APP/2
VALE OF YORK MSA
APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION TO REFUSE AN OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR A PROPOSED MOTORWAY SERVICE AREA (MSA) BETWEEN JUNCTIONS 48 AND 49 ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE A1(M) WITH VEHICULAR OVERBRIDGE TO AND FROM SOUTHBOUND CARRIAGEWAY AND PARTIAL DIVERSION OF THE A168, INCLUDING ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE AND STAFF ACCESS FROM B6265 – ON / AROUND LAND COMPRISING OS FIELD 3300, MARTON LE MOOR, NORTH YORKSHIRE
LPA REF: 18/00123/EIAMAJ PINS REF: APP/E2734/W/20/3245778
PLANNING POLICY AND NEED / BENEFITS
APPENDICES
PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF NICK ROBERTS
May 2020
Page 1 APPENDICES CONTENTS LIST
Appendix A Advice Notes prepared by Martin Kingston QC / Satnam Choongh in respect of Circular 02/2013 and Need Appendix B Verification Exercise to Establish the Accuracy of the ‘Path’ Measuring Tool in Google Earth Pro Appendix C Images of Distances Measured for Proof Table 3.2 Appendix D On-line versus Off-line MSA Turn-in Rates Appendix E Secretary of State Multi-MSA Decision Letter of 6th October 2005 (M25 / M40) Appendix F Google Earth Images of Leeming Bar Services Over Time Appendix G Highways England Confirmation that Leeming Bar is a MRA and the Appeal Proposal is an On-line MSA Appendix H Measured Distances to / from the Appeal Proposal from Junctions 48 and 49 Appendix I Evaluation of Other Matters Raised by Third Parties
Page 2
Appendix A Advice Notes prepared by Martin Kingston QC / Satnam Choongh in respect of Circular 02/2013 and Need
Page 3 IN THE MATTER OF:
SHEFFIELD MOTORWAY SERVICE AREA JUNCTION 35 OF THE M1
______
ADVICE NOTE
______
Counsel: Martin Kingston QC Satnam Choongh
YOUR REF: BIR.4054
BIR.4054.SM.Oct 2014 1
Page 4 IN THE MATTER OF:
SHEFFIELD MOTORWAY SERVICE AREA JUNCTION 35 OF THE M1
______
ADVICE NOTE
______
1. Extra Motorway Service Area Group (“Extra”) has submitted an outline application to Sheffield City Council for the erection of a Motorway Service Area (“MSA”) at junction 35 of the M1 Motorway. The proposal is for an off-line MSA comprising amenity building, hotel and fuel filling station, together with car, coach, caravan and HGV parking. The proposals are fully compliant with the minimum requirements for an MSA as set out in Table B1 of Annex B to Department of Transport Circular 02/2013.
2. The site is located within the Rotherham/Sheffield Green Belt and is within an area designated Ancient Woodland. There has been opposition to the proposals from, amongst others, a local residents group, the Woodland Trust and the operators of other MSAs on this stretch of the Motorway Network. One of the issues raised has been whether there is a need for an MSA on this stretch of the M1.
BIR.4054.SM.Oct 2014 2
Page 5
3. We are asked to advise on how the question of whether or not there is a “need” for an MSA should be resolved, not by reference to this particular proposal or this particular stretch of the M1, but generally.
4. The method for establishing a need for an MSA has been simplified considerably by the publication last year of DfT Circular 02/2013. This Circular, which replaces DfT Circular 01/2008, and the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”) are the only documents to which reference is necessary to establish what the test is for demonstrating need.
5. The starting point is paragraph 31 of the Framework. This provides that “The primary function of roadside facilities for motorists should be to support the safety and welfare of the road user.” It is clear from this that the purpose of an MSA is to ensure the safety of drivers on the strategic road network. This point is reinforced in Annex B of the Circular, which states at paragraph 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 2 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.”
6. 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 realized by giving drivers the opportunity to stop and take a break every two hours: “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.”
BIR.4054.SM.Oct 2014 3
Page 6 7. The requirement, or “need”, to ensure driver safety through the provision of an MSA at intervals of approximately half an hour leads directly to the recommendation of the Highways Agency that they should not be a gap of more than 28 miles between MSAs (at B6):
“The Highways Agency therefore recommends that the maximum distance between motorway service areas should be no more than 28 miles. The distance between services can be shorter, but to protect the 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” (emphasis added).
8. 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 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):
“The distances set out above are considered appropriate for to (sic) all parts of the strategic road network and to be in the interests of and for the benefit of all road users regardless of traffic flows or choice. In determining applications for new or improved sites, local planning authorities should not need to consider the merits of the spacing of site 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.”
