Position Statement on Need

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1.1 I am instructed to represent Kirby Hill RAMS and seven local Councils in the matter of Heather Ive Associates’ proposed motorway service area on the A1(M) at Kirby Hill.

1.1.2 Kirby Hill RAMS is an independent residents’ group formed for the sole purpose of objecting to the proposed MSA. Kirby Hill RAMS is the voice of the local community, representing 728 local people who signed the original mandate supporting the RAMS objections in 2003. For the present Inquiry, Kirby Hill RAMS mandate was extended to include representing the seven local Councils nearest to the proposed site, namely the Parish Councils of Kirby Hill and District, Marton-le-Moor, Langthorpe, Skelton-cum-Newby, Roecliffe-with-Westwick and Dishforth, as well as Boroughbridge Town Council. Together, these seven objecting Councils represent an electorate of 4,793 local people.

1.1.3 One or more members of Kirby Hill RAMS have been in attendance throughout this Inquiry. We have submitted in evidence a written statement on Need [KH/1/3] and called five witnesses who have given evidence in respect of Traffic & Highways Safety [KH/1/1]; Landscape & Environment [KH/2/1]; Residential Amenity, History & Archaeology [KH/3/1]; Aerodrome Safeguarding [KH/4/1] and the Public Perception of Harm [KH/5/1]. In addition to their proofs of evidence and appendices, we have submitted a number of Inquiry notes to clarify certain points and respond to matters raised by other parties. I personally attended the Inquiry for the whole of HIAs and HAs case and I led the presentation of Kirby Hill RAMS case. On behalf of Kirby Hill RAMS I cross-examined all of HIA and HAs witnesses, with the exception of HAs Mr Askew, who was ~~dismissed~~ excused before I had the opportunity to question him.

1.1.4 As a Rule 6 Party, Kirby Hill RAMS has gone to great lengths to present this Inquiry with detailed evidence concerning the material planning considerations in this case. While we have no professional qualifications in the field of planning, our case is based on evidence that accurately reflects the first-hand knowledge and day-to-day experiences of local people over many years. Kirby Hill RAMS is therefore in a unique position to provide the Secretary of State with a valuable, first-hand, local perspective on the issues under consideration.

1.1.5 On behalf of the local community and the seven local Councils that we represent, Kirby Hill RAMS objects to the proposed Kirby Hill MSA. We respectfully request that the Secretary of State dismisses HIAs Appeal, for the reasons I shall now give.

2 THE BIG SOCIETY

2.1.1 The Prime Minister and the new Coalition Government have set out a driving ambition to create the Big Society, a society where local people and their local councils determine the shape of the places where they live and work, with minimum interference from central Government. The Secretary of State has made a number of public statements to the effect that this heralds a fundamental shift in the balance of power in the planning system. It is a shift away from a top-down, central Government-led approach in which “the bureaucrats know best”. It is a shift towards empowering local councils and their local communities, who really know best, so that they have more influence over development in their local area. Together with the LPA, Kirby Hill RAMS are the Big Society at this Inquiry. The Coalition Government’s new policy emphasis requires that our views should be afforded significant weight: more weight, in fact, than a remote central Government department such as the Highways Agency.

2.1.2 In his rebuttal proof [HIA/1/7 para 2.1] Mr Hough says that the new Localism Bill may provide some greater clarity on what the Big Society means in the planning world. Since Mr Hough wrote this, the Localism Bill has had its first reading in the House of Commons, on 13^th December 2010. The draft Bill provides absolute clarity that the Coalition Government’s current emphasis and future direction is to increase the influence that local planning authorities, local communities and local plan policies have over development, especially major development, and to reduce the role of central Government. This represents a major shift in the balance of power in the planning system. It should help ensure the failure of cases such as the one HIA has put to this Inquiry, which rely on lobbying and influencing a central Government agency, to the point where they express a view which is then used in an attempt to “trump” the properly-taken decisions of the Local Planning Authority.

2.1.3 Mr Hough accepts in his rebuttal proof [HIA/1/7 para 2.2] that there will be benefits of a “bottom-up” approach to planning as opposed to a “top-down” one. What he fails to acknowledge is that HIAs case, which relies entirely on the premise that “the Highways Agency knows best”, is exactly the type of central Government-led planning imposition that the Secretary of State wishes to end, by empowering local councils and local communities to take their own, better planning decisions.

2.1.4 The inconvenient truth for Mr Hough is that, at a local level, HIA’s proposals for an MSA at Kirby Hill have been consistently rejected whenever they have been put forward over the last 14 years. We submit that HAs evidence does not provide grounds for overturning this view.

2.1.5 Mr Hough also says that, in his opinion, the Big Society is not a charter for local opponents to resist development that has a wider public benefit [HIA/1/7 para 2.2]. Any claim of a wider public benefit for the proposed Kirby Hill MSA must of course rely on HAs evidence, because HIA have not advanced a Need or Safety case of their own at this Inquiry. Mr Hough appears to be confirming a view that lies at the heart of HIAs case: the view that the local community should simply shut up and accept the inevitable harm the proposed MSA would cause, because a central Government department, the Highways Agency, knows best. We will not shut up and accept the harm, because HAs evidence to this Inquiry, including the debacle of Mr Askew, the much-vaunted author of Circular 01/2008, has made it abundantly clear that, in this matter the Highways Agency doesn’t know best, if indeed it knows anything at all for certain.

