Railton

Proposed Motorway Service Area M1 J35Objection on Transport Grounds on behalf of Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust

Railton TPC Ltd41 York RoadNewburyBerkshire RG14 7NJT. 07500 557255E. brbamber@hotmail.com

Railton TPC Ltd ref: Sheffield MSA FinalSheffield City Council Ref: 14/01079/OUTDate: 19/11/15

RailtonTable of Contents1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

The Author ........................................................................................................................ 1Instruction.......................................................................................................................... 1Background ....................................................................................................................... 1

2. Policy Background ......................................................................................................... 3Circular 02/2013 ................................................................................................................ 3Interpretation of Circular 02/2013 ...................................................................................... 4National Planning Policy Framework ................................................................................. 5Summary of Policy Requirements...................................................................................... 6

3. Need for and Benefit of the Proposed Development ...................................................... 7Safety Record.................................................................................................................... 7Spacing of MSAs............................................................................................................... 8Number of Drivers experiencing ‘Gaps’ ........................................................................... 10Conclusion on Need and Benefit ..................................................................................... 12

4. Alternative Sites Assessment....................................................................................... 135. Summary and Conclusion ............................................................................................ 14

Figures

Figure 1: Routes between A1(M) and M1

Appendices

Appendix 1: Calculation of Accident RatesAppendix 2: Table NTS0309 of National Travel Survey

Railton

1

1. INTRODUCTION

The Author1.1. Bruce Bamber, the author of this report is Director of Railton TPC Ltd. Previously he

was an Associate with RPS Planning and Development and before that he worked

for TPK Ltd. He has over 20 years of experience of working within the transport

planning industry. During this time he has developed access strategies and

assessed the transport impacts and transport environmental impacts of major

developments in relation to all modes. He has advised clients on ways to mitigate

transport impacts and negotiated with highway authorities and the Highways Agency

both in relation to the promotion of sites through the planning process and in relation

to the preparation of planning applications. He has undertaken numerous projects

that involve the motorway and trunk road network and detailed discussions with the

Highways Agency (now Highways England) and is familiar with the policy framework

relating to the trunk road and motorway network. He has given evidence at informal

hearings, public inquiries, local plan inquiries, EIPs and at a DCO Hearing.

1.2. The author is a Chartered Member of the Institution of Logistics and Transport and a

Chartered Member of the Institution of Highways and Transportation. He has a

Masters Degree in Transport from Imperial College, London.

Instruction1.3. Railton TPC Ltd has been instructed by Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust to

review information submitted by MSA Extra for the development of a motorway

service area (MSA) located at J35 of the M1 motorway.

Background1.4. The following policy documents are references in the report:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), DCLG, March 2012;

Circular 02/2013, The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development, DfT, 10 September 2013;

Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy, Sheffield City Council (SCC), Adopted March 2009.

1.5. The documents that have been reviewed are available at the time of writing on the

Sheffield City Council (SCC) planning website in relation to application reference

14/01079/OUT and comprise the following:

Transport Assessment, David Tucker Associates, 20th March 2014 (document ref. SJT/TM/14225-05-TA);

Railton

2

Addendum Transport Assessment, David Tucker Associates, 11th March 2015 (document ref. SJT/14225-07) (also Appendix 8.2 of Addendum to Environmental Statement);

Alternative Sites Assessment Report, Pegasus Group, March 2014 (Environmental Impact Assessment, Volume 3);

Supplementary Alternative Sites Assessment, Pegasus Group, October 2015;

Supplementary Planning Statement, Pegasus Group, October 2015 (document ref. BIR.4054);

Supplementary Consultation Report, Pegasus Group, October 2015 (document ref. BIR.4054);

Advice Note in the matter of Sheffield Motorway Service Area Junction 35 of the M1, Martin Kingston QC, Satnam Choongh, October 2014;

Detailed Objection on behalf of Welcome Break Holdings Ltd, Smith Jenkins Ltd, September 2014;

Representations to Sheffield City Council on behalf of Moto Hospitality Ltd, Savills UK Ltd, 28 August 2013.

1.6. The report identifies a number of key issues:

Section 2 considers the policy background relevant to the proposed

development and the basis for assessing policy compliance.

Section 3 weighs the needs and benefits of the proposed development.

