitivity of the LCA as ‘Moderate’.

“Moderate visual sensitivity overall. Whilst there is a strong sense of openness within much of the farmland as a result of the flat or gently undulating topography, built developments disrupt views to adjacent Landscape Character Types in places;

Moderate landscape and cultural sensitivity overall. In places, historic landscape patterns are compromised by modern developments and infrastructure and hedgerows are gappy. There are, however, numerous historic landscape features present, including parkland landscapes, historic villages and prehistoric earthworks”.

Landscape Character Area 81 Dishforth and Surrounding Farmland (CD7.4).

1. The Landscape Character Area (LCA) most relevant to the assessment is LCA81 ‘Dishforth and Surrounding Farmland’ of the Harrogate District Landscape Character Assessment, 2004, (CD7.4). The Appeal Site lies within this area and the assessment is more detailed and more localised than the National Landscape Character Profiles or the North Yorkshire and York Landscape Characterisation Project assessments.

2. LCA81 includes the following landscape descriptors:

 “Generally this area is pleasant and particularly valued for its views into the North York Moors to the west (sic)”.  “Large-scale industrial development has impacted upon the character of this open area which is sensitive to large scale development”.

3. Under the heading ‘Guidelines’ LCA81 citation advises:

 “New development must take account of openness and views and should not impact upon these valued characteristics.  Development requiring large blocks of woodland screening should be discouraged here.  Large-scale development cannot be easily accommodated without further detriment to landscape character.  Resist new large-scale industrial development in this area unless associated with similar existing development.  Avoid highlighting the A1(M) and A168 corridors”.

The citations for these designations are set out in the Appendices of Nigel Rockliff’s Proof of Evidence.

8.0 CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL AGAINST THE NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLAN POLICIES MOST RELEVANT TO THE APPEAL AND THE PLANNING BALANCE

8.1 The National Planning Policy Framework. (CD5.1).

8.2 This section of the Proof examines the material issues in relation to requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework to deliver sustainable development and to reject development which does not accord with the Development Plan; and which is contrary to the three strands of sustainable development - Social, Economic and Environmental which all need to be treated with equal weight.

8.3 The NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions (paragraphs 2 and 47).

8.4 It does not override sections section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 & 70(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

8.5 The NPPF states it should be read as a whole (including its footnotes and annexes).

8.6 The Economic Objective

8.7 Development would entail economic benefits. There would be temporary construction employment, both on and off-site. Secondary employment would be created. However, the benefits of this are limited as the construction jobs would be short term and the jobs for people working on the actual MSA services would need to attract people from considerable distances as they are very unlikely to be met from the nearby settlements.

8.8 The economic benefits are, in my professional opinion, to be afforded some limited weight, but the overall economic impacts are not significant in their own right to outweigh the harm demonstrated in the Evidence of Nigel Rockliff.

8.9 As set out in the Council’s Statement of Case, in terms of economic benefits beyond construction activity the proposed development would create a number of jobs which may not be as expansive as indicated by the appellant and would primarily be low paid and low skilled.

- In terms of jobs created by the proposed development this is understood to be:

- -During construction 14 full time jobs in the economy of North Yorkshire are predicted in the submitted Socio and Economic statement, in the ‘Local Impact Area’ of Harrogate Borough and Hambleton District. - Once operational a net increase of 89.3 full time jobs (or equivalents) in North Yorkshire is predicted of which 63 would be in the ‘Local Impact Area’. However, the Council contends that a significant number of these jobs are likely to be jobs such as petrol filling attendants, cleaning, catering jobs and similar. - The jobs created by this scheme are expected to be low paid, part time and low quality, this does not meet the objectives of the Council’s published aspirations for “More higher value jobs and higher average workplace wages, generating greater expenditure in the district as set out in the Economic Growth Strategy for the Harrogate District 2017-2035. (CD4.8).

8.10 The Social Objective

8.11 The scheme has benefits in terms of driver safety and rest provision on a Motorway (A1M), which is a central government priority on the road network, although the actual ‘Need’ for this scheme in this location is not considered to be well founded, this is covered in more detail later in my Proof of Evidence.

8.12 The Environmental Objective

8.13 The conflict with the Development Plan, and NPPF the landscape and visual impact is a negative factor in the planning balance.

