Position Statement on Need

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This is a rebuttal proof of evidence prepared by a working group of local residents, comprising members of Kirby Hill & District Parish Council and of Kirby Hill RAMS (Residents Against Motorway Services). It is a rebuttal of evidence contained in the following documents:

· Proof of evidence of C.M. Hough in relation to site-specific considerations.

· Proof of evidence of A. Harris in relation to Heritage issues.

· Proof of evidence of P. Rech in relation to Environmental issues.

· Proof of evidence of B. Plumb in respect of Highways and Traffic issues

· Proof of evidence of M.J. Reeve in relation to Agricultural issues

1.2 While we have no professional qualifications in the field of planning, our extensive local knowledge exceeds that of any of the expert witnesses engaged by the other parties. This has become clear to us, as we have reviewed the various experts’ proofs of evidence. The rebuttal evidence we present 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 Secretary of State and his Inspector with a valuable, first-hand, local perspective on the issues under consideration.

1.3 In this rebuttal proof, we focus on:

· Statements of fact that we know or suspect to be incorrect.

· Arguments that appear to us to be unsubstantiated or misleading.

· Questions that we wish to raise in respect of the evidence presented.

1.4 In the following sections, we address in turn each of the documents listed above. For ease of reference, we have used the heading structure of the original document to set out our rebuttal evidence. Quotations are in italic type and we refer to paragraph numbers in the original document using this typeface: (6.3.4)

2 SITE-SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS (C.M. HOUGH)

2.1.1 This section contains our rebuttal of the proof of evidence of Mr. C.M. Hough on site-specific considerations dated December 2002.

2.2 Qualifications and Experience

2.2.1 Mr. Hough says that he drives 33,000 miles per annum, mostly on motorways. He is a frequent user of MSAs (1.3). He earns his living by identifying potential new MSA sites and supporting them through the planning process (1.2). Mr. Hough is clearly pro-motorist and pro-MSA. We must therefore question his independence as an expert when it comes to balancing the need for MSAs against site-specific considerations, such as landscape, residential and heritage impacts. Given his profession and high-mileage lifestyle, we should not be surprised that Mr. Hough attaches too much weight to meeting motorists’ needs and insufficient weight to the other important site-specific considerations.

2.3 Introduction

2.3.1 Mr. Hough’s conclusions on need (2.2), that a two-site strategy is the most appropriate response and that an online site is to be preferred to a junction site, demonstrates his prejudice in favour of meeting the need at all costs. He does not appear to believe that the site-specific issues, which must be weighed in the balance, are at all significant. In advocating his client’s case, he ignores the fundamental principle that meeting the need must be balanced against other material planning considerations.

2.3.2 Mr. Hough is alone in his opinion that “Kirby Hill is clearly the preferred site” (2.3). Kirby Hill is not the preferred site of the local planning authority. Neither was it the preferred site of the Inspector at the 1997 Inquiry.

2.3.3 Kirby Hill is not “the best located site in terms of the key consideration of spacing as a single site” (2.3). It is 72 km (45 miles) from Hartshead Moor and 69 km (43 miles) from Woolley Edge, two of the three fixed points to the south. These distances are excessive when compared against the desire to complete a 30-mile network. Kirby Hill is simply too far north. The spacing advantage lies with sites further south. Mr. Hough is also wrong to suggest that Kirby Hill is capable of being paired with an MSA at Kirk Deighton. The distance between these two sites is just 21 km (13 miles), less than the 15-mile minimum.

2.3.4 Mr. Hough says that, to the south of Kirby Hill, the M1 and M62 are less important routes than the A1 (2.3). The Government’s prioritisation and completion of the A1-M1 link road in advance of any of the A1(M) upgrades - Ferrybridge to Hook Moor, Wetherby to Walshford and Dishforth to Barton - demonstrates exactly the opposite. The M1 and M62 are more important routes than the A1, but acknowledging this does not help Mr. Hough’s case because Kirby Hill is too far north.

2.3.5 Mr. Hough’s conclusion that the balance of planning advantage lies with Kirby Hill (2.4), before he has even told us about the site-specific considerations, once again demonstrates his prejudice in favour of meeting the need at all costs.

2.4 Site Description

2.4.1 Anyone consulting OS Explorer Sheet 299 will see that Boroughbridge has two further outlying settlements that Mr. Hough fails to mention (3.2): Langthorpe to the north and Roecliffe to the west. The parish councils of both villages have written objecting to the proposed Kirby Hill MSA.

2.4.2 Dishforth Airfield is an Army Air Corps facility and has not been occupied by the RAF (3.2) since before the 1997 Public Inquiry. The boundary of Dishforth Airfield is 900m from the northern boundary of the MSA site, not 2 km as Mr. Hough states.

2.4.3 The existence of a small amount of built development in an otherwise open landscape does not provide a context in which an MSA becomes more acceptable. PPG7 requires that “New development should be sensitively related to existing settlement patterns”. An MSA is a very different type of development to the existing buildings at Kirby Hill and would be completely out of character. At 21 ha, the proposed MSA site would be larger than Kirby Hill village and would be just 500m from it. This cannot be construed as being sensitively related to existing patterns of settlement. The impact of existing lighting on Kirby Hill and Marton-le-Moor at night is minimal. The proposed MSA, by contrast, would be located approximately half way between Kirby Hill and Dishforth Airfield and would contain 154 lighting columns (HIA ES para 5.78 to 5.85), compared to the 12 currently on the Ripon Road roundabout. The proposed MSA would create a substantial visual intrusion by day and by night.

2.5 The Proposals

2.5.1 Mr. Hough acknowledges the importance of “keeping the amount of built development and services provided to a minimum” (6.11) and says that in the HIA proposal, “the range of services to be provided is kept to a minimum” (6.12). His statement (4.3) that the amenity buildings will provide “adequate free toilets, restaurant, shop, public telephone and other motorist’s facilities” appears to contradict this assertion. What exactly are the “other motorist’s facilities” that HIA intends to provide?