9. Unlike in previous Government policy, the new Circular is clear that once a gap of more than 28 miles has been identified, the need for an MSA will be established (i.e the absence of an MSA in such a situation frustrates the Government’s objective of supporting the safety and welfare of the road user). The local planning authority in such a situation should not concern itself with the merits of spacing beyond asking itself whether (a) the proposed MSA will help ensure that the maximum distance of 28 miles is not breached, and (b) that the new facility will not breach the requirements set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. For the
BIR.4054.SM.Oct 2014 4
Page 7 purposes of applying the policy on “need” as set out in the Circular, it is not permissible to take a graduated approach to need by reference to the number of drivers using a particular stretch of the strategic road network or any other considerations such as route choice or the nature of the journeys. The existence of the requisite gap is conclusive evidence of need.
10. We have addressed the matters raised in our Instructions. If additional matters arise we would be pleased to assist further.
MARTIN KINGSTON QC SATNAM CHOONGH
Number 5 Chambers
Birmingham-London-Bristol
1 OCTOBER 2014
BIR.4054.SM.Oct 2014 5
Page 8 IN THE MATTER OF:
SHEFFIELD MOTORWAY SERVICE AREA JUNCTION 35 OF THE M1
______
ADVICE NOTE 2 ______
1. This Advice Note is further to that dated 1 October 2014 and should be read in conjunction with it.
2. In response to that Advice Note, we have been provided with an opinion by Peter Dixon of Counsel and a letter of objection on behalf of Welcome Break Holdings Ltd (“Welcome Break”) by Smith Jenkins Planning Consultants (“SJPC”), both dated 21 December 2015. Welcome Break operate the MSA at Woodall located between Junctions 30 and 31 of the M1 Motorway.
3. We have been asked to provide our opinion on the manner in which both Mr Dixon and SJPC have sought to interpret the “need” test as set out in DfT Circular 02/2013.
4. We note that at paragraph 14 of his Advice Mr Dixon agrees with our Advice Note that the Government’s objective of ensuring the safety and welfare of road users as set out at para. 31 of the NPPF is not realised if the maximum spacing between MSAs of 28 miles is exceeded. He also agrees a gap greater than this should be taken to indicate that a need for a further MSA exists in order to contribute to the Government’s policy. Moreover, at paragraph 15 he agrees that a gap of more than 28 miles is conclusive evidence that the
Page 9 Government’s policy preference is not being achieved (in fact, the Circular places emphasis on the maximum 30 minute travelling time rather than distance, which on busy motorways can equate to a distance shorter than 28 miles). Finally, and importantly, we observe that at para.20 he further agrees with the applicant’s agents that the “need” for development is one of the factors which alone or in combination with other factors has the potential to outweigh the adverse consequences of the development.
5. Beyond that Mr Dixon is keen to emphasise that the existence of this need does not obviate the requirement to have regard to all material considerations, and that (subject to any legal or express policy indicating otherwise) the weight to be attached to any given material consideration is a matter for the judgment of the decision-maker. We respectfully agree with Mr Dixon as regards these observations.
6. However, where we disagree with Mr Dixon is the implication at paragraphs 22 and 23 of his Advice that “need” is in some way a graduated concept (i.e that the weight to be attached to “need” depends upon the level of need). Whilst never made express, this idea of a scale of “need” appears to lie at the base of Mr Dixon’s suggestion in the middle of his para. 22 that the level of need in this case is lessened because “little traffic navigates” these gaps and because the economic benefits of the proposals have been overstated by the applicant.
7. The argument is made more express in the letter of objection from SJPC. In the first bullet point on page 3 it is suggested that the weight to be given to need in this case should depend upon the level of contribution made by the proposal to meeting the “DfT’s stated policy preference”; in the third bullet point it is asserted that the level of weight should have regard to the level of traffic travelling in the two gaps; in the penultimate bullet point a distinction is drawn between “policy” need and what is termed by SJPC as “actual need”.
8. This type of reasoning is flawed:
Page 10 a. The starting point is the now agreed position that a “need” (in the terms defined within the Circular) exists for an MSA at this location. b. The local planning authority must have regard to that need as a material consideration. c. The weight to be attached to this one material consideration in the overall balancing exercise is a matter for the planning judgement of the LPA (although we would submit that the safety and welfare of road users should reasonably be accorded substantial weight, especially where that consideration is endorsed in the Government’s key policy advice relating to the motorway network). d. Although the level of weight to be accorded to the “need” for the development is for the judgement of the planning authority, in exercising that judgement the LPA must not have regard to immaterial considerations. Considerations that are immaterial to “need” (and therefore the weight to be attached to “need”) are the levels of traffic using the motorway in these “gaps” and the economic benefits of the development. e. This is so because the approach adopted in the Circular to establishing “need” is unaffected by these considerations. The economic benefits of the development (at whatever level) have no bearing on whether the safety and welfare of motorway users would be advanced by the provision of an MSA. The level of traffic using the motorway between any given gap or gaps is expressly stated in the Circular to be not material to the issue of need (Circular para. B8 “The distances set out above are considered appropriate for to (sic) all parts of the strategic road network and to be in the interests of and for the benefit of all road users regardless of traffic flows or choice.”