8.14 It is the Council’s case that with regard to the impact of the proposed development on biodiversity the appellants biodiversity audit potentially overestimates the values of proposed areas of habitat as ‘good’ when 14

‘moderate’ is more likely, however whether ‘good’ or moderate’ I consider this to be a limited benefit which does not outweigh the harm demonstrated.

8.15 The proposal is thus associated with adverse impacts with respect to key objectives described in paragraph 8 of the NPPF.

8.16 Policy NE4: Landscape Character, relating to landscape protection.

8.17 In essence this policy advises that proposals that protect, enhance or restore the landscape character of Harrogate District for its own intrinsic beauty and for its benefit to the economic, environmental and social well-being of the district will be supported.

8.18 Development proposals should therefore protect and/or enhance the character, appearance, and local distinctiveness of the landscape.

8.19 The Appeal proposals, causing direct and significant harm to the landscape, as demonstrated in the evidence of Nigel Rockliff, are contrary to this policy.

8.20 “Proposals that will protect, enhance or restore the landscape character of Harrogate district for its own intrinsic beauty and for its benefit to the economic, environmental and social well-being of the district will be

supported./~/” Policy NE4: Landscape Character, relating to landscape protection.

8.21 The evidence of Nigel Rockliff sets out the Council’s evidence on landscape and finds that (Nigel Rockliff’s Proof of Evidence):

8.22 The openness of the landscape significantly reduces its ability to accommodate large scale development of the type proposed. It is predicted that, despite the presence of the existing motorway junction and the industrial development at Melmerby, the proposals would have a notable adverse effect on the rural character of the landscape and would not comply with the guidance set out in LCA 81. The development would introduce extensive hard-standings, uncharacteristic buildings, tall vertical structures, movement, illumination and activity into an open arable landscape, identified as being ‘sensitive to large scale development’, again conflicting with the guidance in LCA 81 which states “Large-scale development cannot be easily accommodated without further detriment to landscape character”. Source - Nigel Rockliff Proof of Evidence paragraphs 38 – 40.

8.23 I note in my conclusions on the harm caused by the development in the planning balance, that the Evidence of Nigel Rockliff shows that:

‘Using the DRaW methodology (Appendix NR6) as a guide I predict the magnitude of change to the landscape around the Appeal Site would be ‘High’. The effects would generally extend from the A1(M) in the east, to Melmerby Green Lane in the west and approximately 1km south of the Appeal Site and 2km north. They would be Significant and permanent.’ (MS emphasis) Source Nigel Rockliff Proof of Evidence para 44.

8.24 Therefore, the Appeal proposals, causing direct and significant harm to the landscape, as demonstrated in the evidence of Nigel Rockliff, are contrary to this policy. As Mr Rockliff’s evidence also demonstrates, the appeal proposals are harmful in terms of visual impact. The harm caused justifies dismissal of the Appeal.

8.25 This enduring harm of this proposal is therefore unjustified, and the significant Landscape harm associated with the proposed MSA and the

adverse impact of this on the countryside provide sufficient grounds on their own for refusing this Appeal.

8.26 The evidence of Nigel Rockliff includes analysis that relates to the predicted level of effect upon the character and quality of the landscape and to the views from the surrounding areas.

8.27 Conclusions on How the Proposed Development Conflicts With the Fundamental Policies and the Resultant Harm.

8.28 The proposal is contrary to Policies EC3 (A & C), GS3 and NE4 of the Harrogate District Local Plan.

8.29 Approval of this proposal would therefore cause significant harm as a result of conflict with the development plan policies referenced.

8.30 THE PLANNING BALANCE Benefits and harms

8.31 As with all development proposals there is a ‘planning balance’ to be made.

8.32 The benefits relating to the Appeal proposals would be summarised as:

- Construction related economic benefits; - Jobs created–this is of limited weight as the jobs would be mostly low paid, unskilled and requiring people to travel considerable distances to and from the MSA to work. -A rest area being created. -A slight benefit from ‘good’ to ‘moderate’ bio-diversity enhancements.

8.33 NEED

8.34 The need for an additional MSA on this stretch of the motorway network was not specifically referred to in the Reason for Refusal but it is integral to the consideration of the Appeal.

