PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE VALE OF YORK MOTORWAY SERVICE AREA (MSA) BETWEEN JUNCTIONS 48 AND 49 OF THE A1(M), HARROGATE
PLANNING STATEMENT
JULY 2017
Chester Office | Well House Barns | Chester Road | B r e t t o n | C h e s t e r | C H 4 0 D H
South Manchester Office | Camellia House | 76 Water Lane | W i l m s l o w | S K 9 5 B B
t 0844 8700 007 | e [email protected]
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 2 1.1 Introduction ...... 2 1.2 The Site and its Surroundings ...... 2 1.3 The Proposal ...... 4 1.4 The Applicant ...... 6 1.5 Structure of the Planning Statement...... 6 2.0 NEED ...... 8 2.1 Introduction ...... 8 2.2 MSAs National Context ...... 8 2.3 The Need for a New MSA of the A1 (M) North of Wetherby MSA ...... 10 2.4 Meeting the Need...... 13 3.0 VALE OF YORK MSA AND THE RELEVENT PLANNING HISTORY ...... 15 3.1 Introduction ...... 15 3.2 1996 / 1997 Planning Application ...... 15 3.3 2008 Planning Application / 2012 Secretary of State Decision ...... 16 3.4 Analysis of the 2012 Decision ...... 22 3.5 How the Current Planning Application Compares to the Previous Scheme ...... 25 4.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT ...... 30 4.1 Introduction ...... 30 4.2 Statutory Development Plan ...... 30 4.3 Material Planning Considerations ...... 40 5.0 PLANNING ASSESMENT ...... 68 5.1 Introduction ...... 68 5.2 Planning Appraisal ...... 68 5.3 The Planning Balance ...... 95 5.4 Conclusions ...... 100
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 This Planning Statement has been submitted in support of an outline planning application made to Harrogate Borough Council (HBC) by Applegreen plc (the Applicant), for the development of an on-line Motorway Service Area (MSA) on land adjacent to the A1(M) between junctions 48 and 49. The site is located immediately north of the B6265, near the village of Kirby Hill.
1.1.2 The application has been submitted with all matters except for access (i.e. appearance, layout, scale and landscape) reserved for future consideration by HBC. The development is hereafter referred to as either the ‘Vale of York MSA’ or the ‘Proposed Development’.
1.1.3 This introductory section provides a description of the application site (‘the Site’) and its surroundings, a brief description of the Proposed Development and details of the Applicant. It also defines the structure of the Planning Statement.
1.2 The Site and its Surroundings
1.2.1 The Site comprises approximately 19 hectares (ha) of agricultural land immediately adjacent to the A1 (M) and A168 road corridor, approximately 750m to the north-west of Kirby Hill.
1.2.2 The southern boundary of the Site is defined by the B6265. The eastern, northern and western boundaries fall within agricultural fields. The Site and most of the surrounding area is used for intensive arable farming.
1.2.3 An established hedgerow, punctuated by occasional mature trees, runs along the western boundary of the Site. The embankments of the B6265 adjacent to the Site are planted with semi-mature woodland, as is the land that lies between the A1(M) and the A168 on the eastern side of the Site.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 2
1.2.4 The B6265 crosses the A1(M) on an overbridge and links into a roundabout junction with the A168 to the immediate east of the A1(M), which includes 10m high lighting columns. To the west of the roundabout the B6265 continues towards the village of Kirby Hill. The A168 runs parallel to the south bound carriageway of the A1(M).
1.2.5 The nearest settlement to the Site is Kirby Hill, 750m to the south-east. Skelton-On-Ure is located 2.2km to the south-west and Marton-le-Moor 1.6km to the north-east. Boroughbridge lies on the River Ure, 2.0km to the south and Ripon is located 7km to the west.
1.2.6 The nearest residential properties comprise a number of houses sitting alongside the B6265 to the west of the Site, with the nearest dwelling (Dale View) circa 250m from the boundary of the Site. This linear ‘settlement’ also includes the Grade II listed Skelton Windmill, which is 630m from the boundary of the Site. The northern edge of Kirby Hill village (circa 750m to the south- east) comprises residential properties, a farm, a church (the Grade 1 listed Church of All Saints) and a caravan park.
1.2.7 Other nearby residential properties are located as follows: Properties along High Moor Road (High Moor Lodge – 250m to the south); and Property off Leaming Road (Providence Lodge – 340m to the south-east).
1.2.8 Approximately 500m north of the Site is the Highfields Lane overbridge and embankment. Further to the north lies RAF Dishforth, approximately 2.0km from the boundary of the Site.
1.2.9 The Site forms part of an open undulating agricultural landscape characterised by large fields of arable farmland, few hedgerows and trees and scattered farmsteads. The Site’s topography is variable ranging between circa 46m AOD in the north-west, down to circa 35m AOD in the south. To the east of the A1(M) the low-lying gently rolling landscape stretches to the foot of the Hambleton Hills, circa 15km to the east. The land is punctuated by occasional knolls and ridges of higher ground such as at Kirby Hill (43m AOD) and immediately north- east of the Site adjacent to Highfields Lane and the motorway overbridge
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 3
(40m). To the west of the A1(M) the land rises to 58m AOD behind Skelton Windmill, and to 47m AOD on Langthorpe Moor.
1.2.10 The Site is not directly constrained by any statutory or non-statutory ecological designations nor does it contain, or form part of, any designated heritage asset, such as scheduled monuments and listed buildings.
1.2.11 The closest designated site of nature conservation interest is Bishop Monkton Ings SSSI, which lies 4.3km to the south-west of the Site. The closest designated heritage feature is the Grade 2 listed Skelton Windmill, which is 630m to the west of the Site. There are four designated heritage assets within the village of Kirby Hill, the most notable being the Grade I listed Church of All Saints.
1.3 The Proposal
1.3.1 The Applicant is proposing to develop a new on-line MSA. The MSA would be located entirely on the western side of the A1(M), away from the village of Kirby Hill, but would service both directions of travel on the motorway via a new, dedicated junction with slip roads and an overbridge. The slip roads and junction arrangement serving south bound traffic would necessitate a short realignment (to the east) of the existing A168.
1.3.2 The planning application is made in outline for all matters bar means of access. However, it is supported by a Parameters Plan which defines the extent of development for which planning permission is being sought.
1.3.3 The key components of the scheme comprise: An Amenity Building containing hot and cold food outlets, a shop, lavatories, shower and seating / resting areas. This building would have a gross external floor area of up to 4,800m2; and would sit under an innovatively designed, sweeping green roof which would assist with assimilating the scheme into its setting; A Fuel Filling Station with 10 islands (20 filling points) for cars, vans and small commercial vehicles. This would be located immediately to the east of the Amenity Building, underneath the same green roof;
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 4
A separate stand-alone Fuel Filling Station with 5 islands (6 filling points) for HGVs and coaches; A separate stand-alone Drive through Coffee Shop; Parking space provision for 364 cars (including spaces for disabled users), 90 HGVs, 18 coaches, 11 caravans, and 11 motorcycles. The parking provision would include electric vehicle charging stations. All parking would be free of charge for a minimum of 2 hours and meets the relevant standards for an MSA in this location; A dedicated means of access from the A1(M). This would comprise new entry and exit slip roads for northbound and southbound traffic. The new slip roads would lead to a new grade separated dumbbell junction, which would comprise two roundabouts on the eastern and western side of the A1(M) connected by an overbridge spanning the A1(M); A dedicated mean of access from the B6265 that would be only used for staff access. The entrance would be controlled by an access barrier and there would be no access to the public; Realignment of c.650m of the A168 to the north of the roundabout junction with the B6265 to allow the construction of the southbound access and entry and exit slip roads to the MSA; An Abnormal Load Bay; Surface water drainage infrastructure, forming part of a site-wide sustainable drainage system; An extensive on-site hard and soft landscape scheme, together with earthworks across the site and the provision of screen mounding. The landscape areas would incorporate: o A Children’s Play Area; o Dog Exercise Area; and o Driver Stretch / Exercise Area. Other associated infrastructure including fencing, lighting and signage etc.
1.3.4 The design proposed for the amenity building has been developed to help assimilate the development into the surrounding landscape and mitigate the landscape and visual concerns raised in relation to previous applications at the Site, which are discussed in Section 3.0 of this Planning Statement. The innovative design manipulates current site levels and incorporates, amongst
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 5
other things, a living green roof to reduce the impact of the scheme within the local landscape.
1.3.5 A comprehensive landscape has been developed that utilises ground modelling, specifically lowering site levels within the main Site, and landscape planting to reduce the visual effects of the development. The sensitively designed landscape scheme reflects the relatively open nature of the local landscape character and maintain the extensive views across the local landscape.
1.3.6 The MSA would be open 24 hours a day, for 365 days of the year. On this basis, and in light of the provision outlined above, the scheme meets the relevant requirements for an MSA, necessary to qualify for signage on the motorway network.
1.3.7 A more detailed description of the Proposed Development, including the construction phase, is provided in Chapter 4.0 of the Environmental Statement which is also submitted in support of the planning application.
1.4 The Applicant
1.4.1 Applegreen plc is a leading operator of service stations in Ireland, the United Kingdom and the USA and employs more than 3,000 people. Established over 25 years ago, Applegreen operate more than 243 locations throughout the UK, Ireland and the USA. Applegreen operate a dozen Motorway Service Areas (MSAs) in Ireland and Northern Ireland, where they are the number one service area operator by site number and market share. In England, in addition to this scheme, Applegreen is currently progressing proposals for new MSAs in Solihull (M42), Rotherham (M1) and Basingstoke (M3).
1.5 Structure of the Planning Statement
1.5.1 The Planning Statement is sub-divided into 5 main sections, following on from this introduction. Section 2.0 outlines the need for the Proposed Development. Section 3.0 discusses the Vale of York MSA development in the context of its relevant planning history. Section 4.0 sets out the planning policy context and
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 6
Section 5.0 assesses the Vale of York MSA development against the relevant policy context and provides the conclusions of the assessment.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 7
2.0 NEED
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 This section of the Planning Statement identifies the ‘need’ for an MSA serving the A1(M). It is divided into three principal sections which: Set out the national context for MSAs; Establish the need for an MSA on the A1(M) to the north of the existing Wetherby services; and Show how the Vale of York MSA could meet the identified need.
2.2 MSAs National Context
2.2.1 There are presently in excess of 100 MSAs in the UK, whose primary function is to support the safety and welfare of the motorway user. Until 1992, the Department for Transport (DfT) was responsible for developing MSAs: acquiring land, funding construction and leasing the completed sites to operating companies. However, since 1992 and deregulation, government policy has been that the private sector should take the initiative in identifying and acquiring MSA sites and seeking planning consent from local planning authorities (LPAs).
2.2.2 From a national planning perspective, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF – 2012) states (paragraph 31): “Local authorities should work with neighbouring authorities and transport providers to develop strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure necessary to support sustainable development, including large scale facilities such as rail freight interchanges, roadside facilities for motorists or transport investment necessary to support strategies for the growth of ports, airports or other major generators of travel demand in their areas. The primary function of roadside facilities for motorists should be to support the safety and welfare of the road user.”
2.2.3 This policy provides the contemporary framework for DfT Circular 02/2013: ‘The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development’ (hereafter referred to as the Circular). It states at paragraph B4 that MSAs perform an important road safety function by providing opportunities for the
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 8
travelling public to stop and take a break in the course of their journey and that motorists should stop and take a break of at least 15 minutes every two hours. It also notes that drivers of many commercial and public service vehicles are subject to a regime of statutory breaks and that MSAs assist in compliance with such requirements.
2.2.4 Paragraph B5 and B6 of the Circular indicate that the network of MSAs has been developed on the premise that opportunities to stop are provided at intervals of approximately half an hour. However, the timing is not prescriptive as at peak hours, on congested parts of the network, travel between MSAs may take longer. On this basis, the Highways Agency (now Highways England) recommends that the maximum distance between MSAs should be no more than 28 miles, although the distance between services can be shorter. However, to protect the safety and operation of the network, the access / egress arrangements of facilities must comply with the requirements of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges including its provisions in respect of junction separation.
2.2.5 At paragraph B7 the Circular goes on to recognise that speed limits on the motorway vary and therefore the maximum distance between signed MSAs should be the equivalent of 30 minutes driving time, although this can be shorter.
2.2.6 Most importantly, paragraph B8 states: “The distances set out above are considered appropriate for to all parts of the strategic road network and to be in the interests and for the benefit of all road users regardless of traffic flows or route choice. In determining applications for new or improved sites, local planning authorities should not need to consider the merits of the spacing of sites beyond conformity with the maximum and minimum spacing criteria established for safety reasons. Nor should they seek to prevent competition between operators; rather they should determine applications on their specific planning merits.”
2.2.7 Paragraph B9 notes that it is for the private sector to promote and operate MSAs and that they are subject to the provisions of relevant planning legislation in the same way as any other form of development.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 9
2.2.8 The Circular, in particular paragraph B8, differs markedly from previous Government Policies on MSAs, in that it is now clear that once a gap of more than 28 miles has been identified, irrespective of any other factors, the need for an MSA is definitively established. In short, it is not necessary to have regard to any other considerations in respect of whether need exists, as the existence of a 28 mile gap is in itself conclusive evidence of need for planning purposes.
2.2.9 Finally, in terms of where MSAs should be located, paragraphs B13 and B14 of the Circular express a clear preference for on-line MSAs, as opposed to those located at an existing motorway junction. They state: “On-line (between junctions) service areas are considered to be more accessible to road users and as a result are more attractive and conducive to encouraging drivers to stop and take a break. They also avoid the creation of any increase in traffic demand at existing junctions. Therefore, in circumstances where competing sites are under consideration, on the assumption that all other factors are equal, the Highways Agency has a preference for new facilities at on-line locations”.
2.3 The Need for a New MSA of the A1 (M) North of Wetherby MSA
2.3.1 The A1(M) comprises a number of sections of motorway each of which has been an upgrade to the A1, a major trunk road linking London to Edinburgh. Work on upgrading the Leeming Bar to Barton section of the A1 to a three-lane motorway began in April 2014 and is programmed to finish in late 2017. When complete, the A1 will be continuous motorway standard (in the form of the A1(M)) from Darrington in West Yorkshire to Washington in Tyne and Wear.
2.3.2 This section of motorway contains a number of roadside service areas including those shown in Table 2.1 over the page, listed in order south to north.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 10
Table 2.1: Roadside Service Areas A1(M) Darrington to Washington Service Area Operator Comments
Wetherby Moto An off-line full MSA located on junction 46. Services Leeming Bar Moto An off-line Rest Area located circa 1.3km off Rest Area junction 51. This has planning permission for an MSA that has never been built out. Coneygarth Excelby An off-line Truck Stop located off junction Truck Stop 51. Scotch Corner Moto Located off-line on the junction of A1 & A66 Rest Area this is a trunk road service area associated with the former A1 and not to MSA standard Barton Moto An off-line Truck Stop, located on junction Truckstop 56. This has planning permission for an MSA that has never been built out. Durham Roadchef An off-line full MSA located on junction 61. Services Washington Moto An on-line full MSA located between Services junctions 64 and 65.
2.3.3 Table 2.1 shows that, at present, there are only 3 full MSAs on the Darrington to Washington stretch of the A1(M) covering a distance of circa 90 miles. This includes a gap between the Wetherby and Durham motorway services of over 60 miles. This in itself is clear proof of the need for a new MSA between these two services.
2.3.4 Notwithstanding this conclusion, in assessing the need for a new MSA, it is appropriate to give consideration to the other roadside service areas that have planning permission for an MSA upgrade. In the case of the gap in services north of Wetherby, the distance to the Leeming Bar Rest Area is thus relevant.
2.3.5 The method of calculating distances between MSAs was for many years the subject of considerable debate. Fortunately, this was clarified in a 2012 planning appeals decision1 that related to the very stretch of the A1(M) now under consideration. In this case, relating to the gap between Wetherby MSA and Barton Truck Stop (which as per Table 2.1 also has an MSA permission), and the Inspector determined (paragraph 14.1.27) that: “…on balance, I would
1 Secretary of State decision dated 16th October 2012 into co-joined MSA appeals refs: APP/E2734/A/09/2102196, APP/G2713/V/09/2108815, APP/E2734/V/10/2133571, APP/E2734/V/10/2133577 & APP/G2713/V/10/2133567
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 11
consider that the additional distances from the motorway to the centre of the main car park would place the separation distance beyond the 40 miles tipping point.” Thus, his overall conclusion on the gap between the Core MSAs at Wetherby and Barton was that the gap was 40 miles or more, which was a relevant factor in respect of the national MSA policy applicable at that time. Importantly, in the Decision Letter, the Secretary of State confirmed (paragraph 16) that: “he agrees with the first Inspector that the additional distances from the motorway to the centre of the main car park at each site would place the separation distance between Wetherby and Barton beyond the 40 mile tipping point.”
2.3.6 Accordingly, the definitive position is that the gap between services should be measured from centre car park to centre car park.
2.3.7 Using this approach and into account the Leeming Bar Rest Area, off junction 51 of the A1(M) (which is not an MSA but with planning permission for such a use), the relevant distance from Wetherby Services to Leeming Bar Rest Area is 28.8 miles. As such, it exceeds the recommended maximum distances between MSAs of 28 miles (as set out within DfT Circular 02/2013) and a definitive need is established; and, in accordance with paragraph B8 of the Circular, the planning authority should not consider the merits of the spacing any further.
2.3.8 The need for a new MSA is further underpinned in this case by a number of other factors: i. Between and including the Wetherby and Durham MSAs, all of the roadside services on the A1(M) are off-line and therefore in accordance with paragraph B13 of the Circular are considered to be less accessible to road users and as a result are less attractive and conducive to encouraging drivers to stop and take a break. ii. The off-line nature of the Leeming Bar Rest Area is particularly pronounced. If an MSA were to be built out at this site, it would require motorists on the A1(M) to take a 2.6km detour from the motorway in order to visit the services. iii. Based on contemporary DfT guidance, the Leeming Bar site would not qualify for MSA signage from the motorway, as it is not located on land
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 12
having common boundary with the highway at a junction with the strategic road network (Circular 02/2013 paragraph B15). iv. Perversely, and as described more fully in Section 3.0 of this Planning Statement, one of the main reasons for the granting of an MSA consent at Leeming Bar (on appeal in 2012) was the speed in which a new MSA could be delivered at this location. However, circa 5 years later the full MSA has never been built out and there must be some doubt as to whether it ever will. v. This stretch of the A1(M) has a high proportion of long distance journeys and is generally straight, flat and rather monotonous. Accordingly, MSAs fulfil a particularly important role in terms of allowing motorists to take a break. vi. The Government wishes to see increased competition in the UK’s MSAs in order that motorists achieve better value for money, particularly in terms of the cost of fuel, and that the quality of service areas is improved. As Table 2.1 shows, the northern section of the A1(M) is particularly poorly served in terms of competing MSA operators, particularly bearing in mind the next 2 MSA south of Wetherby (Ferrybridge and Blythe) are also operated by Moto.
2.3.9 Based on the foregoing, there is a demonstrable need for a new MSA (or MSAs) on the A1(M) north of the existing Wetherby services.
