Basingstoke Motorway Service Area Alternative Sites Assessment

BA03

Contents

1. Introduction 2. Background 3. The Need for an MSA 4. The Appropriate Location for a New MSA 5. Commercial Justification 6. Identifying a Location for an MSA 7. Site Selection – Potential Sites 8. Conclusion

1.0 Introduction

The Need for the Alternate Sites Assessment

1.1 This Alternative Sites Assessment Report (“ASA”) sets out the approach to site selection to meet the safety and welfare needs of motorists on the M3 motorway. The location promoted for a Motorway Service Area (“MSA”) by Moto Hospitality Limited (“Moto”) lies to the south of Junction 6 on the M3.

1.2 Moto is the leading provider of services on the UK’s motorway network with sites in England, Scotland, and Wales, with MSAs across 45 locations. Moto proposes to expand its service offer at locations where there are gaps in the strategic highway network to meet the safety and welfare needs of the travelling public. The development will represent an investment in the motorway network of approximately £40 million in a location where it is essential to meet the needs of motorists and provide much needed employment.

1.3 This ASA Report should be read in conjunction with the Environmental Report and other documents supporting the planning application for the new MSA at Basingstoke.

Structure of the Assessment

1.4 Chapter two sets out the background to MSA development in the UK and the requirement for an Alternative Sites Assessment for new MSA sites looking at Government policy and guidance. It sets out the context for new MSA development in respect of the national strategic road network focusing on the need to address safety and welfare concerns of the travelling public.

1.5 Chapter three sets out the need for a new MSA, reviewing the results of the Transport Assessment (“TA”) and focusing on provision of services on this section of the M3. Chapter four considers the location for an MSA to meet the identified need against the background of Government and local planning policy and other material considerations which would inform locational choice. Chapter five then considers the commercial justification for a new MSA at Basingstoke. Chapter six considers online and junction sites. Chapter seven undertakes an analysis of the potential sites whilst Chapter eight sets out the conclusion that a new MSA at Junction 6 on the M3 fulfils the safety and welfare needs of motorists.

2.0 Background

MSAs in UK

2.1 The first generation of MSAs were developed by the Government and leased to operators. The first service area in the UK was at Watford Gap on the M1, which opened with the M1 motorway on 2 November 1959. In 1992, the Government introduced de-regulation to allow freehold ownership of MSAs by the private sector. This allowed a new generation of MSAs to be developed offering a wider range of facilities including retail services to the travelling public.

2.2 Today there are over 100 MSAs across the UK, in the main operated by four major providers, Moto, Welcome Break, Extra and Roadchef. There are a small number of independent operations. Moto’s operations are shown below on the UK motorway network map.

2.3 The Government is firmly committed to MSAs being developed and owned by private operators. Highways England seeks to support the economy through the provision of safe and reliable strategic road network. MSAs provide the opportunity to provide stopping points on the motorway for the safety and welfare of the travelling public.

2.4 The provision of MSAs assists in achieving sustainable transport and travel objectives by keeping vehicles on the motorway. This avoids motorists from leaving the motorway in search of places to stop for rest and refreshment which can involve substantial additional mileage and add to local traffic congestion. Providing motorists with the opportunity to stop on their motorway journey reduces congestion, unnecessary mileage, and additional trips. This in turn reduces air pollution and saves on finite fuel resources making journeys shorter and more efficient.

2.5 Increasing demand for motorway usage is leading to the introduction of “SMART” motorways to assist in demand management. The northern section of the M3 (J2 to J4a) has been upgraded for a length of 13.4 miles to a SMART Motorway. This section of the M3 caters to around 130,000 vehicles per day. The DfT Is developing plans to make the whole of the M3 a smart motorway to increase capacity and improve safety. MSAs have an important role to play in making motorway use safe and efficient.

2.6 Fundamental to MSA provision is the overall objective of reducing accidents and this can be achieved by ensuring there is an adequate network of stops where rest and refreshment can be provided in a safe and pleasant environment dedicated to the travelling public. Their provision is crucial to the success of the economy in the same way that airports and railways stations deliver strategic locations convenient to the public.

2.7 The Chancellor’s Autumn Statement in November 2016 set out important plans for infrastructure and productivity and the need to ensure the UK’s transport network by investing £15bn for the period 2015-2020 under the Road Investment Strategy funding.

Government Guidance and Policy – The Safety Role

2.8 The Government through the Department for Transport (“DfT”) has issued advice to motorists in respect of driver fatigue. In its Think! Campaign the DfT identified the following statistics:

• Research suggests that almost 20% of accidents on major roads are sleep- related • Sleep-related accidents are more likely than others to result in a fatality or serious injury • Peak times for accidents are in the early hours and after lunch • About 40% of sleep-related accidents involve commercial vehicles • Men under 30 have the highest risk of falling asleep at the wheel

2.9 In order to minimise fatigue related accidents the DfT provides the following advice:

• Plan your journey to include a 15-minute break every two hours. • Don't start a long trip if you're already tired. • Remember the risks if you have to get up unusually early to start a long drive. • Try to avoid long trips between midnight and 6am when you're likely to feel sleepy anyway. • If you start to feel sleepy, find a safe place to stop - not the hard shoulder of a motorway. Drink two cups of coffee or a high-caffeine drink and have a rest for 10 to 15 minutes to allow time for the caffeine to kick in. • Remember, the only real cure for sleepiness is proper sleep. A caffeine drink or a nap is a short-term solution that will only allow you to keep driving for a short time.

