ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
SHEFFIELD MOTORWAY
SERVICE AREA
Junction 35, M1
Prepared by Pegasus Group | On behalf of Extra MSA Group / St.Pauls Developments plc | March 2014 | BIR.4054
Volume 3: Alternative Sites
Assessment Report
Pegasus
Group
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
PLANNING APPLICATION FOR SHEFFIELD
MOTORWAY SERVICE AREA
JUNCTION 35, M1
ALTERNATIVE SITES ASSESSMENT
REPORT
ON BEHALF OF EXTRA MSA GROUP
Pegasus Group
5 The Priory | Old London Road | Canwell | Sutton Coldfield | B75 5SH
T 0121 308 9570 | F 0121 323 2215 | W www.pegasuspg.co.uk
Birmingham | Bracknell | Bristol | Cambridge | Cirencester | East Midlands | Leeds | Manchester
Planning | Environmental | Retail | Urban Design | Renewables | Landscape Design | Graphic Design | Consultation |
Sustainability
©Copyright Pegasus Planning Group Limited 2011. The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in
part without the written consent of Pegasus Planning Group Limited
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
CONTENTS:
Page No:
1. INTRODUCTION
1 2. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
4 3. ESTABLISHING THE NEED FOR A NEW MSA
9 4. IDENTIFYING A LOCATION – POLICY CONTEXT
13 5. SITE IDENTIFICATION PROCESS - COMMERCIAL VIABILITY
16 6. IDENTIFYING A LOCATION – ‘ON-LINE’ VS JUNCTION
19 7. JUNCTION 35 – SELECTING A SITE
22 8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
44 March 2014| SM | BIR.4054
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
This Report sets out the commercial and highways safety considerations which
underpin the process by which Junction 35 of the M1 Motorway was identified as
the only realist location for delivery of a new Motorway Service Area (MSA) in the
Sheffield area.
It then sets out how each of the three potential sites at this
Junction were assessed with a view to identifying the most suitable for
development as a MSA.
1.2
The Report should be read in conjunction with Volumes 1 and 2 of the
Environmental Statement,
the Transport Assessment (Volume 4 of the ES),
Economic Development, Employment and Skills Report and the Planning
Statement which, together with this Report.
The Structure of this Report
1.3
The public will not make proper use of MSAs which are not needed, well located
or attractive. The delivery of a new MSA at Junction 35 of the M1 represents a
major capital investment of approximately £40 Million and as such, it is critically
important that the right site is selected. This Report sets out the process by which
the application site was identified for development and confirms that it is the only
viable location which can properly meet the need for a new MSA in the Sheffield
area.
1.4
Chapter two provides a background and context to the report and in particular
the importance of the role that MSAs play in the national transport infrastructure
Network. It considers the role of MSAs in terms of the safety and welfare of
Motorway users and the impact that accidents on the Network can have on the
economy. MSAs are privately owned and operated, and any decision to invest in
the provision of a new MSA is a major one. The report outlines the considerable
experience that Extra have as a developer, investor and operator of high-quality
Motorway Service Area (MSA) properties. If a MSA is not attractive, accessible
and convenient to use, then travellers will make limited us of it, with the result
that commercially it will not be viable and the ‘need’ which it is intended to serve
will only be partially met.
1.5
Chapter three considers the ‘need’ for a new MSA facility in the Sheffield /
Rotherham area. It concludes that there is a clear and significant need for a new
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 1
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
MSA in this area and that this would most appropriately be located on the M1
corridor, where it will address three identified gaps in the existing MSA provision.
1.6
Chapter four sets out the policy context which guides decisions relating to the
location of new MSAs on the Motorway Network.
1.7
Current policy leaves it to the commercial operator to determine the minimum
spacing between MSAs. In essence this means that an operator must make a
judgement based upon a range of factors which influence the potential number of
travellers on the Network who might choose to stop at any particular location.
Chapter five therefore focuses on issues relating to the commercial viability of a
location and the factors which underpin this judgement. If a location is not
commercially viable, then it will not be delivered.
1.8
Having established that commercially a distance of less than 12 miles between
MSAs would not generally be viable, chapter six moves to consider potential online (ie accessed directly from the Motorway carriageway) and Junction locations.
Using the standards set out in DMRB (TD22/06, vol 6 Section 2, Part 1)1 and IAN
149/112 it concludes that due to the nature of the Motorway between Junctions
33 – 35A (which includes an elevated section and Junctions in close proximity) it
is not possible to accommodate an on-line MSA. A review of each Junction (33 –
35A) indicates that it is only Junction 35 which has the capacity to safely
accommodate a new MSA.
1.9
Having confirmed that Junction 35 is the only viable location, the next step is to
identify a suitable site. Chapter seven sets out how this process has been taken
forward. Three potential sites of over 10 hectares exist at this Junction (south
east, north west and south west quadrants). Each has its advantages and
disadvantages. All have in common the fact that they are located in the Sheffield
/ Rotherham Green Belt and contain areas of ancient woodland. The Chapter
undertakes a comparative assessment of each quadrant. This analysis concludes
that land within the south west quadrant will have the least impact on the local
area.
1.10
Chapter eight concludes the Report noting that the outcome of the assessment
process is clear. There is only one potential location where the established need
1
2
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges TD22/06 (vol 6 Section 2, Part 1) Interim advice Note (IAN) 149/11 ‘Existing Motorway Minimum Requirements’ March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 2
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
for a new MSA serving travellers between Blyth (A1M), Doncaster North (M18)
and Woolley Edge (M1) MSAs can safely and commercially be delivered; this is at
Junction 35 of the M1. Furthermore, having undertaken a comparative analysis of
the three potential quadrants of available land at Junction 35, it concludes that
development of land to the south west would have the least impact on the local
area.
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 3
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
2.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION – POLICY GUIDANCE AND BEST PRACTICE
ADVICE
MSAs in the UK
2.1
Pre-deregulation in 1992, the Government primarily owned MSAs and granted 50
year leases to operators. Deregulation permitted private sector freehold MSA
ownership and has in subsequent years significantly improved the range of MSA
facilities. There are currently 106 MSAs in operation across the UK, 100 of which
are owned by the four major operators and 6 sites owned by other operators.
2.2
MSAs are privately owned and operated. They exist to meet a public need on the
Motorway Network – the need being to provide facilities which support the safety
and welfare of the travelling public. The absence of such facilities in areas where
there is a need places the safety and welfare of the travelling public at risk and
increases the chances of accidents. However the choice of how that need is met
within an identified area will largely be driven by commercial concerns. Put
simply, if a potential location is not commercially viable, then it will not be
delivered.
The need – key safety role
2.3
Motorways form the backbone of the UK road transport system. The safe and
efficient movement of people, goods and supplies across the country relies
heavily on the adequacy of the Motorway infrastructure. The Draft National Policy
Statement for the National Road and Rail Networks Consultation (Dec 2013)3
notes at paragraph 2.2 that “The national road and rail networks that connect our
cities, regions and international gateways play a significant part in supporting
economic growth and productivity as well as facilitating passenger, business and
leisure journeys across the country.”
2.4
DfT Circular 02/2103 The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable
Development4, (paragraph 8) notes that “A well functioning strategic road
network enables growth by providing for safe and reliable journeys”. Annex B to
the Circular (paragraph B4 ) confirms the role of MSA noting that “Motorway
service areas and other roadside facilities perform an important road safety
3
DfT Consultation on a Draft National Policy Statement for the National Road and Rail Networks Consultation (Dec 2013)3 4
DfT Circular 02/2103. The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development. Annex B: Roadside Facilities for Road Users on Motorways and All Purpose Trunk Roads in England March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 4
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
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”
2.5
MSAs are a key component of this national infrastructure network and are
essential for the welfare and safety of users2. The availability of attractive, easy
to access and convenient opportunities to stop on the Motorway Network can
contribute to combating driver fatigue (“falling asleep at the wheel”) which,
according to research by RoSPA5, “is a major cause of road accidents, accounting
for up to 20% of accidents on motorways and monotonous roads in Britain.”
Accidents on the Motorway Network result in congestion and delay which in turn
has an economic impact on all ‘users’ of the Motorway.
2.6
The RoSPA study5 found that “Young male drivers, truck drivers, company car
drivers and shift workers are most at risk of falling asleep while driving”. It notes
that of the various things which drivers do to fight off sleepiness:

(open windows/ turn on air conditioning (68%);

stop and go for walk (57%);

listen to radio / cassette (30%);

talk to a passenger (25%);

drink coffee (14%); and

other (15%)
most however are “ineffective, and should be regarded only as emergency
measures to allow the driver to find somewhere safe to stop.”
2.7
The provision of convenient and accessible Motorway Service Areas, where drivers
can take a rest break when needed, plays a key role in the efficient and safe
running of the national road Network. Drivers of commercial vehicles are subject
5
Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. Driver Fatigue and Road Accidents. A Literature Review and Position Paper. 2001 March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 5
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
to strict working hours requirements. Rest breaks must be taken regularly. The
logistics industry is therefore heavily reliant on MSAs as places where drivers can
take a rest break, have a shower, and a meal. MSAs are the ‘ultimate refuge’ for
many drivers, who struggling with mechanical problems will try to reach the next
service are where they can safely stop and call for help.
Economic role
2.8
The economic cost of Motorway delay is high. Whilst delays are primarily a result
of demand exceeding capacity, accidents on the network are also a contributing
factor and can take many hours to resolve, depending upon their severity. A
recent government report ‘Review of Investigation and Closure Procedures for
Motorway Incidents – preliminary Report’ (May 2011)6 found that the economic
costs of disruption caused by incidents is high and the study estimated that for a
“three lane carriageway closure, on a busy motorway, the economic impact can
be more than £500,000”.
2.9
Chapter Four of this Report, the Transport Assessment and the Planning
Statement consider the need and associated policy context underpinning the
development of a MSA in the Sheffield area setting out how this has influenced
the location and site selection process.
Decision to invest in a new MSA
2.10
The provision of MSA is dependant entirely upon private sector funding. The
decision to invest is a commercial one and represents a major capital investment
within a particular area. Once operational, the ongoing management and
maintenance costs remain with the MSA operator. Current policy (Circular
02/2013) leaves it to the commercial operator to determine the minimum spacing
between MSAs. In essence this means that an operator must make a judgement
based upon the potential number of travellers on the Network who might choose
to stop at any particular location and make use of the facilities on offer.
2.11
Chapter 5 sets out the commercial factors which influence that decision and how
they informed the choice of location. ‘Getting it right’ commercially is critical: the
travelling public will not make proper use of MSAs which are not easily accessible,
6
DfT, Highways Agency, CACPO, Home Office joint report. Review of Investigation and Closure Procedures for Motorway Incidents – Preliminary Report (May 2011) March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 6
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
attractive or well located. A location which is not commercially viable will not be
delivered, leaving the ‘need’ on safety and welfare grounds unmet.
The Extra MSA Group
2.12
The Economic Development, Regeneration, Employment and Skills (EDRES)
Report provides a detailed background to the Extra MSA Group, and the
considerable experience it has as a developer, investor and operator of highquality MSA properties. Extra has recently delivered two new MSAs on the
National Motorway Network and since de-regulation of MSAs in 1992 has directly
or indirectly been responsible for the successful delivery of nine MSAs,
significantly more than any other party involved in the MSA sector over this
period.
Beaconsfield MSA
2.13
The Beaconsfield MSA is located within an area of sensitive woodland in the
Buckinghamshire Green Belt at M40, Junction 2. Outline planning consent for this
MSA was granted on appeal by the Secretary of State on 6 October 2005 followed
by approval for Reserved Matters in 2008. It opened in March 2009 and attracts
an average of some 10,000 vehicles a day. The site is approximately 13 hectares
in size and comprises a Facilities Building, Budget Hotel and Filling Station,
together with around 860 parking spaces.
Cobham MSA
2.14
The new MSA at Cobham is located in the Surrey Green Belt, on the southwest
quadrant of the M25 between Junctions 9 and 10, and was granted consent in
2005 following an appeal to the Secretary of State. It opened in September 2012
and is already attracting over 12,000 vehicles a day. It was built on a 45 acre site
and comprises a Facilities Building, Budget Hotel and Filling Station, together with
around 950 parking spaces.
Summary
2.15
MSAs play a key role in the national transport infrastructure Network. The safety
and efficient operation of our Motorways is critical to the movement of people,
goods and supplies across the country and as such to the performance of the
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 7
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
economy. Delays, including those caused by accidents, have a significant
economic impact.
2.16
The decision to invest in the provision of a new MSA is a major one. If the
location is wrong then people will not use the facility and commercially it will not
be viable. The remainder of this report sets the process which underpins the
conclusion that Junction 35 is the only viable location which can properly meet
the need for a new MSA in the Sheffield Area.
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 8
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
3.
Establishing the Need for a New MSA
3.1
The Transport Assessment (TA) considers in detail the need for a new MSA in the
Sheffield area. This chapter provides a summary of section 5, of the TA which can
be found at Appendix 8.1, Volume 4 of this ES, which specifically deals with the
issue of demand for a new MSA in the Sheffield area.
Circular 02/2013
3.2
The need for new MSA provision on the network is established in Circular
02/2013. This confirms that: “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” and that
“The Highways Agency therefore recommends that the maximum distance
between motorway service areas should be no more than 28 miles [or 30
minutes]”.
3.3
The distance between Services can be shorter. Most importantly, the policy as
set out in Circular 02/2013 removes previous minimum distances in order to
promote greater MSA provision. It also confirms that the Network of MSDAs
should be completed regardless of actual flows on specific routes. The assumption
is that by the virtue of it being part the Strategic Road Network (SRN) it should
have adequate MSA provision from a highway safety perspective.
Existing MSA provision / gaps
3.4
The TA considers the frequency and quality of existing MSAs on the Network in
the Sheffield / Rotherham / Doncaster areas. The locations of the MSAs are
shown on Figure 3.1 and the distances between each are set out in Table 3.1.
This identifies gaps between Doncaster North / Woolley Edge MSAs and Blyth /
Woolley Edge MSAs which exceed the 28 miles maximum distance set out in
Circular 02/2013.
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 9
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
From MSA
To MSA
Route
Distance
Woolley Edge
Woodall
M1
27.5 miles
Doncaster
Woolley Edge
M18 / M1
42.3 miles
Woolley Edge
A1(M) / M18 /
37.9 miles
North
Blyth
M1
Table 3.1 – Distance between existing MSA Provision on the SRN
3.5
More importantly, when looking at the M1 itself, then the average gap between
existing MSAs along the M1 between Woodall MSA (to the south of Sheffield) and
Toddington MSA (to the north of London) is just 14 miles, with the shortest gap
being 10.7 miles and the greatest being 22.7 miles. However, the gap on the M1
between Woolley Edge and Woodall is significantly larger, being some 27.5 miles.
3.6
The Spatial Planning Framework: Review of Strategic Road Network Service Areas
– Yorkshire and Humber Area Report 2010 provides further detail in respect of
the gaps identified above. The report identifies that: “the distance via the M1/M18
junction between Woolley Edge Services on the M1 and Doncaster North Services
on the M1/M180 junction is 42 miles and therefore above the 40 miles threshold”.
Although the maximum 40 mile threshold referred to is no longer DfT policy, the
conclusion that a significant gap exists remains valid.
3.7
In addition to distance, Circular 02/2013 also requires consideration of journey
times and notes that there are locations where congestion or speed limits would
increase journey times beyond the 30 minute target. The TA notes that whilst it is
clear that the gaps on the M18 will be beyond this limit, consideration should also
be given to the gap on the M1.
3.8
The TA has considered vehicle speeds for all links between Junction 28 – Junction
40 of the M1. The existing journey from Woolley Edge MSA to Woodall MSA takes
more the 30 minutes for at least 20% of AM peak hour journeys. Therefore,
although the distance between the two MSAs is just below the 28 mile threshold,
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 10
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
existing constraints on the Network show that a gap also exists on the M1
corridor.
3.9
The recent Highways Agency Consultation Document ‘M1 J28 to 35A maximum
60mph speed limit Consultation’ (January 2014) confirms the high level of flows
in this area and impact on journey time, noting that “The M1 between Junctions
28 and 35A is part of the primary strategic link between Nottingham and Leeds.
Most of the link carries traffic in excess of the traffic level for which the road was
designed, causing congestion and delays to road users.”
3.10
In addition to the above it is appropriate, in the context of Circular 02/2013, that
a decision on the location of any MSA takes account of both distance between
services and the volume of travelling public which it will benefit in terms of safety
provision, regardless of flows.
3.11
The introduction of Managed Motorway Traffic between Junction 32 and 35A of
the M1, which will remove the hard shoulder along this stretch of Motorway, is
considered to further support the provision of an MSA between these Junctions –
a MSA is the ultimate ‘safety refuge’ and a place to which drivers will try to head
in the event of problems with their vehicles.
Conclusions on need / demand
3.12
With regard to need/ demand, the Transport Assessment concludes that:

There is a clear policy presumption that an increased number of higher
quality MSAs should be provided on the SRN for highway safety reasons;