2.4 Meeting the Need
2.4.1 In light of the identified need for a new MSA on this stretch of the A1(M), Applegreen determined that they would seek a solution. Their key determinants to selecting a site were: The Highways Agency’s clear preference on-line MSAs, as opposed to those located at existing junctions. Being able to provide access and egress to / from the A1(M) via new slip roads that would comply with highway standards as defined in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. The complexity of this requirement should not be underestimated as the requirements for weaving distances between existing junctions are considerable. Furthermore, existing
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 13
overbridges along the motorway also present a significant constraint to the development of new slip roads. Ensuring there would be reasonable spacing between the new MSA and the existing Wetherby Services and any potential MSA at Leeming Bar. Being located south of A1(M) junction 49, where motorway traffic flows are significantly greater than north of that junction. In short, Annual Average Daily Traffic (AATD) flows south of junction 49 are 77,719 vehicles (Highways England on-line published counts for 2 way flows for 2016 between junctions 48 and 49), whereas north of junction 49, the AADT flows drop to 52,050 vehicles (also Highways England on-line published counts for 2 way flows for 2016). This is due to the large volume of traffic leaving the A1(M) at junction 49 and heading along the A168/A19 to Thirsk and particularly Teesside. Thus, being located south of the junction would make the MSA available to significantly more motorists and also clearly be more commercially attractive. Finding sufficient land commercially available for a potential new MSA. Avoiding significant environmental constraints such that even if the other site determinants were met, there would be no realistic prospect of securing planning permission for a new MSA.
2.4.2 Applegreen recognised that it may not be possible to meet, or fully meet, each determinant. Nevertheless, these were the factors that influenced their site selection and resulted in Applegreen bringing forward this planning application for the Vale of York MSA.
2.4.3 The Vale of York scheme would eliminate the non-compliant gap between Wetherby services and any prospective MSA at Leeming Bar Rest Area. It is located circa 13 miles north of Wetherby MSA and 15.8 miles south of Leeming Bar Rest Area, and is thus well situated to fill the gap between these services. Accordingly, it would deliver driver safety and welfare benefits, which are enshrined in national policy, and the need that the scheme would meet should be afforded very significant weight in any planning balance.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 14
3.0 VALE OF YORK MSA AND THE RELEVENT PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 There have been three previous planning applications for the development of an MSA in broadly the same Kirby Hill location as the development now proposed, albeit two were identical twin tracked applications. In each case, planning permission was refused by HBC and the schemes were taken to appeal. Also in each case, at appeal the Kirby Hill proposal was competing with other MSA schemes.
3.1.2 This section of the Planning Statement provides an overview of the previous planning applications / appeals with particular focus on the most recent decision (2012) and the reason why this Kirby Hill appeal was ultimately dismissed. It then provides an appraisal of how the planning context relevant to the 2012 decision has changed. It then compares the previous MSA scheme with that now proposed by Applegreen.
3.2 1996 / 1997 Planning Application
3.2.1 Heather Ive Associates (HIA) submitted identical twin tracked applications to HBC in 1996 and 1997 (outline with all matters reserved) for the development of an MSA between junction 48 and junction 49 of the A1(M) motorway at Kirby Hill (The latter having planning ref: 97/00645/OUT). The development is understood to have comprised a twin sided on-line facility, encompassing much of the site currently under consideration by Applegreen.
3.2.2 The applications were appealed for non-determination. This resulted in a co- joined inquiry in January 1998; at which the Kirby Hill MSA was considered jointly with three competing proposals at Allerton, Arkendale and Kirk Deighton (Wetherby). The Secretary of State (S of S) issued his decision in March 1999, granting planning permission for the Kirby Hill MSA proposal and refusing / dismissing the rest.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 15
3.2.3 On 14 April 2000, the decision was quashed due to the S of S failing to give adequate reasons for his decision and a subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed.
3.2.4 The S of S re-opened the inquiry in 2002 and the Kirby Hill MSA was this time considered jointly with four competing sites at Skelton Grange, Bramham Crossroads, Kirk Deighton and Flaxby Covert. The S of S issued his decision on the five competing sites in August 2005; this time approving the proposal at Kirk Deighton and refusing the other four, including Kirby Hill. The Kirk Deighton scheme has subsequently been developed and is now Moto’s Wetherby MSA.
3.3 2008 Planning Application / 2012 Secretary of State Decision
3.3.1 In December 2008 HIA submitted a new outline application (ref: 08/05860/EIAMAJ) to HBC for an on-line MSA between J48 and 49 (on the same site as the earlier proposals). At this juncture, the MSA was proposed to fill the gap between Wetherby MSA and Barton Lorry Park, the latter of which had an implemented, but not built out, planning permission for redevelopment as an MSA.
3.3.2 The development again comprised a twin sided on-line facility and included: Twin amenity buildings located either side of the motorway; Twin HGV amenity buildings; Twin refuelling areas; and Total parking for 400 cars, 24 LGVs, 20 motorcycles, 20 disabled spaces, 100 HGVs, 12 caravans, and 2 abnormal loads.
3.3.3 Access to the MSA for southbound and northbound traffic would have been via two new slip roads directly off the A1 (M).
3.3.4 HBC refused the Kirby Hill MSA application on the 30th March 2009 for 6 reasons. Three of these were subsequently withdrawn at appeal. The remaining reasons were: the absence of any overriding need; adverse effect on the landscape character of the area; and, loss of best and most versatile agricultural land.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 16
3.3.5 HIA lodged an appeal, which was recovered by the S of S in May 2009, and resulted in a co-joined inquiry at which the Kirby Hill MSA was considered jointly with 4 other competing MSA schemes and a truck stop, the latter of which need not be considered further for the purposes of this Statement.2 All of the planning applications for these schemes were made in outline. This inquiry was heard over various dates between November 2010 and March 2012 and the process resulted in two Inspector Reports (IRs) dated August 2011 and May 2012. The S of S issued his decision in October 2012.
3.3.6 The 4 schemes were: Scheme A Kirby Hill: an on-line twin sided MSA between J48 and 49; Scheme B Motel Leeming Services: an upgrade of a truck stop to a junction MSA at what is now J51 of the A1(M); Scheme C Ripon Services: a new junction MSA at the junction of the A1 and A61, now J50 of the A1(M); and Scheme D Baldersby Gate: a new MSA also at the junction of the A1 and A61 (J50).
3.3.7 The August 2011 IR confirms that the main considerations on the subject of need, and which scheme best met the need, were centred on the subjects of: spacing and location; the need (or otherwise) to demonstrate a clear and compelling need and safety case; and the preferred type of facility.
3.3.8 Key to the consideration of these MSA proposals was the then extant Circular 01/2008 (01/08) which stated at paragraph 59: “Where infill sites are proposed, the Government’s preference will be that they should be located roughly halfway between MSAs, unless it can be shown that an off-centre location is more suitable in either operational, safety or spatial planning terms or in its ability to meet a particular and significant need. The Government will not agree to more than one infill site between any two core MSAs. Where the spacing between two existing MSAs is 40 miles or greater, any infill site that might be permitted will also be designated as a Core site…”
2 Secretary of State decision dated 16th October 2012 into co-joined MSA appeals refs: APP/E2734/A/09/2102196, APP/G2713/V/09/2108815, APP/E2734/V/10/2133571, APP/E2734/V/10/2133577 & APP/G2713/V/10/2133567
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 17
3.3.9 Circular 01/08 has now been superseded by DfT Circular 02/2013, the salient parts of which have been previously described in Section 2.0 of this Planning Statement. The current Circular differs materially in that the concept of ‘Core’ and ‘Infill’ MSAs no longer exists, nor does the preference for locating ‘Infill’ sites roughly halfway between existing MSAs. As described subsequently this latter point counted heavily against the Kirby Hill proposal at that time.
3.3.10 The IR describes that the main controversies on the subject of need, and which scheme best met the need, were centred on the subjects of: spacing and location; the need (or otherwise) to demonstrate a clear and compelling need and safety case; and the preferred type of facility.
3.3.11 HBC appeared at the inquiry as the LPA for 3 of the MSAs. Its case against Kirby Hill MSA was summarised in the IR. With regard to the landscape impact this states (IR paragraph 8.1.19): “In essence, the built development now proposed is the same as was considered and rejected following the 2002/03 Inquiry. The landscaping is also essentially identical, except for the much larger mound that is now proposed along the eastern side of the southbound site. It is therefore highly relevant to note the conclusions reached last time around: The built development and the surrounding landscaping would: “considerably harm the character of the landscape in this area”; The bund would: “cross the natural contours of the land in a most unnatural fashion” and would: “clearly be out of character in the landscape”; The proposals would: “have a significantly detrimental effect on both the character and the visual appearance of the surrounding landscape”; and “There can be no doubt that an MSA at Kirby Hill would cause considerable harm to the landscape of the area, and that this harm would not be mitigated to any material degree by the openness and large scale of the landscape.”
3.3.12 HBC’s landscape case was that the MSA had a significant adverse landscape impact and that the scale and nature of the mitigation of the Kirby Hill MSA proposal offended in its own right. In particular, it was contrary to the guidance in the Harrogate District Landscape Character Assessment (HDLCA), which was approved by HDC as Supplementary Planning Guidance. This was an
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 18
important document in this case HBC’s stated that the following points in the HDLCA counted against the Kirby Hill proposal (quoted from the HDLCA): i. “Linear planting along the A1(M) and at its junctions does not sit well within this open landscape” ...; ii. “Avoid highlighting the A1(M) and A168 corridors. Linear planting along them does not respect the landscape pattern”; iii. “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”; iv. “Large-scale development cannot be easily accommodated here without further detriment to landscape character”; v. “Development requiring large blocks of woodland screening should be discouraged here”; and vi. “Resist new large-scale industrial development in this area unless associated with similar existing development”.
3.3.13 The case for the Highways Agency (HA), who also appeared at the inquiry, concluded that any of the 4 MSA proposals meet the identified need and stated that their (IR paragraph 9.2.25): “preference for the MSA proposals remains: first Kirby Hill: second either of the Baldersby Gate schemes, these being off- line junction sites that share a common boundary with the motorway junction; and third, Motel Leeming. In reaching that view, by far the most significant of the three factors is that Kirby Hill is online.”
3.3.14 The Inspector concluded on need and the HA’s position (IR paragraph 14.1.86): “It is difficult to accept HA’s selection of Kirby Hill, which – at 12.363 miles from Wetherby MSA – is very close to the point of total unacceptability, merely because it is on-line. It follows that I consider that the most important consideration is to place any infill MSA close to the mid point in an identified gap.”
3.3.15 He went to conclude (IR paragraph 14.1.88): “…that one of the Baldersby junction sites would best fulfil the need….” unless other material considerations indicated otherwise.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 19
3.3.16 Also on the of on-line versus off-line provision and the location of the Kirby Hill site (south of junction 49 [the Thirsk / Teesside turning] where traffic flows are far higher than to the north of the junction) the Inspector concluded (IR paragraph 14.8.13): “… more traffic would pass Kirby Hill than the other proposed MSAs, but that this factor should be given limited weight because that additional traffic would not be using the full length of motorway under consideration. There is no firm evidence to show that on-line sites would have higher turn in rates than off-line sites.”
3.3.17 The Inspector’s conclusions on the Kirby Hill MSA are notable. On the countryside and agricultural land he indicated that (IR paragraph 14.3.78): “the total area of 19.31ha would represent a significant encroachment into the countryside, of which some 18ha would be BMV [best & most versatile] agricultural land. The loss of BMV land is not overriding, but it is a consideration to be weighed in the balance…”
3.3.18 On Landscape and visual impact, he stated (IR paragraphs 14.3.79 & 14.3.80): “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.”
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. I conclude that the proposal would have a significant detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape.”
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 20
3.3.19 In terms of heritage issues, he concluded that (IR paragraph 14.3.82): “There would be limited harm to the settings of the Grade I listed All Saints’ Church in Kirby Hill and to the Grade II listed Skelton Windmill.”
3.3.20 The Inspector then compared the competing schemes based on policy and guidance extant at that time and concluded that Scheme D Baldersby Gate MSA scheme should be approved, and duly issued his report. The matter then went to the S of S who, on review, determined that there was an EIA deficiency with Scheme D Baldersby Gate MSA and that in the case of each application, the arrangements for access from the A1(M) had not been reserved for later consideration, and thus he needed to be fully satisfied that there would be no impediments to securing such access. Accordingly, he re-opened the inquiry with a second, new Inspector.
3.3.21 There is nothing of significance to this appraisal in the second IR, which did not change the first Inspector’s recommendation, other than the Inspector’s conclusion that (2nd IR paragraph 9.1.2): “With regard to departures from DMRB standards, I have concluded that there is no need for any departures in respect of the schemes which would take access directly from the strategic road network (Kirby Hill and Baldersby Gate Services).”
3.3.22 The S of S then considered both reports and issued his DL in October 2012. The key finding was that he agreed with the Inspectors’ conclusions and recommendations in respect of Schemes A (Kirby Hill) and C, but he disagreed with their conclusions and recommendation in respect of Scheme B and D. He thus granted planning consent for Scheme B at Motel Leeming and refused the other proposals.
3.3.23 The S of S’s reasoning was as follows:
(DL paragraph 37): “Despite not being in accordance with the development plan, Case A [Kirby Hill] has the advantage of being the only site which is on- line … However, the fact that it is only just above 12 miles north of the fully operational Wetherby MSA weighs against it…”
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 21
(DL paragraph 41): “As Site B [Motel Leeming] would be based on an existing Trunk Road Service Area, the Secretary of State sees it as being the most sustainable of the options, whilst also conforming in general terms with the development plan. It would be built on brown field land, with no additional land- take and, given the established need for an MSA, the fact that work could start straight away – itself generating jobs and economic activity - weighs heavily in its favour.”
3.3.24 Motel Leeming has now been ‘developed’ as Leeming Bar Rest Area and was taken over by Moto in 2014. However, despite the significant weight that the S of S placed on the early provision of a full MSA at Leeming, somewhat perversely, such a facility has still not been built out.
3.4 Analysis of the 2012 Decision
3.4.1 Analysis of the 2012 decision identifies a number of factors that are important to the current planning application, in particular how the Inspector’s and S of S’s views on key matters are likely to have been different in the current policy context. The main factors are: 1) Guidance on MSA provision at that time was contained in Circular 01/08. This has now been superseded by DfT Circular 02/2013. The current Circular differs materially from Circular 01/08 in that: The concept of ‘Core’ and ‘Infill’ MSAs no longer exists. In the 2012 decision the proposals were competing to be a ‘Core’ MSA, albeit in an ‘Infill’ situation for which there was a requirement to fill a gap of 40 miles or greater. In the old Circular there was a clear preference for locating ‘Infill’ sites roughly halfway between existing MSAs and a statement that the absolute minimum gap between services was 12 miles. This counted very heavily against the Kirby Hill proposal as it was off centre (in the relevant gap) and only just over 12 miles (by the measurement then applied) north of Wetherby Services. In short, the maximum spacing guidance is now 28 miles and any MSA that fills a 28 mile gap whilst complying with DMRB standards fulfils a need. The current scheme would eliminate the non-compliant gap between Wetherby services and any prospective MSA at Leeming Bar
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 22
Rest Area. It is located circa 13 miles north of Wetherby MSA and 15.8 miles south of Leeming Bar Rest Area, and is thus well situated to fill the gap between these services. On this basis, the Inspector’s conclusions at IR paragraph 14.1.86 no longer apply i.e.: “It is difficult to accept HA’s selection of Kirby Hill, which – at 12.363 miles [n.b. this is not the correct measurement from the centre of the car park] from Wetherby MSA – is very close to the point of total unacceptability, merely because it is on-line. It follows that I consider that the most important consideration is to place any infill MSA close to the mid point in an identified gap.” The same is true of the S of S’s reasoning (DL paragraph 37) where he stated of the Kirby Hill MSA: “…the fact that it is only just above 12 miles north of the fully operational Wetherby MSA weighs against it…” In short, in the context of the current Circular and the gap between Wetherby services and any prospective MSA at Leeming Bar Rest Area, the Vale of York site is now ideally located.
2) The current Circular would also not support the Inspector’s conclusions at IR paragraph 14.8.13 where he stated: “… more traffic would pass Kirby Hill than the other proposed MSAs, but that this factor should be given limited weight because that additional traffic would not be using the full length of motorway under consideration.” This is a reference to the fact that there is a 50% increase in motorway flows south of junction 49 where the A168 / A13 joins the A1(M). In the current Circular, firstly, there is now no minimum spacing requirement for MSAs beyond compliance with DMRB standards; and secondly, the Circular makes it clear that this spacing requirement applies to all parts of the strategic road network, and thus encompasses users of the A168 / A13 trunk road which links to the A1(M) just north of the Vale of York site. Accordingly, the Vale of York MSA would serve both the users of the motorway and the ‘A’ roads. As such, where an MSA proposal fills an additional gap in services, and serves significantly higher traffic flows, when compared to an alternative site, the need it meets should be afforded materially greater weight than the alternative.
3) The Inspector also concluded (IR paragraph 14.8.13): “…There is no firm evidence to show that on-line sites would have higher turn in rates than
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 23
off-line sites.” This statement remains clearly contrary to HE’s latest 2013 Circular (paragraphs B13 and B14) where a clear preference for on-line MSAs, as opposed to those located at an existing motorway junction is expressed: “On-line (between junctions) service areas are considered to be more accessible to road users and as a result are more attractive and conducive to encouraging drivers to stop and take a break. They also avoid the creation of any increase in traffic demand at existing junctions.”
4) It is also important to note that the 2012 decision weighed the Kirby Hill MSA proposal against other competing MSA schemes. It is clear that, for example, the Kirby Hill MSA effects on heritage assets (IR paragraph 14.3.82) and loss of agricultural land (IR paragraph 14.3.78) were not determinative in their own right, but balanced against Kirby Hill when compared to the schemes it was then competing with. At this point in time, there is no competing scheme to the Vale of York MSA proposal and thus the merits of an alternative proposal cannot count against the scheme.
5) It is self-evident that that in the 2012 decision, that the scale and nature of the mitigation of the Kirby Hill MSA proposal (i.e. woodland planting and bunding etc.) offended in its own right. In particular, it was contrary to the guidance in the HDLCA which focussed on keeping views open and avoiding large scale blocks of woodland screen planting. However, the Inspector (albeit not the S of S) determined that the Baldersby Gate proposal could, on balance, be acceptable within the exact same landscape type.3 As set out in the subsequent sub-section, Applegreen is of the view that the previous MSA proposal was poorly designed in relation to its landscape setting and brought forward a materially different proposal. 3.4.2 In summary, there are a number of factors relevant to the 2012 decision on the Kirby Hill MSA that no longer either count against an MSA in this location, or would lend greater support for it.
3 HDLCA – Landscape Character Area 81: Dishforth and Surrounding Farmland
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 24
3.5 How the Current Planning Application Compares to the Previous Scheme
3.5.1 The reasons given by the S of S in 2012 in dismissing the previous appeal have been a significant material consideration in the formulation of the Proposed Development.