2.10 The Transport Research Laboratory (“TRL”) provides expert analysis of road safety matters including motorway safety. The 1995 TRL Report by JA Horne and LA Reyner “Falling Asleep at the Wheel” (TRL 168) underpins the Government advice that taking a break is essential to avoiding sleepiness whilst driving.

2.11 The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (“RoSPA”) has undertaken research into “Driver Fatigue and Road Accidents” (Position Paper 2001) and found that 20% of accidents on motorways and monotonous roads in Britain occur as a result of sleep and driver fatigue. Drivers often take a number of actions to fight driver fatigue such as opening car windows but these have been found to be “ineffective, and should be regarded only as emergency measures to allow a driver to find somewhere to stop”.

2.12 The World Health Organisations’ Report on Action for Road Safety (WHO/NMH/VIP/11.01) has reported that mobile phone usage whilst driving has grown from 1% to 11% over the last 5-10 years with a requisite increase in accident risk of 400% compared to those not using a mobile phone. Opportunities to stop at an MSA will enable safe use of a mobile phone improving safety on the motorway network.

Highway Safety

2.13 The Transport Assessment sets out the details of the personal injury collision records on the highway network in the immediate vicinity of the site around Junction 6 of the M3. The collision information was obtained from Hampshire Police for the five-year period from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2017. The information included a plot of collisions and is reproduced at Appendix O of the TA. There was a total of 33 personal injury collisions in the five-year period. None involved vulnerable road users (pedestrians and cyclists). Table 1 lists these collisions by severity.

Table 1: Severity of Collisions

Severity Number of Collisions Percentage Fatal 0 0% Serious 6 18% Slight 27 82% Total 33 100%

2.14 Table 2: analyses these collisions by type.

Table 2: Collision Type

Type of Collison Number of Collisions Percentage Rear End Shunt 20 61% ‘Side Swipe’ 5 15% Loss of Control 7 21% Debris on Road 1 3% Total 33 100%

2.15 Table 1 shows that the majority of collisions (82%) were recorded as ‘slight’ injuries. Six collisions were recorded as ‘serious’ with one of the ‘serious’ collisions occurring on the Southbound entry to the roundabout.

2.16 An analysis of the collisions by type is set out in Table 2.

COBALT Collision Analysis

2.17 The Transport Assessment also sets out the details of the COBALT Collison Analysis. This is reproduced below. The DfT’s COBALT COst and Benefit to Accidents – Light Touch) computer program can be used to predict personal injury collisions per annum for both junctions and links using details of link and junction characteristics, relevant accident rates and traffic volumes.

2.18 Table 3 shows a comparison between the observed collisions per annum and the predicted collisions obtained from COBALT. The traffic flows input to the COBALT assessment were derived from the traffic counts. The combined AM and PM peak hour flows output from the spreadsheet model where factored up to represent estimated Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flows as required for input into the COBALT assessment. This showed that the actual number of collisions is less than predicted for the type of junction, speed, and volume of traffic. The COBALT analysis files are provided at Appendix P of the TA.

Table 3: COBALT Results

Junction/Link Recorded no. of Observed no. of Predicted no. of collisions in 5- collisions per collisions per year period annum annum Roundabout and approaches¹ 10 2.0 2.3

Note: ¹approaches defined as within 70m of approach to junction

Parking

2.19 The Department of Transport’s Lorry Parking Study published in November 2011 highlights an issue with the lack of overnight parking for HGVs. Chapter 4 dealing with the Regional Analysis states that of the 67 local authorities in the South East, four districts, of which one was Basingstoke and Deane had more vehicles parked than spaces available. The excess demand is between 25 and 50 vehicles. An MSA at Basingstoke would help to address that shortfall.

DfT Circular 02/2013

2.20 Specific policy advice is provided by the DfT in its publication “The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development” (“Circular 02/2013”) published on 10 September 2013. Paragraph 8 confirms that:

“a well-functioning strategic road network enables growth by providing safe and reliable journeys”

2.21 Annex B of Circular 02/2013 deals with the provision of roadside facilities on motorways and trunk roads and confirms that:

“…the primary function of roadside facilities being to support the safety and welfare of the road user”

2.22 The Circular states at paragraphs B4 and B5 that:

“B4. Motorway service areas and other roadside facilities perform an important road safety function by providing opportunities for the travelling public to stop and take a break in the course of their journey. Government advice is that motorists should stop and take a break of at least 15 minutes every two hours. Drivers of many commercial and public service vehicles are subject to a regime of statutory breaks and other working time restrictions and these facilities assist in compliance with such requirements.

