______Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – Section 78 Appeal
Appeal by Moto Hospitality Limited
Land Comprising Field at 435074 475842, Hutton Conyers, North Yorkshire
Against the Refusal of Planning Permission by Harrogate Borough Council on the Outline Application for:
“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, infrastructure and ancillary works.”
Application Reference: 18/02713/EIAMAJ
Appeal Reference: APP/E2734/W/20/3261729
Proof of Evidence AFR Collins – January 2021
AFR COLLINS MRICS MRTPI MCIT MILT MEWI T 01376 538533 Collins & Coward Ltd M 07825 633573 The Courtyard F 01376 563240 9A East Street E [email protected] Coggeshall W www.collinscoward.co.uk Essex CO6 1SH ______
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
CONTENTS
1 PERSONAL INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF EVIDENCE
2 INTRODUCTION
3 THE SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA
4 THE PLANNING HISTORY & ENGAGEMENT (i) Planning History (II) Pre-Application Engagement (iii) Post-Application Engagement
5 THE APPEAL PROPOSALS (i) Introduction (ii) The Development of the Site
6 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS (i) The Harrogate District Local Plan 2020 (ii) The National Planning Policy Framework 2019 (iii) Circular 02/2013 (iv) Landscape Character Area
7 ALTERNATIVE SITES ASSESSMENT
8 WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?
9 ASSESSEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT AND DECISION NOTICE
10 ISSUES RAISED BY THIRD PARTIES
11 MATTER RAISED BY APPLEGREEN
12 PLANNING BALANCE
APPENDICES ARC1 – Note of Pre-application Meeting with Harrogate Council ARC2 – 2012 Landscape Master Plan for Baldersby Gate ARC3 – UK MSAs ARC4 – A1(M) Passing Traffic ARC5 – Lodge Survey ARC6 – Net Gain for Biodiversity Comparison ARC7 – Comparative Assessment of Job Creation ARC8 – Access Distances for each MSA Access
______
2 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
1 PERSONAL INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF EVIDENCE
1.1 I am Anthony Francis Richard Collins MRICS MRTPI MCIT MILT MEWI.
1.2 I am a Member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, a Member of the Institute of Logistics, a Member of the Chartered Institute of Transport, and a Member of the Expert Witness Institute. I have in the past been a member of the RTPI’s Consultancy Panel advising the Institute on consultancy matters.
1.3 I am the Managing Director of my Company, Collins and Coward Ltd, planning and development consultants which I established with fellow directors in January 2007. Prior to that I was a Director with CGMS for a period of two years and immediately prior to that I was a Director and Head of Planning and Development at Atisreal (formerly Weatherall Green & Smith) where I was employed for 18 years. I started my career as a town planner with Basildon Development Corporation and the New Towns Commission in 1977.
1.4 Throughout my 43-year career I have gained extensive experience in all types of planning and development matters, acting for both the private and public sectors. I have dealt with a considerable number of appeals.
1.5 I have advised both private and public-sector clients including the Government in respect of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and policy matters relating to housing. I have advised Government departments, quangos, police authorities, health authorities and other public-sector organisations including local authorities. My private sector clients include multi-national corporations, FTSE 100 companies and private individuals including overseas royalty. I have advised many clients in respect of planning matters dealing with residential development.
1.6 I confirm that I was first instructed in January 2018 in respect of the project for an MSA at Ripon. I have been advising Moto Hospitality Limited, Granada (the predecessor of Moto) and Pavilion (acquired by Moto) in respect of MSA planning for over 30 years.
1.7 My evidence deals with appeal proposals and their context. I assess the consideration of the appeal application by Harrogate Borough Council (“the Council”). I then analyse the Development Plan and other policy matters before turning to consider the Council’s reason for refusal. I then assess the planning issues raised by other third parties. I conclude by assessing the Development Plan and other material considerations and the planning balance. My evidence needs to be read alongside that of Sue Illman of Illman Young and Daniel Baird of Daniel Baird Soil Consultancy Ltd.
1.8 In the preparation of this evidence and in my conduct at the forthcoming inquiry, I have and will continue to adhere to the rules of conduct of the professional bodies of which I am a member. The evidence which I provide for these Appeal Inquiries (reference APP/E2734/W/20/3261729 & 3245778) is true and is given in accordance with the requirements of my professional bodies.
______
3 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
1.9 I confirm that I have made clear which facts and matters referred to in this report are within my own knowledge and which are not. Those that are within my own knowledge I confirm to be true. The opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete professional opinions on the matters to which they refer.
______
4 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 This appeal concerns an outline application with all matters reserved save for access and layout for planning permission for the “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, infrastructure and ancillary works” on land adjoining the A1(M) at Junction 50.
2.2 The Council’s Planning Committee resolved to refuse permission on 6 October 2020 and the Decision Notice was issued on 9 October 2020. The application was refused for a single reason:
“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”.
2.3 The Committee Report set out the basis for the consideration of the proposal under the following heads:
(i) whether there is a need for an additional MSA; (ii) the impact on the highway network and highway safety; (iii) the impact on the character and appearance of the area; (iv) impact on heritage assets; (v) the loss of agricultural land; (vi) water supply, flood risk, foul, and surface water drainage; (vii) ecology; and (viii) employment.
2.4 The Committee Report then goes on to confirm there were no development management or policy issues in respect of the following matters:
(i) the impact on the highway network and highway safety including travel planning; (ii) impact on heritage assets; (iii) the loss of agricultural land; (iv) water supply, flood risk, foul, and surface water drainage; (v) ecology, nature conservation and arboriculture; (vi) socio-economics including employment; (vii) noise, air quality, dust, health, and pollution control
2.5 These matters that have been agreed are confirmed in the Statement of Common Ground with the Council dated 8 January 2021.
______
5 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
2.6 Insofar that matters of agricultural land quality, socio-economic benefits and net gain for biodiversity are concerned the Council in its Supplemental Statement of Case dated 22 December 2020 has accepted these are not matters giving rise to any planning objection.
2.7 This Appeal has been conjoined with a proposed MSA known as the Vale of York (LPA REF: 18/00123/EIAMAJ & PINS REF: APP/E2734/W/20/3245778). Applegreen PLC is a Motorway Service Area operator who has recently acquired a controlling interest in Welcome Break who is a well-known MSA operator in the UK. Applegreen has promoted a site at Kirby Hill which it alleges is superior in the planning balance compared to that MSA scheme promoted by Moto. The Council does not express a preference for either scheme. I have produced a Proof of Evidence and written statements for the Applegreen Appeal as a Rule 6 party on behalf of Moto.
2.8 The reason for Moto’s appeal is that the Council considers the MSA would harm the Landscape Character. The Appellant will demonstrate that the MSA is needed on the A1(M), the impact on “Landscape Character” will be slight in the long term and by necessity the development must be located on the motorway outside development limits where there are no allocations or previously developed (brownfield) land available for the MSA.
2.9 The remainder of my Proof of Evidence considers the planning considerations of the appeal proposal and the planning balance. In considering the planning balance I rely upon the evidence of Sue Illman in respect of landscape matters and Daniel Baird for agricultural land quality. I consider the comparative position between the two competing proposals as part of the planning balance.
______
6 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
3 SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA
3.1 Details of the site and surrounding area form part of the agreed Statement of Common Ground. In brief, the site is located to the north-east of Ripon. The closest settlements include Baldersby (1.3 kms to the north east), Rainton (1.65 kms to the south west) and Melmerby (1.5 kms to the north west). At Melmerby there is a large industrial estate which is readily seen in most views. Harrogate is 20kms to the south west and Thirsk 14 kms to the north east. Ripon lies just 4.5 miles to the south west along the A61. The site is not close to any villages. The landscape is featureless with scattered development characterising its nature.
3.2 The appeal site is located immediately west of Junction 50 of the A1(M). It comprises agricultural fields and some highways land. The site extends to 13.35 hectares as shown on the planning application redline boundary (Plan: RCP01).
3.3 The existing topography of the main body of the site is generally flat with, a low ridge running through the centre of the site with a low point to the north. The land to the east and west is approximately 2m higher.
3.4 The site lies below the elevated roundabout on the A1(M) at Junction 50 with its connection to the A61. The difference is levels is around 7.5m. The A61 is rises as its approaches the junction from the south and it wraps around its south-eastern boundary to the roundabout, with the B6055 continuing around the boundary in a north-westerly direction, parallel to the A1(M). This level change creates very steep embankments and has an enclosing effect on the site. The roadside verges are planted with a range of deciduous and evergreen trees.
3.5 The site sits within a broadly open landscape. Tree cover and hedgerows are intermittent which affords some longer views. The site is however well screened in its wider setting as outlined in the Environmental Statement. The site’s visibility has been an important factor in determining the treatment of its boundaries and its internal planting.
______
7 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
4 PLANNING HISTORY & ENGAGEMENT
Planning History
4.1 The planning history of the site is set out in Section 4 of the agreed Statement of Common Ground. There is also an “All-Party” Note on the history of MSA decisions.
4.2 There has only been one previous planning application on the appeal site which was for a motorway service area known as “Baldersby Gate”. The outline application with all matters reserved except for access (Ref:10/02490/EIAMAJ) was made by Refined Estates Limited. The application was for a “motorway service area comprising; amenity building, lodge, petrol filling station, parking including heavy goods vehicle parking, shower and toilet facilities, a police post, landscaping and associated infrastructure works”.
4.3 The application was recovered by the Secretary of State for his determination (Ref: APP/E2734/V/10/2133577) alongside four other proposals, three for MSAs and one for a Truck Stop. One of the proposals was for an MSA at Kirby Hill (LPA Ref: 08/05860/EIAMAJ) now known as “Vale of York” which was determined concurrent with the Baldersby Gate application. The application at Kirby Hill was promoted by Heather Ives Associates and comprised “an outline application for a core twin-sided motorway service area at Kirby Hill comprising amenity building, petrol filling station, heavy goods vehicle amenity building, vehicle parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure with all matters reserved except for access”. I acknowledge the current appeal proposal differs from that considered by the Secretary of State in 2012 insofar that the original scheme was twin-sided with mounding whilst the current proposal is single-sided with a major grade-separated junction across the A1(M) with embankments and an overbridge.
4.4 The Inspector reporting to the Secretary of State recommended the grant of planning permission for the Baldersby Gate site (the current application site for Ripon MSA). In assessing the Baldersby Gate site the Inspector concluded that the site would:
• Not become a destination in its own right (IR 14.1.80); • That junction 50 would be the best location to meet the need (IR 14.1.88); • It could meet the needs of Circular 1/2008 save for a smaller abnormal load area (IR 14.5.17 & 18); • The traffic impact would be acceptable (IR 14.5.20); • The access to the site was acceptable (IR 14.5.21 & 22); • Temporary construction access from the A61 would be acceptable (IR 14.5.25); • The MSA would represent a significant encroachment into the countryside (IR 14.5.26); • The land was classified as best and most versatile agricultural (“BMV”) land and therefore weighed in the balance (IR14.5.27 & 28); • There were few sensitive receptors in respect of landscape impact (IR 14.5.32);
______
8 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______• The proposal would cause moderate harm to the landscape character. The harder elements may soften over the years as vegetation matures, but the box-like appearance would remain; harm would lessen to moderate to slight. (IR 14.5.35); • The visual harm would be very slight (IR 14.5.41); • No listed buildings would be affected by the proposal (IR 14.5.42); • Archaeology could be dealt with by planning condition (IR 14.5.43); • There would be a slight beneficial effect on ecology (IR 154.5.44); • There were no issues around flooding or drainage (IR 14.5.45, 46 & 47); • No issue in relation to local employment (IR 14.5.48). The recruitment would be from a wide area and Harrogate Council do not object on employment grounds; • There would be no impact on residential amenity (IR 14.5.49); • The proposal would be deliverable (IR 14.5.50); • The scheme would be sustainable taking least BMV compared to other proposals (IR 15.5.51); • Although Wetherby MSA meets the need of Policy T7 for a single MSA national policy would require an infill MSA (IR 14.5.69).
4.5 The Decision of the Secretary of State was issued on 16 October 2012 (CD6.2). Paragraph 8 of the Decision Letter states in relation to the Baldersby Gate MSA proposal that:
“The Secretary of State therefore agrees with both Inspectors (IR 2.6.35) that the proposal would result in moderate harm to the landscape character of the area, that the visual impact would be slight, and that both harms would lessen over time”.