3.5.2 The first point of note is that the Applegreen proposal is now for a single sided MSA facility, serving both sides of the A1(M), as opposed to a twin sided scheme as was previously promoted. The MSA would be located west of the motorway (on the northbound side) and access from the southbound side would be facilitated by a new overbridge. The benefits of this arrangement (over the refused / dismissed historic schemes) are considered to be: i. The MSA would move materially away from the settlement of Kirby Hill and there would be less visual impact on properties at Church Lane (noted as slight adverse harm by the first Inspector in the 2012 decision). ii. There would only be a single Amenity Building with one (joined) fuel filling station for cars and light goods vehicles. Whilst there would be a separate Fuel Filling Station for HGVs and a small Drive through Coffee Shop, the overall number of buildings within the MSA would be less than previously proposed. iii. There would be less loss of agricultural land and a smaller development footprint generally, resulting in a decreased incursion into the countryside. In terms of the ‘developed’ print obtaining comparative measurements is fairly complex. However, the 2008 HIA Kirby Hill proposal was 19.31 hectares including the surrounding mounding and woodland which was an integral part of the scheme, but excluding the slip roads that HIA left outside of the planning application boundary. The conservative comparative figure for the Vale of York scheme is 13.8 hectares (covering the entire development west of the motorway, including landscape areas; the realigned A168 and the whole of the new junction including its slip roads, but excluding the old section of the A168, which would be returned to countryside). In terms of the loss of agricultural land, the 2008 HIA scheme would have resulted in the permanent loss of 14.7 hectares of best and most versatile agricultural land and the reversible loss of 3.3 hectares. Whereas, the current MSA proposal would result in the
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 25
permanent loss of 9.8 hectares of best and most versatile agricultural land and the reversible loss of 4.3 hectares. iv. There would be greater separation distance from the Grade I listed All Saints’ Church in Kirby Hill.
3.5.3 As well as the fundamental change to site the MSA facilities only on the western side of the motorway, an entirely fresh design concept has been adopted.
3.5.4 The HDLCA Supplementary Planning Guidance has been utilised to influence the design for the current scheme and ensure that important landscape characteristics are maintained.
3.5.5 The previous 2008 scheme sought to entirely surround the MSA with wide belts of woodland planting. However, the total screening approach, was not in keeping with the overriding landscape character of the area and proved to be a visual impediment to the surrounding openness and views in its own right. The approach adopted clearly contravened the guidelines set by the HDLCA which state that: “...development requiring large blocks of woodland screening should be discouraged here” and that: “planting to mitigate the impact of large scale buildings should soften rather than screen impact...”
3.5.6 Field patterns and hedgerows were also compromised, and in parts lost, as a result of the 2008 scheme, which paid little attention to the diverse landscape pattern of the field systems.
3.5.7 The current proposals have sought to address the ‘Sensitivities and Pressures’ identified within the HDLCA guidelines. Field patterns have been respected, and hedgerows have been maintained and reinforced.
3.5.8 Rather than relying on woodland planting to hide the development, the current scheme would integrate the built form into the landscape, respecting the subtle undulations of the wider landscape, and the openness and spaciousness of the Vale of York countryside.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 26
3.5.9 The integration of the Fuel Filling Station (FFS) with the Amenity Building also helps contain two of the larger elements of the development within a smaller area. The Amenity Building / FFS is located at the lowest point of the site, adjacent to the existing, heavily planted, embankment of the B6265 along the site’s southern boundary. The ground would be lowered at this point to sink the building into the site, and therefore reduce the visual impact it would have when viewed from the surrounding area. The blending of the building within the landscape would be further enhanced by the utilisation of a grass roof that acts as a modern version of a traditional Ha-ha, in order to minimise the impact of the built form has on sensitive local views.
3.5.10 An interpretation of the traditional Ha-ha has been used, both at the sensitive western edge of the site and within the site itself, to help shield some of the more prominent elements, such as the HGV and coach parking, from the sensitive surrounding views, while maintaining the appearance of open fields that is prevalent in the area.
3.5.11 In this way, key views across and beyond the site would be maintained with minimal impact from the development, either by way of the development itself, or from the introduced landscape features.
3.5.12 In accordance with the guidance set by the HDLCA, the design looks to utilise trees carefully and in locations that maintain the landscape character of the area, feathering out from the corners of the existing hedgerows and fields. As stated in the guidance: “small woodland blocks associated with appropriately scaled development may help to integrate development with the landscape.”
3.5.13 Table 3.1 over the page provides a summary as to how the Vale of York MSA proposal responds to the key points contained within the HDLCA.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 27
Table 3.1: Assessment of the Proposed Development Against HDLCA Guidance Selected Guidelines from Commentary the Harrogate District LCA Extensive large scale tree Extensive large scale tree planting does not feature in planting would be the landscape proposals for the scheme. The design inappropriate of the Proposed Development makes use of the surrounding landform, together with existing vegetation to restrict the extent of visibility from outside. Development requiring large The Proposed Development has been designed in scale blocks of woodland such a fashion that large scale blocks of woodland are screening should be not required to screen views. Tree planting is discouraged proposed east of the new overbridge but would be a continuation of the established linear planting along the road corridor Small woodland blocks The landscape design for the Proposed Development associated with appropriately makes use of small scale blocks of trees which, scaled development may together with the retention of existing vegetation help to integrate cover, help to visually integrate new features. development with the landscape Large-scale development Importantly, this part of the guidelines does not cannot be easily indicate that large scale development cannot be accommodated without accommodated, but rather that it cannot be further detriment to accommodated easily. landscape character The open nature of the landscape and the lack of suitability of mass planting as a means of screening a site do present a challenge and as such careful site selection and considered design become key to enabling integration without harm to character. The topography and orientation of this Site in combination with established vegetation elements are such that an opportunity existed here to develop a successful solution. It has thus been possible, with careful and responsive design, to achieve the integration of a relatively large development without notable change to surrounding landscape character. Avoid highlighting the A1(M) Whilst we do not dispute the assertion that linear and A168 corridors. Linear highway planting can serve to highlight the presence planting along these of a road in the landscape and can be unsympathetic corridors does not reflect the to wider character, the fact is that the A1(M) / A168 landscape pattern corridor is an established influence upon landscape character and that its associated planting performs a useful screening function that mitigates the influence of the road and traffic upon adjacent areas. The Proposed Development would seek to maintain the existing linear planting in order to retain the integrity of this mitigation function – replanting areas where removal of existing vegetation is required and adding some new planting to the east of the proposed overbridge
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 28
Selected Guidelines from Commentary the Harrogate District LCA Encourage reinstatement of Hedgerows removed to accommodate the Proposed hedgerows, particularly in Development would be reinstated as part of the areas of pre-parliamentary landscape proposals, along their existing alignments enclosure wherever possible. Additionally, a new hedgerow running along the eastern side of the realigned A168 would link with similar existing features in the adjacent fields. No pre-parliamentary enclosure hedgerows are affected. Planting to mitigate the Planting proposed consists of strategic small groups impact of large-scale of trees which are intended to break up and soften buildings should soften views towards and into the Site rather than achieve a rather than screen impact screen. The exception is along the A1(M) corridor to and the potential for planting the east where an established screen would be beyond the site should be reinstated and reinforced. It is not considered that considered further off-site planting would be necessary. Conserve historic features in The landscape proposals for the Proposed the landscape Development include the reinstatement of a number of pre-existing field boundary hedgerows. In terms of cultural heritage assets, as set out in Chapter 10 of the ES, the Proposed Development would not physically affect any known extant historic features. A programme of archaeological investigation would be undertaken prior to construction, and appropriate mitigation measures agreed with Harrogate Borough Council.
3.5.14 Based on the foregoing, it can be seen that the Proposed Development differs materially to the proposal previously dismissed at appeal in the 2012 decision; and is one that accords with the principles set out in HDCLA. The current design addresses the negative factors of the earlier Kirby Hill MSA proposal, such that the overall effects of the Proposed Development are very significantly reduced.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 29
4.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 This section of the Planning Statement identifies the relevant planning policy context for the Proposed Development and considers the statutory Development Plan for the Site and relevant national and local planning guidance.
4.2 Statutory Development Plan
4.2.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (September 2004) requires that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the Statutory Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In the case of this proposal, the relevant Statutory Development Plan comprises the: Saved policies of the Harrogate District Local Plan (2001), as amended by the Selective Alteration (May 2004); and Harrogate Borough Council Core Strategy (2009).
Harrogate District Local Plan (February 2001)
4.2.2 The Harrogate District Local Plan was adopted in February 2001. It has been amended by the Selective Alteration which was adopted in May 2004, the saving of policy process in 2007 and through the adoption of the Core Strategy. Accordingly, a number of policies within the Local Plan have been deleted.
4.2.3 In light of the above, HBC have prepared an ‘augmented composite’ document which comprises the various versions of content as added, amended, deleted or revised through its history up to the adoption of the Core Strategy. Accordingly, the following paragraphs only identify those remaining policies that are of relevance to the Vale of York MSA.
4.2.4 The NPPF (paragraphs 214 and 215) states that the weight given to policies adopted before 2004 depends upon the degree to which they are consistent
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 30
with the NPPF. The greater the consistency, the greater the weight that may be given.
4.2.5 The Proposals Map which supports the Local Plan confirms that the Site is located outside of an established settlement and within the open countryside.
4.2.6 In identifying the relevant policy context it is important to recognise that the Proposed Development is a MSA and thus the core policy in relation to land use is Policy T7 of the Local Plan, which specifically addresses MSA provision. Other land use employment policies relating to smaller scale business and shopping development in the countryside, are not considered relevant to the type of development proposed.
Chapter 3 – Countryside
4.2.7 The introductory text to this topic area notes that the: “Local Plan aims to protect and enhance the special character of the countryside in Harrogate District whilst at the same time enabling development which contributes to the rural economy.”
Policy C2 – Landscape Character 4.2.8 The policy states that: “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.”
Chapter 4 – Nature Conservation
4.2.9 Chapter 4 contains policies which aim to conserve sites, habitats and individual species from inappropriate development, as well as to enhance the nature conservation interest in the District.
Policy NC4 – Semi-Natural Habitats 4.2.10 This policy states that: “Outside designated sites development will not be permitted which would result in the loss of or damage to semi-natural habitats
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 31
which are important for nature conservation. Protection of these habitats will be afforded in accordance with their importance within the district.”
4.2.11 The justification text for this policy states that the semi-natural habitats are areas of land where current and past management practices including farming and forestry have resulted in the conservation of areas capable of supporting wildlife. Paragraph 4.21 states that: “the need for the proposed development will be balanced against the importance of the habitat within the District.”
Chapter 6 – Heritage and Design
4.2.12 Chapter 6 seeks to protect the District’s heritage and secure high standards of design, thus conserving the local environmental quality of the District.
Policy HD3 – Control of Development in Conservation Areas 4.2.13 This policy states that: “Development which has an adverse effect on the character or appearance of a conservation area will not be permitted”. It then goes on to state that “applications for development visually affecting conservation areas will be expected to contain sufficient information to allow a proper assessment of their impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area to be made.”
Policy HD6 – Historic Battlefield Sites 4.2.14 This policy states that: “Development affecting historic battlefield sites, as identified on the proposals map, will only be permitted where the proposal: a) does not adversely affect the historic, archaeological and landscape interest of the site; and b) does not prejudice any potential for interpretation of the site.”
Policy HD7A – Parks and Gardens of Historic Interest 4.2.15 This policy states that: “Development will not be permitted where it would adversely affect the character or setting of parks and gardens included in the English Heritage Register of parks and gardens of special historic interest.”
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 32
Policy HD13 – Trees and Woodlands 4.2.16 This policy states that: “Proposals which would involve the loss of trees or woodland which contribute to the character or setting of a settlement will not be permitted.” The justification text (paragraph 6.69) for this policy states that conditions will be attached to planning permissions to ensure this takes place.
Policy HD20 – Design of New Development and Redevelopment 4.2.17 This policy sets out a list of design criteria in which all proposals for new development should consider, where relevant, and then states that proposals that do not comply with the design principles will not be permitted. The design criteria are: “New buildings should make a positive contribution to the spatial quality of the area and their siting and density should respect the area’s character and layout.” “New buildings should respect the local distinctiveness of existing buildings, settlements and their landscape setting.” “New buildings should respect the scale, proportions and height of neighbouring properties.” “New building design should respect, but not necessarily mimic, the character of their surroundings and, in important locations, should make a particularly strong contribution to the visual quality of the area.” “Fenestration should be well-proportioned, well-balanced within the elevation and sympathetic to adjoining buildings.” “The use and application of building materials should respect materials of neighbouring buildings and the local area.” “New development should be designed with suitable landscaping as an integral part of the scheme.” “Special consideration will be given to the needs of disabled and other inconvenienced persons, particularly in proposed developments to which there will be public access.” “New development should respect the privacy and amenity of nearby residents and occupiers of adjacent buildings.” “New development should maximise the opportunities for conservation of energy and resources through design, layout, orientation and construction.”
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 33
“New development should, through design, layout and lighting, pay particular attention to the provision of a safe environment.”
4.2.18 The justification text for this policy (paragraph 6.81) identifies that: “the maintenance of high standards of design in new development is essential if the attractive character of Harrogate District is to be preserved and enhanced.”
Chapter 8 – Amenity
4.2.19 Chapter 8 contains policies relating to protecting the environment and amenity of the Harrogate District. This involves to minimising and controlling of pollution, and ensuring people within the area are not subject to any unnecessary risks.
Policy A7 – Unstable Land 4.2.20 This policy states: “Proposals for development on land suspected as being unstable will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated either that there is no foreseeable instability, or that the effects of such instability can reasonably be overcome.” The justification text to this policy (paragraph 8.30) advises that it will normally be necessary to take full account of the ground conditions prior to the determination of the application or commencement of development.
Chapter 10 – Employment
4.2.21 Chapter 10 aims to provide for existing and future employment needs whilst having regard to wider environmental objectives. Of particular importance, in the third objective of Chapter 10, as stated in paragraph 10.9, is: “to encourage economic activity in rural areas where compatible with the plan’s policies for the natural and built environment.”
Chapter 12 – Transportation
4.2.22 Chapter 12 seeks to encourage the development of a sustainable, safe and efficient transport system which minimises environmental harm and serves existing and future development.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 34
Policy T7 – Motorway Service Areas (MSAs) 4.2.23 This policy states that: “Within Harrogate District planning permission will be granted for not more than one motorway service area serving the A1(M). The provision of an MSA is to be dependent on there being a need for such a facility, taking into account existing and planned services on the A1 and linked motorways elsewhere in Harrogate and Yorkshire.”
4.2.24 This policy then goes on to state a number of criteria in which sites and proposals will be assessed against. The criteria are listed below: “The need to meet minimum standards for parking and the other basic services necessary to serve the needs of motorway users; The desirability of excluding extraneous services and facilities; The need to provide safe and convenient access without interfering with the free and safe flow of traffic on the motorway or the local highway network; Minimising the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land; Minimising the impact on listed buildings, registered parks and gardens and their settings; Safeguarding and/or enhancing the existing landscape character of the surrounding area; Safeguarding sites and features of archaeological or nature conservation interest; Minimising the impact on residential amenity.”
4.2.25 Paragraph 12.29 of the justification text of this policy references the previous Kirby Hill MSA proposal (1997), which at the time of writing the Adopted Local Plan, was still awaiting a decision. However, as set out in Section 3.0 of this Planning Statement, this proposal was ultimately dismissed at appeal.
Policy T13 – Lorry Parking 4.2.26 This policy states that: “The Borough Council, in conjunction with the county council, will investigate opportunities for lorry parking in the district.” The justification text for this policy states that: “Harrogate lacks an official lorry park and although demand appears limited there are certain times when a facility is required.”
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 35
Policy T20 – Bus Access 4.2.27 This policy states that: “Major new development will be required to provide satisfactory access for bus services including route extensions and the provision of any necessary bus laybys, shelters with seating and turning facilities. In the rural areas the council will, in conjunction with other organisations, investigate opportunities to improve the network of bus services.”
Policy T22A – Measures to Promote Cycling 4.2.28 This policy states that: “The safety, attractiveness and convenience of cycling will be enhanced by the introduction of cycle routes, facilities and safety measures. These will be designed to safeguard the convenience and safety of other users, especially pedestrians, where dual use is envisaged.”
Harrogate Borough Council Core Strategy (February 2009)
4.2.29 The HBC Core Strategy was adopted in February 2009. It sets out the direction and strategy for development and conservation in the District up to the year 2021 and beyond. Those policies of relevance to the Vale of York MSA are set out below.
Chapter 3 – Settlement Growth
4.2.30 This Chapter concentrates on policies for housing distribution and growth, however this Chapter also makes reference to the economy and its related growth.
Policy SG3 – Settlement Growth: Conservation of the Countryside, Including Green Belt 4.2.31 This policy states that there will be strict control over new development in land classified as countryside. The policy then identifies that to promote a sustainable pattern of rural development in areas of the countryside, the following select few of forms of development will be encouraged: “Affordable homes for local people... Rural building conversions…
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 36
Small scale community facilities and small scale employment adjacent to a development limit where: a. they cannot be located within a development limit nor be accommodated in a suitable available rural building; and b. they are needed to maintain or enhance the sustainability of that community; and c. they are appropriate to the service role of the settlement; and d. any adverse impact on the environment and amenity is clearly outweighed by the needs of, and benefits to, that community; Sustainable rural enterprises, including tourism, renewable energy and farm diversification.”
Policy SG4 – Settlement Growth: Design & Impact 4.2.32 This policy states a number of criteria in which all development proposals should comply. These criteria are listed below: “The scale, density, layout and design should make the most efficient use of land; and a. be well integrated with, and complementary to, neighbouring buildings and the spatial qualities of the local area; b. be appropriate to the form and character of the settlement and/or landscape character. Visual, residential and general amenity should be protected and where possible enhanced; There should be no loss of greenfield land unless justified by national planning policy, the Regional Spatial Strategy, this Core Strategy or a policy or proposal within the Local Development Framework; The environmental impact and design of development should conform with Policies EQ1 and EQ2 of this Core Strategy.”
4.2.33 The policy then goes on to state that the travel impact of any scheme should not add significantly to any pre-existing problems regarding access, road safety or traffic flow.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 37
Chapter 5 – Jobs & Business
4.2.34 This chapter covers the three main sectors of the local economy: business development, tourism (both conference & business and holiday) and retail and town centre development. Paragraph 5.1 of the introductory text states that: “The overall vision of the Core Strategy seeks to support more buoyant and diverse urban and rural economies.”
Policy JB1 – Supporting the Harrogate District Economy 4.2.35 This policy states that: “The Borough Council will work with its partners and communities to maintain and enhance the economic role of the District and support innovation and enterprise.” The policy puts particular importance on a select few developments, including: “Maintaining and enhancing the competitiveness of Harrogate’s conference and business tourism sector”; and “Supporting the development of digital and food clusters within the District”, and: “Supporting the rural and agricultural economy and its diversification.”
4.2.36 The justification text for this policy states that: “There is a need to provide support for the agricultural sector and also to provide alternative employment opportunities to revive the rural economy” (paragraph 5.11). However, whilst doing so, there is also emphasis on retaining the rural character and environment of these areas.