Page 11 9. By way of summary, Mr Dixon and SJPC fall into error by seeking to undermine the weight to be attached to need by relying upon factors that are either irrelevant to the question of need (e.g economic benefits) or which have already been considered by the policy-maker (DfT) in deciding what the maximum gap should be (e.g traffic levels and driver choice). In the present case there is no dispute between the parties that the gap on this section of the M1 and M18 Motorway Network substantially exceeds the maximum stipulated in the Circular, whether that is measured by distance (28 miles) or time travelled (30 minutes).
10. We have addressed the matters raised in our Instructions. If additional matters arise we would be pleased to assist further.
MARTIN KINGSTON QC SATNAM CHOONGH Number 5 Chambers Birmingham-London-Bristol
24 JANUARY 2016
Page 12 IN THE MATTER OF:
SHEFFIELD MOTORWAY SERVICE AREA JUNCTION 35 OF THE M1
______
ADVICE NOTE ______
Counsel: Martin Kingston QC Satnam Choongh
YOUR REF: BIR.4054
PEGASUS GROUP 5 THE PRIORY OLD LONDON ROAD CANWELL SUTTON COLDFIELD B75 5SH TEL: 0121 308 9570
E-MAIL: [email protected]
Page 13
Appendix B Verification Exercise to Establish the Accuracy of the ‘Path’ Measuring Tool in Google Earth Pro
Page 14
APPENDIX B: VERIFICATION EXERCISE TO ESTABLISH THE ACCURACY OF THE PATH MEASURING TOOL IN GOOGLE EARTH PRO
1. This note looks to verify the accuracy of the path measuring tool in Google Earth Pro. It has involved measuring distances using the measuring tool against a number of known ‘verified’ distance on the A1(M). The verified distances have been established in 2 ways: From a georeferenced chainage drawing. From those provided in a Core Document (CD) used in the conjoined MSA inquiry resulting in the 2012 decision.
2. Aecom provided AXIS with a georeferenced chainage drawing (in DWG format), covering a section of the A1(M) between Leeming Bar and Barton, from Grid Reference SE 22538 98913 to SE 25251 95479. The chainage length, based upon the chainage values and measured in AutoCAD, is 4,500 metres (m).
3. The georeferenced chainage was uploaded into Google Earth. The measurement tool in Google Earth was then used to measure along the chainage. The chainage was measured as 4,501.56m in Google Earth (see Figure 1 below).
Figure 1 Google Earth Chainage Measurement
Key
Chainage
Key
Chainage Measurement
1 Page 15
4. The difference between the measurement of the chainage in AutoCAD, compared to the measurement on Google Earth, is just 1.56m. This is a percentage difference of just 0.035%, which is not considered to be significant.
5. The second verification exercise involved CD8.37 (see Annex 1) which was a document jointly produced by the Highways Agency and North Yorkshire County Council, as Local Highway Authority, for the public inquiry resulting in the 2012 decision.
6. CD8.37 contains a large number of distances measured by a Brantz Lazer Precision Odometer’ fitted to a survey car. Unfortunately, it does include the distances ultimately determined by the first Inspector and Secretary of State to be the key or ‘tipping point’ distances.
7. CD8.37 contains no imagery showing the start and end points of the measured lengths, instead relying on descriptive text. For the purposes of the verification exercise we have selected two measured distances where the start and finish points appear clear. These are shown in Table 1 below.
8. Table 1 partially replicates Table DM-3 contained within CD8.37 (Annex 1), and identifies the distances measured using the Brantz Lazer Precision Odometer from Junction 46 (Wetherby Services) to Junction 48 (Boroughbridge) and the A61 overbridge. The table also includes the distances measured by AXIS using Google Earth Pro.
Table 1 – Distance Verification Data (2010) vs Google Earth Pro Measurements
Extract from Table DM-3 of CD8.37 (see Annex 1) Google Earth Pro Difference (Average of 3 Average of 2 Average of 3 Measurements Readings vs Google Earth Pro) Readings Readings Distance (Distance Distance (Distance Distance (Distance Distance (Distance % Diff in m in miles) in m in miles) in m in miles) in m in miles) From Junction 46 Wetherby Underneath the Southern parapet wing wall of the Southern Structure of the Grade Separated Junction Services To To centre Junction 48 line of 15,919 (9.892) 15,920 (9.892) 15,929 (9.898) +9 +0.006 0.057% Boroughbridge bridge piers A61 27,850 (17.305) 27,853 (17.307) 27,880 (17.324) +27 +0.017 0.097% Overbridge
9. As identified above, the measurement tool in Google Earth Pro was used to measure the same two sections of motorway (See Annex 2). Junction 46 (Wetherby Services) to Junction 48 (Boroughbridge) was measured as 15,929m (9.898 miles), and Junction 46 (Wetherby Services) to the A61 overbridge was measured as 27,880m (17.324 miles). This equates to percentage differences of just 0.057% and 0.097%, respectively, between
2 Page 16
the distances identified within Table DM-3 of CD8.37 (see Annex 1) and the distances obtained using Google Earth Pro. These differences are considered to be insignificant.