Section 4 assesses the work that has been undertaken on alternative sites.

1.7. Section 5 provides a summary and overall conclusions.

1.8. The main overall conclusion of the review is that in terms of the safety and welfare of

travellers and in terms of the number of long distance journeys that are not currently

provided with MSAs at least every 28 miles, the need and benefit of the proposed

development is negligible and does not clearly outweigh the loss associated with the

proposed development. The proposed development is therefore not consistent with

paragraphs 14 and 118 of the NPPF and in this respect the planning application is

not acceptable and should not be permitted.

Railton

3

2. POLICY BACKGROUND

Circular 02/20132.1. DfT Circular 02/2013 (subsequently referred to as the Circular), ‘The Strategic Road

Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development’ (DfT, 10 September 2013)

provides general guidance on assessing the need for a new motorway service area

(MSA).

2.2. Annex B of the Circular makes reference to the National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF) and states that the primary function of roadside facilities is to support the

safety and welfare of road users:

‘B2. All such proposals will be considered in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework and, in particular, the statement that it includes regarding the primary function of roadside facilities being to support the safety and welfare of the road user.’ (paragraph B2 of Annex B)

2.3. Annex B of the Circular defines the safety and welfare of the road user:

‘SPACING B4. Motorway service areas and other roadside facilities perform an important road safety function by providing opportunities for the travelling public to stop and take a break in the course of their journey. Government advice is that motorists should stop and take a break of at least 15 minutes every two hours. Drivers of many commercial and public service vehicles are subject to a regime of statutory breaks and other working time restrictions and these facilities assist in compliance with such requirements.’ (paragraph B4 of Annex B)

2.4. The safety and welfare of road users is therefore defined in terms of the risk that

might arise if a driver’s ability to concentrate becomes impaired by fatigue.

Government advice is that this can occur after driving continuously for 2 hours. It is

therefore in relation to long distance travel that the need for roadside facilities

arises.

2.5. The circular sets out a clear threshold for assessing the need for a new MSA:

‘B6. The Highways Agency therefore recommends that the maximum distance between motorway service areas should be no more than 28 miles. The distance between services can be shorter, but to protect the safety and operation of the network, the access/egress arrangements of facilities must comply with the requirements of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges including its provisions in respect of junction separation.’ (Paragraph B6 of Annex B)

2.6. The distance of 28 miles is based on a journey time of half an hour but the Circular

makes it clear that it is not time but distance that is the relevant criterion for

assessing need:

Railton

4

‘B5. The network of service areas on the strategic road network has been developed on the premise that opportunities to stop are provided at intervals of approximately half an hour. However the timing is not prescriptive as at peak hours, on congested parts of the network, travel between service areas may take longer’ (paragraph B5 Annex B)

2.7. The fact that some journeys may take longer than 30 minutes between existing MSAs does not, therefore demonstrate the need for a new MSA.

2.8. The Circular also excludes the consideration of route choice and states that if the 28

mile threshold criterion is met, planning applications should be considered on their

specific planning merits:

B8. The distances set out above are considered appropriate for to [sic]all parts of the strategic road network and to be in the interests and for the benefit of all road users regardless of traffic flows or route choice. In determining applications for new or improved sites, local planning authorities should not need to consider the merits of the spacing of sites beyond conformity with the maximum and minimum spacing criteria established for safety reasons. Nor should they seek to prevent competition between operators; rather they should determine applications on their specific planning merits.’ (paragraph B8 of Annex B)

Interpretation of Circular 02/20132.9. The applicant has sought Counsel’s advice on the interpretation of the Circular.

Paragraph 3 of the Advice Note defines the scope of the instruction:

‘3. We are asked to advise on how the question of whether or not there is a “need” for an MSA should be resolved, not by reference to this particular proposal or this particular stretch of the M1, but generally.’

2.10. Counsel makes it quite explicit that the advice is of a general nature and does not

refer to the particular case of the current proposals at Junction 35 of the M1.

2.11. Counsel’s advice reiterates the simple point made in the Circular that it is the

distance of 28 miles that represents the threshold to be used to establish the need

for an MSA. Counsel does not make any reference to the time of journeys being

relevant in establishing need.

