Position Statement on Need

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1.1 I am instructed to represent Kirby Hill & District Parish Council and Kirby Hill RAMS (Residents Against Motorway Services) in the matter of the proposed motorway services on the A1(M) at Kirby Hill, near Boroughbridge in North Yorkshire.

1.1.2 Kirby Hill & District Parish Council represents 490 electors in the combined parishes of Kirby Hill, Milby, Ellenthorpe, Humberton and Thornton Bridge.

1.1.3 Kirby Hill RAMS is an independent residents’ group formed for the sole purpose of objecting to the proposed MSA. Kirby Hill RAMS represents 728 local people who have signed a mandate supporting the RAMS objections. This mandate has been presented to the Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State.

1.1.4 Kirby Hill RAMS and Kirby Hill & District Parish Council have gone to great lengths to present this Inquiry with detailed evidence concerning the material planning considerations in this case. On behalf of both organisations, I have submitted in evidence a written statement on need; a summary, detailed proof of evidence and appendices concerning the site-specific considerations at Kirby Hill; a rebuttal proof in response to the proofs of evidence of HIAs experts and a number of other documents in response to the Inspector’s questions.

1.1.5 One or more members of Kirby Hill RAMS have been in attendance at most of the Inquiry sessions since October. I personally attended the Inquiry for the 3 weeks devoted to Kirby Hill site-specific considerations. On behalf of the RAMS and the Parish Council, I cross-examined all of HIAs expert witnesses.

1.1.6 Four members of Kirby Hill RAMS and the chairman of the Parish Council, Mr. Rae, gave evidence at the daytime session on 6^th May and were cross-examined by Mr. Hardy for HIA. A further fifteen local people gave evidence in the form of statements to the evening session at the Crown Hotel, Boroughbridge on 7^th May. In total, 423 local people signed the attendance sheet for the evening session. Approximately 200 were turned away due to over capacity. All subsequently received copies of the proceedings and an invitation to write to the Inspector if they wished to raise any additional points. No one spoke in support of the proposed MSA on this occasion. I am aware that a number of additional written representations have been received since 7^th May, all objecting to the proposal.

1.1.7 There can be no doubt that the local community strongly objects to the proposed Kirby Hill MSA and that the level of objection at Kirby Hill far exceeds that at any of the other four sites. While this is not a reason to dismiss the appeal, we submit that such a strong local objection has arisen because local people, with their unique knowledge of the area, understand clearly the reasons why the HIA proposal is completely inappropriate. We wish to inform the Secretary of State that this is a badly located, poorly thought-out proposal. It is unsafe and would cause substantial harm to interests of acknowledged importance. Having seen the HIA experts in action at this Inquiry and noted their frequent mistakes, their ignorance of important matters and their apparent determination to secure planning permission for this MSA at all costs, we are more concerned than ever to ensure that this appeal should be dismissed.

1.1.8 Kirby Hill & District Parish Council and Kirby Hill RAMS strongly object to the proposed MSA. I will now summarise the planning arguments in support of a recommendation that the Secretary of State should dismiss this appeal.

2 Need for MSA Provision

2.1.1 We accept that there is a need for one new MSA on the stretch of motorway under consideration at this Inquiry. That is also the position of the local planning authority and it was the conclusion of the Inspector at the 1997 Public Inquiry. We submit that none of the parties to this Inquiry has demonstrated the significant material change in circumstances that would be necessary to justify the provision of more than one MSA now. There are a number of obvious contradictions at the heart of HIA’s case. The first is that, while arguing that consistency of decision demands the same outcome as in 1997, this time around they are promoting the Kirby Hill site as one of a pair.

2.1.2 One MSA in a reasonably central location will meet the need. To the best of our knowledge, granting planning permission for two MSAs simultaneously would be unprecedented and is, in our view, completely unnecessary. The A1(M) in North Yorkshire is not the M25.