10. As such, it can be concluded that for the relevant purposes for this Inquiry, Google Earth Pro provides a sufficiently accurate tool for measuring distances along the highway between existing services and the Appeal Proposal.
3 Page 17
ANNEX 1
4 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28
ANNEX 2
5 Page 29
SCREENSHOTS OF GOOGLE EARTH PRO MEASUREMENTS
To Junction 48 Boroughbridge
6 Page 30
To A61 Overbridge
7 Page 31
Appendix C Images of Distances Measured for Proof Table 3.2
Page 32 Ref 1 – Wetherby MSA to Durham MSA
Page 33 Ref 2 – Wetherby MSA to Leeming Bar MRA
Page 34 Ref 3 – Wetherby MSA to Scotch Corner MRA
Page 35 Ref 4 – Wetherby MSA to Coneygarth Truckstop
Page 36 Ref 5 - Wetherby MSA to Excelby Truckstop A19 North
Page 37 Ref 6 - Excelby Truckstop A19 South to Wetherby MSA
Page 38 Ref 7 - Wetherby MSA to Shell Thirsk A168 North
Page 39 Ref 8 - Malthurst Thirsk A168 South to Wetherby MSA
Page 40 Ref 9 - Wetherby MSA to proposed Vale of York MSA
Page 41 Ref 10 - Leeming Bar MRA to proposed Vale of York MSA
Page 42 Ref 11 - A1(M) junction 51 to Leeming Bar MRA (Start of southbound diverge slip to centre of car park)
Page 43
Ref 12 - A1(M) junction 51 to Leeming Bar MRA (End of motorway (end of northbound off-slip) to centre of car park)
Page 44
Appendix D On-line versus Off-line MSA Turn-in Rates
Page 45 From: Eugene Moore
Nick
Please note that Welcome Break motorist Turn-in Rates (TIR) are commercially confidential. I am however able to provide you with summary results from all our Welcome Break MSA sites (sides of road not locations) below and excluding TRSAs.
On offline (junction) sites we also take into account traffic approaching from the non-motorway cross over routes, which in reality makes the offline TIR lower as it’s a share of the motorway and local road traffic, but this is a legitimate comparison to show local traffic does count in an offline junction congestion issue/available catchment using the MSA
These are figures are from 2018 and thus not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
E
Please don't print this email unless you really need to
Disclaimer This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received the email in error please notify us immediately at info@applegreen.ie do not copy or disclose its contents to any person or body, and delete it from your computer systems. This email and any attached files have been checked for viruses using Norton Antivirus. However, there is no guarantee that the email or attached files are virus free. We accept no liability for any virus transmitted by the email or attached files, or any errors, or omissions in the content of this message which arise as a result of email transmission. Please note that any view as or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company.
Page 46
Appendix E Secretary of State Multi-MSA Decision Letter of 6th October 2005 (M25 / M40)
Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53
Appendix F Google Earth Images of Leeming Bar Services Over Time
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Appendix G Highways England Confirmation that Leeming Bar is a MRA and the Appeal Proposal is an On-line MSA
Page 58 Hannah McGuinness
From: Jessica Lockwood
FYI
From: Roadside Facilities
Hi Jess
I can confirm Leeming Bar is a Motorway Rest Area.
Kind regards
Mandy
Amanda Gavin, Roadside Facilities - Assistant Project Manager Customer Experience Division, Safety Engineering and Standards Highways England | Piccadilly Gate | Store Street | Manchester | M1 2WD Tel: +44 (0) 300 4705200 | Mobile: + 44 (0) 7740417875 Web: www.highwaysengland.co.uk GTN: 0300 470 5200
From: Jessica Lockwood
Thanks Mandy – much appreciated.
Please can you also confirm Leeming Bar is classed as an MRA (Motorway Rest Area)?
Best for now,
Jess
Jessica Lockwood Head of Development
E [email protected] | T +44 (0)1908 299 707 | M +44 (0)7342 947794
Like us: www.facebook.com/welcomebreakservices Follow us: www.twitter.com/welcomebreak 1 Page 59
From: Gavin, Amanda
CAUTION: This email came from outside Welcome Break. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt, contact [email protected]
Hi Jess
Further to your email below. I can confirm that this MSA development would be classed as on ‘online’ MSA as it relates the current DfT 02/2013 policy document.
Kind regards
Mandy
Amanda Gavin, Roadside Facilities - Assistant Project Manager Customer Experience Division, Safety Engineering and Standards Highways England | Piccadilly Gate | Store Street | Manchester | M1 2WD Tel: +44 (0) 300 4705200 | Mobile: + 44 (0) 7740417875 Web: www.highwaysengland.co.uk GTN: 0300 470 5200
From: Jessica Lockwood
2 Page 60
3 Page 61
4 Page 62 5 Page 63
6 Page 64
Hi Mandy,
Further to my VM would you mind giving me a call on the above?
