1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Reference is made to the appeal APP/E2734/A/09/2102196 submitted by Heather Ive Associates on 7th April 2009, against Harrogate Borough Council’s decision on 30th March 2009 to refuse planning permission for a proposed motorway service area on the A1(M) at Kirby Hill.

1.2 This statement has been prepared by Kirby Hill RAMS [Residents Against Motorway Services]. Kirby Hill RAMS is an independent residents’ group formed for the sole purpose of objecting to the proposed Kirby Hill MSA. Kirby Hill RAMS represented the local community at the 1997 and 2003 Public Inquiries and has been granted the status of a Rule 6 party at the 2009 Public Inquiry. Our case represents the views of the local community and the views of the seven local councils listed below, all strongly objecting to the proposed Kirby Hill MSA:

Local Council	Number of Electors Represented
Kirby Hill & District Parish Council	525
Marton-le-Moor Parish Council	140
Langthorpe Parish Council	650
Dishforth Parish Council	501
Boroughbridge Town Council	2697
Skelton-cum-Newby Parish Council	236
Roecliffe-with-Westwick Parish Council	44
TOTAL ELECTORS REPRESENTED	4793

1.3 While Kirby Hill RAMS have no professional qualifications in the field of planning, our extensive local knowledge exceeds that of any of the expert witnesses engaged by Heather Ive Associates. This enables us to present a case based on evidence that accurately reflects the first-hand knowledge and day-to-day experiences of local people over many years. We believe that we are in a unique position to provide the Inspector and the Secretary of State with a valuable, first-hand, local perspective on the issues under consideration.

1.4 On behalf of the local community, we submit that this appeal should be dismissed.

2 KEY CONSIDERATIONS

2.1 Kirby Hill RAMS identify the key considerations in determining this appeal as:

· Need for another MSA

· Spacing of MSAs on the A1(M)

· Traffic & Highways Safety

· Landscape & Environment

· Residential Amenity

· Aerodrome Safeguarding

· Public Perception of Harm

2.2 The case Kirby Hill RAMS will be making at the Public Inquiry in respect of each of these key considerations is set out in the following sections, with references to the relevant national, regional and local planning policies that apply. At the end of each section, our conclusion in respect of the key consideration being discussed is summarised in bold.

2.3 A list of appearances for Kirby Hill RAMS at the Public Inquiry is provided in Appendix A. A list of the documents we shall submit in evidence is provided in Appendix B and a list of other documents to which we will refer in evidence is provided in Appendix C.

3 NEED FOR ANOTHER MSA

3.1 There is no need for another MSA at Kirby Hill. Kirby Hill RAMS evidence will show that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate an overriding need, as required by DfT Circular 01/2008. We will also show that granting planning permission for the proposed MSA on the basis of a possible increase in need in the future would be premature, as the actual effects of the new Wetherby MSA and the proposed A1 Dishforth to Scotch Corner upgrade cannot yet be properly evaluated. In view of the proximity of the new Wetherby MSA and the developing situation on the A1 between Dishforth and Scotch Corner, there is unlikely ever to be a need for an MSA at Kirby Hill.

3.2 Kirby Hill RAMS will refer to the conclusions on need reached by the Inspector at the 2003 Public Inquiry. He reviewed in detail the need for motorists’ facilities on the whole motorway network in the area, including the A1(M) between Ferrybridge and Scotch Corner, until the year 2021. He carefully considered Heather Ive Associates’ submission that there was a need for two MSAs, including one at Kirby Hill. The Inspector concluded that a single MSA, located at Wetherby, would meet the need and he rejected any two-site strategy. The Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector’s conclusions on need.

3.3 Kirby Hill RAMS will show that the need identified at the 2003 Public Inquiry for an MSA on the A1(M) in North Yorkshire has now been met by the new Wetherby MSA. The expansion of this existing MSA would be a far better response, in planning terms, to any future increase in need, compared with the alternative of building a new MSA in open countryside just 12.3 miles north.

3.4 The Appellant claims that the need for a core MSA at Kirby Hill is justified simply because there will be a gap of >40 miles between the MSA at Wetherby and the site at Barton Park. Kirby Hill RAMS evidence will show that it is unlikely a 40-mile gap will exist and that even if one were to exist, the Appellant cannot demonstrate the overriding need required by DfT Circular 01/2008.

