Position Statement on Need

Kirby Hill Residents Against Motorway Services

[ Kirby Hill RAMS ]

1.Introduction

1.1 This statement has been prepared by a working group of members of Kirby Hill RAMS, an organisation formed to represent the residents of Kirby Hill and the surrounding district opposed to the application to build an MSA at Kirby Hill.

1.2 Kirby Hill RAMS are strongly opposed to the application for an MSA at Kirby Hill. However, we will consider the matter of need objectively and base our arguments on a careful consideration of existing policy guidance and material planning considerations.

1.3 In referring to all the possible northern fixed points, rather than being highly selective as is the case in some of the submitted statements on need, we attempt to take as impartial view as possible.

1.4 While we have no professional qualifications in this field we hope to provide a refreshing, common sense layman’s approach to the problem.

1.5 Kirby Hill RAMS will not repeat evidence with regard to the past history of MSA provision of which the Inspector will already have been made well aware, from the various applicants statements of need.

1.6 Kirby Hill RAMS believe that the developers proposing joint sited MSAs (i.e. Skelton/Flaxby and Bramham/Kirby Hill ) are doing so because none of these sites are able to meet the required need as stand alone proposals.

1.7 Kirby Hill RAMS accepts that there is a need to provide facilities for long distance travellers to have rest periods, refreshment and to refuel.

2. Background to the Current Inquiry

2.1 Kirby Hill RAMS believe that a the controversy and recurrent applications to build MSAs is a direct result of the Governments decision in 1992 to deregulate MSA development.

2.2 Kirby Hill RAMS believe that whereas before 1992 a location was defined to meet the need and the land compulsorily purchased to build an appropriate MSA, now developers are attempting to fit an MSA into the land they have been able to find, with little regard to its suitability either with regard to need or spacing.

2.3 As a consequence, some of the applications appear to have very little merit in providing for the travelling public, and the statements of need, advanced by the applicants, display large variation in the interpretation of the various strategies and policies relating to MSA provision.

2.4 At the Inquiries of 1994 and 1997 the inspectors concluded that there was a need for new MSA provision. This was met at the 1997 Inquiry by the granting of permission to build ONE MSA .

2.5 Since the last Inquiry the decision to upgrade the entire stretch of A1 to motorway standard has been announced and the A1-M1 link has been opened. The upgrade has resulted in the A1-M1 becoming the continuous route. There would appear to be little material difference in traffic volumes or distances between MSAs, and consequently the need to be met remains the same.

3. Policy

3.1 The Government policy guidance on MSAs that Kirby Hill RAMS are aware of is contained in HA269 and Roads Circular 1/94.

3.2 Government advice is that MSAs are required for highway safety and should be spaced at 48km (30 mile) intervals throughout the national motorway network. Only exceptionally should ‘infill’ sites at closer intervals be granted, and absolute minimum spacing even then should be 24km (15 miles).

3.3 Because of their proximity to existing MSAs, both the proposals at Skelton and Bramham Crossroads appear to fall into the category of ‘Infill sites’ and must therefore show exceptional circumstances for their approval, to comply with policy. Kirby Hill similarly must be regarded as an ‘infill’ site because of the possibility that either Leeming Bar TRSA or Rainton TRSA may be upgraded to an MSA when the A1 is upgraded.

3.4 Kirby Hill RAMS understands that the introduction of the 48km (30 mile) rule of thumb was the need to safeguard the countryside against the proliferation of development. A 20 hectare development of open land at Kirby Hill when Rainton TRSA, just 5km (3 miles) north, could be upgraded to MSA status is contrary to the spirit of HA269 as regards protection of the countryside from proliferation of development. The developers proposal to combine the twin-sided MSA at Kirby Hill and the second site at Bramham Crossroads (in green belt land) makes a mockery of this policy.

3.5 Kirby Hill RAMS believe that the option most consistent with protecting the countryside is to upgrade existing service sites to MSA standard, particularly where these sites already fit the spacing matrix.

3.6 The Harrogate Borough Council’s Local Plan Policy, prepared with the benefit of Government policy guidance envisages the provision of a single MSA. Kirk Deighton is its preferred site.

