SAVE LITTLE GREEN STREET

Signatures 1920 total

Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... 39 › »

1. 151
   Name: Justin on Jul 12, 2006

   Comments:

   Flag
2. 152
   Name: R Fullbrook on Jul 12, 2006

   Comments:

   Flag
3. 153
   Name: Richard Muller on Jul 12, 2006

   Comments:

   Flag
4. 154
   Name: Sandra Bullen on Jul 12, 2006

   Comments: I totally disagree with what the council has planned for Little Green Street. They should be trying to protect this street not destroy it.

   Flag
5. 155
   Name: Rod Cullen on Jul 12, 2006

   Comments: To those in supposed positions of power, just imagine this was your street...

   Flag
6. 156
   Name: David Goodenough on Jul 12, 2006

   Comments: Camden Council - leave the little street alone!

   Flag
7. 157
   Name: Patrick on Jul 12, 2006

   Comments:

   Flag
8. 158
   Name: Carole Bradstreet on Jul 12, 2006

   Comments:

   Flag
9. 159
   Name: Elinor Bateman on Jul 12, 2006

   Comments:

   Flag
10. 160
    Name: Pietro Barbagallo on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments: Outragious what they want to do, they have plenty of space from the other side of the road.

    Flag
11. 161
    Name: Nick McMahon on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments: Something has gone terribly wrong with teh planning process here. The approval needs to be re-assesed. The building of the new residential accomodation cannot be worth the destruction of this historic street.

    Flag
12. 162
    Name: Brian Coleman on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments: Absolutely ludicrous - good luck with your fight

    Flag
13. 163
    Name: Barry Murphy on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
14. 164
    Name: Dan Smith on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
15. 165
    Name: Lee Rickler on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments: Camden Council once again let the developers walk all over the residents.

    Flag
16. 166
    Name: Lee Rickler on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments: Camden Council once again let the developers walk all over the residents.

    Flag
17. 167
    Name: Christina Nash on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
18. 168
    Name: T Riaz on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
19. 169
    Name: Sophie Ardern on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
20. 170
    Name: Rebecca Garrill on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
21. 171
    Name: Gordon Ridout on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments: If Camden Council want to know why they have such a bad reputation, it's by 'nodding through' plans like this. Mindlessly destructive, wasteful and plain wrong-headed on just about every level. Good luck with the campaign!

    Flag
22. 172
    Name: Marco Romeny on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments: Maybe Buckingham Palace could be used as a carpark as well -- sure it's of no historical value

    Flag
23. 173
    Name: Paul Nethercott on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
24. 174
    Name: James Robinson on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments: All the best. Hope the little guy wins. Can't stand these money hungry property developers.

    Flag
25. 175
    Name: James Robinson on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments: All the best. Hope the little guy wins. Can't stand these money hungry property developers.

    Flag
26. 176
    Name: Joe Chapman on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
27. 177
    Name: Catherine Hunt on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments: I'd love to know how much of a sweetner the council has been fed by the developer to approve this ridiculous idea.

    Flag
28. 178
    Name: Andrew Walters on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments: i think its disgusting that corporations and councillors work together without the consent of the residents of little green street to use the road as an inapropriate acess route, even if they didnt cover the cobbles surely the time its going to take and the inconvenience casued regardless of the cobbles is insult enough! its pure madness!

    Flag
29. 179
    Name: Dean Hoadley on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments: This has to be about the most stupidest thing iv heard of for a while, all thanks to the blumin Labour Party again, cheers Tony, your doing a blinding job, i job i dont think!!

    Flag
30. 180
    Name: Anonymous on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
31. 181
    Name: Phil Wheeler on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
32. 182
    Name: Phil Carlisle on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments: One word - Outrageous!

    Flag
33. 183
    Name: Laura Oakes on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments: Totally in support of the residents of Little Green Street. This development should never have been considered.

    Flag
34. 184
    Name: Chris Taylor on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments: We cannot let a unique part of our London history be destroyed by these developers, after all these are Grade II listed buildings and must be preserved.

    Flag
35. 185
    Name: Catherine Pope on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
36. 186
    Name: Catherine Pope on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
37. 187
    Name: Tom Oliver on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments: The argument that the developers have no other access to their site surely doesn't lessen the horrible affect one of their enormous vehicles will have on the entire street. They should have thought it through before greed motivated them into buying the land.

    Flag
38. 188
    Name: Tom Oliver on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments: The argument that the developers have no other access to their site surely doesn't lessen the horrible affect one of their enormous vehicles will have on the entire street. They should have thought it through before greed motivated them into buying the land.

    Flag
39. 189
    Name: Ian MacLean on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments: ~Once again, we see that the true consituency of local government is not the people, but corporate interests, where is the democratic legitimacy for this - Dicey will be turning in his grave.

    Flag
40. 190
    Name: David Spark on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments: You get my support. Stop destroying our heritage!

    Flag
41. 191
    Name: Bob And Wendy Carter on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
42. 192
    Name: Andrew Hayward on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
43. 193
    Name: Jeremy Wright on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments: Little Green Street is completely unsuitable to take construction traffic. The 'Method Statement' is inadequate to assess frequency of traffic and possible impact on the existing houses (eg. What total volume of demo/excavated material is to be removed and over what duration How many lorry movements/day). The statement that lorry movements are unlikely to damage the houses is hardly credible. Constant traffic and vibration within close distance of houses with possibly virtually no (Victorian ) foundations, could have a disastrous impact. Signed, Jeremy Wright, B.Sc(Tech), MICE, Chartered Engineer

    Flag
44. 194
    Name: LEWD SULTAN on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments: DISGRACE

    Flag
45. 195
    Name: Anonymous on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
46. 196
    Name: Claire Garwood on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
47. 197
    Name: Anonymous on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments: The council don't do their job - care for us, the residents. Just a bunch of jobsworths! Give 'em hell and good luck.

    Flag
48. 198
    Name: Llew Walker on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments: Save Little Green Street!!

    Flag
49. 199
    Name: Kiran Dhillon on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
50. 200
    Name: Nicola Foy on Jul 12, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag

Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... 39 › »