2.1.3 If the need for a second MSA on the A1(M) should arise in future, for example, after completion of the Dishforth to Barton A1(M) upgrade in 2010, the possibility of upgrading an existing TRSA such as Leeming Bar affords an excellent planning opportunity. Such an upgrade, which we have shown the owner of Leeming Bar TRSA is keen to pursue, would allow a second MSA to be provided while complying with Government policies regarding the use of already-developed sites and the protection of the countryside from unnecessary development. This opportunity for low-impact future development of the MSA network should be preserved, by careful choice of the single most appropriate MSA location now.

2.2 Key sites

2.2.1 We identify the major routes to be provided with services in the area under review as the M62, the M1, the A1 and the A1(M).

2.2.2 On these routes, the southern fixed point MSAs are Hartshead Moor, Woolley Edge and Ferrybridge. The only existing MSA to the north is Durham. Planning permission for an MSA at Barton Park was granted 5 years ago, but has not been implemented. The planning permission expires in July 2003 and the future of Barton Park is uncertain.

2.2.3 Solicitors for the owner of Leeming Bar TRSA have written to the Inspector, expressing their client’s intention to seek planning permission to upgrade Leeming Bar to an MSA in conjunction with the Dishforth to Barton A1(M) upgrade. We submit therefore that Leeming Bar should be regarded as a key site to the north.

2.3 Spacing

2.3.1 We submit that spacing is the key determinant of whether a site can meet the need.

2.3.2 The situation regarding northern fixed points is unclear. Both Leeming Bar and Barton Park could potentially become fixed point MSAs to the north in future. Given this uncertainty, spacing from the existing southern fixed points at Woolley Edge, Hartshead Moor and Ferrybridge is the primary issue.

2.3.3 The Government’s prioritisation and completion of the link road between the M1/M62 and A1(M), some years ahead of the Ferrybridge to Hook Moor A1(M) upgrade, demonstrates that the M1 and M62 are the most important routes. Consequently, Woolley Edge (43 miles from Kirby Hill on the M1) and Hartshead Moor (46 miles from Kirby Hill on the M62) are the most important southern fixed points. The existing MSA at Ferrybridge, 34 miles south of Kirby Hill, is not on the A1, nor will it be when the Ferrybridge to Hook Moor A1(M) upgrade is completed.

2.3.4 We submit that the need can be met and the 30-mile network completed by a single MSA at a reasonably central location, such as Kirk Deighton, or possibly Flaxby.

2.3.5 Kirby Hill is particularly unsuitable in spacing terms, being too far from the southern fixed points and too close to the northern facilities at Leeming Bar. Kirby Hill is simply too far north, doesn’t meet the spacing policy and requires a second infill site at Bramham Crossroads.

2.3.6 The appeal in relation to Kirby Hill should be dismissed on spacing grounds alone.

2.4 Adequacy of adjoining facilities

2.4.1 Motorists on the A1 wishing to use Ferrybridge MSA need to undertake a diversion of several miles before reaching the services. A large proportion of motorists will not want to undertake a round-trip of severak miles to access an MSA. As a result, the Ferrybridge MSA is likely to be inadequate in meeting the need of motorists on the A1(M). This provides further justification for locating a new MSA on the A1(M) further south, not 34 miles north of Ferrybridge at Kirby Hill.

2.4.2 Leeming Bar TRSA, 14 miles north of Kirby Hill, has a full range of facilities that the present owner wishes to expand into an MSA when the A1between Dishforth and Barton is upgraded.

2.5 Accident Record

2.5.1 The data provided by the Highways Agency shows that the section of the A1(M) between Boroughbridge and Dishforth has by far the highest number of accidents of any of the sections under consideration at this Inquiry. HIA’s traffic expert, Mr. Plumb accepted this point when I put it to him. We submit that this confirms the anecdotal evidence presented by local people, to the effect that this is a particularly accident-prone section of the A1(M).

2.6 Nature and volume of traffic

2.6.1 In their evidence on traffic and turn-in rates, HIA rely on a technical note prepared for the M25/M40/M4 MSA Inquiry. They claim that the proposed Kirby Hill MSA would “serve one of the highest proportions of long distance and HGV traffic of any MSA site in the country”. During cross-examination, Mr. Plumb accepted that, by comparison, much of the traffic on the M25, M40 and M4 is short-distance commuter traffic with no need of an MSA. The situation on the A1(M) in North Yorkshire is simply not comparable with the M25, M4 or M40 around London.