Chapter 6 – Travel
4.2.37 This Chapter focuses on tackling congestion and improving accessibility for all.
Policy TRA1 – Accessibility 4.2.38 This policy states the ways in which reducing the need to travel and improving accessibility to jobs, shops, services and community facilities will be achieved. The following methods are specified: “ensuring that the majority of all future development is well related to the existing or extended Key Bus & Rail Network as included in Appendix 7;” “applying the accessibility criteria set out in Appendix 8 in considering new housing development and applying RSS Policy T3 for non-residential development;” and
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 38
“requiring all developments which are likely to have significant transport implications to include a Transport Assessment.”
Chapter 7 – Environment & Quality of Life
4.2.39 This Chapter sets out the HBC’s vision to: “protect and enhance the Districts built and natural environment and build more resource efficient development which minimises energy consumption, waste production and maximises renewable energy.”
Policy EQ1 – Reducing Risks to the Environment 4.2.40 This policy states that: “In partnership with the community, the development industry and other organisations, the level of energy and water consumption, waste production and car use within the District, and the consequential risks for climate change and environmental damage will be reduced.” The policy then goes on to state a number of methods, those relating to the Vale of York MSA proposal are listed below: “The planning, design, construction and subsequent operation of all new development should seek to minimise: energy and water consumption; the use of natural non-renewable resources; travel by car; flood risk; waste;” “Until a higher national standard is required, all new development requiring planning permission should: attain ‘very good’ standards as set out in the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM);”
Policy EQ2 – The Natural and Built Environment and Green Belt 4.2.41 This policy states that: “The District’s exceptionally high quality natural and built environment will be given a level of protection appropriate to its international, national and local importance.” It then goes on to state: “Subject to the District’s need to plan for new greenfield development, the landscape character of the whole District will be protected and where appropriate enhanced.”
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 39
4.2.42 The policy then defines priority measures to protect and enhance the District’s natural and built environment. The most important measure in relation to the Vale of York MSA is considered to be to: “ensure that new development incorporates high quality locally distinctive design.”
4.3 Material Planning Considerations
4.3.1 As noted with in the NPPF, the information contained within national policy and guidance and other policy, guidance / emerging policy documents can represent material planning considerations in the determination of a planning application. In this case the key documents are judged to comprise the following: National Planning Policy Framework (2012); National Planning Practice Guidance Series (relevant documents); Department for Transport Circular 02/2013: The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development; National Policy Statement for the National Networks (December 2014); The emerging Harrogate District Draft Local Plan; and Harrogate District Supplementary Planning Guidance Documents.
National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
4.3.2 The Government adopted the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) in 2012. It represents the national guidance for the determination of planning applications. The NPPF is a material planning consideration which must be taken into account in all planning decisions.
Ministerial Foreword
4.3.3 The Ministerial Foreword to the Framework states that: “development that is sustainable should go ahead without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision.”
4.3.4 Paragraphs 2 and 11 of the NPPF confirm that planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 40
the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. However, paragraph 12 expands this point by making a clear distinction in terms of the proposed development being in accordance with an: “up to date Local Plan” and that LPAs should have an up-to-date plan in place.
Achieving Sustainable Development
4.3.5 Paragraph 6 states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The policies in paragraphs 18 to 219, taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development means in practice for the Planning System.
4.3.6 The Framework identifies (paragraph 7) that there are three dimensions to sustainable development, they are: “An economic role - contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure; A social role - supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and An environmental role - contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.”
4.3.7 It is noted at paragraph 8 that the aforementioned roles must not be taken in isolation on the basis that they are mutually dependent.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 41
The Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development
4.3.8 Paragraph 14 confirms that: “At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.” In terms of decision making this means: “where a Development Plan is absent, silent or relevant polies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.”
Core Planning Principles
4.3.9 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets out the 12 core planning principles that are intended to underpin all plan-making and decision-taking. They state that planning should: “Be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings, with succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area. Plans……should provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency; Not simply be about scrutiny, but instead be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives; Proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet…development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth. Plans should …set out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in their area, taking account of the needs of the residential and business communities; Always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings;
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 42
Take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it; Support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change, and encourage the reuse of existing resources…and encourage the use of renewable resources…; Contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution…; Encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value; Promote mixed use developments, and encourage multiple benefits from the use of land in urban and rural areas…; Conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance…; Actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable; and Take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs.”
Building a Strong and Competitive Economy
4.3.10 Paragraphs 18 to 22 of the NPPF set out the Government’s commitment to building a strong and competitive economy and establish the Government’s commitment to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity and ensuring that the planning system does everything that it can to support this.
4.3.11 Significant weight should be placed on the need to support sustainable economic growth through the planning system and to help achieve this, LPAs should plan proactively to meet the development needs of business and support an economy fit for the 21st Century. LPAs should identify priority areas for infrastructure provision and should avoid the long-term protection of sites
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 43
allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose.
Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres
4.3.12 Paragraph 24 of the NPPF states that LPAs should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations (within 300m walk of the defined town centre boundary). Only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. The sequential test should be applied to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre, with preference given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre.
4.3.13 Paragraph 26 of the NPPF states that when assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, LPAs should require an impact assessment if the developer is over a proportionate, locally set floor space threshold. If there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500sqm. This should include an assessment of the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time the application is made.
Promoting Sustainable Transport
4.3.14 In relation to sustainable transport, paragraph 29 confirms that transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development.
4.3.15 Paragraph 31 advises that LPAs need to develop strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure necessary to support sustainable development, including roadside facilities for motorists. The primary function of roadside facilities for motorists should be to support the safety and welfare of the road user.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 44
4.3.16 In relation to development in general paragraph 32 requires that all developments that generate significant amounts of movement are supported by a Transport Assessment. It continues to state that, in determining applications account should be taken of whether, opportunities for sustainable modes of transport have been explored, safe and suitable access can be achieved. Importantly, it also notes that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are ‘severe’. 4.3.17 Paragraph 36 requires the submission of a Travel Plan for all developments which generate a significant amount of movement.
Requiring Good Design
4.3.18 Good design is given great importance in the NPPF as a key aspect of sustainable development. Paragraph 58 includes a series of six criteria to be considered as part of the decision-taking process. These state that developments will: “Function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; Establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit; Optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses (including incorporation of green and other public space as part of developments) and support local facilities and transport networks; Respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation; Create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion; and Are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.”
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 45
4.3.19 It is noted that paragraph 60 states that policies and decisions: “should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation.”
4.3.20 Paragraphs 63 – 65 of the NPPF specifically relate to the consideration of design related matters in the determination of planning applications. In this regard, paragraph 63 states that: “great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which help raise the standard of design more generally in the area.” Paragraph 64 states that: “Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.”
4.3.21 Paragraph 66 notes that: “Applicants will be expected to work closely with those directly affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community. Proposals that can demonstrate this in developing the design of the new development should be looked on more favourably.”
Promoting Healthy Communities
4.3.22 The Government’s approach envisages that the planning system has an important role to play in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy and inclusive communities. All sections of the community should be involved in planning decisions and should facilitate neighbourhood planning. The aim is to create places which promote: (i) meetings and interaction between members of the community, (ii) safe and accessible developments containing clear and legible pedestrian routes and high quality public spaces which encourage the active and continual use of public areas.
4.3.23 The NPPF also highlights that access to high quality open space and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and wellbeing of communities. It therefore advocates that planning policies are based upon up-to-date assessments of the need for such open space.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 46
Meeting the Challenges of Climate Change and Flooding
4.3.24 The key role of planning in helping to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is fully recognised. This is also considered to be central to all three dimensions of sustainable development (i.e. social, economic and environmental).
4.3.25 When determining planning applications account is to be taken of landform, layout, building orientation, massing and landscaping in order to help minimise energy consumption. 4.3.26 The NPPF also states the importance of climate change factors such as flood risk. In this regard, it requires that development should be directed away from areas that are at risk from flooding and should not increase flood risk elsewhere (paragraph 100).
Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment
4.3.27 The NPPF seeks (paragraph 109) to ensure that the Planning System contributes to the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment by: “Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils; Recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services; Minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible; Preventing development from contribution to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and Remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.”
4.3.28 Paragraph 111 requires planning policies and decisions to encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value. LPAs may continue to consider the case for setting a locally appropriate target for the use of brownfield land. The NPPF also confirms (paragraph 112) that LPAs should
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 47
take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, LPAs should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality.
4.3.29 Paragraph 118 of the NPPF sets out the natural environment considerations for planning authorities to take into account when determining planning applications. It indicates that LPAs should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles: If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; Proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest likely to have an adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (either individually or in combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted. Where an adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development, at this site, clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest; Development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be permitted; Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged; Planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss; and The following wildlife sites should be given the same protection as European sites: o Potential Special Protection Areas and possible Special Areas of Conservation; o Listed or proposed Ramsar sites; and
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 48
o Sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on European sites, potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation, and listed or proposed Ramsar sites.
4.3.30 Paragraph 121 deals with ground conditions and requires that planning policies and decisions should ensure that: The site is suitable for its new use taking account of ground conditions and land instability, including from natural hazards or former activities such as mining, pollution arising from previous uses and any proposals for mitigation including land remediation or impacts on the natural environment arising from that remediation; After remediation, as a minimum, land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and 26 Potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation and proposed Ramsar sites are sites on which Government has initiated public consultation on the scientific case for designation as a Special Protection Area, candidate Special Area of Conservation or Ramsar site. Achieving sustainable development; and Adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented.
4.3.31 Paragraph 123 specifically relates to noise and requires planning decisions to: Avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; Mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions; Recognise that development will often create some noise; and Identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.
4.3.32 With regard specifically to light pollution, paragraph 125 notes that by encouraging good design, planning decisions should: “limit the impact of light
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 49
pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscape and nature conservation.”
Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment
4.3.33 The policy sets out in detail the key considerations regarding the historic environment that LPAs should take into account when determining planning applications.
4.3.34 Paragraph 128 indicates that, when determining applications: “local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting.” Paragraph 129 continues to state that the LPA: “should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.”
4.3.35 Paragraph 131 indicates that LPAs should take account of: The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; The positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and The desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
4.3.36 In addition to the above, paragraph 134 identifies that: “Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal…”
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 50
Using a Proportionate Evidence Base
4.3.37 Each local planning authority should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area. LPAs should ensure that their assessment of and strategies for housing, employment and other uses are integrated, and that they take full account of relevant market and economic signals.
Decision Taking
4.3.38 In relation to the decision taking section of the NPPF, paragraph 187 notes that LPAs should: “look for solutions rather than problems, and decision takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.” This includes working proactively with applicants to: “secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.”
4.3.39 In determining applications, paragraph 196 requires that: “applications for planning permissions must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise’’ in line with the established plan-led planning system. Paragraph 197 confirms that in assessing and determining development proposals: “local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.”
4.3.40 Paragraphs 214 and 215 identify that the weight that can be given to policies adopted before 2004 is dependent upon the degree to which they are consistent with the NPPF. The greater the consistency, the greater the weight that may be given in the determination of a planning application.
National Planning Practice Guidance
4.3.41 On 6th March 2014, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched this planning practice guidance web-based resource and, in doing so, formally replaced all existing planning practice guidance. The
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 51
purpose of the new resource is to ensure that planning practice guidance is streamlined and available entirely online in a usable and accessible way.
4.3.42 The NPPG series provides more detailed guidance to support and expand upon the policies contained within the NPPF. There are a vast number of NPPG documents covering a very wide range of planning matters. On review, there does not appear to be a material factors relevant to this application that are not covered by other aspects of development plan policy, or other material considerations. As such, no detailed evaluation of the NPPG series has been undertaken, albeit, Applegreen recognise that the NPPG contains relevant guidance and is a material planning consideration.
Department for Transport Circular 02/2013: The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development
4.3.43 National Transport Policy relating to the Strategic Road Network is contained within Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 02/2013: ‘The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development.’
4.3.44 Paragraph 7 notes that the Strategic Road Network plays a key role in enabling and sustaining economic prosperity and productivity, while also helping to support environmental and social aims and contributing to wider sustainability objectives and improved accessibility to key economic and social services. Paragraph 8 confirms that a well-functioning strategic road network enables growth by providing for safe and reliable journeys.
4.3.45 Annex B of the Circular specifically relates to roadside facilities for road users on Motorways in England and sets out policy on the provision, standards and signage of roadside facilities on the Strategic Road Network. The Circular confirms that all such proposals will be considered in the context of the NPPF and, in particular, the statement that it includes regarding the primary function of roadside facilities being to support the safety and welfare of the road user.
4.3.46 The relevant provisions of Annex B have already been described within Section 2.0 of the Planning Statement and are not repeated again here.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 52
National Policy Statement for the National Networks (December 2014)
4.3.47 The National Policy Statement for the National Networks (NPSNN) was published in December 2014. It sets out, the need for and Government’s policies to deliver, development of nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) on the national road and rail networks in England. It provides planning guidance for promoters of nationally significant infrastructure projects on the road and rail networks, and the basis for the examination by the Examining Authority and decisions by the S of S.
4.3.48 Paragraph 1.4 confirms that in England: “the NPS may also be a material consideration in decision making on applications that fall under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or any successor legislation. Whether, and to what extent, this NPS is a material consideration, will be judged on a case by case basis.”
4.3.49 The principal focus of the NPS is to support the operation and enhancement of the road and rail network, rather than supporting infrastructure such as MSAs. Whilst there is no direct mention of MSAs within the document, its relevance to the Vale of York MSA development is the identification of the underlying importance of the road network and the requirement to ensure that it is safe and operates to its optimum performance.
The Emerging Harrogate District Draft Local Plan
4.3.50 HBC published the emerging Harrogate District Draft Local Plan in October 2016 and public consultation occurred between November and December 2016.
4.3.51 In addition to the above, an ‘Additional Sites Consultation 2017’ document was published on 14th July with public consultation closing on 25th August 2017. This document identifies additional housing and employment allocations, amendments to previously identified housing allocations, a gypsy and traveller allocation at Knaresborough, the settlement expansion of Green Hammerton and draft allocations for educational facilities. There is presently no reference to MSAs in this emerging 2017 document and therefore the following
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 53
paragraphs focus upon the emerging Draft Local Plan which was published in October 2016. However, as discussed subsequently, Applegreen made a consultation response on the draft Local Plan during the 2016 consultation period.
4.3.52 The Draft Local Plan will cover the period between 2014 and 2035, and sets out how much and where land should be provided to accommodate new homes and jobs in the District. The draft Policies Map illustrates that the Site is located within the open countryside. Accordingly, the emerging policies relevant to the Vale of York MSA proposals are set out below.
4.3.53 It is important to note that, unlike the extant Local Plan, this emerging Plan has no specific policy provision in respect of MSA development. However, as referenced subsequently, Applegreen has made representations through the emerging Local Plan consultation process, to the effect that an MSA policy should be included.
Chapter 3 – Harrogate District Growth Strategy
4.3.54 This Chapter sets out the Districts growth strategy in terms of housing and employment growth.
Policy GS1 – Providing New Homes and Jobs 4.3.55 This policy states that: “Provision will be made in the district over the period 2014 - 2035 for… 20 - 25ha of new employment land.” The justification text alongside this policy states at paragraph 3.9 states: “The council's Employment Land Review (ELR) shows an increase of 7,930 jobs over the period 2014-35 across all sectors based on the Regional Econometric Model (REM) … Taking into account an assessment of existing land supply the ELR concludes that allocations of land should be made to deliver 20-25ha of new employment land in order to address the shortfall in B1/B8 land and to create a better balance in the type of employment land available.”
Policy GS2 – Growth Strategy to 2035 4.3.56 This policy states that: “The need for new homes and jobs will be met as far as possible in those settlements that are well related to the key public transport
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 54
corridor.” It then goes on to state that new development will be located in main settlements, new settlements, local service centres, primary and secondary service villages and smaller villages.
Policy GS3 – Development Limits 4.3.57 This policy states that development limits have been drawn around those settlements listed in Policy GS2. It then goes on to state: “Proposals for new development on sites outside the development limit of a settlement will be supported where it is consistent with the role of the settlement in the growth hierarchy set out in policy GS2: Growth Strategy to 2035, does not result in a disproportionate level of development compared to the existing settlement.” It then sets out a number of criteria that new development should comply with, those relevant to the Vale of York MSA proposals are listed below: “There is either no suitable and available site for the proposed use within the settlement development limit or site allocated under policies DM1: Housing Allocations, DM2: Employment Allocations and DM3: Mixed Use Allocations;” “It would not result in coalescence with an adjoining settlement;” “It would not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside;” “The proposal is of a scale and nature that is in keeping with the core shape and form of the settlement and will not adversely harm its character and appearance;” “It would not extend existing linear features of the settlement or result in ribbon development.”
Policy GS5 – Supporting the Districts Economy 4.3.58 This policy seeks to encourage: “sustainable economic growth in the district by supporting the development aspirations of indigenous businesses and promoting inward investment opportunities.” The policy states specific ways to achieve this economic growth, this includes by: “Maintaining and enhancing the district’s visitor economy” and: “Supporting the rural and agricultural economy and its diversification.”
4.3.59 Paragraph 3.33 of the justification text in relation to this policy states that: “The objectives of the Local Plan seek to support business, enterprise and job
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 55
creation in order to achieve a sustainable and diverse economy that provides a range of employment and a higher proportion of high value jobs. This also reflects one of the council's corporate priorities which is to support the district's growing local economy.”
Policy GS6 – Sustainable Development 4.3.60 This policy states that (in accordance with the terminology contained within the NPPF): “the council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.” The policy emphasises that HBC will work proactively with applicants to find solutions which mean proposals can be approved wherever possible, and to secure development that improves economic, social and environmental conditions within the area.
4.3.61 The policy then goes on to state that: “Planning applications that accord with the policies in the Local Plan (and, where relevant, with policies in the neighbourhood plans), will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”
4.3.62 Paragraph 3.56 of the justification relating to this policy states that: “Sustainable development is described as having three mutually dependent dimensions: the economy, society and the environment. To achieve sustainable development the applicant will need to consider how development contributes to all three elements.”
Policy GS7 – Health and Wellbeing 4.3.63 This policy states that: “Development proposals should promote, support and enhance health and wellbeing”. Multiple methods of achieving this are listed within the policy, the methods relevant to the Vale of York MSA proposals are specified below: “Contributing to a high quality, attractive and safe public realm to encourage social interaction and facilitate movement on foot and cycle.” “Creating opportunities for employment in accessible locations” “Supporting and enhancing community and social infrastructure.” “Improving the quality and quantity of green infrastructure and by protecting and enhancing public rights of way.”
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 56
4.3.64 Paragraph 3.68 of the justification text provided in relation to Policy GS7 states: “it is important community needs are supported through appropriate physical and social infrastructure and by other facilities and key services which contribute to improving wellbeing and the overall quality of life experienced by residents.”
Chapter 6 – Transport and Infrastructure
4.3.65 This Chapter sets out the transport and infrastructure policies, and puts emphasis on the importance of increasing the District’s sustainability.