There is no longer any transport policy requirement to prove ‘need’ for any
new MSA other and above this fundamental point;

Notwithstanding this, there is a specific and significant gap in provision
between the M18 Doncaster North MSA and M1 Woolley Edge MSA of 42
miles and between A1M Blyth MSA and M1 Woolley Edge MSA of 37.9
miles. This is significantly in excess of the established Highways Agency
criteria for MSA provision;

Flows on the M1 corridor between Woodall MSA and Woolley Edge MSA are
high and at times peak hour journey times are in excess of 30 minutes.
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 11
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report

The ongoing implementation of the MMT, whilst increasing journey time
reliability, will limit peak hour journey speeds;
3.13
Overall, there is a clear and significant demand for an additional MSA in the
Sheffield / Doncaster area to fill the identified gaps. This would most
appropriately be located on the M1 corridor, where it will address all three
identified gaps in MSA provision and where it will benefit a higher proportion of
the travelling public.
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 12
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
4.
Identifying a Location – Policy Context
4.1
This chapter sets out the process for identifying a general MSA location – as
opposed to a detailed site.
National Transport Policy
4.2
Chapter 3 and the TA conclude that there is a clear and significant demand for an
additional MSA in the Sheffield / Doncaster area to fill the identified gaps and that
this would most appropriately be located on the M1 corridor, where it will address
all three identified gaps in MSA provision and where it will benefit a higher
proportion of the travelling public.
4.3
DfT Circular 02/2013, The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable
Development, Annex B: Roadside facilities for road users on motorways and allpurpose trunk roads in England, is of relevance to the process of identifying an
appropriate location for a new MSA.
“B13. On-line (between junctions) service areas are considered to be more
accessible to road users and as a result are more attractive and conducive to
encouraging drivers to stop and take a break. They also avoid the creation of
any increase in traffic demand at existing junctions.
B14.
Therefore,
in
circumstances
where
competing
sites
are
under
consideration, on the assumption that all other factors are equal, the Highways
Agency has a preference for new facilities at on-line locations.
B15. However, in circumstances where an on-line service area cannot be
delivered due to planning, safety, operational or environmental constraints, a
site sharing a common boundary with the highway at a junction with the
strategic road network is to be preferred to the continued absence of facilities”.
4.4
The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) TD22/06 (vol 6 Section 2, Part
1)
and
Interim
advice
Note
(IAN)
149/11:
Existing
Motorway
Minimum
Requirements, set out the standards which will be applied to new slip roads in
terms of the safe weaving distances for vehicles entering and leaving the
motorway. The technical definition of a weaving section (Paragraph 1.36 of
TD22/06) is:
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 13
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
“the length of the carriageway between a successive merge or lane gain and
diverge or lane drop, where vehicles leaving the mainline at the diverge or lane
drop have to cross the paths of vehicles that have joined the mainline at the
merge or lane gain.”
4.5
Paragraph 4.35 of the standard provides guidance in respect of rural Motorways.
This states that the desirable minimum weaving distance must be 2 kilometres /
1.24 miles. The requirements for weaving on rural motorways are as for rural
Motorway Junctions (‘urban motorways’ are not relevant to this assessment):
“For Rural Motorways, the desirable minimum weaving length must be 2
kilometres. Above about 3 kilometres apart, merges and diverges tend not to
interact and can be considered as separate entities, since weaving ceases to
occur.
The maximum possible weaving length can thus be taken as 3 kilometres. This
would appear to be the case up to and including weaving sections 5 lanes
wide. The weaving formula is not to be used for weaving lengths above 3
kilometres. The requirements for weaving for MSAs on rural motorways are as
for rural motorway junctions.”
4.6
All locations within 2km of the end of an existing slip road must therefore be
excluded from consideration.
4.7
Circular 02/2013 (para B9) also notes that “New and existing roadside facilities
are subject to the provisions of relevant planning legislation and regulation, which
together set the framework within which local planning authorities would consider
the planning proposals for such development.”
National Planning Policy
4.8
The planning policy context is covered within the accompanying Planning
Statement, in particular the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF)
which is based upon the principles of sustainable development and requires the
planning system to balance economic, social and environmental factors. Of
particular relevance to the process of identifying an appropriate location for a new
MSA, the NPPF notes, at para 31 that
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 14
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
“31. Local Authorities should work with neighbouring authorities and transport
providers to develop strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure
necessary to support sustainable development, including large scale facilities
such as rail freight interchanges, roadside facilities for motorists or transport
investment necessary to support strategies for growth of ports, airports or
other major generators of travel demand in their areas. The primary function
of roadside facilities for motorists should be to support the safety and welfare
of the road user.”
4.9
The location of the Motorway Network is however fixed. As Motorways tend to run
around the edges of cities, it is frequently the case that they are located within
the Green Belt. As such, paragraph 90 of the NPPF is also relevant. This notes:
“90. Certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in Green
Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict
with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. These are:
Mineral extraction;
Engineering operations;
Local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a
Green Belt location;
The re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and
substantial construction; and
Development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order.”
4.10
Where a need can be demonstrated, the NPPF recognises that this can amount to
very special circumstances sufficient to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt as a
result of development. If a site were to go forward which falls within the Green
Belt, then there would be a need to demonstrate that the five purposes of the
Green Belt are not significantly compromised – unrestricted sprawl of large built
up area; preventing neighbouring towns from merging; to assist in safeguarding
the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character
of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging recycling of
derelict and other urban land.
4.11
Once an appropriate and viable ‘location’ for a new MSA has been identified, local
planning policy will have an important influence on site selection.
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 15
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
5.
SITE IDENTIFICATION PROCESS - COMMERCIAL VIABILITY
5.1
In terms of site selection, it is also important to consider commercial viability. If a
location is not commercially viable it will not be delivered.
Commercial context
5.2
The TA establishes that there is a ‘gap’ in provision of MSAs between the existing
MSAs at Doncaster North (M18), Blyth (A1M), Woodall (M1) and Woolley Edge
(M1). Current policy leaves it to the commercial operator to determine the
minimum spacing between MSAs. In essence this means that an operator must
make a judgement based upon the potential number of travellers on the Network
who might choose to stop at any particular location. This is a factor of the
following:

Volume of traffic which flows past a particular location;

Traffic speeds and the potential for delays and interrupted flows;

The nature of the traffic on that stretch of the Motorway ie high volumes
of local traffic mean that there are lower numbers of potential visitors,
whilst higher numbers of longer distance travellers have a greater
propensity to stop;

The distance from the nearest existing MSA (this reflects the propensity
for road users to make use of a MSA at any given location);

Availability of a suitable site at a ‘natural watering hole’; and

The nature and age of facilities offered at the nearest MSAs – although
these could potentially be improved subject to the constraints of the
respective site: and

The convenience factor in respect of ingress and egress – road users will
not want to use a MSA which is inconveniently located at a congested
Junction or other appropriate location.
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 16
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
Volume, speeds and nature of traffic
5.3
A MSA exists to provide facilities for drivers and their passengers using a
particular stretch of the Motorway Network. As a commercial concern, this means
that the potential customer base (ie the drivers and their passengers) must be
sufficient in size to generate an appropriate level of return from the activities
which are included within the MSA.
5.4
The TA provides evidence (chapter 4) of the high traffic flows on the Motorway
Network in and around Junction 35 of the M1, and chapter 5 considers the
proportion of longer distance traffic.
5.5
High levels of traffic flow passing a particular location on the Network does not in
itself support a commercially viable MSA. The balance of local and longer distance
traffic is also a key factor for consideration. Local traffic, often travelling only one
or two Junctions as part of a commute or local visit, does not equate to high
demand for the facilities offered by a MSA. Of particular importance commercially
is the volume of longer distance traffic and HGV drivers who have the greatest
need for the facilities on offer.
Existing MSAs
5.6
From a commercial perspective, and recognising that to some extent this is a
subjective judgment, where traffic flows are at the levels experienced on the M1,
a minimum gap of 12 miles is considered to be the threshold for separation
between commercially viable MSAs. There is no exact measure of this and further
south on the M1, as noted in chapter 3, the average gap between existing MSAs
along the M1 between Woodall MSA (to the south of Sheffield) and Toddington
MSA (to the north of London) is 14 miles, with the nearest located gap (between
Woodhall and Tibshelf MSAs) being 15 miles. Commercially, unless flows and
travel times are unusually high, or there is an unusual travel pattern, then it does
not make sense to provide a new MSA within 12 miles of an existing MSA, as
proximity would impact adversely on potential returns and hence commercial
viability.
Availability of a suitable site
5.7
A MSA exists to serve users of the Motorway Network. They should not result in
an increase in trip mileage or impact on the safety and operation of the Strategic
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 17
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
Road Network (para B11 Circ 02/2013). As such they should be located either
‘on-line’ or at a Junction. This means that the choice of location is tightly
constrained. There must be
5.8

