Position Statement on Need

1.1 This proof of evidence has been 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 joint statement that represents the views of Kirby Hill RAMS and Kirby Hill & District Parish Council. As such, it is fully endorsed by both organizations (Appendix A).

1.2 Kirby Hill RAMS and Kirby Hill & District Parish Council strongly oppose the application for an MSA at Kirby Hill. However, we have endeavoured to approach the site-specific issues objectively and provide evidence based on a careful consideration of existing policy guidance, material planning considerations and our own local knowledge.

1.3 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 enables us to present 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 Secretary of State and his Inspector with a valuable, first-hand, local perspective on the issues under consideration.

1.4 We would identify the key site-specific considerations at Kirby Hill as follows:

· Landscape and Environment

· Residential Amenity

· Traffic and Highway Safety

· Aviation and Military Security

· Economic Impact

· Public Perception of Harm

The following six sections set out our evidence on each of these considerations in turn.

1.5 To aid readability, throughout this document we have used underline for emphasis and bold type to highlight important conclusions. Where other documents are quoted, the quotation appears in italic type and any emphasis is ours, unless otherwise stated.

2 LANDSCAPE AND ENVIRONMENT

2.1 Introduction to Landscape and Environment

2.1.1 Kirby Hill RAMS and Kirby Hill & District Parish Council believe that there are five tests that should be applied to the proposed MSA to determine whether it should be permitted, or whether the degree of harm to the landscape and environment is too great. These are:

· The Government Policy Test

· The Regional and Local Plan Test

· The Relative Degree of Harm Test

· The Specific Factors Test

· The Expert Test

2.1.2 We will demonstrate that the applicant’s proposal fails all five tests.

2.2 The Government Policy Test

GENERAL POLICY FRAMEWORK

2.2.1 There is a substantial body of primary legislation and written Government policy focused on protecting the countryside. There is far more policy on this subject than there is relating to the provision of motorists’ facilities. For example:

2.2.2 THE COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1968 imposes on every Minister, government department and public body a duty to “have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside in the exercise of their functions relating to land.” Section 11 and Annex D of the Act sets out the responsibilities of local Authorities.

2.2.3 THE PLANNING AND COMPENSATION ACT 1991 improves local planning authorities’ abilities to safeguard conservation and amenity areas by strengthening their planning enforcement and development control powers. It also requires structure, local and unitary development plans to include policies in respect of the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land.

2.2.4 THE PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) ACT 1990 provides specific protection for buildings and areas of special architectural or historic interest. In many instances there is a close link between controls over listed buildings and conservation areas and development control decisions. In such cases development and conservation issues will generally need to be considered together.

2.2.5 PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE NOTES provide a policy framework within which planning decisions must be taken. PPG1: General Principles, PPG7: The Countryside; PPG9: Nature Conservation, PPG11: Regional Planning; PPG13: Transport, PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment and PPG16: Planning and Archaeology emphasise the importance of protecting the countryside from unnecessary development and ensuring that any development is sensitively related to the historic environment and existing patterns of settlement. The relevant aspects of each of these Planning Policy Guidance Notes are covered in detail later in this section.

2.2.6 DETR 1998: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: TOWARDS BETTER PRACTICE contains an entire chapter about sustainable development in the countryside to meet the economic and social needs of people who live and work in rural areas.

2.2.7 REGIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE FOR YORKSHIRE AND THE HUMBER, RPG12 reflects the Government’s new central concern of sustainable development in the countryside and cites the:

2.2.8 RURAL WHITE PAPER: OUR COUNTRYSIDE - THE FUTURE, which sets out a vision for rural areas as follows:

“1. A living countryside, with thriving rural communities and access to high quality public services.

2. A working countryside, with a prosperous and diverse economy, giving high and stable levels of employment.

3. A protected countryside, in which the environment is sustained and enhanced, and which all can enjoy.

4. A vibrant countryside which can shape its own future and whose voice is heard by government at all levels”

This vision is already a reality in Kirby Hill. Local residents oppose the proposed MSA so strongly because it directly threatens points 2, 3 and 4 of the Government’s vision.

2.2.9 When consulted about the proposed MSA at Kirby Hill by Harrogate Borough Council, MAFF, while not objecting to the proposal, advised that: “it is Government policy to give considerable weight to protecting such land from irreversible development because of its special importance as a national resource.” (CD066, para 4.3)

2.2.10 The sheer quantity of Government policy in this area demonstrates that protecting rural environments is a priority, when compared with the need to provide facilities for the convenience of motorists. In particular, the weight of Government policy tips the balance strongly in favour of protecting open, unspoilt countryside such as that found at Kirby Hill. The thrust of Government policy is that there is a presumption against development, especially large-scale development, in the open countryside. We respectfully suggest that this should be the Secretary of State’s starting point when considering the proposals for an MSA at Kirby Hill.

2.2.11 We further note in this respect para 52 of PPG1, which states that: “The Courts have also held that the Government's statements of planning policy are material considerations which must be taken into account, where relevant, in decisions on planning applications. These statements cannot make irrelevant any matter which is a material consideration in a particular case. But, where such statements indicate the weight that should be given to relevant considerations, decision-makers must have proper regard to them. If they elect not to follow relevant statements of the Government's planning policy, they must give clear and convincing reasons (E C Grandsen and Co Ltd v SSE and Gillingham BC 1985)”

2.2.12 The weight of Government policy creates a presumption against large-scale developments in open countryside, such as the proposed MSA at Kirby Hill.

2.2.13 It follows that if a decision is taken that goes against this weight of Government policy the residents of Kirby Hill will expect to be given the clear and convincing reasons required by PPG1.

SPECIFIC POLICIES

2.2.14 We have assessed the applicant’s proposals against specific, relevant aspects of the policy framework as follows:

PPG1: GENERAL POLICY AND PRINCIPLES (CD021)

Sustainable Development:

2.2.15 The applicant’s proposal is not in keeping with the PPG1 emphasis on sustainable development, defined as “economic development to secure higher living standards while protecting and enhancing the environment.” We will demonstrate that the applicant’s proposal is likely to be detrimental to the local rural economy. The applicant’s Environmental Statement acknowledges that there is a “slightly adverse” impact in terms of visual effects, agriculture and land quality, as well as an “initial moderately adverse impact” in terms of landscape effects (HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, para 13.1). Local people contend that the impact would be far greater than the applicant’s expert suggests.

2.2.16 PPG1 further states “The Government is committed to: preferring the development of land within urban areas, particularly on previously-developed sites, provided that this creates or maintains a good living environment, before considering the development of greenfield sites.” This clearly supports development of a site that re-uses existing buildings, such as the existing TRSA at Leeming Bar, in preference to a new development at Kirby Hill.

Design:

2.2.17 This section of PPG1 states that: “New buildings and their curtilages have a significant effect on the character and quality of an area. They define public spaces, streets and vistas and inevitably create the context for future development. These effects will often be to the benefit of an area but they can be detrimental. They are matters of proper public interest. The appearance of proposed development and its relationship to its surroundings are therefore material considerations in determining planning applications and appeals. Such considerations relate to the design of buildings and to urban design. These are distinct, albeit closely interrelated subjects. Both are important. Both require an understanding of the context in which development takes place whether in urban or rural areas. Applicants for planning permission should be able to demonstrate how they have taken account of the need for good design in their development proposals and that they have had regard to relevant development plan policies and supplementary design guidance. This should be done in a manner appropriate to the nature and scale of the proposals.” The applicant does not have an understanding of the local context of this rural area and has made no attempt to acquire one through dialogue with the people who live at Kirby Hill, our elected representatives on the parish council or the people who farm the surrounding land. There is huge public interest in this very large-scale development, yet the applicant has undertaken no consultation. We question therefore how the applicant can claim to have addressed the PPG1 requirement for good design.

2.2.18 The same section of PPG1 also says: “Local planning authorities should reject poor designs, particularly where their decisions are supported by clear plan policies or supplementary design guidance which has been subjected to public consultation and adopted by the local planning authority. Poor designs may include those inappropriate to their context, for example those clearly out of scale or incompatible with their surroundings.” This is absolutely the case for the proposed Kirby Hill MSA. Harrogate Borough Council properly applied local plan policies in 1997 and refused the application on the grounds that “The proposed development would adversely affect the landscape character of the area and the landscape setting of Kirby Hill by materially altering the countryside to the north of the village and would therefore conflict with Policy C2 and C7 of the Harrogate District Local Plan (Deposit Draft)” (CD064 para 10.1.03). Harrogate Borough Council was right to reject this application in 1997 and we can see no change in the applicant’s proposals or the material planning considerations that warrant this decision being revisited.

Rural Areas:

2.2.19 This is a very relevant section of PPG1 that says: “the planning system helps to integrate the development necessary to sustain economic activity in rural areas with protection of the countryside. Rural areas can accommodate many forms of development without detriment, if the location and design of development are handled with sensitivity.” We shall show that the proposed MSA has a detrimental effect on economic activity in the rural market town of Boroughbridge, is not consistent with protection of the countryside and that the location and design are not sensitively related to the surrounding rural environment.

2.2.20 This section of PPG1 also says: “Agriculture is the major use of land in the countryside. In accordance with the principles of sustainable development, the best and most versatile agricultural land is a national resource for the future. Considerable weight should be given to protecting such land against development.” We shall show that the proposed Kirby Hill MSA uses substantially more best and most versatile agricultural land than any of the other sites.

Conserving the Historic Environment:

2.2.21 This section of PPG1 states: “Just as well-designed, new development can enhance the existing environment, it is fundamental to the Government's policies for environmental stewardship that there should be effective protection for the historic environment. Those aspects of our past which have been identified as being of historic importance are to be valued and protected for their own sake, as a central part of our cultural heritage. Their presence adds to the quality of our lives, by enhancing the familiar and cherished local scene and sustaining the sense of local distinctiveness which is so important an aspect of the character and appearance of our towns, villages and countryside. Their continued use is important if they are to contribute fully to the life of our communities.” We will show that the proposed MSA damages the distinctive identity of the village of Kirby Hill, as well as the character and setting of the two most well-known and cherished historic landmarks in the area – the Grade 1 listed, 1,000 year-old church of All Saints at Kirby Hill and the Grade 2 listed Skelton windmill.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: THE UK STRATEGY (1994)

2.2.22 This strategy recognises the important role of the planning system in regulating the development and use of land in the public interest. It says a sustainable planning framework should:

· “Provide for the nation's needs for commercial and industrial development, food production, minerals extraction, new homes and other buildings while respecting environmental objectives.” The proposed MSA does not fulfil a commercial, industrial, minerals extraction or housing need, yet it does have an adverse impact on environmental objectives, as we shall demonstrate.

· “Use already developed areas in the most efficient way, while making them more attractive places in which to live and work. “ The Kirby Hill proposal is a greenfield development and does not fulfil this objective. The alternative sites at Bramham and Skelton do meet the criteria.

· “Conserve both the cultural heritage and natural resources (including wildlife, landscape, water, soil and air quality) taking particular care to safeguard designations of national and international importance.” The proposed Kirby Hill MSA has negative wildlife, landscape, water, soil and air quality impacts, as we shall demonstrate.

· “Shape new development patterns in a way which minimises the need to travel.” The applicant’s proposals are such that even a resident of Kirby Hill, living just 500 metres from the MSA, would require a 16 km round-trip to visit the MSA for work or recreation.

PPG7: THE COUNTRYSIDE - ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (CD023)

Sustainable development:

2.2.23 The Government’s central emphasis on sustainable development is reflected in PPG7: “Sustainable development includes integrating the Government's objectives to:

· “Meet the economic and social needs of people who live and work in rural areas, by promoting the efficiency and competitiveness of rural businesses, and encouraging further economic diversity to provide varied employment opportunities (especially in areas still heavily reliant on agriculture).” An MSA at Kirby Hill is being proposed for the sole purpose of meeting motorists’ needs. The people who live in Kirby Hill recognise that the proposed MSA would do nothing to meet their economic and social needs and are strongly opposed to the development.

· “Maintain or enhance the character of the countryside and conserve its natural resources, including safeguarding the distinctiveness of its landscapes, its beauty, the diversity of its wildlife, the quality of rural towns and villages, its historic and archaeological interest, and best agricultural land.” We shall show that the proposed MSA involves despoliation of the countryside, destruction of a national resource (10.2 hectares of Grade 2 agricultural land), loss of an area of national archaeological importance and substantial harm to the distinctiveness and beauty of the open rural landscape north of Kirby Hill.

· “Improve the viability of existing villages and market towns, reduce the need for increased car commuting to urban centres, and reverse the general decline in rural services, by promoting living communities, which have a reasonable mix of age, income and occupation and which offer a suitable scale of employment, affordable and market housing, community facilities and other opportunities.“ Boroughbridge Chamber of Trade has confirmed that the proposed MSA would have a detrimental affect on this rural market town and would decrease its viability (Appendix B).

2.2.24 The proposed Kirby Hill MSA is not sustainable development.

Planning Policies for the Countryside:

2.2.25 PPG7 is very clear that: “The guiding principle in the countryside is that development should both benefit economic activity and maintain or enhance the environment. Rural areas can accommodate many forms of development without detriment, if the location and design of development is handled with sensitivity. New development should be sensitively related to existing settlement patterns and to historic, wildlife and landscape resources. Building in the open countryside, away from existing settlements or from areas allocated for development in development plans, should be strictly controlled.”

2.2.26 The applicant’s proposals are contrary to the letter and the spirit of the PPG7 guiding principle. For this reason alone, we submit that planning permission should not be granted. Further, we believe that local people, not expert witnesses, are in the best position to judge whether a development meets the criteria for being “sensitively related”. The applicant’s claim that the development will benefit the local area is based on an Environmental Statement that we shall show to be inadequate and deeply flawed. No attempt has been made to acknowledge the expertise of local people, solicit their views or address their sensitivities.

