KIRBY HILL MSA: Opening statement to the Public Inquiry by Mr. Gareth Owens on behalf of Kirby Hill & District Parish Council

 

7th October 2002

 

1.      Introduction

1.1.               My name is Gareth Owens.  I am a resident of Kirby Hill and a parish councillor.  I have no professional background in this type of work.  However, I am the first speaker you will have heard today who lives within 500m of one of the proposed MSA sites and has a clear view towards it over open countryside.  I therefore feel well qualified to speak from the heart on this matter.

1.2.               This is the opening statement of Kirby Hill & District Parish Council (KHPC) in objection to the proposed Motorway Service Area (MSA) on the land to the east and west of the A1(M), north of the B6265 Ripon-Boroughbridge road, at Kirby Hill.

1.3.               KHPC represents 490 electors in the joint parishes of Kirby Hill, Milby, Humberton, Ellenthorpe and Thornton Bridge.  To the best of KHPCs knowledge and belief, an overwhelming majority of electors object strongly to the proposed MSA.  No local residents have made KHPC aware that they support the proposed MSA, despite having had the opportunity to do so at public meetings in June and August 2002.

1.4.               This statement of case by KHPC has the full support and endorsement of Langthorpe Parish Council, Boroughbridge Town Council and Kirby Hill RAMS (Residents Against Motorway Services), an independent residents’ action group set up to fight the proposed MSA.

1.5.               KHPC also fully supports the case being made by Kirby Hill RAMS and is in agreement with the arguments made in the Kirby Hill RAMS statement of case, some of which, including those on spacing, are not repeated here.

1.6.               KHPC supports Harrogate Borough Council’s decision to make Kirk Deighton its preferred choice, but is disappointed by its decision not to reject the Kirby Hill option, as it did in the 1997 Public Inquiry.  KHPC has been unable to identify any material change in those factors on which the Borough Council based its decision to oppose the Kirby Hill application in 1997.

2.      Proposed Development

2.1.               The proposal to which we object is for a twin sided MSA of substantial proportions, 13 hectares, to include motorway lodges and excess parking on both sides.

2.2.               The proposed site covers an area greater than that of Kirby Hill village. As the village lies less than half a mile from the site, its individual identity will be lost.

2.3.               The proposal of the developer to provide almost 7 hectares of banked earthworks and tree planting for eventual screening of a 13 hectare MSA demonstrates that such a development at this site would be massively intrusive.

3.      Principal Issues

3.1.                          KHPC will address the issues of: -

·        Degree of Harm

·        Timing

·        Safety

and any other matters that KHPC believes are relevant.

4.      Principal Arguments

DEGREE OF HARM

Landscape and Environment

4.1.               The proposed MSA site at Kirby Hill is in open countryside with far reaching views: to the east towards the Hambleton Hills and the White Horse at Sutton Bank; to the west towards the Yorkshire Dales.  The proposed site is clearly visible from these areas.  Such a development at this site is not capable of being totally screened and would stand out from vantage points on higher ground as particularly intrusive.

4.2.               In his report on the 1997 Inquiry, the inspector stated that without the wooded areas the MSA would  “remain permanently and unacceptably prominent”. He further stated that the wooded planting would only “partly soften” views from the surrounding area.

4.3.               Numerous properties overlook this site and lie within 300-600 metres of it. Their views will be badly degraded.

4.4.               Since it will require 7 hectares of earth embankments and plantings in an attempt to ‘mitigate the impact’ of the proposed MSA, this development could not be assimilated at Kirby Hill without adversely affecting the open, large-scale character of the landscape.  The earthworks and plantings would in themselves be out of character with the nature of the landscape.

4.5.               The loss of 20 hectares of high quality agricultural land (Inspector’s report 1997 Inquiry) at this site, including 10.2 hectares of Grade 2 agricultural land, would be far greater than at any of the other sites being considered.  Current Government policy gives considerable weight to protecting Grade 2 agricultural land from irreversible development and giving it special consideration as a national resource.

 

4.6.               While no material harm may occur to historic buildings, an MSA at this site would seriously affect the character and setting of the Grade 1 listed All Saints Church in Kirby Hill and the Grade 2 listed Skelton Windmill.  We will invite the Inspector to see this when he makes his site visit.

Residential Amenity

4.7.               The site is very close to residential property and the village of Kirby Hill.  The sheer scale of the proposed MSA is such that it will dominate the surrounding area and destroy it’s unique rural identity.  The proximity of the proposed site to the village is such that it is likely there would be pressure in future for infill development between the village and the MSA.

4.8.               An MSA on this site will cause intolerable levels of air, noise, refuse, odour and light pollution for local residents.

TIMING

4.9.               Kirk Deighton was the Inspector’s preferred site at the 1997 Inquiry and was refused purely on the grounds that the upgrading of the A1 between Wetherby and Walshford was not at that time envisaged as imminent.  Since contracts have been let and that upgrade is now about to commence in spring 2003 and should be completed within two years, these grounds for refusal have disappeared.

SAFETY

Highways and Traffic

4.10.           When the A1 was upgraded at Kirby Hill, the slip roads onto it from the B6265 were closed because they were unsafe.  There is already confusion for drivers using the A168 feeder road and the A1M, especially at night, as these roads run parallel to each other just a few metres apart.  The MSA proposal reintroduces slip roads at this junction, constructing them with sharp bends and tunnels under both the A168 and the B6265, resulting in yet more roads parallel with and close to the already confusing A1(M) and A168.  The only way to reduce the dangers facing tired, long-distance motorists at such a juxtaposition of different roads at night would be to install safety lighting.  This would create significant light pollution problems for residents in Kirby Hill.

Military Aviation

4.11.           The proposed site is on the final approach to the RAF Dishforth airfield. It will be constantly overflown at low level by military aircraft and trainee pilots.  Takeoff and landing are regarded as the most dangerous times in flying and the substantial number of aircraft movements mean that there is a significant risk of incidents over the MSA.  The high level of lighting from an MSA at this site could also affect the use of night vision equipment by the helicopters of 9 Army Air Corps Regiment, based at Dishforth.  KHPC believe that a site so close to an operational military runway is not the most sensible of locations for an MSA with two petrol stations.  Representations have been made by the Defence Estates Organisation and the Commanding Officer of 9 Army Air Corps Regiment, copies of which the Inspector should have received.

5.      Conclusions

5.1.               At the 1997 inquiry Kirk Deighton was found to be the site of choice but the decision could not be made in its favour because of the timing issue.  With the letting of contracts for the Walshford to Wetherby upgrade, that issue has now disappeared.  All the other material considerations that favoured the Kirk Deighton site remain the same.  Harrogate Borough Council says that Kirk Deighton is the clear preference for an MSA in Harrogate District and that the other two proposed sites have significant associated problems.

5.2.               The proposed site at Kirby Hill is, by the nature of its open rural landscape, environmentally sensitive to large-scale developments of this kind.  The remedial action proposed to camouflage its existence would, in KHPC’s view, simply add to the substantial harm this development would cause to the landscape and local environment.

5.3.               The proposed site at Kirby Hill is closer to residential property and has a more detrimental effect on residential amenity than any of the other sites being considered.

5.4.               The proposed site at Kirby Hill would involve the loss of much more high-grade agricultural land than any other of the competing sites.

5.5.               On behalf of local electors and pursuant to its statutory obligations, Kirby Hill & District Parish Council objects most strongly to this application and submits, as the Parish Council always has done, that the degree of harm caused by this damaging development would be such that planning permission should not be granted under any circumstances.