Best for now, Jess
Jessica Lockwood Head of Development
E [email protected] | T +44 (0)1908 299 707 | M +44 (0)7342 947794
Like us: www.facebook.com/welcomebreakservices Follow us: www.twitter.com/welcomebreak
Welcome Break Holdings Ltd 2 Vantage Court, Tickford Street, Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire, MK16 9EZ Registered in England: 3290817 This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. You should not copy it for any purpose or disclose its contents to any other person. If this message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message from 7 Page 65 your computer. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Welcome Break does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message as it has been transmitted over a public network. If you suspect the message may have been intercepted or amended, please call the sender.
This email may contain information which is confidential and is intended only for use of the recipient/s named above. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, distribution, disclosure, reliance upon or other use of the contents of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and destroy it.
Highways England Company Limited | General enquiries: 0300 123 5000 |National Traffic Operations Centre, 3 Ridgeway, Quinton Business Park, Birmingham B32 1AF | https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/highways-england | [email protected]
Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ
Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Welcome Break Holdings Ltd 2 Vantage Court, Tickford Street, Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire, MK16 9EZ Registered in England: 3290817 This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. You should not copy it for any purpose or disclose its contents to any other person. If this message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message from your computer. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Welcome Break does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message as it has been transmitted over a public network. If you suspect the message may have been intercepted or amended, please call the sender.
This email may contain information which is confidential and is intended only for use of the recipient/s named above. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, distribution, disclosure, reliance upon or other use of the contents of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and destroy it.
Highways England Company Limited | General enquiries: 0300 123 5000 |National Traffic Operations Centre, 3 Ridgeway, Quinton Business Park, Birmingham B32 1AF | https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/highways-england | [email protected]
Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ
Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Welcome Break Holdings Ltd 2 Vantage Court, Tickford Street, Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire, MK16 9EZ Registered in England: 3290817 This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. You should not copy it for any purpose or disclose its contents to any other person. If this message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message from your computer. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Welcome Break does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message as it has been transmitted over a public network. If you suspect the message may have been intercepted or amended, please call the sender.
8 Page 66
Appendix H Measured Distances to / from the Appeal Proposal from Junctions 48 and 49
Page 67 Route: Junction 48, to the Vale of York MSA, back to Junction 48
9.62km / 5.97 miles
Page 68 Route: Junction 49, to Vale of York MSA, back to Junction 49 (Via Junction 50)
25.14km / 15.62 miles
Page 69 Route: Junction 49, to Vale of York MSA, back to Junction 49 (Alternative Route via A168)
22.2km / 13.79 miles
Page 70
Appendix I Evaluation of Other Matters Raised by Third Parties
Page 71 Summary of comments in relation to other No. Appellant’s Summary Response matters raised by Interested Parties 1 Abnormal load bays are overly prominent and The abnormal load bays are at the same level as linked by sub-standard footways. the carriageway and are served by an adequate footway to Highways England’s satisfaction.
2 Applicant has said there are better locations. No, they have not.
3 Applicant’s main revenue source is fuel sales not Not relevant to planning. retail.
4 Aquifer supplies surrounding farmland / The soakaways would only handle surface water properties – pollution from soakaways. that has passed through a suitable petrol Unsustainable. interceptor. It would not pollute the aquifer. Please see Keith Emmett’s Written Statement in relation to surface waters and drainage for more information on this matter.
5 Biomass boiler presumed but no chimney shown. A biomass boiler is not proposed.
6 The proposed MSA cannot be fully concealed or It is not the intention to ‘fully conceal’ the MSA integrated; mental stress caused on nearby development. Please refer to Jon Mason’s Proof of residents, harm to well-being. Evidence for details on the approach to landscape design.
With regard to anxiety or mental stress, the UK requires built infrastructure and inevitably delivering such infrastructure will cause a degree of concern locally. However, reported anxiety per se, cannot be a material planning consideration that weighs against the delivery of infrastructure which there is a conclusive need in accordance with Government policy.
7 Conflict with any aircraft use of Dishforth Airfield / There is no such conflict and nothing raised by Linton. consultees to this effect.
8 Contrary to Government Policy, the Local Plan The proposal delivers Government policy, accords and the Districts Economic Growth Strategy. with the relevant policies within the Local Plan and is supported by the Local Economic Development Officer, as identified within Simon Elliot’s Written Statement in relation to economics.
9 Drainage pond will damage the environment. The soakaways would only handle surface water that has passed through a suitable petrol interceptor. It would not damage the environment. For further details, please refer to Keith Emmett’s Written Statement in relation to surface waters and drainage.
10 Effect on house prices. Not relevant to planning.
11 Greed of applicant / owner. Not relevant to planning.
12 Green roof likely to be modified later; technically The green roof forms part of the proposal and HBC difficult to build and maintain – no MSAs exist officers proposed a specific draft condition requiring with full green roofs. its delivery. Numerous buildings in the UK have green roofs including the Gloucester Gateway MSA on the M5 (both north and southbound).