2.5.2 Mr Hough’s land use budget (4.8) understates the total land take of the proposed MSA. The land use budget in Figure 3 of the HIA Environment Statement says that the total land take would be 21.29 ha, compared to the figure of just 20.4 ha quoted by Mr. Hough. An error of this magnitude, almost 4.5%, in such a crucial measurement, must surely cast doubt on any other figures Mr. Hough presents as fact. We will want to question them.

2.6 Planning History

2.6.1 It is important to understand the full context of Mr. Hough’s quotation from the letter of 15th August 2002 (5.6). At the first pre-inquiry meeting on 10th June 2002, the Inspector and the other parties were surprised that HIA had no intention of producing an ES for Kirby Hill. It was agreed that the matter should be referred to the Secretary of State for a decision. The letter of 15^th August 2002 is the decision letter on this matter. Despite the Secretary of State’s remark, which Mr. Hough quotes out of context, HIAs action of voluntarily submitting an ES demonstrates their acknowledgement that there is indeed an environmental impact.

2.6.2 If “consistency of decision demands that there should be the same outcome” as in 1997 (5.10), then we are all wasting a considerable amount of our time and the taxpayers money. Of course this is not the case. The application was referred back to the Secretary of State for re-determination and the present Inspector will form his own opinion on the issues under consideration. Appendix 3, para 1.3 of Mr. Hough’s proof contains the local planning authority’s view that, as a result of the High Court judgement, “the application is to be considered de novo at the Public Inquiry scheduled to commence in October 2002.” Mr. Hough is wrong to suggest that a full re-determination of all the material planning considerations is somehow unnecessary and that the present Inspector should feel compelled to come to the same conclusion as the 1997 Inquiry. Even if the Inspector does come to the same conclusion as in 1997, that would mean a decision in favour of the first preference Kirk Deighton site, now that the uncertainty over the A1(M) Walshford to Wetherby upgrade has been removed, contracts have been let and work has started (see Appendix A). Kirby Hill was not the Inspector’s first choice in 1997.

2.6.3 While arguing the case for consistency (5.10), Mr. Hough demonstrates a great inconsistency in his own evidence. He strongly advocates a two-site response as “the best response to meeting the identified need” (2.2), while simultaneously arguing that the decision to grant permission for ONE MSA in 1997 was correct and “the integrity of the Secretary of State’s planning judgement remains intact” (5.10). Significantly, Mr. Hough offers no evidence of a material change in need since 1997 that would justify a two-site strategy now.

2.6.4 Mr. Hough’s assertions (5.12) that the completion of the A1-M1 link road is not a material change and that the introduction of a criteria-based MSA policy in the Harrogate Local Plan is a “neutral” change are frankly incredible. One wonders what would have to happen for Mr. Hough to consider it a material change?

2.6.5 The position regarding the northern fixed point in spacing terms remains unclear (5.12). In our evidence on need we submitted a letter from solicitors acting for Mr. Carl Les, owner of the existing Leeming Bar TRSA (RAMS4). This letter provides evidence of Mr. Les’ intention to seek permission to upgrade the existing Leeming Bar TRSA to an MSA on the Dishforth to Barton section, 14 miles north of Kirby Hill. Leeming Bar should not be discounted as a potential MSA.

2.6.6 The completion of the A1-M1 link road and the start of the Walshford to Wetherby A1(M) upgrade mean that Kirby Hill has lost any spacing and timing advantage it may have had. Kirby Hill is even less preferable to Kirk Deighton now than it was in 1997.

2.7 Planning Policy

2.7.1 Mr. Hough’s appraisal of the planning framework regarding development in the countryside is out of date. PPG7 states that: “The Government's policy is that the countryside should be safeguarded for its own sake and non-renewable and natural resources should be afforded protection. Since the Second World War conservation efforts have concentrated on designating and protecting those areas of countryside which are most important for landscape and wildlife. The priority now is to find new ways of enriching the quality of the whole countryside while accommodating appropriate development, in order to complement the protection which designations offer (see part 4 of this PPG).” This statement demonstrates a change in priorities. Whereas in the past, particular emphasis has been placed on protecting areas of special designation, the Government’s new priority is to protect and enrich the whole of the countryside “for its own sake”. Mr. Hough argues that sites such as Kirby Hill, which are not protected by a special designation, can be developed because they are subject to less restraint. PPG7 suggests that this argument is incompatible with current Government policy.

2.7.2 We question how Mr. Hough can claim that the Kirby Hill proposal achieves minimum impact (6.12), particularly with regard to the need for “keeping the amount of built development and services provided to a minimum” (6.11). As the only site that duplicates amenity buildings, lodges, petrol stations and parking on both sides of the A1(M), surely Kirby Hill has maximum impact? The Kirby Hill proposal also involves the greatest impact on best and most versatile agricultural land. 73% of the site would be built on valuable Grade 2 agricultural land.

2.7.3 We disagree that “the proposed development fully accords with Government advice” (6.13). Mr. Hough’s assessment does not reflect the substantial weight that Government policy gives to protecting the countryside from unnecessary development. He covers this important aspect of Government policy in less than a page. For a fuller assessment of relevant Government policies and the likely degree of compliance, we refer the Inspector to Section 2 of our site-specific proof of evidence.

2.8 The Development Plan

2.8.1 Mr. Hough relies heavily on a draft version of policy E2 of the North Yorkshire County Structure Plan (7.4). The text he uses to support his case was deleted at the draft stage and is not a part of policy E2 as officially adopted in 1995. This text must have been deleted for good reasons. Mr. Hough’s reliance on draft wording, subsequently deleted, from policy consultations 8 years ago is an acknowledgement that the proposed development does not accord with the North Yorkshire County Structure Plan as officially adopted. Mr. Hough does not claim in evidence that the Kirby Hill site accords with the North Yorkshire County Structure Plan, therefore we can safely assume that it does not. If further evidence is needed, in a letter dated 20^th August 1997, North Yorkshire County Council’s Environmental Services Policy Development Unit recommended that permission for the Kirby Hill proposal should be refused because it conflicts with policy E2 of the County Structure Plan (see Appendix C of our site-specific proof of evidence).