An available site;

A suitably sized site;

A site which can be accessed safely, conveniently and at reasonable cost;

A willing landowner who will release the site at a reasonable cost;

Commercially viable development costs; and

A ‘policy compliant’ site.
The process for identifying a suitable location involves the consideration of all
these issues in parallel. However the nature of this Report is such that they are
inevitably addressed in separate chapters – this chapter has dealt with a number
of the commercial factors which inform the site selection process whilst preceding
chapters dealt with transport and planning policy considerations at a strategic
level. The following chapter sets out the conclusions of the process for identifying
a location where the established need can be best met.
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 18
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
6.
IDENTIFYING A LOCATION – ‘ON-LINE’ VS JUNCTION
6.1
The preceding chapters and the TA have established that:

In terms of distance, a significant gap exists between MSAs on the A1M
(Blyth), M18 (Doncaster North) and Woolley Edge, which exceeds the 28
mile maximum set out in policy;

In terms of journey time, a gap exists between Woodall and Woolley Edge
MSAs on the M1;

Both acknowledged gaps can be met through the provision of a new MSA
on the M1 between Woodall and Woolley Edge MSAs;

That a distance of less than circa 12 miles between a new MSA and an
existing MSA would not be commercially viable – and hence not
deliverable.
6.2
In the light of the conclusions from the preceding chapters, as set out above, only
locations at Junctions 34 and 35 are considered potentially viable and deliverable.
However, although Junctions 33 and 35A are less than 12 miles from Woodall and
Woolley Edge respectively, as the 12 mile ‘threshold’ based upon commercial
‘judgment’ as opposed to the clarity of policy, the subsequent analysis has
included these Junctions.
6.3
The decision to extend the area under examination was confirmed by the results
of an analysis of the mix of long distance / local traffic undertaken for vehicles
passing Junction 35 using the Tom Tom database. The results are set out in the
TA, which in concludes that the M1 through Junction 35 carries a high proportion
of long distance traffic. Given the proximity of Junctions 35 and 35A it is
reasonable to assume that the pattern is similar at these Junctions (however not
beyond, as traffic flows decline north of Junction 35A).
Potential ‘on-line’ locations
6.4
Applying the standards within DMRB and IAN 149/11 for slip roads it is concluded
that it is not possible to locate an on-line MSA between Junctions 33 and 35A.
This is due to the relative close proximity of the Junctions and the presence of the
elevated section (Tinsley viaduct).
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 19
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
Potential Junction locations
6.5
In the absence of safe locations for an on-line MSA, the potential for each of the
Junctions (33 – 35A inclusive) to accommodate a new MSA was assessed on
highway safety and capacity grounds.
Junction 33
6.6
This Junction is signal controlled and, given highway parameters, it would be
physically possible to create a fifth arm for a potential on the north west and
south east quadrants, although significant capacity issues are likely to arise,
particularly given that only 2 lanes are available across the over-bridges. Pinch
Point
funding
has
been
provided
to
improve
this
Junction
recently
to
accommodate existing demand and there is little scope to further improve the
Junction within highway limits. This means that in capacity terms, significant
changes to the highway Network would be required to accommodate a MSA and
this would most likely include changes to the bridge structures. Access has
already been approved on the former to serve a hotel complex. However this is
not of sufficient size and layout to accommodate the needs of a MSA which would
include circa 200 more car parking spaces, 70 HGV spaces and associated
facilities. The layout approved also represents a significant diversion from the
strategic road Network, which would make it less attractive to Motorway users
and hence not address the need.
Junction 34
6.7
This is an unusual Junction. It is divided into two – a north and a south access
point, which are separated by a two lane elevated section of Motorway (Tinsley
Viaduct). Due to this layout it is not possible to identify a site which can be
accessed directly from the Junction, without adding additional traffic onto the
A629. As this Junction is also
main access to the Meadowhall shopping centre
additional movements at this Junction would add to the existing congestion. Land
levels are such that available sites lie below the level of the Motorway and the
A629, both of which run on a viaduct at this point and as such require vehicles to
use the local road Network to gain access / egress.
This location could not
therefore be considered further.
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 20
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
Junction 35
6.8
Junction 35 has land available adjacent to the Motorway Junction and has the
capacity to accommodate additional traffic resulting from the use of a new MSA.
The TA considers capacity at this Junction, and concludes that the “roundabout
operates within capacity in 2013 and 2023 for each of the assessment periods
without the proposed development. In the ‘2023 With Development’ scenario, the
results indicate that two of the junction arms, the M1 J35 southbound off-slip and
the A629 Cowley Hill, would have RFC values in excess of 0.85 in the evening
peak hour, with corresponding Mean Maximum Queue (MMQ) lengths of 51 and
30 PCUs respectively.” A scheme of mitigation is identified in the TA which does
not require significant alterations to the Junction.
Junction 35A
6.9
This Junction was designed to provide access / egress from a southern direction
only. Whilst it would be technically possible to provide a new slip road, indeed the
spurs exist, to serve the northern direction, slip road separation and weaving
distances would be significantly below the safety standards for new slip roads
required by DMRB. The scale of works would be significant and would require the
provision of a new Motorway overbridge. This location has not therefore be
considered further.
Conclusion
6.10
Having applied the standards set out in DMRB (TD22/06, vol 6 Section 2, Part 1)
and IAN 149/11
it is clear that due to the nature of the Motorway between
Junctions 33 – 35A (which has an elevated section and Junctions in relative close
proximity to each other) it is not possible to accommodate an on-line MSA.
6.11
A review of each Junction (33 – 35A) indicates that it is only Junction 35 which
has the capacity and weaving distances between existing Junctions to safely
accommodate a new MSA.
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 21
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
7.
JUNCTION 35 – SELECTING A SITE
7.1
The previous chapters establish that the only suitable location in terms of
highway safety standards and commercial deliverability is Junction 35, the next
step is to identify a suitable site at this Junction.
Potential sites at Junction 35
7.2
When the M1 and Junction 35 were constructed in the 1960s they cut through an
area of woodland known as Smithy Wood. As part of the works to construct the
M1 and Junction 35, the A629 was realigned to run across the new Junction. Four
potential quadrants of land exist at this Junction (image 7.1).
North west quadrant
South west quadrant
South east quadrant
Hesley Bar
(north west)
Figure 7.1 Junction 35, M1.
7.3
The north east quadrant contains residential properties at Hesley Bar. A small
number of these properties abut the slip road leading from the southbound
carriageway up to Junction 35. The remaining three quadrants (south east, north
west and south west) remain undeveloped. The assessment of alternative sites
therefore focuses on the three un-developed quadrants at this Junction. All three
quadrants share a common boundary with the Motorway.
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 22
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
7.4
Two potential sites (north west and south west) fall within the administrative area
of Sheffield City Council. The third site, to the east of the M1, falls within the
administrative area of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.
7.5
A number of responses to the public consultation suggested further alternative
sites which they felt should be considered (see Consultation Supporting
Statement which accompanies the application). One such site, Smithy Wood
Business Park, is located close to Junction 35. However, this site does not share a
common boundary with the Motorway, is also closer to residential properties and
would require traffic to use the local road Network and pass through the Business
Park to gain access. As such it has not been included in the assessment.
Site Size
7.6
Table B1 of Annex B, Circular 02/2013 sets out the requirements for a signed
MSA.
Figure 7.1 Table B1, Annex B, Circular 02/2013
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 23
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
7.7
These requirements dictate to a large extent the minimum site area for a MSA.
Experience suggests that a minimum area of circa 10 hectares is required,
although this will to a certain extent depend upon the configuration of the layout
and other constraints. All three quadrants are in excess of 10 hectares.
Comparative Assessment of Alternative Sites
7.8
The three quadrants have been considered in terms of the policy context (national
and local) and local impacts.
National Policy
7.9
The national policy context is equally applicable to all three quadrants. At the
national level the applicable policy documents are the NPPF 2012 and DfT Circular
02/2103 (national highways policy pertinent to MSAs). These documents and the
relevant policy contained therein have been discussed previously in this Report.
7.10
Three key issues arise, firstly the need to demonstrate that ‘very special
circumstances exist’ sufficient to justify a Green Belt location, secondly that the
need for, and benefits of, the development outweigh the loss of ancient woodland
and thirdly that the site shares a common boundary with the Strategic Highway
Network.
Green Belt
7.11
Junction 35 and all three potential quadrants are located within the Sheffield /
Rotherham Green Belt. The following ‘very special circumstances’ are considered
equally applicable to all three sites:

MSAs play a key role in supporting the safety and welfare of drivers and
their passengers using the national transport infrastructure Network. The
safety and efficient operation of our Motorway Network is critical to the
movement of people, goods and supplies across the country and as such
to the performance of the economy.