2.7 Convenience for motorists

2.7.1 There is no preference in Government policy for online MSAs over junction sites. While we accept that an online site is likely to result in a higher turn-in rate than a junction site, the overall convenience of an MSA for motorists is influenced by many factors. These include spacing from adjacent MSAs, the facilities provided, the layout of the site, its capacity and the ease with which motorists can negotiate the access and egress arrangements. HIA claim that because Kirby Hill is the only online proposal, it is therefore the most convenient for motorists. This is a simplistic view that has no basis in policy and ignores all other convenience factors, including several where Kirby Hill fares less well than the other proposals before the Inquiry. Kirby Hill is not necessarily the most convenient MSA for motorists, just because it is an online site.

3 The Proposal

3.1 Very brief description

3.1.1 The Kirby Hill proposal is by far the largest of the five sites, involving a land-take of 21 ha in total. It is the only online proposal, requiring duplication of all facilities on both sides of the motorway. It is the closest to a residential settlement, just 500m from the attractive rural village of Kirby Hill and less than 200m from the nearest residential property. HIAs claim that the site is “remote” from Kirby Hill is misleading and wrong. The visibility of the 1m-square cherry-picker basket from the village clearly demonstrated this point during the site visit.

3.1.2 In terms of access arrangements, Kirby Hill is the only proposal that requires tunnelling under another trunk road in order to achieve access to the MSA. It also is the only site that would not have direct access for the emergency services from the local road network. Having examined the routes that the emergency services would need to take to access the site, we presented evidence to show that, in our view, the absence of a rear access is untenable. The recent Reading MSA was promoted as a site with no rear access and planning permission was granted on this basis. The Inquiry heard from Mr. Dixon that a rear access has now been provided, as a result of pressure from the police and from the MSA operator. We submit that this is what would happen at Kirby Hill. HIA’s insistence that there will be no rear access is either the result of poor design, or an attempt to avoid scrutiny of the implications of a rear access, such as the need for staff parking, an increase in traffic on the local road network and easy access for criminals to the residential community nearby.

3.1.3 HIA submitted letters from the emergency services, including one from North Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Service asking “if there would be an opportunity to provide, for example, additional emergency services access to parts of the motorway network which do not currently have a local access available”. We submit that in assessing the impact of this proposal, the Secretary of State should consider that a rear access is likely to be provided at some point in the future.

3.2 Single/multiple site strategy

3.2.1 The Kirby Hill site is being promoted as one of a pair because it requires another MSA further south in order to effectively complete the 30-mile network. We submit that one MSA, reasonably centrally located, can meet the need.

3.3 Likely date of opening (constraints and degree of certainty)

3.3.1 HIA claim that the Kirby Hill proposal has a timing advantage over the other sites and could become operational very quickly. However, there are several factors, unique to Kirby Hill, which would delay the opening of the proposed MSA.

3.3.2 A major deficiency of the Kirby Hill proposal is that it has not been prepared with the benefit of input from an MSA operator, nor is it being promoted in conjunction with an operator. If planning permission is granted, the HIA team will need to find an operator, agree commercial terms and modify the scheme to meet the operator’s requirements. It is impossible to say how long this would take, what changes to the scheme would need to be made and whether approval for these changes would be granted. Delays are inevitable. The only uncertainty is whether these delays would be for months, or for years as has been the case at Barton Park.

3.3.3 The Kirby Hill proposal also faces strong opposition from an articulate and well-organised local community. Their in-principle objection will not simply disappear if the Secretary of State grants planning permission for this MSA. Within the confines of the law, local people will do everything they can to obstruct and delay the opening of an MSA at Kirby Hill. For example, attempts to vary planning conditions in order to meet the needs of an operator would be vigorously opposed.

3.3.4 We submit that Kirby Hill does not have a timing advantage. It may in fact be at a disadvantage compared to the other proposals.

