Plans for motorway services between Ripon and Boroughbridge approved

Councillors have approved the latest plans for a motorway service station near to Kirby Hill.

Applegreen Ltd submitted amended plans for the scheme between junctions 48 and 49 of the A1(M) northbound, between Boroughbridge and Ripon.

It would see a Welcome Break built at the site, as well a filling station and 364 car parking spaces created.

The proposal already has outline permission after the government’s Planning Inspectorate approved the plan on appeal in April 2021.

At a meeting last week, councillors on North Yorkshire Council’s strategic planning committee approved the amended proposal.

Applegreen, which is based in Dublin, applied for amendments to its plan, including an extension to the length of the slip roads and increasing the permissible height of the eastern dumbbell roundabout by up to 1.25 metres.

In documents submitted to the council, the company said the changes were “limited design amendments”.

But, Gareth Owens, of Kirby Hill Residents Against Motorway Services, told the committee that the plan did not amount to minor amendments.

He said:

“Minor amendments would not warrant an officer’s report that runs to 110 pages.”

Mr Owens added:

“What we have here is an applicant who misrepresented to an inspector at a public inquiry what it is possible to achieve on this site.

“They are now having to row back from that position and ask your permission for a much more harmful scheme.

“Let’s not be taken in by the claim that these are minor amendments.”

Cllr Nick Brown, who represents the area on North Yorkshire Council, said he knew of no other local issue which residents felt more strongly about.

He added the scheme was “materially different” to what was approved by the government’s Planning Inspectorate.

Nick Roberts, who represented Applegreen at the meeting, said the need for a motorway service station at the site was established by a planning inspector after a three-week public inquiry.

Read more:

The move comes after the government approved plans for the service station following a series of public inquiries and planning battles.

In a saga which has spanned a quarter of a century, Applegreen’s application has been before multiple council planning committees, faced four public inquiries and been turned down twice by the Secretary of State and the High Court.

The inquiry, which was held by planning inspector David Rose and streamed onto YouTube, lasted two weeks and included multiple testimonies from residents, campaigners and developer Applegreen.

In a decision notice, Mr Rose said after considering the evidence that the benefits of a service station would outweigh the harm.

Residents object to latest Kirby Hill service station plans

Residents in Kirby Hill have objected to latest plans for a motorway service station near to the village.

Applegreen Ltd has submitted amended plans for the scheme between junctions 48 and 49 of the A1(M) northbound, between Boroughbridge and Ripon.

It would see a Welcome Break built at the site, as well a filling station and 364 car parking spaces created.

The proposal already has outline permission after the government’s Planning Inspectorate approved the plan on appeal in April 2021.

However, the Dublin-based company has applied for amendments to the plan, including an extension to the length of the slip roads and increasing the permissible height of the eastern dumbbell roundabout by up to 1.25 metres.

In documents submitted to the council, Applegreen said the changes were “limited design amendments”.

It said:

“These minor changes to the access / junction linking the motorway service area to the A1(M) are needed in order that this access is in full compliance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (as required by National Highways).

“There are no other material amendments proposed whatsoever to the scheme approved under the 2021 permission.”

The site plan for the service station at Kirby Hill.

The site plan for the service station at Kirby Hill.

However, residents in Kirby Hill have argued that the changes are not minor and called on North Yorkshire Council to refuse the application.

Gareth Owens, of Kirby Hill Residents Against Motorway Services, said:

“Applegreen’s failure to implement the scheme approved by the Inspector proves the case that we have been making for 27 years – a motorway service area cannot be assimilated into the large-scale, open, rural landscape at this location.

“We urge the members of the new North Yorkshire Council planning committee to refuse these two applications, as their predecessors on Harrogate Borough Council have always done, and ensure that there will be no services here.”

Read more:

The Stray Ferret approached Applegreen for a response to residents’ concerns, but had not received a reply by the time of publication.

North Yorkshire Council will make a decision on the proposal at a later date.

The move comes as the government approved plans for the service station after a series of public inquiries and planning battles.