2.1.6 We have shown in evidence how the HA has incorrectly measured the gap on its own road network, incorrectly counted the traffic flow data on its own motorway, incorrectly interpreted its own policy in Circular 01/2008, incorrectly approved plans and drawings from HIA that contain manifest errors and has allowed itself to be led by the Appellant through a series of changes in its position to the one it now holds, but is unwilling to field a witness to defend, at this Inquiry. Furthermore, we have shown that this position is at variance with the correct interpretation of Circular 01/2008 policy used in the Agency’s own National Review of Service Area provision published in January 2010. We have provided the evidential paper trail for the changes in the HAs position, from February 2009 when the Agency said that a compelling need and safety case was required, to the end of the same month when it decided a need and safety case wasn’t required but that it didn’t wish to express a preference for a site allocation, to May 2010 when the Agency formally objected to the Leeming Bar site allocation, and to October 2010 when the Agency said it didn’t require a need or safety case and that it preferred the Kirby Hill site. There has been no change to the policy framework during this time.

2.1.7 In light of this catalogue of errors and misdemeanours, we submit that the Secretary of State should attach little weight to HAs evidence to this Inquiry. In fact, Kirby Hill RAMS are so concerned by the HAs performance prior to and during the Inquiry that on 11^thDecember 2010, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport, recommending that HAs role in this matter should be independently audited and that the results should be brought to the attention of the Highways Agency’s new non-executive chair and performance monitoring group.

2.1.8 Sir, if ever there was a case where the evidence of the Big Society should receive more weight than the evidence of a central Government department, this is it. We respectfully ask the Secretary of State to adopt this as his starting point when considering the issues about which he asked to be informed, to which I shall now turn.

3 THE ISSUES

3.1 Policy

“The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the advice in Planning Policy Guidance 13 and DfT Circular 01/2008 on Motorway Service Areas.”

3.1.1 Contrary to HIAs claims of full compliance [HIA/1/2 para 8.1], Kirby Hill RAMS have demonstrated in evidence that the proposed development is not consistent with the advice in PPG13 and Circular 01/2008 in a number of important respects. We submit that this provides grounds for a refusal of planning permission. I shall cover the specific instances of non-compliance with policy under the headings about which the Secretary of State has asked to be informed, starting with Need.

3.2 Need

“In particular, whether there would be a need for an MSA in the locality, following the completion of Phase 1 of the upgrading of the A1(M), bearing in mind the siting of the other facilities on the strategic road network.”

3.2.1 Kirby Hill RAMS submit that there is no need for another MSA on this section of the strategic road network, either now or when Phase 1 of the A1 upgrade is completed.

3.2.2 The Public Inquiries in 1997 and 2003 considered the need for an MSA on a 70-mile section of the strategic road network between Ferrybridge and Durham. Following both of these Inquiries, the Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector that there was only a need for one new MSA on this section of the network. That need has been now met by the provision of the new Wetherby MSA, which is just 12 miles from Kirby Hill.

3.2.3 The present Inquiry has considered whether a further need for an MSA exists within a sub-section of the 70-mile gap reviewed at the previous Inquiries, i.e., whether there is a need for an MSA on the approximately 40-mile section of the A1(M) between Wetherby and Barton. Common sense suggests that if there is only a need for one MSA on the 70-mile section between Ferrybridge and Durham, there is no need for a second MSA on the 40-mile sub-section between Wetherby and Barton Park. Even if additional need were to arise in future in the 70-mile gap, building another MSA at the Circular 01/2008 Absolute Minimum Spacing Distance of 12 miles from Wetherby MSA is not an effective response to meeting that need.

3.2.4 Circular 01/2008 requires that MSAs should only be built where a clear and compelling need and safety case has been demonstrated [CD/1.14 para 58]. At this Inquiry, neither the Appellant nor the Highways Agency has demonstrated an overriding need or the clear and compelling safety case that would be required to justify a new MSA at Kirby Hill. Instead, they argue that it is not necessary to demonstrate a need or safety case, because of a claimed 40-mile gap between the existing MSA sites at Wetherby and Barton Park. This argument does not stand up to scrutiny for three reasons:

3.2.5 Firstly, as we advised in our Statement of Case, the claimed 40-mile gap does not exist. Measurements by the highway authorities have confirmed that the distance between Wetherby and Barton Park is in fact 39.6 miles. HA claim that this measurement result doesn’t matter, because the Agency’s practice is to round-up distances on traffic signs to the nearest whole number, which would make the distance 40 miles in this case. A quick look at Annex A of Circular 01/08 [CD/1.14 para A2.2.1.6 and A2.2.2.2] is all that is necessary to find examples of traffic signs that contain fractional distances. In fact, one only has to drive south from Kirby Hill on the A1(M) to see a newly-erected motorway sign stating: “Wetherby Services 1½ miles”.

3.2.6 Secondly, Dr Ramsden has shown [KH/1/3 para 4.3.16] that Circular 01/2008 only requires that where a gap in excess of 40 miles exists, an infill Core MSA, rather than an infill MRA, must be provided. Nowhere does the Circular state that a 40-mile gap is sufficient to justify a new MSA without a compelling need or safety case being made. HAs Mr Cawthorne accepted that on 2^nd February 2009, he had written to HIA setting out the Agency’s requirement for a need and safety case [KH/1/4 Appdx B page 7] and that it was only after a meeting with HIA that Mr Jones wrote his letter of 26 February 2009, in which he said that it was not necessary to demonstrate need if there was a 40-mile gap. It remains unclear to us how and why this change to an incorrect interpretation of Circular 01/2008 policy occurred.

3.2.7 Thirdly, Circular 01/2008 requires not only the demonstration of a compelling need, but also that a safety case should be made, based on the potential risks to safety from additional accesses and egresses being balanced by the improvement to safety resulting from refreshed and alert drivers [CD/1.14 para 14 and 58]. In cross-examination both HIA and HA acknowledged that they had not assessed or made a safety case for the proposed Kirby Hill MSA. Yet Mr Jones letter of 26 February does not say that because a 40-mile gap exists, no safety case is required. The absence of a safety case is, in our view, a very serious omission.