2.12. Although Counsel acknowledges that relevant national policy in relation to MSAs is

set out in the Circular and the NPPF, Counsel was not asked to advise on how the

provisions set out in the NPPF would inform decision making in specific

circumstances. As stated in paragraph 3 of the Advice, Counsel has been very clear

in stating that the advice is of a general nature.

Railton

5

National Planning Policy Framework2.13. Paragraph B2 of the Circular, reproduced above makes it clear that all proposals for

new MSAs will be considered in the context of the NPPF. It is therefore necessary

to consider how the NPPF modifies the requirements of the Circular.

2.14. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable

development:

‘14. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.

[…]

For decision-taking this means:

approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and

where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless:

- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

- specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.’

2.15. With reference to the above, the relevant development plan (Sheffield Development

Framework Core Strategy) does not have any specific policies relating to an MSA.

Therefore, the local development plan is ‘silent’ or ‘absent’ on this issue. In terms of

the NPPF para 14 therefore, it follows that decision-taking first requires that there is

a demonstration that any adverse impacts of a proposed development would

significantly outweigh the benefits. But also, in addition to this, there are other

specific policies in the NPPF that indicate development should be restricted in this

particular case – both in terms of Green Belt (para 117) and Ancient Woodland (para

118).

2.16. With specific reference to ancient woodland the NPPF states at paragraph 118:

‘118. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:

- if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort,compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;

- […]

Railton

6

- planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss;

- […]’

2.17. Paragraph 118 provides a specific national policy context in which the current

proposal should be judged. Therefore, in this instance, for policy compliance, it is

necessary that the need for and benefit of development clearly outweigh the loss.

The following section considers these points in more detail.

Summary of Policy Requirements2.18. The general demonstration of need based on the 28 mile threshold set out in the

Circular does not meet the policy test in this specific instance required by paragraph

118 of the NPPF. In this instance, for the proposed development to be acceptable, it

is necessary that the need for and benefit of development clearly outweigh the loss

2.19. Both the Circular and the NPPF make it clear that it is the safety and welfare of road

users that underlies the need for MSAs. In order to assess the need for and benefit

of the proposed development it is necessary to consider the extent to which the

safety and welfare of road users would benefit from the proposed development. In

order to undertake this assessment it is necessary to consider a number of key

issues:

Evidence of poor safety in areas where the 28 mile threshold is exceeded;

Sections of motorway are not compliant with the 28 mile threshold;

The number of drivers travelling on sections of motorway where the 28 mile threshold is exceeded;

The proportion of those journeys on sections of motorway where the 28 mile threshold is exceeded that are long distance journeys.

2.20. The above issues are considered in the following section.

Railton

7

3. NEED FOR AND BENEFIT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Safety Record3.1. The applicant has not submitted any evidence to suggest that the lack of MSA

provision in the area is leading to any safety deficiency. Given that the underlying

basis for the provision of MSAs is the welfare and safety of travellers this is a

serious omission.

3.2. In order to test whether there is any obvious safety deficiency in the area, a

comparison has been made between accident rates on the M1 between the Woolley

Edge and Woodall MSAs, on the M18 between the M1 and the Doncaster North

MSA and on the M1 between Toddington MSA and the Northampton MSA. The

latter has been chosen as it is cited by the applicant as a section of the M1 with a

high level of MSA provision with the Toddington MSA being 14.5 miles from the

Newport Pagnell MSA and the Newport Pagnell MSA being 12.5 miles from the

Northampton MSA. The length of the section of M1 between the Toddington and

Northampton MSAs is also 27 miles, very similar to the distance between the

Woolley Edge and Woodall MSAs (27.5 miles).

3.3. The number of personal injury accidents has been counted from the Crashmap

website (http://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search) for the years 2010 to 2014 inclusive for

each section of motorway. The annual average daily traffic flows on each section of

motorway have been derived from the DfT website (http://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-

counts/download.php). For each section of motorway, the number of recorded

personal injury accidents over five years is divided by the total number of vehicle km

travelled (the number of vehicle movements over five years multiplied by the length

of the motorway sections) to give a rate of accidents per million vehicle km travelled.

Details of the calculations are attached as Appendix 1.