B5. The network of service areas on the strategic road network 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 service areas may take longer”.

2.23 Highways England recommends that the maximum distance between MSAs should be no more than 28 miles but can be shorter. The existing network of MSAs has been developed on the premise that opportunities to stop are provided at roughly 30-minute intervals. As speed limits are imposed on sections of motorway the drive time between MSAs could take longer. Accordingly, more MSAs are needed to ensure adequate provision as congestion increases. This will also be the case with the future emergence of SMART Motorways, where the distance between MSAs will inevitably be shorter as roads adapt to specific traffic conditions predominantly dealing with congestion. The advice to Local Planning Authorities is that:

“The distances set out above are considered appropriate for all parts of the strategic road network and to be in the interests and for the benefit of all road users regardless of traffic flows or route choice…”

2.24 However, it is recognised within this guidance that it is necessary to identify the optimum location for MSA provision to meet the needs of road users. This ASA adopts such an approach to road safety and MSA provision.

2.25 The safety case and need for MSAs has been established over the last 55 years. They are an important and well-established part of motorway safety and convenience. There have been various studies carried out on the function of MSAs by academics and research organisations.

2.26 In 2009, Visit Britain published its research on Motorway Service Stations. This found that in respect of activities undertaken at MSAs that:

• Overall, people use toilets most often out of all of the service stations facilities; • Just under 1 in 3 say that they at least sometimes use service stations just for rest, without using any of the facilities; • 74% had used a service station in the last 12 months; • 30% had used a service station in the last month (monthly).

2.27 Research from Lightspeed GMI/Mintel on behalf of Moto revealed the reasons why people use MSAs:

Drivers of Customer Visits %

Reasons for Stopping at MSA %

2.28 The main reasons for stopping at an MSA were to use the toilets, take a break and eat/drink. These all relate to the need for safety and refreshment breaks on the motorway network. The most important result for the development of a network of MSAs was the reason given for stopping at a particular MSA was that it was “conveniently located” (59%). This identifies that location of facilities is critical to safety and welfare provision for motorists.

The Economic Role

2.29 The economic case underpins the safety case for the provision by the private sector of MSAs in the UK. In other words, MSAs must be economically viable to deliver highway safety on the motorway network in the absence of public subsidy.

2.30 The cost of motorway closure due to accidents is enormous. In 2011, the DfT published figures that showed that there were more than 18,000 full or partial closure of motorways in 2010. The DfT’s Preliminary Report - May 2011 (with CACPO, Highways Agency and Home Office) entitled “Review of Investigation and Closure Procedures for Motorway Incidents” found that:

“for one three lane carriageway, on a busy motorway, the economic impact can be more than £500,000. Last year there were 18,269 road closures on motorways alone”

2.31 MSA provision for road safety purposes will save public expenditure which arises from motorway accidents where fatigue is a main factor of the incident. Commercial investment is best located where road safety can be maximised at infill sites in the motorway network to meet the requirements of Circular 02/2013.

Investment in a New MSA

2.32 The cost to provide an MSA is in the order of £40-£50 million. The decision to invest is a commercial one wherein the operator needs to ensure there is sufficient return on capital to justify the investment. The spacing to and between competitor sites is an important driver underpinning commercial risk. Clearly, competing MSAs in close proximity to one another, at a single location, would not aid road users as there would be existing provision for road safety purposes.

2.33 However, sensible spacing would assist road safety. In practice, the minimum distance between MSAs will depend upon the particular circumstances of the motorway(s) to be served, hence why the Government does not prescribe a minimum separation. Operators would, in the main, seek to provide services at the midway point between existing MSAs but generally not less than 10 miles from another MSA.

3.0 The Need for an MSA

MSA spacing

3.1 DfT Circular 02/2013 advises local planning authorities at paragraph B8 that:

“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.”

3.2 The spacing between MSAs is given in the Table 4 below.

Table 4: Spacing in miles SM C F W R South Mimms M25 West 44 51 74 90 Cobham M25 East 44 26 49 65 Fleet M3 51 26 23 39 Winchester M3 74 49 23 16 Rownhams M27 90 65 39 16

3.3 An historical indication of the need for an MSA in the vicinity of Basingstoke is evidenced by the Government’s original intention to develop an MSA to the north-east of Junction 7. This site was planned at around 1 mile to the north-east of Junction 7 at Hatch Warren placing it around 9 miles from Winchester. Parts of the slip roads were built at the time when the motorway was constructed. The site was never taken forward. The eastbound site was redeveloped for housing as part of Basingstoke and the slip roads removed. The south west facing slip road of this site is now located too close to Junction 7 to meet the current safety and operational requirements of the network, however, it provided an early indication of a suitable location for a new MSA given the location and spacing of the existing MSAs on the M3.