3.4 Environmental Assessment

3.4.1 The HIA Environmental Assessment is very significant, since it provides a level of detail that was not available at the 1997 inquiry. Unfortunately it is also unreliable. HIA accepted that there were inaccuracies, for example in the total land-take, which had to be corrected and errors in many of the Figures, which had to be replaced. Our scrutiny of this document, based on our own local expertise, leads us to the conclusion that it is seriously flawed and inadequate. The Secretary of State should not rely on it when making his decision.

4 Issues

4.1 Highways and Traffic

Adequacy of proposals to standards

4.1.1 We have followed the debate about design standards for slip roads with great interest. We have heard Mr. Plumb’s evidence to the effect that there are no technical standards that apply. The traffic experts for the other parties disagree and have pointed to departures from technical standards that would be required. Whether or not the other experts are right about standards, their evidence has confirmed our submission, as drivers with extensive local knowledge, that the proposed southbound access and egress arrangements are confusing and unsafe.

Future Accident Potential

4.1.2 When I put the Highways Agency accident data to Mr. Plumb, he accepted that there has been a steady decline in accidents on the Boroughbridge to Dishforth section since the slip roads at Kirby Hill were closed at the time of the A1(M) upgrade in 1996. He repeatedly said that he could not provide any assurance that this decline would not be reversed if the proposed MSA were built. He also said that an assessment of future accident potential was the only matter that had not been agreed between HIA and the Highways Agency.

4.1.3 None of the traffic experts at this Inquiry has challenged our submission that an MSA at this location would cause more accidents.

4.2 Landscape and Visual

Landscape Impact

4.2.1 The proposal involves significant, irreversible, adverse impacts on a large-scale, open agricultural landscape that is especially highly valued by local people. The cherry-picker exercise demonstrated on a small scale the visual impact that would be experienced by local residents. The actual impact would of course be many times greater, because of the relative sizes of the cherry-picker basket and the proposed development.

4.2.2 HIA rely heavily on the 1993 Woolerton-Truscott landscape appraisal of Harrogate District to justify their proposal in landscape terms. We heard from Mr. Allenby that Harrogate Borough Council now places much less emphasis on the Woolerton-Truscott report, having commissioned a new landscape character assessment to replace it. HIA’s landscape expert, Mr. Rech, did not refer to the new character assessment in his evidence. When I asked him why, he said that he had not reviewed it in detail but that he assumed that the conclusions would be similar to the Woolerton-Truscott report.

4.2.3 Mr. Rech was also very selective in his quotations from the Woolerton-Truscott report. When I questioned him about this, he accepted that he had left out of his evidence a number of landscape attributes, identified by Woolerton-Truscott, which were highly relevant to his client’s proposal. He could not explain why he had done so.

4.2.4 Mr. Rech also accepted that the landscape at Kirby Hill had been degraded by previous built development such as the A1(M) upgrade. He agreed that it was beginning to recover from this development and that the Inspector should be concerned that the landscape might be further degraded by additional built development.

4.2.5 We submit that an MSA cannot be successfully assimilated into the large-scale, open landscape at Kirby Hill. It would cause substantial harm. We have no confidence that Mr. Rech has properly assessed the landscape impact of the proposal, or that it could be effectively mitigated.

Visual Impact

4.2.6 Many properties overlook the site and lie within a few hundred metres. Motorists, local residents and visitors all enjoy long-range views across the site towards the North Yorkshire Moors and Yorkshire Dales. The development of the proposed MSA would very badly degrade them. The proposal to use 7 hectares, 35% of the total site area, for screening and planting demonstrates just how intrusive the proposed MSA would be. We heard from Mr. Etchells, Harrogate Borough Council’s landscape witness, that the main problem at Kirby Hill is in terms of landscape impact, based on the visibility of the proposed MSA in an area of open and relatively unspoilt countryside with expansive views from the east.

4.2.7 By night, HIA propose illuminating the MSA with 155 new lighting columns generating 26,020 Watts of light. This will have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding area, including the village of Kirby Hill just 500m away. HIA’s response is to point to the dozen or so lights that already illuminate the B6265 roundabout and suggest that since they already “dominate the night-time sky” the MSA lighting will have little impact. We submit that increasing the number of lighting columns by a factor of 12 will of course make a huge difference to night-time illumination.