Government advice is that motorists should stop and take a break of at
least 15 minutes every two hours, whilst drivers of many commercial and
public service vehicles are subject to a regime of statutory breaks and
other working time restrictions.
Driver fatigue is a recognised cause of
road accidents; the social and economic impact resulting from accidents
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 24
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
and consequent delay on the Motorway Network can be both significant
and widespread.

Circular 02/2013 removes previous minimum distances between MSAs in
order to promote more MSA provision. In terms of the spacing of MSAs,
Annex B advises that that the maximum distance between motorway
service areas should be no more than 28 miles [or 30 minutes], regardless
of traffic flows or route choice.

The TA identifies gaps between Doncaster North and Blyth MSAs with
Woolley Edge MSA which exceed the 28 miles maximum distance. The TA
has considered vehicle speeds for all links from Junction 28 – Junction 40
of the M1 and concludes that the existing journey from Woolley Edge MSA
to Woodall MSA takes more the 30 minutes for at least 20% of AM peak
hour journeys. Therefore a gap also exists on the M1 corridor.
Both
acknowledged gaps can be met through the provision of a new MSA on the
M1 between Woodhall and Woolley Edge MSAs.

MSAs are privately owned and operated, and any decision to invest in the
provision of a new Motorway Service Areas is a major one. If the location
is wrong then people will not use the facility and commercially it will not
be viable. The choice of location is limited to sites alongside a motorway
and further constrained by policy requirements and highways safety
standards.