8.35 The Inspector at the December CMC discussed ‘need’ with the parties and its role can be summarised as the balance between a demonstrable requirement, if any, for more motorway service areas on this stretch of the A1M and the Council’s stated case that there is harm in terms of harm to the Landscape and visual impacts.

8.36 Therefore ‘Need ‘is considered to be a material factor in the determination of this Appeal. If there is no overriding need or, if the benefit of meeting any need is found to be limited then the harms set out in this Proof of Evidence are harder to justify.

8.37 There is a recognised consensus that Motorway Service Areas play an important role in road safety, Motorway Service Areas (MSAs) are important as they provide the opportunity for drivers (and their passengers) to take a break on long journeys. The ability for drivers to stop on a regular basis is important in terms of road safety, as driver fatigue is a nationally recognised major cause of Motorway Accidents.

8.38 The national guidance on MSAs, including distancing advice, which I consider to be the definition on quantification of ‘Need’ with regard to Motorway Service Areas is set out in Circular 02/2013 which states that:

8.39 “The Highways Agency therefore recommends that the maximum distance between motorway service areas should be no more than 28 miles. The distance between services can be shorter, but to protect the 18

safety and operation of the network, the access/egress arrangements of facilities must comply with the requirements of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges including its provisions in respect of junction separation.

8.40 Speed limits on the strategic road network vary and therefore, applying the same principles, the maximum distance between signed services on trunk roads should be the equivalent of 30 minutes driving time. This distance can also be shorter, also subject to compliance with design requirements set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.

8.41 The distances set out above are considered appropriate for all parts of the strategic road network and to be in the interests and for the benefit of all road users regardless of traffic flows or route choice. In determining applications for new or improved sites, local planning authorities should not need to consider the merits of the spacing of sites beyond conformity with the maximum and minimum spacing criteria established for safety reasons. Nor should they seek to prevent competition between operators; rather they should determine applications on their specific planning merits.”

8.42 My consideration of ‘need’ in regard to this Appeal is set in the following sections with the existing and extant MSAs and MRAs illustrated for clarity in terms of Existing and consented sites on the A1(M) set out in my ‘Appendix 1’.: 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’.

8.43 The Councils Proof on the conjoined Appeal at Kirby Hill notes that a distance of 29 miles between the extant motorway service area at Wetherby to that permitted at Leeming exists.

8.44 The Proof relating to the Kirby Hill Appeal (Conjoined with this Appeal) also notes that the distance between the Wetherby services and the site of the proposed motorway service area at Kirby Hill is less than 13 miles and the Council therefore contends that the need for a motorway service area in that location at Kirby Hill is not well founded in relation to that Appeal. This principle is considered to apply equally to this Appeal proposal as the facts are comparable – set out in paragraph 5.46 of my Proof below.

8.45 It should be noted that the Appellants have not suggested they would cease to operate the current MRA at Leeming which provides various services including: Catering: McDonald's Drive Thru Shops: Temporarily closed Main Amenities: Temporarily closed Hotel: Temporarily closed Forecourt: BP, Shop, Costa Express, Air1 AdBlue source https://motorwayservicesonline.co.uk/Leeming_Bar

8.46 So whilst it is accepted the MRA is not classed as an MSA it does perform many of the functions of an MSA and importantly provides “the opportunity for drivers (and their passengers) to take a break on long journeys”(Circular 02/2013) thereby satisfying the need along this stretch of the A1M.

8.47

The differences between the available facilities at a Motorway Service Area and a Motorway Rest Area is set out in Circular 02/2013 and this is replicated in a table at Appendix 2 of this Proof of Evidence

– source assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/f ile/237412/dft-circular-strategic-road.pdf

8.48 In simple terms, a rest area is like a motorway service area, only it doesn't need to provide fuel or food.

Motorway rest areas appear to remain very rare in the UK with the only two MRAs on the A1(M) being:

 Leeming Bar (A1(M))

 Scotch Corner (A1(M))

Source motorwayservicesonline.co.uk/Rest_area

8.49 The fact there exists a motorway rest area which has permission for a motorway service area is an important consideration as it means there is a site with planning permission in existence which is appropriately located to provide services in terms of the distance between motorway service areas at Wetherby and Durham.