Moto Customer Surveys

3.5 The Transport Assessment (at Appendix D) sets out details of a study carried out by Moto to establish the travel patterns of motorists using MSAs on the motorway network. Interviews were carried out at three MSAs, namely, Toddington, Donington and Hilton Park. These are existing established sites on the M1 and M6 motorways surveyed in particular for the proposed MSA at Rugby. A total of 687 interviews were undertaken.

3.6 The surveys found that around 24% of customers had previously stopped or intended to stop again at an MSA on their journey. For those customers undertaking a single stop the average total journey distance was 119 miles with an average journey time of 2 hours with an average journey time before stopping of 1 hour or 60 miles. The pattern varied by location and by direction. For example, a greater percentage of customers at Toddington northbound were intending to stop more than once compared to those travelling southbound, and the average time between stops was less in the northbound direction.

3.7 For those motorists making more than one stop at an MSA on their journey their average distance travelled was 222 miles with the distance between stops of 73 miles taking an average of 1 hour 12 minutes’ journey time. When both single and multiple stop trips are taken together the average distance before stopping is 67 miles and the average travel time was 1 hour 7 minutes. This study revealed that motorists travel only a very short distance for their strategic journeys on the motorway network over a short space of time.

3.8 Moto’s survey needs to be set against the context of growing congestion on the motorway network. The Department for Transport (“DfT”) has published recent data in its Statistical Release of 18 May 2017 which confirms the average speed on the Strategic Road Network was 59.4 mph for the year ending March 2017. The DfT advises that for the past six years the growth in traffic on the motorway network has averaged 1.7% increase per annum. Circular 02/2013 (Paragraph B5) recognises that the network can be congested and travel times may increase and therefore travel time between MSAs may take longer.

3.9 The results of Moto’s survey confirm that motorists are stopping more frequently than Government advice recommends (15 minutes every two hours) and at shorter distance intervals. This is good for safety and welfare reasons but this pattern reflects increasing congestion on the motorway network and therefore a need for more MSAs to meet safety and welfare needs.

3.10 Motorists were also asked whether a new MSA at Rugby would be welcomed. There was a strong response with 46.2% supporting a new MSA. Two sites revealed significant support, namely, Toddington MSA northbound and Hilton Park MSA southbound. At Toddington where the journey distance to Corley (the first MSA on the M6) is 62 miles, 81% were in support of a new MSA and for Hilton Park, where the journey distance to Watford Gap (first MSA on M1 southbound) is 52 miles, 67% were in support. This level of support is broadly consistent with the average journey distance of 67 miles that motorists take between MSA stops. Although the survey did not ask a direct question about Basingstoke the survey responses showed significant support for new MSAs on the network.

3.11 Overall, Moto’s Customer Survey shows that motorists stop more frequently and at less distance than Government Advice recommends as a maximum. This reflects the congested nature of the motorway network.

Travel Time

3.12 Another approach is to look at the reliability of specific sections of M3 between the closest MSAs. The relevant data has been extracted from the reliability’ data from DfT. That indicates for the 3-year period from April 2012 to March 2015 that reliability for the motorway network across the UK as a whole is 80%. (Source is CGN0106). That is to say 1 in 5 journeys is subject to delay. The values for individual motorway sections are:

Table 5

Direction to M3 Section Average reliability MSA Basingstoke MSA expressed as % of journeys on time J4 to J4a 81.8 J4a to J5 89.8 Fleet J5 to J6 83.9 Westbound J6 to J7 86.5 J7 to J8 79.4 J8 to J9 85.7 Winchester J9 to J8 88.0 Winchester J8 to J7 84.8 J7 to J6 92.9 Eastbound J6 to J5 86.6 J5 to J4a 90.4 Fleet J4a to J4 81.9

3.13 For the westbound journey from J4a to J9, the ‘average’ overall reliability is 85.1%. For the eastbound journey, from J9 to J4a the average overall is 88.5%. This compares to 80% for the motorway system, as a whole. Table 6 below shows distance between MSAs and Table 7 the travel time between MSAs using the DfT’s Reliability index of travel time at 85% for westbound traffic and 89% for eastbound traffic.

Table 6

Distance in Miles

Motorway Service

Area

South South Mimms Cobham Fleet PROPOSED MSA Winchester Rownhams

South Mimms 44 51 61 74 90 Cobham 44 26 36 49 65 Fleet 51 26 10 23 39 PROPOSED MSA 61 36 10 13 29 Winchester 74 49 23 13 16 Rownhams 90 65 39 29 16

Table 7

Travel Time in Minutes

Motorway Service

Area

South South Mimms Cobham Fleet PROPOSED MSA Winchester Rownhams

South Mimms 42 49 59 71 87 Cobham 44 25 35 47 63 Fleet 51 26 10 23 38 PROPOSED MSA 61 36 10 13 28 Winchester 75 49 23 13 16 Rownhams 91 66 39 29 16

3.14 Both Tables 6 & 7 indicate that the separation between the two MSAs of Fleet, and Winchester are within the Government’s maximum distance (28 Miles) between MSAs and recommended maximum drive time (30 Minutes).