The Motorway between Junctions 33 and 35A was examined firstly to
identify potential ‘on-line’ locations for a MSA and secondly, in the absence
of suitable ‘on-line’ locations, all Junctions. Applying Motorway design
standards it was concluded it is not possible to safely locate an ‘on-line’
MSA in this area, due to the proximity of the Junctions and the presence of
the elevated section. Junctions 33 – 35A on the M1 were therefore
assessed in terms of highway safety, Junction capacity and the availability
of potential sites alongside the Motorway.
The outcome of this process
was clear; only Junction 35 could meet the requirements as a location for
a new MSA.
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 25
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
7.12
Development on all three quadrants will need to consider the potential impacts on
the five purposes of the Green Belt to demonstrate, through design and
associated mitigation / benefits package, that these are not compromised.
Ancient Woodland
7.13
All three sites contain areas of ancient woodland. As such paragraph 118 of the
NPPF is equally relevant to all sites. This notes that:
“ .............. 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;”
7.14
As with the case for ‘very special circumstances’, the loss of ancient woodland will
need to be balanced against the need for, and the benefits of development of a
MSA in this location. Given the extent of ancient woodland on each quadrant, and
noting that the layout of development would aim to limit the potential loss, due to
the area of land required for a MSA it is likely that the loss of ancient woodland
cannot be avoided on any quadrant. The design of the development and any
benefits packages that flow from it will be a key factor in balancing this equation.
Common Boundary with the highway at a Junction with the SRN
7.15
Circular 02/2103, ‘Annex B notes that “a site sharing a common boundary with
the highway at a junction with the strategic road network is to be preferred to the
continued absence of facilities.” All three quadrants share a common boundary
with a Junction on the Motorway.
Local Planning Policy
7.16
Circular 02/2013 notes (para B9) that “New and existing roadside facilities are
subject to the provisions of relevant planning legislation and regulation, which
together set the framework within which local planning authorities would consider
the planning proposals for such development.”
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 26
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
Sheffield City Council Local Planning Policy
7.17
In relation to the north west and south west quadrants, the relevant Development
Plan for the purposes of Section 38 (6) of the TCPA 1990 comprises:
 The adopted Sheffield Core Strategy
 Saved policies from the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (UDP)
7.18
Chapter 2 of the ES (Planning Policy) and the Planning Statement set out the
relevant planning policy applicable to Junction 35 and the development of a MSA.
Both the south west and north west quadrants are located within the Green Belt
and contain ancient woodland. The relevant local planning policies are equally
applicable to both these quadrants with the exception of the extent of designation
of an Area of Natural History Interest (Policy GE13 of the UDP) / Ecological Local
Nature Site (Policy G1 of the emerging City Policies and Sites).
7.19
Neither the Core Strategy nor the Unitary Development Plan contain spatial
policies relating to the location of MSAs and as such it is the general employment
related policies that apply. In terms of new manufacturing, distribution and other
non-office developments, para 6.16 of the Core Strategy notes that the guiding
principles for locating such developments are that “they should be away from
housing areas and accessible by public transport”. The quadrant to the south west
is further from residential properties, being separated from the nearest ones by
the M1, Cowley Hill and Smithy Wood Business Park. The quadrant to the north
west is closer to properties on Cowley Hill. Both quadrants are served by public
transport.
7.20
Land in the south west quadrant is identified in the UDP Policy (GE13) as an Area
of Natural History Interest, where development will not normally be permitted /
any decrease in value should be kept to a minimum. The emerging City Policies
and Sites, identifies the south west quadrant and part of the north west quadrant
as an Ecological Local Nature Site within an area identified for ‘Safeguarding and
Enhancing Biodiversity and Features of Geological Importance’ (Policy G1). This
policy looks to protect and enhance such areas and maintain them for their
wildlife value, community use and as an educational resource. The supporting
text (paragraph 8.7) notes that because Local Nature Sites are “not in the top
category of protection there may be exceptional circumstances in which
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 27
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
development may be allowed to damage Local Nature Sites but the policy is
needed to ensure that the net impact is kept to the minimum.” This designation
also affects a part of the land in the north west quadrant.
7.21
Neither the north west nor south west quadrants have been allocated in the
Development Plan for other forms of development.
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Local Planning Policy
7.22
The third (south east) quadrant is located within the administrative areas of
Rotherham. The Development Plan for the purposes of Section 38 (6) of the TCPA
1990 comprises:
 Saved polices from the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan
7.23
Policy T9 of the Rotherham's saved Unitary Development Plan (UDP) policies
deals with MSAs and following adoption of the Core Strategy it will continue to
form part of Rotherham's development plan until superseded by the (emerging)
Sites and Policies Document.
UDP Saved Policy Policy T9 Motorway Service Areas
“The Council will consider proposals for the establishment of facilities to meet
the needs of motorway travellers on their merits and subject to the other
provisions of the Plan. Planning applications for motorway service areas in the
Green Belt will only be approved in exceptional circumstances having regard to
the following criteria:
(i) there should be clear and compelling justification on need and road
safety grounds, bearing in mind the characteristics of passing motorway
traffic; the proximity of existing MSAs, their facilities, use and scope for
extension and; the distribution of existing or prospective facilities for
motorway users on or close to the motorway network,
(ii) proposals should not compromise the efficient and safe management
of traffic on the motorway and conform to guidance concerning gapping,
signing and minimum facility requirements,
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 28
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
(iii) facilities should be designed to take account of the needs of motorway
users, including disabled persons and should not become destinations in
their own right,
(iv) proposals should not generate additional levels of traffic which would
have an adverse impact on the efficient and safe functioning of the local
road network,
(v) proposals should harmonise with the locality by being carefully sited
and laid out; by being of appropriate scale; by the use of appropriate
materials and sensitive lighting and; by attaining a high standard of
design,
(vi) proposals should not be incongruous in the landscape and existing
features should be safeguarded and enhanced, wherever possible, within
landscaping schemes,
(vii) proposals should not have adverse effects on agriculture and heritage
resources and should take account of the purpose of any planning
designations which may cover the site or surrounding area,
(viii) proposals should not give rise to unacceptable impact on the amenity
of residential areas in terms of noise, air and light pollution, and
(ix) proposals should not prejudice the winning and working of mineral
resources and, where appropriate, should contribute to the reclamation of
derelict, contaminated or unstable land.”
7.24
Whilst the policy pre-dates circular 02/2013 with regard to ‘spacing’ of MSAs, it
notes the importance of MSAs in balancing “road safety benefits of allowing
drivers frequent access to services with the introduction of new on- and offmotorway MSA traffic movements which have implications of their own for safety
and the free flow of traffic.”
7.25
Paragraph 6.5.68 adds that “Application of the gapping guidance to the stretches
of motorway through the Borough indicates there could be scope for an infill
facility on the M1 between the existing MSAs at Woodall and Woolley which could
involve provision within Rotherham.”
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 29
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
7.26
6.5.69 continues “Opportunities for MSA development in the Borough are only
likely to occur in the Green Belt where there is a presumption against
inappropriate development and planning permission will only be given in
exceptional circumstances. The Council is mindful of the range of facilities for
motorway users which already exist in and adjoining the motorway corridors
within the Borough and looks to developers to clearly demonstrate the need for
additional facilities in seeking to justify exceptions to Green Belt policy.
Furthermore, the Council will require developers to mitigate the likely impact of
development on the local road network, landscape, heritage resources and local
amenity. To this end the Council will require the submission of an Environmental
and Traffic Impact Assessment with planning applications for MSA development
and will secure mitigation measures through planning conditions and obligations
as appropriate.”
7.27
This policy and the supporting information outlined above identify a number of
issues which should be taken into account when assessing a potential site as
appropriate for development as a MSA. The issue of need and general location ie
at Junction 35 have been addressed above. In terms of specific sites, then issues
for consideration include landscape and visual impact, impact on agriculture and
heritage, planning designations on the site and in the surrounding area, impact
on residential amenity and the importance of not prejudicing the winning and
working of mineral resources.
These local impacts are considered later in this
chapter.
Publication Core Strategy
7.28
The Rotherham Publication Core Strategy (June 2012) was subject to public
examination in the autumn of 2013 and the Inspector’s Report is currently
awaited. Policy CS 20 Biodiversity and geodiversity, seeks to conserve and
enhance Rotherham’s natural environment. Priority is given, amongst other things
to protecting “nationally designated sites for nature conservation, biodiversity and
geodiversity from inappropriate development.” It also provides support for “the
production of further relevant biodiversity and ecological network strategies
identified by local partnerships, to deliver the restoration and expansion of
priority habitats, including within identified biodiversity opportunity areas”. Map
12 from the Publication Core Strategy identifies areas of biodiversity opportunity
which include part of the land to the south east of Junction 35.
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 30
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
Rotherham Draft Sites and Policies May 2013 - Consultation Document
7.29
The role of the Rotherham Draft Sites and Policies May 2013 Document is to
identify specific sites for new housing and land. It also defines the boundaries of
the Green Belt and includes draft development management policies. The plan is
in the early stages of preparation, however it provides a sense of direction with
regard to the growth and development of Thorpe Hesley.
7.30
Policy SP28 is relevant to MSAs. It states that “The Council will consider proposals
for the establishment of facilities to meet the needs of motorway travellers on
their merits and subject to the other provisions of the Local Plan. Proposals for
services should include sustainable refuelling infrastructure.”
7.31
The supporting explanation notes that “Motorway service areas provide facilities
for traveller alongside motorways and motorway junctions. It is recognised that
within Rotherham opportunities for motorway service areas are most likely to
occur in the Green Belt where there is a presumption against inappropriate
development
and
planning
permission
will
only
be
given
in
exceptional
circumstances. Proposals for motorway services will be considered on their merits
and the Council will be mindful of the range of facilities and expect developers to
clearly demonstrate the need for additional services in seeking to justify
exceptions to Green Belt policy. Furthermore the Council will require developers
to mitigate the likely impact of development on the local road network,
landscape, heritage, resources and local amenity. The Council is keen to
encourage sustainable travel options and reduce carbon emissions. Therefore
proposals for service areas should includes sustainable refuelling infrastructure
which accommodates alternative means of refuelling such as electric charging
points, LPG, autogas, compressed natural gas and biofuel.”
7.32
Section 11 identifies sites considered suitable for housing development in the
Thorpe Hesley Area. These are shown on Map 21 of the document (Figure 7.2
below). These include land opposite the south east quadrant and adjacent to the
south east quadrant. In addition a part of the south east quadrant is identified as
safeguarded land for housing (not to be developed before 2028).
7.33
Whilst the allocations in Thorpe Hesley are only at the ‘consultation stage’ they
indicate that the area is considered to have potential for future residential