4.2.8 Visual impact is a major issue at Kirby Hill, affecting a large number of highly sensitive receptors close to the site, badly degrading attractive long-range views and altering the night sky forever. The proposed mitigation measures are inappropriate to the character of the area and would not overcome the visual and landscape impact of the development.

4.3 Countryside policy

4.3.1 There is a substantial body of primary legislation and written Government policy focused on protecting the countryside. There is far more policy on this subject than there is relating to the provision of motorists’ facilities. Our detailed evidence regarding Government policy in this area demonstrates that protecting rural environments is a priority, when compared with the need to provide facilities for the convenience of motorists. In particular, the weight of Government policy tips the balance strongly in favour of protecting open, unspoilt countryside such as that found at Kirby Hill. The thrust of Government policy is that there is a presumption against development, especially large-scale development, in the open countryside. We submit that this should be the Secretary of State’s starting point when considering the proposals for an MSA at Kirby Hill.

4.4 Agricultural Land

4.4.1 The Kirby Hill proposal would result in the destruction of the largest amount of BMV agricultural land, even if the 7 ha used for mounding and planting is excluded. HIA’s agriculture witness, Mr. Reeve, claimed that the land lost to mounding and planting would ‘retain its agricultural potential’. However, he accepted that the crops currently grown there could not be cultivated on the proposed mounding, which would be covered with dense woodland.

4.4.2 In response to my question, Mr. Reeve estimated that 90% of the 21 ha total land-take of the Kirby Hill proposal would be BMV agricultural land. We submit that Kirby Hill proposal maximises the loss of BMV agricultural land and that this loss is unacceptable. Selecting any of the other proposals would enable development to take place on non-agricultural land or on agricultural land of a lower quality, as required by policy C12 of the local plan.

4.4.3 The Kirby Hill proposal also results in the largest impact on farm businesses.

4.5 Heritage considerations

Listed Buildings

4.5.1 The Grade 1 listed Church of All Saints, Kirby Hill has stood for 1,000 years on a slightly elevated position at the eastern end of the village, some 700m from the proposed MSA site. The Grade 2 listed Skelton Windmill, built in 1822, stands high on the Ripon road to the west of the A1(M), some 600m from the proposed site. HIAs heritage expert, Mr. Harris, accepted that the proposed MSA would be in the visual setting of the church and that the intervisibility between church and windmill would be affected, yet he maintained that the impact of the MSA would be insignificant.

4.5.2 We submit that the proposed MSA is at the worst possible location to cause an adverse impact on this juxtaposition of village and ancient monuments. We have shown in evidence that the wider setting of the church and windmill includes the proposed MSA site. We have further shown that these two historic landmarks are valued by local people and have been appreciated by locals and experts throughout history. Mr. Harris’ evidence does not stand up to scrutiny and reveals the second obvious contradiction at the heart of HIA’s case. HIA claim that the landscape at Kirby Hill has few features of interest. Yet, when considering two of the most prominent and historic features in it, they claim that the same landscape is irrelevant to their setting.

4.5.3 The proposed MSA would harm the character and setting of two important historic monuments. The potential for harm to the setting of the exceptional Grade 1 listed church at Kirby Hill is particularly significant and should be given considerable weight.

Archaeology

4.5.4 The consultation response from North Yorkshire County Council’s Senior Archaeologist criticises the applicant’s Environmental Statement, saying: “The ES has failed to identify the potential for nationally important remains on this site and the conclusion that "no mitigation is necessary" is wrong.” While archaeology can be adequately covered by a planning condition, this consultation response from an expert supports our submission that the HIA Environmental Statement is flawed and inadequate.

4.5.5 Kirby Hill is the only site that experts consider may yield archaeological finds of national importance. Granting planning permission for an MSA would limit the potential for future exploration by archaeologists and by local people with an interest in the history of the site.