3.15 With increasing congestion on the M3 motorway in the future the likelihood is that drive times on average will increase beyond the recommended maximum 30 minutes given that reliability on the motorway network at present is 80% overall whilst on the M3 it is currently slightly higher than the national average.

Planned Travel Time

3.16 The DfT Statistical Release of 18 May 2017 confirms that the Reliability of the Strategic Road Network requires 68% additional travel time to be added for a planned journey compared to free flow. Therefore, if a free flow journey is 100% of the time, a planned journey on average takes 168% of the free flow time (this measure of Reliability is calculated using the Planning Time Index).

3.17 This can be applied to the motorway links between existing MSAs as shown in Table 8 below. This shows that the planned travel time between Fleet and Winchester MSAs is 10% greater than the 30-minute maximum recommended by the Government.

Table 8

Planned Reliability Time in Minutes

Motorway Service

Area

South South Mimms Cobham Fleet PROPOSED MSA Winchester Rownhams

South Mimms 63 74 88 106 129 Cobham 63 37 52 71 94 Fleet 74 37 14 33 56 PROPOSED MSA 88 52 14 19 42 Winchester 106 71 33 19 23 Rownhams 129 94 56 42 23

Conclusion

3.19 Circular 02/2013 provides a clear policy basis to increase the provision of MSAs on the strategic motorway network for safety and welfare reasons. There is no policy requirement to prove “need”, nor a minimum distance between MSAs. Notwithstanding that there is no requirement to prove need, there is a specific strategic gap in the motorway network between the MSAs at Fleet and Winchester which indicates an infill MSA would be appropriate. This will serve the A303 strategic route as well as the M3. The closest services on the A303 of any size is Solstice Park, Amesbury, which has a number of fast food outlets and a hotel but has only 7 HGV spaces and no coach, caravan or exceptional load spaces. This lies some 43 miles from Fleet Services. Solstice Park is on a strategic route but would not meet the minimum requirements for an MSA even if it were on a motorway. The closest MSA to Fleet using the A3030 is Exeter MSA on the M5 some 131 miles distant.

3.20 It is clear that there is a justification for the new MSA based on the safety and welfare needs of motorists.

4.0 The Appropriate Location for a New MSA

4.1 This Chapter of the ASA deals with the appropriate location for a new MSA. There is a specific strategic gap in the motorway network on the M3 between Fleet and Winchester which indicates an infill MSA would be appropriate. The Government’s original intention was that a further MSA would be provided north-east of Junction 7 but this was not taken forward and is now no longer technically possible.

Circular 02/2013

4.2 DfT Circular 02/2013 Annex B sets out the process for identifying an appropriate location for a new MSA. Paragraphs B13-B15 state:

“B13. 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.

B14. 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.

B15. However, in circumstances where an on-line service area cannot be delivered due to planning, safety, operational or environmental constraints, a site sharing a common boundary with the highway at a junction with the strategic road network is to be preferred to the continued absence of facilities”.

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (“DMRB”)

4.3 The DMRB at paragraph 2.54 of TD22/06 advises that:

“The merge and diverge layout design and junction spacing parameters in this standard apply to MSAs”.

4.4 On the basis of the design standards, and practical considerations concerning signage, new slip roads are unlikely to be acceptable within 3 kms, and impractical within 2 kms of an existing junction.

National Planning Policy Framework (“Framework”) and Planning Practice Guidance (“PPG”)

4.5 Circular 02/2013 states at paragraph B9 that:

“new and existing roadside facilities are subject to the provisions of relevant planning legislation and regulation, which together set the framework within which local planning authorities would consider the planning proposals for such developments”.

4.6 The Framework was published in March 2012 and sets the basis of national planning policy. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 at Section 38(6) establishes a presumption in favour of development unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Framework is one such policy material consideration such that if the Development Plan is not up to date the polices in the Framework can be regarded as the basis to determine planning applications. The PPG is the Government’s online practice guidance and provides greater detail in respect of the application of national planning policy and is also a material consideration in planning decisions. The Framework provides a presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 14) which comprises the social, environmental, and economic dimensions of development.

4.7 In terms of transport policy local planning authorities are encouraged to work with one another 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 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” (underlining for emphasis)

4.8 From this policy it is clear that LPAs should be providing strategies to support viable infrastructure for MSAs on the motorway.

4.9 The Government’s online PPG requires Local Planning Authorities when developing local plans for their area to have regard to the Strategic Road Network. The assessment of accidents and safety is to be informed by national statistics (paragraph 009 – Transport Evidence Bases in Plan Making and Decision Taking). Paragraph 011 specifically refers to the provisions required under Circular 02/2013.

Other Locational Factors

4.10 Local planning policies and land use designations then need to be considered in terms of the choice of a “location” for a new MSA. The most important designation in respect of a new MSA along the M3 motorway is Green Belt. New development in the Green Belt is inappropriate and needs “very special circumstances” to justify new development. Other planning polices and designations may be relevant in the consideration.