2.8.2 In his assessment of the Harrogate Local Plan policy T7 criteria, Mr. Hough relies heavily on the opinion of Inspector Basford at the 1997 public inquiry (7.18, 7.21, 7.24, 7.26, 7.28). The criterion-based MSA policy T7 was only adopted on 19^th February 2001 (7.9) and is a material change in circumstances since the 1997 Inquiry. We do not understand how Inspector Basford’s opinions, formed before the new policy was even proposed, can be at all relevant to an assessment of a site against the new criteria. We submit that this is an important area in which the present Inspector must re-determine the issues, in the light of present circumstances and the current policy framework.

2.8.3 Further, we do not in any case agree with Mr. Hough’s assessment of the proposed development against policy T7 of the Harrogate District Local Plan and would seek clarification on a number of matters, for example:

· As we have shown in section 4 of our proof of evidence, strictly speaking, using HIAs own figures, the northbound MSA does not meet the Roads Circular 1/94 parking requirement for HGVs. Mr. Hough says it does (7.13).

· Mr. Hough says that the proposed MSA “will therefore not provide any extraneous services or facilities” (7.14). This appears to be a direct contradiction of his earlier statement that it will provide “other motorist’s facilities” (4.3).

· The Highways Agency assessment and safety audit (7.15) was based on a turn-in rate of 8%. If the HA recommended turn-in rate of 15% is used, then the southbound facility would require a Type B southbound merge, which is not a part of the applicant’s proposal. We deal with this and other issues in our rebuttal of the evidence of Mr. B. Plumb.

· Mr. Hough understates the loss of BMV agricultural land (7.16), by not including land lost to mounding and planting at Kirby Hill (approx. 35% of the total land take, or another 7 ha). Mr. Hough can only come to the conclusion that “the margin of difference between the sites on this point is not significant” because he ignores the land lost to mounding and planting. We do not accept the omission of this land from the calculation. Even if we did, the graph at para 4.8 of Mr. Reeve’s evidence on agriculture shows that the loss of BMV land at Kirby Hill would be three times that at Kirk Deighton and twice that at Flaxby. A difference of 8 ha of BMV land between Kirby Hill and Kirk Deighton is, in our view, a highly significant margin. We deal with this and other issues in our rebuttal of the evidence of Mr. M.J. Reeve.

· Mr. Hough does not appear to understand the important visual links between the village of Kirby Hill, the open countryside to the north and the two listed monuments of All Saints Church and Skelton Windmill. The nature of the open landscape and the long-range views from these historic sites contribute significantly to their character and setting. The proposed MSA site is at the worst possible location to cause an adverse impact on this juxtaposition of village and ancient monuments. In particular, the proposed MSA would dominate at close range the view east from Skelton Windmill, a view immortalised in Bulmer’s History - Topography and Directory of North Yorkshire, 1891 (see para 5.2.3, page 50 of our proof of evidence). Mr. Hough is wrong to claim that there is no impact on historic buildings. We deal with this and other issues in our rebuttal of the evidence of Mr. A. Harris.

· Of the many landscape experts who have assessed this proposal, Mr. Phil Rech, engaged by HIA, is the only one to conclude that “the proposed development can be assimilated satisfactorily into the general landscape” at this location (7.20). We deal with this in detail in our rebuttal of Mr. Rech’s evidence.

· We contend that the landscape impact at Kirby Hill is an overriding planning objection (7.23) for the reasons set out in section 2 of our proof of evidence.

· The HIA ES is flawed and inadequate in its assessment of archaeology and nature conservation (7.24), as we demonstrate in our proof of evidence. Mr. Hough’s representation of the consultation response from North Yorkshire County Council’s Senior Archaeologist is inaccurate and once again demonstrates his bias towards meeting the need at all costs. The consultation response from Mr. Campling dated 11^th December 2002 says that: “The Environmental Statement has not adequately assessed the potential for archaeological remains on this site” and “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.”

· Mr. Hough is quick to dismiss local residents’ concerns, using an Environmental Statement that we have shown to be inadequate in its assessment of noise, air quality, lighting and visual impacts (7.25). We contend that the Inspector should not rely on the ES in determining these matters. We would refer the Inspector to paragraph 5.7.53 of CD066 for Harrogate Borough Council’s actual position on residential amenity in relation to Kirby Hill.

· Mr. Hough is wrong to suggest that there have been no changes since 1997 (7.26). Amongst other changes, the people of Kirby Hill, in response to the applicant’s flawed and inadequate assessments and the conclusions of the Inspector in 1997, have made a considerable effort to present detailed new evidence that will assist the present Inspector in his re-determination.

2.9 Other Material Considerations

2.9.1 We would remind Mr. Hough that Article 13 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) 1995 imposes a statutory duty on local planning authorities to notify, on request, local parish and community councils about any relevant planning application within their area. Parish councils in these circumstances are therefore statutory consultees. No less than nine local councils oppose the Kirby Hill scheme. These include North Yorkshire County Council, Harrogate Borough Council, Boroughbridge Town Council and the Parish Councils of Kirby Hill & District; Langthorpe; Dishforth, Marton-Le-Moor, Skelton and Roecliffe. It is clearly therefore wrong for Mr. Hough to say “the statutory consultees are unanimous in their view that development is acceptable in principle” (8.5). Once again, Mr. Hough is attempting to marginalize the views of local people and their elected representatives.