Policy TI1 – Sustainable Transport 4.3.66 This policy states that HBC will: “promote a sustainable transport system which is safe, reliable and convenient.” The policy then goes on to state that HBC will: “Ensure development proposals seek to minimise the need to travel and achieve more sustainable travel behaviour by requiring all developments which will generate significant amounts of traffic to be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment and a Travel Plan.”
Policy TI3 – Parking Provision 4.3.67 This policy states that: “proposals for development should recognise an overall need to reduce the use of private cars.” The following factors should be taken in account: “The need to provide safe, secure and convenient parking at appropriate levels, including parking or storage for cycles, motor cycles and, where relevant, coaches and lorries; Parking standards for cars, cycles, motorised two wheel vehicles, disabled parking and operational servicing requirements as prepared by the local highway authority, North Yorkshire County Council; Policies set out in the North Yorkshire County Council Parking Strategy (and successive strategies); Where relevant, the location of the site within an area covered by an Area Travel Plan; Where appropriate, the need to make provision for car club and car share parking spaces;
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 57
Means to encourage the use of low emission vehicles as part of the proposal, including the ability to provide electric vehicle charging points.”
Policy TI4 – Delivery of New Infrastructure 4.3.68 This policy states that: “Depending on the nature and scale of development proposed, and subject to viability, developers will be expected to make reasonable on-site provision, off-site provision and/or contributions towards infrastructure and services in order to cater for the needs generated by development.”
4.3.69 The policy then goes on to state that proposals involving the delivery of new services will be supported provided that: “It can be demonstrated that they are necessary to support new development and/or to rectify existing evidenced deficiencies in infrastructure or service provision;” “Development is phased so as to cause minimal disruption to existing infrastructure and service provision for residents and businesses;” “Where associated with other development, the infrastructure and services required to support the development are provided in advance of the development’s completion and occupation;” “The development complies with the provisions of Policies GS6: Sustainable Development and HP3: Local Distinctiveness.”
4.3.70 Paragraph 6.22 of the justification text for Policy TI4 states that: “New development should be fully integrated with existing settlements and deliver adequate infrastructure and services to support itself.”
Chapter 7 – Climate Change
4.3.71 This chapter sets out the policies in relation to climate change, with topics including flood risk, drainage, and design.
Policy CC1 – Flood Risk and Sustainable Drainage 4.3.72 This policy states that: “Development proposals will not be permitted where they would have an adverse effect on watercourses or increase the risk of flooding elsewhere…Development will only be permitted where it has an
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 58
acceptably low risk of being affected by flooding when assessed through Sequential Testing against the most up-to-date Environment Agency flood risk maps and the Harrogate District Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) maps.”
4.3.73 The policy then goes on to state that where required, development proposals should be accompanied by a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). All development will also be required to: “ensure that there is no increase in surface water flow rate run off. Priority should be given to incorporating Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to manage surface water drainage, unless it is proven that SuDS are not appropriate.”
Policy CC4 – Sustainable Design 4.3.74 This policy states that: “All development proposals should be designed to be resilient to and adapt to the future impacts of climate change through the inclusion of sustainable design features where this is technically feasible and viable.” The policy then goes on to state that new non-domestic developments will be required to achieve a minimum standard of BREEAM “Very Good”. Certification evidence of the BREEAM level achieved at both the design and post construction phases will be expected to be provided on completion of development.
Chapter 8 – Heritage and Placemaking
4.3.75 This Chapter sets out policies to protect and enhance the District’s heritage assets, and to promote the amenity of the District.
Policy HP2 – Heritage Assets 4.3.76 This policy states that: “Proposals for development should protect and, where appropriate, enhance those elements that contribute to the significance of the district's heritage assets.” The policy then states that development proposals which would affect designated or non-designated heritage assets would only be permitted where they comply with a number of criteria (A-H) listed within the policy.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 59
Policy HP3 – Local Distinctiveness 4.3.77 This policy states that: “New development should incorporate high quality building, urban and landscape design that protects, enhances or reinforces those characteristics, qualities and features that contribute to the local distinctiveness of the district’s rural and urban environments.” The policy then goes on to state that development should: “Respect the spatial qualities of the local area, including the scale, appearance and use of spaces about and between buildings or structures, visual relationships, views and vistas; Respond positively to the building density, building footprints, built form, building orientation, building height and grain of the context- including the manner in which this context has developed and changed over time; Recognise the contribution of the natural environment including biodiversity, landscape and green infrastructure; Recognise the contribution of fenestration, roofscape, detailing, trees and planting, the palette and application of materials, traditional building techniques, and evidence of past and present activity to local distinctiveness and ultimately to landscape character; Incorporate design that is inspired by its local context or the best of contemporary practice that fits comfortably in its surroundings.”
Policy HP4 – Protecting Amenity 4.3.78 This policy states that: “Development proposals should be designed to ensure that they will not result in significant adverse impacts on the amenity of occupiers and neighbours.” The policy then states that amenity considerations include the impacts of development on: “Overlooking and loss of privacy; Overbearing and loss of light; and Vibration, fumes, odour noise and other disturbance.”
4.3.79 The policy then states that: “The individual and cumulative impacts of development proposals on amenity will be considered.”
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 60
Chapter 9 – Natural Environment
4.3.80 This Chapter contains the District’s policies in relation to the natural environment.
Policy NE1 – Air Quality 4.3.81 This policy states that: “Development in, or likely to affect, the Knaresborough and Ripon Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs), or any other AQMA designated over the course of the plan period, should ensure consistency with the Air Quality Action Plan and the current North Yorkshire Local Transport Plan.”
Policy NE2 – Water Quality 4.3.82 This policy states that: “Developers shall undertake thorough risk assessments of the impact of proposals on surface and groundwater systems considering appropriate avoidance measures before incorporating appropriate mitigation measures where necessary. The council will expect developers to demonstrate that all proposed development will be served by an adequate wholesome supply of water, appropriate sewerage infrastructure and that there is sufficient sewage treatment capacity to ensure that there is no deterioration of water quality.”
4.3.83 The policy goes on to state that development will not permitted where it would: “Prejudice the quality or quantity of surface or ground water; Have an adverse impact on water dependent Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and Natura 2000 sites; Prejudice the use and quality of the district's spa waters.”
Policy NE3 – Protecting the Natural Environment 4.3.84 This policy states that: “Development should not result in any net loss of biodiversity, and should seek to provide net gains…The preservation, restoration and recreation of priority habitats and ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations will be promoted and their positive conservation will be sought through development management.”
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 61
4.3.85 The policy encourages the restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, networks and priority species populations as part of any development.
4.3.86 The policy then goes on to state that: “Development will only be permitted where an appraisal has demonstrated that significant harm resulting from the development can be avoided through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts, adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for.”
4.3.87 The policy emphasises that HBC will: “protect and enhance sites of importance for natural heritage, biodiversity and geodiversity from development”, this includes international sites (SACs, SPAs, Ramsar), national sites (SSSIs), and local sites (SINCs, LNRs, LGSs).
4.3.88 The policy concludes by stating that: “Planning permission will not be granted for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including historic wetlands and species-rich grasslands, ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees, unless the need for and benefits of the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss.”
Policy NE4 – Landscape Character 4.3.89 This policy states that: “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.” The policy then lists the following ways this will be achieved: “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; 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; Requiring that development proposals protect and/or enhance the character, appearance and local distinctiveness of the landscape and
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 62
consider the ambiance of the area, including nocturnal character, level and type of activity and tranquillity, sense of enclosure/exposure; Requiring that visually sensitive skylines, hills and valley sides and visual amenity are protected and/or enhanced; Resisting development which would harm or be detrimental to the character of the local and wider landscape or the setting of a settlement.”
4.3.90 The policy justification text alongside this policy states that: “If the impact of development on the landscape is considered to be significant, a full Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) will be required” (paragraph 9.38). Paragraph 9.41 makes it clear that any landscape mitigation measures should take into account the existing character and appearance of the area, and contribute to the local distinctiveness of the area.
Policy NE5 – Green Infrastructure 4.3.91 This policy sets out a number of criteria in which development proposals should comply, these are to: “Incorporate existing and/or new green infrastructure features within their design and to improve accessibility to the surrounding area; Capitalise on opportunities to enhance and/or create green links between green infrastructure features such as those listed in the green infrastructure checklist contained in Section 10, Green Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document (November 2014); Avoid creating undifferentiated built-up areas within its overall boundaries and to prevent built-form coalescence; Where they are within or in close proximity to a green infrastructure corridor, enhance the functionality and connectivity of the corridor; Conserve and enhance the high quality and character of the district's towns, villages and rural environment by ensuring that all forms of new development are designed to a high standard and maintain and enhance the local vernacular and 'sense of place' of individual settlements; Safeguard the character of urban areas as manifest in the system of open spaces which link town and countryside; and Identify opportunities to work with partners at the local, district and sub- regional levels to deliver multiple key green infrastructure benefits.”
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 63
4.3.92 Paragraph 9.42 sets out a number of examples of green infrastructure that provide opportunities for biodiversity and recreation. This includes natural and semi urban greenspaces (i.e. woodlands, scrub, grasslands), green corridors and green roofs and walls.
Policy NE7 – Trees and Woodland 4.3.93 This policy states that: “Development will only be permitted where: “It does not have an adverse impact on trees or woodland that have wildlife, landscape, historic, amenity, productive or cultural value; and It does not have an adverse impact on a veteran tree or ancient woodland; and It does not involve the loss of trees or woodland which contribute to the character or setting of a settlement; and It includes the appropriate retention and new planting of trees and woodland.”
4.3.94 The policy then goes on to state that: “In the case of an unavoidably adverse impact on trees and woodlands of wildlife, landscape, amenity, productive or cultural value, compensatory provision must be made.” It is also made clear within this policy that the planting of additional trees should be included in all new developments.
Policy NE8 – Protection of Agricultural Land 4.3.95 This policy states that: “The best and most versatile agricultural land (grades 1, 2 and 3a) will be protected from development not associated with agriculture or forestry.” The policy then goes on to state that: “Planning permission affecting such land will only be granted exceptionally if there is an overriding need for the development and either: Sufficient land of a lower grade (grades 3b, 4 and 5) is unavailable or available lower grade land has an environmental value recognised by a statutory wildlife, historic, landscape or archaeological designation and outweighs the agricultural considerations; or The benefits of the development justify the loss of high quality agricultural land”
4.3.96 The policy also identifies that if the best and most versatile land needs to be developed and there is a choice between different sites of different grades, the
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 64
land with the lowest grade available must be used. The only exception to this is if other sustainability considerations outweigh land quality issues.
Policy NE9 – Unstable and Contaminated Land 4.3.97 This policy states that: “Proposals for development on land suspected as being unstable will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated either that there is no foreseeable instability, or that the effects of such instability can reasonably be overcome.”
4.3.98 The policy then goes on to state that: “Proposals for the redevelopment or re- use of land known or suspected to be contaminated and development or activities that pose a significant new risk of land contamination will be considered having regard to: The findings of a preliminary land contamination risk assessment; The compatibility of the intended use with the condition of the land; and The environmental sensitivity of the site.”
4.3.99 It is identified with this policy that: “Proposals that fail to demonstrate that the intended use would be compatible with the condition of the land or which fail to exploit appropriate opportunities for decontamination will be resisted.”
4.3.100 It can be noted from the above, that the emerging replacement Local Plan makes no specific reference to MSAs and, unlike the extant Local Plan, there is no MSA policy. Applegreen believe that this is an omission from the new, emerging Plan and accordingly, on 23rd December 2016, during the formal consultation period, representations were made to this effect on the emerging Local Plan.
4.3.101 The scope of Applegreen’s representations can be summarised as follows: i. That there is a demonstrable / proven need for a new MSA on the A1(M) north of Wetherby Services. Accordingly, it was submitted that the Council should, in fulfilling its duty to cooperate, work with Highways England and other local authorities in order that the new District Local Plan makes appropriate policy provision for the delivery of a new MSA on the A1 (M).
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 65
ii. That Objective 14 of the Plan is amended as follows (new wording underlined): Objective 14: Deliver infrastructure to accommodate and support new housing and employment sites, and seek ways for new development to contribute to reducing existing congestion, and support the safety and welfare of road users iii. It was submitted that the Council should amend the wording of Policy TI 1 to include reference to the delivery of a new MSA serving the A1 (M). iv. Applegreen would welcome the opportunity to work with the Council to identify and protect a site where transport infrastructure, specifically an MSA, can be provided in accordance with the requirements of DfT Circular 02/2013. v. That Policy TI 4 criteria D, as presently drafted, is likely to hinder infrastructure delivery. Accordingly, it was recommended that the wording of criteria D is amended as follows (new wording underlined): D. The development complies with the provisions of Policies GS6: Sustainable Development and (where appropriate to the type of development proposed) HP3: Local Distinctiveness. vi. That the list of examples of infrastructure that will be required in the District, as identified in paragraph 6.22 of the Plan, be expanded to include: roadside facilities including motorway services.
4.3.102 At the time of preparing this planning assessment, HBC has not published a post consultation version of the replacement Local Plan, nor have they sought to discuss Applegreen’s representations. HBC presently anticipates to consult on the next iteration of the new Plan in January 2018.
Harrogate District Guidance Supplementary Planning Document
Heritage Management Guidance Supplementary Planning Document
4.3.103 The Heritage Management Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was adopted in November 2014. The purpose of the document is to ensure the conservation of heritage assets and to make sure development enhances or reinforces those characteristics that contribute to the Districts high quality environment. The document is divided into seven parts and provides detailed advice for decision makers, applicants and other interested parties
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 66
involved in the planning process. It supports the policies of the Core Strategy, particularly ‘The Natural and Built Environment and Green Belt’ (EQ2), and supports heritage and design policies of the emerging documents.
Green Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document
4.3.104 The Green Infrastructure Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was adopted in November 2014. The overall aim of the document is to assist applicants to ensure that proposals for development across the District make the most of opportunities to improve existing and create new green infrastructure. It supports policies contained within the Core Strategy, particularly on: ‘Settlement Growth: Design and Impact’ (SG4); ‘Accessibility’ (TRA1); ‘Reducing Risks to the Environment’ (EQ1); and ‘The Natural and Built Environment and Green Belt’ (EQ2).
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 67
5.0 PLANNING ASSESMENT
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 This section of the Planning Statement provides and assessment of the Proposed Development in the context of all current, relevant planning policies and guidance. The detailed planning policy framework against which the planning application for the Proposed Development should be considered has already been set out within Section 4.0.
5.1.2 Following on from this introduction sub-section 5.2 provides a detailed (tabulated) assessment of how the Proposed Development accords or otherwise with the relevant planning policy framework and sub-section 5.3 draws a series of concise conclusions.
5.2 Planning Appraisal
5.2.1 The planning policy and relevant material planning considerations described within Section 4.0 have been assessed in in the context of the Proposed Development in Table 5.1 (below). The table sets out the thrust of each of the relevant policies and assesses whether the MSA proposal would help, be neutral to, or hinder the policy purpose / objective. For the purposes of this assessment where the Proposed Development either helps or is neutral to the policy objective, no policy breach is deemed to occur. Comments are also made where appropriate.
Table 5.1: Assessment of the Proposed Development against Relevant Planning Policy & Guidance Achievement
of Objective
Policy/Plan/Guidance and Objective Commentary
Helps
Neutral Hinders
Statutory Development Plan
Harrogate District Local Plan (February 2001, as amended)
C2 Identifies that development should A detailed Landscape and Visual Assessment protect the existing landscape is contained within Chapter 5.0 of the
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 68
Achievement
of Objective
Policy/Plan/Guidance and Objective Commentary
Helps
Neutral Hinders
character. In locations where Environmental Statement. The findings of the restoration is necessary or desirable assessment conclude that the MSA has been opportunities to repair and designed with detailed regard to the Harrogate reintroduce landscape features District Landscape Character Assessment should be undertaken. (HDLCA) and that the resultant scheme protects existing landscape character. Further the landscape proposals include local landscape restoration of field boundaries in accordance with historic field patterns. Further consideration of effects on landscape character and the proposals location in the open countryside is provided after this table.
NC4 Sets out that the loss of, or damage A detailed Ecological Assessment is contained to, semi-natural habitats (beyond within Chapter 6.0 of the Environmental designated sites) which are Statement. The assessment confirms that no important for nature conservation significant effects are predicted on habitats or will be protected. species. Accordingly, there is no overriding need for additional mitigation measures. However, in order to maximise potential ecological benefits, and ensure no net loss of biodiversity interest, a range of measures have been put forward which should be incorporated into the detailed design of the MSA. These include measures to create wetland habitats in flood attenuation areas, and measures to ensure the design and management of grasslands and hedgerows provides maximum ecological benefit. As such, the Proposed Development is considered to accord with this policy.
HD3 Identifies that proposals which have A detailed assessment of heritage assets is an adverse effect on the character or contained within Chapter 10.0 of the appearance of a conservation area Environmental Statement. This demonstrates will not be permitted. that there would be no effect on the Boroughbridge Conservation Area or Roecliffe Conservation Area. As such, the Proposed Development is considered to accord with this policy.
HD6 Identifies that proposals which Chapter 10.0 of the Environmental Statement adversely affect the historic, confirms that the Proposed Development archaeological, landscape interest would not affect the setting, landscape or potential to interpret a historic character or ability to interpret the battlefield of battlefield will not be permitted. Boroughbridge. As such, the Proposed Development is considered to accord with this policy.
HD7A Identifies that development which A detailed assessment of heritage assets is would adversely affect the character contained within Chapter 10.0 of the or setting of registered parks and Environmental Statement. This demonstrates gardens will not be permitted. that there would be no significant effect on
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 69
Achievement
of Objective
Policy/Plan/Guidance and Objective Commentary
Helps
Neutral Hinders
Newby Hall Registered Park and Garden. As such, the Proposed Development is considered to accord with this policy.
HD13 Identifies that the loss of trees or A detailed Landscape and Visual Assessment woodland which contribute to the is contained within Chapter 5.0 of the character or setting of a settlement Environmental Statement. This confirms that will not be permitted. there would be a low to medium magnitude of change to the existing tree and hedgerow vegetation. However, as new planting matures and is subject to targeted long-term management, the overall effects would be beneficial. The trees that would be lost do not make any material contribution to the character or setting of a settlement. As such, the Proposed Development is considered to accord with this policy.
HD20 This multi-criteria policy sets out 11 The policy sets out numerous design principles design principles for new buildings some of which are mutually incompatible and and development. others of which are not relevant to the proposed MSA. The overall thrust is to ensure good quality, sustainable design that respects its location and neighbouring land uses and has particular regard to the landscape. The planning application for the MSA has been submitted in outline with all matters reserved, except access. Accordingly, the detailed design of the Proposed Development would be considered through subsequent Reserved Matter application(s). The Design and Access Statement (DAS), provides full details of the process that has been followed in the development of the outline masterplan for the Vale of York MSA and the establishment of the main development parameters. It demonstrates how the lessons learned from the previous MSA proposals have influenced the design thinking behind the Vale of York MSA development, and that there has been significant regard to local landscape character. It also identifies the key constraints associated with the development of an MSA and how the design has been developed to take them into consideration. The result is a high quality, bespoke design solution that is ideally suited to its context. Accordingly, the DAS demonstrates, that the design of the MSA complies with the requirements of this policy and the design policies contained within Chapter 7.0 of the NPPF.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 70
Achievement
of Objective
Policy/Plan/Guidance and Objective Commentary
Helps
Neutral Hinders
A7 Sets out that proposals on land A Phase 1 Site Investigation Report has been suspected as being unstable will not prepared to support the planning application, be permitted unless it is this demonstrates that the Site is not situated demonstrated that there is no on land which is unstable. As such, the foreseeable instability, or that this Proposed Development is considered to matter can be overcome. accord with this policy.
