Planners have given the go-ahead for two new motorway service areas less than seven miles apart on the A1(M) — despite claims one scheme would “decimate” a wildlife haven.
Several members of North Yorkshire Council’s (NYC) strategic planning committee admitted having reservations about Roadchef’s plans for services off junction 52 at Catterick, but others said there were no good planning reasons to reject the development.
The application was approved today after members had earlier voted in favour of Moto’s rival plans to redevelop its Barton truck stop site.
The services at Pallet Hill Farm near Catterick Village were then approved despite campaigners claiming it would destroy a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation used by red list protected migratory birds including curlew and lapwing.
Liz Dinsmore spoke at the meeting at County Hall in Northallerton on behalf of the Campaign to Save Catterick Wildfowl Habitat, which was formed to fight the services proposal.
Claiming there was no evidence of need for the new services, she said: “As road users we will have (services at) Kirby Hill, Leeming Bar, Coneygarth, Scotch Corner and Barton.
“Why are you even considering it when Richmondshire District Council’s core plan and the UK Government mandates you to protect the countryside’s wildlife diversity, its corridors and habitats and to end further decline?
“Can you honestly now agree to decimate a protected wildlife corridor essential for the conservation of red list species after approving Barton brownfield site?”
The meeting heard that the Catterick junction application was provisionally approved by members of Richmondshire District Council 2022, but was being brought back to NYC because of a legal issue.
Mark Fox, chief executive of Roadchef, told councillors at the meeting that the need for the Catterick MSA was established by Richmondshire councillors when they supported the application before the authority was dissolved.
He said National Highways had later identified a “critical” need for services at both Catterick and Barton, adding: “The 53 new HGV spaces at this development are particularly important for the safety and welfare of hauliers and to help reduce the use of lay-bys and local roads for HGV parking.”
Campaigners and several councillors voiced concerns about proposed mitigation measures which include a new habitat for wildlife on land around ten miles away at East Cowton.
Councillor Andy Brown admitted he “hated” aspects of the Catterick plan.
He said: “Offsite mitigation is always massively worse than onsite.
“I don’t like all the extra concrete of two service stations so close to each other and I think the information in the energy statement is weak.”
But he added: “Our own predecessor council has made a decision and it’s difficult to argue that what is proposed now is worse on the critical details than what was proposed previously, it looks better.
“Despite the fact I hate it, I think that makes it extraordinarily difficult to turn it down.”
Councillor Andrew Lee said the application would create jobs and be boost for the local economy.
“I’m struggling to see why we should be turning it down having had it previously approved and with further environment safeguards put forward.”
But Councillor Neil Swannick spoke out against the scheme saying he felt “uncomfortable” voting for the scheme that removed a site used by migratory birds.
“If we are going to go forward with two sites within six miles then where does that stop?
“Potentially we’re going to have MSAs every six miles on every motorway and clearly that would be a little bit crazy.”
While the Barton scheme was approved unanimously, the Catterick services plan got the go-ahead despite several councillors voting against approval.
Be the first to comment