The character of the countryside:

2.2.27 PPG7 further 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 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”. The applicant has argued that the Kirby Hill site can be developed, because it is not protected by a special designation. (HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, para 5.39). The guidance in PPG7 suggests that this argument is incompatible with current Government policy.

2.2.28 In summary, the applicant’s proposal fails the Government Policy Test.

2.3 The Regional and Local Plan Test

2.3.1 The North Yorkshire County Structure Plan and the Harrogate District Local Plan also give significant weight to protecting the countryside from unnecessary development. We have assessed the applicant’s proposals against specific policies in these documents as follows:

NORTH YORKSHIRE COUNTY STRUCTURE PLAN (CD001)

2.3.2 Policy E2 states: “DEVELOPMENT IN THE OPEN COUNTRYSIDE OUTSIDE THE NATIONAL PARKS, AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY, AREAS OF HERITAGE COAST AND GREEN BELTS WILL NORMALLY BE PERMITTED ONLY WHERE IT RELATES TO:

(i) SMALL SCALE PROPOSALS REQUIRING AN OPEN COUNTRYSIDE LOCATION FOR OPERATIONAL REASONS; AND

(ii) SMALL SCALE PROPOSALS FOR INDIVIDUAL SITES OR FOR THE RE-USE OR ADAPTATION OF EXISTING RURAL BUILDINGS TO SECURE EMPLOYMENT USES WHICH BENEFIT THE RURAL ECONOMY

AND PROVIDED IT WOULD NOT HARM THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE, GENERAL AMENITY OR NATURE CONSERVATION INTERESTS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA.”

At 21 hectares, the applicant’s proposal cannot be described as small scale. We will demonstrate that it will harm the character, appearance and general amenity of the surrounding area. When consulted about the proposed Kirby Hill MSA by Harrogate Borough Council, the Policy Development Unit of Environmental Services at North Yorkshire County Council wrote (Appendix C): “The County Council’s recommendation is as follows:- That planning permission be REFUSED for both the Arkendale and Kirby Hill proposals on the grounds that the proposed development could not be satisfactorily assimilated into the local landscape, would have an adverse impact on residential and rural amenity and would, therefore, conflict with the provisions of County Structure Plan Policy E2.” (CD001). The applicant’s proposal is contrary to policy E2 of the North Yorkshire County Structure Plan.

2.3.3 Policy E4 states: “BUILDINGS AND AREAS OF SPECIAL TOWNSCAPE, ARCHITECTURAL OR HISTORIC INTEREST WILL BE AFFORDED THE STRICTEST PROTECTION.”

Policy E5 states: “DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS WHICH COULD RESULT IN DAMAGE TO, OR THE DESTRUCTION OF SITES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE WILL NORMALLY BE REFUSED.”

The applicant’s proposals impact on the character and setting of the Grade 1 listed church of All Saints at Kirby Hill and the Grade 2 listed Skelton Windmill, dominating at close range the well-known view from the latter towards the Hambleton hills. The proposed MSA would destroy forever an area where Neolithic remains of national importance were discovered during the recent A1(M) upgrade. North Yorkshire County Council’s Senior Archaeologist has highlighted the importance of the archaeological potential of this site and has recommended a PPG16 condition to allow full investigation before any development proceeds (Appendix D). Worryingly, the applicant’s Environmental Statement concludes that: “there will be no effects of the scheme directly or indirectly upon any features of heritage or archaeological interest.” (HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, para 7.21). We submit that the applicant’s negligence in failing to recognise any impact on well-known site of potentially national archaeological importance raises fundamental questions about the adequacy of the applicant’s Environmental Impact Assessment and means that damage will inevitably occur

The applicant’s proposal is contrary to policies E4 and E5 of the North Yorkshire County Structure Plan.

2.3.4 Policy I15 states: “IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES LARGE SCALE BUSINESS OR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR OCCUPATION BY A SINGLE LARGE OPERATOR AND ANY RELATED DEVELOPMENT DIRECTLY LINKED TO ITS OPERATION MAY BE PERMITTED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE PROVISlONS OF POLICY I5 PROVIDED THAT:

(i) THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL EMPLOYMENT OR OTHER ECONOMIC BENEFITS; AND

(ii) THERE ARE CLEAR AND SUBSTANTIVE REASONS WHY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED ON LAND ALLOCATED IN LOCAL PLANS FOR BUSINESS OR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLICY I5; AND

(iii) THERE ARE NO OVERRIDING PLANNING OBJECTIONS.

IN ALL CASES A FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSAL WILL BE REQUIRED.”

The applicant has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances that warrant the siting of an MSA at Kirby Hill. There are four alternative sites. We submit that protection of the countryside, visual and residential amenity and securing the safety of the public from military operations at Dishforth Airfield are indeed overriding planning objections. The applicant’s proposal is contrary to policy I15 of the North Yorkshire County Structure Plan.

2.3.5 Policy A1 states: “DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD INVOLVE THE LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BUT WHICH COULD REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO TAKE PLACE ON NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND OR ON AGRICULTURAL LAND OF A LOWER QUALITY WILL BE RESISTED. PREFERENCE WILL BE GIVEN TO THE USE OF DERELICT, UNDER-USED OR DEGRADED LAND.”

The Kirby Hill proposal involves the greatest loss (13.7 ha) of best and most versatile agricultural land. All four alternative sites provide options for developing an MSA on land of lower quality. The proposed MSA development at Kirby Hill could reasonably be expected to take place on non-agricultural land or on agricultural land of a lower quality. The applicant’s proposal is contrary to policy A1 of the North Yorkshire County Structure Plan.

2.3.6 Policy A3 states: “ALL GRADE 1, 2 AND 3A AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE VALLEY BOTTOM LAND IN UPLAND AREAS WILL BE SAFEGUARDED AS FAR AS POSSIBLE FROM NON-AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT.”

Policy M5 states: “ALL GRADE 1,2 AND 3 AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE VALLEY BOTTOM LAND IN UPLAND AREAS WILL BE SAFEGUARDED AS FAR AS POSSIBLE FROM IRREVERSIBLE DEVELOPMENT.”

The applicant’s plans for an online MSA at Kirby Hill involve a land take 25% larger than any of the other proposals. Of the 14 hectares total MSA site area, 73% is Grade 2 agricultural land and a further 25% is Grade 3a agricultural land (see para 2.5.26, page 27 of this proof). The proposed mounding and planting, an additional 7 hectares, would destroy even more high-quality agricultural land. Preferring an online MSA at Kirby Hill to the much smaller land take of offline MSAs cannot be construed as safeguarding Grade 2 and 3 agricultural land as far as possible from non-agricultural and irreversible development. The applicant’s proposal is contrary to policies A3 and M5 of the North Yorkshire County Structure Plan.

HARROGATE DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN (CD010)

2.3.7 Policy T7 of the Harrogate District Local Plan sets out the criteria against which proposals for an MSA in Harrogate District will be assessed. We will demonstrate that the proposed Kirby Hill MSA fails to meet six of the eight criteria, namely:

· Criterion C): “THE NEED TO PROVIDE SAFE AND CONVENIENT ACCESS WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH THE FREE AND SAFE FLOW OF TRAFFIC ON THE MOTORWAY OR THE LOCAL HIGHWAY NETWORK.” In section 3.4 of this proof, we demonstrate that the proposed southbound access and egress arrangements may be unsafe.

· Criterion D): “MINIMISING THE LOSS OF THE BEST AND MOST VERSATILE AGRICULTURAL LAND.” In section 2.5 of this proof, we show that the scheme maximises the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, when compared to the other sites.

· Criterion E): “MINIMISING THE IMPACT ON LISTED BUILDINGS, REGISTERED PARKS AND GARDENS AND THEIR SETTINGS.” In section 2.5 of this proof, we show that the applicant has in fact dismissed any potential impact on two important listed buildings, rather than acknowledging an impact and proposing mitigation measures, as this policy would seem to require.

· Criterion F): “SAFEGUARDING AND/OR ENHANCING THE EXISTING LANDSCAPE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA.” In section 2.5 of this proof, we show that the proposed MSA would cause substantial, irreversible harm to the landscape and that the applicant’s proposed mitigation measures are out of character with the surrounding area.

· Criterion G): “SAFEGUARDING SITES AND FEATURES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURE CONSERVATION INTEREST,” In section 2.5 of this proof, we show that the applicant’s assessment of the archaeological potential is completely wrong and that the proposed scheme may destroy archaeological remains of potentially national importance.

· Criterion H): “MINIMISING THE IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY.” In section 5 of this proof, we show that the proposed Kirby Hill MSA would have a serious adverse impact on residential amenity and that this impact would be far greater than at the other sites.

2.3.8 Policy T8 states: “PROPOSALS FOR ROADSIDE FACILITIES WILL ONLY BE PERMIITTED WHERE….B) THERE IS NO OVERRIDING PLANNING OBJECTION IN TERMS OF THE COUNTRYSIDE, GREEN BELT, HERITAGE AND DESIGN, AND TRANSPORTATION POLICIES OF THIS LOCAL PLAN AND C) THERE WOULD BE NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON LOCAL AMENITY.” In an accurate reflection of Government policy, this clearly prioritises the countryside policies in the plan above the need to provide roadside facilities. The whole of this section 2 of our proof of evidence demonstrates that there is an overriding objection in terms of countryside and impact on local amenity. Paragraphs 2.3.9 to 2.3.12 below show how these impacts contravene the relevant policies in the Harrogate and District Local Plan.

2.3.9 Policy C2 states: “DEVELOPMENT SHOULD PROTECT EXISTING LANDSCAPE CHARACTER. IN LOCATIONS WHERE RESTORATION OF THE LANDSCAPE IS NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE, OPPORTUNITIES SHOULD BE TAKEN FOR THE DESIGN AND LANDSCAPING OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS TO REPAIR OR REINTRODUCE LANDSCAPE FEATURES, TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS IS JUSTIFIED BY THE EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSALS.” The proposed scheme destroys the existing landscape character at Kirby Hill. It would result in a major built development, containing large amounts of stationary traffic, occupying a prominent location in the middle of an open, undulating, rural landscape. Further, the proposal seeks to introduce 7 ha of earthworks and woodland planting that is alien to the existing environment. This cannot be construed as protecting the landscape, nor as repairing and restoring landscape features. The proposal contravenes policy C2.

2.3.10 Policy C11 of the Harrogate District Local Plan states: “PROPOSALS FOR DEVELOPMENT SHALL HAVE REGARD TO…D) THE NEED TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE IMPORTANT VISUAL AND PHYSICAL LINKS BETWEEN THE BUILT FORM, OPEN SPACES AND OPEN COUNTRYSIDE”. Section 2.5 of this proof shows that the proposed MSA would irrevocably damage this important relationship, something the applicant does not seem to understand.

2.3.11 Policy C12 of the Harrogate District Local Plan states “NON AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH CAUSES HARM TO THE BEST AND MOST VERSATILE AGRICULTURAL LAND WILL NOT BE PERMITTED UNLESS…B) DEVELOPMENT COULD NOT REASONABLY TAKE PLACE ON NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND OR LAND OF A LOWER AGRICULTURAL QUALITY.” The proposed MSA conflicts with this policy for the same reason it conflicts with Policy A1 of the North Yorkshire County Structure Plan (para 2.3.5, page 15 of this proof) - it could reasonably be expected to take place elsewhere and use less high quality agricultural land.

2.3.12 Policy C15 relates to the conservation of rural areas and indicates that outside the development limits of settlements (which this proposal is): “EXISTING LAND USES ARE EXPECTED TO REMAIN FOR THE MOST PART UNDISTURBED.” The proposal conflicts with policy C15.

2.3.13 Policy HD1 states “DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED WHERE IT WOULD HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE CHARACTER, PHYSICAL FABRIC OR SETTING OF A LISTED BUILDING.” Section 2.5 of this proof shows that the proposed MSA would adversely impact the character and setting of Grade 1 listed All Saints Church, Kirby Hill and Grade 2 listed Skelton Windmill.

2.3.14 Policy HD4 concerns development affecting archaeological sites and is contravened for the same reasons as Policy T7 criterion G (see para 2.3.7, page 16 of this proof).

2.3.15 Policy HD16 states that: “PROPOSALS FOR DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE CHARACTER OR APPERANCE OF THE APPROACHES TO THE DISTRICT’S SETTLEMENTS WILL NOT BE PERMITTED”. The proposed MSA would detract from the character and appearance of the approaches to Kirby Hill along the A1(M), A168 and B6265. The dominant view along these approaches would be of the MSA and not the open, rolling countryside at present.

2.3.16 Policy HD20 states: “NEW BUILDINGS SHOULD RESPECT THE LOCAL DISTINCTIVENESS OF EXISTING BUILDINGS, SETTLEMENTS AND THEIR LANDSCAPE SETTING.” In sections 2.5 and 5 of this proof, we show that the proposed MSA would not achieve this and the distinct identity of Kirby Hill and its surrounding landscape would be lost forever.

2.3.17 Policy E8 sets out three criteria for new industrial and business development in the countryside and states that development will not be permitted unless ALL the criteria are met. The proposed MSA fails to meet criteria A and C of policy E8.

2.3.18 In summary, the applicant’s proposal conflicts with policies E2, E4, E5, I15, A1, A3 and M5 of the North Yorkshire County Structure Plan and policies T7, T8, C2, C11, C12, C15, HD1, HD4, HD16, HD20 and E8 of the Harrogate District Local Plan. Therefore, the proposed development does not accord with Section 54A of the Town and County Planning Act. The applicant’s proposal fails the Regional and Local Plan Test.

