TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 Appeal By: MOTO HOSPITALITY LTD Proposal: ‘Construction of new Motorway Service Area ("MSA") to comprise: Amenity Building, Lodge, Drive Thru Coffee Unit, associated car, coach, motorcycle, caravan, HGV and abnormal load parking and a Fuel Filling Station with retail shop, together with alterations to the adjacent roundabout at Junction 50 of the A1(M) to form an access point and works to the local highway network. Provision of landscaping, signage, infrastructure and ancillary works’. Site At: Land Comprising Field At 435074 475842 Hutton Conyers North Yorkshire. LPA Ref: 18/02713/EIAMAJ PI Ref: APP/E2734/W/20/3261729 PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF MARK SIMMONDS ON PLANNING MATTERS JANUARY 2021 CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction and Scope of Evidence………………………………………………… 2.0 Appeal Proposals and Reasons for Refusal................................... 3.0 Appeal Site including Site History ............................................ 4.0 Policy Background................................................................……. 5.0 Consideration of Appeal proposals against Development Plan and National policies and The Planning Balance………………………………………. 6.0 Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 1.1 My name is Mark Simmonds. The evidence which I have prepared and provided in this proof of evidence is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I confirm that the opinions expressed are my true and professional opinions. 1.2 I hold a Degree in Town and Country Planning and a post-graduate diploma in Town Planning both from the University of the West of England. I am a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. 1.3 I am a Planning Consultant, I have 20 years’ experience in Development Management with 14 years’ experience working for a number of different Local Planning Authorities starting in 2000 including at Interim Principal Officer and Senior Planner level, and since 2014 I have had 6 years’ experience working as a self-employed planner at several authorities. 1.4 I am currently retained by Harrogate Borough Council as an Agency planner on a self-employed basis to act as planning witness in this Appeal. 1.5 My evidence covers an assessment of the planning balance. 1.6 I am aware of and have read the documentation produced by both the Appellant and Council in respect of the matters before this Inquiry. 1.7 I am familiar with the planning history and planning applications which relate to the proposals for a motorway service area (“MSA”) in this and nearby locations. In preparing this proof of evidence I have had regard to relevant background information. 3 1.8 I can confirm that the contents of my evidence are my professional opinion and are true and gained from my own direct knowledge except where indicated. 1.9 Nigel Rockliff, Director of DRaW will present evidence on Visual and Landscape Harm on behalf of the Council and I refer to Mr Rockliff’s Evidence in my Proof. 2.0 The development proposals: 2.1 The proposals subject to determination through this Public Inquiry are set out here: 2.2 The application as determined, taken directly from the Decision Notice dated 9 October 2020 was for: ‘Outline application for the erection of motorway service area comprising amenity building, lodge, petrol filling station, parking to include heavy goods and coach parking and associated infrastructure; Formation of access and landscaping’. The Inspector, at the Case Management Conference (CMC) held on the 16th December 2020 led a discussion on the correct description of the proposed development and it was agreed that the Appellant’s preferred description should be adopted for the Public Inquiry and this is set out here: ‘Construction of new Motorway Service Area ("MSA") to comprise: Amenity Building, Lodge, Drive Thru Coffee Unit, associated car, coach, motorcycle, caravan, HGV and abnormal load parking and a Fuel Filling Station with retail shop, together with alterations to the adjacent roundabout at Junction 50 of the A1(M) to form an access point and works to the local highway network. Provision of landscaping, signage, infrastructure and ancillary works’ 4 The application was described and explained in the Officer’s Committee report as being an Outline with access and layout to be considered at the Outline stage, this was clarified in the Committee report as representing: ‘Layout’ is the way in which buildings, routes and open spaces within the development are provided, situated and orientated in relation to each other and to buildings and spaces outside the development. This is reflected in the Reason for Refusal which cites unsustainable nature of the proposal which would result in a significant encroachment into the open countryside causing harm to the landscape. 2.3 The Appeal proposals are set out on the submitted plans and described within the application/Appeal documents. 