2.9.2 Harrogate Borough Council’s position is that Kirby Hill has its “nose in front” on one issue only – meeting the need. This seems to be on the basis that, in principle, an online site is preferable to an offline one. This preference is questionable when one compares site-specific factors, such as the proposed parking provision at Kirby Hill compared with Kirk Deighton, or the relative safety of an illuminated junction at Flaxby compared to an unlit approach to a 180-degree bend through a tunnel at Kirby Hill. Nevertheless, we contend that Harrogate Borough Council has assessed the site-specific factors and concluded, rightly, that taken together they outweigh the need for motorists’ services at Kirby Hill. Therefore, we fully support the conclusion that Kirk Deighton is the clear preference for an MSA in Harrogate District and we disagree with Mr. Hough’s challenging of the local planning authority’s decision (8.11).

2.10 Alternative Sites

2.10.1 On the subject of alternative sites, we contend that the possibility of upgrading Leeming Bar TRSA to MSA status should not be disregarded as a solution in the northern sector. The site is already in use by motorists and has been upgraded in recent years. We have provided evidence of the owner’s intention to seek an upgrade to MSA status when the A1(M) is upgraded. Distance from a junction would not be an issue if Leeming Bar were to be upgraded to an online MSA, similar to the one proposed at Kirby Hill. Given that the Barton Park MSA permission has lain dormant for a number of years, there is a reasonable possibility that an MSA at Kirk Deighton combined with one at Leeming Bar, 27 miles north, could be the optimum solution for this section of road. Granting permission for an MSA at Kirby Hill would mean that the existing TRSA at Leeming Bar could never be developed in this way if the Barton Park MSA is not built.

2.10.2 We note that Mr. Hough’s overall preference, should the Bramham-Kirby Hill pairing fail to win approval, is for an MSA at Kirk Deighton (9.4). We can see no reason why permission for a pair of sites should be granted when one site, reasonably centrally located, can meet the need.

2.11 Conclusion

2.11.1 We contend that Mr. Hough’s conclusions are based on a flawed and biased assessment of the site-specific factors and demonstrate his misunderstanding of the need to balance these factors against meeting the need. In particular:

· Mr. Hough is pro-motorist and pro-MSA. He is focused on meeting motorist’s needs at all costs. He does not attach sufficient weight to other site-specific factors and is dismissive of local concerns.

· Mr. Hough relies heavily on the opinions of the 1997 Inspector and fails to appreciate that the issues must be re-determined in the light of present circumstances.

· Mr. Hough relies on an Environmental Statement that we have shown to be flawed and inadequate. The Secretary of State should not rely upon it when reaching his decision.

· Mr. Hough’s grasp of the policy framework and the changes in it since 1997 appear weak. He relies on out-of-date policy arguments to support his opinion.

· Mr. Hough is very selective in the evidence he presents. It is often necessary to refer to the original source documents he quotes in order to understand the way in which the views of others are either omitted or misrepresented.

2.11.2 We fundamentally disagree with Mr. Hough’s conclusions and we will want to question him detail on these matters at the site-specific session of the Inquiry.

3 HERITAGE ISSUES (A. HARRIS)

3.1.1 This section contains our rebuttal of the proof of evidence of Mr. A. Harris on Heritage issues dated January 2003.

3.2 Introduction and Scope of Evidence

3.2.1 Mr. Harris says that he was instructed in November 2002, after the Inquiry had started. Until this date, the applicant had not addressed the heritage impacts of the proposed Kirby Hill MSA.

3.3 Planning Policy Framework

3.3.1 In relation to PPG15, we agree with Mr. Harris that the setting of a listed building should include the contribution it makes to the countryside and may often include land some distance from it (2.2.3, 2.2.4). We contend that this is indeed the case for All Saints Church, Kirby Hill and for Skelton Windmill, given their unique place in an open, rolling, landscape; the important visual and physical links between the two buildings and the long-range views enjoyed towards and from them. We are surprised that Mr. Harris acknowledges that “listed buildings form an important visual element in the landscape” at Flaxby (2.3), but not at Kirby Hill, where the listed buildings are more ancient and visible from further afield.

3.4 Kirby Hill Proposed MSA

3.4.1 We should point out that Skelton Windmill is a complete building in permanent use as a residential property and not “the remains of a tower mill” (3.1.1) as Mr. Harris suggests. We will be asking the Inspector to visit the windmill to see for himself the buildings, the view from them and their proximity to the proposed MSA.

3.4.2 We have previously referred in this document and in our proof of evidence to Bulmer’s History - Topography and Directory of North Yorkshire, 1891, which describes the view from Skelton Windmill in some detail. On the basis of the historical record, we challenge Mr. Harris’ opinions: “I do not believe that the wider landscape setting within which the windmill is set or perceived is historically significant” (3.1.3) and “The landscape setting of Skelton Windmill is incidental to its importance as a listed building” (3.2.5). The author of the standard historical reference work on North Yorkshire in 1891 clearly thought otherwise.

3.4.3 Mr. Harris says that the approaches to Kirby Hill church are through a built-up area (3.1.5). In fact, two of the three approaches are through open countryside from the north-east and south-east (along Millings Lane and Church Lane respectively – the church is at one end of the village). The remaining approach is through the village of Kirby Hill from the west (along Church Lane from the opposite direction).

3.4.4 Mr. Harris points out that the A1(M) is visible from Kirby Hill church (3.1.5), then seeks to reassure us that there will be little visual intrusion from the proposed MSA (3.2.2). The southbound MSA would be nearer the church than the A1(M) and would have a maximum height of 8m above the carriageway. It would cause substantial visual intrusion to views from and towards the church.

3.4.5 Given their positions, the church and MSA would be viewed together from most points on the elevated land to the west. We do not understand how Mr. Harris has come to a different conclusion (3.2.4).

3.4.6 We do not wish to comment on Mr. Harris’ photographs of the supposed view from Kirby Hill church, save to say that we will be asking the Inspector to visit and draw his own conclusions.