4.6 Residential Amenity

4.6.1 Kirby Hill, as the largest proposal and the closest to a residential settlement, would have the most significant impact on residential amenity for the highest number of people. The proposed MSA would be larger than the village of Kirby Hill and just 500m from it. A development of this scale will destroy the distinct identity this pleasant rural village derives from its position in the landscape and permanently detract from its “sense of place”. Air, noise, light and refuse pollution would increase. Local people have told the Inquiry how they moved to Kirby Hill because of the quality of life on offer in a peaceful, rural village. At the evening session, Mr. Collins described the proposed MSA as “a slice of inner city blight imposed on a rural idyll”. We accept HIAs position that impact on residential amenity alone does not represent grounds for refusal. However, the Kirby Hill proposal has the most significant impact and the high levels of residential amenity currently enjoyed by local people are very sensitive to detrimental impacts. We ask the Secretary of State to weigh this factor in the planning balance.

4.7 Ecology

4.7.1 We accept HIAs position that the proposed development would substantially enhance habitat diversity and wildlife opportunities. The Inquiry heard from Mr. Ormshaw that the MSA planting and food waste would in particular attract large bird species such as corvids and gulls.

4.8 Foul and surface water disposal

4.8.1 The proposed site is in open countryside and there are no existing sewers or drainage. We pointed out in our proof of evidence that hydrology is one area in which the HIA Environmental Statement is flawed and inadequate. HIA submitted a new drainage proposal during the site-specific session of the Inquiry. The proposal includes works to install drainage at the site near Kirby Hill, a new intermediate sewage pumping station at Langthorpe and an upgrade to the waste water treatment works at Boroughbridge. The effect of construction on these communities, although significant, will be temporary. However, we submit that upgrading services in this way would remove one of the constraints to development in this rural area and may result in increased urbanization.

4.8.2 The proposed Kirby Hill MSA sits above a major aquifer. HIAs agriculture expert, Mr. Reeve, told the Inquiry that surface water drainage would be achieved by digging through the clay underlying the site and filling the resulting soakaways with permeable material. It is vital that appropriate planning conditions are imposed to prevent the discharge of petrol, oil and other pollutants into the aquifer during normal MSA operations and in the event of a leak.

4.8.3 HIAs apparent ignorance of the hydrological situation is of great concern to us. Mr. Plumb, the traffic expert, produced the drainage proposal. However when I questioned him, he did not know that there was a borehole providing a public water supply in Kirby Hill, or that the Environment Agency had pointed out in 1997 that the proposed development was within the outer protection zone for this borehole. We do not have confidence that the applicant has properly assessed the hydrological aspects of this proposal and we fear that there is a risk of water pollution.

4.9 Economic Development

4.9.1 Kirby Hill is the only site where the local Chamber of Trade has produced evidence of a negative impact on the local economy. HIAs claim that this is a neutral issue is based on a broad view of the Harrogate District economy that neglects the specific detail of the local situation. In November 2002 there were 36 unfilled vacancies in the locality of the proposed MSA. There is no need at Kirby Hill for 250 new jobs and we do not have the people to fill them.

4.10 Crime

4.10.1 The Inquiry heard from Judge Hawkesworth that he can state without doubt that the presence of an MSA at Kirby Hill will increase the incidence of burglary and other property related crime in the area. We have presented evidence from a Home Office research study showing that service stations on the A1 in North Yorkshire attract travelling criminals from higher crime areas to the north. Under these circumstances, granting planning permission for the northernmost MSA proposal, which is also the closest to a residential settlement, would conflict with Government guidance on planning out crime. Kirby Hill is also the only site with an associated risk of terrorist activity directed at the nearby military airfield.

4.10.2 HIA claim that crime would be contained within the site. However, they do not propose any security measures to ensure that this is the case. We submit that the proposed MSA would increase crime in the nearby community of Kirby Hill, especially if a rear access is provided.

4.11 Aviation Safety

4.11.1 Kirby Hill is the only proposal that raises an aviation safety concern. The site is 900m from an operational military airfield and is regularly overflown at low level by military aircraft. A low-level aircraft collision just 2km from the site resulted in the deaths of two local people. There is a credible risk of such an incident affecting the proposed MSA, with catastrophic consequences.