In a saga which has spanned a quarter of a century, Applegreen’s application has been before multiple council planning committees, faced four public inquiries and been turned down twice by the Secretary of State and the High Court.

The inquiry, which was held by planning inspector David Rose and streamed onto YouTube, lasted two weeks and included multiple testimonies from residents, campaigners and developer Applegreen.

In a decision notice, Mr Rose said after considering the evidence that the benefits of a service station would outweigh the harm.

Council accused of ‘whitewash’ over investigation into ‘massaged’ planning report

Campaigners who spent 25 years fighting plans for a motorway service station have accused Harrogate Borough Council of a “whitewash” after it published its findings into an investigation.

The council launched the probe after it emerged a planning officer sent emails saying he “massaged” a key report on the A1(M) service station near Kirby Hill which was approved at appeal in April despite seven previous refusals since 1997.

A council statement previously said the investigation concluded “no irregularities” took place – and the findings have now been revealed in full to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.

The findings say the reference to “massaging” was “simply a poor choice of wording” and was in the context that the officer had amended the landscaping report to ensure it was “acceptable”.

However, the two planning officers involved in the emails were not interviewed as they had left the council and their previous messages were also deleted as “standard practice” to manage storage limits.

‘Deeply suspicious and disturbing’

Gareth Owens, chairman of campaign group Kirby Hill RAMS (Residents Against Motorway Services), said: 

“This so-called investigation and report amounts to a council whitewash of a deeply suspicious and disturbing episode in the planning department.

“This was not an independent investigation therefore – it was the planning department investigating itself.

“Little wonder, then, that the report concludes there were ‘no irregularities’.

“We now need a thorough, independent investigation of this matter and I call on the council to instigate one.”

The landscape report presented to councillors is significant because it said the impact of the service station on the area was “not substantive”.

This assessment was described by campaigners as a “complete U-turn” from a previous council report which warned the plans would cause “significant harm”.

Read more:

Despite a recommendation of approval from officers, members of the council’s planning committee still rejected the service station in November 2019.

However, campaigners believe the officer’s recommendation and “massaged” landscaping report still had a major impact on the outcome of the appeal which followed.

Mr Owens said:

“Members of the planning committee should remain very concerned about officers’ behaviour in this matter, particularly since the inspector at the public inquiry went along with the ‘massaged’ recommendation.”

Mr Ownes also raised questions over a verbal statement made by the planning officer to councillors.

The investigation findings state it was “unclear” whether the officer said “two landscape officers have judged the proposal and the proposal did not consider it caused significant harm” as this was not recorded in a transcript.

Gareth Owens, chair of the Kirby Hill RAMS, speaking against the application at Harrogate Borough Council’s planning committee in 2019. Picture: Kirby Hill RAMS

However, an audio recording of the meeting shared by Mr Owens reveals the officer did say those words.

Mr Owens said: 

“The evidence of this recording shows that the planning committee was misled.

“We feel that the investigator owes Kirby Hill RAMS an apology for trying to cover this up by stating as fact in their report that ‘the transcript has not accurately recorded the statement’ when they had not even listened to the recording.

“This concern could of course have been discussed with us during the investigation. It was not.”

‘Poor choice of wording’

The investigation was headed by Kathryn Daly, head of place shaping and economic growth at the council, who concluded:

“The use of the word ‘massaged’ in the email sent by the principal landscape officer to the planning officer is far from ideal, but my conclusion is that this was simply a poor choice of wording.

“For completeness, it would have been helpful to see whether there were additional emails between the two officers. However, corporate restrictions on Outlook storage mean that it is standard practice to delete historic emails.

“If this deletion is not done, the email account quickly goes above the storage limit and cannot be used.”

A council statement also previously said: 

“We can confirm that, following allegations that a report was ‘massaged’, an investigation was carried out.

“This investigation found no irregularities in the preparation of the officer report for the planning committee.

“As was stated at the time, officer recommendations are fair and impartial, and carefully considered against local and national planning policy, case law, consultation and anything else considered to be ‘material’ to the decision.”