4.6 The Inspector recommended that Baldersby Gate MSA be permitted subject to conditions (Paragraph 3). However, the SoS preferred the proposal for an MSA at Motel Leeming Bar which was an existing roadside facility and therefore a brownfield site.
4.7 In both cases, the Kirby Hill and Baldersby Gate MSA applications were outline with only access not reserved for future consideration. Both proposals were different to the current MSA schemes. Kirby Hill was to be a twin-sided scheme whilst Baldersby Gate proposal located the Amenity Building centrally within the site. In both MSA schemes the landscape character was broadly the same within LCA81.
4.8 The Secretary of State in his Decision Letter (CD6.2) stated (para 21) that the Kirby Hill scheme “would have a significant detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape (IR 14.3.79-14.3.81)”, whilst for Baldersby Gate the judgement was (Para 29) that the “proposal would cause moderate harm to the landscape character which would soften over the years to slight (IR14.5.58)”. Overall, the Ripon MSA site (Baldersby Gate) was considered the best “greenfield” site of the three considered and the Kirby Hill scheme to have the worst impact on landscape character and appearance.
4.9 There was an EIA accompanying the Baldersby Gate application which considered the MSA parameters and this found and was confirmed by the Inspector and Secretary of State to be satisfactory with the proposed mitigation. Accordingly, I consider the Ripon MSA site is not a sensitive location in respect of landscape character and visual appearance for MSA development. Conversely, the Kirby Hill site is a sensitive location in respect of landscape impact for MSA development.
______
9 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
4.10 The Secretary of State’s Decision also recorded that the passing traffic for Kirby Hill and Baldersby Gate MSA proposals was comparable. Notwithstanding this, the Kirby Hill scheme was claimed to be more beneficial as it sought to argue that traffic diverting to the A19 was a significant factor in its favour. However, this claim was dismissed by the Inspector who considered the MSA should serve the A1(M) motorway and not A19 traffic (IR 14.3.71).
Pre-application Engagement
4.11 The Appellant engaged with the Council under a Pre-application Enquiry. The Officer’s provided advice and this is recorded in a Note prepared by me of the meeting (Appendix A). In particular, the Council set out its strategic landscape approach. In my Pre-application note I recorded that:
“the design should avoid the creation of prominent “boxes” in the landscape. Bunds would not be the correct approach. PG [Paul Gooderson – Moto’s Architect] explained that the scheme would incorporate gentle mounds with copses of trees and broken hedge lines to replicate existing landscape features. The initial LVIA indicated it would only be immediate views which would need addressing and there were very limited long-distance views. PG explained the layout and design approach. The Council welcomed the design layout and understood the need for a tree screen between the building and the A61. JF [Jan Falkingham - Council’s Landscape Officer] particularly noted that it was important to acknowledge that the landscape impact would not be minimal and to argue the effectiveness of the mitigation proposals”.
4.12 My understanding of the Council’s approach was founded on the Secretary of State’s Decision in 2012 where the Council’s position was that there would be moderate harm to Landscape Character. This was not agreed by the Inspector or Secretary of State who considered the long-term impact would be slight. However, the Council wanted to ensure any new design was integrated into the landscape with regard to its character. The landscape-led approach for the MSA proposed the relocation of the buildings alongside the A61 to achieve better design within the site and its context and reduce the impact on the landscape character and its visual appearance.
4.13 The Appellant followed the Council’s landscape advice. The design reflects the need to screen the buildings from the A61 with trees and that the overall impact would be slight on the landscape character. The location of the buildings was discussed and fully understood by the Council adjoining the A61.
4.14 The Appellant also undertook an extensive programme of pre-application community consultation which is set out in the Statement of Community Engagement (CD9.08). The programme of community engagement undertaken was as follows:
• Consulting elected representatives • Consulting other stakeholders • Consulting residents from the Ripon area
______
10 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
4.15 Two public consultation events were held in publicly accessible, central Ripon locations:
• Thursday 24th May, 9am-4pm, Market Square, Ripon City Centre; • Thursday 24th May, 4.30pm-8pm, Ripon Community House, Sharow View, Allhallowgate, Ripon
4.16 Residents were made aware of these events through a number of activities including newsletters posted to over 1,200 households, and coverage in social and traditional media.
4.17 As part of the engagement process, a project website was prepared - moto- riponservices.com (originally moto-baldersbygateservices.com – but changed in response to feedback - the original domain name diverts automatically to the new one). The website was widely publicised, and visitors were encouraged to submit their feedback.
4.18 Visitors to the exhibition could also provide comments via a dedicated email (again the original email address diverts automatically to the new one). The website remained live throughout the process to enable people to provide feedback or ask questions at any point. Moto also encouraged people to provide feedback by raising awareness about the consultation from @motoway Twitter handle.
4.19 In total 212 local residents and interested parties spoke to members of the project team over the course of the two public events. Following the events, all display materials were uploaded to the project website.
4.20 In total 70 pieces of feedback have been received across all the available channels - the Freepost and Freephone, online feedback form and forms returned at the two consultation events.
4.21 The key issues arising out of these consultation events are fully detailed in the separate Statement of Community Engagement (CD9.08) report submitted in support of this application. There were six key themes for comments that were in support and objections:
______
11 | P a g e Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
• Jobs & Local Economy • Need for and Location of the MSA • Access and Impact on Local Roads • Noise and Light Pollution • Landscape & Design • Security & Litter
Post-application Engagement
4.22 During the Council’s period of determination of the application it received consultation responses from statutory consultees, non-statutory consultees and the public.
4.23 The Officer’s Report to Committee set out the consultation responses at section 6. It recorded that “Thirty-six authors have made representations against the proposal, largely but not wholly, resident in the surrounding villages and also including the agent 18/02713/EIAMAJ acting for a similar proposal elsewhere”. There were three representations in support of the proposals.
4.24 In my view the application benefitted from very extensive consultation and the issues raised by consultees and stakeholders were fully addressed. This resulted on a limited number of objections. All of the representations received by the Council were fully addressed and documented in the Application Document RCD18 “Response to Representations” (CD9.21).
______
12 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
5 THE APPEAL PROPOSALS
Introduction
5.1 The appeal “Development” comprises a development of a motorway service area. This would comprise an amenity building, lodge, drive thru coffee unit and fuel filling station (with retail shop) with associated vehicle parking for cars, HGVs, coaches, caravans, motorcycles, and an abnormal load. The access would be from the J50 Roundabout. Provision is made for landscaping, infrastructure, and ancillary works within the scheme. The Design & Access Statement (CD9.14) sets out the full details of the proposals.
5.2 The site extends to 13.35 hectares on the western quadrant of the Junction 50 Roundabout on the A1(M) (CD9.24). The site comprises the following areas:
• Landscape – 56% • Building (Footprint) – 4% • Parking, Roads & Pedestrian areas - 40%
5.3 The development proposals have been designed to be landscape-led with suitable landscape design following the Council’s landscape advice provided at the pre-application stage. Before commencing any design, Moto undertook a comprehensive review of the 2012 Secretary of State’s Decision and the Inspectors’ Reports to design an improved scheme addressing those matters of concern, namely the impact on the landscape character. The relocation of the amenity building to be located alongside the A61 would remove any buildings from the visible centre of the site. In essence Moto learnt from the previous proposal and the concerns and objections to other schemes on the A1(M) to enable a sustainable development to be created for Ripon MSA.
5.4 The 2020 Appeal scheme differs from that promoted under the “Baldersby Gate” name in both the strategic approach and the detailed design. Appendix ARC2 shows the landscape masterplan for the 2012 scheme. Although landscape was a reserved matter the illustrative scheme clearly shows the approach to the development of the site and assessed as such by the Inspectors and Secretary of State.
5.5 The main amenity building was proposed to be centrally located and the lodge on the southern boundary. The fuel filling station is on the northern boundary in both schemes. The main difference is the new Appeal proposal relocates the amenity building and lodge close to the A61 on the eastern boundary effectively screening them in views except for the immediate view from the A61. The main vehicle parking areas are also skewed toward the eastern boundary. The landscape treatment on the boundaries of the current scheme integrate the site better into the landscape character than the 2012 scheme.
______
13 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
5.6 The new design reflects an appropriate response to the context and to relevant planning policies. The landscape site coverage is 56%. An overarching principle is to achieve a high- quality development and aim at energy efficiency and carbon reduction in an appropriate landscape design.
5.7 The design objective is to create a place which is distinctive but respects the character of the surrounding areas, safe and secure with natural surveillance, legible in terms of its layout and image, and diverse and adaptable, enabling changes to meet future needs of road users.
5.8 The development proposals were submitted as a planning application following consultation with the community and pre-application discussions with the Council. The active engagement with the community ensured concerns and aspirations were properly recorded and raised with the Appellant at an early stage. Feedback was invited at the public exhibition before the application was submitted.
5.9 The application is in outline with access and layout for determination at this stage. The Design & Access Statement (CD9.14) sets out the full design philosophy and approach to the site. The development is described in the Planning Statement (CD9.02) and in the agreed Statement of Common Ground.
The Development of the Site
5.10 I set out below the main design strategy for the development of the site as an MSA. I consider these under the following key areas:
(i) Landscape-Led Design
5.11 A key factor in the design development has been the need to ensure that the site is well screened from views from the A61, while maintaining and respecting the openness of the wider landscape character. The wider landform to the north, west and south is naturally undulating, and this offers localised screening of the site. The elevated junction and local roads provide screening from the east. The main buildings have been located along the A61 to use this as a natural screen and containing visual backdrop.
5.12 The site is not visible in the landscape except from immediate views from s section of the A61 and A6055 and at Junction 50 of the A1(M). The design benefits from the dip in the topography to ensure the MSA would not be visible Melmerby. A very important factor in the design is the design of the landscape along the A61 which will mitigate the visual impact of the development in near views which are experienced over a very short distance on the A61.
5.13 The proposed ecological enhancements utilising SuDS features such as swales softens the development into cells of parking and buildings. This produces an image of a soft landscape design but meeting its functional need.
______
14 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
(ii) Main Car Park
5.14 The car park has been designed to minimise the visual impact of the parking areas with generous planting areas both between adjacent rows of cars and at the end of the rows. The end beds are either bio-retention planters, as part of the Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS), or traditional ornamental planting beds.
5.15 The main car park has a maximum capacity of 492 cars and 14 motorcycle spaces. There are 20 accessible bays, all within 50m of the main entrance of the amenity building and the lodge. A further 10 spaces are dedicated electric car charging points; ducting is to be installed to the adjacent parking rows to meet future demand.
5.16 The parking bays are orientated generally north / south across the site with a wide (4m) tree lined central pedestrian path connecting to the amenity building. This central path will be set higher than the access road to provide priority for pedestrians, which will slow down vehicles at each crossing point where they form vehicle ramps. The pedestrian route will be defined by a line of trees running the full length of its northern edge.
(iii) Amenity Building and Plaza
5.17 The plaza around the Amenity Building and Lodge will be the focal point within the landscape and will utilise higher quality materials. This substantial area will create an informal area for visitors to enjoy and relax while using the facilities in and around the building. Ample seating has been allowed both as free-standing benches but also integrated within the raised planting beds.
5.18 The plaza will be broken down into smaller spaces with the use of planters and trees, while maintaining a feeling of openness and allowing uninterrupted pedestrian flows around the building. The use of planters is both a way to enhance the space and create a vertical element within the paving. A curved water feature will surround and define the external seating area accessed directly from the building. To the south of the building a recreational open space will be provided, with picnic tables and play equipment set within a large, grassed area. An informal dog walking area will be designated along the northern boundary with access over small bridges.
(iv) Drive-thru Coffee Unit
5.19 Located to the west of the site, the drive-thru is accessed via the main site circulatory loop road.
(v) Coach and Caravan Parking
5.20 Parking for 13 coaches is located to the south of the Amenity Building. A 5m wide path allows people to congregate at the end of the coach bays. An 8-bay caravan park is located to the south west of the coach park, including 1 accessible space.
______
15 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
(vi) HGV parking
5.21 The site can hold 66 lorries and one abnormal load within the northern part of the site. The HGV park is visually contained from the main entry circulation route by trees and mounds. The scatter tree planting will further reduce the visual impact of the HGV Park. Direct access to the Amenity Building is provided by a footpath linked to the main car park and a secondary link to the fuel filling station.
(vii) Service Yard
5.22 The service yard is located to the east of the Amenity Building, to screen back-of-house activities from the public. All the main service facilities are located within the yard: bins, compactor, biomass boiler and associated plant, LPG enclosures and the electricity sub- station.