2.4 The Relative Degree of Harm Test

2.4.1 The fact that there are alternative MSA sites available to the Secretary of State is a great benefit. Recognising the weight that Government, Regional and Local policy gives to protecting the countryside from unnecessary development, it is essential to assess the relative degree of harm caused by the various proposals. The online proposal at Kirby Hill results in the loss of 21.2 ha, by far the most land, of which at least 10.2 ha is Grade 2 agricultural land and 3.5 ha Grade 3a agricultural land (the applicant is not specific about the quality of the additional 7 ha of land required for mounding and planting). The proximity of the village and lie of the land, especially to the east, means that the Kirby Hill proposal has the most significant visual impact. The sensitivity of the environment, together with the applicant’s plans for a twin-sided online MSA, mean that the Kirby Hill proposal has by far the highest landscape and environmental impact.

2.4.2 We understand that Harrogate Borough Council’s position is that Kirk Deighton is by far the best choice in landscape and environmental terms, and that there is little to choose between Flaxby and Kirby Hill, both of which have significant associated problems.

2.4.3 Relative to the other proposals, the Kirby Hill scheme is the most damaging to the landscape and environment.

2.4.4 The applicant’s proposal fails the Relative Degree of Harm Test.

2.5 The Specific Factors Test

2.5.1 There are eleven specific environmental factors against which we believe the proposed MSA at Kirby Hill must be assessed:

LANDSCAPE IMPACT:

2.5.2 The aerial photograph at Figure 1 shows the attractive, large-scale, open character of the landscape north of Kirby Hill. The proposed site is not in a shallow bowl as the applicant suggests. It is bordered by higher ground to the west near Skelton windmill, however to the east and south-east there is a gentle downwards slope from the site elevation (38m AOD) to the Boroughbridge to Dishforth road (30m AOD), All Saints Church, Kirby Hill (30m AOD) and Sion Hill Farm (25m AOD). From these viewpoints, the MSA will appear to sit prominently on a ridge some 8-13m above the viewer. A cross-section taken through the centre of the site, from Skelton windmill in the west to the settlement of Humberton in the east, clearly illustrates this point (Figure 2). An MSA development cannot be successfully assimilated into the landscape at this location. It would alter the fundamental character of the countryside north of Kirby Hill and remain permanently and unacceptably prominent. The proposed mounding and planting to mitigate the impact is itself out of keeping with the large-scale, open character of the landscape. Figure 3 shows that the proposed site is larger than the village of Kirby Hill. A development of this scale will destroy the distinct identity this pleasant rural village derives from its position in the landscape and permanently detract from its “sense of place”.

2.5.3 Kirby Hill & District Parish Council has consulted a notable expert on the Yorkshire landscape about the likely impact of the applicant’s proposals. TV celebrity and landscape expert Alan Titchmarsh reviewed some of the photographic evidence that will be presented by Kirby Hill RAMS and wrote the following in his letter of 31 October 2002 (Appendix E): “Thank you for telling me about the proposals to build a motorway service station 400 yards away from Kirby Hill in North Yorkshire. I wholeheartedly endorse your campaign opposing this massive development, which would cause irreversible harm to the existing open rural landscape. The unacceptable visual impact on the area, and the noise and light pollution, would adversely affect the quality of life of the local residents, and over 20 hectares of excellent agricultural land would be lost forever. I earnestly hope your campaign is successful.”

2.5.4 The applicant’s own experts agree that the development would have an “initial moderately adverse impact” in terms of landscape effects. (HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, para 13.1). We submit that the impact would be far greater than the applicant’s expert suggests and that the development and the proposed mitigation measures would cause substantial, permanent harm. This view is supported by expert opinion. We understand that Harrogate Borough Council’s position is that the main problem at Kirby Hill is in terms of landscape impact, based on the visibility of the proposed MSA in an area of open and relatively unspoilt countryside with expansive views from the east. In respect of the proposed mitigation measures, Harrogate Borough Council’s Planning Officers take the view that: “The mitigation measures proposed – mounding and substantial off-site planting – are considered inappropriate to the character of the area and would not overcome the landscape impact of the development on this open, extensive, agricultural landscape.” (CD066, para 5.7.33).

2.5.5 In his report to the District Development Control Committee on 18th July 2002 (CD066 para 5.7.31). Mr. Allenby, Harrogate Borough Council’s Chief Planner says: “The Kirby Hill site forms part of an open, undulating agricultural landscape characterised by large fields of arable farmland, few hedgerows and trees, and scattered farmsteads. The landscape has a large scale and open character and, as such, has very little capacity for the successful integration of major new development.”

2.5.6 Local people know intuitively what the experts are also saying. An MSA can never be made to “belong” in this landscape. The applicant’s proposals will irreversibly damage the landscape.

VISUAL IMPACT:

2.5.7 Kirby Hill is named for obvious reasons. The site has long-range views to the North York Moors and Yorkshire Dales. The proposed MSA will remain unacceptably prominent, especially when viewed from the east. We submit that the site cannot be totally screened; lighting will make it particularly obvious at night. It will ruin both long and short-range views.

2.5.8 The fact that the applicant proposes to use 7 hectares, 35% of the total site area, for screening and planting demonstrates that the MSA would be massively intrusive. In his report on the 1997 Inquiry the Inspector stated that: “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. That could only have a serious fragmenting and damaging effect on the landscape and be quite alien to it. HIA contend that it would be acceptable because the recent Ripon Road overbridge and roundabout were at the same level and were also intrusive. One would have thought that an excellent reason for not extending such intrusion in the form of a mound out across the contours.” (CD039, para 6.89b). The proposed mitigation measures, having the appearance of a block of woodland on a steep slope, would be wholly out of character with the surroundings and still wouldn’t screen the MSA from the A168, B6265 or the overlooking residential properties, even after many years.

2.5.9 Numerous properties overlook this site and lie within 150-600 metres. The long-range views toward the North Yorkshire Moors and the Yorkshire Dales are enjoyed by the whole community. The development of the proposed MSA would very badly degrade them.

2.5.10 Figure 9 of the HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, shows the view towards the A1(M) from Kirby Hill church, which the applicant calculates to be 700m from the site. Some HGV traffic on the A1(M) is clearly visible in the middle distance, with fields and trees beyond. The HGV traffic is labelled on the applicant’s diagram. The southbound MSA facilities would be nearer to Kirby Hill church than the A1(M) carriageway. The amenity building, at a maximum height of 8m, would be at least twice as tall as the tallest HGVs. By day, the view from Kirby Hill church and from much of the northern edge of the village would therefore be dominated by the MSA, or by a large mound designed to screen it from view. The long-range views towards Skelton windmill in the west would be totally obscured.

2.5.11 By night, the site would be illuminated using fifty-one 6.6 m lighting columns for the car parks, thirty-seven 8m lighting columns for the coach and HGV parks and sixty-six 8m lighting columns for the access roads. Each petrol filling station would have its own integral lighting in addition. (HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, paras 5.78 to 5.85). There would also be illuminated advance warning signs, directional signs and advertising signs. Using the recommended wattages given by the applicant, this amounts to 26,020 Watts of external lighting. Added to this must be the light pollution from advance warning, directional and advertising signs and from internal lighting for the 24 hour MSA operation, none of which the applicant has included in the assessment. The proposed mounding has been designed to screen the amenity buildings by day, yet it is the 8m lighting columns in the coach and HGV parks and along the access roads that will present the most obvious visual intrusion by night.

2.5.12 The proposed MSA would have an unacceptably high visual impact by day and by night.

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT:

2.5.13 While not claiming that the site is teeming with wildlife and protected species, local residents are aware of ecological activity that is not mentioned or is dismissed by the applicant’s Environmental Statement. We submit that the applicant’s Environmental Statement is inadequate in its ecological assessment, on the following grounds:

· The applicant acknowledges that the village of Kirby Hill “is characterized around much of its perimeter by established mature tree cover” (HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, para 5.37) yet chose a review area (HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, Figure 22) that conveniently excludes the hedgerow and trees on the northern boundary of Kirby Hill. The assessment excludes this habitat and therefore did not find evidence of the wildlife, such as sparrowhawks and bats, which local residents regularly see in their gardens (see para 2.5.14 and 2.5.15 below).

· The review did not include night-time observation, despite the fact that evidence of badgers was found and that trees on the site were considered a suitable habitat for roosting bats (HIA Environment Statement paras 6.13 and 6.14).

· Although rare and protected species were observed inside the site boundary, a map showing the location of these sightings is not included in the applicant’s appendices, so the impact cannot be properly assessed.

· The applicant’s Environmental Statement was produced during a very short period of time in August 2002. We question how it could have adequately assessed birds nesting at the site in Spring, for example.

· Despite the applicant finding evidence that the site may provide habitats for protected species (badgers, bats and skylarks), details of the consultations with and responses from Yorkshire Bat Group, Harrogate Badger Group and RSPB are not included in the Environmental Statement. As a minimum, the opinion of these organisations should be obtained and a bat survey, to include the barns at Manor Farm and the trees there and along the northern boundary of Kirby Hill village, should be conducted.

2.5.14 The applicant fails to recognise that the impact of an MSA, with the associated high levels of noise, light and air pollution, will affect wildlife over a much wider area than the site itself. Shy, nocturnal animals such as badgers, bats and the occasional deer that residents see would be driven out of the area by this development.

2.5.15 The applicant also ignores the importance of the tree cover along the northern boundary of Kirby Hill to bats and birds of prey such as sparrowhawks, which use the trees as a vantage point from which to observe and hunt birds and small mammals on the site, swooping low over the fields and hedgerows towards the A1(M) in order to catch their prey.

2.5.16 The applicant’s assessment of the ecological impact is inadequate.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT:

2.5.17 Local residents are aware that the Roman road north from Boroughbridge ran less than 300m from the east of the site. During the A1(M) upgrade, important Neolithic remains were also found at the site (see Appendix D and V). Each year when the fields are ploughed, scores of hobbyists with metal detectors scour the site for archaeological finds. They would not come back year after year if the site did not yield artefacts of value.

2.5.18 North Yorkshire County Council’s Senior Archaeologist has criticised the applicant’s Environmental Statement, saying: “The Environmental Statement has not adequately assessed the potential for archaeological remains on this site. The ES did not take account of the potential for Neolithic remains as evidenced by the discoveries arising from the A1 Walshford to Dishforth scheme. A large volume of Neolithic pottery and other remains have been recovered from pit features in Fields 88-92, the first such assemblage to be excavated in modern times in the Vale of Mowbray. These remains are considered to be nationally important. Moreover, the geophysical survey report for the site clearly identified "a group of possible pit type anomalies...in the northern part of the survey area". 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.” (Appendix D)

2.5.19 The applicant’s Environmental Statement is inadequate in its assessment of archaeological impact and its conclusions fly in the face of everything local people, local historians and local archaeologists know about the area.

HISTORIC IMPACT:

2.5.20 Kirby Hill is an ancient village set in beautiful rural surroundings, with long-range views over open countryside to the north and east and medium-range views to the west, cut-off by the higher ground towards Ripon. The Grade 1 listed Church of All Saints, Kirby Hill stands on a slightly elevated position at the eastern end of the village and is over 1,000 years old. The Grade 2 listed Skelton Windmill, built in 1822, stands high on the Ripon road to the west of the A1(M) and is a well-known local landmark. There are important visual links between the village, the open countryside to the north and these two listed monuments, which give the local area its unique character, sense of history and place (see Figure 4). The proposed MSA site is at the worst possible location to cause and adverse impact on this juxtaposition of village and ancient monuments. It would alter forever this historic landscape, by introducing large modern buildings and huge amounts of vehicle parking, together with earthworks and woodland planting that would curtail many of the views that local people and visitors enjoy. In particular, the view of Skelton windmill from Kirby Hill village and from the church of All Saints would be lost. The MSA would completely dominate at close range the view east from Skelton Windmill, immortalised in Bulmer’s History - Topography and Directory of North Yorkshire, 1891 (see para 5.2.3, page 50 of this proof).

2.5.21 The proposed MSA would irrevocably damage an area that has retained its sense of history and place for more than 1,000 years. It would destroy important visual links between the village of Kirby Hill, the surrounding countryside and two scheduled monuments, thereby affecting the character and setting of the listed buildings and the village.

TRAFFIC IMPACT:

2.5.22 Using the latest DBFO figures for peak hour traffic flow and the recommended turn-in rate of 15% provided by the Highways Agency, the applicant’s traffic assessment report calculates the number of vehicles likely to use the proposed MSA in 2020 (Boreham Consulting Engineers Amended Traffic Assessment Report, HIA7, Appendix 9). These figures are as follows:

	Northbound	Southbound
Total vehicles	604	666
HGVs	125	99
Table 2.1: Number of Vehicles using the proposed MSA at peak hour in 2020 (calculated using DBFO peak hour flow and a 15% turn-in rate, as recommended by the Highways Agency)

Such a large number of vehicles, moving slowly around a busy MSA in close proximity to the village of Kirby Hill, will have a detrimental impact in terms of noise and air pollution.

2.5.23 We note that the applicant disagrees with the Highways Agency regarding the turn-in rate to be applied. The Highways Agency recommendation is 15%, however the applicant uses a much lower turn-in rate of 8%. We submit that this is because the applicant knows that the proposed MSA cannot accommodate the level of traffic forecast for 2020 using the Highways Agency figures (see section 3.2 of this proof, Parking). To accommodate the volume of traffic forecast using the Highways Agency figures, the proposed MSA would need to be extended before 2020. This would cause further, substantial environmental impact that the applicant will no doubt attempt to justify on highway safety grounds. If the applicant is not aware that the MSA may need to be extended, we question why the quantity of land “within the control of the applicant” (HIA Environmental Impact Statement, August 2002, Figure 3) is so much larger than the 21 hectares required for the proposed MSA and screening (the applicant does not provide a figure, simply stating that the “Land within the control of the applicant extends beyond the plan to the East and West”). We ask the Secretary of State to take account of these indications that the proposed MSA at Kirby Hill may need to be extended, when he reviews the environmental impact (immediate and potential) of the five schemes. Any extension would almost certainly involve the use of land currently reserved for environmental mitigation measures.