4.11.2 HIA propose 7 ha of woodland planting to screen the MSA. We submit that this habitat would attract birds and create an increased risk of birdstrikes to aircraft using Dishforth Airfield. Birdstrikes are a major hazard and a prime cause of aviation accidents. HIA’s experts had not even considered the birdstrike issue before we raised it at this Inquiry.

4.11.3 Although the official MoD position is one of no objection, local military commanders and Defence Estates have made representations to the Inquiry to the effect that the proposal raises aviation safety concerns. The official position of no objection, adopted by someone who has never visited the area, is diametrically opposed to the serious concerns raised by the people MoD holds responsible for the safe operation of the airfield.

4.11.4 The use of Dishforth Airfield at weekends by the Cleveland Gliding Club raises other safety concerns in respect of general aviation. In particular, the birdstrike and lighting hazards need to be considered in relation to the Circular 01/2003 guidance on aerodrome safeguarding.

4.11.5 It is clear that HIA do not take the aviation safety issue seriously. In his opening statement, Mr. Hardy said “inclusion of this issue within this Inquiry is a lay third party objector led red herring”. We have presented evidence from the local military, from an aerodrome safeguarding expert, from an air traffic controller and from the history of aircraft accidents near the site to support our case. We submit that the proposed MSA would be at risk from aircraft accidents and would itself increase that risk by creating a birdstrike hazard.

4.12 Military Security

4.12.1 Kirby Hill is the only proposal that would have an impact on military security. We have provided evidence of concerns raised by the Commanding Officer of 9 Army Air Corps Regiment based at Dishforth Airfield.

4.13 Public Perception of Harm

4.13.1 Kirby Hill is the only proposal where a public perception of harm has been shown to exist. The public perception of harm has persisted for more than 6 years, since the applicant first submitted a planning application. There is clear evidence of past harm, to support the public perception that, on the balance of probability, there will be future harm.

4.13.2 During their cross-examination of Mr. Rae, HIA claimed that they offered to meet with Kirby Hill & District Parish Council to discuss the proposed MSA. No-one on the parish council is aware of any such approach and there is no evidence that an offer was ever made.

4.13.3 The evidence of HIAs experts has not reassured local people. On the contrary, their performance has convinced us that their mission is to secure an MSA at Kirby Hill at all costs. Those costs are an unacceptable level of harm to interests of national and local importance.

4.13.4 As local experts who know and understanding the area around the MSA better than anyone, we submit that the Kirby Hill proposal would cause substantial harm. We ask the Secretary of State to give considerable weight to this body of local expert evidence.

5 Compliance with Policy

5.1 National & Local Planning Policies

5.1.1 The Kirby Hill proposal conflicts with policies E2, E4, E5, I15, A1, A3 and M5 of the North Yorkshire County Structure Plan and policies A1, A3, T7, T8, C2, C11, C12, C15, HD1, HD4, HD16, HD20 and E8 of the Harrogate District Local Plan. Therefore, planning permission should be refused in accordance with Section 54A of the Town and County Planning Act.

6 Previous Inquiry Decisions

1997 Public Inquiry

6.1.1 HIA rely heavily on the decision of the Inspector at the 1997 Public Inquiry. This reveals the third obvious contradiction at the heart of their case. The preferred site of the Inspector in 1997 was Kirk Deighton. He granted planning permission for Kirby Hill only because, at that time, there was uncertainty about the Walshford to Wetherby A1(M) upgrade, which is now under construction. HIA’s case appears to be that the outcome of this Inquiry should be the same as in 1997, provided that this doesn’t mean granting planning permission for Inspector Basford’s preferred site.

6.1.2 The present Inquiry has considered a far broader range of evidence than in 1997. Documents such as the HIA Environmental Statement were not available in 1997 and there were no evening Inquiry sessions to take on board the views of local people. When I questioned HIA’s Mr. Hough, he accepted that the present Inspector has a completely free hand to examine all the material planning considerations, decide what weight he wishes to attach to them and come to a completely different decision than in 1997, provided that he gives good reasons for doing so.