(viii) Roads and Verges
5.23 The road layout has been designed to clearly direct users around the site whilst separating the different type of vehicles / users to their correct parking areas. Radii at corners will be generous where necessary to avoid vehicle overrun. Shrub planting will be limited adjacent to roads in favour of trees in grass. Where planting is adjacent to roads there will be a clear grass margin. Large rocks will be used on corners and in strategic locations to reduce vehicle overrun onto landscaped areas.
5.24 A SuDS has been designed to capture and deal with all the surface and building roof water on site. A detailed strategy has been developed in conjunction with the engineers with a design philosophy of allowing the water to be visible as much as possible by using swales, attenuation basins and bio-retention planters. This allows it to be used as a feature within the landscape, and as a means of increasing the biodiversity on site.
(ix) Planting Strategy
5.25 Planting is to be structured to ensure that the site is well assimilated within the landscape from external viewpoints, whilst providing a contemporary, simple, and attractive setting for the buildings and those using it. Areas of tree and hedge planting are proposed to enhance visual amenity and to improve biodiversity across the site. Where individual trees are specified a smaller number of larger extra heavy standards will be used with a higher canopy (2.2m) to help create an initial impact and prevent damage.
5.26 Planting along the boundaries will be limited to in order to respond to the character of the local area. A wide belt of native scrub planting will be introduced along the eastern boundary adjacent to the A61, to reinforce the existing roadside planting and to create a screen to the development from the road. This screening vegetation wraps around a small extent of the southern boundary in order to screen the direct views of the amenity building when travelling north along the A61.
______
16 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
5.27 The other three boundaries will be defined by a native hedge to reinforce the field boundaries found locally and to provide wildlife corridors. The public consultation events identified views into the site from specific areas to the south and north. As a response to this, additional tree planting to the mounds has been added to the southern and northern boundaries to create filtered views of the development, while retaining the open character of the broader landscape.
5.28 Larger trees will be specified within the main car park and adjacent to the amenity building to create impact and prevent vandalism. Trees will be chosen which have seasonal interest with a tidy form and habit.
5.29 In SuDS areas planting will be a mix of native shrubs and trees around the banks and margins of these features, with wetland plants within the base providing an interesting bio-diverse feature to more shallow features. The ecological enhancement proposals set out the treatment of the areas across the site.
(x) Sustainability
5.30 The proposed MSA buildings and their building services are designed to reduce their carbon footprint through the effective use of energy, using energy efficiently and from renewable sources. A three-stage sequential approach has been employed:
• Reduce energy demand in the first instance through passive design measures • Reduce energy consumption in use via efficient plant systems and controls • Utilise renewable energy to reduce energy demand, pollution, and CO2 emissions further
5.31 The fundamental design approach taken has been to minimise energy need in the first instance by developing passive design proposals that, for example, maximise the use of natural daylight and ventilation where possible, minimise solar gain through careful orientation, shading and glass specification and limit heat loss through high levels of insulation and robust building details delivering low air permeability.
(xi) External Lighting
5.32 The external lighting scheme comprises:
• Column mounted luminaires for car park and road lighting • Column mounted luminaires and in-ground lighting to main pedestrian routes and main plaza in front of the amenity building • Canopy mounted lighting to fuel filling station • In-ground lighting to highlight building entrances and V-colonnade features • In-ground lighting to highlight feature trees • Submerged effect lighting to the water feature within the main amenity building plaza area
______
17 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
5.33 The proposed external lighting has been designed sympathetically, without compromising the safety and functionality of the site. Illumination levels have been kept within British Standard guidelines to ensure that the site is not over-illuminated and typical values for parking areas and roadways are in the order of 10 to 20 lux. The lighting proposals have been designed so that light levels at the boundary are below 1 lux, which is similar to twilight and well below levels considered as nuisance. Further good lighting design principles are incorporated in order to mitigate wider light pollution and skyglow effects via appropriate locational and light fitting specifications.
5.34 The column mounted light fittings are specified as the ‘dark sky’ type with less than 1% upwards light. Lamps will be appropriately specified with effective beam control, spill shields and baffles and will employ the latest LED technology. In-ground lighting features are low wattage LED luminaires with low output and are for effect only, with little impact on environmental conditions. Combined daylight control, time switches and movement sensors will also be used to control external lighting to appropriate levels at all times of the day.
5.35 Consideration has also been given to illuminated signage. Generally, these are internally illuminated signs, using low wattage LED lamps. Signage is not externally spot-lit and the contribution of signage illumination to overall site illumination levels is considered to be negligible. Indirect illumination from surface reflectance has also been taken into consideration. The vehicle parking and road surfaces all have low reflectance values and reflectance issues are considered to be minimal.
______
18 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
6 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Harrogate District Local Plan
6.1 For the purposes of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004, I confirm that the statutory Development Plan comprises the Harrogate District Local Plan (“Local Plan”) original adopted on 4 March 2020 and then following a judicial review was readopted on 9 December 2020.
6.2 The agreed Statement of Common Ground sets out the relevant policies of the Local Plan considered in respect of the application and appeal. The Council confirms in the Committee report the following policies are met by the appeal proposals.
Subject Policy CC1 Floor Risk and Sustainable Development CC2 Rivers CC3 Renewable and Lowe Carbon Energy CC4 Sustainable Design NE1 Air Quality NE2 Water Quality NE3 Protecting the Natural Environment NE5 Green and Blue Infrastructure NE8 Protection of Agricultural Land NE9 Unstable and Contaminated Land TI1 Sustainable Transport TI3 Parking Provision TI4 Delivery of New Infrastructure TI5 Telecommunications GS2 Growth Strategy to 2035 GS5 Supporting the District’s Economy HP2 Heritage Assets HP3 Local Distinctiveness HP4 Protecting Amenity
6.3 The Council’s policy objections in its Decision Notice stem from Policy NE4 Landscape Character, GS3 Development Limits and EC3 (a) & (c) New Employment Development in the Countryside.
6.4 The Local Plan sets out the Council’s policy framework and the vision for future development in the District. There are no polices within the Local Plan relating to MSAs or roadside development. The Local Plan Policies Map (CD4.1) confirms there are no site-specific proposals relating to the appeal site. The site is within the rural area.
______
19 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
Extract from Local Plan Policies Map
6.5 The above extract shows the site at the junction of the A1(M) and A61 falling within the designated rural area.
6.6 The Local Plan states that the economy chapter of the local plan sets out a range of policies to support business, enterprise, and job creation (paragraph 1.10). Policies are intended to deal with new employment development and the tourism economy. Clearly, the new MSA meets the objectives of employment policies. The focus for employment is at locations which are, or can be made to be, sustainable (Objective 1a). Objective 2 deals with the Economy and confirms the objective is to build a strong and sustainable economy by supporting inward investment (Objective 2b). Again, this chimes with the MSA proposal.
6.7 Objective 4 of the Local Plan concerns infrastructure and transport of the LP and states:
“Facilitate the delivery of the infrastructure necessary to support a strong local economy, reduce the impacts of transport on the environment and communities, and enable reliable journeys between key centres regionally, nationally and internationally”.
6.8 The Local Plan Key Diagram (below) shows the key vehicular route through the District is the A1(M). The Ripon MSA at Junction 50 of the A1(M) would be an important contributor to the sustainable infrastructure of the district.
______
20 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
Local Plan Key Diagram
6.9 I now turn to consider the policies cited in objection to the appeal proposals.
GS3 - Development Limits
6.10 The approach to development outwith the Settlement Limits in Policy GS3 is that:
“Outside development limits proposals for new development will only be supported where expressly permitted by other policies of this plan or a neighbourhood plan or national planning policy”. (Underlining and bold my emphasis)
6.11 This is a development limits policy which is not prohibitive but supports development outside the development limits which accords with specific proposal in the Plan or in accordance with national planning policy.
6.12 This policy cross refers to national policy which is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 (“NPPF”). The NPPF sets out the national basis for MSAs at paragraph 104(e) which sets out the basis for the provision of large-scale transport facilities.
______
21 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
“provide for any large-scale transport facilities that need to be located in the area42, and the infrastructure and wider development required to support their operation, expansion and contribution to the wider economy. In doing so they should take into account whether such development is likely to be a nationally significant infrastructure project and any relevant national policy statements”
6.13 The Plan does not have a policy for MSAs as required under paragraph 104(e) of the NPPF and is silent on the matter save that Policy GS3 permits development outside development limits that accords with the NPPF. This is one such case.
6.14 Although MSAs are not “nationally significant infrastructure projects” they are national infrastructure in their own right as their raison d'être is for the safety and welfare of road users. MSAs have their own national policy as set out in Circular 02/2013. Footnote 42 of the NPPF explains this position:
“Policies for large scale facilities should, where necessary, be developed through collaboration between strategic policy-making authorities and other relevant bodies. Examples of such facilities include ports, airports, interchanges for rail freight, public transport projects and roadside services. The primary function of roadside services should be to support the safety and welfare of the road user (and most such proposals are unlikely to be nationally significant infrastructure projects)”.
6.15 Accordingly, in my view MSAs are national infrastructure but do not qualify for consideration under the National Infrastructure Regulations as significant projects. There is national policy as set out in Circular 02/2013 for their provision. Policy GS3 recognises development outside development limits can be permitted as they are provided for under the NPPF and Circular 02/2013.
6.16 In my view Policy GS3 cannot prohibit an MSA if it is needed.
EC3 – New Employment Development in the Countryside
6.17 Policy EC3 is a restrictive policy which seeks to allow only small-scale development or reuse of existing buildings in the countryside. Its focus is really about rural and farm diversification and brining small buildings into a beneficial use.
6.18 MSAs are developed for the safety and welfare of road users. It is not employment in a conventional sense such as that at Melmerby Industrial Estate, but they do bring benefits of permanent jobs and economic development.
6.19 In my view Policy EC3 is not relevant to this appeal as the proposal is not a small-scale rural enterprise.
______
22 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
Conclusion of Policies GS3 and EC3
6.20 Policy GS3 is permissive of development needed under National Planning Policy. An MSA is one such example of national infrastructure for the safety and welfare of road users. Therefore, I consider Policy GS3 supports the appeal proposal. It certainly does not preclude development as the refusal suggests.
6.21 Turning to Policy EC3, I consider it is not relevant to the appeal proposal as it deals with small-scale employment as part of rural diversification.
NE4 – Landscape Character
6.22 This policy is the crux of the Council’s case and cited by the Council in its reason for refusal.
6.23 The objective of NE4 is to protect, enhance or restore the landscape character for its intrinsic beauty and for its benefit to the economic, environmental, and social well-being of the district. Proposals that achieve the objectives will be supported.
6.24 At the time of the 2012 scheme decision by the Secretary of State the relevant development plan policy was C2 Landscape Character, which sought to protect the existing landscape character. This stated:
“Development should protect existing landscape character. In locations where restoration of the landscape is necessary or desirable, opportunities should be taken for the design and landscaping of development proposals to repair or reintroduce landscape features, to the extent that this is justified by the effects of the proposal.”
6.25 The newly adopted policy NE4 flows directly for the previous policy C2. The spirit and purpose of the old and new policies on Landscape Character have remained consistent between adopted local plans. It is in this context that the planning judgement of the Inspector and Secretary of State in the 2012 decision concluded at paragraph 8 that:
“The Secretary of State therefore agrees with both Inspectors (2IR2.6.35) that the proposal would result in moderate harm to the landscape character of the area, that the visual impact would be slight, and that both harms would lessen over time”.
6.26 In my view there has been no change in the landscape character, the effect of the policy between C2 and NE4 is the same.
6.27 In respect of the MSA proposals the only change has been to the design of the scheme insofar that the new scheme proposes buildings alongside the A61 rather than the centrally located MSA assessed under the 2012 decision. The Council’s position in respect of the Baldersby Gate MSA at the 2012 conjoined inquiry was that there was considered to be a “medium” adverse impact on the landscape character and that the mitigation would be effective.
______
23 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
6.28 In my view by reference to the same character assessment (LCA81) there has been no change in the thrust of policy under NE4. The new scheme has been redesigned to improve on the previous proposal in the 2012 decision which the Inspector found to be acceptable in terms of the impact on landscape character. The only reason Baldersby Gate was not permitted by the Secretary of State was the presence of an existing brownfield service facility at Leeming Bar.
