Proposal for additional motorway service area serving M1 and two other important routes — Whether inspector had fully considered evidence of problems posed by complex link roads — Whether proposal capable of looking sufficiently far ahead in the light of Department of Transport plans for major road widening and redesign of busy junctions — Whether earlier refusals based on countryside preservation outweighted by more recent events
The applicant and the third respondent, Hallam Land Management Ltd, were competing to provide an additional motorway service area on the M1 at a convenient point between existing services at Leicester Forest East, near junction 21, and Trowel, 30 miles further north. The appeal site proposed by Hallam lay close to junction 23A, giving access not only to the A453 leading to the East Midlands International Airport, but also to the heavily used A42, thus serving all three roads in question. Two earlier applications made by Hallam in 1989 and 1992 had been rejected on aesthetic grounds. There were pending applications by the applicant relating to two smaller but less complex sites located further south near junction 23. Pursuant to an appeal by Hallam against a deemed refusal by the district council, the DoE inspector held an inquiry which lasted for six days and heard expert evidence from all sides largely directed to: (a) whether, and if so how, motorists using the proposed service area would cope with the necessary complex of link roads; (b) the extent to which that problem would be excerbated in the longer term by DoT plans for widening the M1 between junctions 23A and 25 with consequent increase in traffic, and the replacement of junction 24, less than two miles to the north of the site, with a free-flow interchange. Although those plans could not be said to be “on hold” they had yet to go though the public consultation process with the possibility of major changes being made during that stage.
The inspector concluded that the appeal proposal would successfully meet the need for an additional service area “in the long as well as the short term”, and granted outline permission. The applicant appealed to the High Court contending that the inspector had failed to pay due regard to DoE guidance given in PPG 13 para 6.13 which required that the “design year” for road work brought about by a development should be 15 years after the full opening of the new development.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. Although the inspector had not expressly applied the time span advised in PPG 13 his mention of the “longer term” clearly referred to his estimate, after listening to the evidence, that the planned DoT improvements would be in place by the year 2015 or thereabouts, had heard the evidence as to mergers and demergers and the need to provide sufficient distances for “weaving” manoeuvres, and was entitled to conclude, as an expert himself, that the proposal submitted looked ahead sufficiently to meet those problems and any change in DoT plans as and when they arose.
2. Although decisions as a general rule should be consistent the inspector was entitled to find a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a departure from the decisions of 1989 and 1992. Since that the time the A42 had been considerably enlarged and plans had been made for an extensive business park near the airport. These, coupled with careful landscaping proposals for the new service area, were material considerations which were rightly weighed against the local plan policy of preserving the open countryside. It was also a material consideration that the rival sites proposed elsewhere by the appellants lay close to local beauty spots.
Andrew Gilbart QC (instructed by Read Hind Stewart, of Leeds) appeared for the applicant; Alice Robinson (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the SSE; Richard Drabble QC (instructed by Marron Dodds, of Leicester) appeared for the third respondents.
