Full text:
Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Local Plan Review (LPR) outline the 3 reasons for the review, which can be summarised as the need to make new development allocations, including those related to transport infrastructure (the HS2 Interchange), and the associated need to review Green Belt boundaries. Motorway Service Areas (MSAs) comprise major transport related development for which there is an overriding need within Solihull (set out subsequently). Any MSA within Solihull will, through locational necessity, need to be sited within the current Green Belt. Accordingly, it is self-evident that the LPR is the appropriate point in time for the Council to allocated a site for a MSA and make the appropriate release of land from the Green Belt.
Paragraphs 268 - 270 of the LPR outline the case of need for an MSA within Solihull Council's administrative area, between junctions 3a and 7 on the M42. However, this is rather understated. The factual position is:
* In 2009 the Secretary of State determined: "....there remains a significant unmet need for one additional MSA serving traffic travelling in both directions on this stretch of the M42, and that this need is somewhat greater than that which existed in 2001..."
* Subsequent to 2009:
o The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 paragraph 31 has identified that: "The primary function of roadside facilities for motorists should be to support the safety and welfare of the road user."
o New Government policy has been published (DfT Circular 02/2013) that seeks to ensure that drivers have the opportunity to stop and take a break at intervals of no more than 30 minutes travelling time (typically 28 miles or less). This indicates that if a gap of more than 30 minutes travelling time or 28 miles exists between MSAs, then the 'need' for a new MSA is established.
o Automated Traffic Management (ATM) has been installed on the M42 which has significantly increased its vehicular capacity and thus attractiveness to motorists. Traffic flows on this part of the M42 have materially increased since 2009.
Existing distances between MSAs on this part of the motorway network considerably exceed the maximum gap on both travelling time and distance. The actual gaps differ depending on routeing, but there are at least seven routes in excess of 35 miles, four of which exceed 45 miles. As a consequence, the need for a new MSA has unequivocally been established.
The planning application submitted by Applegreen plc for the new Shirley MSA on the M42 at junction 4 establishes that are no other potential on-line sites (i.e. between existing junctions) that could accommodate an MSA and comply with highway standards as set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. It then considers each of the relevant junctions on the M42 (3a to 7) and demonstrates that only two offer any potential for the development of an MSA, at junctions 4 and 5. It then draws the conclusion that of these potential alternatives, an MSA at junction 4 is clearly preferable in overall planning terms. Furthermore, there are no proposals for an MSA at junction 5, whilst there is a duly made planning application for an MSA at junction 4, which would meet the identified need.
In this context we recognise that the LPR references the undetermined planning application for an MSA at Catherine de Barnes. However, in light of Highways England's proposals for the improvement of junction 6 of the M42, to accommodate the HS2 interchange plus other major employment development, the Catherine de Barnes MSA proposal is no longer deliverable within an acceptable timeframe, if at all. In short, Highways England has consulted on 3 options for the improvement of junction 6. Options 1 and 2 result in the Catherine de Barnes proposal becoming an off-line scheme located on a new motorway junction. Option 3 wholly precludes an MSA at Catherine de Barnes. Highways England do not propose to have a final scheme for junction 6 until 2019.
Notwithstanding this fundamental barrier to the expeditious delivery of an MSA at Catherine de Barnes, the proposal has significant other planning barriers in respect of:
* The quantum of Green Belt that would need to be lost;
* The loss of Ancient Woodland;
* Impacts upon the setting of a Grade ll* Listed Building and a Conservation Area;
* The loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land.
Table 1 (attached) provides a comparison of key planning issues faced by the Catherine de Barnes MSA proposal when compared to the Shirley MSA proposal at junction 4. The starkest illustration of the difference between the two proposals is that the Catherine de Barnes MSA application boundary is 61.75 hectares compared to just 9.9 hectares for the Shirley MSA scheme at junction 4.
Based on the foregoing, it is submitted that there is an overriding need for an MSA on the M42 within Solihull; and that there is only one deliverable site for such a facility i.e. land adjacent to junction 4. Accordingly it is requested, that as part of the LPR, the land identified on Figure 1 (attached) be removed from the Green Belt and allocated for a MSA.
Should the Council not accept the above representation, then it is suggested, as a minimum, that the Proposals Map be updated to identify the junction 4 site as a potential location for an MSA within the Green Belt, noting that any MSA within Solihull Council's administrative area will have to be located in the Green Belt. It is also suggested that the LPR include a specific policy in relation to MSA provision, as outlined below.
Finally, should the Council not accept either of the above representations (allocation or identification on the Proposals Map) it is essential that the LPR includes a policy specific to MSA provision. Any such policy should encompass the following points:
* That the need for a MSA is capable of constituting very special circumstances that could justify the grant of planning permission in the Green Belt.
* That any MSA proposal should seek to minimise the loss of Green Belt land.
* That impacts upon the openness of the Green Belt, and the purposes for including land within Green Belts, should be minimised. Planning permission for an MSA will be granted where the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
* Any MSA proposal should seek to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land.
* That any MSA proposal should comply with the other development management policies within the Local Plan in respect of the protection of: public amenity; landscapes (including trees and woodlands); heritage assets; best and most versatile agricultural land; biodiversity; and water resources.