3.2.8 In overall terms, looking at the whole length of motorway between Ferrybridge and Durham there is no need for another MSA. The upgrade of the A1 between Dishforth and Barton to motorway status will reduce journey times and reduce need. Any long-term increase in need can be met by the development of the already-consented Barton Park MSA and the already-planned expansion of the new Wetherby MSA. These already-consented and already-planned strategies for meeting the need should be given time to work, before any further planning permission is granted for a new MSA in the open countryside.

3.2.9 Looking more specifically at Harrogate District, the section of the A1(M) that runs through the District is just 21-miles long and already includes one MSA. The Government’s target for MSAs is a 28-mile spacing. Therefore it is clear that the District has no need of a second MSA and the LPA is right to maintain its policy of only one MSA in Harrogate District.

3.2.10 The position taken by the HA on Need at this Inquiry is contrary to the conclusions of the Highways Agency’s Spatial Planning Framework Review of Strategic Road Network Service Areas. The introduction to this report, published in January ~~of this year~~ 2010, says: “the information presented in this report provides the evidence base from which to identify the existing gaps in MSA provision” [CD/11.9 para 1.4] The report does not identify a need for a new MSA between Wetherby and Barton. Yet at the first MSA Inquiry since the report was published, the Highways Agency is taking a contradictory position and is telling us that the National Report should be disregarded in favour of a position on Need that we have shown it adopted just days after a meeting with HIA. In making his assessment of need, the Secretary of State should rely on the evidence base and not on Mr Jones’ letter.

3.3 Alternative Sites

The availability of alternative sites which would meet any such need

3.3.1 In the event that Secretary of State considers that, despite the evidence to the contrary, there is a need for a new MSA, then there is in our view a clear priority to the alternative sites:

3.3.2 Leeming Bar should be given preference, because it is an existing Service Area that the owner wishes to upgrade to an MSA and it is located 28 miles from Wetherby, at exactly the Circular 01/2008 target spacing. While it is closer to Barton Park at 14 miles, it is not as off-centre as the proposed Kirby Hill MSA would be, just 12 miles from Wetherby. Leeming Bar does not involve the same levels of landscape and environmental harm as the Baldersby sites or Kirby Hill. It is a brownfield site, which if re-used would have a very low impact when developed into an MSA. Indeed, the Secretary of State has already agreed that the environmental impact of developing Leeming Bar is so insignificant that the Applicant was not required to prepare an Environmental Statement. Selecting Leeming Bar would protect the open countryside at Baldersby and Kirby Hill. It would safeguard a local business and 50 local jobs. If the Secretary of State concludes that a new MSA is needed, Leeming Bar is by far the best choice in terms of spatial planning and sustainable development considerations.

3.3.3 In terms of its disadvantages, Leeming Bar would not be unique in operating as a site remote from the motorway. The Ferrybridge MSA is also a remote site providing services to the A1(M). In our view, the many planning advantages of the Leeming Bar site overcome the disadvantage that it would be remote from the motorway. It is also worthy of note that this disadvantage, often-cited by HA, is not the fault of Leeming Bar’s promoters. It arises because, during the A1 upgrade, the HA has moved the junction away from a site that has been providing services to motorists on the A1 for 50 years. There seems to be something profoundly unfair in that.

3.3.4 In terms of meeting any future need, because viable options exist to build Barton Park, expand Wetherby and develop Leeming Bar into an MSA, it is absolutely not necessary for the Secretary of State to grant planning permission for any new MSAs on greenfield sites in the North Yorkshire countryside.

3.3.5 If, despite all of this, the Secretary of State were to conclude that greenfield development is unavoidable, the Baldersby sites should be the next preference, because they are located roughly halfway between existing MSAs, which is the preferred location in terms of Circular 01/2008 policy [CD/1.14 para 59]. As junction sites, they involve less built development, less land-take, less construction work on the A1(M) and less risk of adding to the number of motorway accidents, than does the online site at Kirby Hill. The Baldersby sites fare better than Kirby Hill in terms of sustainability considerations and spacing policy. Neither of the Baldersby sites is as close to residential settlements or to an operational military airfield as the proposed Kirby Hill site.

3.3.6 It has been suggested, anecdotally, that junction sites such as Baldersby may attract a lower turn-in rate than an online site and hence would be less effective at meeting the need. However, HIAs Mr Plumb provided documentary evidence from JMP, consultants to the HA, that a turn-in rate of 8% should be used for both online and junction sites [CD/3.29 Section 2, Appendix 1, page 3]. In his supplementary transport assessment Mr Plumb described these rates as being “appropriate and robust in the context of this assessment” [CD/3.29, Section 2, para 2.3], though there was a certain amount of attempted back-tracking from this position under cross-examination. We submit that this documented, independent, expert evidence on turn-in rates which Mr Plumb was happy to accept when he made his original assessment should carry more weight than his anecdotes now that he knows Kirby Hill is competing with three junction sites.

3.3.7 Of all the sites under consideration at this Inquiry, Kirby Hill is the least preferable in terms of meeting the need. At just 12 miles from Wetherby Services to the south and 7 miles from the TCS-Midway Services on the A168 to the north-east, it is more likely to attract trade from these facilities than to meet a need in its own right. As we have shown, the evidence of potential harm from a twin-sided, online MSA at Kirby Hill is compelling. HIAs Mr Hough identified seven types of harm that he considers inevitable of the proposed Kirby Hill MSA is built. There would have to be a significant and compelling need in order to justify causing this harm. Such a need simply does not exist. If it did, surely HIA would have demonstrated it, as they did in 2003, rather than advancing a need case that relies on HAs Mr Askew, a non-existent 40-mile gap, a letter from Mr Jones and a rounding error?