3.5 Comparative Assessment of Impact

3.5.1 Mr. Harris concludes that at Kirby Hill, “the context of listed buildings will not be significantly affected” (4.2). The Grade I and Grade II listed buildings at Kirby Hill are 700m and 600m respectively from the proposed MSA site. Mr. Harris also concurs with the view that at Kirk Deighton, there would be “slight adverse harm” to the setting of the Grade II listed Ingmanthorpe Hall, which is some 750m from the proposed MSA (4.3). This seems very inconsistent. We question how the impact of a twin-sided online MSA at 600m distance can be insignificant, when the impact of a smaller offline MSA on a similarly listed building at 750m distance is slightly adverse. Further, we note that Kirk Deighton Parish Council make no mention of any impact on Ingmanthorpe Hall in their letter of objection dated 26th September 2002.

3.5.2 Mr. Harris’ evidence, like that of his colleagues on the HIA team, seems designed to justify the proposed MSA at Kirby Hill at all costs. We disagree with his conclusions and submit that the proposed MSA would have an adverse impact on the character and setting of two listed buildings.

4 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (P. RECH)

4.1.1 This section contains our rebuttal of the proof of evidence of Mr. P. Rech on Environmental matters dated January 2003. Mr. Rech repeats many of the statements we have already challenged in Mr. Hough’s evidence and we do not repeat our rebuttal of these here.

4.2 Introduction and Scope of Evidence

4.2.1 Mr. Rech says that only the internal parking layout of the Kirby Hill scheme has been altered since 1997 (1.4). Comparing the evidence of Mr. Reeve (Annex on land-take, agreed 13-Nov-1997) with Figure 3 of the HIA ES of August 2002 shows that there has also been a 4.4% increase in the size of the proposed MSA, from 20.4 ha to 21.29 ha, since 1997.

4.2.2 Assessing the impact an MSA proposal on the landscape is in many respects a subjective exercise, especially when one also considers the ability of the landscape to assimilate built development (1.5). Each of the landscape experts has formed their own view on this matter. None agrees with Mr. Rech. If the experts are making a subjective judgement on this matter and cannot agree, then we submit that it is to local people that the Inspector should turn for an informed judgement. They have the experience gleaned from living and working in the landscape at all times and seasons over many years. It is their opinion that should carry most weight.

4.2.3 Our understanding of Harrogate Borough Council’s position is that the proposed Kirby Hill MSA would cause substantial harm to the landscape. This is a major point of disagreement with HIA. The SOCG covers only factual matters such as landscape designations and does not represent a “narrowing down significantly of the areas of outstanding disagreement between the two parties” as Mr. Rech suggests (1.9).

4.3 Overall Policy Framework

4.3.1 We agree with Mr. Rech that it is important for any MSA proposal to comply with paragraph 11 of HA 269 (2.1). However, the proposed MSA at Kirby Hill would introduce landscape features that are completely alien to the present environment, including an 180m long earthwork and substantial planting, having the appearance of a woodland block. We question how this can be regarded as reintroduction of appropriate landscape character, when such features have never existed at Kirby Hill before.

4.3.2 Common sense suggests that development of an MSA is not the kind of “major intervention” policy makers will have had in mind as a means of “re-introducing structure and character to the landscape” (2.20). We question how anyone can suggest that built development on this scale would positively enhance the landscape in an already attractive rural setting such as Kirby Hill.

4.3.3 We submit that the proposed MSA has substantial adverse effects on residential and visual amenity and therefore conflicts with policy A1 (2.27).

4.4 Proposed Development at Kirby Hill

Impact upon landscape character and features of importance

4.4.1 Mr. Rech’s case seems to be that, since the landscape at Kirby Hill has already been degraded by intensive agricultural use, the A1(M) upgrade and building at Dishforth Airfield, a large-scale MSA development is somehow more acceptable (3.8). Local people know that the fields in which it is proposed to build an MSA currently provide a rural buffer zone between the A1(M), Dishforth Airfield and the surrounding residential settlements. This buffer preserves the rural character and outlook of Kirby Hill village and properties such as Skelton Windmill. There is overwhelming local opposition to further encroachment on it. In assessing visual and landscape impact, it is important to consider the integrating effect that the proposed MSA would have on the existing built development that Mr. Rech refers to. This would fundamentally alter the nature of the landscape at Kirby Hill.

4.4.2 Mr. Rech says that Norton-le-Clay is 1 km east of the main hangars at Dishforth Airfield (3.9). The distance from the hangars, measured on OS Explorer Sheet 299, is 1.75 km to the nearest point in Norton-le-Clay (Norton House) and 2 km to the farthest (Mayfield Farm). By contrast, Mr. Rech says that Kirby Hill is just 0.5 km from the proposed MSA (3.3). The Dishforth hangars are painted matt green in to make them inconspicuous in the landscape. Presumably, the proposed MSA would not be camouflaged in this way. Mr. Rech’s attempt to compare the impact of Dishforth Airfield on Norton-le-Clay with the proposed MSAs impact on Kirby Hill is invalid and does not stand up to scrutiny.

4.4.3 On the subject of building heights and ground levels, Mr. Rech is misleading (3.10). The Ripon road interchange provides no screening of the proposed MSA from Kirby Hill, which lies to the south east of the proposed site. In this direction the land slopes gently downwards from 35m to 30m AOD. Buildings 8m high with a ground level of 35m AOD would therefore dominate the village, which is why a 6-7m earthworks mound is being proposed. To the west of the site, a short length of boundary hedgerow does indeed reach 45m AOD, however the land beyond it rises to 52m AOD at Skelton windmill and 58m AOD at the summit, giving uninterrupted views into the proposed MSA from the west.

4.4.4 The landscape and biodiversity situation at Kirby Hill is far from “impoverished” (3.11). On the contrary, the area is beginning to recover from the substantial environmental impact of the recent A1(M) upgrade. Wildlife such as owls, sparrow hawks, bats and badgers are starting to reappear. The proposed MSA would reverse this situation. On the subject of planting (3.11), we invite the Inspector to view the Highways Agency planting alongside the A1(M) at Kirby Hill to see how ineffective this still is after 8 years. If the proposed MSA planting follows a similar pattern, there is no reason to believe that it will be effective for 10-15 years, at which point we strongly suspect that the applicant will want to extend the MSA.

