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.