3.5 With reference to DfT Circular 01/2008, the Harrogate District Local Plan and the Harrogate District Local Development Framework, we will show that the LPA correctly adopted a policy that one MSA on the 21-mile section of the A1(M) that passes through the District would meet the need. We will demonstrate that Harrogate Borough Council’s MSA policy in the Local Plan and LDF is entirely consistent with the Government’s goal of achieving a 28-mile spacing, as set out in DfT Circular 01/2008.

3.6 By referring to the Inspector’s report of the 2003 Public Inquiry, the draft Hambleton District LDF and the recent planning application for an MSA at Leeming Bar, we will demonstrate that Leeming Bar currently fulfils a role in meeting the need for motorists’ services on the A1 and is capable of continuing to do so as an MSA in future. The potential to upgrade the existing facilities at Leeming Bar to an MSA, re-using an existing brownfield site and safeguarding local businesses and jobs, represents an excellent planning response to any future increase in need.

3.7 In summary, our case is that the Appellant has not demonstrated an overriding need for an MSA on the A1(M) at Kirby Hill, as required by DfT Circular 01/2008. Any need that may arise in future can best be met by expanding existing facilities.

4 SPACING OF MSAs ON THE A1(M)

4.1 DfT Circular 01/2008 sets out the Government’s current policy on the provision of roadside facilities on the Strategic Road Network (SRN), including motorway service areas (MSAs).

4.2 Kirby Hill RAMS evidence will show that the proposed Kirby Hill MSA is poorly located in spacing terms, being too far south and too close to the new Wetherby MSA.

4.3 With reference to DfT Circular 01/2008, we will show that the section of the A1(M) in North Yorkshire under consideration at this Inquiry does not fall into the category of “the busiest and most congested parts of the network” for which the reduced Absolute Minimum Spacing distance in Circular 01/2008 was introduced. We will further show that the Appellant’s proposed MSA does not fulfil the Government’s preference for an infill site to be located “roughly halfway between MSAs”.

4.4 In addition to being poorly located for spacing on the motorway network, we will use local maps to show that the Appellant’s proposals do not meet the DfT Circular 01/2008 criteria with regards to spacing of facilities on the Strategic Road Network.

4.5 We invite the Inspector to consider the circumstances under which DfT Circular 01/2008 envisages the spacing distances between MSAs should be reduced. Specifically, this is “on the most congested routes, when it is likely to take more than 30 mins to travel between MSAs.” Kirby Hill RAMS evidence will show that it is completely inappropriate for the Appellant to use the Minimum Acceptable Spacing distances in DfT Circular 01/2008 to justify a new MSA on the A1(M) at Kirby Hill.

4.6 In summary, our case is that the Appellant’s proposal is a poor choice in spatial planning terms and fails to meet the DfT Circular 01/2008 spacing criteria.

5 TRAFFIC & HIGHWAYS SAFETY

5.1 Kirby Hill RAMS will show that DfT Circular 01/2008 requires that MSAs should only be built in a location that meets the spacing policy and where a clear and overriding need for an MSA has been demonstrated to exist. Under these circumstances, paragraph 14 of DfT Circular 01/2008 says that: “the potential risk to safety that is created by additional accesses and egresses is balanced by the improvement to safety resulting from refreshed and alert drivers.” We will show that the Appellant’s proposals do not achieve this balance.

5.2 Circular 01/2008 and Circular 02/2007 both stress that the road safety benefit of increasing on/off movements from the SRN at an MSA must outweigh the potential detrimental effects. Kirby Hill RAMS evidence will demonstrate that this policy requirement cannot be fulfilled at Kirby Hill.

5.3 By referring to the Appellant’s design proposals and Highways Agency technical standards we will show that the proposed MSA would require departures from standards that are not justified by an overriding need for the facility. We will further show that the Appellant’s proposals fail to meet DfT Circular 01/2008 criteria, including the requirement to accommodate abnormal loads.

5.4 In summary, our case is that the Appellant’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 DfT Circular 01/2008.

6 LANDSCAPE & ENVIRONMENT

6.1 The Secretary of State’s decision letter following the 2003 Public Inquiry cited the following conclusion on landscape impact: “The Kirby Hill proposal would have a detrimental effect on both the character and the visual appearance of the surrounding landscape. This is a matter to which the Secretary of State attaches significant weight.”

6.2 Kirby Hill RAMS evidence will show that the proposed Kirby Hill MSA site is part of a unique, open, large-scale landscape that is highly valued by local people. Development of an MSA could not be successfully assimilated at this location. Such development would also be contrary to the provisions of the current Harrogate District Landscape Character Assessment. The proposed mounding and planting to screen the MSA is out of character with the surrounding landscape and would simply worsen the landscape and visual impacts of the development.