2.5.24 The proposed MSA also has no provision for staff parking. The applicant says “staff will be provided with a private bus service from the local area to the MSA” (HIA7, para 6.3). This means that parking provision for the 250 staff will need to be found in the local area, presumably at Kirby Hill or Boroughbridge, substantially increasing local traffic and reducing parking provision for local residents.

2.5.25 The applicant is underestimating the traffic impact of the proposed MSA in order to disguise the eventual scale of the MSA and its environmental impact. Even using the applicant’s current figures, the proposed MSA would create an unacceptably high traffic impact on the local area, particularly when off-site staff parking is taken into account.

LAND QUALITY IMPACT:

2.5.26 Much has been made of the benefits of an online MSA in terms of convenience for motorists. However, as we have shown in section 2 of this proof, the Secretary of State will need to balance the convenience of motorists with the Government’s stated desire to protect the countryside from unnecessary development. The major disadvantage of online MSAs such as the proposed scheme at Kirby Hill, is that they require far more land than offline proposals. In the case of Kirby Hill, this is exacerbated by the fact that 10.2 ha, 73% of the total MSA site, would be valuable Grade 2 agricultural land and a further 3.5 ha, 25% of the total, would be Grade 3a agricultural land (CD066, para 5.7.17). The additional 7 ha of mounding and planting would require even more high-quality agricultural land.

2.5.27 Building such a large MSA in an area of high-quality agricultural land may of course have a wider impact than just the land take. The agricultural land immediately surrounding the MSA is likely to become degraded as a result of litter, air pollution and drainage from the MSA over time. The particular problems of drainage are dealt with in para 2.5.34 of this proof.

2.5.28 The proposed MSA at Kirby Hill has the largest land-take of all the proposed schemes and results in by far the greatest loss of best and most versatile agricultural land.

AGRICULTURAL IMPACT:

2.5.29 The proposed MSA will have an adverse impact on agricultural operations in the surrounding fields and farms. The applicant has identified three farms that surround the site (HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, paras 9.9 to 9.13). The impact is likely to be in three areas:

· Loss of valuable agricultural land, making farms less viable.

· Effects on water levels and land drainage in fields surrounding the MSA.

· Increased operational difficulties of having to work around an MSA, for example when crop-spraying.

2.5.30 While the two owners of the land on which the proposed MSA would be built do not oppose the scheme (they have a vested financial interest), their tenant farmers do oppose the development on the grounds that it would have a negative impact on agriculture. It is of course difficult for these tenants to voice their concerns when their landlords stand to gain from the sale of the land.

HYDROLOGICAL IMPACT:

2.5.31 The applicant’s statements on water, hydrology and drainage (HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002 section 10.0) are entirely subjective and no evidence is provided to support them. It is impossible to draw any conclusions regarding the likely impact of the proposed MSA from the information presented. We submit that hydrological impact is a major consideration and that the applicant’s assessment is seriously deficient, on the following grounds:

2.5.32 The report prepared for the applicant by Boreham Consulting Engineers (HIA Environment Statement, August 2002, para 10.2) is not before the Inquiry.

2.5.33 No data is presented regarding the likely amounts of additional surface and foul water drainage, therefore it is impossible to assess whether the proposed mitigation measures would be effective.

2.5.34 The applicant’s proposals for mitigating the effects of additional foul and surface water drainage are generally vague and in some instances, just plain wrong. For example:

· HIA Environment Statement, para 10.36 says: “Should attenuation or settlement be required, either oversized pipes, a balancing pond or storage tanks would be incorporated…” Clearly the applicant has no idea if surface water attenuation is likely to be required, nor of the potential impact of any attenuation. Incorporating a balancing pond in the proposed MSA would increase the environmental impact and raise significant new issues concerning its location within the site and the safety of children from Kirby Hill village, just 500m away.

· HIA Environment Statement, para 10.33 asserts that: “Foul sewage could be treated at the Boroughbridge Waste Water Treatment works…” yet the applicant provides no information on the likely route of a new sewer or on its environmental impact. In their consultation response, Yorkshire Water are very clear that: “The nearest public sewer network does not have adequate capacity available to accommodate the anticipated foul water discharge from this proposal without improvement. In addition to this, Boroughbridge WwTW does not have sufficient capacity to treat the additional load this development would produce.” (Appendix F) The applicant is making assumptions about waste water treatment that are not supported by facts, data or the opinion of the relevant authorities. We submit that this is because the reality of the required water treatment works would have such an unacceptable environmental impact that the applicant wishes to hide its true extent from the Inquiry.

2.5.35 We are not experts on hydrological matters. However, it is clear to us, as laymen, that the proposed MSA will have a substantial adverse impact in terms of:

· Water treatment works, including potentially: 800m of new sewers, a sewage pumping station and one or more surface water balancing ponds.

· Foul and surface water discharge via soakaways into a major aquifer.

· An increased flood risk in the surrounding fields, particularly in the area of low-lying impermeable soil to the south of the site (HIA Environment Statement, August 2002, para 10.18), where quantities of water often stand during winter (Figure 9).

· A greatly increased risk of water pollution from chemicals and waste originating at the proposed MSA and from fuel spillages. We submit that, given the quantities of fuel to be stored on site and the sensitivity of the surrounding high-quality agricultural land, total containment of the site should be mandatory.

2.5.36 Our layman’s interpretation of the applicant’s Environmental Statement and the consultation responses from the Environment Agency and Yorkshire Water is that the hydrological impact has been inadequately assessed. Substantial environmental damage from foul and surface water drainage is a significant possibility.

NOISE IMPACT:

2.5.37 We accept that local residents already experience background noise due to traffic on the A1(M). The noise experienced varies considerably with traffic levels, wind direction and cloud cover. At peak times on clear days when the wind is from the north-west, noise levels are greater than during cloudy nights when the wind is from the south-west. We do not accept the existence of this background noise as a justification for introducing further noise sources, as the applicant seems to suggest. Furthermore, the noise from the proposed 24-hour MSA operation would be continuous. There would be no more quiet nights.

2.5.38 We submit that the applicant’s noise survey is deeply flawed and cannot be used as a basis for deciding the level of noise pollution local residents will experience. The noise survey (HIA Environment Statement, August 2002, Appendix F) is flawed and inadequate for the following reasons:

· No measurements were taken in Kirby Hill village, the settlement most likely to be affected by noise from the MSA. The measurement points chosen were Skelton Windmill, Providence Lodge and a field north of the village between Leeming Lane and the motorway (HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, Appendix F, Noise Survey, Appendix 7), all of which lie on high ground in locations where the prevailing wind would not carry noise from the MSA.

· The applicant’s treatment of the noise measurements taken at other MSAs is questionable. The methodology does not describe how the surprisingly low future service area noise levels (HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, Appendix F, Noise Survey, Appendix 6) used in the applicant’s comparison have been calculated. Despite our best efforts, we have been unable to relate the measurements the applicant made at other MSAs to the future service area noise figures quoted.

· The applicant takes no account of increased aircraft noise. Despite noting the noise from “frequent aircraft, some overhead” (HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, Appendix F, Noise Survey, Appendix 3, measurement at Skelton Windmill, 13:30), the applicant has failed to assess the impact on residents if these aircraft are re-routed to avoid overflying the MSA.

2.5.39 We agree with the applicant’s assessment that the dominant noise sources from the proposed MSA are likely to be HGVs and HGV chiller units. These types of sources generally emit a low-pitched hum, characteristic of vibrating equipment, which will travel a considerable distance in the open countryside, especially at night. This noise is easily distinguishable from background traffic noise. It appears that the applicant has averaged the sound emitted by HGVs and chillers across the frequency spectrum in order to achieve a lower dBA figure. However, it is the low frequency, high dBA hum that will keep residents awake at night. Table 2.2 shows the frequencies at which the applicant’s experts recorded the highest dBA figures at other MSAs (HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, Appendix F, Noise Survey, Appendix 5):

Measurement	Highest dBA figure recorded	Frequency at which highest dBA figure recorded
Knutsford Northbound MSA:
Chiller units on 3 parked HGVs	81 dBA	63 Hz
Cherwell Valley MSA:
HGV Parking Area	78 dBA	63 Hz
Corley Southbound MSA:
HGV Parking Area	76 dBA	63 Hz
Chiller Unit	85 dBA	63 Hz
Table 2.2: Demonstrating that the highest sound pressure levels are emitted at low frequencies, according to the applicant’s data (Data from HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, Appendix F, Noise Survey, Appendix 5. NOTE: It was not possible to include the applicant’s data for Medway MSA in this table because different assessment methods and measurement units to the other MSAs were used.)

2.5.40 In summary, the proposed MSA would emit continuous, primarily low frequency noise that would disturb local residents. The applicant has failed to assess the impact of this noise on Kirby Hill village and the assessment of noise impact at other locations is questionable.

AIR QUALITY IMPACT:

2.5.41 From a layman’s perspective, it is obvious that significant quantities of slow-moving traffic in the proposed MSA, together with many vehicles re-starting their engines from cold after a stop, will increase local air pollution. Not being experts, the questions we would like answered are:

· Would the proposed MSA result in levels of dangerous air pollutants exceeding Government targets for the local area?

· How would the additional pollution created become dispersed, given the prevailing topography and wind conditions?

2.5.42 Having studied the applicant’s air quality assessment, we have found it impossible to answer these questions, for the following reasons:

· The applicant has ignored Highways Agency recommendations and used a turn-in rate of just 8% to determine the level of traffic that would use the proposed MSA. This, of course, gives a far lower figure for polluting emissions. We prefer to put our trust in the Highways Agency, however, and submit that the calculations using a turn-in rate of 15% should be put before the Inquiry.

· The applicant has assumed that 50% of the vehicles re-starting their engines are starting from warm, having had only a brief stop (HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, para 12.19). Warm engines produce fewer emissions when starting than cold engines. We would question the applicant’s assumption. Surely, most of the long distance travellers that the applicant claims are so in need of an MSA at Kirby Hill would stop for longer than just the few minutes it takes for their engine to cool down? If only 8% of traffic will use the MSA and 50% of this will stop for only a few minutes, perhaps there is no need for an MSA at Kirby Hill at all?

· The applicant has not undertaken any modelling of how the local landscape and wind conditions may cause pollution to be dispersed from the proposed MSA site. Local residents are well aware of how the prevailing wind often spreads fog south-eastwards across the open fields towards Kirby Hill and expect a similar effect for air pollution. However the applicant asserts that “it is generally recognised that emissions from road traffic are likely to be comparable to background concentrations approaching distances of 200 metres from roads, and hence assessment is not generally considered necessary beyond this distance” (HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, para 12.6). We are not interested in the general, but in the site-specific. The applicant uses this generalisation to justify modelling pollution using only receptors located within the proposed MSA site itself. The impact on areas outside the site is not considered.

2.5.43 We submit that the applicant’s air quality assessment is meaningless and that it does not answer the two fundamental questions that we have described above. Until proven otherwise, there is a risk that the proposed development will cause air pollution to exceed Government limits, adversely affecting the health and well being of the local community.

2.5.44 The proposed scheme would create a significant adverse environmental impact when evaluated against nine of our eleven specific factors. The applicant’s assessment of likely impact against the other two factors, as well as several others, is flawed and inadequate. The applicant’s proposal fails the Specific Factors Test.

2.6 The Expert Test

2.6.1 We are not experts. However, the following experts agree with our conclusion that Kirby Hill is an unsuitable location for an MSA because of the likely harm to the landscape and environment.

· Mr. D. Allenby, Chief Planner at Harrogate Borough Council (CD066, para 5.7.35)

· Mr. J. Etchells, Harrogate Borough Council’s Landscape Expert

· Mr. G. Archer, Senior Planner, North Yorkshire County Council Environmental Services Policy Development Unit (Appendix C)

· Mrs L Potter, Hon. Secretary, Council for the Protection of Rural England, Harrogate & District Branch (see Appendix G)

· Mr. Alan Titchmarsh (see Appendix E)

2.6.2 To the best of our knowledge, the only expert who disagrees with our conclusions is the applicant’s expert. Even the applicant acknowledges that the proposed MSA would have an “initial moderately adverse impact” in terms of landscape effects (HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, para 13.1).

2.6.3 On balance, the applicant’s proposal fails the Expert Test.

2.7 Landscape and Environment Conclusions

2.7.1 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 applicant’s proposal involves significant, irreversible, adverse impacts on the landscape and environment that are strongly opposed by local people.

2.7.2 The applicant’s Environmental Impact Assessment was prepared hastily, contains serious errors and omissions and is wholly inadequate. It creates the impression of someone starting with an answer and then attempting to find the evidence to support it.

2.7.3 Even with the proposed mitigation measures, the applicant’s scheme fails all five of our tests. Everyone except the applicant’s expert agrees that it will cause substantial harm.

2.7.4 These are overriding planning concerns that outweigh the need for motorist’s services at Kirby Hill. In view of this and of the priority the Government attaches to protecting the countryside from unnecessary development, planning permission for an MSA at Kirby Hill should be refused.

3 TRAFFIC AND HIGHWAYS SAFETY

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 The applicant’s proposal is for an MSA located on both sides of the A1[M] adjacent to the B6265 linking Ripon to the A1[M] feeder road and Boroughbridge.

