New motorway service station

[Penistone999]

It is if you don't know about it. Is it sign posted from the m1?

 

Thats easy to solve ,and cheap to do without the need to spend millions on a service station that isnt needed.

[Obelix]

I love their justification...

 

Those travelling on the M1 between the existing Woodall MSA (between Junctions 30 & 31)

and Woolley Edge MSA (between Junctions 38 & 39), where there is a gap of 27.5 miles.

 

So that's less than the 28 mile recommended maximum...

 

Drivers using the A1(M) between Blyth MSA

and Woolley Edge MSA on the M1 (via M18), where there is a gap of 37.5 miles.

 

No ones going to drive that route - anyone going north will go up to Ferrybridge and across instead of trekking south down the M18 - and there's a services at Ferrybridge. Even if they were stopping before Woodall, well they won't need the services will they then as they are at journeys end. IF they *are* going further north, past Woodall, well they'd actually have gove via Ferrbybridge and met a services much quicker.

 

 

Those drivers travelling on the route between Doncaster MSA on the M18

and Woolley Edge MSA on the M1, where there is a gap of approximately 42 miles.

 

Oh now they are talking crud, if you are stopping before there then it;s journeys end and you don't need the services - if you are insane enough to drive a route that means you go past woodall then you could save lots of miles by going the other way round, and pass Ferrybridge on the way.

 

Theres simply no justification or need for these services. IF they did want one, upgrade the stuff at J36 and sign it better from the motorway..

[Phanerothyme]

Good idea I say , anything that creates jobs is surely a good thing .

 

Heinrich Himmler would no doubt agree.

[Chez2]

It's not like people need to stop at every services, but if you look at the rest of the m1, woodhall and Woolley moor is the biggest gap, certainly in terms of number of junctions.

 

When you get further south on the M1 than junction 24 (East Midlands Airport) the services are spread further apart time and distance wise than the gap between Woodall and Woolley.

[Thorpist]

It seems to me that counting car volume is the thing that is driving this project.

Taking into account the distances cars can now travel between fill ups the requirement for a filling station is low.

As for people needing to stop for a break I think the Meadowhall complex will syphon off a good number of cars.

Hgv drivers will have passed services 15 mins earlier traveling either north or south.

Are these services mentioned ever full?

[Sheff1974]

I think their plans look pretty good. The services appear to be screened by woodland and shouldn't look unsightly.

 

Re the need, people won't come off at Tankersley, for most it will be too far of their route. It's about convenience and ease off access. If you are honest, its the same for us all.....

 

Think about the jobs this will creat (much needed) and think about what else we (as local residents) should and could (if the planners do this right) get out of this. S.106 agreements (planning gain) are a way off getting the developers to invest in other things as a condition of the grant of planning permission. This might include road improvements (local roads, not those linking the development), new children's play facilities, possibly a commitment to invest in completing the cycle route from Meadowhall into Chapletown, or a commitment to plant and manage new woodland elsewhere. Look at the positives rather than the negatives. Raise your concerns, but also think about how this could be used to your advantage and put forward ideas for other elements which should be achievable via the planning gain point made above.

[Turner1]

I think their plans look pretty good. The services appear to be screened by woodland and shouldn't look unsightly.

 

Re the need, people won't come off at Tankersley, for most it will be too far of their route. It's about convenience and ease off access. If you are honest, its the same for us all.....

 

Think about the jobs this will creat (much needed) and think about what else we (as local residents) should and could (if the planners do this right) get out of this. S.106 agreements (planning gain) are a way off getting the developers to invest in other things as a condition of the grant of planning permission. This might include road improvements (local roads, not those linking the development), new children's play facilities, possibly a commitment to invest in completing the cycle route from Meadowhall into Chapletown, or a commitment to plant and manage new woodland elsewhere. Look at the positives rather than the negatives. Raise your concerns, but also think about how this could be used to your advantage and put forward ideas for other elements which should be achievable via the planning gain point made above.

 

Just how local are you?

Im very local to it and certainly don't want to see it built.

Yes it will create jobs, not for local people though most likey for immigrants who are the only people (in my experience) that will work for the low wages they pay.

Eerything they are planin to build is available within a few miles from J35, j35a and j36. Plus two service stations about 20 miles each way.

 

If they get the go ahead with this it will be a food in the door for them to get permission to built the 1000's of houses they want to build on land down the village.

[Squiggs]

The problems with increasing the status of the Tankersley service area are not so much the distance off the motorway. Assuming that they were to be signposted from the motorway. If a service area off the motorway is allowed to be signposted at all?

 

 

• A new large parking area would have to be constructed - it is not a stop-off service area, there is limited parking for Taybarns and Premier Inn.
  
• The road would probably need to be widened, a service area would increase demand on the A616 for Northbound traffic entering and Southbound traffic leaving
  
• Probably the biggest issue would be the capacity of the Tankersley roundabout itself. Guiding traffic to a service area off that roundabout could have significant knock-on effect down the A61
  

 

I'm not arguing for the construction of a new service area though. I'm not convinced of this sudden "need" for one.

[satman2222]

Looks like another case of the developer submitting a plan for something controversial and way beyond what they want, so it gets rejected due to public outcry. They then submit plans for what they wanted in the first place and it gets pushed through as the lesser of two evils. The fact that the proposed HS2 line cuts straight through the area is another factor proving that someone knows more than they are letting on. ( Or we are not getting HS2!! )

 

 

 

.

[Sheffette]

I've signed the petition opposing it. I really don't think it is necessary and despite the carrot of jobs dangled by chambers of commerce, jobs don't necessarily materialise for local people or last - look at Sheffield Airport, I bet 'jobs' was a key feature of the planning process although I admit a service station probably has a better fighting chance of staying the course. What troubles me is that this is ancient woodland - there are ecosystems here that have been built up over centuries and as the expert said on Look North last night, you can't replace or replicate it. Planting a few saplings as compensation doesn't work.

For a crowded country we have a real 'throwaway' attitude to nature. It's in an industrial area and near a motorway so it doesn't matter... but if we go on at this rate Britain will end up as a collection of four or five national parks surrounded by motorways. These pockets of nature are important.

It's not just nature; they are of cultural importance as well as they are part of a local landscape that's full of stories and traditions tied to places which get forgotten when the focal feature is swallowed up. Once it's gone, it's gone.