Visual impact

4.4.5 The open, rolling landscape at Kirby Hill is notable for its long-range views, which are among the best in Harrogate District. We do not understand how Mr. Rech can define such a small visual envelope for the proposed MSA (3.13), when even the A1(M) is visible from a wider area. The proposed MSA will be higher than the A1(M) and therefore more visible. After 15 years, the proposed woodland will screen not only the MSA, but also the views that the people of Kirby Hill currently enjoy. We will want to question Mr. Rech closely about this aspect as we completely disagree with his assessment.

4.4.6 We do not agree that the distances from the proposed site to The Grange and Church View, Kirby Hill (approx. 500m) can be described as “significant” or the properties as “remote” (3.15, 3.16). Using Mr. Rech’s flawed definition, the internal distance between the eastern and western boundaries of the proposed MSA is “significant” and they can also be described as “remote”.

4.4.7 The public footpath from Kirby Hill to Leeming Lane (3.17) follows the line of the existing hedgerow at the western edge of the field, so it is not surprising that there is no defined route across the field. It is in regular use by the author, among others.

4.4.8 The “potential visual receptors” (3.19) have demonstrated their numbers and their sensitivity in representations to Harrogate Borough Council and to the Public Inquiry. 650 local people have signed a statement endorsing Kirby Hill RAMS opposition to the proposed scheme. Mr. Rech has spoken to none of them. The inadequacy of his visual impact assessment demonstrates his brief to make the proposed MSA appear acceptable at all costs.

Night time impact

4.4.9 We refer to Figure 12 of our site-specific proof of evidence for a night time view of Kirby Hill. The amount of existing lighting Mr. Rech refers to (3.21) is small and does not have a significant impact. According to the HIA ES, the proposed MSA involves an additional 154 lighting columns and 26,000 Watts of lighting, not including signage and the internal lighting for a 24-hour MSA operation. This cannot be compared with the few lights that already exist. The proposed MSA lighting would dominate the night time sky.

Ecology

4.4.10 We are not aware of “repeated and comprehensive ecological surveys” (3.23). The one survey conducted by the applicant is seriously deficient, as we have shown in our proof of evidence.

Environmental Conclusions

4.4.11 For the reasons given above and in our site-specific proof of evidence, we submit that Mr. Rech’s conclusions (3.26) are invalid and represent a distortion of the facts to support an MSA at all costs. There are alternative sites before the Inquiry that would involve significantly less environmental impact.

4.4.12 We are deeply concerned at Mr. Rech’s suggestion that the Secretary of State has already determined the environmental aspects of this proposal, on 15^th October 2002 (3.27), shortly after the present Inquiry began. We are not aware of any such conclusion by the Secretary of State. Presumably Mr. Rech has made an error and is referring to the same letter, dated 15^th August 2002, that Mr. Hough does, which we have set in its proper context at para 2.6.1. We submit that it is important for the present Inspector to re-determine the environmental impact in the light of the evidence we have presented and the current policy framework.

4.5 Compliance with Policy

4.5.1 Mr. Rech’s comparison of the proposed MSA is entirely subjective and his opinions are based on many of the factual errors we have already rebutted. He dismisses judgements that conflict with his conclusions as “a misunderstanding of the proposal and its setting or flawed logic” (4.6). We particularly disagree with his statement that “objections from residents…..tend to be motivated by fear of the unknown, rather than recognised facts” (4.8). As the Inspector will be aware, residents have taken a great deal of time and effort to understand the facts of this matter and prepare detailed evidence, based on an understanding of the material planning considerations and their own first-hand local knowledge of the area. We contend that it is Mr. Rech’s representation of the facts that needs to be questioned. We welcome the opportunity to do this at the Inquiry.

4.5.2 We are unaware of any statement in the SOCG which demonstrates that HBC now believe impact on residential amenity is not an issue (4.7). It is probable that Mr. Rech is misrepresenting statement 7.2 of the SOCG: “There are no reasons related to the impact of the proposed development upon residential development which would justify refusal of planning permission” but as he does not quote his source, it is impossible to be certain. We would point out that there is a significant difference between impact on residential development and impact on the residential amenity of people who have lived in the area for many years.

4.5.3 Mr. Rech ignores the traffic impact of 250 staff needing to park in the local area in order to reach the proposed MSA by shuttle bus (4.9).

4.5.4 We will be questioning the technical evidence prepared by HIA on the subject of proximity to Dishforth Airfield (4.11).

4.6 Competing Sites

4.6.1 While we do not have the resources to prepare a detailed comparison of Kirby Hill with the other sites, we submit that there are opportunities to meet the need for motorist’s facilities that would have significantly less environmental impact than the proposed MSA at Kirby Hill. Common sense suggests that Kirby Hill, as the largest of the proposed sites and the nearest to a significant settlement, is likely to have the largest impact.

4.7 Conclusion and Recommendations

4.7.1 As laymen, it seems to us that Mr. Rech has constructed a great deal of technical evidence, in order to make three main excuses for his predisposition to developing the proposed MSA at Kirby Hill at all costs:

· First, that the landscape at Kirby Hill is in a state of disrepair and has nothing of value worth preserving. From the perspective of local people, nothing could be further from the truth. We invite the Inspector to visit the area to see for himself. At the evening Inquiry session on 7th May, local residents will speak about the value they place on the landscape and how it contributes to their quality of life.

· Second, that an MSA can somehow be absorbed at this location with minimum impact. At 21 ha, the proposed MSA is larger than the village of Kirby Hill and lies just 500m from it. The landscape is open, with long-ranging views. Common sense suggests that the proposed MSA would be massively intrusive, which is presumably why the applicant proposes using 35% of the land (7 ha) in an inadequate attempt to screen it.