3.1.2 In this section we address the suitability of the application with regard to Roads Circular 1/94 (CD028) and HA269 (CD043); the access and egress arrangements to the sites; relevant sections of the HIA Environmental Statement and the HIA Amended Traffic Assessment Report and related safety concerns.

3.1.3 We submit that the main traffic and highway safety considerations are:

· Parking

· Turn-in rates

· Access and egress arrangements

· The accuracy of the applicant’s traffic assessment

3.2 Parking

3.2.1 Para. 7 of Roads Circular 1/94 states the parking requirements for MSAs as:

Cars: 0.5% of the light vehicle annual average daily traffic flow fifteen years after opening

HGVs: 0.35% of the heavy vehicle annual average daily traffic flow fifteen years after opening

Coaches: 0.1% of the heavy vehicle annual average daily traffic flow fifteen years after opening

3.2.2 Although not experts, we have conducted our own assessment of parking requirements using the following methodology.

3.2.3 The correspondence from the Highways Agency to Boreham Consulting Engineers dated 9th April 2002 (HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, Appendix E), gives the northbound AADT for 2021 High Growth as 50,800 and the southbound AADT for 2021 High Growth as 53,800. The Highways Agency letter dated 24th October 2002 to Boreham Consulting Engineers (HIA Amended Traffic Assessment Report, Appendix 7) states that “the factor to take DBFO high growth forecasts from 2021 to 2020 is 0.983”. Therefore the DBFO High Growth forecast for 2020 is Northbound 50,800 x 0.983 = 49,936 and Southbound 53,800 x 0.983 = 52885.

3.2.4 The Highways Agency concluded in their letter to Boreham Consultants dated 9th April 2002 (HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, Appendix E), that as the DBFO forecasts were higher than the central motorway forecasts then: ‘We suggest therefore that for a robust assessment a sensitivity test be carried out using the DBFO high growth forecasts set out above, adjusted to the MSA assessment year”.

3.2.5 Figure 12 of Inquiry Document HA9 (HA Traffic Flow Diagrams) shows that 22.6% of northbound AADT and 19.3% of southbound AADT is HGV traffic. The parking requirements therefore at 2020 as laid down by Roads Circular 1/94 are:

Northbound:

49,936 AADT x 77.4% = 38,650 light vehicles x 0.5% = 193 parking spaces for light vehicles

49,936 AADT x 22.6% = 11,286 HGVs x 0.35% = 40 parking spaces for HGVs

11,286 HGVs x 0.1% = 11 parking spaces for coaches

Southbound:

52,885 AADT x 80.7% = 42,678 light vehicles x 0.5% = 213 parking spaces for light vehicles

52,885 AADT x 19.3% = 10,207 HGVs x 0.35% = 36 parking spaces for HGVs

10,207 HGVs x 0.1% = 10 parking spaces for coaches

3.2.6 Para 8.7 of the HIA Environmental Statement says that the Lodges will have dedicated parking, and so we have excluded that parking from these calculations. Table 3.1 below compares the proposed parking with the required parking to comply with Roads Circular 1/94, for the design year of 2020:

	Proposed Parking (HIA Amended Traffic Assessment)	Required Parking (Roads Circular 1/94)	Difference
Northbound:
Cars (and caravans)	238	193	45
HGVs	39	40	-1
Coaches	12	11	1
Southbound:
Cars (and caravans)	251	213	38
HGVs	41	36	4
Coaches	12	10	2
Table 3.1: Comparison of Proposed and Required Parking for 2020 Design Year

From Table 3.1 it can be seen that, strictly speaking, HGV parking at the northbound facility fails to meet Roads Circular 1/94 at the 2020 design year, unless the proposed parking provision, shown on the current site plan for Car Park Arrangement (HIA Amended Traffic Assessment Report, Appendix 3), is altered. Further, the table shows that HGV and coach parking at both facilities is marginal at 2020. Any increase in the HGV% would most likely require an expansion of parking provision for HGVs.

3.2.7 The applicant states that there is to be no access to the site other than via the A1(M). HIA Amended Traffic Assessment Report, para 6.3 says: “it is intended that staff will be provided with a private bus service from the local area to the MSAs”. This is more likely to be an aspiration than a reality. In this rural area, the journey times to gather up employees will not be acceptable to them and the alternative of shorter journeys with smaller passenger loads will not be economic for the employer. Furthermore, staff will arrive at different times and as there is little evidence of local people available to fill the 250 vacancies, we question where employees from more distant areas will park to use the bus service from the local area. In reality, many employees will drive to the proposed MSA. Therefore the use of the proposed parking by staff can realistically be expected to exceed the apparent surplus provision for cars shown in Table 3.1. Parking spaces taken by staff will be unavailable to motorway users for prolonged periods. A 24-hour shift system, with higher staffing levels during handovers and peak hours, could have a serious effect on parking capacity at the site. If the operator refuses to allow staff parking at the MSA, employees will put further strain on, or abuse, local parking areas or the surrounding local road network. This will create an unacceptable local environmental impact (see para 2.5.23, page 26 of this proof).

3.2.8 The proposed MSA at Kirby Hill will have such an impact on the countryside that extensive screening is proposed to mitigate its impact. The proposal currently does not meet the parking requirements of Roads Circular 1/94. Increased parking provision could only be made at the expense of the proposed partial screening and would therefore inevitably be of further detriment to the countryside. Increased road traffic beyond the 2020 design year could not be catered for by the proposed MSA at Kirby Hill and expansion would be necessary.

3.3 Turn In Rate Assessment

3.3.1 The applicant has used a turn in rate of 8% (HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, para 8.12 and HIA Amended Traffic Assessment Report, para 4.3). The justification for this appears to be the JMP briefing note contained in the correspondence from Highways Agency to Boreham Consulting Engineers dated 29 August 1997 used at the last Public Inquiry (HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, Appendix E). However the same JMP Briefing Note (page 2, para 2) states: “Given that turn in rates for MSAs at 30 mile spacing are generally of the order of 15%, a figure of 8% was chosen as the expected turn-in rate for MSAs at 15 mile spacing”. It appears therefore that the Kirby Hill MSA is being proposed as:

· EITHER: a 15-mile infill site, perhaps in relation to the existing Leeming Bar TRSA or to the paired MSA site at Bramham Crossroads? In either case the proposal cannot then be justified without showing exceptional circumstances for an infill site as laid out in HA269. We are unaware of any arguments made by the applicant for the exceptional circumstances that would justify an infill site at Kirby Hill, during the Need session of the current Public Inquiry

· OR: a 30-mile site, using an inadequate turn-in rate for traffic calculations that ignores Highways Agency recommendations (see Highways Agency letter to Boreham Consulting Engineers dated 29 August 1997, JMP Briefing Note, page 2, para 2).

3.3.2 Without specialist knowledge, we are not in a position to present figures to the Inspector for all the traffic calculations for a 30-mile MSA using the recommended 15% turn-in rate, but we have every confidence that he will satisfy himself on this point.

3.3.3 The difference of opinion over turn-in rates raises the question of whether the number of vehicles likely to use the MSA could be accommodated within the proposed parking provision. We have therefore looked at the percentage of the peak traffic flows that could be accommodated within the parking provision as currently proposed.

3.3.4 Figure 10 of Inquiry Document HA9 shows a Highest PM peak traffic count for 2001 of 7,840 in total, north and south. The proposed parking for 2005 in total (all vehicles) is 440 spaces (HIA Amended Traffic Assessment Report, Table 6.2). This allows for a turn in rate of only 5.61%, based on 2001 traffic flows and without making any allowance for staff parking.

3.3.5 The applicant’s own letter from Boreham Consulting Engineers to the Highways Agency dated 5th Sept 2002 (Appendix H) shows a traffic growth factor from the 2001 AADT count (62,706) to the 2021 “do something” DBFO high growth count (104,600) of 1.67. When this is applied to the Highest Peak Traffic count for 2001 from Figure 10 of HA9, it results in a projected highest PM traffic peak of 7,840 x 1.67 = 13,093 in 2021. Total parking provision given for 2020 in the HIA Amended Traffic Assessment report is 593 spaces. Assuming this remains the same in 2021, it allows a turn-in rate of just 4.53% before reaching full capacity.

3.3.6 Using a conservative estimate of just 50 spaces being taken up by staff (250 jobs divided by 3 shifts, multiplied by 60% of staff using cars), then the proposed parking provision will be at full capacity if the peak hour turn-in rate is just 4.15%.

3.3.7 The applicant has told the Inquiry that on-line sites are preferred by the travelling public and that this results in a higher turn in rate than for off-line sites. A turn-in rate of 15% for 30-mile MSAs is quoted by JMP Consultants and by the Highways Agency. Given the applicant’s assertion and the Highways Agency recommendation, it is reasonable to assume the possibility of a 15% turn in rate at peak times. This would equate to 13,093 x 15% = 1,964 vehicles attempting to enter the facilities in 2021.

3.3.8 We submit that the proposed parking provision will be inadequate at peak times and we question why the applicant uses a lower turn-in rate than that recommended by the Highways Agency.

3.3.9 Large numbers of vehicles attempting to enter facilities with limited parking spaces will result in queuing and congestion of the access routes. Traffic would be stuck in the one way system through the MSA and queuing on the slip roads may result. This in itself would present a severe safety hazard, but worse still, traffic may well attempt to rejoin the motorway from the entrance slip road, thereby creating a even more severe safety hazard. Three recent fatal accidents on this stretch of motorway (Appendix I) have involved motorway traffic hitting stationary traffic on the hard shoulder.

3.4 Access and Egress Arrangements

3.4.1 The northbound site appears to have reasonable access and egress arrangements, although the slip road starts just 84 metres after passing under the B6265 overpass.

3.4.2 The southern site’s access and egress must be questioned on safety grounds. We have heard evidence during the Need session of the Inquiry that the average driver will experience problems in accessing Ferrybridge Services, due to confusing road signs. At the proposed Kirby Hill site, drivers are expected to leave a high-speed stretch of motorway while approaching a dominant feature that the applicant describes as “an already lit rural roundabout which rises to a height within the local landscape that already dominates the immediate vicinity by night” (HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, para 5.87). However, instead of driving up to this roundabout, motorists must turn sharply left into a tunnel just 65 metres short of the centre of the roundabout, in order to access the MSA. Adjacent to the slip road and within a total width of 50 metres it is proposed to have the southbound carriageway of the A1(M), the southbound MSA slip road, the northbound lane of the A168, the southbound lane of the A168 and the northbound main internal road of the MSA. The existing situation of just the A1(M) and the A168 running in parallel already causes confusion to drivers. The proposed arrangement could only be even more confusing and dangerous.

3.4.3 The proposed arrangements would be difficult by day. At night, the situation will be far worse. Drivers in need will have left a high-speed motorway and be approaching a lit, dominant roundabout on an unlit slip road with confusing north and southbound traffic movements on their left. They will suddenly have to turn left into a tunnel short of the roundabout. Vehicles will be exiting the MSA from the same tunnel and joining the A1(M) southbound via a further tunnel directly in front of them. If a driver fails to anticipate this left turn they will have little option of an escape route, as directly in front are the MSA egress slip road and the embankment of the B6265. To the left is the A168 embankment and to the right the southbound A1(M), which they may attempt to re-join, with disastrous results. These problems can only be greatly magnified during adverse weather conditions such as rain, fog or snow.

3.4.4 HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, para 5.73 states “the slip roads are not lit until just before they enter the major bend into the MSA itself.” Yet the only way to reduce the hazards of this confusing road layout is with high levels of road lighting, which would of course cause further adverse impact on the landscape and on residential amenity.

3.4.5 When the A1(M) was upgraded, the slip roads from the B6265 were closed as they were deemed unsafe and the existing access from the B6265 was lost. During the Need session of the current Public Inquiry, we heard that the Government has recently announced that the Rainton junction, just 3 miles north of Kirby Hill, is to be closed and replaced by a fly-over. This is to be completed as a priority before the Dishforth to Barton upgrade, on safety grounds. It is well documented that accidents happen more frequently in the vicinity of junctions on motorways.

3.4.6 Two junctions will have been closed on this 3-mile stretch on safety grounds, yet the applicant proposes to open a new junction with questionable safety at an already confusing location that is known locally as an accident blackspot. At the same time, the applicant suggests that as the proposal is for an on-line site, it will have a higher turn in rate than the competing sites. Traffic movements may well then be in excess of those undertaken from the closed road junctions. Moreover the proposed MSA has questionable parking capacity leading to the real possibility of slip road congestion. This proposal can only worsen the safety of the motorway in this area.

3.4.7 Roads Circular 1/94, para 14 states that “In considering issues affecting the motorway itself, traffic flow and safety considerations are of great importance and good visibility is essential.” The proposed MSA at Kirby Hill does not conform to this policy.

3.4.8 Roads Circular 1/94, para 13 further states that: “The Departments will also be concerned to ensure that MSAs do not come to be used as routes from the motorway.” At Kirby Hill, as the old B6265 / A1(M) junction and the current Rainton junction will have been closed, any access from the local road network to the MSA would present an irresistible shortcut. The MSA would become an unofficial junction, as has occurred at other MSAs throughout the country, even where only barrier controlled emergency access arrangements exist. To address this problem, the applicant states: “There will be no direct access to the MSA from the local road network” (HIA Environment Statement, August 2002, para 2.10). Also, the HIA Amended Traffic Assessment Report, para 6.3 states “Access to the MSA can only be gained via the motorway. There will not be any connection to the local highway network, vehicular or pedestrian for traffic in general or for staff.” We presume therefore that there will also be no direct access for emergency vehicles for whatever reason. Any emergency vehicles from Boroughbridge and Ripon, therefore, would have to drive away from the site in order to gain access on to the A1(M) to reach the MSA. On the other hand, if barrier-controlled access for emergency vehicles is provided, this will undoubtedly be abused by staff and users of the MSA and will have a detrimental impact on the local area and the village of Kirby Hill (see Figure 7).