6.3 By referring to the Appellant’s EIA and DfT Circular 01/2008, we will demonstrate that the Appellant’s proposals do not fulfil the requirements to “limit development alongside motorways and motorway junctions to mitigate the impact of strategic roads on the environment.” We will also show that the Appellant’s proposal fails to meet the DfT Circular 01/2008 criterion that: “In design terms, roadside facilities schemes should respond sensitively to both the site and its setting, including the existing landscape and other physical features.”

6.4 Kirby Hill RAMS evidence will show that the proposed MSA would also cause substantial harm to landscape and environmental interests of acknowledged importance, contrary to national, regional and local policies on protecting the countryside from unnecessary development. Exceptional justification is required to grant planning permission for major development in the open countryside and this justification does not exist at Kirby Hill.

6.5 Kirby Hill RAMS will refer to Natural England’s agricultural land classification resources to demonstrate that the proposed MSA site is located within a small area containing the largest quantity of Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land in the region. The Appellant claims that the agricultural land-take is less than the 20 ha threshold regarded as nationally-significant, however the planning assessment must take into account that, for the reasons stated previously, there is no need to destroy this land resource at Kirby Hill. Almost any other site in North Yorkshire would be less harmful in terms of the quality of agricultural land destroyed. Kirby Hill RAMS will show that the proposed MSA development contravenes PPS7 policies on the protection of best and most versatile agricultural land.

6.6 Using evidence provided by the Appellant to the 2003 Public Inquiry, we will demonstrate that the proposed MSA would create damaging visual impacts on sensitive receptors close to the site and on a larger number of receptors over a very wide area, due to the open character of the landscape at Kirby Hill and the long-range views that would be dominated by the proposed MSA.

6.7 Kirby Hill RAMS evidence will show that, given the importance Government, Regional and Local policies attach to protecting the countryside from unnecessary development, substantial weight must be given to the consideration of landscape and countryside impact at a site in attractive open countryside, such as that at Kirby Hill. The weight of Government policy creates a presumption against large-scale developments in open countryside, such as the proposed MSA at Kirby Hill. We respectfully suggest that this should be the Secretary of State’s starting point when considering the proposals for an MSA at Kirby Hill.

6.8 In summary, our case is that the Appellant’s proposed MSA could not be successfully assimilated into the landscape at Kirby Hill and would cause substantial harm. The Appellant’s proposals are in substantial conflict with National, Regional and Local landscape policies and do not fulfil the DfT Circular 01/2008 landscape criteria. This appeal should be dismissed on landscape grounds alone.

7 RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

7.1 Kirby Hill RAMS evidence will show that in North Yorkshire in general and the rural villages close to the proposed MSA in particular, the quality of life is high, with Harrogate District ranked as one of the five best places to live in the UK. The residential areas close to the proposed MSA site are therefore highly sensitive to adverse impacts on their levels of residential amenity. There is a substantial body of national Government policy related to sustainable communities, quality of life, light, noise, air and water pollution (listed in Appendix B) which clearly demonstrates that such adverse impacts on residential amenity are material planning considerations to which significant weight should be attached when considering this proposal.

7.2 Kirby Hill RAMS will also refer to new evidence that has emerged since the 2003 Public Inquiry to demonstrate that the Appellant’s proposals would have an adverse impact on residential amenity. This evidence includes:

· Evidence of the actual impact of the new MSA at Wetherby on residential amenity.

· A detailed study of the experiential landscape of Kirby Hill, published in 2007 as a chapter in the book: “Experiential Landscape: an Approach to People, Place and Space” by University of Sheffield academic Dr. Kevin Thwaites and Chartered Landscape Architect Ian Simkins.

· Recent research and heightened scientific concerns regarding the transport of motor vehicle particulates and their effects downwind of major highways.

7.3 In summary, our case is 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. There is no justification in planning terms for creating any adverse impact on residential amenity at Kirby Hill.

8 AERODROME SAFEGUARDING

8.1 Kirby Hill RAMS will show that the proposed MSA site is within the aerodrome safeguarding zone for Dishforth Airfield. The site is 900m from the Airfield boundary, just 500m from the extended runway centreline and is regularly overflown at low-level by fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. Kirby Hill RAMS evidence will demonstrate that the proposed MSA, balancing ponds, woodland and grassland habitats would significantly increase the birdstrike hazard to these aircraft, as described in CAA Safeguarding of Aerodromes Advice Note 3: “Potential Bird Hazards from Amenity Landscaping and Building Design”. The balancing ponds in particular are a new addition since the 2003 Public Inquiry that would significantly increase the aviation birdstrike hazard.