4. The Existing and Planned Network

4.1 Kirby Hill RAMS holds the view that since this Inquiry is into the provision of Motorway Service Areas in accordance with Government guidance on the serving of the Motorway network, spacing arguments which involve services on the trunk road network should be regarded as irrelevant.

4.2 Kirby Hill RAMS identify the major routes to be provided with services in the area under review to be the M62, M1, A1 and A1M.

4.3 On these routes, the MSAs defining the southern fixed points are Hartshead Moor, Woolley Edge and Ferrybridge.

4.4 The only existing MSA to the north is Durham.

4.5 A site at Barton Park was given planning permission for an MSA in 1996 but has not been built.

4.6 Leeming Bar TRSA lies on the published road line of the Dishforth to Barton A1(M) upgrade. Access arrangements may change and it has been suggested that the Leeming Bar TRSA may close. However, the Highways Agency states that the upgraded road will still have a junction with the A684 in the vicinity of Leeming. Kirby Hill RAMS are in possession of a copy letter, dated 16th August 2002, from solicitors acting for the owner of Leeming Bar TRSA, to the Highways Agency. This letter clearly states that it is ‘our clients intention to seek to have their current TRSA form an MSA on the new part of the network, to compliment the facilities which currently exist and are proposed’. Leeming Bar will remain a TRSA until completion of the Dishforth to Barton upgrade in 2009/10, well beyond the 5-year planning horizon normally adopted by inspectors when considering need. Consequently Leeming Bar TRSA cannot be discounted as a northern fixed point for the purposes of the present Inquiry.

4.7 Rainton TRSA is only 5km (3 Miles) north of Kirby Hill. We understand this site also has received permission to upgrade facilities but currently has not done so due to uncertainty with regard to any new MSA provision to the south.

4.8 Either of these TRSA sites could be upgraded to MSA status, the option most obviously protecting the countryside, within the spirit of HA269.

4.9 Therefore there is no obvious fixed northern reference point for spacing although the various developers may choose the one consistent with their application.

4.10 Kirby Hill RAMS consider that with the southern MSAs being fixed, and the northern situation uncertain, spacing should be based on the southern sites.

5 Spacing

5.1 The nationally accepted normal spacing distance for MSAs, as recommended by Lord Witty in 1998, is 48 kilometres (30 miles), unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated, with an absolute minimum distance of 24 kilometres (15 miles).

5.2 A single MSA at Kirk Deighton or Flaxby would provide optimum spacing from all the southern fixed points.

5.3 The southern end of the road system examined in this Inquiry is a complex network of three joining motorways. Each road has an existing MSA, they are Woolley Edge, Hartshead Moor and Ferrybridge. The northern end of the road system is a single motorway route. There is no uncertainty with regard to the future southern MSA provision and therefore emphasis must be placed on attaining the best possible spacing matrix to the southern end of this complex road system. This is well achieved by the provision of an MSA at Kirk Deighton or Flaxby. Further leading on from this if the complex southern system had been successfully spaced in line with the 48km (30 mile) policy then any future northern provision would be greatly simplified.

5.4 Unfortunately, to the north of the applications being considered, a site at Barton Park has already been approved. This has caused further problems in attaining the desired 48km (30 mile) spacing policy as it is only 32km (20 miles) from Durham MSA. However despite being granted planning permission in 1996 and this permission’s subsequent renewal construction at this site has not begun. This appears to make its future as uncertain as that of Leeming Bar TRSA or Rainton TRSA and it is therefore an unsuitable fixed position on which to base spacing policy.

5.5 Barton Park, Leeming Bar TRSA or Rainton TRSA all have the potential to become MSAs and all could form a spacing policy with a future MSA at Kirk Deighton or Flaxby.

5.6 The distances from Kirby Hill to existing sites on the M1 and M62 would be well in excess of the 48km (30 mile) recommended spacing and would almost certainly lead to pressure for more ‘infill’ MSAs.