Page 72
13 Harm to air quality from exhausts and cooking, The submitted Environmental Statement includes a especially on Kirby Hill and the village school. section on air quality which concludes: “No unacceptable impacts on human health, amenity or ecological receptors have been identified…” (see Volume 1, Chapter 8, paragraph 8.6.5).
14 Harm wildlife and destroy bio-diversity. Including The submitted Environmental Statement includes a red kites, deer, hedgehogs, nests pheasants, detailed ecological assessment which finds: stoats. “There remains, however, significant scope in matters of detailed design and management to achieve a net biodiversity benefit. This should not be understated, since the location of the Site in an intensively managed arable landscape and in close proximity to a motorway, which currently imposes limitations on potential ecological value ….” (see Volume 1, Chapter 6, paragraph 6.5.3).
“Implementation of the additional mitigation and enhancement described above would ensure there is no net loss of biodiversity interest. Furthermore, the scheme would have a reasonable prospect of achieving a net biodiversity benefit….” (see Volume 1, Chapter 6, paragraph 6.6.2).
15 Housing was refused nearby as an unsustainable The proposed MSA is a fundamentally different type location; the same applies here. of development to housing and parallels about the respective merits of each cannot be drawn.
16 If approved a motel will be applied for. As a matter of fact, the planning application does not include a motel.
17 Increased likelihood of accidents on A1(M); area Government policy is that MSAs contribute towards blighted by dense fog; no access for emergency highway safety on motorways. Highways England services, previous slip roads closed for safety has no concerns about the operation of an MSA reasons. due to fog issues in this location, is fully satisfied with the proposed slip roads and there has been no previous slip roads.
Emergency vehicles can access the MSA both via the A1(M) and the rear staff access off the B6265. 18 Increased traffic and more congestion, on top of The MSA would only serve users of the A1(M). In existing traffic relating to waste transfer station: terms of the rear staff access, this was a - Road network will not cope: requirement for the scheme stipulated by the local - 42 lorry movements each 12 hour day during highway authority (LHA) North Yorkshire County construction, although heavy traffic should have Council. The LHA is satisfied the rear access is been banned already. safe. - Rear access is a safety concern, accident black spot on a fast road. Highways England, with the agreement of the LHA, - Increased traffic is a danger to locals including require that the construction access is not from the school children and elderly at Kirby Hill, drivers motorway and are satisfied that the proposed points still use the village due to Satnavs. of construction access are / will be safe and will not cause unacceptable effects on the local highway network.
Page 73 Please see the Written Statement prepared by Roland Craig in relation to highways, for further information on our response on this matter.
19 A bend in A168 will be necessary. The realigned A168 has been designed to be in full compliance with the relevant highway design standards and is fully acceptable to the LHA (as identified within Roland Craig’s Written Statement).
20 Impact on the surrounding dwellings during The submitted Environmental Statement includes construction. an assessment of the construction phase across a range of disciplines. No unacceptable or significant impacts are predicted.
21 Improved price competition between service This is only one minor facet supporting the need for areas does not outweigh the damage caused. the MSA. Its primary need / justification is to deliver motorist safety and welfare in accordance with Circular 02/2013 (as identified within Section 3.0 of the Planning Proof of Evidence).
22 If needed, it should be elsewhere: e.g. Junction The appeal site represents the optimum location for 50 Baldersby / Brown Field Sites - Dishforth a MSA on this stretch of the A1(M) and is preferable Airfield / Red House Old Little Chef site. to any other proposal in the public domain. It is further noted that any MSA north of junction 49 (including at junction 50) would serve materially less traffic (typically over 22,000 less vehicles per day). It is also noted that Dishforth Airfield cannot be accessed from the motorway due to its proximity to the existing junction 49, from which it cannot be accessed.
23 Inadequate infrastructure; surface water flooding The surface water drainage proposal will manage and sewerage overflows already, and river all surface water on site. There would be no impact flooding in Boroughbridge. of the river in Boroughbridge. Yorkshire Water has confirmed it is satisfied that its infrastructure can meet foul drainage requirements. For further details please see Keith Emmett’s Written Statement in relation to surface waters and drainage.
24 Increased risk of crime. The MSA would be a secure site with no public access to / from the local area other than via the motorway.
25 Increased urbanisation, added to Waste Transfer The Appellant is unclear what the Waste Transfer Station. Proposal is. The MSA sits alongside, and is directly linked to, a busy motorway. It includes an innovative landscape scheme that will mitigate its effects in terms of perceived urbanisation. Further detail of the integration of the MSA in the local landscape is contained within Jon Mason’s Proof of Evidence.
Page 74 26 Lack of bus service. The Appellant is proposing a staff bus service as part of their Travel Plan measures (see paragraph 8.3 of the submitted Travel Plan for full details).