6.1.3 We submit that a careful consideration of all the evidence now available leads inevitably to the conclusion that planning permission for the Kirby Hill MSA should be refused.

Kidderminster Incinerator Inquiry

6.1.4 We have referred to the Inspector’s conclusions at the Kidderminster incinerator Inquiry to assist the Secretary of State in deciding what weight to attach to the public perception of harm in respect of the Kirby Hill site. While the principal issues raised at Kidderminster were health risks, at Kirby Hill they are harm to the landscape, residential amenity, traffic and highways safety, military aviation and security, crime and the local economy. Nevertheless, there are similarities to the Kidderminster case. There is a serious credibility gap between the developer’s expert evidence and the knowledge of local people. The experts have been shown to be wrong on more than one occasion. They cannot give categorical assurances to local people on important issues such as road safety. In summary, local people have no confidence in the experts and are therefore concerned that the proposed MSA would cause actual harm. The Inspector at the Kidderminster Inquiry concluded that public perception of harm was “a negative factor of some significance to place in the scales of the decision-making process”. We submit that the same is true at Kirby Hill.

7 Conditions / Agreements

7.1.1 We accept the submissions of the Local Planning Authority with regard to planning conditions.

8 Legal Submissions

8.1 Wednesbury Unreasonableness

8.1.1 We submit that the letter of Mr. Martin Watson, the Defence Estates Land Agent at Catterick, dated 30^th September 2002 is an excellent example of Wednesbury unreasonableness. The proper legal definition of Wednesbury unreasonableness can be found in the judgment of Lord Greene M.R. in the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation (1947).

8.1.2 Our layman’s interpretation and application of the principle of Wednesbury unreasonableness is as follows. A reasonable person – the man on the Clapham omnibus – reading the list of aviation safety concerns expressed in Mr. Watson’s letter would not come to the conclusion that the MoD position is one of no objection.

8.1.3 The evidence of aviation concerns includes letters from the former and current Commanding Officers of 9 Army Air Corps Regiment, the statement of Major Dick to the 1997 Inquiry, the letter from the Defence Estates Land Agent, the letter from Mr. Keith Davies, a military helicopter pilot based at Dishforth and the statement of Mr. Ormshaw, an experienced air traffic controller, to the evening session. In view of this, we submit that it would be unreasonable in law for the Secretary of State to hold that there is no MoD objection to the Kirby Hill proposal.

8.2 Human Rights

8.2.1 Since this planning application was first submitted on 27th February 1997, local residents have lived in fear of the harm that they perceive the proposed MSA would cause. Their private and family lives have been disrupted by this fear and by the need to fight the proposals at two Public Inquiries. Their homes have been affected, as residents who decided to move away have found it difficult to sell, because the area was blighted by the proposed MSA.

8.2.2 By the time the Secretary of State issues his decision, it will have taken 7 years to complete the planning process for this MSA. This is a completely unreasonable length of time for people to have to live with such an impact on their private and family lives and their homes. If planning permission for this MSA is now granted, the development will become a permanent and highly visible reminder to local people of their fears.

8.2.3 Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights concerns the right to respect for private and family life. We submit that the Secretary of State should consider how a grant of planning permission for this MSA after such an unreasonably long period of time would infringe the fundamental human rights of local people.

9 Conclusions

9.1 In summary, our case is as follows.

9.2 The Secretary of State should grant planning permission for one new MSA. There is no need for two.

9.3 The main planning advantage of the Kirby Hill proposal is that it would be an online MSA. However, there is no basis in policy for preferring an online MSA to a junction site.

9.4 There are many planning disadvantages of the Kirby Hill proposal to set against this:

· The Kirby Hill site is poorly located to complete the 30-mile network. It is too far north.

· It is on the most 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.

· Kirby Hill is the only proposal which if built would prevent the existing Leeming Bar TRSA from coming forward as an MSA in future.

· 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 by far 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 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 and where local people believe that a grant of planning permission would infringe their human rights.

· Kirby Hill was not the Inspector’s preferred choice at the 1997 Public Inquiry.

9.5 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.