T7 Specifically relates to Motorway This policy is discussed in detail following on Service Areas and identifies that from this table. permission for not more than one MSA serving the A1(M) will be permitted. Furthermore, that this is dependent upon the demonstration of need and meeting 8 criteria.
T13 Identifies that opportunities for a The Proposed Development includes HGV lorry park in the District will be parking and would therefore assist in meeting investigated. the opportunity for a lorry park in the District. In this regard, it is noted in the Statement of Community Involvement that there are local concerns over HGV parking on the local road network, particularly the A168. The MSA should help mitigate such occurrences.
T20 States that major development will As identified in the framework Travel Plan be required to make provision for (Appendix J to the Transport Assessment) bus services (infrastructure / Applegreen is committed to investigating the routing). provision of a staff shuttle bus. Such a proposal is likely to involve transportation of staff to / from the main urban areas within the District (Rippon and Harrogate) at shift change times.
T22A Identifies that cycling will be As identified in the Transport Assessment promoted through the introduction of cycling would be promoted through the new infrastructure. provision of bicycle parking and through the framework Travel Plan.
Harrogate Borough Council Core Strategy (February 2009)
SG3 Sets out strict controls over new This Policy does not prohibit development in development in the open the open countryside, but simply states that countryside. Alongside the select there will close control over such development, few forms of development which will before listing a series of uses that are be encouraged. encouraged in the countryside. This list does not include MSAs. Further consideration of this policy is provided under the sub-heading ‘Location in the Open Countryside’ after this table.
SG4 Relates to the design and impact of In addition to the design points raised through development and identifies that the appraisal of Policy HD20 of the Local Plan,
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 71
Achievement
of Objective
Policy/Plan/Guidance and Objective Commentary
Helps
Neutral Hinders
proposals should comply with the the Proposed Development is considered to following criteria: accord with this policy for the following 1. Design: scale density and layout reasons: should make the most efficient It has been demonstrated through this table use of land, be well integrated and and the text following the table that the appropriate to the form and Proposed development would not result in character with the local area; any unacceptable visual, residential or 2. Protect visual, residential and general amenity impacts; general amenity; Consideration and justification of the loss of 3. There should be no loss of greenfield land / open countryside is greenfield land unless justified by provided in the text following this table; national planning policy…this As demonstrated later in this table, the Core Strategy or a policy or Proposed Development conforms with the proposal within the Local Environmental and Quality of Life Policies Development Framework; and EQ1 and EQ2 of the Core Strategy. 4. Conform with Policies EQ1 and The Transport Assessment which has been EQ2 of the Core Strategy submitted as a standalone document in The policy also identifies that support of this planning application confirms proposal should not worsen pre- that the proposal would not impact upon the existing problems regarding access, highway network or create a material safety or traffic flows. adverse highway safety issue.
JB1 Seeks to maintain and enhance the Whilst the Proposed Development does not fall economic role of the District and in one of the economic sectors identified as support innovation / enterprise. being of particular importance in the district (i.e. conference and business tourism), as demonstrated in Chapter 12.0 of the Environmental Statement, the proposal would result in a range of socio-economic benefits both during its construction and operation. These benefits would clearly support the economy of the district and as such, it is considered that the Proposed Development accords with this policy.
TRA1 Sets out ways in which reducing the A Transport Assessment has been prepared need to travel and improving and submitted in support of the application. The accessibility to jobs, shops, services scope and content of which has been agreed and community facilities will be through pre-application dialogue with relevant achieved. This includes ensuring Transportation Officer’s at North Yorkshire future development is well related to County Council. In addition, a framework public transport infrastructure, Travel Plan has been prepared to assist in applying accessibility criteria and promoting sustainable modes of travel. As requiring proposals which have such, it is considered that the Proposed significant transport implications to Development accords with the relevant be supported by a Transport aspects of this policy. Assessment.
EQ1 Seeks to minimise energy and water As the application, has been submitted in consumption, the use of natural non- outline energy efficiency measures have not renewable resources, travel by car, been developed in sufficient detail to enable flood risk and waste. This policy also
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 72
Achievement
of Objective
Policy/Plan/Guidance and Objective Commentary
Helps
Neutral Hinders
sets out that new development any conclusions on energy and water efficiency should attain a ‘very good’ or BREEAM. standards as set out in BREEAM. However, Applegreen are committed to ensuring that their development is energy efficient and at the Reserved Matters stage full consideration would be given to the minimisation of energy and water consumption, as well as waste production in order to reduce risks to the environment. In addition, the relevant design standards would be applied at the Reserved Matters stage. EQ2 Identifies that the natural and built As demonstrated through the appraisal of environment will be given a level of policies within this table, the Environmental protection appropriate to its level of Statement which has been submitted in importance. In addition, subject to support of the application demonstrates that need for new greenfield the Proposed Development would not result in development, the landscape a significant impact on either the natural or built character of the District will be environment. Furthermore, as identified protected and where appropriate through the appraisal of Policy NC4 of the enhanced. For example, though Local Plan the proposal includes increased high quality locally distinctive wildlife habitat. As demonstrated through the design. The policy also identifies appraisal of Policy C2 of the Local Plan, the priority measures to protect and proposal would not harm landscape character. enhance the district’s environment Whilst the detailed design would be dealt with including increasing habitat and at the Reserved Matters stage as set out in the species in line with the District’s DAS the proposal has been carefully designed BAP. cognisant of its surroundings and to a high quality.
Material Planning Considerations
National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
Paragraph 14 sets out the presumption in Consideration of the MSA proposal in the favour of sustainable development is at the context of paragraph 14 of the NPPF is set out heart of the Framework and should be seen as in detail in sub-section 5.4 of this Planning a ‘golden thread’ running through the planning Statement, subsequently. system, in relation to both plan making and decision taking.
Whilst the NPPF does not change Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (i.e. that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise), it places (at paragraph 14) great weight on the principle that development which is sustainable, and complies with the provisions of the statutory Development Plan, should be approved without delay.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 73
Achievement
of Objective
Policy/Plan/Guidance and Objective Commentary
Helps
Neutral Hinders
Paragraph 17, set out 12 core land-use It is considered that the Proposed planning principles that should underpin both Development would accord with the relevant plan-making and decision taking. core principles set out in the Framework, for the following reasons: As demonstrated in Chapter 12.0 of the Environmental Statement, the proposal would support the principle of sustainable economic development. The DAS submitted in support of the application demonstrates that the Proposed Development has been designed to a high standard which takes account of its surrounding environment. It has been established through this appraisal that the proposal would not give rise to significant adverse effects on either the environment or amenity of the area. The proposal takes full account of relevant climate change issues, such as flood risk in Chapter 7.0 of the Environmental Statement. As demonstrated in Chapters 6.0 and 10.0 of the Environmental Statement, the proposal would not result in any significant effect on the natural environment or heritage assets. The effects of the Proposed Development in the context of transport and sustainable transport have been considered within the Transportation Assessment. Many of these points are considered in greater detail win the assessment of individual policies and associated paragraphs of the NPPF below.
Policy 1, seeks to build a strong, competitive As demonstrated in Chapter 12.0 of the economy. Environmental Statement, the Proposed Development would create a significant Paragraph 18 confirms that the Government is number of new permanent employment committed to securing economic growth in order opportunities. The proposal would also give to create jobs and prosperity, building on the rise to a number of other economic benefits country’s inherent strengths, and to meet the including: twin challenges of global competition and of a The creation of temporary employment low carbon future. opportunities during the construction process; Opportunities for supply chain benefit that would emerge from the Proposed Development; and Fiscal benefits to HBC through business rates. In light of the above, the Proposed Development would therefore help to deliver
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 74
Achievement
of Objective
Policy/Plan/Guidance and Objective Commentary
Helps
Neutral Hinders
clear economic benefits in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF.
Policy 2, seeks to ensure the vitality of town It is firstly important to note that it is not centres. considered necessary to carry out a retail impact assessment or sequential test Paragraph 24 specifies that the sequential test assessment in connection with the Proposed should be applied to planning application for Development. main town centre uses that that not in an The NPPF defines ‘main town centre uses’ in existing centre. Furthermore, paragraph 26 Annex 2, which for the avoidance of doubt defines a threshold of 2,500sqm (where there is states: “Retail development (including no locally set threshold) beyond which it is warehouse clubs and factory outlet centres); necessary to carry out an impact assessment. leisure, entertainment facilities the more intensive sport and recreational uses (including cinemas, restaurants, drive-through restaurants, bars and pubs, night-clubs, casinos, health and fitness centres, indoor bowling centres and bingo halls); offices; and arts, culture and tourism development (including theatres, museums, galleries and concert halls, hotels and conference facilities).” An MSA is not a retail, leisure, office or main town centre use, but rather a sui-generis use (i.e. within its own use class). This is confirmed by the Land Use Gazetteer. Furthermore, it is a mandatory requirement that any MSA provides hot food and drinks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for consumption on the premises. In short, MSAs must provide café and restaurants, but remain a sui-generis use. Accordingly, any individual components of the MSA are not considered to operate as separate entities in the context of the Use Class Order and therefore, should not form separate planning units with Class A1-A5 or any other uses. MSAs by their very nature need to be located directly adjacent to the Strategic Road Network. Furthermore, they are provided for road user’s safety and welfare and should not be a destination in their own right (indeed they have no signage other than from the motorway itself). Thus, whilst some retail units and food outlets are provided within the Amenity Building, they are clearly ancillary to the function of the MSA and the role it is intended to serve.
Policy 4, seeks to promote sustainable The Proposed Development accords with transport. paragraph 31 as it provides a roadside facility which supports the safety and welfare of the Paragraph 31 identifies that LPAs etc. should road user. “develop strategies for the provision of viable
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 75
Achievement
of Objective
Policy/Plan/Guidance and Objective Commentary
Helps
Neutral Hinders infrastructure necessary to support sustainable In addition to the above, a comprehensive development, including large scale facilities Transport Assessment has been produced in such as…roadside facilities for motorists…the support of the planning application. This primary function of roadside facilities for demonstrates that the local highway network motorists should be to support the safety and has the capacity to accommodate the welfare of the road user.” Proposed Development and that impacts would not be ‘severe’ (i.e. it meets the prime Paragraph 32 sets out that development which test as set out in paragraph 32). As such, it is generates significant amounts of movements considered that the Proposed Development should be supported by a Transport would demonstrably comply with the NPPF in Assessment. In addition, that opportunities for respect of sustainable transport. sustainable modes of transport have been explored and safe / suitable access can be achieved. Finally, that development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are ‘severe’.
Policy 7, confirms that the Government attaches The Design and Access Statement submitted great importance to the design of the built in support of the application demonstrates that environment. Good design is a key aspect of the Proposed Development would benefit from sustainable development and should contribute a high-quality design solution, which has taken positively to making places better for people. account of previous schemes and is ideally suited to its context. As such, the design of the The importance of good design, as key aspect Proposed Development complies with the of sustainable development, is reflected in the design policies contained within Policy 7 of the six criteria to be considered as part of the NPPF. decision-taking process in paragraph 58.
Paragraph 63 confirms that great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative design which help raise the standard of design. Furthermore, paragraph 66 identifies that the views of the community should be taken into account through the design evolution process.
Policy 10, seeks to meet the challenge of The Proposed Development would be climate change, flooding and coastal change. designed to accord with the relevant requirements of the NPPF in respect of climate Paragraph 100 identifies that development change. Detailed consideration of such matters should be directed away from areas that are at would be provided at the Reserved Matters risk from flooding and should not increase flood stage. risk elsewhere. In terms of the potential for the Proposed Development to give rise to or be at risk from flooding, Chapter 7.0 of the Environmental Statement, demonstrates that the application site is not at risk from flooding and the proposal includes a sustainable urban drainage scheme. As such, the Proposed Development complies with the policies contained within Policy 10 of the NPPF.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 76
Achievement
of Objective
Policy/Plan/Guidance and Objective Commentary
Helps
Neutral Hinders
Policies 11 and 12 relate to the conservation The submitted Environmental Statement and enhancement of the natural and historic demonstrates that the Proposed Development environment. would protect the landscape and protect and enhance biodiversity. Further that the MSA Paragraph 109 seeks to ensure that the natural proposal would not result in any significant or environment is conserved and enhanced by: unacceptable effects in relation to land, air, protecting and enhancing landscapes and water or noise pollution; or unstable land. biodiversity; preventing development which With regard to agricultural land, this matter is would result in land, air, water or noise pollution; covered in greater detail in the text following on and remediating contaminated and unstable from this table. land. Chapter 10.0 of the Environmental Statement describes the significance of Heritage Assets Paragraph 112 confirms that LPAs should take proximate to the MSA proposal and comments into account the economic and other benefits of on the contribution made by their setting. It the best and most versatile agricultural land. concludes that there would be no significant impacts on Heritage Assets, or their settings. Paragraph 128 requires applicant to describe There would be less than substantial harm to the significant of any heritage assets affected the setting of 2 Listed Buildings. Within sub- (including any contribution made by their section 5.3 of this Planning Statement the setting). Whilst, paragraph 131 sets out the balancing exercise regarded by paragraph 134 when determining applications, it is desirable of the NPPF is carried out. This concludes that that proposals sustain and enhance heritage the public benefits of the proposal clearly assets and recognise the positive contribution outweigh the limited harm to the Listed that assets can make. Buildings.
Paragraph 134 identifies that: “Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.”
Department for Transport Circular 02/2013: The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development
B5, B6 Identifies the premise that The distance from Wetherby Services to and B8 opportunities to stop are provided at Leeming Bar Rest Area (which is not an MSA intervals of approximately 30 but benefits from permission for such a use) is minutes. Furthermore, that the 28.8 miles. maximum distance between MSAs In light of the above, the specified gap / should be no more than 28 miles, distance between MSAs of 28 miles is although the distance between exceeded, and a definitive need is established. MSAs can be shorter. Accordingly, in line with the Circular the LPA Paragraph B8, is clear that once a should not consider the merits of the spacing gap of more than 28 miles has been any further, as the existence of a 28 mile gap identified, irrespective of any other is in itself conclusive evidence of need for factors, the need for an MSA is planning purposes. definitively established. In short, it is The Vale of York MSA would eliminate this not not necessary to have regard to any compliant gap and thus clearly deliver the other considerations in respect of objectives of this part of the Circular. whether need exists, as the
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 77
Achievement
of Objective
Policy/Plan/Guidance and Objective Commentary
Helps
Neutral Hinders
existence of a 28 mile gap is in itself conclusive evidence of need for planning purposes.
B13 & Expresses a clear preference for on- The Proposed Development is on-line and B14 line MSAs, as opposed to those therefore accords with the clear preference for located at an existing motorway on-line MSAs, as set out in B13. As set out in junction, as they are considered to Section 2.0 of this Planning Statement other be more accessible, attractive and MSAs (particularly the prospective MSA at conducive to encouraging drivers to Leeming Bar) along the A1(M) are located off- take a break. line and therefore are less attractive and conducive to encouraging drivers to take a break.
Annex B In addition, to the paragraphs It is considered that the Vale of York MSA identified above other aspects of would be in full compliance with Annex B for the Annex B which specifically relates to following reasons: roadside facilities for road users on The MSA would not be signposted from the Motorways in England has been local road network and would not become a considered. ‘destination’ in its own right (paragraph B11); The Circular provides policy on the The Transport Assessment demonstrates provision, standards and signage of that the Proposed Development would not roadside facilities on the Strategic give rise to adverse impacts upon the Road Network. In addition, it effective operation of the Strategy Road confirms that all such proposals will Network and would accord with the road be considered in the context of the safety audit procedures (paragraph B12). NPPF and, in particular, the The MSA would accord with the minimum statement that it regards the primary requirements for various types of roadside function of roadside facilities are to facility that may be eligible for signing from support the safety and welfare of the the Strategy Road Network (i.e. Table B1, road user. paragraph 17), superficially it would: o Be open 24 hours a day 365 days a year; o Provide free parking for up to 2 hours minimum for all vehicles permitted to use the road served by the facility. o Provide free toilets / hand washing facilities with no need to make a purchase. o Provide shower and washing facilities for HGV drivers, including secure lockers in the shower / washing area. o Provide fuel facilities. o Provide hot drinks and hot food 24 hours a day for consumption on the premises. o Provide access to a cash operated telephone. It would be designed to meet the mandatory requirements for parking charges, picnic areas, access to the Strategy Road Network, signing and parking provision as
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 78
Achievement
of Objective
Policy/Plan/Guidance and Objective Commentary
Helps
Neutral Hinders
set out in Schedule 1 of Annex B (paragraphs B19 – B28). It would not offer retail provision over and above that which is necessary to support the safety and welfare of the road user (paragraph B29). The Proposed Development does not include a coach interchange, park and ride or park and share facility (paragraphs B33 – B35). The Vale of York MSA would include facilities for low emission vehicles, driver and tourist information as well as sustainability measures. With regard to the latter, the main design related sustainability and energy efficiency measures would be address at the Reserved Matters stage.
Harrogate District Draft Local Plan (October 2016)
GS1 Relates to the provision of new The Proposed Development would not homes and jobs and identifies that jeopardise the provision of land for new homes between 20 and 25ha of new and jobs over the Plan period and would assist employment land will be provided in delivering employment development. over the Plan period.
GS2 Identifies that the need for new MSAs by their very nature need to be located homes and jobs will be met as far as directly adjacent to the Strategic Road possible within the settlements that Network. However, there are no opportunities are well related to key public along the relevant stretch of the A1(M) to locate transport corridors. the proposed MSA within a settlement, although the proposal is located proximate to Kirby Hill and Boroughbridge. The MSA, whilst not in a settlement, would deliver jobs along a key public transport corridor.
GS3 Sets out that proposals beyond the The proposed MSA is considered to comply development limit of a settlement with the policy for the following reasons. will be supported where it is In accordance with Policy GS2 it is located on consistent with the role and does not a key public transport corridor. result in a disproportionate level of There is no suitable or available alternative development to that settlement. The site for an MSA within any settlement policy also sets out a range of development limits or site allocations. criteria that proposals should It would not result in adjoining settlements comply with, including: not having coalescing. an adverse impact on the character It would not result in any significant or adverse or appearance of the surrounding impact on the character of the countryside (as countryside. assessed in Chapter 5.0 of the Environmental Statement).
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 79
Achievement
of Objective
Policy/Plan/Guidance and Objective Commentary
Helps
Neutral Hinders
It is a standalone development whose scale and nature is entirely appropriate for the function it fulfils. It would not extend any linear feature or result in ribbon development.