3.4 Policy T7

The weight to be given to policy T7 of the Harrogate District Local Plan

3.4.1 Saved policy T7 of the Local Plan sets out the Local Planning Authority's policy on MSAs. It is a saved policy to which significant weight should be attached. The first strand of Policy T7 states that: "within Harrogate District planning permission will be granted for not more than one Motorway Service Area serving the A1(M)." This policy was formulated in the face of a compelling need for MSA provision that existed and it took account of the high quality environment along this part of the A1 corridor. It was based on an assessment of need for MSA provision undertaken in the framework of government guidance that sought the provision of facilities every 30 miles. This guidance has since been superseded by the publication of Circular 01/2008, which has reduced the spacing target by 2 miles to 28 miles. However, the section of A1(M) in Harrogate District is just 21 miles in length and already contains the new Wetherby MSA, for which permission was granted under policy T7. It is therefore reasonable for the policy of one MSA in the District to stand, while the Government’s target MSA spacing remains 28 miles. Only if the target spacing were reduced to 21 miles or less would policy T7 be in conflict with national policy guidance.

3.4.2 The second strand of Policy T7 states that provision of an MSA is to be dependent on there being a need for additional services, in which case any proposal would be assessed against a range of site specific criteria. Even in a situation where the first strand of the policy were set aside, it is still necessary to assess whether there is need for the proposed MSA and then to balance this against any site-specific harm. This is entirely consistent with the approach of Circular 01/2008, which states that a clear and compelling need case must be demonstrated.

3.4.3 It is perverse logic to suggest, as HIA does, that a policy intended to ensure there should only be one MSA in Harrogate District should somehow become invalidated when that one MSA is built. Surely it is only after one MSA is built that such a policy becomes truly effective? Recognising this, the Secretary of State should attach significant weight to saved policy T7.

3.4.4 HIA also makes a general claim that saved policies of the Harrogate District Local Plan should carry less weight, simply because they are some years old and will be updated as work on the new LDF progresses. We submit that these saved policies remain in force and that, in the absence of specific evidence (e.g. a Deposit Draft) that the LPA intends to replace an existing policy with something significantly different, the Secretary of State should assume that the emerging LDF will remain consistent with the saved policies from the Local Plan, afford them full weight and apply them accordingly. HIAs challenging of these saved policies simply serves to confirm that the proposed Kirby Hill MSA is unable to comply with them.

3.5 Landscape Impact

The impact of the proposals on the landscape character of the area and its surroundings

3.5.1 Mr. Pickering’s evidence [KH/2/1 and KH/2/2] demonstrated that the Appellant’s proposed MSA could not be successfully assimilated into the landscape at Kirby Hill and would cause substantial harm to interests of acknowledged importance. The Appellant’s proposals are in conflict with National, Regional and Local policies concerning sustainable development in rural areas [KH/2/1 paras 4.2.7 to 4.2.12] and do not fulfil the landscape criteria contained in Circular 01/2008 [KH/2/1 paras 4.2.71 to 4.2.75]. In view of the substantial body of Government policy devoted to protecting the countryside from unnecessary development, this is a matter to which the Secretary of State should attach significant weight.

3.5.2 Kirby Hill village and the proposed MSA site are within Landscape Area 81: “Dishforth and Surrounding Farmland.” The Landscape Character Assessment provides a detailed assessment of the local landscape, produced by the LPA, in consultation with local experts who know the area well. With many years experience of living and working in the local landscape, they appreciate its intrinsic value and understand its sensitivity to new development better than anyone. For this reason, as well as the Government’s new emphasis on the importance of the Local Development Framework, the Secretary of State should afford the Harrogate District Landscape Character Assessment significant weight. Kirby Hill RAMS submit that far more weight should be afforded to this document than to ^3rd party landscape assessments from experts in the employ of the Appellant, who have reached their conclusions on the basis of a just a few short visits to the site and whose descriptions of the landscape we do not recognise.

3.5.3 The proposed development involves a change of land use that is out-of-keeping with the general character of the area and would be irreversible. The open fields that mark the northern fringe of the settlement of Kirby Hill would be replaced by mounding and woodland planting intended to screen the proposed MSA, contrary to the documented landscape character of the area.

3.5.4 We have shown that the Appellant’s proposed MSA could not be successfully assimilated into the landscape at Kirby Hill and would cause substantial harm. HIAs Mr Rech accepted that the proposed Kirby Hill site lies in attractive, open countryside and that it would inevitably cause long-term, permanent harm [HIA/2/4 para 2.9]. Mr Hough concurred and identified seven specific types of harm that he described as “inevitable”. Mr Rech also accepted that the proposals would result in the loss of views that in his opinion deserve to be protected.

3.5.5 Much has been said at this Inquiry about the proposed mound intended to screen the MSA from Kirby Hill village. At the 2003 Inquiry, the mound was proposed to be 180m long and 8m high. The Inspector concluded that “this mound would clearly be out of character in the landscape and that it would take a considerable number of years before the woodland planting would grow sufficiently to effectively soften its visual effect.” [CD/12.1 para 10.6.45]. The proposals at this Inquiry are for a mound 480m long and 9m high, which represents a significant increase in adverse landscape impact and visual intrusion from this alien feature, compared with the scheme that was rejected in 2003. The MSA and its mound cannot be successfully assimilated into the large-scale, open landscape at Kirby Hill.