8.2 We will also use the Appellant’s EIA and Kirby Hill RAMS aerial photographic evidence to show that the proposed MSA would create an aviation lighting hazard near the Airfield, as described in CAA Safeguarding of Aerodromes Advice Note 2: “Lighting near Aerodromes”.

8.3 Development that increases the birdstrike and lighting hazards within an aerodrome safeguarding zone is contrary to planning best practice and contravenes the policies set out in DfT Circular 01/2003: “Safeguarding Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas”.

8.4 To demonstrate that the aviation hazard is not just a theoretical risk, Kirby Hill RAMS will provide evidence of a low-level collision between two military aircraft operating in the Dishforth Airfield circuit that resulted in the deaths of two local people. In view of this precedent, any development that creates an aerodrome safeguarding hazard at Kirby Hill and increases the risks of such an incident occurring again, with possibly catastrophic consequences, is simply unacceptable.

8.5 In summary, our case is that the location of the proposed MSA development, 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.

9 PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF HARM

9.1 Over the 13 years since the Appellant first submitted plans for an MSA on this site, the local community has clearly and consistently articulated, often in very large numbers, the harm that they perceive the proposed development would cause. As local experts who know and understand the area around the proposed MSA site better than anyone, Kirby Hill RAMS will demonstrate that the proposed MSA development would cause substantial harm. Using evidence from the local media, previous applications and Inquiries and individual correspondence, we will demonstrate that the proposed development has also created a Public Perception of Harm that is a material planning consideration.

9.2 With reference to the Appellant’s pre-application consultation process in 2008 and the written responses of 140 local people, we will demonstrate that the Appellant has failed to reply to the concerns expressed by the local community and address the Public Perception of Harm.

9.3 Given that a justifiable Public Perception of Harm exists in relation to the proposed MSA development, Kirby Hill RAMS will request that the Secretary of State applies the Precautionary Principle advocated by the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Developments and to which the UK Government is committed. We will refer to the Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment (ILGRA) 2002 paper: “The Precautionary Principle: Policy and Application” to demonstrate that the correct application of the Precautionary Principle in this case would be a refusal of planning permission, in order to prevent the possibility of actual harm.

9.4 In summary, our case is that, over the last 13 years, the Appellant’s repeated applications and appeals 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. Application of the Precautionary Principle requires that planning permission should be refused in order to prevent actual harm.

10 CONCLUSIONS

10.1 In conclusion, Kirby Hill RAMS case is that the local community strongly objects to the proposed Kirby Hill MSA on the following planning grounds:

10.2 The Appellant has not demonstrated an overriding need for an MSA on the A1(M) at Kirby Hill, as required by DfT Circular 01/2008. Any need that may arise in future can best be met by expanding existing facilities.

10.3 The Appellant’s proposal is a poor choice in spatial planning terms and fails to meet the DfT Circular 01/2008 spacing criteria.

10.4 The Appellant’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 DfT Circular 01/2008.

10.5 The Appellant’s proposed MSA could not be successfully assimilated into the landscape at Kirby Hill and would cause substantial harm. The proposals conflict with National, Regional and Local landscape policies and do not fulfil the DfT Circular 01/2008 landscape criteria.

10.6 The Appellant’s proposals would create a number of adverse impacts in an area that is highly sensitive to changes in residential amenity. There is no justification for creating any impact on residential amenity at Kirby Hill.

10.7 The Appellant’s proposals would be located within an aerodrome safeguarding zone just 900m from an operational military airfield, contrary to planning best practice. They would create birdstrike and lighting hazards contrary to Government policy on aerodrome safeguarding.

10.8 The Appellant’s repeated applications and appeals have created a Public Perception of Harm in relation to the proposed MSA. This Public Perception of Harm is a material planning consideration. The Secretary of State should apply the Precautionary Principle and refuse planning permission for the proposed development.

10.9 Taken together, all of the above constitute an overriding planning objection grounded in national, regional and local planning policies. We invite the Secretary of State, in light of our evidence, to dismiss this appeal and ensure that there will be NO MOTORWAY SERVICES AT KIRBY HILL.

Kirby Hill RAMS

30 June 2009

APPENDIX A

LIST OF APPEARANCES FOR KIRBY HILL RAMS

A.1 Following is a list of appearances at the Public Inquiry for Kirby Hill RAMS:

Leading the case:

Mr. Gareth Owens

Local resident and Chairman, Kirby Hill RAMS

Witnesses:

Need & Spacing: Dr. Andrew Ramsden