Mr Chris May Our Ref: (A) APP/E2734/A/09/2102196 Marrons (B) APP/G2713/V/09/2108815 1 Meridian South (C) APP/E2734/V/10/2133571 Meridian Business Park (D) APP/E2734/V/10/2133577 Leicester, LE19 1WY (E) APP/G2713/V/10/2133567 Mr David Brocklehurst Wardhadaway Sandgate House 102 Quayside Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 3DX Mr Peter Gleave DPP Apsley House 78 Wellington Street Leeds, LS1 2EQ Mr Christopher Simpkins RPS Suites 55 & 58 Cherry Orchard East Kembrey Park Swindon, SN2 8UQ Mr Jeremy Williams ID Planning Atlas House 31 King Street Leeds, LS1 2HL 16 October 2012 Dear Sirs, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTIONS 77 & 78 MOTORWAY SERVICE AREA (MSA) PROPOSALS ON THE A1(M) AT KIRBY HILL (appeal) and RIPON SERVICES, BALDERSBY GATE & MOTEL LEEMING (call-ins), along with TRUCKSTOP PROPOSAL AT FAIRFIELD FARM, LEEMING BAR (CONEYGARTH) (call-in) 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the principal Inspector, R R Lyon MA CEng MICE MRTPI FCIHT, who held a public local inquiry into the planning appeals and called-in planning application listed above on various dates between 2 November 2010 and 4 February 2011 and to the report of the second Inspector, David Richards BSocSci DipTP MRTPI, who held the Department for Communities and Local Government Tel 0303 444 1626 Zone 1/J1 Email [email protected] Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU re-opened public local inquiry between 12 February and 2 March 2012. These Inquiries were held to consider your clients’ applications/appeals: Case A (Kirby Hill): appeal by Heather Ive Associates against the decision of Harrogate Borough Council to refuse an outline application for a core twin-sided motorway service area at Kirby Hill comprising amenity building, petrol filling station, heavy goods vehicle amenity building, vehicle parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure with all matters reserved except for access from the A1(M), in accordance with application Ref 08/05860/EIAMAJ, dated 18 December 2008. Case B (Motel Leeming Services): called-in outline application by Mr Carl Les to Hambleton District Council for a motorway service area at Motel Leeming Services comprising amenity buildings, lodge, manager’s accommodation, petrol filling station, drive through restaurant, parking and turning areas and landscaping with all matters reserved except access, in accordance with application Ref 09/01202/OUT, dated 6 May 2009. Case C (Ripon Services): called-in outline application by Jaytee (Rainton) LLP to Harrogate Borough Council for the erection of a motorway service area at the junction of the A1 and A61, comprising of an amenity building, hotel, filling station, sewage treatment plant, balancing pond, new access from the A61, parking, landscaping and associated works with all matters reserved except access, in accordance with application Ref 10/01982/EIAMAJ, dated 6 May 2009. Case D (Baldersby Gate): called-in outline application by Refined Estates Limited to Harrogate Borough Council for the erection of a Junction Motorway Service Area comprising; amenity building, lodge, petrol filling station, parking including heavy goods vehicle parking, shower and toilet facilities, a police post, landscaping and associated infrastructure works in accordance with application Ref 10/02490/EIAMAJ, dated 7 June 2010. Case E (Coneygarth Truck Stop): called-in application by Exelby Services Limited to Hambleton District Council for the development of land within the curtilage of Fairfield Farm to form a Truck Stop Service Area for the relocation of an existing service area from Londonderry to Leeming Bar, comprising: HGV/LGV re-fuelling, fuel bunkering/tank farm and associated forecourt shop including overnight and rest-stop parking and driver welfare facilities in accordance with application Ref 10/00624/FUL, dated 17 February 2010. 2. The Case A appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State’s determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on 5 May 2009 because it relates to proposals against which another Government department has raised objections or has a major interest. In pursuance of section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State directed that cases B, C, D and E be referred to him instead of being dealt with by the relevant planning authority because he considered that the proposals may conflict with national policies on important matters. The Direction relating to Case B was issued on 13 July 2009 and those for Cases C, D and E on 22 July 2010. Inspectors’ recommendations and summary of decisions 3. The principal Inspector (referred to in this letter as the first Inspector) recommended that the Case A appeal should be dismissed and planning permission refused, that the applications for Cases B and C should be refused and that planning permission should be granted for Cases D and E. The second Inspector did not disagree with these recommendations. However, for the reasons below, although the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspectors’ conclusions and recommendations in respect of Cases A, C and E, he disagrees with their conclusions and recommendation in respect of Cases B and D, and proposes to grant planning consent for Cases B and E. Copies of both Inspectors’ reports are enclosed. That of the first Inspector is referred to in this letter as “IR” and that of the second Inspector as “2IR”. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to those reports. Procedural matters 4. The application for costs made at the first Inquiry (IR1.1.1) and the two applications made at the second Inquiry (2IR1) are each the subject of separate decision letters which will be issued by the Secretary of State shortly. 5. The Secretary of State has noted the amendments to schemes as reported by the first Inspector at IR1.2.1 and is satisfied that, as these were all available at the first inquiry, no interests will be prejudiced by him basing his decisions on them. He has also noted the first Inspector’s rulings as reported at IR1.3.1-1.3.5 and is satisfied that, as these were made during the first Inquiry, it is appropriate for him to take them into account. The Secretary of State has also noted that, for the reasons given by the first Inspector (IR1.5.3), the evidence of the first witness for the Highways Agency (HA) relating to site specific matters was not tested at the Inquiry, and he accepts the inevitability of that. Environmental Statements 6. In reaching his decisions, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statements (ESs) that were submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (the 1999 Regulations) in respect of all the proposals for which they were required. The Secretary of State agrees with the first Inspector that, with regard to Case C (IR14.4.47), the environmental information provided meets the necessary requirements; and he notes that EIAs were not required for Case B (IR1.4.4 and 14.6.4) and Case E (IR1.4.4). 7. With regard to Case A, the Secretary of State agrees with the first Inspector (IR14.3.9 and IR14.3.74) that the environmental information meets the necessary requirements and that the spread and presentation of information is within reasonable grounds. He has taken account of the first Inspector’s comments about the voluntary Regulation 19 submission (IR14.3.4-14.3.7), including the fact that it contains, in particular, a preliminary groundwater risk assessment associated with proposed on-site Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW). Hence, given that he agrees with the first Inspector’s recommendation (IR14.3.85) that the alternative solution of an on-site WWTW would have virtually no prospect of being achieved and so should be discarded, he has not seen any need to use his powers to remedy any deficiencies in the voluntary Regulation 19 submission before coming to a decision on the overall merits of Case A. 8. In the case of Case D, the first Inspector concluded (IR144.5.15) that the environmental assessment before him was defective with regard to its assessment of earthworks, and so did not meet the requirements of the regulations. The Secretary of State agreed, and therefore issued a letter on 8 November 2011 (2IR1.2.1) which, inter alia, gave notice to the applicant, in accordance with Regulation 19(1) of the 1999 Regulations, to undertake a full assessment of the earthworks required to accommodate the proposed scheme. This further information was discussed at the second Inquiry (2IR2.1.1-2.5.14) and, for the reasons given at 2IR2.6.1-2.6.35, the Secretary of State agrees with the second Inspector’s conclusion at 2IR2.6.35 and 2IR9.1.1 that, while there may be increased impacts during the construction period due to a potential for the export of surplus cut material from the site, these would only be temporary and could be satisfactorily mitigated by means of an appropriate condition. The Secretary of State therefore agrees with both Inspectors (2IR2.6.35) that the proposal would result in moderate harm to the landscape character of the area, that the visual impact would be slight, and that both harms would lessen over time. Other matters arising following the close of the first Inquiry 9. Although the main reason for reopening the Inquiry was because the first Inspector had concluded (IR14.5.11) that the ES for case D as it then stood was defective with regard to its assessment of earthworks, there were also other issues upon which the Secretary of State considered that he needed further information to be assured that there would be no impediments to securing appropriate access between the A1 and each of the sites.