3.5 HIA Amended Traffic Assessment Report

3.5.1 HIA Amended Traffic Assessment Report, para 1.5 states that “the parking requirements as set out in the Department of Transport Circular 1/94 are fully met”. Table 6.1 of the same document shows a parking requirement of 40 spaces for HGVs at 2020 at the northbound facility. Table 6.2 says that there is parking provision of 41 spaces for HGVs at the Northbound facility, however there are only 39 (HIA Amended Traffic Assessment, Appendix 3, Site Plan - Car Parking Arrangements). It appears that the applicant confuses the two sites, north and south, in this document. Using the applicant’s own figures, strictly speaking the northbound facility does not meet the Roads Circular 1/94 parking requirement.

3.5.2 HIA Amended Traffic Assessment Report, Table 3.2 shows the predicted AADT traffic flows for 2005 and 2020 and the peak hour flows AM and PM. Despite our best efforts, not being specialists, we have failed to discover how the figures for the peak hour flows have been arrived at. The figures shown bear no relation to the AM and PM Peak Hour AADT% shown in Inquiry Document HA9, Figures 20 and 22, Highways Agency Traffic Flow Diagrams.

3.5.3 Other figures appear incongruous to the non expert:

· Highway Agency HA9 Traffic Flow Diagrams Figure 9 gives the 2001 Highest AM Peak figures as northbound 3,310 and southbound 4,121. However, HIA Amended Traffic Assessment Report Table 3.2, gives the 2005 Peak Hour Flow AM figures as northbound 2,122 and southbound 2,153.

· Highway Agency HA9 Traffic Flow Diagrams Figure 10,gives the 2001 Highest PM Peak figures as northbound 3,674 and southbound 4,166. However, HIA Amended Traffic Assessment Report Table 3.2 gives the 2005 Peak Hour Flow PM figures as northbound 2,665 and southbound 2,632.

3.5.4 The applicant’s projected 2005 peak traffic flows are lower than the Highways Agency’s 2001 highest peak traffic flows.

3.5.5 HIA Amended Traffic Assessment Report Para 4.3 states: “it is therefore proposed to continue with the application of the 8% peak turn in rate at the Kirby Hill site.” The Highways Agency letter dated 24th October 2002 (HIA7, Appendix 7) shows that they were originally unhappy with this position. In the same letter, the Highways Agency state that using a turn in rate of 15% would necessitate altering the southbound merge to a Type B. We believe that the applicant is seeking to avoid this by insisting on using a lower turn-in rate.

3.5.6 Although we lack technical knowledge in this area, we hope that our highlighting of key issues and various discrepancies will enable the Inspector to pursue these points and the assertions and calculations made within HIA Amended Traffic Assessment Report to his own satisfaction.

3.6 Traffic and Highways Safety Conclusions

3.6.1 In summary, the proposed MSA at Kirby Hill is seriously deficient on Traffic and Highways Safety grounds because:

· Parking is inadequate in relation to the Highways Agency’s recommended figures for traffic flow and turn-in rates and strictly speaking, in relation to Roads Circular 1/94.

· The applicant has ignored Highways Agency recommendations for a 15% turn-in rate and has used a lower rate of 8%. We believe this is because the applicant wishes to avoid acknowledging the inadequacy of the proposed facility at peak times and the need to provide a Type B southbound merge.

· The proposed southbound access and egress arrangements are confusing and unsafe.

· There are various discrepancies in the applicant’s Amended Traffic Assessment Report.

4 AVIATION SAFETY AND MILITARY SECURITY

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 Unlike any of the other potential sites, the proposed Kirby Hill MSA would be less than 500 metres from the southern approach to an operational military airfield (see satellite photo, Figure 11). The proximity of the site to Dishforth Airfield raises some slightly unusual planning issues that are not a factor in considering the other four proposals.

4.1.2 We would identify the relevant issues as:

· Aviation safety (the risk of an aircraft incident over or near the proposed MSA)

· Military security (compromising military security due to the proximity of the MSA)

4.1.3 In this section we will demonstrate that the proposed Kirby Hill MSA would be at risk in the event of an aviation accident and raises security concerns with regard to Dishforth Airfield.

4.2 Aviation Safety

4.2.1 Dishforth Airfield is an active Army Air Corps base and its perimeter is in close proximity to the proposed MSA site at Kirby Hill. The flight path for runway 34 is within 500 metres of the proposed site (Figure 10) and is used by many types of aircraft, including helicopters, fixed wing aircraft and gliders (Appendix J). The airfield is used most weekends by Cleveland Gliding Club (Appendix K). The applicant’s own noise survey observed “frequent aircraft, some overhead” at Skelton Windmill (HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, Appendix F, Noise Survey Appendix 3, 14^th October 1997). Part of the proposed MSA site lies directly between Dishforth Airfield and Skelton Windmill. The site is regularly overflown at low level by helicopters, fixed wing aircraft and gliders during take-off and landing.

4.2.2 Local people are well aware that aircraft accidents do happen. On 7 May 1973, two RAF Jet Provosts collided over Norton-le-Clay, 2 km from the proposed MSA site. The crews ejected safely, but one of the aircraft crashed into a field nearby, landing on a tractor and killing two local farm workers (Appendix L).

4.2.3 A common hazard for all airfields is the potential for birds to strike aircraft at low level. The applicant’s proposed woodland planting and the possible balancing pond would attract birds and greatly increase the risk of bird strikes on aircraft using Dishforth Airfield.

4.2.4 Another common aviation hazard is foreign object damage. Even small foreign objects, such as small amounts of litter, can compromise flight safety when sucked into an aircraft engine. Most incidents occur on the ground, or during takeoff and landing. The proposed MSA would increase the amount of litter in the vicinity of Dishforth Airfield, raising the risk of foreign object damage.

4.2.5 9 Regiment Army Air Corps is due to begin conversion to the Apache AH64 Attack Helicopter during 2003. This sophisticated and heavily armed aircraft is more difficult to operate and will require pilots to undergo rigorous training courses to attain the high standards required by the Army. This will mean many more training flights using Dishforth as a base (Appendix M). With the continuing need for training at Dishforth there will always be a credible risk of air accidents in and around the Dishforth Airfield.

4.2.6 Concerns about the effects of the proposed MSA lighting on night-time operations using night-vision equipment have been raised by Defence Estates, by Major Dick at the 1997 Public Inquiry (CD039, para 9.131), by Lt. Col. Goble, former Commanding officer of 9 Army Air Corps Regiment (KHPC 2/3) and by Mr. Keith Davies, a military pilot currently based at Dishforth (TPR92). Figure 12 shows the current view, through night-vision goggles, that a military helicopter pilot has of the Kirby Hill roundabout while flying over the northbound MSA site. The proposed MSA lighting will render this view almost completely white.

4.2.7 At the previous Inquiry, it was suggested that aircraft could be diverted to avoid the MSA. Currently the Army and RAF use flight paths over the open countryside of the proposed MSA site to avoid flying over Kirby Hill at low level. Diverting aircraft to avoid the MSA would increase the noise experienced by residents of Kirby Hill, adversely affecting their residential amenity.

4.2.8 In summary, due to its proximity to a busy military airfield, there would be a significant risk of an aircraft incident involving the proposed MSA, with potentially catastrophic consequences.

4.3 Military Security

4.3.1 Dishforth Airfield is the home of 9 Regiment Army Air Corps, a part of 16 Air Assault Brigade and the NATO Rapid Reaction Force. Once converted to Apache AH64 Attack Helicopters over the next 2 years, 9 Regiment Army Air Corps will change from a Combat Support role to a Combat role. This is a hugely significant change, with Dishforth at the forefront. Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said that: “Apache offers the Army of the 21^st century a quantum leap in capability as significant as the introduction of the tank in the 20^th century. It has an awesome array of weaponry. It gives 16 Air Assault Brigade a capability which will make it the most potent combat formation for its size anywhere in Europe.” (Appendix O).

4.3.2 Unfortunately, in the post September 11^th era, the high-profile arrival of the Apache helicopter in 2003 increases the security threat to Dishforth Airfield. The proximity of the proposed MSA to the airfield, the cover provided by substantial mounding and planting and the ease of egress onto the motorway would make the MSA a prime site for any terrorist wanting to observe the airfield or mount an attack. The Commanding Officer of 9 Army Air Corps Regiment has written a letter of support to Kirby Hill RAMS describing these security concerns (KHPC 2/1).

4.3.3 The proposed MSA presents a security risk to Dishforth Airfield.

4.4 Aviation Safety and Military Security Conclusions

4.4.1 The proposed Kirby Hill MSA is in close proximity to Dishforth Airfield. There are significant numbers of low-level military helicopter, fixed wing aircraft and glider movements over the site daily. There is a history of accidents involving aircraft. This presents additional risks that do not exist at any of the other proposed sites. An MSA at Kirby Hill would increase the risk of loss of life from aviation-related accidents.

4.4.2 The proposed MSA could potentially compromise the security of Dishforth Airfield and is perceived as a security risk by the Defence Estates Organisation and the Commanding Officer of 9 Army Air Corps Regiment.

4.4.3 We particularly wish to draw the Inspector’s attention to a letter dated 30^th September 2002 setting out the position of the Defence Estates Organisation’s Senior Estates Advisor, Mr. Martin Watson, based at Catterick (Appendix N). We quote this letter in full below:

“I refer to the above mentioned planning applications and appeals.

The Ministry of Defence submitted comments to the Inquiry held in 1997, and I write to update the MoD’s position.

The proposed siting of a Motorway Service Area (MSA) at Kirby Hill is at it’s nearest point only 900 metres from the boundary of Dishforth Airfield. Dishforth is a busy Military Airfield with daily helicopter flights. Also fixed-wing aircraft flights on a less frequent basis. The Ministry of Defence therefore wishes to raise areas of concern that should be borne in mind when assessing the siting of a Motorway Service Area (MSA).

· The proximity of the proposed MSA to an active airfield significantly increases the risk of serious injury on a large scale should an aircraft suffer catastrophic engine failure during take off or landing at the airfield. While current practice is to avoid local concentrations of habitation and high risk areas, the proposed MSA site is on the extended centre-line of the current North-South runway and it may not be practical to avoid it. Alternatively flights over local concentrations of habitation may have to be increased. This scenario should be avoided if possible.

· In addition the lighting of a large MSA will have an impact on night flying exercises whereby additional lighting in this area will impair night vision and the efficiency of night vision goggles. This will, therefore impact on flight safety.

· Any development of this scale near to a Military Establishment increases the security threat to an establishment. The aircraft assets held at the camp are of military-strategic value. While the impact of the proposed site on the security are difficult to quantify, the site will allow unhindered access, rapid exit and direct views of the airfield. Such issues are of particular concern to the local military commander.

On strictly safeguarding terms I can confirm that the position of the Ministry of Defence remains the same as previously stated, that there are no safeguarding infringements providing that the development does not exceed a maximum height of 15.2 metres in the proposed location.

In summary the Ministry of Defence’s official response is of no objections from an aerodrome safeguarding point of view. However in our opinion, the proximity of a busy airfield should be considered in the appeal process when evaluating the suitability of this site against the others under consideration.”

4.4.4 We submit that this letter is an excellent example of Wednesbury unreasonableness. No reasonable person, having read all of the concerns expressed in this letter, would logically conclude that the Defence Estates Organisation’s position is genuinely one of “no objections”. We submit that the true and reasonable conclusion of the letter is in fact the final sentence, which we have emphasised using bold type. It appears to us that the concerns of Defence Estates at Catterick and the local military commander are being subjugated to the opinion of some official, remote from Kirby Hill and Dishforth, who will not have to live with the consequences and therefore maintains an official position of “no objections”. This may constitute unreasonable interference in a local planning matter by a public authority. In light of the evidence we have presented from Mr. Watson and Lt. Col. Short, it would be unreasonable in law for the Secretary of State to hold that there is no MoD objection.

4.4.5 The proposed MSA raises serious concerns of aviation safety and military security that constitute an overriding planning objection.

5 RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 We submit that the proposed development at Kirby Hill would create an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the local residents of Kirby Hill and the surrounding district for four main reasons:

· The proposed development would be too close to existing properties and the village of Kirby Hill, and its sheer scale would swamp the identity of the area.

· The proposed development would cause intolerable levels of air, noise, refuse, and light pollution to the residents of Kirby Hill and the surrounding district.

· The proposed development would lead to increased village traffic and parking.

· The proposed development contravenes policies within the Harrogate District Local Plan and no special circumstances have been demonstrated to warrant the proposals. Therefore, the proposed development does not accord with Section 54A of the Town and County Planning Act.

5.2 Proximity to houses and size of proposed MSA relative to Kirby Hill

5.2.1 The total area of the proposed MSA, plus mounding and planting is 21 ha, the largest of any of the MSA developments under consideration. Figure 3 contains a diagram showing that the proposed MSA is larger than the village of Kirby Hill. The nearest point of the MSA to the village is just 500m. The nearest point to residents to the South is 150m. The nearest point to residents to the West is 200m. The nearest point to residents to the East is 1100m.

5.2.2 The village of Kirby Hill, or Kirby-on-the-Moor as it was known in ancient times, has been established as a community from before the Saxon period. The Grade I listed church of All Saints, Kirby Hill is an ancient structure, dating from Saxon or early Norman times. It has been preciously restored over the years and is still used on a regular basis.