· Third, that Kirby Hill is preferable to the competing sites in terms of environmental impact. The local planning authority strongly disagrees. Harrogate Borough Council has consistently opposed Kirby Hill on the basis that it would substantially harm the landscape. Further, common sense tells us that as the largest of the proposed sites, which is also the nearest to a significant settlement, Kirby Hill would have the largest impact on the environment and on residential amenity.

4.7.2 We do not support Mr. Rech’s conclusions and find his assertion that the proposed MSA would enhance the environment at Kirby Hill quite ridiculous. We believe his evidence is flawed and will want to question it in detail at the site-specific session of the Inquiry.

5 HIGHWAYS AND TRAFFIC ISSUES (B. PLUMB)

5.1.1 This section contains our rebuttal of the proof of evidence of Mr. B. Plumb on Highways and Traffic issues dated 9th January 2003.

5.1.2 Mr. Plumb’s proof of evidence provides little new detail and appears to be a reaffirmation of the existing traffic assessment carried out by Boreham Consultants and dated 31st October 2002. We have already commented on this document in section 4 of our proof of evidence. However, as Mr. Plumb’s proof of evidence contains strong assertions regarding the suitability of an MSA at Kirby Hill, we wish to raise the following points for the Inspector’s consideration.

5.1.3 Mr. Plumb states that “on-line MSA sites provide the greatest opportunity to meet the need of passing motorists” (2.2). We contend that this is not the case, as the presence of an MSA and the facilities it provides are what meet the need, not the access arrangements. Mr Plumb attempts to reinforce his point with a statement about higher turn in rates for on-line sites: “in this respect junction sites normally apply a 15% reduction to the turn in rate that would be experienced at an on-line site” (2.2). Therefore Mr. Plumb presumably accepts that the site at Kirby Hill would at the very least require a 15% higher turn in rate than the competing off-line MSA proposals. Yet he persists in using a turn-in rate of 8% in his calculations, against Highways Agency recommendations.

5.1.4 Like his colleague Mr. Hough, Mr. Plumb relies heavily on the opinions of the Inspector at the 1997 Inquiry. We would again note the local planning authority’s view that “the application is to be considered de novo at the Public Inquiry scheduled to commence in October 2002” and we are confident that the present Inspector will form his own opinion as he re-determines the issues under consideration. In the quotation Mr. Plumb provides (2.3) regarding whether online sites are preferable to offline ones therefore, the only significant wording is “in terms of Government policy on this matter, no proposal before the Inquiry is preferable to any other”. There are many arguments for and against on-line or off-line MSAs.

5.1.5 Mr. Plumb also says “North Yorkshire Police also strongly advocate on-line sites for traffic management and road safety reasons”. We are not aware of any evidence presented to the Inquiry that supports this remark. To our knowledge, North Yorkshire Police have not expressed an opinion on the proposed access and egress arrangements at Kirby Hill, nor on the suitability of the proposed access arrangements for emergency vehicles.

5.1.6 Like Mr. Hough, Mr. Plumb relies on the HIA Environmental Statement (2.5), which we have shown to be deeply flawed and inadequate. We refer the Inspector to our proof of evidence, so that he may draw his own conclusions.

5.1.7 Mr. Plumb goes to great lengths to justify using an extremely low turn-in rate of 8% (2.8, 2.9, 2.10). His stubborn refusal to accept a 15% turn-in rate as required by the Highways Agency (HA letter dated 29th August 1997) leads us to conclude that there is great concern among the HIA team over the capacity of the proposed site. The only reason for presenting the evidence from MVA Technical Note 3 is to attempt to reduce the required turn-in rate. This is only necessary if the site cannot accommodate the higher turn in rates recommended by the Highways Agency. In any case, we do not understand how turn-in rates for MSAs on the M25 and M4 near London, which carry a large amount of peak hour commuter traffic, can be applied to the proposed MSA on the A1(M) at Kirby Hill. Mr. Hough says in his proof of evidence that the proposed Kirby Hill MSA ”will serve one of the highest proportions of long distance and HGV traffic of any MSA site in the country” (C.M. Hough, para 10.1). The comparison with the M25 and M4 is therefore invalid and is only necessary because the proposed Kirby Hill MSA would struggle to handle anything more than a turn-in rate of 8%.

5.1.8 Further evidence that Mr. Plumb expects a capacity problem is provided by his suggestion that lodge parking may be used during the daytime for overspill (2.17). We now understand why all 250 MSA staff would be required to park off-site, presumably in Kirby Hill or Boroughbridge.

5.1.9 In the section headed Access Arrangements (2.11 to 2.13), Mr Plumb concludes that suitable slip roads can be provided. However, we note that using a 15% turn-in rate would result in a Type B southbound merge being required. There appears to have been no assessment of this, only because the applicant doesn’t accept a 15% turn-in rate.

5.1.10 Mr. Plumb repeats the error that the proposed parking exceeds the requirements of Roads Circular 1/94 (2.16). Strictly speaking it does not, as we have shown in section 4 of our proof of evidence. The deficiency is only marginal, but nevertheless Mr. Plumb’s claim is incorrect and demonstrates the lack of attention to detail that pervades the applicant’s evidence.

5.1.11 Mr Plumb states (2.18): “The layout of the site also provides the coach and HGV spaces adjacent to one another. In this way, I consider that the peak demands for these spaces which again tend not to coincide, allows any exceptional peak demand for lorry parking to overspill to the coach parking area”. We question whether there is any evidence that peak demand for coaches and HGVs does not coincide. Once again, Mr. Plumb’s statement suggests a tacit acceptance that there is inadequate parking provision for HGVs at peak times. Further, we question whether from a safety point of view, HGVs should be allowed to use a coach parking area that will undoubtedly have high levels of pedestrian traffic from coach passengers. The need to manage this situation and the overspill of cars into the lodge parking via the proposed one-way system surely raises serious safety concerns.