GS5 Encourages sustainable economic In addition to the reasons identified through the growth by supporting the appraisal of Policy JB1 of the Core Strategy, it development aspirations of is estimated that within the Study Area circa indigenous businesses and inward 261 jobs (net of displacement and leakage) investment opportunities. Amongst would be supported directly / indirectly and that others this includes maintaining and this would add an estimated £6.2 million to the enhancing the visitor and rural / economy per annum. Clearly this would agricultural economy. enhance the district’s growing local economy and stimulate investment opportunities. Furthermore, tourist information provided at the MSA would offer the opportunity to promote and enhance the visitor economy. As such, the Proposed Development is considered to accord with this emerging policy.
GS6 Mirrors the presumption in favour of Consideration of the MSA proposal in the sustainable development contained context of the presumption in favour of within the NPPF. sustainable development, as set out in paragraph 14 of the NPPF is considered in detail in sub-section 5.4 of this Planning Statement, subsequently.
GS7 Seeks to promote, support and The proposed MSA is considered to comply enhance health and wellbeing with the policy for the following reasons. through (amongst others) creating The MSA facility is set within a high quality high quality, attractive safe places, and attractive environment through which the locating employment in accessible public can move safely. Clearly an MSA is not locations and enhancing community designed to facilitate public movement via / social and green infrastructure. foot and cycle, but pedestrian and cycling access for staff is provided. It would create employment in an area accessible for motorway users and incorporate a staff travel plan. The fundamental purpose of an MSA is to provide for the safety and welfare of the public.
TI1 Seeks to promote a sustainable For the same reasons as identified through the transport system which is safe, appraisal of Policy TRA1 of the Core Strategy, reliable and convenient. In addition, the Proposed Development is considered to proposals should minimise the need accord with this policy. to, and promote more sustainable travel behaviour, which will be achieved by requiring developments to be supported by an appropriate
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 80
Achievement
of Objective
Policy/Plan/Guidance and Objective Commentary
Helps
Neutral Hinders
level of assessment and a Travel Plan.
TI3 Relates to parking provision and Parking requirements for MSAs are set out whilst the overriding point seeks to within Annex B of Circular 02/2013. The reduce the overall need to use scheme accords with the stipulated parking private cars it recognises the need to requirements. The Proposed Development provide safe, secure and convenient provides safe, secure and convenient parking parking in line with standards and for a range of road users. This includes the encourage low emission vehicles provision of charging points that encourage the through the provision of electric transition to low emission vehicles. As such, vehicle charging points. the Proposed Development is considered to accord with this emerging policy.
TI4 Sets out that depending upon the The MSA is a standalone development that nature and scale of the proposal and would provide all infrastructure necessary to subject to viability developers will be support its operation. It is not considered that expected to make reasonable on / there is a need to make any contribution off site provision and contributions towards infrastructure or services. However, towards infrastructure and services this matter would be discussed during the to cater for the needs generated by determination of the planning application. development.
CC1 Confirms that proposals which have Chapter 7.0 of the Environmental Statement an adverse effect on watercourses comprises a Flood Risk Assessment, which or increase the risk of flooding will demonstrates that the application site is not at not be permitted. A Flood Risk risk from flooding and the proposal includes a Assessment will be necessary to sustainable urban drainage scheme. demonstrate that development does not result in an increase in surface water run-off and that priority is given to the use of SuDS.
CC4 Identifies that all development The Proposed Development is considered to should be resilient to and adapt to accord with this emerging policy for the same the future impacts of climate change reasons as identified through the appraisal of through the inclusion of sustainable Policy EQ1 of the Core Strategy. design features where this is technically feasible. This includes achieving a minimum standard of ‘very good’ under BREEAM.
HP2 Seeks to protect and where possible The Proposed Development is considered to enhance those elements that accord with this emerging policy for the same contribute to the significance of the reasons as identified through the appraisal of district’s heritage assets. Policy HD3, HD6 and HD7A of the Local Plan and Policy EQ2 of the Core Strategy.
HP3 Relates to local distinctiveness and The Proposed Development is considered to confirms that development should accord with this emerging policy for the same incorporate high quality building, reasons as identified through the appraisal of urban and landscape design that Policy HD20 of the Local Plan and EQ2 of the protects, enhances or reinforces Core Strategy.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 81
Achievement
of Objective
Policy/Plan/Guidance and Objective Commentary
Helps
Neutral Hinders
local distinctiveness. The policy sets out a range of criteria that development should adhere too in order to achieve the policies aims.
HP4 Seeks to ensure that proposal do not As confirmed within the Environmental result in significant adverse impacts Statement the Proposed Development would on the amenity of occupiers and not result in a significant adverse impact on the neighbours. This includes: amenity of neighbouring properties. As such, overlooking / loss of privacy, loss of the Proposed Development is considered to light, and pollution (noise, vibration, accord with this policy. fumes, odour etc.) either individually of cumulatively.
NE1 Confirms that development in or As demonstrated in Chapter 8.0 of the likely to affect AQMAs should Environmental Statement the Proposed ensure consistency with the Air Development is not within nor would it affect an Quality Action Plan and Local AQMA. As such, the Proposed Development is Transport Plan. considered to accord with this policy.
NE2 Sets out that the impact of a For the same reasons as identified through the proposal on surface and appraisal of Policy 10 of the NPPF, it is groundwater systems should be considered that the Proposed Development undertaken and were necessary also accords with this emerging policy. appropriate mitigation measures provided. Furthermore, that adequate water supply and sewerage infrastructure capacity is available, and that no deterioration of water quality which would have an impact on designated nature conservation sites or the district’s spa waters occurs.
NE3 Identifies that proposal should not For the same reasons as identified through the result in a net loss of biodiversity and appraisal of Policy NC4 of the Local Plan, it is that net gains should be sought. considered that the Proposed Development Furthermore, priority habitats, also accords with this emerging policy. ecological networks and species will be protected and promoted.
NE4 Identifies that proposals which For the same reasons as identified through the protect, enhance or restore the appraisal of Policy C2 of the Local Plan, it is district’s landscape character for its considered that the Proposed Development own intrinsic beauty and its benefit also accords with this emerging policy. to the economic, environmental and social well-being of the District will be supported. The policy lists a number of ways this could be achieved and confirms that
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 82
Achievement
of Objective
Policy/Plan/Guidance and Objective Commentary
Helps
Neutral Hinders
applications should be supported by a full LVIA, were necessary.
NE5 Relates to green infrastructure and As identified in the DAS new green seeks to ensure the proposal infrastructure features such as a green roof comply with the 7-criteria specified have been incorporated into the high-quality in this policy. design. Whilst, the design would be developed further at the Reserved Matters stage, it is considered that the Proposed Development accords with the relevant aspects of this policy.
NE7 Seeks to protect existing trees and For the same reasons as identified through the woodlands and that planting of appraisal of Policy HD13 of the Local Plan, it is additional trees should be included considered that the Proposed Development in all new developments. also accords with this emerging policy.
NE8 Confirms that the best and most Full consideration to Policy NE8 and versatile agricultural land will be agricultural land is covered in detail in the text protected from development not following on from this table. associated with agriculture or forestry, unless sufficient land of a lower grade is unavailable or it is demonstrated that the benefits justify the loss.
NE9 Sets out that proposals on land For the same reasons as identified through the suspected as being unstable will not appraisal of Policy A7 of the Local Plan it is be permitted unless it is considered that the Proposed Development demonstrated that this matter can also accords with this emerging policy. be overcome. Furthermore, an assessment is required to support proposals on land which is known or suspected to be contaminated.
Harrogate District Supplementary Planning Documents
Heritage Management Guidance A detailed heritage assessment covering all of Supplementary Planning Document (2014) the heritage assets identified in the SPD has supports the policies of the Core Strategy, been undertaken. As set out in Chapter 10.0 of particularly EQ2, by providing more detailed the Environmental Statement there would be guidance on how the policies relating to no significant effect on heritage assets. This heritage and local distinctiveness will be table has concluded that the Proposed applied. Development accords with Policy EQ2 of the Core Strategy. As such, the Proposed Development is considered to accord with this SPD.
Green Infrastructure Supplementary Planning As identified in DAS and in line with the key Document (2014) - Section 10 of the SPD sets steps identified in Section 10 of the SPD, out the Green Infrastructure Checklist which is opportunities to create and improve green referred to in emerging Policy NE5. In summary, infrastructure have been incorporated into the
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 83
Achievement
of Objective
Policy/Plan/Guidance and Objective Commentary
Helps
Neutral Hinders the checklist requires applicants to consider Proposed Development from the outset. Pre- opportunities that the Proposed Development application dialogue, undertaking a review of could bring, consider the surrounding previous MSA proposals and analysis of the characteristics and green assets of the area, site and its surroundings has helped to ensure identify opportunities to create / improve green that the Proposed Development makes the infrastructure and carry-out pre-application most of opportunities to improve green dialogue prior to submitting the application. infrastructure within the site. As such, the Proposed Development is considered to accord with this SPD.
Discussion
5.2.2 It can be seen from Table 5.1 that the Proposed Development accords, or does not conflict, with all but one of the policies contained within the Statutory Development Plan.
5.2.3 Furthermore, the proposal is supported by, or consistent with, a broad range of relevant material planning considerations, most notably paragraph 31 of the NPPF and the provisions of Annex B of DfT Circular 02/2013. The former establishes that the primary function of an MSA is to support the safety and welfare of the road user. This is reinforced by paragraph B4 of the Circular.
5.2.4 The Circular states (B4) that the Government’s advice is that in order to deliver the requisite safety and welfare requirements, motorists should stop and take a break of at least 15 minutes every 2 hours. The Circular then goes on to explain (at B5) how decisions regarding the location of MSAs on the strategic road network have been informed by the need to ensure this safety objective is realised by the premise that opportunities to stop are provided at intervals of approximately half an hour. This, in turn, leads directly to the recommendation of the Highways Agency (now Highways England) that there should not be a gap of more than 28 miles between MSAs (at paragraph B6):
5.2.5 It follows from the above, that if the Government’s objective of ensuring the safety and welfare of road users is to be realised, there is a “need” to provide an MSA on those stretches of the strategic road network where there is an
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 84
existing gap between MSAs of more than 28 miles. In other words, a “need” for an MSA is established wherever any particular stretch of the strategic road network has a gap of more than 28 miles between MSAs. As paragraph B8 of the Circular makes explicit, once such a gap is shown to exist, it is not necessary to have regard to other considerations in determining whether a need exists (i.e. the existence of the gap is in and of itself conclusive evidence of need for planning purposes).
5.2.6 The proposed Vale of York MSA demonstrably provides a service area on the strategic road network in a situation where the gap between services is in excess of 28 miles. In doing so it eliminates the 28 mile gap consistent with the relevant provision of Annex B of Circular 02/2013.
5.2.7 The remainder of this sub-section focusses on some of the other key planning issues identified within Table 5.1, specifically in relation to: Policy T7 of the Local Plan; Landscape and Visual Effects; Location in the Open Countryside; Loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land; and Consistency of Development Plan Policy with the NPPF.
Policy T7 of the Local Plan
5.2.8 Table 5.1 identifies that the only policy within the extant Local Plan (2001) where there is a conflict is in relation to Policy T7, which specifically relates to MSAs. With regard to this Policy the following points are noted: i. The conflict only exists with the first sentence of the Policy which sets out the rather bare statement that within Harrogate District, on the A1(M), planning permission will not be granted for more than one MSA. ii. As a matter of fact, in 2005 the Secretary of State granted planning permission, following a public inquiry, for what is now the Wetherby MSA. Whilst the town of Wetherby is located in Leeds City Council’s administrative area, the MSA site is actually located within the southernmost extent of Harrogate District. Hence, an MSA has already been consented in Harrogate since the adoption of the Local Plan in 2001.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 85
iii. The Local Plan is now very aged, HBC having had to withdraw a draft replacement document in 2014. Accordingly, paragraphs 214 and 215 of the NPPF apply. In short, due weight should be given to its policies according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF; with the closer the policies in the Local Plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given. iv. As identified above, the NPPF provides the framework for roadside services for the safety and welfare of the road user, whilst Circular 02/2013 provides (amongst other things) the spatial application of the NPPF’s policy in this regard. Given that within Harrogate District there is a gap north of Wetherby Services to the next (prospective) MSA that exceeds 28 miles, it is clear that Local Plan Policy T7 is no longer in line with the Government’s contemporary position. Accordingly, the weight that should be attached to the first sentence of the Policy is limited and the joint requirements of the NPPF and Circular should attract greater weight and be preferred. v. In the case of the Vale of York MSA, the joint requirements of the NPPF and Circular 02/2013 constitute material planning considerations that indicate the planning application should be determined other than in accordance with the Statutory Development Plan; specifically, that the MSA proposal can be approved contrary to the first sentence of Policy T7. vi. The Policy criteria in respect of protecting local landscape character and agricultural land, clearly envisage that there is a strong prospect that any MSA that comes forward will be located in the countryside. This is unsurprising as reference to the Local Plan proposals map shows that within the District, the entire A1(M) runs through, and is bounded by, open countryside. The potential exception to this is at Boroughbridge. However, review of the settlement boundary and development allocations in this town show there is no prospect that a MSA could be accommodated within either. Accordingly, it is judged that Policy T7 reasonably envisages that any MSA is likely to have an open countryside location. vii. Notwithstanding the provisions of the first sentence of Policy T7, the subsequent text tests the MSA proposal against the remaining parts of the Policy and finds that the scheme accords with all of its other tests.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 86
5.2.9 Subsequent to the first sentence, Policy T7 sets nine policy tests. Each is set below together with how the scheme meets each test:
The provision of an MSA is to be dependent on there being a need for such a facility, taking into account existing and planned services on the A1 and linked motorways elsewhere in Harrogate and Yorkshire.
5.2.10 Section 2.0 (sub-section 2.3) of this Planning Statement shows there is a demonstrable need for a new MSA (or MSAs) on the A1(M) north of the existing Wetherby services.
The need to meet minimum standards for parking and the other basic services necessary to serve the needs of motorway users
5.2.11 DfT Circular 02/2013: Table B1 sets out the minimum requirements for the various types of roadside facility that may be eligible for signing from the strategic road network and that all facilities accessed from the motorway must be signed for safety reasons. Schedule 1 of the Circular sets out the basis of establishing the mandatory parking requirements. The Vale of York MSA proposal meets the minimum standards for both parking and other requirements in accordance with the Circular.
The desirability of excluding extraneous services and facilities
5.2.12 The Vale of York MSA proposal does not include extraneous facilities that are commonly associated with MSAs such as a hotel.
The need to provide safe and convenient access without interfering with the free and safe flow of traffic on the motorway or the local highway network
5.2.13 The submitted Transport Assessment demonstrates that the MSA access requirements conform with the DMRB and would provide safe and convenient access without interfering with the free and safe flow of traffic on the motorway or the local highway network.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 87
Minimising the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land
5.2.14 As described in detail later within this sub-section, the MSA would minimise the loss of such agricultural land.
Minimising the impact on listed buildings, registered parks and gardens and their settings
5.2.15 By reference to Chapter 10.0 of the Environmental Statement, the MSA has been designed to minimise effects on all Heritage Assets and would not result in any significant or unacceptable impacts in this regard.
Safeguarding and/or enhancing the existing landscape character of the surrounding area
5.2.16 The issue of landscape effects is considered in further detail below.
Safeguarding sites and features of archaeological or nature conservation interest
5.2.17 By reference to Chapters 6.0 and 10.0 of the Environmental Statement, the MSA has been located and designed to minimise effects on all sites and features of nature conservation and archaeological interest. It would not result in any significant or unacceptable impacts in this regard.
Minimising the impact on residential amenity
5.2.18 By reference to Chapters 5.0 (Landscape and Visual), 8.0 (Air Quality), 9.0 (Noise) and 11.0 (Traffic and Transport) and Appendix 4.1 (Lighting) of the Environmental Statement, the MSA has been located and designed to minimise effects on local residential amenity. It would not result in any significant or unacceptable impacts in this regard.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 88
Landscape (and Visual) Effects
5.2.19 It is not the purpose of this sub-section of the Planning Statement to repeat in full the clear conclusions of Chapter 5.0 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment of the Environmental Statement. It is rather to provide a planning context for those effects that would be experienced.
5.2.20 The key points in relation to landscape effects are: i. Circa 45% of Harrogate District falls within the Nidderdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a statutory landscape designation. On top of this, the Council has designated 9 separate Special Landscape Areas, where restrictive policy applies. The current MSA site does not fall within, or close to, any landscape designation, the closest being 4.5km distant. ii. The landscape local to the site is generally pleasant, but dominated by the presence of the A1(M) / A168 corridor and the B6265 roundabout and motorway over bridge. Close to the site both the A168 and B6265 are illuminated. The site sits within Landscape Character Area (LCA) 81: Dishforth and Surrounding Farmland, as defined in the Harrogate District Landscape Character Assessment, and within which the A1 / A1(M) is confirmed as a prominent feature. iii. LCA 81 is a large Character Area comprising some 48km2. It runs from Boroughbridge northwards to the boundary of the District. Accordingly, any MSA proposal meeting the defined ‘need’ would be located within this Character Area. The LCA 81 Data Sheet does not identify any extra sensitivity to the landscape in the environs of the application site. iv. Unlike previous MSA proposals near Kirby Hill, the Harrogate District Landscape Character Assessment (Supplementary Planning Guidance) has been central to the siting and design of the current MSA scheme. In utilising that guidance, Applegreen has brought forward a design that is sensitive to the key characteristics of the area and responds to the guidance contained therein. The conformity of the design with the key points contained within the of the LCA 81 Data Sheet has been demonstrated in Table 3.1, as set out earlier within this Statement.
5.2.21 In light of the foregoing context, and the findings of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, it is concluded that the proposed MSA would not result in
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 89
such adverse effects that would breach policies which protect the relevant landscape.
Location in the Open Countryside
5.2.22 The other main policy consideration / judgement with regard to the policies of the Statutory Development Plan relates to Core Strategy Policy SG3, which seeks to control development in the open countryside. This Policy does not prohibit development in the open countryside, but simply states that there will close control over such development, before listing a series of uses that are encouraged in the countryside. This list does not include MSAs, but clearly when Policy SG3 was prepared, the overall Development Plan envisaged MSAs being determined in accordance with Local Plan Policy T7.
5.2.23 In is also notable that a number of Local Plan policies relate to development in the countryside (e.g. Policies C2 and HD20). Core Strategy Policy EQ2 similarly relates to greenfield development. As outlined previously, in terms of specific MSA provision, Local Plan Policy T7 also countenances development in the countryside.
5.2.24 The common thread in relation to all of these ‘countryside’ policies is that none specifically preclude the development of an MSA, but all seek to control development in the countryside; and more specifically (other than Core Strategy Policy SG3) require new development to respect local landscape character.
5.2.25 There are two key points relevant to the consideration of these policies: i. The need for a new MSA within Harrogate District along the A1(M) to the north of Wetherby services has been established. This stretch of the A1(M) runs entirely through Open Countryside / Designated Rural Area in both the extant and emerging Local Plans. The only exception is through Boroughbridge, where some land parcels close to the motorway benefit from development allocations. However, none of the allocations could accommodate an MSA. Accordingly, any MSA meeting the identified need is always going to result in new development within the
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 90
Open Countryside / Designated Rural Area i.e. it will by necessity be located in the countryside. ii. The previous sub-section of this Planning Statement (and also particular Table 3.1), together with the submitted Design and Access Statement and Chapter 5.0 of the Environmental Statement (Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment), all demonstrate that the scheme respects local landscape character and would ensure that no significant impacts on local landscape character would occur.