2.4 A general discussion of the proposals is set out here for the purposes of describing the proposed development for the Public Inquiry and to confirm that, as Planning Witness, I understand the development under scrutiny. 2.5 The development would be accessed from a new road which would be in a largely south-westerly direction, dropping in height by 5.2m from that of the raised roundabout and accessing a main car park area of 366 spaces, including 20 accessible and 6 electric vehicle charging bays and a further 14 motorcycle spaces. The proposals also include for provision for separate parking areas for: - 66 HGVs, 13 coaches and 8 caravans. 5 2.6 The submitted layout plans, including parameters plans giving sizes and heights of buildings, show a number of buildings and other developments as being sited close to the eastern boundary of the site, from north to south these comprise: - a lodge - an amenity building containing several branded outlets towards the south-east corner of the site - ancillary buildings (accommodating a biomass boiler, fuel store, chiller, water tanks and refuse facilities along with LPG compounds) located beyond the service yard that would also include 13 staff parking spaces to the rear of the amenity building tight to the planted boundary with the A61. 2.7 A wide landscaped plaza is indicated between the lodge and amenity building. A further pedestrian plaza would extend forward of the amenity building towards the car park and there would be a picnic area to the south west. 2.8 To the west side of the vehicular access, lorry parking would be provided with the vehicular access looping around the rear back to the roundabout passing by caravan parking spaces, a drive thru coffee shop and a fuel filling station and an abnormal load lay by. 2.9 Indicatively, as full details of scale along with appearance are amongst the matters reserved for subsequent approval, these buildings are shown, according to the parameters plans as being: o lodge, 120m long, 49m wide and 8.7m high, 100 bedrooms. o amenity building 103.5m long, 67.5m wide, and 9.5m high. o ancillary buildings 37m long, 28m wide and 12m high. o LPG compounds 37m long, 14m wide and 5m high. o Drive thru coffee shop, 15.5m x 11m x 7m high. 6 o Fuel filling station 66.5m x 51m x 8m high 2.10 The indicated ground levels show that the proposed buildings would be generally constructed at, or close to, existing ground levels. 2.11 Reasons for Refusal 2.12 There was one reason for refusal stated on the formal notice, namely: 1) ‘The proposal is outside development limits and represents an unsustainable development that would result in a significant encroachment into open countryside causing harm to the landscape in conflict with Policies EC3 (A & C), GS3 and NE4 of the Harrogate District Local Plan’. (CD9.99). 3.0 APPEAL SITE 3.1 The site forms part of an attractive, pleasant and undulating landscape characterised by large fields of arable farmland, few hedgerows and trees and scattered farmsteads. To the east of A1(M) / A168 corridor the low-lying gently rolling landscape stretches to the foot of the Hambleton Hills. 3.2 The site falls within Character Area 81, “Dishforth and surrounding Farmland” (CD7.4) of that Assessment and is described as “a large-scale landscape punctuated by villages, hamlets and farmsteads traditionally surrounded by small fields. The site forms part of an undulating landscape with limited tree cover characterised by large fields of arable farmland, few hedgerows and trees and scattered farmsteads. 7 3.3 A full description of the Appeal site is contained within the Statement of Common Ground and in more detail within the Proof of Evidence and Appendices of Nigel Rockliff. 3.4 The relevant Site History is set out here: 3.5 10/02490/EIAMAJ (6.21.86.EIAMAJ) Outline application for the erection of motorway service area comprising amenity building, lodge, petrol filling station, parking to include heavy goods parking with associated showers and toilet facilities, police post and associated infrastructure with access considered (site area 13.36ha) Refused 16.10.2012 on the grounds that: i) the then development plan allowance for one motorway service area had already been fulfilled, ii) it would adversely affect the landscape character of the area, iii) it would result in the loss of some of the best and most versatile land, iv) insufficient information had been provided to show that it would not create conditions prejudicial to highway safety both on the local highway network and within the site, v) insufficient information had been provided to show that proposals to accommodate staff journeys to the site were sufficient to comply with then extant sustainable travel policies, and; vi) insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development would not pose an unacceptable risk of pollution to groundwater.