5.2.3 The following description of Kirby Hill is an extract from Bulmers' History - Topography and Directory of North Yorkshire, 1891, part 2, page 733: “The village stands on an eminence from which extensive views of the surrounding country are obtained. It is distant about one mile N. of Boroughbridge. On a hill near the village is Skelton Wind-mill, from which can be seen 16 churches, the cathedrals of York and Ripon, the castles of Crayke and Sheriff-Hutton, and the Hambleton hills." (Appendix P).

5.2.4 The proposed site lies directly mid way between this historic village and the windmill built in 1822 and cited above. This proposed unsightly development would have a severe and permanently damaging effect on these historic locations and the identity of this village.

5.3 Intolerable Pollution - Air, Noise, Refuse and Light

5.3.1 The prevailing wind is from the west. Fumes from slow moving vehicles and from catering outlets would be blown to the village of Kirby Hill, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

5.3.2 Noise from HGV refrigeration units left running overnight and the continuous MSA operations would be heard by the villagers of Kirby Hill.

5.3.3 Litter from the MSA facility will be blown the short distance to the hedgerows, trees and gardens of the villagers of Kirby Hill. (Figure 6)

5.3.4 26,020 Watts of MSA lighting (see para 2.5.11, page 22 of this proof) will illuminate a huge area and will cause a continuous night time glow which would be seen from many miles away. This would be disturbing to residents of Kirby Hill and neighbouring villages. If, as seems likely, it caused the diversion of military helicopters using Dishforth Airfield, there would be further noise pollution.

5.4 Increased Village Traffic & Parking

5.4.1 Despite the applicant’s assurance to the contrary, should emergency access routes to the MSA be provided, these will be abused. Abuse of emergency accesses is a common problem at other MSAs. Emergency barriers are left open. Staff and other people exploit this and take shortcut routes to gain access to the MSA and the motorway. (Figure 7)

5.4.2 Staff working at the MSA would seek to avoid driving long distances to work. They would park locally at Kirby Hill and seek to gain pedestrian access (possibly via an emergency route) or take the proposed courtesy bus.

5.5 Contravening Policies

5.5.1 The proposed development contravenes a number of policies related to residential amenity in the Harrogate District Local Plan:

5.5.2 AMENITY - OBJECTIVES

Para 8.9 states: “This Local Plan aims to protect the environment and amenity of Harrogate District by minimising and controlling pollution and ensuring that residents, workers and visitors in the area are not subject to unnecessary risks. The main objectives for policies regarding amenity

are as follows:

1) TO PROTECT OTHER LAND USERS, THE PUBLIC AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN GENERAL

FROM THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF POLLUTION.

2) TO ENSURE THAT POLLUTION SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT AND POTENTIALLY

POLLUTING DEVELOPMENT ARE KEPT SEPARATE IN ORDER TO AVOID

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS.

3) TO ENSURE A HIGH QUALITY OF ENVIRONMENT AND AMENITY THROUGHOUT

THE DISTRICT.”

This principle is contravened as a result of the increased pollution and reduced residential amenity that would be caused by the proposed development.

5.5.3 AMENITY - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

Para 8.10 states that “The policies contained within this chapter seek to achieve environmental objectives through:

· the segregation of polluting and non-polluting development;

· requesting environmental impact assessments when necessary;

· protecting water amenity and areas at risk of flooding;

· minimising risk in relation to hazardous substances and installations, and ground stability.”

This principle is contravened by the inadequacy of the applicant’s Environmental Impact Assessment and the flawed proposals for protecting water amenity (see para 2.5.31, page 28 of this proof).

5.5.4 AMENITY - POLICIES AND PROPOSALS

POLICY A1

“PROPOSALS FOR DEVELOPMENT SHOULD, WHEREVER POSSIBLE, MAKE A POSITIVE

CONTRIBUTION TO THE AREA BY MAINTAINING OR IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF THE

ENVIRONMENT AND AMENITY. PROPOSALS WILL NOT BE PERMITTED WHERE THEY WOULD:

A) CAUSE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS RELATED TO ACCESS, ROAD SAFETY OR TRAFFIC FLOW; OR

B) HAVE AN UNACCEPTABLE EFFECT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY AND SURROUNDING LAND USES;

C) CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; OR

D) RESULT IN A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON THE VISUAL AMENITY AND CHARACTER OF THE AREA;

E) CAUSE POLLUTION WHICH WILL HAVE AN UNACCEPTABLE IMPACT ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE VICINITY, WHICH CANNOT BE OVERCOME BY PLANNING CONDITIONS.”

This policy is contravened by the resulting reduced quality of the environment and unacceptable effects on residential amenity caused by the applicant’s proposals.

5.5.5 NOISE GENERATING AND SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT

POLICY A3

“DEVELOPMENTS GENERATING A HIGH LEVEL OF NOISE (HAVING REGARD TO PULSE AND TONE) WILL NOT BE PERMITTED IN LOCATIONS WHERE IT WOULD HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON NOISE SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT OR AREAS. NOISE SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED IN LOCATIONS WHERE IT WOULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY DEVELOPMENT GENERATING HIGH NOISE LEVELS”

The open countryside and the peaceful rural village of Kirby Hill are noise sensitive areas. This policy is contravened by the increased noise pollution that would arise from the proposed MSA. We note particularly under policy A3 the following: “8.20 Special consideration will be given to new development to be located within the vicinity of the Dishforth military aerodrome within the District.” Local residents do already suffer from the effects of noise related to military operations at Dishforth, as well as from A1(M) traffic noise. It is unreasonable to use this as a justification for imposing even further levels of noise on villagers by allowing this development to proceed, as the applicant seems to suggest.

5.6 Residential Amenity Conclusions

5.6.1 An overwhelming majority of local people and organisations, who know and understand the area, believe that the proposed MSA at Kirby Hill will cause permanent, continuous day and night, all year round damage to their residential amenity.

5.6.2 This damage will affect the health, livelihood, and happiness of local people.

5.6.3 The Secretary of State should give considerable weight to the large body of local opinion expressing these views and recognize that none of the other four sites are as close to people’s homes, or have as significant an impact on the residential amenity of a peaceful rural community.

6 ECONOMIC IMPACT

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 In response to the applicant’s assertions, we submit that the proposed Kirby Hill MSA would have a negative impact on the local rural economy. In this respect, we wish to highlight two considerations:

· The need for additional employment locally

· The wider negative economic impact of the proposals

6.2 The need for additional employment locally

6.2.1 The applicant suggests that: “The proposed development would create new jobs within the local economy.” (HIA Statement of Case, July 2002, para 5.3, 7th bullet point). While it is true that development of the proposed Kirby Hill MSA would create new jobs within the local economy, there is no need for new jobs in the local economy. This is evidenced by the result of an employment survey carried out by Boroughbridge & District Chamber of Trade in November 2002 (Appendix Q), the results of which were as follows:

· There were 36 vacancies in the local area for employment in roles ranging from managerial to unskilled;

· The vast majority (87%) of respondents plan to increase their workforce within the next 12 months;

· This will lead to on average 13% more requirement for employees – equating to a further 60 posts being available – within the next 12 months;

Moreover, one respondent reported that they had not had a full staff quota for more than nine months, and are concerned about increasing costs, as they have to pay overtime to existing staff members. Another respondent advised that, despite offering wages more than 30% higher than the regional average for their type of work, they still have three vacancies.

6.3 The wider negative economic impact

6.3.1 To take this matter a step further, far from being the positive contribution suggested by the applicant, creation of new jobs within the local economy could be actively detrimental. To quote from the letter of 26 September 2002 (Appendix B) forwarded to the Planning Inspectorate by Boroughbridge and District Chamber of Trade: “Substantial employers such as APC have had to close down their operations in Boroughbridge after their efforts to bus their labour force in from as far away as Teesside became impracticable. Their Boroughbridge premises are currently on the market …..”

6.4 Economic Impact Conclusions

6.4.1 The members of Boroughbridge and District Chamber of Trade are justifiably concerned about the impact another major employer in Boroughbridge would have on an already scarce labour force, particularly at a semi-skilled level. They summarise their informed view of the overall negative likely result should the proposed MSA be sited at Kirby Hill, as follows: “… the Chamber can see no benefit to the area from the proposed Motorway Service development. Existing businesses are jeopardised by its existence and it would struggle to contribute to the local economy.” (Appendix B)

6.4.2 Bearing in mind all the above considerations, it is clear that, far from having a positive economic impact on Kirby Hill and the surrounding area, the proposed MSA would lead to hardship (at least) and failure (at worst) for various businesses in the district.

6.4.3 The applicant is wrong to suggest that the proposed MSA will benefit the local economy.

7 PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF HARM

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 The courts have determined that Public Perception of Harm is a material planning consideration. (West Midlands Probation Committee v Secretary of State for the Environment, 1996). In this section we will address three questions:

· Does a public perception of harm exist in relation to the proposed Kirby Hill MSA?

· Is there any evidence to suggest that the public perception of harm is justified?

· Has the applicant made any attempt to address the public perception of harm?

7.2 Does a public perception of harm exist?

7.2.1 For the past six years, local people have consistently opposed this scheme. Since the applicant first sought planning permission for an MSA at Kirby Hill, local objectors have repeatedly highlighted harm to the landscape, to visual and residential amenity, to the local economy and to military aviation and security as their primary concerns. Harrogate Borough Council received 200 representations in respect of the original planning application (CD066, Appendix A, para 6.8.3). The Planning Inspectorate had received 79 letters from local residents when the public inquiry opened on 8th October 2002.

7.2.2 Local peoples’ concerns about the potential harm from this development have featured regularly in the media. Relevant articles from the Yorkshire Post over the last five years can be found in Appendix R. Coverage of local concerns has featured on BBC Look North Television and BBC Radio York during 2002 and is regularly reported in the local newspaper, the Ripon Gazette.

7.2.3 A number of local residents attended the 1997 public inquiry. Mrs Cheeseman of Kirby Hill & District Parish Council presented evidence on their behalf (Appendix S). Appendix 3 of Mrs Cheeseman’s statement to the 1997 public inquiry lists 27 local concerns, the majority of which relate to public perception of the harm that an MSA at Kirby Hill would cause. Mrs Cheeseman also stated in evidence: “It is important that the Inspector, and then subsequently the Secretary of State, does not ignore the concerns of local people. Where is the life of a community placed in the deciding factors and priorities? Where is the evaluation of harm to the quality of people’s lives? We are the people best placed to assess how an MSA at Kirby Hill will affect our lives. The local community is against the Kirby Hill proposal, and we also have the support of neighbouring parish councils and other third parties.”

7.2.4 On 18th July 2002, approximately 100 local people staged a public demonstration at the site, to coincide with a visit by Harrogate Borough Council’s District Development Control Committee. A photograph of this demonstration, together with the coverage that appeared in the Yorkshire Post, is included at Appendix R. At the Harrogate District Development Control Committee the same evening, a group of local residents made representations about the perceived degree of harm and sought to persuade Harrogate Borough Council to oppose the Kirby Hill site on these grounds. Speaking on behalf of Kirby Hill & District Parish Council, Mr. Owens said: “Local people object most strongly to the proposed MSA at Kirby Hill. The five surrounding parish councils, Boroughbridge Town Council and an overwhelming majority of residents are united in opposing it. You will have witnessed the strength of local feeling through the correspondence you have received this week and the demonstrations you saw today.” A copy of Mr. Owens’ statement to the District Development Control Committee is included at Appendix T.

7.2.5 The public perception of harm is so strong that the people of Kirby Hill have formed an independent residents’ action group, the Kirby Hill RAMS (Residents Against Motorway Services), to put their case to the Inspector at the public inquiry. More than 600 people have signed a mandate endorsing the aims and activities of Kirby Hill RAMS.

7.2.6 No less than nine local councils oppose the scheme on the grounds of the harm they envisage such a development would cause to the local environment and/or economy. 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.

7.2.7 A review of the representations made in respect of the proposed Kirby Hill MSA shows that local people perceive at least five types of harm arising from the proposed development:

· Harm related to the impact on the landscape and residential amenity.

· Harm related to traffic and highways safety.

· Harm related to military aviation and security at Dishforth Airfield.

· Harm related to potential criminal activity.

· Harm related to the likely economic impact.

7.2.8 In summary, it is clear that there is an exceptionally strong public perception of harm among local people in response to the proposal to site an MSA at Kirby Hill. This perception is based on five very specific concerns.

7.3 Is there evidence to suggest that the public perception of harm is justified?

7.3.1 We anticipate that the Inspector will want to consider whether the public perception of harm in relation to the proposed MSA at Kirby Hill is justified, or whether it can be discounted on the grounds that perception of harm will not necessarily lead to actual harm.

7.3.2 Our approach to this important question is as follows. Examining in turn each of the areas in which a public perception of harm has been shown to exist, we will demonstrate whether there is any evidence of past harm. Where there is evidence of past harm then, on the balance of probability, there will be future harm. Therefore, if evidence of past harm exists, the public perception of future harm is reasonable and cannot be discounted. Where appropriate, we will also cite expert evidence that suggests or confirms that there may be future harm.