4.11 Other locational factors influencing choice of location would include the topography of the site, the ability to achieve access, heritage matters, infrastructure, and flooding. This is not an exhaustive list but indicates the multitude of factors that inform the choice of site.

5.0 Commercial Justification

5.1 The provision of MSAs is an important commercial investment requiring consideration of many factors informing both risk and return. The Government’s approach to require highway safety on motorways through private sector development inherently reflects commercial risk. To inform such risk is the need to establish the surrounding spatial framework for MSA provision, the passing volumes of traffic, the types of traffic including HGVs, coaches, and motorbikes, the likely “turn in” rate off the motorway, the convenience of the site’s location in terms of accessibility; and the availability of a local workforce. This is a reflection of common criteria for site development.

5.2 To the east is Fleet MSA which is operated by Welcome Break. To the south-west is Winchester MSA operated by Moto. These existing sites are around 23 miles apart.

5.3 Although the Government does not seek to prescribe a minimum distance between MSAs there is advice in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges that sites cannot be within 2 kilometres of another junction e.g. MSA slip road. In practice, such a short distance would simply be duplicating the role of an existing MSA. Logically a new infill MSA should be located broadly equidistant between existing facilities.

5.3 The closer to an existing MSA the greater the propensity for duplication rather than meeting the needs of the motorist on that section of the motorway. Each location will have its own distinctive characteristics of the location and motorways served and therefore it is impossible to state what the minimum separation should be in commercial terms but it is unlikely to be less than ten miles.

Availability of Suitable Sites

5.4 The process of site selection follows from the commercial judgement to include the size of site required to meet the signing requirements of DfT, the availability of a site whether at an “on-line” or junction location, and the characteristics of the land in terms of topography and suitability, the commercial viability of the development assuming a willing seller and other considerations such as planning policy, land designations and other material considerations.

6.0 Identifying a Location for an MSA

6.1 The area for the search for a new MSA on the M3 should be firstly on commercial viability where no new MSA should generally be within 10 miles of another. This distance could be slightly less in particular circumstances. This leaves a central section of around 2-3 miles, preferably mid-distance from other MSAs for a new service area. This would be subject to a sensitivity analysis where a site might be suitable but be slightly closer to one MSA and slightly further from another but where other locational factors were weighing in support of a particular site.

6.2 The motorway network between the closest MSAs permits only certain traffic movements as set out in the Transport Assessment. These are important factors assisting in the determination of a suitable for a new MSA:

▪ The A303 is not a motorway so a location on the A303 would not meet the safety and welfare needs of motorists as it could not be signed from the motorway. However, it is an important trunk road on the strategic network with limited services at Popham; ▪ A trip from the A303 eastbound cannot join the southbound M3 motorway and vice versa. ▪ It is not possible to locate a new MSA at the junction of the A303 with the M3 (Junction 8).

Online Site Locations

6.3 The DfT’s preference is for an online site between junctions (Circular 02/2013 Para B13) as these are considered more accessible to road users. However, junction sites are acceptable. The Circular leaves it to the operator to determine the distance between MSAs based on the potential usage of the MSA. There is no set minimum distance but the maximum is 28 miles or 30 minutes’ travel time.

6.4 For commercial reasons an MSA is very unlikely to be closer than 10 miles to another MSA because of viability reasons. Given the distances to the nearest MSA facilities the optimum location would be mid-distance at around 11 miles. This reflects the desired separation for commercial viability reasons between MSAs. This places the location potentially around Junction 6 of the M3.

Junction 5 to Junction 6 of the M3

6.5 The distance between Junctions 5 and Junction 6 on the M3 is 5.35 kilometres between the ends of the slip road tapers from the Junctions. Weaving is a safety issue and therefore any design needs to allow for a minimum of 3kms from the ends of the tapers of successive merges and diverges. Accordingly, an online MSA is not possible on this section of the M3. Notwithstanding this, there are five overbridges and substantial forested areas which pose significant planning and engineering issues for any online MSA.

Junction 6 to Junction 7 of the M3

6.6 The distance between the tapers at Junction 6 and Junction 7 is 6.60kms westbound and 6.47 kms eastbound. The minimum distance to avoid creating a weaving section and accommodating the slip roads for an MSA is 6.7kms on the basis the site is exactly equidistant between junctions. Subject to the level of traffic movements, it may be possible to accommodate the weaving movements within the available carriageway provision, however, at least two and possibly four weaving sections will be created which have safety implications. In fact, the redevelopment of the eastbound site for housing has ruled out a twin-sided site, so the issue of weaving is academic for the eastbound carriageway.