3.5.6 The Countryside Act 1968 imposes on every Minister, government department and public body a duty to “have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside in the exercise of their functions relating to land.” We submit that because of the substantial landscape and environmental harm that are inevitable consequences of HIAs MSA proposal, that duty should lead the Secretary of State to dismiss this Appeal on landscape grounds alone.

3.6 Agricultural Land

The weight to be given to the loss of agricultural land which would occur as a result of the proposal

3.6.1 PPS7 sets out current Government planning policy in respect of best and most versatile agricultural land. Two significant policy shifts In respect of BMV agricultural land have occurred since the last Inquiry:

3.6.2 The first shift is that PPS7 now says: “the presence of BMV agricultural land should be taken into account alongside other sustainability considerations (e.g. biodiversity; the quality and character of the landscape; its amenity value or heritage interest; accessibility to infrastructure, workforce and markets; maintaining viable communities; and the protection of natural resources) when determining planning applications.” HIAs ES Update [CD/3.5 para 8.4] quotes this, but omits the helpful list of other sustainability considerations. The new policy emphasis is on BMV agricultural land being just one among many factors in assessing if a proposal represents sustainable development. Destruction of 18 ha of BMV agricultural land for a twin-sided MSA, when every alternative proposal before the Inquiry would use a significantly lower quantity and quality of BMV land, is yet another indication that the proposed Kirby Hill MSA is not sustainable development.

3.6.3 The second policy shift is that, rather than enshrining the protection of BMV agricultural land in national policy, PPS7 now says that: “It is for local planning authorities to decide whether best and most versatile agricultural land can be developed, having carefully weighed the options in the light of competent advice.” Once again, the policy shift has placed more weight on the considered opinion of the LPA, which in this case is that the destruction of so much BMV agricultural land at Kirby Hill is unacceptable.

3.6.4 It is important to focus not just on the quantity of BMV land that would be lost, but on the quality of this land and its rarity in the surrounding area. For 14 years HIA has claimed that the site comprises Grade 2 and Grade 3 agricultural land. We have presented evidence to this Inquiry that much of the site in fact comprises Grade 1 agricultural land and that the proposed Kirby Hill MSA site stands on one of the largest tracts of Grade 1 agricultural land anywhere in North Yorkshire. Our evidence on this point was not challenged. In view of this, the Secretary of State should increase the weight given to the loss of BMV agricultural land compared to 2003.

3.6.5 A loss of this quantity of Grade 1 land in this location is not sustainable development and we submit therefore that Appellant’s proposals do not comply with PPS7.

3.7 Highway Safety

The implications for highway safety and the free flow of traffic on the A1(M)

3.7.1 Dr. Ramsden’s evidence [KH/1/1 and KH/1/2] demonstrated that HIA’s proposals do not comply with Government policy requirements to maintain traffic and highways safety and do not achieve the required balance between increased safety risks and improved safety benefits required by Circular 01/2008. In summary, the Kirby Hill application fails to meet the requirements in terms of Traffic and Highways Safety because:

3.7.2 There is no over-riding need or safety case to justify a new MSA at Kirby Hill.

3.7.3 Spatially Kirby Hill completely fails. If it were just 0.3 of a mile further south, it couldn’t even be considered under Circular 01/2008 spacing policy.

3.7.4 The introduction of slip roads at Kirby Hill would increase the risks to safety on the Strategic Road Network for no improved safety benefit. Because the safety case has not been assessed, it is possible, indeed likely, that the safety risks of new accesses/egresses on the motorway at Kirby Hill would outweigh the safety benefits of a new MSA, particularly since it would be so close to the existing MSA at Wetherby.

3.7.5 There would be a real risk of accidents on the slip roads, especially in relation to the complicated and confusing accesses and egresses for the southbound MSA.

3.7.6 There would be increased trips on the motorway for staff, suppliers and visitors to the MSA, increasing the road safety risks.

3.7.7 The site has highly questionable abnormal load provision.

3.7.8 We are not Traffic & Highways experts. As such, we are seriously concerned that in the course of the Inquiry, as laymen, we have been able to find numerous errors in plans and drawings, such as ~~HIA/108~~ HIA/115, that have been prepared by professionals on HIAs team, reviewed by HA and signed off as safe and conforming to standards. While the latest version of ~~HIA/108~~ HIA/115 is an improvement, it is still not correct and we are frankly tired of acting as HIAs unpaid quality control department. If HIAs technical drawings are still not right after 14 years of applications and appeals, we question whether this team can actually deliver proposals that meet the relevant safety standards and implement them correctly.

3.8 Impact on the Local Road Network

The impact on the local road network arising from the need to provide access from the A168 and B6265 to construct slip roads on the motorway

3.8.1 There would be a significant impact on the local road network from the need to use it for construction access. The A168 itself would need to be diverted in order to construct the proposed southbound access tunnel, creating a new exit from the local roundabout near the B6265 overbridge. Slow-moving, heavy construction traffic using the A168 and B6265 to access the site would create additional safety risks for local drivers, with no corresponding benefits.

3.8.2 In cross-examination, HIAs Mr Plumb confirmed that if the option to have permanent local accesses is implemented, HIA will not follow the recommendations in the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit [CD/3.29 Tab 1, Appendix 19, paras 6.1.1 and 6.3.1] to construct a right-turn lane and extend the lighting on the A168 and B6265 to provide better visibility around these junctions. This would represent a permanent adverse impact on the safety of the local road network that would be unacceptable to local residents.

3.8.3 Kirby Hill RAMS are also concerned that the inclusion of pedestrian accesses to the site would increase the problem of parking on the local road network, especially in the village of Kirby Hill.