3.4. The results of the calculation are set out in the following table:

Table 3.1: Comparison of Accident Rates

Motorway Link Length Number of Junctions*

Accidents rate (accidents per mill. veh km)

M1 Woolley Edge MSA to Woodall MSA

44.08km 12 0.24

M1 Northampton MSA to Toddington MSA

43.42km 7 0.28

M18 M1 junction to Doncaster North MSA (J5)

32.92km 6 0.22

*includes on-line MSA accesses

Railton

8

3.5. The table shows that the section of the M1 between the Woolley Edge and Woodall

MSAs has an accident rate lower than that calculated for the section of the M1

between the Northampton and Toddington MSAs that has a level of MSA provision

almost double that on the section of the M1 between the Woolley Edge and Woodall

MSAs. The section of the M18 between the M1 and Junction 5 (Doncaster North

MSA) has an accident rate lower than both of the sections of the M1 despite,

according to the information that has been submitted, carrying the highest proportion

of traffic that experiences gaps between MSAs of over 28 miles.

3.6. The analysis of accident data therefore provides no evidence of a poor safety record

between the Woolley Edge and Woodall MSAs.

3.7. The findings are made more significant by the fact that the section of the M1

between the Woolley Edge and Woodall MSAs has 12 junctions and the section

between the Northampton and Toddington MSAs has 7 junctions. There tend to be

clusters of accidents at motorway junctions and although any accidents that are

shown to be clearly on slip roads rather than on the mainline carriageway have been

excluded there are still clusters of accidents on the mainline carriageway in the

vicinity of the junctions that are taken into account in the calculation.

3.8. On the basis of this evidence it is concluded that the section of the M1 between the Woolley Edge and Woodall MSAs does not experience a poor safety record and there is therefore no evidence of any need for an additional MSA in order to provide benefit in terms of increased safety.

3.9. Managed motorway technology (MMT) is currently being introduced between

Junctions 32 and 35A of the M1. Highways England has published a Smart

Motorway Factsheet. In addition to setting out the benefits of smart motorways in

terms of reduced congestion and more reliable journey times, Factsheet 01 states

that evidence from the smart motorway scheme on the M42 around Birmingham that

the frequency of accidents has been halved as a result of the scheme. It is therefore

likely that the level of safety on the section of the M1 between the Woolley Edge and

Woodall MSAs will improve even further in the future.

Spacing of MSAs3.10. The distances between MSAs closest to Junction 35 of the M1 are identified in Table

14 of the Transport Assessment. This table is reproduced below:

Railton

9

Table 3.2: Distances between existing MSAs

from to route distanceWoolley Edge Woodall M1 27.5 milesDoncaster North Woolley Edge M18/M1 42.3 milesBlyth Woolley Edge A1(M)/M18/M1 37.9 miles

Source: Table 14 of Transport Assessment (DTA, March 2014)

3.11. The table shows that the distance between the Woolley Edge MSA to the north on

the M1 and the Woodall MSA to the south on the M1 is 27.5 miles. This distance is

less than 28 miles and the spacing of MSAs on the M1 does not, therefore exceed

the maximum spacing of 28 miles as identified in paragraph B6 of Annex B of the

Circular and there is therefore no need for an MSA arising from the gap between the

Woolley Edge and Woodall MSAs on the basis of the Circular and the confirmation

of this advice given by Counsel.

3.12. It follows that the need for an MSA at Junction 35 of the M1 relies only on the gap

between the Doncaster North and Blyth MSAs and the Woolley Edge MSA.

3.13. The Supplementary Alternative Sites Assessment (October 2015) includes the

following table that purports to demonstrate the contribution of the proposed

development in meeting need:

Copy of Table 3.2 of Supplementary Alternative Sites Assessment

Potential Location Meeting the need – filling the gap between MSAsDoncaster North (M18) –Woolley Edge(M1)

Blyth (A1(M) –Woolley Edge (M1)

Woodall (M1) –Woolley Edge (M1)

M18 J1 √ √ xM18 J1-2 on-line √ √ xM1 J35 (Application Site) √ √ √

3.14. This table is, however, incorrect in that the gap between the Woodall and Woolley

Edge MSAs is less than 28 miles and there is therefore no need for an additional

MSA. (as is made clear in the Circular and Counsel’s advice). It is also the case that

the distance between the Doncaster North MSA and Junction 35 of the M1 is 28.8

Railton

10

miles. This distance is measured from a point on the centre of the M18 carriageway

in the centre of the M18/M180 junction to a point in the centre of the carriageway in

the centre of Junction 35 of the M1.