6.29 Ms Sue Illman will provide a detailed analysis of the appeal proposals in the context of Policy NE4. I will then include this as part of the planning assessment to then be weighed in the planning balance.
National Planning Policy Framework 2019 (“NPPF”) (CD/5.1)
6.30 I now turn to the NPPF (CD5.1) which is the most recent and important policy material consideration and was published in 2019 superseding its earlier versions of March 2012 and July 2018. Most importantly, the NPPF at paragraph 11 establishes that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. In my view the MSA proposal is has many of the facets of development that are sustainable.
6.31 The NPPF at paragraph 2 makes it clear that planning law requires that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. I have considered the Development Plan policies above.
6.32 Paragraph 7 confirms the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. This can be achieved through three overarching objectives which are independent but mutually supportive. An assessment of the MSA proposal against these criteria clearly indicates that the development is sustainable and should be approved.
Economic Objectives:
• Significant private sector investment into the area; • Local construction jobs; • Local full-time employment for 200 people; • Additional spending potential in the District; • Support for local businesses to serve MSA.
Social Objectives:
• Temporary and Permanent Jobs; • Safe and convenient location for motorway users to stop; • Provision for those wishing to use the MSA facilities for refreshment; • Overnight accommodation for those needing to stop on their journeys; • Accessible location within close distance of motorway infrastructure.
______
24 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
Environmental Objectives:
• Enhancing the natural and built environment; • Providing quality architecture; • Ecological protection and enhancement including a net gain for biodiversity; • Accessible to passing motorists avoiding the need for safety and welfare trips off the motorway to nearby towns and villages.
6.33 Chapter 4 of the NPPF sets out policy guidance for pre-application engagement and front- loading. The MSA application was subject to very extensive public consultation, engagement with officers of the Council and consultation with statutory consultees, and other stakeholders. The final design of the MSA reflects advice received as part of this process.
6.34 Chapter 6 – Building a strong, competitive economy confirms at paragraph 80 that:
“Planning policies and decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development. The approach taken should allow each area to build on its strengths, counter any weaknesses and address the challenges of the future...”
6.35 The MSA proposal is exactly the type of development that paragraph 80 is seeking to support. The safety and welfare of motorway users at MSAs on the motorway network is a fundamental part of the national infrastructure that needs to be supported. Circular 02/2013 provides national policy support for MSA provision. MSAs are essential to the logistics of the motorway network providing for safety and welfare needs and in particular the need for food and medical logistical supplies across the UK. This has proved crucial during the Covid- 19 pandemic and demonstrates the degree to which the good operation of the motorway network with MSAs is essential for economic growth and productivity.
6.36 Paragraph 82 goes further and requires that “Planning policies and decisions should recognise and address the specific locational requirements of different sectors”. MSAs are a special type of development that are required to locate next to the motorway. MSAs are supported by national policy in Circular 02/2013 and the NPPF at paragraph 104(e). They are national infrastructure which is provided by the private sector through the planning system.
6.37 Paragraph 107 extols the importance of providing adequate overnight lorry parking facilities. This is important on the motorway network. The National Lorry Survey 2018 confirmed the Yorkshire region required an additional 142 HGV parking spaces to meet demand (CD5.8). This was supported by a letter from the Road Haulage Association to the application supporting the proposal (CD9.101).
6.38 Chapter 12 of the NPPF recognises that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development (paragraph 124) whilst planning decisions (para 127) should aim to ensure developments:
______
25 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
• will function well and to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development;
• are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout, and appropriate and effective landscaping;
• are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities);
• establish or maintain a strong sense of place…;
• optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and
• create places that are safe, inclusive, and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.
6.39 MSAs are required for the long-term need for safety and welfare on the motorway. Since their introduction in the 1960s no MSA has closed. The need for MSAs has continued to grow alongside growth in traffic. The last expansion took place with MSA deregulation. The latest planned expansion followed the release of circular 02/2013. The latest design of MSAs is to provide good architecture, sustainable development, and a good landscape environment. Each Moto MSA site is designed for its context and is efficient is its use of land and resources. The MSA would have full CCTV, natural surveillance, ANPR and other security measures to ensure safety for users.
6.40 The NPPF sets out the Government’s aspirations in terms of meeting climate change and managing flood risk (Chapter 14). The flood risk at the site of the proposed MSA is Zone 1. The MSA will not increase flood risk through controlled run-off of surface water. The MSA green credentials will meet the requirements of climate change. These are set out in the Sustainability Statement and measures have been incorporated into the design of the buildings and external areas.
6.41 Pollution, noise and air quality are important considerations in the determination of the acceptability of development and its location (Chapter 15). The Environmental Statement which forms part of the application provides a full assessment of these considerations. This shows that the individual and cumulative impacts do not create significant adverse impacts.
______
26 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
6.42 Chapter 12 of the NPPF considers the impact of development upon the historic environment. The new MSA will have no impact on any historic asset. In such instances the NPPF sets out the relevant test at paragraph 196 wherein the harm, if any, needs to be assessed against the public benefits of the proposals. In this instance there is no harm to designated or non- designated heritage assets. The Environmental Statement sets out the detailed consideration of the development in the context of local historic assets.
6.43 The NPPF provides clear guidance on “Decision-Making” at paragraphs 38-57. The Appellant has followed Government advice through early engagement with the Council and statutory consultees, stakeholders, and the public. Detailed assessment has been undertaken through the environmental impact assessment which has informed the design of the MSA. In particular, paragraph 38 requires Councils to approach decision-making to approve applications for sustainable development. In this case the numerous benefits are agreed with the Council, but the Council considers the harm to landscape character outweighs all the combined benefits for the MSA scheme.
Department for Transport Circular 02/2013 (CD5.3)
6.44 Government policy relating to motorways and trunk roads is set out in Department for Transport (“DfT”) Circular 02/2013 entitled “The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development” (CD5.3). Annexe B sets out the requirements for the provision of MSAs including mandatory facilities. The benefits of the Ripon MSA in terms of the Circular are set out in the Statement of Common Ground.
6.45 It is important to understand the Department for Transport’s policy for MSAs has changed since the previous regime under Circular 01/2008 (CD5.5). The main changes include:
• the removal of spacing between MSAs from the maximum gap of 40 miles to one with no minimum gap; • No need to prove “need”; • No need to seek a location equidistant between existing MSAs; • MSA infrastructure under the new regime leaves the process of granting permission to the planning regime based on national policy; • There is no longer a “presumption” for “online” access which is now expressed as only a “preference” and only where all other matters including planning are equal.
6.46 The underlying objective for MSA provision since their inception has remained the ability to stopping at least every 30 minutes. The policy has moved on since 01/2008 insofar that need is not graduated as there is need on every part of the motorway network for safety and welfare purposes. The new circular recognises that traffic conditions on motorways are more congested hence the need for greater provision across the UK.
______
27 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
6.47 In the last appeal inquiry in 2012 Kirby Hill (“Vale of York”) was promoted as an online facility but it was still considered by the Secretary of State to be worse in all regards when compared to Baldersby Gate which was a junction site. Although the Department for Transport’s Policy has changed this does not assist Vale of York scheme because it promotes a grade separated hybrid junction to claim “online” access but in a completely unsustainable manner.
Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) and LCA81 (CD7.4)
6.48 The Council in 2004 produced a Landscape Character Area Assessment for the Borough. The purpose was to provide:
“… a detailed breakdown of the District into 106 smaller Character Areas, each with their own distinct character and sense of place. These areas are described in detail with regard to geology, landform, drainage, land use, vegetation, wildlife, built form and communications. Sensitivities and pressures for change are also described, along with guideline strategies for addressing them.
6.49 Importantly, the LCA recognises that change in future will occur from 2004. The summary states:
“Finally, the landscape is continually changing due to natural processes and humanity's needs. It is anticipated that this document will need to evolve along with the landscape in order to keep pace with it and to remain a relevant and accurate source of information. The future undoubtedly holds many changes that will affect the use and nature of our landscape, such as the threat of global warming and changes of land use due to economic pressures. Harrogate Borough Council hopes that, through the use of this document, these challenges may be faced and the quality of our landscape and the built and natural environment be both preserved and enhanced for future generations to enjoy”.
6.50 The relevant Landscape Character Area (“LCA”) for the Appeal Site is LCA81 Dishforth and Surrounding Farmland (CD7.4). This should be read in conjunction with the LCA Introduction and Appendices (CD7.18). The LCA81 was published in 2004 in advance of the upgrading of the A1(M) which passes through this character area. It is noted in LCA81 that the A1 at that time was already a prominent feature with linear planting associated with the route. Large scale industrial development had already adversely impacted upon the character of the area.
6.51 LCA81 was an important material consideration in the determination of both Kirby Hill MSA and Baldersby Gate. The Inspector’s conclusions for Baldersby Gate were:
______
28 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
14.5.58 The site has no formal landscape quality designation, but it has been assessed in the district’s landscape character appraisal. It is in a uniform and open agricultural landscape that would not easily mitigate the harmful effects of the large-scale MSA. The landscape mitigation would retain and enhance planting around the site and introduce some native species woodland, avoiding large scale woodland blocks that would be inappropriate to the area’s characteristics and would impact upon views. However, the site would appear as a landscaped box that contained development, an effect that may be enhanced if a continuous 1.6m high mound were introduced around the edge. From most long views only the tops of the buildings may be visible. I conclude that the proposal would cause moderate harm to the landscape character, which would soften over the years to moderate to slight.
14.5.59 Any views of the MSA from the A1(M) would be of lesser importance, but there would be clear views of the MSA from the A61, which is a tourist route. The visual impact would be no more than slight because of the context of a considerable area of highway infrastructure and paraphernalia in the immediate vicinity as well as large volumes of motorway traffic. There are few close sensitive visual receptors to the site, the nearest being at Hutton Grange Cottages and Hutton Grange. I consider that the proposal would cause slight visual harm to those receptors, which would lessen as vegetation matures.
6.52 For Kirby Hill the following was concluded:
14.3.79 The site is not covered by any formal landscape quality designation, but it has been assessed in the district’s landscape character appraisal. It is a uniform large-scale agricultural landscape that would not easily mitigate the harmful effects of the large scale MSA. The development would be seen from closer viewpoints, mostly in the context of introduced large scale woodland planting and a 450m long mound up to 9m high that would mostly surround the development. Both would be alien features in the countryside here that would significantly harm the character of the surrounding open landscape. I give minimal weight to the claimed advantage that the mound would promote the appreciation of the Hambleton Hills and the Kilburn White Horse. [14.3.30-37 & 42]
14.3.80 The views of the MSA from the A1(M) would be of lesser importance, but there would be clear views from the LRN and Ripon Road roundabout which lie on a tourist route. I consider that the visual effect of the MSA on the tourist route would be moderate to slight adverse. The MSA and mound would cause slight visual harm to views from a number of residential properties in Church Lane and moderate to slight visual harm to residents near Skelton Windmill particularly in the early years and in winter. There would also be a slight detrimental visual effect from nightglow. [14.3.43-48]
14.3.81 I conclude that the proposal would have a significant detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape.
______
29 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
6.53 I acknowledge that the current schemes differ from those promoted in the 2012 Decision, nonetheless it was clear that the adverse impact arising from an MSA at Kirby Hill has an unacceptable impact on the landscape Character of LCA81 because it replaces the previous mounds with a new grade separated junction with embankments and an overbridge with its new junction lighting operating 24/7 over 365 days per year, whereas the Baldersby Gate proposal was found acceptable and the current proposal improves upon the previous design in terms of landscape impact with minimal additional lighting at the existing junction.
6.54 I now turn to the current MSA proposal and confirm the LCA81 “Guidelines” remain as they were for the previous scheme which was considered acceptable.
“New development must take account of openness and views and should not impact upon these valued characteristics. Extensive large scale tree planting, required to screen any new development, would be inappropriate to the area's characteristics and impact upon views”.
“Small woodland blocks associated with appropriately scale development may help to integrate development with the landscape”.
“Encourage the reinstatement of hedges particularly in areas of pre parliamentary enclosure. Suggest set up of hedgerow register for the area identifying important hedges”.
“… Planting to mitigate the impact of large-scale buildings should soften rather than screen impact and the potential for planting beyond the immediate site should be considered”.
6.55 Ms Sue Illman considers LCA81 in detail in her assessment of the proposals and their impact on the landscape character. Overall, she concludes that the new scheme is a significant improvement over the previous scheme which was found acceptable in terms of impact on Landscape Character. I agree with her analysis and conclusions and consider the new MSA would have no more than a slight adverse impact once the mitigation proposals matured.