3.9 Staff Travel

Whether the proposal makes adequate provision to encourage staff to travel to the site by means other than the private car

3.9.1 As an online MSA, the Kirby Hill proposal would be particularly difficult to access by means of transport other than the private car. HIA have responded to NYCCs concerns about staff travel by including an option for rear access, but rather perversely this also includes access and parking spaces for private cars. The proposed shuttle bus seems to us highly impractical, given the long distance mystery tour around the surrounding villages that would be necessary in order to collect staff and return to their homes. We have demonstrated by a comparison with other major development on the A1 [KH/103] that HIAs assumptions concerning the proportion of staff using means other than the private car are hopelessly optimistic. It is difficult to see how this problem can be overcome.

3.10 Foul Water Pollution

Whether the foul water generated on at the site can be dealt with in a manner that would not cause a risk of pollution to the environment

3.10.1 Kirby Hill RAMS have followed the drainage debate and in particular the views of the LPA and the Environment Agency with great interest. While we are concerned about the likely route and environmental impacts of providing new and upgraded sewerage connections to the Boroughbridge WWTW, this does appear to be a feasible option if enough money is thrown at it.

3.10.2 By contrast, the onsite WWTW option is a last-minute addition that has been poorly thought-through and carries with it the risk of pollution to the major aquifer underlying the site. The local community was never consulted about this option. Having now examined the sketchy plans and read of the experts concerns, it is our view that planning permission should not be granted for the Kirby Hill proposal unless the onsite WWTW option is withdrawn.

3.11 Archaeological Impact

Whether the site is likely to have an archaeological value that would be unacceptably harmed by development.

3.11.1 Mr Harris provided the Inquiry with a professional archaeologist’s report [KH/3/2 Appendix F] which refers to a large volume of pottery recovered from the site that has the potential to be of both national and regional significance. The report also identifies a Neolithic ring ditch and pits within the proposed northbound MSA site that has already produced the largest carbonised cereal grain deposit from the Neolithic period in the north of England [KH/3/1 para 3.9.6]. At the evening session of the Inquiry in Boroughbridge, Mr Cale, a professional community archaeologist with extensive local knowledge, described the archaeological finds from the site as “breathtaking”. Fields 88 and 89 where these finds occurred are within the proposed northbound MSA site. Any development on these fields could permanently destroy archaeological sites of national significance.

3.11.2 Kirby Hill RAMS are concerned that, although the report Mr Harris produced has been publicly available in the County Record Office for over 15 years, HIA did not include it in their archaeological assessment. This gives us concern about whether any finds on the site during development would be disclosed if archaeology were simply covered by a condition. A site with potential to contain archaeological remains of national significance deserves better protection.

3.12 Residential Amenity

The impact on the living conditions of local residents, with particular regard to light, air and noise pollution

3.12.1 Mr. Harris’ evidence [KH/3/1 and KH/3/2] demonstrates that the Appellant’s proposals would create a number of adverse impacts in an area that is highly sensitive to changes in residential amenity. Although varying in their individual severity, the overall effect of these impacts would be a reduction in residential amenity and quality of life for the rural areas surrounding the site, in particular for the residential properties nearest the site and in the village of Kirby Hill.

3.12.2 Kirby Hill RAMS submitted evidence showing the effect that lighting such as that found at the new Wetherby MSA would have on the currently dark night sky at Kirby Hill [KH/105]. The contrast is dramatic and illustrates the glow that residents submit would permanently alter the night sky just 500m from their homes. HIA challenged this assessment on the basis that the lights at Wetherby MSA must have been incorrectly installed [HIA/114], however Moto, the operator of Wetherby MSA, have confirmed that this is not the case [KH/109].

3.12.3 HIA have not challenged Kirby Hill RAMS evidence that MSAs are associated with increased levels of air pollution, however they have challenged our assessment of the prevailing wind direction at Kirby Hill and sought to claim that the wind would carry pollutants away from the village of Kirby Hill, rather than towards it. This seems to be based on data that in the UK as a whole, the prevailing winds are from the south-west [HIA/2/4 para 8.3]. Evidence that the prevailing winds locally blow from the north-west, towards Kirby Hill, comes in the form of Skelton Windmill, which has stood on the hill above the site since 1822. During the site visit it was possible to see how the prevailing wind has weathered the stonework on the north-western side of the windmill, while the stonework on the side facing the site and Kirby Hill village is not weathered. Consequently it is clear that the wind will carry airborne pollutants from the site directly towards Kirby Hill village a short distance away. At the Evening Session, retired local GP Dr Nixon spoke about his concerns for the health of the local population as a result.

3.12.4 The prevailing wind direction means that noise will also be carried towards Kirby Hill village from the site. We would refer the Secretary of State to the concerns expressed by the Area Environmental Health Officer in respect of noise pollution from the site [HBC/1/3 page 17].

3.12.5 The problems of light, air and noise pollution would of course be exacerbated by the fact that the proposed Kirby Hill MSA, at just 500m distance, is by far the closest of the sites to a rural village containing a large number of residential properties. By comparison, the new Wetherby MSA is three times as far from its nearest residential settlement at Kirk Deighton. The Inquiry nevertheless heard from Cllr Watson of the adverse impact that MSA had on the village of Kirk Deighton and that, in his view, the adverse impact at Kirby Hill would be far worse.

3.12.6 An overwhelming majority of local people and organisations, who know and understand the area, submit that the proposed MSA at Kirby Hill would cause permanent, continuous day and night, all year round harm in an area that is highly sensitive to changes in residential amenity. This harm would affect the health, livelihood, and happiness of local people.