3.15. The correct table is therefore as follows:

Table 3.3: Corrected Table of ‘Gaps’

Potential Location Meeting the need – filling the gap between MSAsDoncaster North (M18) –Woolley Edge(M1)

Blyth (A1(M) –Woolley Edge (M1)

Woodall (M1) –Woolley Edge (M1)

M18 J1 √ √No gapM18 J1-2 on-line √ √

M1 J35 (Application Site) X √3.16. The proposed development therefore only overcomes the 28 mile threshold between

the Blyth MSA and the Woolley Edge MSA.

Number of Drivers experiencing ‘Gaps’ 3.17. In order to assess whether need and benefit outweigh loss it is necessary to

consider the magnitude of the need. This relates to the number of drivers who may

have need for and benefit from a new MSA. This section considers this point in

relation to the gap between the Blyth MSA and the application site.

3.18. The information quantified by Savills (who have submitted information on behalf of

Moto that is based on work undertaken by PFA Consulting) indicates that 0.65% of

trips that pass the Blyth MSA also pass the Woolley Edge MSA. This represents

240 trips per day.

3.19. For reference it is also worth noting that the information submitted by Savills also

indicates that that 0.04% of trips that passes the Doncaster North MSA also pass

the Woolley Edge MSA. This represents 15 trips each day (source: Savills

Representations to Sheffield City Council, 28th August 2013, paras. 4.14-4.15).

3.20. In the case of the section of the motorway network between the Blyth MSA and the

Woolley Edge MSA, the only section of motorway where the proposed development

reduces the distance between existing MSAs to under 28 miles, the work

undertaken by PFA Consulting shows that the overall number of journeys is very

low. There is also strong evidence that not all of these journeys will be long distance

journeys.

Railton

11

3.21. For a driver to require an MSA there is a need for a journey to be over about 100

miles (equivalent to a 2 hour journey largely on the motorway network). A proportion

of the journeys between the Blyth and Woolley Edge MSAs, based on average trip

making characteristics, will be under 100 miles.

3.22. Table NTS0309 of the National Travel Survey (attached as Appendix 2) indicates

that whereas on average a person will drive 432 miles per year in journeys over 100

miles (equivalent roughly to a 2 hour journey on the motorway network), this only

represent 31.7% of all their journeys between 25 miles and 100 miles (those

journeys most likely to include travel on a motorway). It is therefore the case, based

on average journey characteristics that only 31.7% of the 240 journeys that pass

both the Blyth MSA and the Woolley Edge MSA will be part of journeys over 100

miles and thus raise the possibility that a driver will be in need of a break. It is

concluded that, on the basis of average patterns of trip lengths, only 76 long

distance trips (i.e. 31.7% x 240 trips) pass both the Blyth and Woolley Edge MSAs

per day.

3.23. With specific reference to the section of the motorway network between the Blyth

and Woolley Edge MSAs there is strong evidence that a significant proportion of the

240 daily trips are not long distance trips. The evidence derives from a

consideration of the most likely origins and destinations of trips between the A1(M)

and the application site. Figure 1 illustrates this point.

3.24. Long distance journeys from areas south of Blyth wishing to travel north on the M1,

beyond the M62 junction will either continue north on the A1(M) to access the M1 via

the M62 or they will seek to join the M1 south of Blyth in order to avoid the additional

journey length associated with travelling north on the A1(M), south-west on the M18

before turning north again on the M1. Figure 1 shows that the route between the

Blyth MSA and the M1 north is 35.2 miles via the A1(M) and M62 whereas the route

that passes the application site has a length of 46.4 miles. Alternatively Figure 1shows that trips from south of the Blyth MSA are more likely to use the A57 route to

the M1/M18 junction, a journey of 16.4 miles than use the route via the M18 that has

a length of 23.6 miles. The A57 between the A1(M) and the M1 has a number of

opportunities for travellers to take a break.

3.25. It is therefore likely that the vast majority of journeys between the Blyth MSA and the Woolley Edge MSA are not long distance journeys but relatively local journeys (significantly less than 2 hours) between the area between the Blyth

Railton

12

MSA and the A57 and the areas accessed from the M1 between the Woolley Edge

MSA and the M62/M1 junction as shown on Figure 1.