______
30 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
7 NEED FOR A MOTORWAY SERVICE AREA
7.1 I have prepared a written statement for the round table session on “need” for an MSA on this section of the A1(M). There is also a Statement of Common Ground in respect of need prepared and agreed by the two appellants. I do not propose to reproduce that evidence in my Proof. I do, however, summarise and draw conclusions below.
7.2 In principle Moto agrees with Applegreen that there is a need for a motorway service area on the section of the A1(M) north of Wetherby MSA. The question for the appeal is where that would be best located to serve motorways users taking into account the Development Plan, national planning policy and all the relevant material considerations.
7.3 The Council accept there is a “need” but consider the location of Ripon and Vale of York MSAs as being too close to Leeming Bar MRA and Wetherby MSA, respectively. In the case of Ripon/ Leeming Bar the separation is 11 miles whilst the separation between the Vale of York and Wetherby of 13.6 miles.
7.4 The Council’s case in respect of Ripon MSA is based on a false assumption that Leeming Bar is an MSA. It is not. It is a Motorway Rest Area (“MRA”). Historically the Secretary of State granted permission for Leeming Bar to become an MSA in 2012. Since then, the A1(M) has been upgraded such that a 1.4-mile diversion off the motorway is required to use the services. The trading pattern of the MRA reflects its remote location off motorway and would not justify investment as a full MSA. It is clear the Leeming Bar site is underperforming. There has of course over the years been the threat of competition from another MSA on this section of the A1(M) such as Kirby Hill since 2017. Therefore, in the face of performance, location and competition, Leeming Bar would not justify investment as an MSA.
7.5 Although, Leeming Bar has a lawfully implemented MSA permission, Moto wrote to the Council on 25 September 2020 (during the application process) clarifying the position with regard to this MRA. The letter (CD9.94) sought the Council’s position with regard to Leeming Bar:
“I am instructed by Moto that whatever the outcome of the current planning application the company intends to continue to operate Leeming Bar as an MRA but do not foresee developing and operating the site as an MSA. Accordingly, if the Council considers that it would be necessary, reasonable, and lawful in all other respects to make the grant of planning permission for Ripon MSA subject to a planning condition or planning obligation to prevent the development from being carried out or the facility being operated as an MSA if Leeming Bar is also developed as an MSA, the company would be willing in principle to accept it, subject to the precise terms”.
7.6 No response has ever been received from the Council. Interestingly, the Council’s Statement of Case (4.3.1) claims nothing had been done by the Appellant. Notwithstanding this, Moto has prepared a suitable obligation for this appeal to confirm that if Ripon MSA is allowed and operated as a signed MSA then Leeming Bar would not operate as an MSA. ______
31 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
7.7 Turning to the matter of the gap between MSAs in accordance with Circular 02/2013 is the relevant distance between Wetherby and Durham. A gap of 61 miles which is twice the recommend maximum gap on the motorway. There are other services (not MSA) on the A1(M): Scotch Corner (MRA); Barton (Truck Stop); and Exelby (Truck Stop), previously known as Coneygarth under the 2012 decision, which assist in provision but are no substitute for full MSA provision. Therefore, Ripon MSA is better able to meet the need in the gap between Wetherby (19 miles south) and Durham (43 miles north) than the Vale of York proposal.
7.8 Although the need for Truck Stop has been fulfilled with the development of the Exelby facility, the need for an MSA remains. It has not been fulfilled by Leeming Bar as it remains an MRA as this legacy site is not fit for purpose as an MSA. Moto is simply seeking to relocate the Leeming Bar permission to the Ripon MSA site to meet the need which was suitable in terms of spacing and landscape impact.
7.9 I note that the Vale of York MSA proposal is proposed to be accessed from a contrived hybrid online access. There is only one similar situation where a new grade separated junction is promoted that would allow motorway users to reverse direction without entering the MSA site and that is at London Gateway MSA. This access is promoted to overcome the need for twin-sided MSA at Kirby Hill which was previously rejected by the Secretary of State. Notwithstanding this, the Vale of York site was criticised by the Secretary of State in 2012 as being too close to Wetherby MSA (CD6.2 Ref: 12.18(b)).
______
32 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
8 ALTERNATIVE SITES ASSESSMENT
8.1 The Appellant had established a “gap” for the purpose of need for an MSA. The next stage was to consider and select the appropriate site to meet the need. This is set out in detail in the “Alternative Sites Assessment” (CD9.03). It was necessary to look at alternative sites as Circular 02/2013 expressed a preference for “online” access, subject to all other factors being equal.
8.2 The Appellant’s area of search was based initially on commercial viability where no new MSA should generally be within 10 miles of another. The distance between Wetherby MSA and Leeming Bar MRA is 29 miles. This was considered the area of search.
8.3 As the design for a new MSA needs to allow for a minimum of 3km from the ends of the slip road tapers a minimum of 6.5km is required to insert a new MSA junction between existing junctions for an “online” facility. Only one location was found to offer an “online” facility. This was to provide access to an MSA site through a hybrid access using a dumb-bell roundabout arrangement over the A1(M).
8.4 Moto was aware that Applegreen was promoting the Vale of York site where the hybrid online access was proposed. It was not possible to create a twin-sided online MSA at this location as this had been rejected by the Secretary of State in 2012. The site was effectively tainted due to the long history of refusals of MSAs at Kirby Hill. In my view, the creation of a new grade-separated junction would be a major planning issue where significant land take and the diversion of the A168 would be necessary to provide access. Moto choose to consider a simpler more efficient junction site access for an MSA.
8.5 The use of a junction access is very common for MSAs. Moto’s recent planning permission at Rugby (Junction 1 of the M6) (CD9.98) confirms the acceptability of such access to serve the motorway.
8.6 Moto reviewed the junction locations and selected Junction 50, on the site previously promoted as “Baldersby Gate” in 2012, and which was recommended for permission by the Inspector.
8.7 I have reviewed all Great Britain’s MSAs (Appendix ARC3) and note that of the 90 MSAs some 47 (52%) are online and 43 (48%) at junctions. This is roughly half and half division between online and junction sites (Appendix ARC3). Since MSA deregulation on 18 August 1992 (Circular 23/92) when operators/developers became responsible for MSA delivery rather than Government some 24 (73%) of the 33 MSAs built have junction access rather than online access. It is clear operators in the main prefer junction access to MSAs rather than online access. I consider the junction site access caters for need just as well as online sites.
______
33 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
8.8 I conclude that access at a junction site is acceptable to Highways England (as per Ripon MSA) and lends itself to site efficiency and economy (no duplication of infrastructure and facilities) and reduces access infrastructure compared to online accesses. Operators prefer junction access sites. I consider the Applegreen’s Vale of York hybrid online access a contrived attempt to seek preference under Circular 02/213 but has the clear disbenefits on land take and infrastructure costs compared to a junction MSA site.
______
34 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
9 WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?
9.1 The NPPF at paragraph 104(e) confirms that planning policies should make provision for large scale transport facilities that need to be located in the area. Footnote 42 confirms that roadside facilities are such large-scale transport facilities and that the primary function of roadside services should be to “support the safety and welfare of the road user”. The primary benefits are therefore safety and welfare of road users which is confirmed in DfT Circular 02/2013 Annexe B Paragraph B2.
9.2 MSA are required to provide mandatory facilities. Table B1 confirms that parking for all classes of vehicles is mandatory and to be free for a period of 2 hours. The fuel filing station is mandatory as it needs to be available 24/7, 365 days per year. The provision of hot food/drinks, toilets and showers are mandatory for 24/7, 365 days per year to telephone ad cash machine are also a mandatory requirement. These are all essential facilities for the safety and welfare of road users.
9.3 MSAs are required to reduce driver fatigue. The Government through the Department for Transport (“DfT”) has issued advice to motorists in respect of driver fatigue. In its Think! Campaign the DfT identified the following statistics:
• Research suggests that almost 20% of accidents on major roads are sleep- related; • Sleep-related accidents are more likely than others to result in a fatality or serious injury; • Peak times for accidents are in the early hours and after lunch; • About 40% of sleep-related accidents involve commercial vehicles; • Men under 30 have the highest risk of falling asleep at the wheel.
9.4 In order to minimise fatigue related accidents, the DfT provides the following advice:
• Plan your journey to include a 15-minute break every two hours; • Don't start a long trip if you're already tired; • Remember the risks if you have to get up unusually early to start a long drive; • Try to avoid long trips between midnight and 6am when you're likely to feel sleepy anyway; • If you start to feel sleepy, find a safe place to stop - not the hard shoulder of a motorway. Drink two cups of coffee or a high-caffeine drink and have a rest for 10 to 15 minutes to allow time for the caffeine to kick in; • Remember, the only real cure for sleepiness is proper sleep. A caffeine drink or a nap is a short-term solution that will only allow you to keep driving for a short time.
9.5 The Transport Research Laboratory (“TRL”) provides expert analysis of road safety matters including motorway safety. The 1995 TRL Report by JA Horne and LA Reyner “Falling Asleep at the Wheel” (TRL 168) underpins the Government advice that taking a break is essential to avoiding sleepiness whilst driving.
______
35 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
9.6 The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (“RoSPA”) has undertaken research into “Driver Fatigue and Road Accidents” (Position Paper 2001) and found that 20% of accidents on motorways and monotonous roads in Britain occur as a result of sleep and driver fatigue. Drivers often take a number of actions to fight driver fatigue such as opening car windows, but these have been found to be “ineffective and should be regarded only as emergency measures to allow a driver to find somewhere to stop”.
9.7 The World Health Organisations’ Report on Action for Road Safety (WHO/NMH/VIP/11.01) has reported that mobile phone usage whilst driving has grown from 1% to 11% over the last 5-10 years with a requisite increase in accident risk of 400% compared to those not using a mobile phone. Opportunities to stop at an MSA will enable safe use of a mobile phone improving safety on the motorway network.
9.8 The Transport Assessment (CD9.04) and Alternative Sites Assessment (CD9.03) set out the details of the personal injury collision records on the highway network in the immediate vicinity of the site at Junction 50 of the A1(M). Records of Personal Injury Accidents (PIA) junction 50 of the A1(M) have been obtained from Highways England for the latest 5-year period available (2013 to 2018). The number and type of accidents that have occurred during this time-period are described in the Transport Assessment. There was a total of 6 accidents reported in the 5-year period at this roundabout. All were given a slight severity apart from one serious incident.
9.9 Highways England confirms the existing network of MSAs has been developed on the premise that opportunities to stop are provided at roughly 30-minute intervals. As speed limits are imposed on sections of motorway and the drive time between MSAs could take longer, more MSAs are needed to ensure adequate provision as congestion increases. The safety case and need for MSAs has been established over the last 55 years. They are an important and well-established part of motorway safety and convenience.
______
36 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
10 ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT & DECISION NOTICE
10.1 The Decision Notice (CD9.99) has a single reason for refusal:
“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”.
10.2 Accordingly, the three planning policies referred to in respect of the appeal, namely, EC3(A)&(C), GS3 and NE4.
10.3 All the other policies cited in the Committee Report (CD9.100) were considered to be satisfactorily met by the appeal proposals. This is also confirmed in the Council’s Statement of Case. This is important to my consideration of the Planning Balance which is in the conclusion of my proof of evidence.
10.4 The reason for refusal can be broken down into its component parts as follows:
(i) Outside development limits – Policy GS3; (ii) Unsustainable development – No policy reference; (iii) Encroachment into open countryside – EC3(A) &(C); (iv) Harm to landscape – Policy NE4.
(i) Outside Development Limits
10.5 Policy GS3 advises that new development outside development limits will be supported where it is expressly permitted by national planning policy.
“Outside development limits proposals for new development will only be supported where expressly permitted by other policies of this plan or a neighbourhood plan or national planning policy”. (Underlining and bold my emphasis)
10.6 The Committee Report does not consider the MSA development against GS3. It simply states it is contrary to the Policy.
10.7 It is clear there are no locations along this section of the A1(M) that would be within development limits as designated in the adopted Local Plan. Therefore, any new MSA must be outside such limits.