3.12.7 The Secretary of State should attach considerable weight to the large body of local expert opinion expressing these views. It is important to recognize that none of the other proposed MSA sites are in such close proximity to people’s homes, or would have as large an impact on the residential amenity and historic rural setting of a small community such as Kirby Hill. Compared to the other sites before the Inquiry, the Kirby Hill proposals would maximise the harm to residential amenity, heritage interests and archaeology.

3.13 Public Perception of Harm

The public perception of harm.

3.13.1 Mr. Rae’s evidence [KH/5/1 and KH/5/2] demonstrated that over the last 14 years, HIA’s repeated applications and appeals for an MSA at Kirby Hill and their lack of proper consultation with the local community have created a Public Perception of Harm in relation to the proposed development. This Public Perception of Harm is a material planning consideration to which significant weight should be attached. Mr Rae’s evidence demonstrated that the Public Perception of Harm is both real and justified and that HIA had not made any attempt to address it and may in fact have increased the Public Perception of Harm through their actions. This was borne out by some of the 3^rd party statements made at the Evening Session.

3.13.2 The public perception of harm has persisted for more than 14 years, since the Appellant first submitted a planning application. As a result, local people have lived in fear and apprehension of the proposed MSA for an unreasonably long period of time.

3.13.3 It is unclear to us whether HIA accepts that there is a public perception of harm in relation to the proposed development or not. In his cross-examination of Mr Rae, Mr Banner sought to compare the level of public concern at Kirby Hill with that at the Stalbridge Docks Resource Recovery Site in Liverpool [HIA/111]. While one might take issue with comparing a quiet rural village with Liverpool docks, our subsequent analysis shows that the proportion of the electorate objecting to the Kirby Hill MSA is some ten times the proportion that objected to the Stalbridge Docks development [KH/108]. Mr Banner also suggested to Mr Rae that Public Perception of Harm should not on its own provide a reason for refusal of planning permission. However, the Appeal decision to which he referred shows very clearly that, if justified, Public Perception of Harm can in appropriate circumstances be a reason for refusal [HIA/111 paras 54 and 55].

3.14 Aerodrome Safeguarding

The implications for the safe operation of Dishforth Airfield.

3.14.1 The Secretary of State should be concerned that HIAs own archaeological assessment [CD/3.29, Tab 2, para 4.8.6] provides evidence that, in living memory, two military aircraft using Dishforth Airfield have crashed onto the proposed MSA site.

3.14.2 Lt. Col. Lawson’s evidence [KH/4/1 and KH/4/2] demonstrated that the location of the proposed Kirby Hill MSA, within an aerodrome safeguarding zone and just 900m from an operational military airfield, is contrary to planning best practice and creates birdstrike and lighting hazards that are in direct conflict with Government policy on aerodrome safeguarding.

3.14.3 While the historic birdstrike data for Dishforth Airfield was challenged by HIA, what was not challenged was that the proposed Kirby Hill MSA would increase both the bird population and the level of disturbance to birds at a site within the safeguarding zone for an operational military airfield, 900m from the airfield boundary and 400m from the extended runway centreline.

3.14.4 The birdstrike risk does not appear to have been acknowledged and researched by the responsible Government bodies as part of the consultation process on this planning application, despite Kirby Hill RAMS raising it at the 2003 Public Inquiry. Kirby Hill RAMS evidence demonstrates that the risk of increased birdstrikes is both real and significant.

3.14.5 The Secretary of State should be concerned therefore that the HIA ES Update 2008 [CD/3.5 paras 11.128 and 11.129] describe a reed bed creation scheme that is an integral part of the proposals and then state: “In this context reed bed creation will add to the overall habitat diversity, provide important shelter and foraging resource for passage and wintering birds and also increase bird breeding opportunities during the summer.” The Impact assessment table at the end of chapter 11 of the same document also describes how the proposed MSA would attract larger bird species such as corvids due to food waste and would increase disturbance of the bird population due to increased human activity. The increased aviation birdstrike hazard associated with these proposals must be properly evaluated. Kirby Hill RAMS submit that it is neither acceptable nor justified.

3.14.6 The proximity of the MSA lighting arrangement to the final approach path for aircraft presents potential hazards of dazzle and confusion for pilots on final approach. While the lighting hazard presented by this development is not insurmountable, it is undesirable. Very careful sighting and setting up of lighting columns and advertising lights will be required, to avoid confusing pilots making an approach to Runway 33 in the dark or during poor visibility/low cloud base. Even with these measures, the glare from the MSA would present Army pilots with a very challenging night vision goggles (NVG) environment. Para 12 of the DfT Circular 01/2003 note about Roads and Railways near Safeguarded Aerodromes [KH/4/2 Appendix B] states that the intensity of lighting close to an airfield can distract pilots, by causing glare in the direction of an approaching aircraft.

3.14.7 Any airfield activity is subject to safety risks from a number of sources. These risks would be significantly increased by the construction of the proposed MSA in very close proximity to both an operational airfield and a village community. The SoS should consider that the increased risk to safety posed by the Kirby Hill MSA is not acceptable, especially when alternative sites are available that do not carry this risk.

4 Other Submissions

4.1 HIA Environmental Information

4.1.1 On 21st January we made representations to you [KH/111] in respect of the two volumes of Environmental Information that we received from HIA on Christmas Eve.

4.1.2 Information about the environmental impact of the proposed Scheme is fragmented and spread over three large volumes, with the later volumes, in many cases, updating or correcting material in the earlier volumes and the earliest volume (the 2002 Environmental Statement) relating to a different scheme and planning application from the one the Secretary of State is now being asked to consider at Appeal. Consequently, it is extremely difficult for a layman to find all of the Environmental Information related to a particular issue (for example, air or light pollution) and understand exactly what was assessed for its environmental impact and how this compares to what is now being proposed.