3.26. It should also be noted that Paragraph 5.2.12 of the Transport Assessment points

out that Junction 35A of the M1 connects with the A616 that provides access to

Manchester and it is assumed that a significant proportion of the traffic passing

Junction 35 is travelling to or from Manchester. The 24 hour Wentworth Park

service station is located on the A616 2.5km from the motorway junction. This

service area will cater for a proportion of drivers who use M1 at Junction 35A. This

existing provision is not acknowledged in the Transport Assessment or any other

supporting information.

Conclusion on Need and Benefit3.27. There is no evidence of a poor safety record on the section of the M1 between

the Woodall and Woolley Edge MSAs. Indeed, this section of motorway has a

significantly better safety record than the section between the Northampton and

Toddington MSAs where the level of MSA provision is high and this will be further

improved by the managed motorway technology (MMT).

3.28. The proposed development would only overcome the 28 mile threshold requirement

for ‘need’ between the Blyth MSA and the Woolley Edge MSA.

3.29. From the available evidence it is concluded that the magnitude of the need for the proposed development is negligible since there are very few journeys between the Blyth and Woolley Edge MSAs (240 trips/day). Furthermore,based on average trip making characteristics and on a consideration of the origins and destinations of trips on this section of the motorway network, there is strong evidence that the majority of these journeys are of less than 2 hours and therefore do not constitute long distance journeys.

3.30. Overall it is concluded that both in terms of the safety and welfare of travellers and in

terms of the number of long distance journeys that are not currently provided for with

MSAs at least every 28 miles, the need and benefit of the proposed development is negligible and does not clearly outweigh the loss associated with the proposed development. The proposed development is therefore not consistent with paragraphs 14 and 118 of the NPPF.

Railton

13

4. ALTERNATIVE SITES ASSESSMENT

4.1. The Supplementary Alternative Sites Assessment (Pegasus Group, October 2015)

identifies a number of possible locations on the M18 where a new MSA could

potentially be constructed.

4.2. The David Tucker Associates Drawing 14225-14 rev. C, ‘M18 Constraints’ shows a

potential location for on-line MSA between Junctions 1 and 2 of the M18 and two

possible off-line locations in the north-west and south-east quadrants of the existing

M18 Junction 1.

4.3. The David Tucker Associates Drawing identifies the requirement for a minimum

810m section of motorway in order to accommodate the necessary diverge and

merge lengths. There is a suitable 810m length of motorway immediately to the

west of the existing rock cutting west of the Ruddle Lane bridge. The only physical

constraint along this section is the presence of an underpass that appears to be

provided to enable access between farmers’ fields. It is likely that an alternative

access arrangement could be provided if this were necessary.

4.4. It is concluded that in engineering terms this section of the M18 could accommodate

a new MSA.

4.5. A number of possible reconfigured layouts of Junction 1 of the M18 are presented in

the report. It is stated at paragraph 3.11 that, ‘preliminary examinations indicate that

it would not be possible, to devise a DMRB compliant design of a fifth arm into an

MSA with adequate operational capacity’. However, no operational assessments

are presented so there is no evidence that the proposed layouts would not operate

satisfactorily.

4.6. The option for accessing land to the north-west of the junction from the A631

assumes a signalised junction on the A631. No attempt has been made to assess

whether a roundabout arrangement would operate more effectively in this location.

4.7. Similarly, the option for accessing land to the south-east of the junction from the

A631 assumes a signalised junction on the A631 and no attempt has been made to

assess the feasibility of a roundabout access. It has also been assumed that the

signalised arrangement is not acceptable because of the available length of stacking

space behind stop lines. However, no operational assessments have been

undertaken so it is not possible to judge whether sufficient stacking space is

available.

Railton

14

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

5.1. The policy context in which the proposed development should be considered is set

out in paragraphs 14 and 118 of the NPPF. These require that for a proposed

development that is not included in the development plan, that leads to the loss of

ancient woodland it is necessary to demonstrate that the need and benefits of the

proposed development clearly outweigh the loss.