10.8 It is a requirement of Circular 02/2013 that an MSA must be either online or at a junction site with a common boundary with the motorway (paragraph B15). The location for a new MSA must be adjoining the motorway. This is national policy as set out in Circular 02/2013. The location of Ripon MSA therefore fully accords with Policy GS3 as it complies with national planning policy. ______
37 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
(ii) Unsustainable Development
10.9 The Decision Notice in respect of “unsustainable development”. I don’t know if this is anything more than conflict with a development plan policy, if so, it doesn’t add anything, but in case it means something else I have reviewed the Committee Report does for relevant references. The Committee Report does refer to the NPPF but without any specific policy reference and it refers to sustainability at other locations:
(i) Paragraph 3.20 in reference to Policy TI1 travel planning. Moto is offering a travel plan and there is a condition from County Highway requiring such a condition to assist in staff travel. No objection is raised in the Committee Report;
(ii) Paragraph 3.105 in reference to Policies CC4 Sustainable Design. The Report confirms a BREEAM Pre-Assessment has been submitted with an Energy and Sustainability Statement. No objection is raised in the Committee Report;
(iii) Paragraph 3.114 in reference to the NPPF and promotion of sustainable development.
(iv) Paragraph 3.117 in reference to the NPPF and the need to achieve the three objectives of sustainable development;
(v) Paragraph 3.120 claims the development fails to meet the terms of sustainable development in the NPPF, although no details are provided.
10.10 It is not clear what the Council consider to be unsustainable about the development. No objection is raised about the design or the sustainability measures incorporated into the development which minimises use of resources, includes carbon reduction, utilises sustainable energy, and includes electric charging. There is a net increase for biodiversity, landscape planting and SUDS features.
10.11 The MSA itself is a sustainability measure to reduce unnecessary car journeys and stops people going off the motorway in search of welfare. This reduces overall mileage and improves safety. Every aspect of the MSAs design and concept is based on good sustainability principles.
______
38 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
(iii) Encroachment into open countryside
10.12 This concern relates to development outside development limits (Policy GS3). The Policy seeks to allow employment development in the open countryside where all the relevant criteria are met. It must firstly be stated that an MSA is not defined as employment development in the ordinary sense but sui generis i.e., outside a use class. It is a composite mixture of uses and functions and does have around 200 employees. In my view it employs staff, but it is not an employment use per se. That is why it has its own national policy in Circular 02/2013.
10.13 The Policy EC3 is cited by the Council as:
“New employment development will be permitted in open countryside where all the following criteria are met:
A. It involves either: i. the re-use or adaptation of an existing building, a proposal for farm or other land-based business diversification, or other small- scale proposal requiring a countryside location for operational reasons; or ii. small-scale new building which is well related to a rural settlement, benefits the local economy, and reduces the need for increased car commuting to urban centres.
C. It would not have a significant adverse effect on the character, appearance, or general amenity of the area.
10.14 This Policy might be suitable for small scale rural employment which might reuse an existing building, but it cannot deal with national infrastructure such as MSAs, nor is it meant to deal with such development. The Policy is not relevant to the appeal because Policy GS3 already permits development in rural areas which are in accordance with national planning policy.
(iv) Harm to Landscape
10.15 The reason for refusal cites Policy NE4 which deals with Landscape Character. This is not a visual impact policy but one about the particular character of the area within which the development falls. The character is set out in LCA81 Dishforth and surrounding Farmland. Ms Sue Illman’s Proof of Evidence deals with this Policy in detail.
10.16 I reproduce the Policy below to draw out the matters relevant to the appeal proposals.
Policy NE4: Landscape Character
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.
______
39 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
This will be achieved by:
A. Requiring that development has particular regard to maintaining the aesthetic and biodiversity qualities of the natural and man-made heritage within the landscape such as trees and woodland, hedgerows, walls, buildings, watercourses, ponds, reservoirs, lakes, ecological networks, or other topographical features;
B. Requiring that development proposals are informed by and are sympathetic to the distinctive landscape character areas as identified in the Harrogate District Landscape Character Assessment and that proposals respect the distribution and form of settlements and buildings in their landscape setting;
C. Requiring that development proposals protect and/or enhance the character, appearance and local distinctiveness of the landscape and consider the ambiance of the area, including nocturnal character, level and type of activity and tranquillity, sense of enclosure/exposure;
D. Requiring that visually sensitive skylines, hills and valley sides and visual amenity are protected and/or enhanced;
E. Resisting development which would harm or be detrimental to the character of the local and wider landscape or the setting of a settlement.
The council will work with landowners and statutory agencies to encourage land management practices that will protect and reinforce landscape character across the district, and proposals which seek to restore areas of degraded landscape or individual landscape elements will be supported.
10.17 The starting point for the design of the proposals arose out of the pre-application meeting with the Council and its Landscape Officer who advised the development should follow the principles in LCA81. In my opinion the design meets all of the relevant criteria of the Policy. The development has had regard to all the features in the landscape character area. These are detailed in Ms Sue Illman’s Proof.
10.18 I firmly believe the proposed MSA follows the thrust, intent, and purpose of Policy NE4. Of course, the development will have some localised impact which will be mitigated over time as with any MSA development across the Country. The importance is in the approach of the design and how this integrates into the landscape character.
Other Criticisms by the Council
(i) Comparison with 2012 MSA Proposal
10.19 Underpinning the Council’s assertion of harm to the landscape character is the allegation that the new MSA would be potentially more harmful than that promoted in 2012. This is referenced at paragraph 3.54 of the Committee Report which states:
______
40 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
“The impact of the proposed MSA on the character and appearance of the area through the siting of the buildings and their height consequently has the potential to be far more significant than that assessed in 2011/2012”.
10.20 I am not aware of any assessment work undertaken by the Council comparing the 2012 Baldersby Gate scheme with the current Ripon MSA scheme.
10.21 As Ms Sue Illman confirms the location of the buildings in the new MSA would have significantly less impact on the Landscape Character of the site and its visual impact than those promoted and recommended for approval in 2012.
10.22 I am of the view that the current appeal proposals are better in terms of impact on landscape character and visual impact than the 2012 scheme.
______
41 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
11 ISSUES RAISED BY THIRD PARTIES
11.1 This section of my Proof deals with third party objectors.
Public Representations
11.2 The Committee Report records 36 representations against the proposals including those from Applegreen. The Council did not record in the Committee Report the representations in support. Subsequently, seven representations have been received by the Planning Inspectorate in relation to the appeal comprising six individual objectors and an objection by the Hewick and Hutton Parish Council.
11.3 In respect of the representations to the planning application the Appellant issued a Document RCD18 Response to Representations (CD9.21). I have reviewed all the representations and identified those below which have not been previously considered under RCD18 and those raised in the appeal representations as follows:
No. Issue 1 Leeming Bar MRA 2 Exelby Truck Stop 3 Detract from Tourism and Local Businesses 4 Unemployment low at present 5 Staff transport – cycles & footpaths 6 Moto Monopoly 7 Environmental Harm – noise, air quality & light pollution, wildlife 8 BMV agricultural land 9 Moto objected to J50 originally 10 Rejected in 2012 11 High Water Table 12 Crime & Litter 13 Impact on Landscape 14 Justification 15 Outside Development Limits 16 Contrary to national and local planning policy 17 Need & Circular 02/2013 – planning judgement 18 Pricing
1 Leeming Bar MRA
11.4 I have considered the matter of Leeming Bar earlier in my Proof. In short, Leeming Bar MRA was approved by the Secretary of State in 2012 for an MSA. Since that time Moto had waited for the upgrade of the A1(M). Since the A1(M) upgrade the MRA now requires a diversion of 1.4 miles to access the site from the A1(M). This has had a detrimental impact on the commercial viability of the operation. ______
42 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
11.5 Today, Leeming Bar performs in a manner that supports an MRA operation but not full MSA. Moto has offered the Council an obligation not to develop and operate the Leeming Bar MRA as an MSA, if permission had been granted for Ripon MSA and it is operated and signed as an MSA. This remains the case at appeal.
2 Exelby Truck Stop
11.6 The Secretary of State in 2012 also permitted a Truck Stop at Exelby which is served by the same junction as Leeming Bar MRA. Truck Stops are not MSAs as they do not provide the full range of services and parking for all types of vehicles. They provide specific services to HGVs.
11.7 A Truck stop cannot provide for the safety and welfare needs of motorists other than for HGVs.
3 Detract from Tourism and Local Businesses
11.8 MSAs do not detract from tourism and in fact they support travellers in their journeys to tourist and other destinations. They are there to provide safety and welfare on journeys. They act as landmarks for important destinations on the motorway network. The Amenity Building includes information for tourist attractions in the immediate area. The lodge provides overnight accommodation for long journeys.
11.9 It is often claimed that MSAs have a negative impact on local businesses. From my knowledge the opposite is true. The MSA operation itself is supported by local suppliers. The MSA business is wholly focused on motorway users. It is often claimed there is premium pricing at MSAs which tends to be higher than local shops and other businesses. This is because MSAs carry significantly higher operating costs including the need to operate with staff 24/7 and 365 days per year. Highways England only supports MSAs where they do not become destinations in their own right which might affect local businesses.
4 Unemployment Low at Present
11.10 There are around 1 million people now unemployed as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. This covers the whole country. MSAs bring short term benefits of construction employment. The Ripon MSA will create 200 full time jobs in perpetuity. In the 60+ years MSAs have operated not one of the 90 total has closed. The Ripon MSA will also support local suppliers.
11.11 I note both the Council’s Economic Development Officer (CD9.100- Consultation appendix to Committee Report) and the Road Haulage Association (CD9.1010) supported the application.
______
43 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
5 Staff transport – cycles & footpaths
11.12 Moto has entered into a planning obligation to ensure staff can travel to work efficiently. This principally means car sharing. Moto has found through the operation of other MSAs that public transport simply does not work on a main three-shift staff working pattern or suit part- time working, where the business operates 24/7 with workers coming from the across the area. No public transport operator will provide such a service.
11.13 Motorways prohibit cycles and walking. MSA sites such as Ripon lie at the motorway junction which is more often than not away from urban areas. The police discourage long distance walking/cycling on footways at night where there is a concern for personal safety.
6 Moto Monopoly
11.14 Circular 02/2013 does not seek to restrict the number or type of operator of MSAs. This is because the Government requires the private sector to develop public infrastructure such as MSAs. It is for those private sector operators such as Moto to meet the safety and welfare needs of road users.
11.15 There are around six main MSA operators across the country of which Moto is the leading provider. Applegreen has recently acquired Welcome Break which is one of the largest operators on the UK network. Government specifically requires that planning decisions are not based on matters of competition. Different parts of the country have MSAs operated by a single operator which reflects the way the overall provision has been developed over the last 60+ years. The MSAs themselves have many national food and service providers that are common to all MSAs, irrespective of the operator. The essential point is that the main operators continue to promote MSAs for the benefit of the traveling public and competition is not a material planning consideration.
7 Environmental Harm: noise, air quality & light pollution, wildlife
11.16 The MSA application was supported by a full environmental impact assessment which considered the potential impacts on all environmental matters.
11.17 The Council’s Committee Report confirmed there would be no unacceptable harm to any environmental matter save for impact on Landscape Character. There will be a significant benefit through net gain for biodiversity of at least 10%.
8 BMV agricultural land
11.18 The Ripon MSA is located on land of Grade 3b agricultural quality which is not “Best and Most Versatile” (“BMV”). Policy NE8 supports development on such land rather than BMV.
______
44 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
9 Moto Objected to Junction 50 in 2012
11.19 This is correct. There was no need for an MSA at this location by reference to “need” under the Policy within Circular 01/2008 at the time.
11.20 Government policy on the provision of MSAs has changed since the 2012 decision, through the publication of Circular 02/2013 which means many of the original policy controls such as distances between MSAs has now changed. This means Ripon MSA is now the most sustainable location to meet the needs of road users on the A1(M) and the site was originally recommended for approval under the more restrictive planning regime by the Planning Inspector in 2012.
10 Rejected in 2012
11.21 This point flows from the one above. The result of the 2012 decision was approval for Leeming Bar and the Exelby Truck Stop. However, the Inspector recommended Ripon MSA for approval. It was considered the best greenfield site of the three promoted, whilst Kirby Hill MSA was least acceptable in planning terms.
11 High Water Table
11.22 There has been considerable engagement with the statutory undertakers in respect of drainage and the Local Lead Flood Authority. There is no objection on these matters.
12 Crime & Litter
11.23 Pre-planning application meetings have been held with the North Yorkshire Police Designing Out Crime Officer, who has subsequently issued a Designing Out Crime report dated 22 May 2018. The report assists to identify solutions that will help to reduce vulnerability to crime and concludes that the design and layout of the proposed scheme is considered acceptable.