27 Light pollution including from lights on raised The submitted Environmental Statement includes a roadways. lighting assessment (Volume 3, Appendix 4.1). This concludes that the lighting scheme can be developed to ensure compliance with criteria for avoiding obtrusive lighting and ecological protection. Accordingly, it would not give rise to unacceptable light pollution.
28 Many motorists ignore service areas without easy The proposed MSA is an on-line facility and thus slip road access. would be the most accessible MSA on the stretch of the A1(M) from Washington MSA in the north, down to where it becomes the A1 (non-motorway) at junction 34, a length of circa 92 miles.
29 May result in less lorries parked on A168 / in The provision of HGV parking at the MSA would Kirby Hill, but that will continue to avoid parking reduce the number of HGVs that elect to leave the charges. motorway and park overnight on the A168.
30 Need affordable houses instead; use the site for Not relevant to the development applied for. affordable houses.
31 There is no guarantee that the artist’s The planning application was made in Outline. The impressions would be complied with. quality and character of the development is defined in the Design and Access Statement. HBC can control the quality of the final design via the Reserved Matters process and by reference to that document.
32 No justification for the higher levels of illumination BS EN 12464-2:2014 Table 5.6 Fuel filling stations of the HGV and filling station area is provided. – 5.6.2 Entry and exit driveways: dark environment provides the justification for the lighting levels at both filling stations.
33 There is no need. The existing facilities on the A1 There is a clear and demonstrable need for an MSA and A168 / A19 suffice, and fuel is cheaper at in accordance with Circular 02/2013. Please see Morrisons. MSAs overcharge. Section 3.0 of the Planning Proof of Evidence for full details on the need for an MSA.
34 Noise and vibration created including from The submitted Environmental Statement includes a realigned A168 delivery vehicles and starting / noise assessment (see Volume 1, Chapter 9) which slow moving HGVs. concludes that no significant noise or vibration effects would occur and the adoption of appropriate mitigation measures would ensure that the resultant noise levels are within appropriate guidance and standards. In addition, Chapter 9, Volume 6 (2nd Addendum) of the Environmental Statement identifies that the re-alignment of the A168 would not result in any change to these conclusions.
35 Not “inward investment”, the £40-£50m is mainly The case for the MSA is founded upon meeting the road infrastructure; £10m alone being needed by safety and welfare needs of motorists on the the new junction and A168 diversion and total strategic road network. In delivering the MSA, the actually £25-30m. No economic case. Non-local Appellant has identified a number of economic agents and contractors benefits and the scheme is supported by the Local Economic Development Officer in this regard. Please see Simon Elliot’s Written Statement in
Page 75 relation to economics, for further details on this matter.
36 Number of proposed jobs (300) excessive and The Appellant is satisfied that the number of jobs unjustified, 192 more likely. Any will not be filled that would be created is materially correct, as by locals; little local unemployment, no benefit to identified within Simon Elliott’s Written Statement. local economy. The Local Economic Development Officer states these jobs will add to the choice of employment opportunities available to residents.
37 The site is of archaeological interest; remains The submitted Environmental Statement (see have been found, likely course of a Roman Road. Volume 1, Chapter 10) includes an evaluation of archaeological potential supported by geophysical investigation. HBC’s archaeological consultee notes that it is unlikely there will be any very significant remains and is satisfied that sufficient protection is provided by planning conditions.
38 The site is located outside of the development In accordance with national policy, any MSA needs limit. to be contiguous with the motorway or one of its junctions. A MSA is needed (as detailed within Section 3.0 of Nick Roberts Proof of Evidence) and there are no suitable sites within a settlement boundary.
39 Poor boundary treatment. The Appellant’s assessment of landscape and visual effects shows that the scheme design (including landscaping) effectively mitigates against significant effects. The overall approach to design and landscaping is welcomed by HBC’s planning case officer. Further, if the appeal is allowed, HBC will be able to control the final landscaping scheme through the Reserved Matters process. Please see the Proof of Evidence of Jon Mason for further details on this matter.
40 Previous dismissals at appeal should be upheld. The appeal proposal is preferable to previous Baldersby Gate site was preferred by Inspectors. schemes from a planning and environmental perspective. The policy and guidance framework, including that relating to the need for MSAs and where they might be located has shifted subsequent to the previous applications / appeals (most notably Circular 02/2013), such that the appeal proposal should now be allowed. It is further noted that any MSA at junction 50 (the Baldersby Gate site) would serve materially less traffic (typically over 22,000 less vehicles per day).
41 Proximity to farmhouses and Kirby Hill. The submitted Environmental Statement finds that no substantial or significant effects would occur at any sensitive receptors.
42 Proximity to and harm to the setting / long range The submitted Environmental Statement includes a views of heritage assets - Skelton Windmill and heritage assessment (Volume 1, Chapter 10) which Kirby Hill Church. encompasses the potential effects on the setting of these assets. It concludes that: “The Proposed Development would thus constitute a notable alteration to the setting of Skelton Windmill but would not directly affect those elements of the setting which contribute most to the understanding
Page 76 of its cultural value. The magnitude of impact would be medium. The level of effect would be Minor- Moderate and not significant”.