5.2. Counsel has provided general advice on the interpretation of ‘need’ with specific

reference to Circular 02/2013 (the Circular). The advice, although relevant in a

general sense, is not relevant in this case due to the loss of ancient woodland that

requires not only ‘need’ in a planning sense but a demonstration that this need and

the associated benefits clearly outweigh the loss of ancient woodland. Leading

Counsel, as a result of the general nature of the instruction does not refer to either

paragraph 14 of the NPPF that defines the principle of sustainable development or

paragraph 118 of the NPPF that is relevant in cases that involve the loss of ancient

woodland.

5.3. There is no evidence of a poor safety record on the section of the M1 between the

Woodall and Woolley Edge MSAs. Indeed, this section of motorway has a

significantly better safety record than the section between the Northampton and

Toddington MSAs where the level of MSA provision is high.

5.4. The need for and benefit of the proposed development has been assessed in this

report in terms of the number of long distance journeys that are not currently

provided with MSAs at least every 28 miles that will benefit from the proposed

development.

5.5. There is no planning need for an MSA to cater for long distance journeys on the M1

since the existing distance between MSAs is less than the threshold of 28 miles as

defined by the Circular. Further, the proposed development would only overcome

the 28 mile threshold requirement for ‘need’ between the Blyth MSA and the Woolley

Edge MSA since the gap between the Doncaster North MSA and the application site

is 28.8 miles.

5.6. From the available evidence it is concluded that the magnitude of the need for the proposed development is negligible since there are very few journeys between the Blyth and Woolley Edge MSAs (240 trips/day). Furthermore,based on average trip making characteristics and on a consideration of the origins and destinations of trips on this section of the motorway network,

Railton

15

there is strong evidence that the majority of these journeys are of less than 2 hours and therefore do not constitute long distance journeys.

5.7. Overall it is concluded that in terms of the safety and welfare of travellers and in

terms of the number of long distance journeys that are not currently provided with

MSAs at least every 28 miles the need and benefit of the proposed development is

negligible and does not clearly outweigh the loss associated with the proposed

development. The proposed development is therefore not consistent with

paragraphs 14 and 118 of the NPPF and in this respect the planning application is

not acceptable and should not be permitted.

5.8. A review of the work that has been undertaken to assess alternative sites shows it to

be lacking in rigour. It appears that, in engineering terms it may be possible to

deliver a new MSA, should it be required, either on-line between Junctions 1 and 2

of the M18 or off-line at Junction1 of the M18. This further undermines the case for

an MSA to be developed at this specific location, in Green Belt and on an Ancient

Woodland site, where the NPPF identifies a clear presumption against development.

Figures

M1M62

M62M62 M62

M180

A1(M)M18

A616 J35A

A1(M)M18

A57

M1A1(M)

Route between A1(M) and M1 north passing application site

Route between A1(M) and M1 north via A1(M) and M62

Route between A1(M) and M1/M18 junction via M18

Route between A1(M) and M1/M18 junction via A57

Existing MSA

Other services

Likely origin and destination areas of journeys between Blyth and Woolley Edge MSAs

Figure 1: Routes between A1(M) and M1

Proposed MSA

Woolley Edge MSA Doncaster

North MSA

Ferrybridge MSA

Blyth MSA

Woodall MSA

35.2 miles

46.4 miles

16.4 miles

23.6 miles

Appendices

Appendix 1: Calculation of Accident Rates

Appendix 1: Calculation of Accident Rates

M1 (North) length (km) AADF (2013) total km (5 years)

PIAs 2010-2014 (5 years)

accident rate PIAs/mill veh km

Woolley Edge - J38 2.12 86570 66987866 20 0.30J38-J37 7 90697 231730835 36 0.16J37-J36 6.69 93752 228928321 44 0.19J36-J35A 2.66 90668 88029561 22 0.25J35A-J35 2.3 108164 90803678 19 0.21J35-J34(N) 4.54 110308 182791387 37 0.20J34(N)-J34(S) 1.17 114311 48816513 15 0.31J34-J33 4.17 81147 123509791 55 0.45J33-J32 5.96 113182 246216123 55 0.22J32-J31 2.1 125463 96167390 48 0.50J31-Woodall 5.37 108997 213639570 41 0.19

44.08 1617621034 392 0.24

M18 length (km) AADF (2013) total km (5 years)