5.7 To summarise, the need therefore would be best met by provision of one new site located at the recommended 48km (30 miles) north of the three existing sites of Ferrybridge, Woolley Edge and Hartshead Moor.

5.8 Spacing Distances

5.8.1 For simplicity of presentation Appendix A contains the following information in map form.

5.8.2 The current five proposals are being considered in two cells, Southern and Northern.

5.8.3 The Southern cell

5.8.3.1 Skelton Grange is a mere 21km (13 miles) from Woolley Edge and 24km(15 miles) from Hartshead Moor. It is an ‘infill’ site and not available to traffic using the A1.

5.8.3.2 Bramham Crossroads is only 23km (14 miles) from Ferrybridge, 37km (23 miles) from Woolley Edge and 40km (25 miles) from Hartshead Moor. It has the advantage of being available to M62, M1 and A1/A1M traffic but is an ‘infill’ site.

5.8.3.3 Both of these sites fail on spacing grounds as they fall below the absolute minimum spacing distance of 24km (15 miles).

5.8.3.4 The granting of either would require the provision of yet another MSA to the north.

5.8.4 The Northern Cell

5.8.4.1 All the proposals for the northern cell will provide facilities for travellers from or to the M62, M1 and A1/A1M.

5.8.4.2 Kirk Deighton is 48km (30miles) from Woolley Edge, 51km (32 miles) from Hartshead Moor and 34km (21miles) from Ferrybridge, fitting well with spacing policy.

5.8.4.3 Flaxby is 55km (34 miles) from Woolley Edge, 58km (36 miles) from Hartshead moor and 40km (25 miles) from Ferrybridge and nearly fits the policy.

5.8.4.4 Kirby Hill is 69km (43 miles) from Woolley Edge, 72km (45 miles) from Hartshead Moor and 55km (34 miles) from Ferrybridge. This does not meet HA269 requirements and would require another southerly ‘infill’ site.

5.8.4.5 To the north Durham MSA is 98km (61 miles) from Kirk Deighton, 90km (56 miles) from Flaxby and 76km (47 miles) from Kirby Hill.

5.8.4.6 Barton Park is 64km (40 miles) from Kirk Deighton, 56km (35 miles) from Flaxby and 43km (27 miles) from Kirby Hill, but Barton Park has not been built.

5.8.4.7 Leeming Bar TRSA is 45km (28 Miles) from Kirk Deighton, 37km (23 Miles) from Flaxby and 23km (14 Miles) from Kirby Hill, therefore Kirby Hill is also an ‘infill’ site.

5.8.4.8 Rainton TRSA is 27km (17 Miles) from Kirk Deighton, 19km (12 Miles) from Flaxby and 5km (3 Miles) from Kirby Hill, also making Kirby Hill an ‘infill’ site.

5.9 Spacing Conclusions

5.9.1 Only the proposals at Kirk Deighton or Flaxby meet the spacing policy.

5.9.2 If Kirk Deighton or Flaxby were built and a site 48km (30 miles) south of Durham, e.g. Leeming Bar TRSA, was established as an MSA then an ideal spacing of 48km (30 miles) to all the existing MSA sites would result.

5.9.3 Should Kirk Deighton or Flaxby be approved to complete the ideal 48km (30 mile) spacing distance to the existing southern fixed points and IF Leeming Bar TRSA and Rainton TRSA were closed and IF Barton Park MSA had been built there may be pressure for an ‘infill’ site between Kirk Deighton or Flaxby and Barton Park. However an upgrade of any of the numerous current sites between Rainton TRSA and Leeming Bar TRSA would satisfy this need without breaking the countryside protection element of HA269.

5.9.4 If either Rainton TRSA or Leeming Bar TRSA remain open then Kirby Hill will be under the absolute minimum spacing distance for an ‘infill’ MSA.

6 Exceptional Circumstances

6.1 Kirby Hill RAMS have examined whether there are circumstances which would justify the provision of any ‘infill’ sites, as follows.

