Kirby Hill MSA: Summary Site-Specific Proof of
Evidence
Produced by Kirby Hill RAMS [Residents Against
Motorway Services] and Kirby Hill & District Parish Council
January 2003
PLANNING INSPECTORATE
REFERENCE: APP/E/2734/A/97/285555
CONTENTS (clickable links to each section)
4 AVIATION SAFETY AND MILITARY SECURITY
1.1
This is a summary of the proof of evidence prepared by a working group
of local residents, comprising members of Kirby Hill & District Parish
Council and of Kirby Hill RAMS (Residents Against Motorway
Services). It summarizes the
arguments contained in a joint proof of evidence that represents the views of
Kirby Hill RAMS and Kirby Hill & District Parish Council and is fully
endorsed by both organisations.
1.2
While we have no professional qualifications in the field of planning,
our extensive local knowledge exceeds that of any of the expert witnesses
engaged by the other parties. This
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.
1.3
We 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
1.4
Each of these considerations is covered in detail in our proof of
evidence. A brief summary of the
issues, our evidence and conclusions is provided in the following sections.
1.5
For ease of reference, each section heading begins on a new page and key
conclusions are highlighted in bold type.
2.1
We apply five tests 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.
·
The Government Policy Test
·
The Regional and Local Plan Test
·
The Relative Degree of Harm Test
·
The Specific Factors Test
·
The Expert Test
2.2
We show that, 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. Our landscape and
environment conclusions are as follows:
·
Given the importance Government, Regional and Local policies attach to
protecting the countryside from unnecessary development, substantial weight
must be given to the consideration of landscape and countryside impact at a
site in attractive open countryside, such as that at Kirby Hill. The weight of Government policy creates a
presumption against large-scale developments in open countryside, such as the
proposed MSA at Kirby Hill. We
respectfully suggest that this should be the Secretary of State’s starting
point when considering the proposals for an MSA at Kirby Hill.
·
The applicant’s proposal involves significant, irreversible, adverse
impacts on the landscape and environment that are strongly opposed by local
people.
·
The applicant’s
proposal conflicts with seven policies of the North Yorkshire County
Structure Plan and thirteen policies 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 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.
2.3
We submit that the landscape and environmental impacts
are overriding planning concerns that outweigh the need for motorists’ 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.
3.1
We have examined 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; the HIA Amended
Traffic Assessment Report and related safety concerns.
3.2
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
3.3
Our conclusion is that 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
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. 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.
4.2
We 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)
4.3
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. An MSA at Kirby Hill would increase the
risk of loss of life from aviation-related accidents.
4.4
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.
4.5
We submit that the letter dated 30th September 2002 setting out the
position of the Defence Estates Organisation’s Senior Estates Advisor, Mr.
Martin Watson, is “Wednesbury unreasonable”.
No reasonable person, having read all of the concerns expressed in this
letter, would logically conclude that the Defence Estates Organisation’s
position is one of “no objections”. 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”. In light of the evidence we present, it
would be unreasonable in law for the Secretary of State to hold that there is
no MoD objection.
4.6
The proposed MSA raises serious concerns of aviation
safety and military security that constitute an overriding planning objection.
5.1
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 A1 and A3 of the Harrogate
District Local Plan and no special circumstances have been demonstrated to
warrant the proposals.
5.2
An overwhelming majority of local people and
organisations, who know and understand the area, believe that the proposed MSA
at Kirby Hill will cause damage to their residential amenity. This damage will affect the health,
livelihood, and happiness of local people.
5.3
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 would be as close to people’s homes, or have as
significant an impact on the residential amenity of a peaceful rural community.
6.1
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 applicant suggests that the proposed development would create new
jobs within the local economy. While it
is true that development of the proposed Kirby Hill MSA would create new jobs
within the local economy, we present evidence to show that there is no need
for new jobs in the local economy and that staff are likely to have to
travel from further afield.
6.3
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
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.
6.5
The applicant is wrong to suggest that the proposed
MSA will benefit the local economy.
7.1
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 of our proof of evidence we
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
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.
7.3
We present evidence to show 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.
7.4
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.
7.5
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 demonstrate that there
is 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. Our proof of evidence
contains evidence of past harm in five specific areas:
·
Harm related to the landscape and residential amenity
·
Harm related to road traffic safety
·
Harm related to military aviation and security at
Dishforth airfield
·
Harm related to potential criminal activity
·
Harm related to likely economic impact
7.6
We show that 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.
7.7
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.
7.8
The applicant has not made any attempt to address the
public perception of harm.
8.1
We conclude that 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.
8.2
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.