4.1.3 In our view, the nature and timing of HIAs provision of the Environmental Information has seriously prejudiced the general public and their interests in this Appeal. Whether deliberately or unintentionally, HIA prevented the public from properly informing themselves about the Environmental Information regarding the proposed Scheme and its impacts until 24th December 2010. In so doing, HIA created a situation in which the public could not effectively question HIA’s experts about the Environmental Information, or ask Kirby Hill RAMS to do so on their behalf, until after HIA had presented its case to the Public Inquiry. By providing just 28 days over the 2010 festive period to review and respond to two of the three volumes of Environmental Information, HIA also placed the general public and Kirby Hill RAMS, as volunteers who must work in their spare time, at a significant disadvantage compared with the other professional parties at the Inquiry, in particular the Highways Agency, who happen to support the Scheme.

4.1.4 We wish to draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the way in which the public has been prejudiced and Kirby Hill RAMS has been disadvantaged by HIAs actions in respect of the provision of Environmental Information during this Appeal. We consider this prejudice to have been incapable of remedy during the Public Inquiry. In our view, the only effective remedy would have been if all the Environmental Information had been made available to the public well before HIA presented its case, as indeed it should have been.

4.1.5 The amendments to the HIA Scheme contained in the December 2010 Regulation 19 submission are material and have in many cases been made to overcome the original reasons for refusal. The revised Scheme includes significant new alternatives for local accesses and for onsite waste water treatment, about which the public was never consulted. In fact, during consultation the public was specifically promised no local accesses. A grant of planning permission for the revised Scheme now would deprive those who should have been consulted of their opportunity for such consultation and would be contrary to the principles of fairness and natural justice.

4.1.6 We have considered HIAs voluntary Regulation 19 submission with reference to the Wheatcroft principles set out in PINS Good Practice Guidance Note 9. Our conclusion is that the HIA Scheme has been so altered and the public so prejudiced by HIAs actions in the course of this Appeal that an appropriate application of the Wheatcroft principles would be for the Secretary of State to dismiss this Appeal and refer HIA back to the LPA for a fresh planning application.

4.1.7 HIA of course do not accept this view and state in response that Kirby Hill RAMS are “simply trying to frustrate the development” [HIA/117]. Sir, this is an unnecessary, inappropriate development that would cause substantial harm. It deserves to be frustrated.

4.2 Gloucester Gate MSA

4.2.1 In an attempt to demonstrate why the Secretary of State should grant planning permission for their online MSA despite the substantial harm that it would cause in a sensitive countryside location, HIA submitted details of the recently-approved Gloucester Gate MSA proposal [HIA/110]. Mr Hough cited this case as an example of “exactly how it should happen”. It is worthy of note that an outline application for the Gloucester Gate MSA was dismissed at Appeal and that permission was only granted on the basis if a full planning application that enabled all the details of the scheme and its impacts to be properly assessed [HIA/110 page 12 para 5]. We submit that in view of the incomplete and constantly changing information base regarding the proposed Kirby Hill MSA and the inevitable adverse impacts HIA accepts it would cause, a similar process that allows a full and proper public examination of all of the details must be followed. The Secretary of State should dismiss this appeal for outline planning permission and refer HIA back to the LPA for a full planning application.

5 Conclusions

5.1 The main planning advantage of the Kirby Hill proposal claimed by its supporters is that it is an online site. There are many planning disadvantages to set against the supposed online advantage:

· The benefits of an online site in this particular location are outweighed by its poor spacing, just 12 miles from the Wetherby MSA.

· The Kirby Hill site is poorly located to complete the 28-mile network. It is too far south and too close to Wetherby.

· It is on an accident-prone section of the A1(M) and would reintroduce slip roads where they have previously been closed on safety grounds.

· The proposal involves tunnelling under the A168 to provide southbound access arrangements that are complicated and unsafe.

· The proposal is in conflict with development plan policies, an important consideration under section 54A of the Town & Country Planning Act.

· It is in substantial conflict with Government policies on protecting the countryside and conserving the historic environment.

· Kirby Hill involves the largest land-take, 90% of which is BMV agricultural land.

· It is the closest proposal to a residential settlement - just 500m from the village of Kirby Hill.

· It involves more built development than the other proposals, in the most open landscape.

· It would have the highest visual impact, affecting the largest number of people.

· It would damage the character and setting of two listed historic buildings.

· It would destroy archaeological sites of potential national significance.

· It would damage the local economy – including the nearby town of Boroughbridge.

· It is not sustainable development.

· Kirby Hill is the only proposal in close proximity to an operational military airfield, increasing the risks to and from aircraft operations.

· It has attracted more local opposition than any of the competing proposals.

· It is the only site where a public perception of harm has been shown to exist.

· Kirby Hill was not the Inspector’s preferred choice at the 1997 or 2003 Public Inquiries.

5.2 We submit that some of these planning disadvantages are sufficient on their own to outweigh the ‘online’ advantage. Taken together, they represent a compelling case to dismiss this appeal. We ask the Secretary of State not to ignore the evidence of local experts. We invite him to concur with our case and decide that there should be NO MOTORWAY SERVICES AT KIRBY HILL.

5.3 Finally Sir, the proposed Kirby Hill MSA is HIAs baby. They conceived it and have nurtured it from birth. They have told us of their hopes and dreams for its future and even shown us their favourite pictures of it. But it is an ugly baby, an illegitimate child born of an unholy union between HIAs commercial ambitions and HAs bureaucratic incompetence. If it is now dumped on our doorstep, it will cause nothing but harm.

5.4 We respectfully request that the Secretary of State considers our submissions and for the reasons we have given, dismisses HIAs appeal.