11.24 At the detailed design stage, Moto will demonstrate, as part of the detailed landscape design proposals, provision of site-wide litter bins. Moto also operate a litter management policy to ensure their sites are well presented for visitors.
12 Impact on the Landscape
11.25 This is the only concern the Council has in respect of the MSA development. Ms Sue Illman will give evidence eon the impact of the development. I agree with her conclusion that the impact on Landscape Character and visual impact will be slight with mitigation.
______
45 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
13 Justification
11.26 MSAs are part of the national motorway infrastructure delivered by the private sector. They are required to meet the safety and welfare needs of road users. The content and scale of development is prescribed by Circular 02/2013 for mandatory and essential facilities to operate 24/7 for 365 days per year. In order for the necessary investment of around £30+million the MSAs contain commercial food and welfare operations which provides a return to pay for the development. In this way the cost does not fall on the public purse, but the benefits are directed at the public.
14 Outside Development Limits
11.27 I have dealt with this matter in my evidence. Policy GS3 allows for development outside settlement boundaries to meet national planning policy. This is one such case based on need.
15 Contrary to national and local planning policy
11.28 In my assessment, I conclude in the planning balance that the MSA application is in accordance with the Development Plan and is supported by material national policy considerations under the NPPF and Circular 02/2013. All other material considerations indicate permission should be granted.
16 Need & Circular 02/2013 – planning judgement
11.29 It is correct that the decision whether to grant permission is a planning judgement. This is confirmed in Circular 02/2013. However, as explained in 15 above, the Development Plan and material policy matters and material considerations indicate to me planning permission should be granted.
17 Pricing
11.30 As I explained above MSAs have higher prices than surrounding shops and services to reflect the nature of the 24-hour operation over 7 days per week for 365 days per year. This means the operating costs are substantially higher than those offered by local businesses.
______
46 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
12 MATTERS RAISED BY APPLEGREEN
12.1 In this section of my Proof of Evidence I consider those matters raised by Applegreen which it claims supports its Vale of York MSA or that it considers are material considerations against the Ripon MSA proposal.
1. Vale of York MSA would serve the A19
12.2 I am aware that Applegreen’s Vale of York MSA is partially predicated on the need to serve the A19 traffic diverting off the A1(M). This matter was promoted in the 2012 Kirby Hill MSA and which was considered by the Inspector in the 2012 decision:
“14.3.71 HIA points to a particular need for a service area in relation to traffic using the A168/A19. The purpose for providing MSAs is to service travellers on motorways. It follows that choice of location should be based on the needs of motorway travellers. The fact that travellers on other routes may find benefit from them is a bonus, but it is one that should carry limited weight in the planning balance”.
12.3 The position remains unchanged in my view given that MSAs should serve only the motorway. Moto has commissioned its Highway Consultants to investigate the passing traffic on the A1(M) which passes both the Vale of York and Ripon MSAs after deducting turning traffic onto the A168/A19. I attach the note at Appendix ARC4 which shows very similar traffic passing both MSAs north and southbound. Therefore, the Vale of York MSA and Ripon MSA would serve the same level of traffic on the A1(M).
12.4 Notwithstanding this, the A168/A19 route is served by existing and proposed service areas. Existing services on the A168 lie approximately 4.7 miles from the A1(M). These services are operated by BP and Shell and are 20.1 and 19.6 miles, respectively from Wetherby MSA.
12.5 There are also proposed services that were approved on Thursday 14 January 2021 by Hambleton District Council (Ref: 20/01136/FUL) at Thirsk (at the junction of A168 and A19) approximately 8 miles from the A1(M). The proposal is by BP oil and includes Costa and McDonalds. The application is for “Construction of petrol filling station (Sui Generis) with associated retail kiosk (Use Class E), drive-thru restaurant (Use Class E/Sui Generis) and drive- thru coffee shop (Use Class E) with associated parking, service arrangements, landscaping, and access”. This site would be 23 miles from Wetherby MSA using the A1(M) and A168. Even at just 60mph this would take only 23 minutes which is significantly less that the maximum gap of 30 minutes. In my view there is no evidence or policy support for the Vale of York MSA to support road users on the A19.
______
47 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
2 Online Vs Junction Access
12.6 Paragraphs B13-B15 of Circular 02/2013 deal with the location of MSAs. The thrust of the Policy is that “online” is preferred subject to “all other factors being equal” (Paragraph B14). Therefore, the decision maker must take a holistic view of the MSA proposals and consider amongst other material considerations the planning, safety, operational or environmental constraints of each proposal and only if the online proposals factors are equal to or better than a junction access MSA should a preference be made for online.
12.7 I have undertaken research into this matter and looked at the accesses to all the existing MSA facilities across Great Britain. There are 92 operational MSA facilities (Appendix ARC 3). Many of these are twin-sided and I have counted each side together as they were developed as a single development. Of these 49 (53%) are online and 43 (47%) are at junctions. Since deregulation in 1992 some 24 (73%) of the 33 MSAs constructed since then have been at junction sites such as Moto’s Rugby MSA at Junction 1 of the M6 which is due to open in March 2021.
12.8 In the case of the Vale of York MSA, my written evidence to that appeal is that the extra land required for a grade-separated junction is unnecessary use of land and resources compared with the access to the Ripon MSA. The diversion of the A168 is a significant engineering operation likely to give rise to traffic delays. This new access is a contrived “online” access which is the first of its kind in the Country. The new grade-separated junction allows for traffic to use the junction for reverse journeys on the A1(M). The 5.47 hectares of land required for the access is a significant material consideration telling against the Vale of York proposal. Applegreen has cited Cobham MSA and Norton Canes MSA in support of the access, however these are not directly comparable as they require drivers to enter the MSA site before being able to reverse their journey on the motorway.
12.9 I attach at Appendix ARC8 using the diagrams in the Appendix to the Statement of Common Ground on “Need”, an assessment of the distance required to be travelled by motorist accessing both the Ripon and Vale of York MSAs. The results show:
DISTANCES FROM A1(M) TO MOTO AND APPLEGREEN MSAs Distances measured using Google Earth and Agreed Points within MSAs contained within SOCG in respect of Need Route (metres) Moto MSA Applegreen MSA Northbound Arrival 851 990 Northbound Departure 1090 1008 Southbound Arrival 1173 1150 Southbound Departure 1400 1150
______
48 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
12.10 From the table above I consider the distances travelled by motorists for the arrivals and departures at both MSAs are similar. Applegreen claims that an “online” access is more convenient for road users (para B14 of Circular 02/2013), but the assessment above shows the Ripon MSA is as convenient. In my view Ripon MSA would be as attractive and conducive to motorists to stop on the A1(M) as the competing scheme.
3 Lodge Accommodation
12.11 This is an unusual objection insofar that Applegreen owns Welcome Break which is the second largest operator on the motorway network. Welcome Break have lodges at their MSA sites.
12.12 Notwithstanding this, the Lodge Accommodation is criticised by Applegreen who do not promote such a facility at its Vale of York proposal. Circular 02/2013 does not require Lodges (overnight accommodation) to be a mandatory facility. This is because Lodges were introduced after the initial phase of MSAs were constructed. This meant that in many instances it was impossible to retrofit lodges within existing MSA sites. Some sites were considered to be inappropriate for lodges for commercial and other reasons. Therefore, they could not be a mandatory facility for MSAs without such sites losing their signing from the Motorway.
12.13 However, lodge accommodation policy is set out at paragraphs B30 – B32 of Circular 02/2013:
B30. Such development will be a matter for consideration by the relevant local planning authority in line with the National Planning Policy Framework and local planning policies.
B31. As a statutory consultee to such proposals, the Highways Agency will not object to the provision of hotels; conference centres; and business centres at the sites of roadside facilities for motorists unless there would be demonstrable adverse impact on the safety and/or operation of the strategic road network such as a net increase in travel.
B32. Separate parking must be provided to service such developments so as to avoid any reduction in the general parking provision available to other road users.
12.14 It is clear the Highways England has no objection to overnight accommodation. In the case of Ripon MSA, no objection is raised and parking for staff and guests is provided. Nor does the Council raise any objection in its Committee Report or Decision Notice. It may be part of Applegreen’s long term strategy to introduce a lodge if they get permission as this is a common feature of their Welcome Break sites.
______
49 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
12.15 Appendix ARC3 to my Proof sets out those MSA locations where lodge accommodation can be found. Of the 92 MSA sites 79 have lodges (86%) and 13 none (14%). It is a clear benefit for long distance travellers to rest overnight at MSA facilities on their journeys.
12.16 Appendix ARC5 includes a survey of the use of overnight accommodation at Wetherby, Blyth and Ferrybridge of the A1(M). This survey was compiled for an MSA proposal at Brodsworth, Junction 37 of the A1(M). The objective was to understand the travel pattern of those using overnight accommodation. Overall, it is clear that such accommodation is used for strategic purposes with the average distance travelled to the accommodation being 144 miles and 104 after they left. The overall average journey was therefore 248 miles. It is clear that lodge accommodation at MSAs is part of the essential offer to travellers for safety and welfare purposes.
4 Net Gain for Biodiversity
12.17 Moto’s Ripon MSA will produce a Net Gain for Biodiversity (“BNG”) of at least 10%. Since Applegreen lodged its appeal it recently undertook an assessment of its Net Gain for Biodiversity. This claimed a 23% gain. I attach a written statement at Appendix ARC6 which sets out the findings of Moto’s assessment of its own BNG proposal and Applegreen’s claimed BNG and concludes that Applegreen overegg the results. What I deduce is that both schemes will produce a positive net gain for biodiversity.
5 Employment and Economic Benefits
12.18 The new Ripon MSA development will provide 200 new jobs. The submitted Socio-Economic Statement (CD9.09) confirmed that an assessment had been undertaken in the context of the NPPF and planning policy. The NPPF states that development should support economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity. Locally, this is reflected in the Harrogate District Local Plan which seeks to create 12,200 jobs in the Plan period. Clearly, the proposed Ripon MSA will contribute to this aim.
12.19 The development of the proposed MSA is a significant construction project for the local area, drawing in businesses and labour from Ripon and the wider region. This will have a positive effect on the viability of firms throughout the supply chain, which may result in investment and expansion of smaller firms within Ripon. Furthermore, this represents a considerable number of additional construction jobs in the local area’s construction sector.
12.20 There is also likely to be a net beneficial effect on the wider economy resulting from the development of the proposed MSA. These are likely to be significant for some of the individual construction businesses, their suppliers, and their employees, as well as employers who will benefit from indirect/induced jobs relating to the MSA.
12.21 MSAs are not transient employers due to the complexity of the market in which they operate, so these extra jobs are permanent additions to the local economy and likely to have a direct positive impact on the local area.
______
50 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
12.22 The employment and positive economic benefits are significant material considerations which go to the heart of the very special circumstances case in support of the MSA proposals.
12.23 I attach at Appendix ARC7 a written statement dealing with the employment benefits of MSA development which confirms the basis upon which the 200 full time jobs would be created and considers the employment claims made by Applegreen for its MSA at Vale of York which appears to overegg the extent of employment that would be provided at that site.
______
51 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
13 THE PLANNING BALANCE
13.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended, requires that planning decisions must be made in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Development Plan and other Policy
13.2 The Development Plan comprises the Harrogate District Local Plan 2020. The Local Plan does not contain any policy for MSAs. The Local Plan does contain policies with respect to the impact of development, development in the countryside and employment development.
13.3 The Council cites the following policies as relevant to the determination of the Application.
Policy Subject CC1 Floor Risk and Sustainable Development CC2 Rivers CC3 Renewable and Lowe Carbon Energy CC4 Sustainable Design NE1 Air Quality NE2 Water Quality NE3 Protecting the Natural Environment NE4 Landscape Character NE5 Green and Blue Infrastructure NE8 Protection of Agricultural Land NE9 Unstable and Contaminated Land TI1 Sustainable Transport TI3 Parking Provision TI4 Delivery of New Infrastructure TI5 Telecommunications EC3 New Employment Development in the Countryside GS2 Growth Strategy to 2035 GS3 Development Limits GS5 Supporting the District’s Economy HP2 Heritage Assets HP3 Local Distinctiveness HP4 Protecting Amenity
13.4 Of these policies only three are cited in the refusal notice, namely GS3, NE4 and EC3(A)&(C). Of the relevant 25 policies only three are taken as a single reason for refusal.
