Planners have been recommended to approve plans for a new service station at the Catterick A1(M) junction.
Richmondshire District Council’s planning department has advised the authority’s planning committee gives the go-ahead for the scheme when they meet next week.
Roadchef wants to build the services on land east of junction 52.
As well as shops, restaurants, toilets and a filling station, a 100-bed hotel and drive thru Costa and McDonald’s restaurants are proposed.
The development at Pallett Hill Farm would also feature charging points for electric vehicles, and an “amenity lake”.
Parking for 292 cars, with 15 disabled spaces, is proposed.
The company says there will be a £57 million initial investment which they say will contribute over £1 million per year to Richmondshire in business rates.
It adds that the development would create more than 300 permanent jobs, as well as numerous jobs during the construction phase.
The recommendation for approval comes despite objections from Moto, which runs the Scotch Corner, Leeming and Barton services.
The company has pointed out that the new service station would be within seven miles of its existing services.
Among those who have expressed support for the scheme is the Road Haulage Association saying it will address the needs of their drivers by providing secure HGV parking and facilities.
Their comments come amid concern about lorries parking in Colburn where there are limited facilities for them.
A report for councillors prepared by the planning department concludes: “This report has demonstrated that there is an identified need for a new MSA facility to serve road users of the A1(M) between Durham and the approved MSA services
at the Vale of York.
“Case law has established that considerable weight can be given in such instances to meeting this need because of the safety of users of the
strategic road network.
“An assessment has been made of alternative sites including those with extant and pending application for motorway service areas which assessed alternative sites concluding that there is not one site identified which was preferable.
“All the sites assessed had issues in terms of either technical, environmental, planning or delivery.
“There is not considered to be another proposal or site that would be preferable and realistically be able to meet this need.”
The application will be discussed next Tuesday.
To view the report for councillors, click here.