7.3.3 The residents of Kirby Hill have recent experience of the environmental impact of major motorway-related developments, in the form of the A1(M) Walshford to Dishforth upgrade, which started in May 1993 and was completed in November 1995. This upgrade was part of the Bramham to Barton TPI scheme, which Transport 2000, the National Environmental Transport Campaign, ranks as number seven on its list of “the 26 most worrying multi-modal and roads-based studies in terms of environmental impact.” (Appendix U)

7.3.4 The Walshford to Dishforth A1(M) upgrade involved some 2.4 million cubic metres of excavation, 0.75 million cubic metres of imported fill material and disposal of 1 million cubic metres of surplus materials. 160,000 metres of pipes and 2,250 manholes and catchpits were required for drainage. Some 525,000 cubic metres of surfacings were laid and a total of 35 structures, including 9 motorway overbridges were constructed. The biggest structure is the new Arrows Bridge, which carries the motorway over the River Ure at Boroughbridge, just south of Kirby Hill. This is a 3 span bridge with a total length of 125 metres. This structure alone required 28,500 cubic metres of concrete, 6,300 tonnes of steel reinforcement and a further 2,000 tonnes of steel used in beams and piling. The drainage system for the new motorway involved the construction of balancing ponds to minimise the impact on existing watercourses and oil interceptors to provide pollution control. Before construction work started, archaeological surveys were carried out initially by geophysical techniques to identify areas of interest and then by excavation in areas where positive signs of historical activity had been identified. In other areas topsoil stripping was carried out in a controlled manner, monitored by archaeologists to ensure that further areas for exploration could be investigated before being disturbed by the works. Excavations revealed both Neolithic and Roman remains. (source: The Motorway Network Archive – Appendix V).

7.3.5 Prior to the Walshford to Dishforth A1(M) upgrade, the countryside at Kirby Hill was bisected by a dual carriageway. It now carries a six-lane motorway and alongside it, the A168 trunk road, formerly the southbound carriageway of the A1. The substantial earthworks and planting undertaken may provide some screening of this development in the long-term. At the present time, however, the environmental impact on the locality is impossible to ignore.

7.3.6 The impact of the recent A1(M) upgrade on the environment and on the visual and residential amenity at Kirby Hill is both well-established and fresh in the minds of local people. There is evidence of past harm to the local environment from motorway-related developments.

7.3.7 There is broad acceptance that MSAs in open countryside have negative environmental effects. Lord Whitty’s 1998 statement (HA269) announced a new approach to MSA provision that is: “designed to ensure the motorway services they need while protecting the countryside from unnecessary development.” Introducing his statement, Lord Whitty said that a new approach was necessary because: “I am concerned that additional MSA provision has been at the expense of other considerations, particularly in areas of planning restraint.” (HA269)

7.3.8 The Government, through Lord Whitty, expressed concern about the harm caused by new MSAs in areas of planning restraint, of which the countryside around Kirby Hill is an excellent example. Lord Whitty’s statement apparently provides evidence of the Government’s appreciation that, in the past, the countryside has been harmed by MSA developments.

7.3.9 Mr. Allenby’s report to the Harrogate District Development Control Committee on 18th July 2002 (CD066, para 6.5.2) contains his professional opinion that the Kirby Hill proposal: “results in the greatest loss of good quality agricultural land and substantial harm to the landscape character of the area. It would also give rise to the greatest loss of residential amenity.”

7.3.10 Even the applicant’s environmental impact statement concedes that the proposal will have a “slightly adverse” impact in terms of visual effects, agriculture and land quality, as well as an “initial moderately adverse impact” in terms of landscape effects. (HIA Environmental Statement, August 2002, para 13.1). Local residents perceive that the impact would be far greater than the applicant’s expert suggests and that the proposed mitigation measures would in themselves, in fact, cause significant adverse visual and landscape impact.

7.3.11 Furthermore, North Yorkshire County Council’s Senior Archaeologist has criticised the applicant’s Environmental Statement (see para 2.5.18), stating that the applicant has failed to identify the potential for nationally important remains on this site and saying that the applicant’s conclusion that "no mitigation is necessary" is wrong. (Appendix D)

7.3.12 The public perception of environmental harm is supported by expert opinion, including the opinions of the applicant’s own experts. In summary, there is clear evidence of past environmental harm from motorway-related developments at Kirby Hill and elsewhere. Expert opinion is that an MSA at Kirby Hill would harm the environment. On this basis, the public perception of environmental harm is justified.

HARM RELATED TO ROAD TRAFFIC SAFETY

7.3.13 Local people know that (as evidenced by the accident data provided by the Highways Agency) the stretch of the A1(M) near Kirby Hill is a notorious accident black spot.

7.3.14 Table 1.1 of the Highways Agency Draft Statement of Common Ground – Accident Information for M1 Junction 44 to A1(M) Junction 49 (HA15) shows that 61 out of 334 accidents, 18.2% of the total, occurred on an 8km section of the A1(M) between Boroughbridge and Dishforth. This is the highest accident rate of all the sections of road studied. When the A1 was upgraded, local people accepted that the slip roads at Kirby Hill had to be closed for safety reasons. Now, they fear that more accidents will occur if an MSA is built and slip roads are reintroduced at Kirby Hill, further complicating an already confusing and accident-prone road layout. Specific recent incidents (Appendix I) are cited by local residents as evidence that the A1(M) near Kirby Hill is particularly accident-prone:

· On 30 September 2002, a motorist died when he was hit by a lorry, while changing a wheel on the hard shoulder of the northbound A1(M) carriageway, just south of the B6265 bridge at Kirby Hill.

· On 11 November 2000, six people died on the southbound A1(M) between Dishforth and Kirby Hill when an articulated lorry ploughed into vehicles that had stopped on the hard shoulder to help the occupants of an overturned car, which had earlier hit the central reservation. This is remembered as one of Britain’s worst fatal road accidents in recent years.

· On 27 October 1998, an AA patrolman died when he was hit by a lorry, while changing the wheel on a caravan on the hard shoulder of the northbound carriageway near Dishforth Airfield.

7.3.15 In summary, there is evidence of past harm to justify the public perception that further complication of an already confusing and accident-prone road layout, by the reintroduction of slip roads for an MSA at Kirby Hill, would lead to more road accidents on the A1(M).

7.3.16 Local residents fear that an incident involving a military helicopter, fixed-wing aircraft or glider using Dishforth Airfield could occur over the proposed MSA. This part of North Yorkshire is used intensively for military pilot training. Local residents understand this and know that there is a higher than average risk that such an incident could occur over the MSA site, with catastrophic consequences. Para 4.2.2, page 44 of this proof and Appendix L contain reports of specific incidents, fresh in the minds of local people, which give rise to this perception of harm:

7.3.17 There is clear evidence of past harm involving military aircraft, including two local residents who were killed when an aircraft crashed 2 km east of the proposed MSA site. (Appendix L).

7.3.18 In the post September 11th era, security at all military facilities is of great concern. Local residents, including military personnel and members of military families, are seriously concerned that the proposed MSA could be used as a base from which terrorists could launch an attack on Dishforth Airfield or one of the aircraft using it. The proximity of the MSA to the airfield, the cover provided by substantial mounding and planting and the ease of egress onto the motorway would make the MSA an ideal site for any terrorist wanting to observe the airfield or mount an attack. The arrival of the first of British Army’s Apache AH64 attack helicopters in 2003 could significantly increase the threat to Dishforth Airfield.

7.3.19 Lt. Col. Short, the Commanding Officer of 9 Regiment Army Air Corps, based at Dishforth, wrote in a letter to Kirby Hill RAMS on 16 September 2002 (KHPC 2/1): “…from a security point of view I am opposed to the development. In the post September 11th era, the security of the Airfield, its assets and personnel are of paramount importance to me. Any development which might provide a base from which terrorists may launch an attack is prejudicial to security at 9 Regiment AAC. I therefore fully support your cause.”

7.3.20 There are also several relevant examples of specific incidents involving civilian airfields and aircraft that support our concern about potential terrorist activity at the proposed MSA (Appendix W):

· On 11 March 1994 the IRA launched a mortar attack on Heathrow airport from a hotel car park adjacent to the M4 spur road. Four mortars were fired at the northern runway from a parked Ford Fiesta fitted with an electronic timing device. This was followed on 13 March by a further four mortars and on 15 March by another five mortars, all launched from vantage points near to the airfield perimeter.

· On 28 November 2002 Al Qaeda launched an attack on an Israeli airliner leaving Mombasa airport in Kenya, narrowly missing the aircraft with two surface-to-air missiles. The missiles were launched from a vehicle parked over a mile from the airport.

7.3.21 There is evidence of past harm to support the concern that an MSA at Kirby Hill may cause the security of strategic military assets at Dishforth Airfield to be compromised.

7.3.22 Local residents believe that an MSA at Kirby Hill will inevitably lead to an increase in crime. Criminal activity at MSAs is well documented and residents believe that the proximity of the site to Kirby Hill will result in increased crime in the village. Evidence from similar communities demonstrates that MSAs attract crime and create significant problems for local residents and parish councils:

· Home Office Research Study 207 “The ‘road to nowhere’: the evidence for travelling criminals” (Appendix X) looked in detail at the pattern of offenders travelling into Hambleton District in North Yorkshire along the A1. It includes the observation: “An interesting pattern of offence location is found when travel into Hambleton associated with theft from motor vehicle offences is examined. Offenders from outside North Yorkshire come from higher crime areas to the north (Cleveland and Tyne and Wear provide the origin for 53 out of the 54 offender movements). However, half of all offender movements into Hambleton end on the A1 road: not just close to the road but actually at service stations.”

· Magor with Undy Community Council represents a rural area adjacent to the Magor MSA on the M4 in South Wales. In a police report to the council on 4 December 2000 (Appendix Y), Inspector Moses of South Wales Police described how, in the preceding month, the MSA had accounted for 14 out of 15 vehicle crimes, 4 out of 28 disorders and 6 out of 42 callouts.

· Bolsover District Council is responsible for an area that includes Tibshelf MSA on the M1. The minutes of a Planning Committee meeting on 20 June 2001 (Appendix Z) note in relation to the MSA that: “There was a lot of crime around the site and it was requested that there be a regular feedback to the Planning Committee.”

7.3.23 There is evidence of past harm to support the concern that motorway services attract crime that would spill over into the surrounding area.

HARM RELATED TO LIKELY ECONOMIC IMPACT

7.3.24 The applicant states, “the proposed development would create new jobs within the local economy”.

7.3.25 Whilst this is undoubtedly so, it raises the question of need for such new jobs. In their letter of 26 September 2002 (Appendix B) to the Planning Inspectorate, Boroughbridge & District Chamber of Trade state that, “Substantial employers such as APC have had to close down their operations in Boroughbridge after their efforts to bus their labour force in from as far away as Teesside became impracticable. Their Boroughbridge premises are currently on the market ….”

7.3.26 Further, on the question of existing provision, the Chamber goes on to point out that, “A service station exists just 3 miles north of the proposed site on the A1 … In addition … local services in Boroughbridge town centre include accommodation providers, cafes, garages and Tourist Information Centre. Morrison's supermarket and filling station adjacent the A1(M) is already used by motorway traffic and is signposted on the Motorway.”

7.3.27 Bearing in mind the above, there is evidence of past harm to support the concern that establishment of the proposed MSA at Kirby Hill would have a negative economic impact.

7.3.28 In summary, there is evidence of past harm in relation to all five of the specific concerns raised by local residents. This evidence demonstrates that the public perception of harm in relation to the proposed MSA at Kirby Hill is justified.

7.4 Has the applicant attempted to address the public perception of harm?

7.4.1 No. The applicant has consistently denied that the proposed MSA will cause any harm, even suggesting that it will enhance the environment at Kirby Hill. Despite 6 years of planning applications, appeals and public inquiries at which all the concerns of local residents have been aired, the applicant has failed to make direct contact with the local community in order to discuss or allay their fears. Instead, at the 1997 Public Inquiry, the applicant’s legal team sought to intimidate local residents through rigorous cross-examination, in an attempt to discredit them and dismiss their concerns.

7.4.2 The applicant has not made any attempt to address the public perception of harm.

7.5 Public Perception of Harm Conclusions

7.5.1 There is a strong public perception among local people that the proposed development will cause substantial harm. There is clear evidence of past harm that justifies the public perception of harm related to the proposed MSA. The applicant has made no attempt to engage with the local community or to address the public perception of harm.

7.5.2 The public perception of harm has persisted for more than 6 years, since the applicant first submitted a planning application. As a result, local people have lived in fear and apprehension of the proposed MSA for an unreasonably long period of time. This has curtailed their fundamental human right to the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of a quality of life.

7.5.3 An overwhelming majority of local people and organisations, knowing and understanding the local area, believe that the proposed MSA at Kirby Hill will cause substantial harm. The Secretary of State should give considerable weight to this body of opinion and in making his decision should respect the fundamental human rights of local people, as set out in the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights.

8 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS

8.1.1 Planning permission for the proposed MSA at Kirby Hill should be refused on the following grounds.

· The weight of Government policy creates a presumption against large-scale developments in open countryside, such as the proposed MSA at Kirby Hill. The applicant’s proposals are contrary to the spirit and the letter of this policy framework.

· The applicant’s proposal conflicts with policies E2, E4, E5, I15, A1, A3 and M5 of the North Yorkshire County Structure Plan and policies A1, A3, T7, T8, C2, C11, C12, C15, HD1, HD4, HD16, HD20 and E8 of the Harrogate District Local Plan. Therefore, the proposed development does not accord with Section 54A of the Town and County Planning Act.

· The proposed MSA at Kirby Hill would create significant adverse impacts on the local landscape and environment; residential amenity; traffic and highway safety; aviation safety and military security.

· The proposed MSA at Kirby Hill would have a negative impact on the local economy.

· The applicant’s evaluation of the Environmental and Traffic impacts of the proposed MSA are seriously flawed and inadequate. The Secretary of State should not rely upon them when making his decision.

· An overwhelming majority of local residents share the perception that the proposed MSA would cause substantial harm. This public perception of harm is supported by clear evidence of past harm. The applicant has made no attempt to address the public perception of harm.

8.1.2 Taken together, all of the above constitute an overriding planning objection that outweighs the need for motorist’s services at Kirby Hill. The Secretary of State should dismiss this appeal and ensure that there will be NO MOTORWAY SERVICES AT KIRBY HILL.