6.7 In the westbound direction the site of the historic MSA has been pursued by Applegreen for a one-direction MSA. This has been the subject to two EIA screening opinions from the Council. The latter one (BDBC Reference 17/01323/ENSC) proposes an extended slip road arrangement so as to place the point of the merge a minimum of 2kms from the diverge to Junction 7 to avoid conflict with the minimum distance between junctions. This site at Hatch Warren is known as “Kennel Farm”. An initial layout included alternative access and egress arrangements and omitted an “abnormal load” parking area. There is no information available on the altered proposals. The initial illustrative plan indicated a cramped site for the levels of parking required for compliance with Circular 02/2013.

6.8 Although on the face of it this site might offer potential it does not however meet the needs of northbound motorists and so a second MSA would be required to serve this traffic. There is no available site or land for an MSA between Junctions 6 and 7 of the M3.

Junction 7 to the A303

6.9 The weaving distance between Junctions 7 and the A303/M3 interchange is around 0.5 kilometres in the westbound direction and around 1.1kms in the eastbound direction, complicated by the lane drop and lane gain respectively. Weaving is a safety issue and therefore any design needs to allow for a minimum of 3kms from the ends of the tapers of successive merges and diverges. Accordingly, an online MSA is not possible on this section of the M3.

A303 to Winchester MSA

6.10 Winchester MSA lies just 7 miles (11 kms) from the A303/M3 interchange. Any online facility in this section of the motorway would not serve the A303 strategic route and be too close to Winchester MSA to provide a commercially viable MSA. The A33 runs parallel with the M3 for a long distance on the north-west side of this section and poses a significant barrier to the development on an MSA.

Conclusion to Online Locations

6.11 A first high-level assessment has found no on-line sites suitable to meet the need for an MSA on this Section of the M3 save for a site proposed by Applegreen to serve only southbound travellers. The Applegreen site has the benefit of an EIA scoping assessment by the Council that confirms an EIA is not required. There are no details of the proposal. Therefore, it is not possible to establish whether a site can be created of sufficient size at this location to meet the requirements of Circular 02/2013.

Junction Site Locations

6.12 The M3 motorway intersects with the M25 at Junction 12. On the southern sections of the M25 lie Cobham and Clacket Lane MSAs. Fleet MSA is located just south of Junction 4a of the M3. Winchester MSA lies south of the A303/M3 interchange (Junction 8). The section of the M3 between Junction 5 and the A303/M3 interchange needs to be considered in respect of a possible junction location for a new MSA. Therefore, an MSA must be located within this section of the M3 between Junctions 5 and 7 and the A303/M3 interchange. Logically a new MSA should be located mid-point between Winchester and Fleet MSAs. This suggests a location around Junction 6.

Junction 5

6.13 Junction 5 of the M3 lies 4.7 miles (7.6kms) from Fleet MSA. A new MSA at Junction 5 would be too close commercially to be viable.

Junction 7

6.14 Junction 7 of the M3 lies just 8.1 miles (13kms) from Winchester MSA and is too close commercially for operators. It lies on the outer edge of the urban area of Basingstoke. The junction has four quadrants. Dummer Golf Club currently occupies the south-east quadrant. The north-east quadrant is occupied by Highways England’s Dummer Depot and woodland with the Basingstoke Golf Club adjoining to the north.

6.15 To the south-west is an area of agricultural land to the north of Dummer village whilst to the north-west is agricultural land between the A33 and M3 at Oakdown Farm. Both sites could potentially accommodate an MSA and so a comparative analysis has been undertaken with Junction 6 of the M3.

A303/M3 Interchange (Junction 8)

6.16 The A303/M3 interchange is in effect a point where the two roads diverge. There is no road configuration that serves A303 north to M3 south or vice versa. Therefore, the interchange is not an all movements junction. There are no sites available that would serve all the existing movements from and to the A303.

Conclusion of Junction Sites

6.17 Both Junctions 5 & 7 are too close to Fleet and Winchester MSAs respectively to be commercially viable. Notwithstanding this, there are technical problems with the M3/A303 junction (Junction 8) that prohibits an MSA serving all traffic movements.

6.18 Therefore, the nearest junction site to serve traffic from the south would be Junction 6. This is considered to be the preferred location. However, a comparative assessment with the two sites at Junction 7 has been undertaken.

7.0 Site Selection – Potential Sites

7.1 The provisional assessment confirmed Junction 6 would be the preferable location for a new MSA. However, there is one opportunity for an online MSA on the relevant section of the M6 close to Junction 7 and two junction sites also at Junction 7. A detailed assessment of each is carried out below.

Potential Site – Online East of junction 7

7.2 An online location between Junction 6 and Junction 7 of the M3 would not serve those wishing to use an MSA travelling east from the M3 or the A303 toward the M25. This is because the eastbound section of the M3 has been developed on the northside for housing and commercial development as part of the urban area of Basingstoke.