“There would be no visibility of the Proposed Development from the entrance to the church in its south elevation. Views of the Proposed Development in the middle distance would constitute a minor change that alters the wider setting of the church but would not materially affect an observer’s ability to understand, appreciate and experience the church or its value. The magnitude of impact would be low. The level of effect would be Minor and not significant”.
It finds that in both cases the level of harm would be less than substantial. This matter is referenced further in the Main Proof of Nick Roberts.
43 Raised steeply banked dominant roundabouts The Appellant’s assessment of landscape and and slip roads. visual effects shows that the scheme design (including landscaping) effectively mitigates against significant effects. The overall approach to design and landscaping is welcomed by HBC’s planning case officer. Please refer to the Proof of Evidence of Jon Mason for further details on landscape and visual effects.
44 Remoteness of emergency services. The MSA is readily accessible by the emergency services from the A1(M) or, if required, via the rear staff access. 45 Reserved matters will be done by a different This not the situation and the point is not relevant to applicant. planning in any case.
46 Resultant difficulties accessing farm land. The scheme includes access points to all agricultural land affected.
47 Scope for development to the east of the A1(M). The planning application is for a MSA only.
48 The Vale of York MSA should be considered The appeal proposal planning application has been along with the MSA proposal at Baldersby Gate determined, unlike the Ripon MSA planning (also known as the Ripon MSA). application. The appeal proposal will now be considered on its own merits via the appeal process.
49 The single sided MSA now proposed does not The Appellant believes, and it is also accepted by reduce previously identified harm. HBC’s planning case officer, that the location of the MSA facilities on one side of the motorway only, away from the village of Kirby Hill, is a material improvement over previous schemes and assists in mitigating the effects of the MSA.
50 Time needed for any screening to become The landscape scheme is not heavily reliant on established. screen planting and favours maximising screening through the proposed landform. It is acknowledged that such landscape screening will improve over time (as identified within the submitted Environmental Statement and Jon Mason’s Proof of Evidence).
Page 77 51 Tree planting to be appropriately planted in hard If the appeal is allowed, HBC will be able to control landscaped areas – welcome tree and hedge the final landscaping scheme through the Reserved planting being greater than a 1:1 ratio. Matters process.
52 Waste created including spillages and litter. The submitted Environmental Statement includes a Waste Management Strategy (Volume 3, Appendix 4.2). This sets out the measures that will be adopted to management waste and prevent the escape of litter.
53 Water supply inadequate. Yorkshire Water has indicated that water supply infrastructure may need to be reinforced. Please refer to Keith Emmett’s Written Statement for more detail on this matter.
54 Will cause security issues at Dishforth airfield. The MSA would be a secure site with no public access to / from the local area other than via the motorway. The MSA would also be located on the opposite side of the motorway from the airfield. The Appellant cannot see how the MSA scheme might cause security issues at Dishforth Airfield.
55 Will encourage more use of motor vehicles. The MSA would only serve existing motorists on the A1(M). In addition, a Travel Plan, the outline of which has been approved the LHA, will minimise staff trips by car.
56 Will take business away from other MSAs. There is a clear and demonstrable need for a new, additional MSA in accordance with Circular 02/2013 (as identified in Section 3.0 of the Planning Proof of Evidence).
57 Windblown litter will harm livestock. The submitted Environmental Statement includes a Waste Management Strategy (Volume 3, Appendix 4.2). This sets out the measures that will be adopted to management waste and prevent the escape of litter.
58 Working from home, electric cars, increased This is not national policy and the need for MSAs is efficiency and comfort of vehicles, driverless defined in Circular 02/2013. Further the MSA would vehicles and need to reduce carbon emissions provide much need additional EV charging capacity decreases need for / make redundant MSAs. of this stretch of the A1(M).
59 No footpath from Kirby Hill to the site. The scheme includes for the provision of a footpath to Kirby Hill.
60 Odours. There would be no material odour impacts.
61 Realignment of A168 unnecessary, traffic close to Realigned A168 is essential and designed to be in Kirby Hill, fields more difficult to farm, and no full compliance with relevant highway design benefit to local residents. standards and is fully acceptable to LHA (as detailed within Roland Craig’s Written Statement). Full access to fields are provided and the proposal would result in local economic benefits (as identified in Simon Elliott’s Written Statement).
62 Road Safety Audit identified collision risks that Both Highways England and NYCC are satisfied are not mitigated for. Will increase accidents. with the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and associated Designer’s Response. Please refer to Roland
Page 78 Craig’s Written Statement for further details on this matter.
63 Travel Plan unworkable; no public transport. Travel Plans are widely used and effective. A staff bus service proposed as part of Appellant’s Travel Plan measures (see paragraph 8.3 of the Travel Plan for full details).
Page 79