PIAs 2010-2014 (5 years)

accident rate PIAs/mill veh km

M1 -J1 5.16 62908 118480927 28 0.24J1-J2 9.54 79797 277861134 75 0.27J2-J3 2.49 65214 59269744 10 0.17J3-J4 9.38 46637 159671097 23 0.14J4-J5 6.35 53515 124034391 25 0.20

32.92 739317293 161 0.22

M1 (North) length (km) AADF (2013) total km (5 years)

PIAs 2010-2014 (5 years)

accident rate PIAs/mill veh km

Northampton MSA-J15 4.3 114329 179439366 28 0.16J15-Newport Pagnell MSA 15.37 114329 641391406 115 0.18Newport Pagnell MSA-J14 4.25 114329 177352861 57 0.32J14-J13 7.56 119468 329659999 114 0.35J13-J12 10.38 119468 452628412 160 0.35J12-Toddington MSA 1.56 119468 68025079 44 0.65

43.42 1848497123 518 0.28

Notes:Numbers of accidents derived from Crashmap website (http://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search) Annual Average daily traffic derived from DfT website (http://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/download.php).

Appendix 2: Table NTS0309 of National Travel Survey

Appendix 2: Table NTS0309 of National Travel Survey

Department for Transport statistics National Travel Survey

Table NTS0309Average distance travelled by trip length and mode: England, 2014

Miles person per year

ModeUnder 1

mile1 to under

2 miles2 to under

5 miles5 to under

10 miles

10 to under 25

miles

25 to under 50

miles

50 to under 100

miles100 miles and over

All lengths

Unweighted sample size

(stages '000s)

Private:Walk 56 64 35 12 9 2 2 1 181 83Bicycle 1 7 20 15 10 3 2 - 58 5Car / van driver 12 78 376 545 899 528 405 432 3,276 117Car / van passenger 8 46 204 274 402 259 240 359 1,791 65Motorcycle - 1 3 6 12 4 4 0 30 1Other private transport1 - 1 4 9 15 12 21 44 106 2

Public:Bus in London 1 5 27 28 14 2 1 - 77 7Other local bus - 7 55 67 58 8 2 1 199 13Non-local bus 0 0 - - 2 6 14 28 50 0.2London Underground - - 6 31 46 6 3 2 94 4Surface Rail 0 - 5 29 107 108 123 168 540 6Taxi / minicab - 3 14 12 11 6 7 3 56 3Other public transport2 - - 2 7 5 - 1 14 29 1

All modes 78 213 751 1,035 1,589 944 825 1,053 6,488 308

Cumulative percentage

ModeUnder 1

mileUnder 2

milesUnder 5

milesUnder 10

milesUnder 25

milesUnder 50

milesUnder 100

milesAll

lengths

Private:Walk 31 67 86 93 98 99 100 100Bicycle 2 14 48 74 91 96 100 100Car / van driver - 3 14 31 58 74 87 100Car / van passenger - 3 14 30 52 67 80 100Motorcycle - 2 12 33 71 85 100 100Other private transport1 - 1 5 14 28 39 59 100

Public:Bus in London 1 7 42 78 96 99 100 100Other local bus - 4 32 65 95 98 100 100Non-local bus 0 0 - - 5 16 44 100London Underground - - 7 40 89 95 98 100Surface Rail 0 - 1 6 26 46 69 100Taxi / minicab - 5 30 52 72 82 94 100Other public transport2 - 1 9 32 49 50 52 100

All modes 1 4 16 32 57 71 84 100

1 Mostly private hire bus (including school buses).2 Air, ferries and light rail.

Telephone: 020 7944 3097 Source: National Travel SurveyEmail: national.travelsurvey@dft.gsi.gov.uk Last updated: 2 September 2015Notes & definitions Next update: Summer 2016

The figures in this table are National Statistics

The survey results are subject to sampling error.%

Total distance travelled by car driver between 25 and 100 miles 933 68.3%Total distance travelled by car driver over 100 miles 432 31.7%

Total 1,366 100.0%

The results presented in this table are weighted. The base (unweighted sample size) is shown in the table for information. Weights are applied to adjust for non-response to ensure the characteristics of the achieved sample match the population of Great Britain (1995-2012) or England (2013 onwards) and for the drop off in trip recording in diary data.

NTS0309_Eng