7.3 In the westbound direction the site of the historic MSA has been pursued by Applegreen for a one-direction MSA. This has been the subject of two EIA screening opinions from the Council. The latter one (BDBC Reference 17/01323/ENSC) proposes an extended slip road arrangement so as to place the point of the merge a minimum of 2kms from the diverge to Junction 7 to avoid conflict with the minimum distance between junctions. This site at Hatch Warren is known as “Kennel Farm”. An initial sketch layout included alternative access and egress arrangements and omitted an “abnormal load” parking area. There is no information available on the altered proposals. The initial illustrative plan indicated a cramped site and it is not clear that the site can provide the levels of parking required for compliance with Circular 02/2013.

7.4 Although on the face of it this site might offer potential it does not however meet the needs of northbound motorists and so a second MSA would be required to serve this traffic. There is no available site or land for an MSA between Junctions 6 and 7 of the M3 on the northbound side of the motorway.

7.5 The site at Kennel Farm is highly visible in the landscape from the south. This is particularly true for the new location for the proposed ingress and egress to the motorway. There would be significant earthworks involved to create a new access at this location. The land is Grade 3 agricultural land.

7.6 The land east of Kennel Farm could include an MSA serving the southbound traffic only. This land is open and the development would be highly visible from the south. The land available is limited by Woods Lane and the underpass under the M3. Therefore, an MSA could be located slightly further east but this would take development closer to the village of Cliddesden.

7.4 This section of the M3 is technically constrained and can only serve southbound traffic. It is less preferred as a location for a new MSA.

Potential Site – Site north west quadrant of Junction 7

7.5 A potential site exists in the north-west quadrant of Junction 7. This would be defined by the A30 Winchester Road which connects to the junction and the A30 to the north close to Ganderdown Copse. This would require the removal of Oakdown Farm and its farm building complex.

NW Quadrant of Junction 7

7.6 The site falls within open countryside and is highly visible from the surrounding countryside. To the north of the site east of Ganderdown Copse is the Hounsome Fields Housing Allocation (Adopted Local Plan Policy SS3.12) which would place residential development close to the potential MSA.

7.7 The site lies just 8.1 miles from Winchester and would not be commercially viable. The site lies close to the A303/M3 interchange and the weaving distance will be an issue.

Potential Site – Site south west quadrant of Junction 7

7.8 A potential site exists in the south-west quadrant of Junction 7. This would be defined by the M3 to the north and Glebe Close to the east. The site lies opposite the Dummer Golf Club and just north of Dummer village. The land is in agricultural use.

SW Quadrant of Junction 7

7.9 The site is highly visible in the landscape. The land immediately south and north of Dummer is a ground water protection area. Dummer itself has a conservation area. Therefore, the site would potentially have an impact on environmental and heritage asset considerations. The site lies close to the A303/M3 interchange and the weaving distance will be an issue.

Potential Site – Site of Junction 6

7.10 This is the applicant’s preferred site. It lies approximately equidistant between Fleet MSA and Winchester MSA and serves the traffic on the A303 strategic route. It serves both sides of the motorway. The junction has the potential to introduce a new access off the roundabout to the south. The land is in agricultural use. There are no heritage or environmental impacts. The site is not visible as it is contained by Oaken Plantation to the east and the tree lined boundaries to Dickens Lane to the south.

7.11 The proposed site benefits from direct access to and from the M3 motorway. It functions as an “online” MSA site on the motorway as the roundabout and section of road to Black Dam are subject to motorway regulations. Therefore, it is not a traditional junction site access but can be classified as an online hybrid access to the MSA site.

Potential MSA site J6 of M3

8.0 Conclusion

8.1 The private sector is required to provide improvements to the motorway network in terms of safety and welfare for motorists through the provision of MSAs at appropriate locations.

8.2 Government advice is that motorists should stop for 15 minutes every two hours for a break and rest. Commercial drivers are subject to a statutory regime of breaks and working times. There is substantial evidence that driver fatigue causes accidents on the motorway. Moto’s customer survey clearly indicates that motorists are stopping at MSAs having travelled for less time and distance than Government Guidance suggests reflecting the congested nature of the strategic road network.

8.3 A suitable infill location has been identified in compliance with the requirements of DfT Circular 02/2013. There is a compelling safety and welfare case for a new MSA.

8.4 This Alternative Sites Assessment has found no other suitable site for an MSA to serve the motorway in both directions other than the preferred site at Junction 6 of the M3. Moto proposes to invest in a new MSA in the land south of Junction 6 to provide a suitable location for the safety and welfare of motorway users. This location is located ideally to serve not only those on the M3 but also those on the A303.

8.5 The site is roughly mid-way between Fleet MSA and Winchester MSA. The new MSA would importantly serve the A303. There are limited trunk road services on the A303, but these do not provide the level of facilitates, particularly opening hours and HGV parking, as required for fully signed services.

8.5 Both travel times and distances suggest an infill MSA at Junction 6 is appropriate. The site is the best location that can serve the established need for an MSA in this gap on the strategic road network. The TA confirms the site can be accessed safely and without adverse impact on the highway network.

8.6 An MSA at Junction 6 will meet the investment objectives of Moto in terms of suitability of location to serve motorway users.