13.5 As assessed earlier Policy GS3 concentrates new development within development boundaries unless permitted by national planning policy. The MSA is national infrastructure for the safety and welfare of motorway users. There are no opportunities for a new MSA on the A1(M) within development limits. Therefore, the MSA would be permitted in accordance with the exception in Policy GS3.
______
52 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
13.6 Policy EC3 (A) & (C) deals with small scale rural employment which might reuse an existing building. It cannot deal with national infrastructure such as MSAs. The Policy is not relevant to the appeal because Policy GS3 already permits development in rural areas which are in accordance with national planning policy.
13.7 This leaves Policy NE4 which is the crux of the Council’s case. The Council claims the proposed MSA would have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape but as Ms Sue Illman confirms the impact on the character of landscape will be slight in the long term.
13.8 In my own view, I consider the scheme will enhance the natural and manmade aesthetics of the site and its landscape context (NE4(a)). The highway planting contrasts with the nature of the landscape. The scheme will enable the highway planting to be softened. The landscape planting strategy follows LCA81 and the advice of the Council from the pre-application engagement (NE4(b)). The site is clearly not tranquil being located at the junction of the motorway with two “A” class roads. The A1(M) itself has damaged the landscape character. The appeal proposal will mitigate this impact and improve the landscape (NE4(c)). A very short section of the A61 will not have views to the distant hills but the opening up of the entrance to the site will provide a replacement vista toward the hills (NE4(d)). There will be a change in the immediate area of the site. This will be mitigated over time to have only a slight impact on the landscape character (NE4(e)).
13.9 Policy NE4 in its introduction states:
“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” 13.10 The MSA proposal supports the economic role of the Borough by creating temporary and permanent jobs and supporting local business and suppliers. It will enhance the environment by creating a net gain for biodiversity and ensuring the MSA is sustainable. The raison d'être of the MSA is for safety and welfare of road users and this will include residents of the Borough. The impact on landscape character will be slight over time with a scheme that improves upon the original 2012 scheme which the Inspector recommended for approval in the same landscape character under LCA81.
Conclusion to Development Plan
13.11 I conclude that the MSA is in accordance with Policy NE4. This is reinforced by Ms Illman. The MSA also accords with the reminder of the Development Plan. Where there is any conflict this would minor and mitigated over time such as not to be sufficient in its own right to amount to a reason to refuse the appeal.
______
53 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
Material Considerations
(i) NPPF
13.12 The revised NPPF is an important material consideration in the determination of planning appeals. At the heart of NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development (Paragraph 10). The intention of the planning system is to be simpler and less of an obstruction to sustainable development.
13.13 The NPPF sets out paragraph 8 the overarching objectives of sustainable development: social, economic, and environmental.
13.14 Social: The MSA proposals will support the local community by ensuring much needed jobs are delivered, both temporary in construction and permanent in operation. Not only does Moto provide job opportunities but it also provides a career long training programme which enables those employed within Moto to progress their careers.
13.15 The MSA would support not only direct benefits but also indirect in relation to support businesses to provide supply chain operations to the MSA.
13.16 The MSA will provide a safe and convenient location for travellers to stop, provide facilities for refreshment and rest, provide overnight accommodation for those needing to stop on their journeys and be an accessible location next to the motorway infrastructure.
13.17 The proposals will support a strong, vibrant, and healthy environment for staff and travellers. The modern high-quality MSA buildings will provide a safe, pleasant, and vibrant place with a full range of facilities for safety and welfare.
13.18 Economic: The economic credentials of the proposed MSA amount to VSC to allow the development in the Green Belt. DfT Circular 2/2013 at paragraph 7 confirms that a strategic road network that is safe and reliable allows for the efficient movement of goods and people. The network provides a key part in enabling and sustaining economic prosperity and productivity. This supports the wider environmental and social aims of the Government.
13.19 The Alternative Sites Assessment demonstrates the safety benefits of MSAs which are fundamental to the economic success of the Country. As an example, regular MSA locations can assist business users in taking the opportunity to make calls on their mobile phones in a safe environment. A reduction in accidents will reduce the economic cost to society.
13.20 A recent study (2014) from INRIX and the Centre for Economics and Business Research predicts the annual cost of congestion in the UK will rise 63% by 2030 to £21Bn. The research found that between 2013 and 2030, the total cumulative cost of congestion to the UK economy is estimated to be a staggering £307bn. Therefore, measures to reduce congestion and improve safety on motorways will improve economic performance.
______
54 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
13.21 The new MSA will bring significant private sector investment into the area, create local construction jobs, and create permanent local employment for 200 people. It will potentially provide additional spending in the District, support for local businesses to serve the MSA and make contributions to local infrastructure. The economic benefits are significant.
13.22 The highway improvements will contribute economic benefit by reducing congestion.
13.23 Environmental: Having established the need case supported by the economic and social benefits of the MSA development, there are environmental benefits that will flow form the development.
13.24 The MSA design has been carefully conceived and developed to integrate with the landscape and environmental features in and around the site. For example, the buildings are located close to the A61 so that any views of the development are controlled, contained, and minimised. The MSA will incorporate significant new landscape planting which will enhance the natural environment and the site’s overall biodiversity.
13.25 The development will provide high quality architecture to enhance the Borough’s built environment. There will be ecological protection and enhancement. The scheme utilises low carbon technology and provides electric charging for vehicles.
13.26 Although there would be a loss of agricultural land it is not best and most versatile.
13.27 I turn to the specific requirement under the NPPF for the proper planning of large transport facilities such as MSAs in Development Plans. There is no locational policy or strategy in the recently adopted Development Plan despite the requirement at paragraph 104(e) of the NPPF that planning policies should “provide for any large-scale transport facilities that need to be located in the area42, and the infrastructure and wider development required to support their operation, expansion and contribution to the wider economy”. (Footnote 42 applies to roadside services). Policy GS3 does recognise that development can take plan outside settlement boundaries to meet the requirements on national policy. Although this is not a location specific policy it would allow for an MSA on the A1(M).
13.28 Chapter 9 Promoting Sustainable Transport recognises that reducing congestion and locating significant development at locations which are sustainable are important (paragraph 103). The MSA is located at a sustainable location at Junction 50 of the A1(M) and helps reduce congestion by keeping strategic traffic on the motorway away from local roads. The site is close to Ripon and other towns for staff to get to the MSA without difficulty. A staff Travel Plan is offered to ensure sustainable access to the MSA.
(ii) Business Case
13.29 The business case is in my view very compelling and accords with Policy 80 of the NPPF. The investment of circa £30+m and creation of 200 permanent jobs is a significant material consideration in an area where the District will require jobs to deal with the disastrous effects of Covid-19. The scale of proposed development is in line with other MSAs and would allow the return on investment to create this essential national infrastructure on the motorway.
______
55 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
(iii) Circular 02/2013
13.30 In my view the DfT Circular 02/2013 The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development sets out the national policy basis to deliver large scale transport facilities such as MSAs which are sustainable development in themselves. MSAs not only support the safety and welfare of road users but minimise the length of trips by motorised vehicles from the motorway to avoid road users going in search of food & drink and other welfare needs in the surrounding area. The MSA is sustainable development in its operation and the design is based on sustainability principles including carbon reduction measures and SuDS.
(iv) Site Suitability – Landscape Character
13.31 There are no sites that could accommodate an MSA on the A1(M) with as little impact. There are no brownfield sites.
13.32 The site lies outwith the settlement boundary of urban areas but as has been demonstrated the site location is the best possible site to fulfil the function of road user safety and welfare within the countryside with minimal impact. The scheme has been landscape-led with over half the site (56%) devoted to landscaping. This respects the site and surrounding landscape making use of the significant topography and natural features to integrate the development into the landscape. The Design & Access Statement sets out how the site responds to its location and setting and the LVIA assesses the likely landscape and visual effects.
13.33 Ms Illman concludes in visual terms the extent of visibility and harm caused is generally very limited. The views that do exist are similar in nature to existing views within the area. The proposals conserve features which contribute to local character. The development does not result in significant harm to the landscape character or quality of the landscape resource. The proposals conserve many of the features including site boundaries and skyline views.
(v) Heritage Matters
13.34 There would be no harm to the significance of the heritage assets or adversely affect non- designated heritage assets. Accordingly, the development proposals would be acceptable in the proposed location with regard to heritage assets.
13.35 The Council in its Supplemental Statement of Case in response to the Inspector’s request for clarification has set out its position on heritage matters as follows:
“7. The local planning authority agrees with Applegreen’s assessment of the contribution made by their settings to the significance of All Saints Church and Skelton Windmill. Its appeal proposal would lead to “less than substantial harm” to the significance of these assets, and within the spectrum of that category the harm would be at the “limited harm” end of the spectrum (meaning closer to the negligible/no harm end of the spectrum than to the end of the spectrum approaching substantial harm). The public benefits of the appeal scheme would outweigh that harm, albeit that they do not justify the grant of planning permission.
______
56 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
8. The local planning authority’s position is the same in terms of the Moto appeal and the designated and non-designated heritage assets identified in paragraphs 3.75 and 3.76 of the officer report”.
13.36 I do not agree with this assessment. The Appellant’s EIA at (CD9.16) paragraph 10.97 confirms there are no designated heritage assets within 1 kilometre of the site. Accordingly, there will be no adverse impact on heritage assets. There is no suggestion of direct harm nor any suggestion that the site is within the setting of any heritage assets or there would be any harm to any setting. There are no non-designated heritage assets so again there will be no adverse impact. In terms of the assessment of any heritage impact guidance is set out in the NPPF 2019 at Chapter 16 Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. The NPPF is concerned only with developments where there is an impact on the “significance” of heritage assets. In this case there is no impact. There is no criticism from the Council in terms of the NPPF. In fact, the Council confirms an acceptable impact paragraph 3.78 off the Committee Report.
13.37 In respect of archaeology the EIA considered there would be a low likelihood of any remains within the site (CD9.17 - ES Vol 2 Appendix 10.3 & 10.4). An archaeological investigation was undertaken on 23 & 24 May 2018, and no archaeological finds were discovered.
13.38 The Appellant has accepted the principle of an archaeological watching brief during construction and this can be managed by suitable planning conditions.
(vi) Agricultural Land
13.39 There would be some loss of agricultural land, but this would be grade 3b. The land is not BMV. The development accords with NE8 of the Development Plan.
13.40 The removal from agricultural use would not negatively impact in the operation of the agricultural unit or the wider farming resource along the A1(M).
(vii) Highways
13.41 The highways and transportation aspects of the development have been agreed with Highways England and the Highway Authority. The access is fundamentally better and simpler than that proposed for the Vale of York MSA.
(viii) Net Gain for Biodiversity
13.41 There would be a net gain for biodiversity of 10%.
(ix) Planning Obligations
13.42 The Appellant has prepared a Travel Plan obligation in accordance with the County Highway Authority’s requirements and a Unilateral Undertaking (“UU”) that meets the terms of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 122 and 123 and is reasonably and fairly related to the proposed development in scale and kind. The UU confirms that the Ripon MSA would not be signed or operate as an MSA if Leeming Bar MRA is developed and operated as an MSA.
______
57 | P a g e
Motorway Service Area Junction 50 of A1(M) Proof of Evidence of AFR Collins Moto Hospitality Ltd Collins & Coward Ltd ______
Conclusion to Material Considerations
13.43 There is no obstacle to the delivery of the site for MSA development. I conclude the site is highly suitable and sustainable for its proposed use. All the material considerations weigh heavily in favour of the grant of planning permission. Overall Planning Balance
13.44 The most important policies for the development of an MSA relates to Policy GS3 which permits development in the countryside that is supported by national planning policy. In my view Circular 02/2013 carries very significant weight in the determination of the planning appeal.
13.45 There is a clear case of “need” to support the development of the MSA. There are economic, social, and environmental benefits that flow from the development. There is very limited harm to the landscape character which will be mitigated over time.
13.46 Overall, the benefits that will flow from the MSA development will far outweigh any harm.
13.47 The development proposals are consistent with the principles of sustainable development and relevant national and local planning policy. Policies in the Development Plan support the MSA proposals if the development is considered to be in accordance with national policy.
13.48 With mitigation the MSA proposal would comply with NE4. If wrong, then any limited harm would be outweighed by the benefits of road safety and welfare to road users. The development proposals chime with the principles of sustainable development and relevant national and local planning policy. There are no materially adverse impacts which either individually or cumulatively would outweigh the benefits. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Inspector to allow the appeal subject to conditions and planning obligations.
______
58 | P a g e