5.2.26 Thus, whilst it is acknowledged that MSAs are not listed as a use to be encouraged within the ‘countryside’, they are not and should not be precluded as a matter of principle where their location can be justified. This is evidenced by Policy T7 and the fact that the vast majority of the UK’s MSAs have an open countryside location. Clearly the acceptability of such a development will also need to be tested against other relevant development plan policies, a key component of which will be the protection of local landscape character. In the case of the Vale of York MSA proposal, it will by necessity be located in the countryside; and detailed assessment shows that the scheme would not result in any significant impacts on local landscape character.
Loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
5.2.27 The final policy consideration that merits further discussion is in relation to paragraph 112 of the NPPF and Policy NE8 of the draft replacement Local Plan. Both seek to protect best and most versatile agricultural land and require that the loss of such land be demonstrated. In the case of the NPPF, the policy seeks to prevent against ‘significant’ loss and where such a loss occurs, the preference is that it is the lower grades of best and most versatile agricultural land. Draft Policy NE8 requires demonstration that agricultural land of a lower grade (grades 3b, 4 and 5) is unavailable.
5.2.28 There are a number of key points relevant to the consideration of these policies: i. In terms of the NPPF, the threshold for what constitutes a ‘significant’ loss of best and most versatile agricultural land is not defined. However, as referenced in Chapter 13.0 of the Environmental Statement, Schedule
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 91
4 of the Town and Country (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 stipulates that Natural England need only be consulted on the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, when the loss is greater than 20 hectares. As identified below (point iv.) the loss associated with the MSA proposal is materially below this consultation threshold and is therefore not deemed to be ‘significant’. ii. Reference to the National Agricultural Land Map series for the Yorkshire and the Humber Region, indicates that the entire route of the A1(M), from Wetherby up to Leeming, runs through best and most versatile agricultural land. Furthermore, bar the smallest of slivers of land near Leeming (that could not accommodate an MSA), all of the land adjacent to the motorway is Grade 2 or better. The exception to this is within the floodplains of the Rivers Ure and Nidd, where the development of an MSA would not be appropriate. In these floodplains the Map shows land in undifferentiated Grade 3, which may or may not be best and most versatile agricultural land. Accordingly, any MSA meeting the identified need is, by necessity, always going to result in the loss of Grade 2, or better, best and most versatile agricultural land. iii. The agricultural land that would be taken by the Vale of York MSA is entirely Grade 2. Based on the above point, there is no option in this case, to located the MSA on a lower grade of best and most versatile agricultural land and is therefore conforms with limb A of Policy NE8. iv. The current MSA proposal has been specifically designed to minimise the loss of agricultural land when compared to previous MSA proposals in a similar location (as described in Section 3.0 in relation to the site’s planning history). The previous Kirby Hill MSA proposal, refused by the Secretary of State in 2012, would have resulted in the permanent loss of 14.7 hectares of best and most versatile agricultural land and the reversible loss of 3.3 hectares. Whereas, the current MSA proposal would result in the permanent loss of 9.8 hectares of best and most versatile agricultural land and the reversible loss of 4.3 hectares. v. It is noted, as set out in Section 3.0 in relation to the site’s planning history, that in the 2012 MSA planning decisions, the loss of best and most versatile land was not considered ‘overriding’ i.e. determinative in its own right, but was a factor to be weighed in the planning balance. It is judged that this also remains the position at this time, albeit in the
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 92
context that the loss has now been justified as no alternative MSA proposals or sites that could accommodate an MSA on this stretch of the A1(M), without the loss of the same Grade of best and most versatile land, have been identified. vi. Finally, whilst the loss of best and most versatile land is a planning consideration in the development of a prospective MSA, it is only one of numerous factors that must be considered and balanced when finding a suitable MSA site. As set out in Chapter 3.0 of the Environmental Statement (in relation to Alternatives), there are a plethora of other factors that needed to be taken into account in this case. Having balanced and taken these other considerations into account, Applegreen believes that it has demonstrated that the current application site best meets the need to deliver a new MSA on this stretch of the A1(M).
5.2.29 Based on the foregoing, given the need for a new MSA on this stretch of the A1(M), the loss of best and most versatile land can be justified in the context of the NPPF and Policy NE8 of the draft replacement Local Plan. The loss is not deemed to be ‘significant’ in terms of the NPPF. Furthermore, as set out previously there is an unequivocal overriding need for the development and the MSA cannot be located on a lower Grade of best and most versatile agricultural land. Accordingly, the policy tests set out in paragraph 112 of the NPPF and Policy NE8 of the draft replacement Local Plan are met; and thus not breached.
Consistency of Development Plan Policy with the NPPF
5.2.30 As identified previously (in relation to Policy T7), given the age of the Local Plan and also of the Core Strategy, paragraphs 214 and 215 of the NPPF apply and the weight that should be afforded to the policies in each of these components of the Statutory Development Plan is tempered by their degree of consistency with the NPPF.
5.2.31 Assessing the consistency of all of the policies within the Local Plan and Core Strategy with the policies of the NPPF is complex and can be subjective. Furthermore, the purpose of doing so is somewhat limited when, other than in respect of Policy T7 (discussed above), Table 5.1 demonstrates that the
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 93
Proposed Development would not result in any other policy conflict, in any event.
5.2.32 When considering NPPF consistency, there are three important approaches embodied in NPPF policy that should be born in mind. These are whether the policy: Provides meaningful thresholds of acceptability; Sets tests inconsistent with the NPPF; and Includes the balancing approach advocated by the NPPF i.e. requires a judgement to be made as to whether an adverse impact would be outweighed by the scheme’s benefits, which is an acknowledged characteristic of NPPF policy. Relevant case law on the application of a ‘cost / benefit’ approach is contained in the Batsworthy Cross Judgement.4
5.2.33 In terms of the Local Plan, it is self-evident that Policies C2, NC4, HD3, HD6, HD7A, HD13 and HD20 fail, in part or in whole, at least two of the three tests above. The same is true of Core Strategy Policy EQ2. In short, they say, or have components which say: “Something shall be protected. Development that does not protect will be refused.” Such a policy approach sets no meaningful threshold of acceptability i.e. based on the policy wording, development that offends 0.00001% of the protected feature can potentially be refused. Furthermore, it introduces no flexibility for a cost / benefit approach i.e. allowing harm to a protected feature to be outweighed by a scheme’s benefits. Prime examples of none NPPF compliance include Policy C2 which, in terms of development management, simply states: “Development should protect existing landscape character…” Similarly, Policy HD7A, which reads: “Development will not be permitted where it would adversely affect the character or setting of parks and gardens included in the English Heritage Register of parks and gardens of special historic interest.”
5.2.34 Based upon the age and content of the policies Statutory Development Plan it is self-evident that a large number of policies clearly do not meet these three approaches. However, given the degree of policy compliance, this assessment
4 Approved Judgement of Mr Justice Parker in Colman v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others [2013] EWHC 1138 (Admin). ‘The Batsworthy Cross
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 94
does not test each and every policy within the Statutory Development Plan against these three factors. Although it is important to note that all of the policies with a landscape protection component lack NPPF policy compliance, including Local Plan Policies C2 and HD20; and Core Strategy Policy EQ2. Accordingly, the weight that should be attached to these policies is limited.
5.2.35 The subsequent sub-section of the planning assessment considers the important issue of the planning balance i.e. applies the core planning principle as to whether any adverse impacts of the proposed MSA would be outweighed by the scheme’s benefits.
5.3 The Planning Balance
5.3.1 The proposed MSA would eliminate the non-compliant gap between Wetherby services and any prospective MSA at Leeming Bar Rest Area. It is located circa 13 miles north of Wetherby MSA and 15.8 miles south of Leeming Bar Rest Area, and is thus well situated to fill the gap between these services. Accordingly, it would deliver driver safety and welfare benefits, which are enshrined in national policy, and the need that the scheme would meet should be afforded very significant positive weight in any planning balance.
5.3.2 The MSA proposal would also have beneficial effects in terms of a circa £40 million inward investment and both temporary and permanent job creation. Once operational, there would be circa 300 new jobs directly created. A further 63 jobs are likely to arise from indirect or induced expenditure (e.g. services bought-in to the MSA, or spending outside the MSA by employees). Once the effects of displacement and leakage are considered, it is estimated that within the Study Area (Harrogate Borough and Hambleton District) approximately 261 jobs would be supported directly or indirectly. This would add an estimated £6.2 million to the economy of the Study Area each year. When considered in the context of the wider Study Area economy, it is concluded that the effect would be moderate, which could result in significant beneficial effects at the local level. This factor should be afforded significant positive weight.
5.3.3 In addition, with regard to nature conservation, implementation of the proposed mitigation and enhancement works would ensure there is no net loss of
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 95
biodiversity interest, and provide a net biodiversity benefit, measured in terms of parameters such as bat foraging activity, numbers of breeding bird territories, and species such as aquatic invertebrate flora and fauna likely to colonise new habitats on Site. Accordingly, the proposal would deliver significant biodiversity benefit, on a local scale, when compared to the current situation. This adds a further degree of positive weight to the planning balance.
5.3.4 In terms of the adverse effects that potentially weigh against the scheme, it is informative to look at the reasons for refusal associated with the historic 2008 MSA proposal located broadly on the same site.
5.3.5 HBC effectively maintained 3 reasons for refusals at the inquiry leading to the 2012 decision, the first of which was the absence of need, which not a determinative factor in this case in the context of Circular 02/2013. The other 2 reasons were: 1. Impact of landscape character. 2. Loss of best and most versatile agricultural land.
5.3.6 The Environmental Statement for the current MSA proposal recognises there would be a degree of harm associated with these two issues and thus they fall into the planning balance.
5.3.7 In the 2012 decision, there was also discussion in relation to heritage issues. The first Inspector’s Report (describing the factual element for the case of HIA, the applicant) states (at paragraph (3.7.16): “…The 2004IR [that is the Inspector’s Report relating to the refusal of an earlier HIA MSA proposal at Kirby Hill] considered the impact of the HIA scheme on the Church of All Saints and Skelton Windmill and concluded that any impact on their setting would be “really quite limited”, confined to “only minor effects. Drawing on this conclusion, HBC considered that there was no basis for refusal on listed building grounds, and that there was no conflict with criteria (E) of Policy T7.”
5.3.8 In his conclusions on the 2008 Kirby Hill MSA scheme the first Inspector’s Report states in his conclusions at paragraph 14.3.49 - 50: “There are two listed buildings in the vicinity of the proposal; All Saints’ Church in Kirby Hill which is listed grade I, and Skelton Windmill, listed Grade II. The wider setting
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 96
of the church includes the land around the village, so I consider the MSA site and its proposed mound to be within the wider setting of All Saints’ Church. However, that setting already contains the elevated roundabout and associated paraphernalia. The MSA would comprise a small part of the wide view, and I consider that there would only be limited harm to its setting. Similarly, the MSA is within the wider setting of Skelton Windmill, standing as it does near the top of the hill on Ripon Road. I have described the effect of the proposal on the residents of the windmill above. As with the church, the MSA would comprise a limited part of the wider view, and I consider that the proposal would cause only limited harm to its setting.”
5.3.9 The Secretary of State did not disagree with this particular conclusion.
5.3.10 Thus in terms of heritage effects it can be concluded: With regard to the first Kirby Hill MSA proposal, neither the Inspector in his 2004 report, nor HBC, believed there would be any basis for refusal on heritage grounds. The former indicating the effects on the settings on the two Listed Buildings would be really quite limited and confined to minor effects. With regard to the second Kirby Hill MSA proposal in 2008, neither the first Inspector, nor HBC again believed there would be any basis for refusal on heritage grounds. The former indicating that for both Listed Buildings, the MSA would comprise a small part of the wide view and there would only be limited harm to its setting.
5.3.11 With regard to the current MSA proposal, Chapter 10 of the Environmental Statement draws similar conclusions about the effects on the settings on the two Listed Buildings, and concludes there would be no significant impacts in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) terms. This is unsurprising as the current MSA design would not occupy any wider extent of the view from the Listed Buildings than the historic schemes; and is demonstrably better designed to fit in with the local landscape character.
5.3.12 Notwithstanding, in terms of NPPF paragraph 134, the impact on the settings of All Saints’ Church and Skelton Windmill, as set out within the Environmental Statement, is classed as being ‘less than substantial harm to the significance
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 97
of a designated heritage asset’. Accordingly, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.
5.3.13 The Environmental Statement also assesses the proposal against a full range of other environmental topics. In all cases no significant adverse impacts associated with the Vale of York MSA proposal are identified. Further, in terms of noise, air quality and flood risk, where quantitative thresholds of acceptability occur, no harm material to planning is found. Accordingly, no further issues have been identified that weigh against the proposal.
5.3.14 Thus, the factors that weigh against the Vale of York MSA proposal are: Landscape effects, judged to be adverse, but not significant in EIA terms; The loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, also judged to be adverse, but not significant in EIA terms, nor in the context of paragraph 122 of the NPPF; and Less than substantial harm to the setting of two Listed Buildings.
5.3.15 It is also noted, based upon the planning assessment contained in sub-section 5.2 above, that none of the above adverse effects are considered sufficient to breach relevant development plan policy.
5.3.16 With regard to landscape effects, these would be moderate adverse at worst, and then only in locations very local to the MSA site. It is also noted that the MSA site does not fall within, or close to, any landscape designation and lies within an area dominated by the presence of the motorway. Also weighing against the identified harm is the fact that any MSA meeting the defined need would be located within the same Landscape Character Area as the current proposal. For these reasons, the landscape effects of the scheme should not be afforded significant weight.
5.3.17 With regard to the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, it has been determined that there would be an irreversible loss of circa 9.8 hectares of Grade 2 agricultural land and a reversible loss of 4.3 hectares. Even combining the irreversible and reversible figures (14.1 hectares), this figure is materially below the 20 hectare threshold that requires Natural England to be consulted Schedule 4 of the Town and Country (Development Management Procedure)
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 98
Order 2015. It is noted that the first Inspector’s Report, leading to the 2012 Kirby Hill MSA decision, concluded that the effects on agricultural land was not an overriding reason that should lead to the refusal of the scheme. The Vale of York MSA proposal would result in a smaller irreversible loss of agricultural land than the scheme determined in 2012, and implementation of the proposed mitigation measures would reduce the impact on the soil resource. Also weighing against the identified harm is the fact that there are no alternative MSA proposals or sites that could accommodate an MSA on this stretch of the A1(M), without the loss of the same Grade of best and most versatile land.
5.3.18 Thus, whilst there would be loss in agricultural land, when this is considered in the context of the foregoing and the wider agricultural resource in the region, the weight that should be attached to the loss is judged to very limited.
5.3.19 Finally, the less than substantial harm that would arise in terms of the setting of the two Listed Buildings has, in terms of both the current MSA proposal and historic schemes on broadly the same site, never been found to be determinative and has always been limited in scale. The Vale of York MSA proposal would not occupy any wider extent of the view from the Listed Buildings than the historic schemes; and is demonstrably better designed to fit in with the local landscape character. Thus, it is concluded that the weight that should be attached to the harm is also limited.5
5.3.20 In conclusion, the combined benefits of the scheme, most notably the need for the MSA and the driver safety and welfare benefits it would deliver, coupled with the socio economic and biodiversity benefits, attract very significant positive weight in the overall planning balance. The adverse landscape effects of the proposal do attract weight, but for the reasons stipulated this is not significant. The loss of best and most versatile agricultural land and less than substantial harm to the setting of the two Listed Buildings only attract limited weight. As such, this is a case where the overall planning balance falls firmly in favour of the proposed development.
5 It is similarly found, for the purposes of section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, that the weight to be applied by s66 is in fact limited, given the extent of the harm to heritage assets which has been identified.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 99
5.4 Conclusions
5.4.1 Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Vale of York MSA proposal has been assessed against the policies of the Statutory Development Plan and be found to comply with all relevant policies, with the exception of the first sentence of Policy T7 of the Local Plan, which relates specifically to MSA proposals. This part of Policy T7 predates the NPPF by circa 12 years and has been shown to be no longer in line with the Government’s contemporary policy position. Accordingly, the weight that should be attached to Policy T7 is limited and the joint requirements of the NPPF and Circular 02/2013 should attract greater weight and be preferred.
5.4.2 As such, this planning application should be determined other than in accordance with the Statutory Development Plan; specifically, that the MSA proposal can be approved contrary to the first sentence of Policy T7. It is also noted that: The proposal meets the other nine tests within Policy T7, with which MSA proposals should comply; and No further material planning considerations have been identified that would justify refusal of planning permission.
5.4.3 Detailed evaluation has been undertaken in respect of a number of important planning considerations, most notably the landscape and visual effects of the MSA; its location in the open countryside; and the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land. In all cases, for the reasons identified, it has been demonstrated that the scheme would not give rise to significant adverse effects or result in the breach of relevant planning policies.
5.4.4 The proposed MSA would eliminate the non-compliant gap in MSAs between Wetherby services and any prospective MSA at Leeming Bar Rest Area. Accordingly, it would deliver driver safety and welfare benefits, in accordance with national policy, and the need that the scheme would meet should be afforded very significant positive weight in the planning balance. It would also deliver other socio-economic and nature conservation benefits. These benefits
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 100
have been balanced against the acknowledged, but not significant, harm that would arise from the scheme. It has been found that this is a case where the overall planning balance falls firmly in favour of the proposed development.
5.4.5 At the heart of the NPPF (as stated in paragraph 14) is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For decision-taking this means: Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay, unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise; and Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out- of-date, granting permission unless: o any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or o specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted, in accordance with limitations stipulated in footnote 9 of the NPPF.
5.4.6 With regard to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, the following relevant points are noted: i. As outlined above, the MSA proposal accords with the development plan other than the first sentence of Policy T7, in respect of which material planning considerations indicate determination other than in accordance with that part of the policy. ii. Both components of the development plan significantly pre-date the NPPF and they include relevant policies that are out-of-date. iii. The identified adverse impacts of granting planning permission do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. iv. No other material planning considerations have been identified that would justify refusal of planning permission. v. None of the limitations stipulated in footnote 9 of the NPPF apply in this case; and thus there is no restriction on the presumption that planning permission should be granted.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 101
vi. The Vale of York MSA proposal would simultaneously contribute to the three dimensions of sustainable development, by fulfilling: a. A social role – in that it would make a significant contribution to driver safety and welfare in line with national policy. b. An economic role – in terms of a circa £40 million inward investment, the creation of circa 300 new direct jobs and 63 indirect jobs; and add an estimated £6.2 million to the economy of the relevant study area each year. c. An environmental role – in terms of delivering new development whilst protecting the natural, built and historic environments and making a contribution to improved biodiversity.
5.4.7 In light of the foregoing, it is demonstrably the case that the planning application for the Vale of York MSA should be approved without delay.
2000-01 / Vale of York MSA Planning Statement July 2017 102