5.1.12 In summary, we do not agree with the conclusions reached by Mr. Plumb and we submit that his evidence is designed to secure an MSA at Kirby Hill at all costs, by concealing its likely deficiencies. We ask the Inspector to review our concerns and form his own conclusions.

6 AGRICULTURAL ISSUES (M.J. REEVE)

6.1 Qualifications and Experience

6.1.1 We have no comment to make on Mr. Reeve’s qualifications and experience.

6.2 Instructions

6.2.1 Mr. Reeve misrepresents the recommendations of the Inspector at the 1997 Inquiry (2.3). Kirk Deighton was the Inspector’s preferred site, but he granted permission for Kirby Hill because in his view there was uncertainty, at that time, over the availability of the site at Kirk Deighton. Construction of the motorway at Kirk Deighton has now started (Appendix A) and this uncertainty has been removed.

6.3 Scope of Evidence

6.3.1 We have no comment to make on the scope of Mr. Reeve’s evidence.

6.4 Agricultural Land Quality

6.4.1 Mr. Reeve seems to believe that there is no opportunity to fulfil the PPG7 criterion for using already-developed sites and building on non-agricultural land (4.1, 4.2). We contend that the development of Leeming Bar TRSA into an MSA, which the owner wishes to pursue, is one such opportunity. Unlike Kirby Hill, which is a greenfield development, at least one of the alternative sites currently under consideration re-uses existing buildings. All of the alternative sites would use far less best and most versatile agricultural land.

6.4.2 Mr. Reeve’s claim that some of the site is “more drought-prone” is astonishing (4.4). There is a significant problem of standing water in the fields during winter (see Figure 9 of our proof of evidence). The site is characterised as floodplain farmland and is close to Boroughbridge, a town that has been flooded by the River Ure twice in recent years.

6.4.3 The proposed mitigation measures include an earthworks mound describe by the Inspector in 1997 as follows: “The difficulty of screening out views from Kirby Hill is such that on the southbound site a very substantial earthworks mound has to be constructed some 180m long by up to 55m wide and up to 6-7m high. It would run across the existing contours. No natural feature of this type occurs anywhere in the area” (CD039, para 6.89b). Mr. Reeve’s claim that there would be “no re-profiling or bulk earthmoving” (4.6) is clearly unfounded. The land used for mounding and tree planting would, to all intents and purposes, be lost to agriculture. The total loss of BMV land at Kirby Hill is therefore potentially 13.2 + 6.7 = 19.9 ha, far more than at any of the other sites.

6.4.4 The applicant proposes dense woodland planting on the steep slopes of the earthwork embankment. It is nonsense to talk about this land “retaining its agricultural potential” in an area of open, rolling fields devoted to arable crops. We strongly suspect that the applicant may plan in future to use this land for an extension of the proposed MSA, in order to overcome the capacity problems that are already becoming evident. This would cause further agricultural and environmental impacts and we would ask the Inspector to consider this possibility now.

6.4.5 Mr. Reeve’s quote from PPG7 at 4.7 is irrelevant, since the local authority does not plan to allow the development of the Kirby Hill site. PPG7 (2001) states that: “The Government's policy is that the countryside should be safeguarded for its own sake and non-renewable and natural resources should be afforded protection.”

6.4.6 Mr. Reeve suggests that the Kirby Hill proposal would result in a lower irreversible loss of agricultural land than Kirk Deighton (4.8 diagram). In making this claim, he counts land lost to mounding and planting at Kirby Hill as “retaining its agricultural potential”, but land lost to mounding and planting at Kirk Deighton as “irreversibly lost”. This seems very inconsistent to us, but of course it favours Mr. Reeve’s case considerably. The facts, from Mr. Reeve’s own diagram, are that the loss of BMV land would be approx 4 ha at Kirk Deighton, approx. 6 ha at Flaxby and approx 12 ha at Kirby Hill (not including mounding and planting). Clearly, there is a significant difference between the proposals on this measure.

6.5 Impact on Farm Businesses

6.5.1 A 3.4% (5.1 ha) land loss is very significant to a farm of 150 ha, especially when it spans four separate fields (5.2.4). As well as the loss of land, there will inevitably be impacts in terms of effects on water levels and land drainage in fields surrounding the MSA and increased operational difficulties of having to work around an MSA, for example when crop-spraying.

6.5.2 From past experience of dealings with the local landowners, we can be reasonably certain that the tenant farmers will not benefit from an injection of welcome capital into their farms as a result of the proposed development (5.2.5). They will simply be expected to absorb the impact.

6.5.3 We question Mr. Reeve’s assertion that “most of the land is relatively freely draining” (5.4.1) in the light of our local knowledge and the evidence we have provided concerning standing water.

6.5.4 The loss of land from three farms at Kirby Hill cannot be compared like-for-like with the loss from one farm (Ingmanthorpe Grange) at Kirk Deighton. Mr. Reeve’s figures show that the total loss (19.9 ha) at Kirby Hill exceeds that at Kirk Deighton (14.5 ha). It is also worth noting that Ingmanthorpe Grange is listed as the headquarters of an international interior design consultancy business (Appendix B). This, not farming, is the main source of income for the occupants.

6.5.5 We disagree with Mr. Reeve’s conclusion that there is little to choose between the sites in terms of agricultural impact. Kirby Hill has by far the largest impact, adversely affecting three farms and destroying almost 20 ha of BMV agricultural land.

6.6 Impact on Soil Resources

6.6.1 Mr. Reeve’s detailed description of soil stripping and earth moving (6.4, 6.5) appears to contradict his earlier assertion that there would be no earth moving (4.6). In view of these extensive measures and the sheer scale of the proposed MSA, there would inevitably be damage to the soil structure over a much larger area than at the other sites.

6.7 Conclusions

6.7.1 We have set out clearly why we disagree with Mr. Reeve’s conclusions. We submit that Kirby Hill has the most significant agricultural impact of any of the proposed sites. Mr. Reeve’s evidence is inconsistent and gives the impression of someone starting with an answer and trying to construct a case to support it.