8.50 The current distancing of MSAs and other key roadside service areas on the A1(M) is set out here:

8.51 The A1 became the A1(M) on a new alignment in 2012, with the Leeming Bar services bypassed meaning the A1(M) has to be exited to the north of the MSA location and then directed south along the A6055. c.1.5 miles The distance from Wetherby to Leeming Bar MRA, is 29 miles just one mile in excess of the guidance in the Circular

8.52 To the south of Junction 46, Wetherby motorway service area is 17 miles, 11 miles within the spacing distance recommended by Circular 02/2013

8.53 To the north of Junction 46, Durham motorway service area at Junction 61, is , c 48 miles distant.

8.54 In addition to the existing and permitted MSAs and MRAs already mentioned there are two existing Truckstops to the north of Junction 46, one at Leeming c 10 miles away and one at Barton Junction 56 which is 23 miles away.

8.55 Barton, Junction 56, also has an extant planning permission for its redevelopment as a motorway service area.

8.56 There is also a rest area at Scotch Corner, Junction 53 which is c. 21 miles to the north but this does not provide facilities for HGVs.

8.57 The rest area at Leeming (c. 11 miles to the north on the A6055 accessed from Junction 51 of the A1(M)), which has outline planning permission granted by the Secretary of State in 2012 on appeal for its redevelopment as a motorway service area. (The reserved matters application was approved in November 2017).

8.58 There are also proposals the subject of current applications for motorway service areas at Junction 52, c 20.5 miles distant, with Richmondshire District Council and at c.5 miles distant within Harrogate District at Kirby Hill (The ‘Conjoined’ Appeal proposal) (LPA REF: 18/00123/EIAMAJ PINS REF: APP/E2734/W/20/3245778).

8.59 The Council contends that the benefits of an on-line site in this particular location would be significantly outweighed by its poor spacing, at just 11 22

miles from the extant Leeming MSA and just 17 miles from the Wetherby MSA., On this basis the Council considers that the site is badly located to provide properly spaced facilities as advised by 02/2013 and that it is too close to both the Wetherby MSA in the South and the existing MRA and extant permission for an MSA at Leeming in the North. Drivers’ needs are presently adequately provided for on this stretch of the A1M meaning that the significant demonstrable harm that would be caused by the development in terms of harm to landscape would not be justified.

The Council’s position is that even if a need is considered to exist on the A1(M) on the section of road between Wetherby and Durham then this is not considered to represent an effective response to meeting that need.

8.60 The Council therefore contends that the need for an MSA in this location is not well founded.

8.61 It is my professional opinion that even if the Inspector were to find that there is a proven need for a new MSA on this road this scheme is out of scale and proportion to the open countryside setting and is unacceptably harmful and should not be allowed, if a need were to be proven a better, more sensitively designed and low-key scheme should be sought, the Appeal proposals before this Inquiry process are unacceptably harmful and inappropriate.

8.62 This does not prejudice my opinion that there is NOT a well-founded demonstration of need due to the existing facilities which are.

9.0 CONCLUSIONS

9.1 The Secretary of State has previously dismissed an appeal regarding a proposed MSA on this site, although the relevance of that Appeal decision is minimal due to the material differences between the historic application and the current Appeal. The appeal proposal will be harmful in terms of landscape impact and visual impact, in conflict with Policy NE4 as well as the NPPF and other material considerations.

9.2 The evidence of Nigel Rockliff demonstrates the harm that would occur and the conclusions of Mr Rockliff underline why the Council contends that the Appeal should be dismissed:

80. Overall the proposal for an MSA at Junction 50 of the A1(M), which lies outside development limits, would result in significant encroachment into open countryside causing harm to the landscape. It is not compliant with Policies EC3 (A & C), GS3 or NE4 of the Harrogate District Local Plan. Therefore, I support the Reason for Refusal and conclude that it should be upheld. Source – Nigel Rockliff Proof of Evidence para 80.

9.3 This conflict should be afforded significant weight. The conflict warrants dismissal of the appeal, both individually and cumulatively. The harms associated with the appeal proposal outweigh the benefits.

9.4 Indeed, the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.

9.5 The appeal proposal is not in accordance with the development plan, and there are no material considerations indicating that the decision should be other than in accordance with the development plan.

9.6 I entirely concur with Mr Rockliff’s conclusions:

9.7 The appeal should be dismissed.