6.2 Paragraph 5 of HA 269 states:

"Planning permission for infill MSAs between "thirty mile " sites should be granted only exceptionally and where a clear and compelling need and safety case for the MSA has been established. ...Planning authorities are expected to have considered at least:-

· the distance to adjoining MSAs;

· evidence (such as queuing on the MSA approach roads or lack of parking spaces at times of peak demand) that nearby MSAs are unable to cope with the need for services;

· a higher than normal incidence of accidents attributable to driver fatigue;

· evidence of a genuine need for the proposed services rather than simply demand: it will not be sufficient to show merely that drivers would use an MSA if it were to be built there should be evidence of a genuine safety-related

need;

· whether the MSA is justified by the type and nature of the traffic using the road; the need for services may, for example, be less on motorways used by high percentages of short distance or commuter traffic than on those carrying large volumes of long distance movements."

6.3 For the M6 Junctions 21 and 22 Inquiry 2001, the Inspector's conclusions included the following statement:-

"(11.18) In assessing proposals for an infill MSA, local planning authorities' will be expected to have considered at least the 5 factors set out in the above Policy Statement, all of which I examine in due course. ..."

6.4 There is no evidence to suggest that exceptional circumstances exist that would justify additional ‘infill’ MSA provision at Skelton Grange, Bramham Crossroads or Kirby Hill.

6.5 There is no evidence of quantitative deficiency in the existing MSAs or suggestion that they can not adapt to future requirements.

6.6 The Highways Agency’s evidence includes accident figures for 1999-2001 which demonstrate that by far the highest accident rate occurs on the northbound carriageway between Bramham and Walshford. This could be construed as evidence to support an exceptional need for an MSA in this area. However this is a notorious, unlit section of the A1 with tight bends. The Walshford to Wetherby upgrade is likely to remove the problem. It is also possible that an MSA at Kirk Deighton would contribute to reducing the accident rate.

6.7 In general terms the traffic counts provided by the Highways Agency for this stretch of road are not excessive when compared with other sections of the national motorway network where MSAs at 48km (30 mile) intervals have been demonstrated to be adequate. MSAs are provided for the needs of long distance traffic, the HA Draft Statement of Common Ground shows that only 46% of traffic passing Skelton Grange and 69% of traffic passing Bramham Crossroads are engaged in journeys of over 108km (67 Miles), this again shows that ‘infill’ sites should not be granted on high traffic volume grounds.

6.8 Kirby Hill RAMS therefore maintain that there are no exceptional circumstances justifying any ‘infill’ sites on the routes under consideration.

7 Summary

7.1 As concluded at the 1997 Inquiry there is only the need for the provision of ONE new MSA.

7.2 Kirby Hill RAMS believe that by pairing the proposals at the Skelton, Bramham, Flaxby and Kirby Hill sites the applicants implicitly acknowledge that each of these sites on its own would fail to meet the need.

7.3 Any new MSA should be available to the long distance traffic using all three Motorway routes.

7.4 Government policies HA269 and Roads Circular 1/94 can and should be applied with the suggested 48km (30 mile) spacing and the upgrading of existing service areas to supply the perceived need.

7.5 Everything else being roughly equal to all the sites spacing is the key determinant of whether a site can meet the need.

7.6 Given the level of uncertainty about the northern fixed points, spacing should be based on the existing southern fixed points.

7.7 Skelton Grange, Bramham Crossroads and Kirby Hill falls under the absolute minimum spacing distance.

7.8 If one site in each cell is granted then normal spacing policy of 48km (30 mile) will be broken regardless of which is granted.

7.9 Kirby Hill RAMS conclude that there are no exceptional circumstances to justify the provision of ‘infill’ sites, and certainly no grounds for breaking the absolute minimum spacing distance.

7.10 The need can be met by a single MSA.

8 Conclusions

8.1 One MSA at Kirk Deighton or Flaxby meets the need.

8.2 The provision of new services at Kirk Deighton or Flaxby and the upgrading of Leeming Bar TRSA would best meet the Government guidelines and Government Planning Policy Guidance .

8.3 Kirby Hill does not meet the need and we therefore ask the Inspector to refuse the Kirby Hill application.

Appendix A

Illustrative maps and schematics