development, including close to and on parts of the south east quadrant.
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 31
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
Figure 7.2 Extract from the Rotherham Draft Sites and Policies May 2013.
Consultation Document, Map 21
Summary of policy impacts
7.34
In conclusion, a development of a MSA on any of the potential sites will require
equal demonstration of ‘very special circumstances’ with regard to the Green Belt.
In addition the presence of ancient woodland, designation as an Area of Natural
History Interest / Local Nature Site (south west quadrant and part of the north
west quadrant), and designation as an area of ‘Biodiversity opportunity’ (south
east quadrant) will require the demonstration of need and benefits, sufficient to
outweigh the loss of ancient woodland / impact on designations. Development on
part of the south east quadrant would be restricted in area should the proposed
residential allocation come forward.
Local impacts
Existing uses
7.35
The existing uses area as follows:
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 32
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
 North West quadrant – this is currently occupied by a cricket ground and
the Travellers Rest Public House. Whilst not desirable, these uses could be
re-located if considered appropriate.
 South West quadrant – this is currently a wooded area which has no
commercial use. There is a meadow to the south of the quadrant which is
in agricultural use. There is an overhead powerline running through the
site, however this would not impact on development potential.
 South east quadrant – this is a mixture of farmland and wooded areas. As
noted above, part of this quadrant has been identified as a site which
should be safeguarded for residential development post 2028.
7.36
Whilst none of the existing uses preclude development, there are concerns
regarding a conflict with potential future residential development on part of the
south east quadrant.
Existing Planning Consents and Relevant Planning History
7.37
There are no known existing planning consents on the south east and south west
quadrants.
7.38
Approximately 50 hectares of land in the north west quadrant was granted
planning consent (Application number 12/01946) for a coal recovery and
restoration scheme (to recover 395,000 tonnes of coal over a 3 year period) in
February 2013. The application relates to the site of the former Hesley Wood
Spoil Heap. It is considered that sufficient land remains to the south of the
application site to enable development of a potential MSA.
7.39
The only quadrant with a relevant planning history is the south east. An outline
application for a MSA on this quadrant was submitted in 1996 (R96/1455P) and
an appeal (which was subsequently withdrawn) was lodged against non
determination. A second application (RB1999/0912) was submitted in July 1999.
This application was refused in October 2001. No appeal was submitted. The
reasons for refusal were:
01 - The site is within the Green Belt and both Planning Policy Guidance Note 2
'Green Belt' and Policy ENV1 'Green Belt' of the Rotherham Unitary
Development Plan state that development will not normally be permitted other
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 33
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
than in exceptional circumstances. The Council does not consider that any
such circumstances have been demonstrated to justify the development
proposed which would seriously undermine the purposes of the approved
Green Belt in this part of the Borough.
02 - The Council does not consider that there is a sufficient 'need' for an
additional Motorway Service Area in this location, bearing in mind the
existence of other Motorway Service Areas on this stretch of the M1 motorway
and of other facilities that provide equivalent functions within close proximity
of the motorway. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to
Government advice and to Policy T9 'Motorway Service Areas' of the
Rotherham UDP.
03 - The proposed development would require the removal of at least two
hectares of ancient woodland, identified as 'Other Heritage Area' on the
Rotherham UDP and as being within the South Yorkshire Forest.
Ancient
woodlands and the habitats they support are a finite resource in both local and
national terms and the Council does not consider that the loss of this
significant area of such woodland is justified in this instance and as such would
be contrary to Rotherham UDP Policies ENV2, ENV2.2, ENV2.3, ENV3, ENV3.2,
ENV3.4 and ENV6.
04 - The application site forms an open area of Green Belt between the
existing built up area of Thorpe Hesley and the M1 motorway and the Council
considers that the proposed development, including the loss of a large area of
woodland and the introduction of access roads, buildings, lighting, and large
parking areas will have a significant impact on the landscape and would be
detrimental to the visual amenity of the area. As such, the proposal would be
contrary to Policies ENV3, ENV3.1, ENV3.2 and ENV3.7 of the Rotherham UDP.
05 - The Council considers that insufficient information has been provided to
enable a full and proper assessment of the likely impact of the proposals on
several issues that are material to the determining of the application. This
includes information relating to the impact of the proposed development on
the flora and fauna and on archaeological issues.
7.40
As this assessment has demonstrated, development at Junction 35 will inevitably
be within the Green Belt and as such ‘very special circumstances’ can be
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 34
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
demonstrated (Reason 01). Since this decision, more than 12 years have passed
and the ‘need’ for a MSA has increased (Reason 02). Reason 05, related to a lack
of information to ‘enable a full and proper assessment of impact’ of the proposals
and as such could be overcome. Reasons 03 and 04 deal with impacts which are
addressed in this chapter in terms of each of the three quadrants.
Access and impact on the local road network
7.41
DTA have undertaken a desk based assessment of the potential access points to
each of the quadrants with the following conclusions:
 North west quadrant – direct access to this quadrant from the Junction is
not possible due to highway design criteria. The access would need
therefore to be taken from Cowley Hill which would require alteration to
the road. It would mean that traffic has to travel along a short stretch of
the local road network. In addition the site would include land which is
currently public highway and provides access to third party land. Although
the highway could be stopped up the access rights to other land could not
and this would fundamentally fail paragraph B24 of Circular 02/2013
“Access to other
developments through a roadside facility is not
permitted”.
 South west quadrant – direct access to this site is possible from Junction
35 and would not introduce traffic onto the local road network.
 South east quadrant – direct access to this site is possible from Junction
35 and would not introduce traffic onto the local road network.
7.42
It is clear from the above that there are considerable difficulties associated with
access to the north west quadrant and that any scheme which came forward for
this quadrant would be likely to attract objections from the Highways Agency. In
such circumstances, it is highly unlikely that planning permission would be
granted.
Landscape and Visual Impact
7.43
In terms of landscape and visual matters, each of the three quadrants present a
similar scenario in terms of the existing baseline, as each contain varying
proportions of woodland areas and pasture. This sets a similar context in terms of
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 35
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
the level of screening that can be retained in order to reduce the wider impacts
on landscape character and, to a degree, also the likely visual impacts.
 North west quadrant – this is partially screened from the A629 by existing
vegetation. This site comprises a mix of woodland areas and small
enclosures of pasture. There are likely to be direct impacts on the
landscape resources. However, due to the screening effect of vegetation
that would be retained, the influence on landscape character and
associated visual impacts are likely to be limited.
 South west quadrant – landscape and visual issues are considered in detail
in chapter 5 of the ES.
 South east quadrant – this site comprises a mix of woodland areas and
medium scale enclosures of pasture. The frontage to the site is partly
wooded and partly open to the A629. There are likely to be direct impacts
on the landscape resource. However due to the screening effects
vegetation that would be retained around the site, the influence on
landscape character would be limited. Due to the proximity of nearby
housing at Thorpe Hesley, there are likely to be local visual impacts.
7.44
The key differences between each of the sites would relate to the extent of direct,
physical impacts on landscape resources. In landscape terms the south-west
quadrant would be subject to greater loss of woodland however direct visual
impacts of the site would be lower. Whereas the south-east and north-west
quadrants are likely to require a lesser loss of woodland, however due to the
slightly more open aspects available due to the existing pasture, visual impacts
will potentially be greater.
Archaeology and Cultural heritage
7.45
Chapter 7: Archaeology and Cultural Heritage of the ES sets out the cultural
heritage and historical context of the site with most documentary evidence
referring to Smithy Wood as a whole, rather than the individual quadrants which
are now being assessed. Detailed research has been undertaken in respect of the
south west quadrant and is set out in this chapter.
7.46
With regard to the south east quadrant, this was subject to field reconnaissance,
an earthwork / topographical survey and geophysical survey by West Yorkshire
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 36
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
Archaeological Service in 1999 and 2000. The survey concentrated on the open
un-wooded area and the margins of the woodlands. These open areas included a
central swathe removed during construction of the M1 and a field to the northeast. Woodland was present within the north-west and south-west of the site. A
second earthwork survey was attempted within the woodland to the north-west
but this proved difficult to undertake due to dense vegetation. The earthwork
survey of the north-eastern field revealed eight weathered and backfilled bell pits
/ quarries. The geophysical survey revealed a tramway running west to east and
the possibility of backfilled pillar and stall adit shafts driven into the side of the
hill. The north-west woodland was surveyed where possible, and was found to
contain a substantial number of bell pits/ shafts. The central field was noted as
containing features of a probable recent date, likely to be associated with
quarrying associated with the construction of the M1. The south-western
woodland was mainly investigated along its margins. Noteworthy features
included an earthen bank measuring between 0.5m and 0.8m in height and
between 6m and 10m in width, and probably the same bank mentioned by Jones
(2013). On the eastern extent of the south-eastern wood, additional banks have
been constructed to enclose an area measuring 70m by 60m and containing a
number of low platforms, and considered as an industrial area.
7.47
From the evidence presented from the survey, the eastern section of Smithy
Wood may potentially contain a wider range of archaeological sites / features
than those encountered in the south west quadrant. The tramway serving the
adits or bell pits / shafts is a fairly significant archaeological site and from their
absence on the 1854 First Edition OS map, it is likely that these date at least to
the early 1800s. The earthen bank is a relic of woodland management, and such
features are notably absent from the proposed application site. Finally, the
possible industrial area on the edge of the south-east woodland may be either
associated with processing ironstone or charcoal burning; given that charcoal
burners are recorded as living on the edge of the woodland in the 1881 census, it
is felt that the latter is more likely. This would be a rather significant site and a
type not encountered on the south west quadrant.
7.48
Based upon the above, for the two quadrants where information is available, it
would appear that the south west quadrant has less potential for adverse impact
than the south east quadrant.
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 37
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
Impact on residential properties
7.49
The aerial photographs below show the location of the nearest residential
properties to each of the quadrants. The following observations can be made:
 North west quadrant – the nearest residential properties are located at
Hesley Bar (separated from the quadrant by the M1 Motorway) and on
Cowley Hill to the west of the site.
Cowley Hill
South west
quadrant
North west
quadrant
South east
quadrant
Hesley Bar
Image 7.1 Junction 35, showing north west and south west quadrants
in relation to the nearest housing
 South west quadrant – the nearest residential properties are at Hesley Bar
and on Cowley Hill. However by virtue of the fact that this quadrant is
located to the south of the A629, the distance to these properties is
inevitably greater. There is a Nursing Home located to the south of the
quadrant and the Smithy Wood Business Park to the west.
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 38
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
South west
quadrant
South east
quadrant
Hesley Bar
Image 7.2 Junction 35, showing south east quadrant in relation to the
nearest housing
 South east quadrant - this lies significantly closer to residential properties
at Hesley Bar and Thorpe Hesley. The Rotherham Draft Sites and Policies
May 2013 - Consultation Document (Map 21) also identifies two sites in
close proximity
to this quadrant
as being suitable for residential
development during the plan period, and a third which forms part of the
quadrant is safeguarded for residential development post 2028. There is
little doubt that, as a 24/7 operation, there would be an impact on
occupiers of dwelling located in such close proximity.
Alternative Uses
7.50
In terms of national planning policy, the Green Belt location and the presence of
ancient woodland on the site dictate that development on any quadrant
would
not only have to demonstrate very special circumstances, but also that ‘need and
benefits’ outweighed the impacts. Unlike other developments, a MSA can only be
located adjacent to the motorway which it serves. As such alternative uses are
unlikely to come forward for policy reasons.
7.51
However, despite the Green Belt designation, part of land on the south east
quadrant (the area which does not have ancient woodland cover) could be
considered to have potential for alternative uses as it has been identified as
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 39
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
safeguarded land for residential development post 2028 in the Rotherham Draft
Sites and Policies May 2013 - Consultation Document.
Summary of comparative assessment
7.52
Table 7.1 below summarises the outcomes of the comparative analysis of the
three quadrants of land at Junction 35, which could be considered to have
potential for development as a MSA.
Factor
Comments
South east quadrant (Rotherham MBC)
Green Belt
Yes – need to demonstrate very special
circumstances
Ancient Woodland on
site
Yes – need and benefits must outweigh loss.
Possible to target development on area of open land,
but as per previous application, some loss of ancient
woodland will be required.
Existing planning
consents
None
Local planning –
designations / site
allocations / existing
uses
Local Plan consultation 2013 included identification of
part of the quadrant as safeguarded for residential
development post 2028, and two additional
residential allocations in close proximity. Agricultural
use / woodland use.
Part of the site is identified as an area of biodiversity
opportunity in the Publication Core Strategy.
Planning history
Previous refusal of application for MSA.
Site size
Over 10ha
Access
Access to this site is possible from Junction 35.
Landscape and visual
impact
Lesser degree of impacts on physical landscape
resources (ie woodland). Potentially greater impacts
on landscape character due to lower level of
screening and sensitivities of the baseline. Greater
degree of visual impact as the quadrant can be
viewed from existing and future residential areas.
Cultural and heritage
impact
The eastern section of Smithy Wood may contain a
wider range of archaeological sites / features than
those encountered in the south east quadrant.
Impact on residential
The closest residential properties are at Hesley Bar
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 40
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
amenity
(opposite side of A629) and Thorpe Hesley. There is
potential for new residential development close by /
on part of the quadrant.
Alternative uses
Potential exists on part of the quadrant for residential
development
North west quadrant, Sheffield City Council
Green Belt
Yes – need to demonstrate very special
circumstances
Ancient Woodland on
site
Yes – need and benefits must outweigh loss. Location
of ancient woodland on site is such that some loss is
inevitable. None. Adjoining site has consent for coal
recovery restoration scheme followed by restoration
to a Country Park.
Existing planning
consents
None. Existing uses - cricket ground and the
Travellers Rest Public House.
Local planning
designations / site
allocations / existing
uses
Emerging City Policies and Sites – part of quadrant
identified as Ecological Local Nature Site
Planning history
No recent relevant planning history
Site size
Over 10ha
Access
Access to this quadrant from the Junction is not
possible due to highway design criteria. In addition
any access would include land which is currently
public highway and provides access to third party
land. Paragraph B24 of Circular 02/2013 “Access to
other developments through a roadside facility is not
permitted”.
Landscape and visual
impact
Lesser degree of direct impacts on physical
landscape resources (ie woodland). Potentially
greater impacts on landscape character due to lower
level of screening. Potentially limited degree of visual
impacts due to partial screening around the site and
the proximity and extent of baseline receptors
Cultural and heritage
impact
Little is known about this site.
Impact on residential
amenity
The closest properties are at Hesley Bar (opposite
side of the M1) and Cowley Hill.
Alternative uses
Little potential
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 41
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
South west quadrant, Sheffield City Council
Green Belt
Yes – need to demonstrate very special
circumstances
Ancient woodland on
site
Yes – need and benefits must outweigh loss. Much,
but not all, of the quadrant is designated as ancient
woodland. Design can limit impact, but loss
inevitable.
Existing planning
consents
None
Local planning
designations / site
allocations / existing
uses
Area of Natural History Interest (UDP),
Ecological Local Nature Site (Emerging City Policies
and Sites DPD)
Planning history
No recent relevant planning history.
Site size
Over 10ha
Access
Access to this site is possible from Junction 35.
Landscape and visual
impact
Greater degree of impacts on physical landscape
resources (ie woodland). Likely impacts on landscape
character are limited due to lower level of screening
and lower sensitivity of the landscape baseline (due
to the context of adjacent land-uses at Smithy Wood
Business Park). The site would be well screened from
the A629 and other sensitive baseline receptors by
retained areas of woodland around the site.
Cultural and heritage
impact
No known heritage assets of significance
Impact on residential
amenity
The site is adjoined to the east by Smithywood
Business Park. The nearest properties are at Thorpe
Hesley (opposite side of M1) and Cowley Hill. To the
south is a nursing home.
Alternative uses
Little potential
Table 7.1 Summary of assessment of potential sites at Junction 35.
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 42
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
Summary and conclusions
7.53
Having considered the three potential quadrants of land currently undeveloped
around Junction 35, and acknowledging the shared constraints which exist in
particular their Green Belt locations and the presence of ancient woodland,
development for the purposes of a MSA, the key conclusions drawn from the
comparative assessment process can be summarised as follows:
 North west quadrant - there are considerable difficulties associated with
access to the north west quadrant and as such development as a MSA
would be likely to attract objections from the Highways Agency. In such
circumstances, it is highly unlikely that planning permission would be
granted.
 South east quadrant - development on this quadrant will have a greater
impact on existing residential amenity and the amenity of occupiers of
future properties (particularly if the proposed residential development
allocations come forward) than on the north west and south west
quadrants. In addition, a part of the frontage to the A629 has been
identified as land safeguarded for residential development post 2028. It is
also considered that the heritage value of this quadrant has the potential
to exceed that of the south west quadrant.
 South west quadrant - this quadrant has less potential to adversely impact
on the local area. Access can be gained direct from the Junction and there
are no residential properties immediately adjoining the quadrant.
7.54
The ES, the Design and Access Statement and the Planning Statement
demonstrate that the environmental constraints relating to development on the
south west quadrant have been considered and where relevant can be overcome
when designing the MSA and preparing the planning application.
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 43
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
8.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
8.1
The safety and efficient operation of our motorways is critical to the movement of
people, goods and supplies across the country and as such to the performance of
the economy. Motorway Service Areas (MSA) play a key role in the safety and
welfare of drivers and their passengers using the national transport infrastructure
network.
8.2
Government advice is that motorists should stop and take a break of at least 15
minutes every two hours, whilst drivers of many commercial and public service
vehicles are subject to a regime of statutory breaks and other working time
restrictions.
Driver fatigue is a recognised cause of road accidents; the impact
and resulting costs of delay as a result of accidents on the motorway network can
be both significant and widespread.
8.3
MSAs are privately owned and operated, and any decision to invest in the
provision of a new MSA is a major one. If the location is wrong then people will
not use the facility and commercially it will not be viable. The choice of location is,
de facto, limited to sites alongside a motorway and further constrained by policy
requirements and highways safety standards.
8.4
The public will not make proper use of MSAs which are not attractive or welllocated and as such an identified ‘need’ on the network will not be fully met. This
Report sets out the process through which Junction 35 was identified as the only
legitimate location which can properly meet the need for a new MSA in the
Sheffield Area.
8.5
This Report, along with the TA confirms that there is a clear and significant need
for an a new MSA in the Sheffield / Rotherham / Doncaster area and that this
would most appropriately be located on the M1 corridor, where it will address
three identified gaps in MSA provision and benefit a higher proportion of the
travelling public.
8.6
In terms of distance, a gap exists between MSAs on the A1M (Blyth), M18
(Doncaster North) and Woolley Edge (M1), which exceeds the 28 mile maximum
set out in policy. In terms of journey time, a gap also exists between Woodall and
Woolley Edge MSAs on the M1. These three gaps can be addressed through the
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 44
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
provision of a new MSA on the M1 between Woodall and Woolley Edge MSAs
where it will meet the needs of a greater number of the travelling public.
8.7
Current government policy leaves it to the commercial operator to determine the
minimum spacing between MSAs. In essence this means that an operator must
make a judgement based upon the potential number of travellers on the Network
who might choose to stop at any particular location.
8.8
Building from these findings, locations between Junctions 33 and 35A were
examined, firstly to identify potential ‘on-line’ locations and, in the absence of
suitable locations, all Junctions. Applying the standards from DMRB (TD22/06, vol
6 Section 2, Part 1) and IAN 149/11 ‘Existing Motorway Minimum Requirements’
for slip roads it was concluded it is not possible to locate an on-line MSA in this
area, due to the relative close proximity of the Junctions and the presence of the
elevated section. As such, each of the Junctions (33 – 35A) were assessed on
highway safety and capacity grounds to establish its potential for location of a
MSA. The outcome of this process was clear; only Junction 35 could meet the
requirements as a location for a new MSA.
8.9
Having confirmed that Junction 35 is the only viable location, the next step was to
identify a suitable site. Three potential sites of over 10 hectares exist at Junction
35. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. All have in common the fact that
they are located in the Green Belt and have areas of ancient woodland. (The
Planning Statement sets out the ‘very special circumstances’ with regard to
development in the Green Belt and considers the need for, and benefits of, the
proposed MSA development, concluding that these of such significance as to
outweigh the loss of ancient woodland.)
8.10
A comparative assessment of the three quadrants of available land at Junction 35
concludes that land within the south west quadrant will have the least impact on
the local area and is not constrained by access difficulties.
8.11
In conclusion, the outcome of the Assessment process is clear. There is only one
potential location where the established need for a new MSA serving travellers
between Blyth (A1M), Doncaster North (M18) and Woolley Edge (M1) MSAs,
together with travellers between Woodall and Woolley Edge MSAs on the M1, can
safely and commercially be delivered; this is at Junction 35 of the M1, where
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 45
Extra MSA Group
Alternative Sites Assessment Report
development of land to the south east for the purposes of a MSA will have the
least impact on the local area.
March 2014 | SM | BIR.4054
Page | 46
www.pegasuspg.co.uk
Pegasus Group
5 The Priory, Old London Road, Canwell, Sutton Coldfield, B75 5SH
T 0121 308 9570 F 0121 323 2215
PLANNING | ENVIRONMENTAL | URBAN DESIGN | LANDSCAPE DESIGN | RENEWABLES | RETAIL | GRAPHIC DESIGN | CONSULTATION | SUSTAINABILITY
Pegasus Group is a trading name of Pegasus Planning Group Limited (07277000) registered in England and Wales
Registered Office: Pegasus House, Querns Business Centre, Whitworth Road, Cirencester, Gloucestershire, GL7 1RT