Powered by iPetitions

Start your online petition now ?

Signatures 327 total

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, ... 7 »

  1. 1
    Name: Andrew Statham on Jul 2, 2010
    Comments: I would like to oppose the installation of these floodlights
    Flag
  2. 2
    Name: Joanne Newbery on Jul 2, 2010
    Comments: I oppose the installation of SIX 50ft high floodlights on their existing pitch in Chorlton overlooking Hardy Farm in the Mersey Valley.
    Flag
  3. 3
    Name: Anne Crocker on Jul 2, 2010
    Comments: The location of these floodlights is totally inappropriate in this greenbelt area, close to housing.
    Flag
  4. 4
    Name: Mike Wild on Jul 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  5. 5
    Name: Allan Newbery on Jul 2, 2010
    Comments: I oppose these floodlights to be erected. They will be intrusive and totally wrong for this area
    Flag
  6. 6
    Name: Colin Harrison on Jul 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  7. 7
    Name: Samuel Newbery on Jul 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  8. 8
    Name: April Davis on Jul 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  9. 9
    Name: Nigel Lewis on Jul 2, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  10. 10
    Name: Rena McCarthy on Jul 2, 2010
    Comments: Light pollution disturbs the natural rhythms of birds, insects and nocturnal animals, according to wildlife historian and naturalist Sir David Attenborough. Some species are affected by unnatural light to such an extent that their lifecycles are completely out of kilter.
    Flag
  11. 11
    Name: Charlotte Mole-Morgan on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments: I am concerned about this application because I believe the lights would be too close to housing and create light pollution to the neighbouring properties as well as noise pollution from games and parking problems caused by an increase in spectators, amongst other difficulties.
    Flag
  12. 12
    Name: Alice Burton on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  13. 13
    Name: Steven MacKay on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  14. 14
    Name: James O'Shea on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments: How many times do we have to fight, re-fight and fight over again to save the meadows?
    Flag
  15. 15
    Name: Lauren Newbery on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  16. 16
    Name: Richard & Helen Kay on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  17. 17
    Name: Lauren Newbery on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  18. 18
    Name: Alan Thomond on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments: As a long time resident of The Ville I feel that there is no benefit, indeed quite the opposite, to the residents (excluding the Football Club) if these lights were to be given the go-ahead. Only the Football Club will benefit - the rest of us will suffer.
    Flag
  19. 19
    Name: David Eatock on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  20. 20
    Name: John Condy on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments: No to light pollution!!
    Flag
  21. 21
    Name: Nic Elsby on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments: There;s enough light pollution in Manchester without more spoiling what little wild nature there is left.. More value needs to be put upon wild natural areas in out city!
    Flag
  22. 22
    Name: Kate Allen on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  23. 23
    Name: Janet Copley on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments: Unbelievable!
    Flag
  24. 24
    Name: John Gittins on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  25. 25
    Name: Terri Acton on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  26. 26
    Name: Dave Taylor on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  27. 27
    Name: Marcela Hervia on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  28. 28
    Name: Glynne Davies on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  29. 29
    Name: Rachael Magowan on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments: Having giant floodlights on this green space site would be highly detrimental to local wildlife, especially the nocturnal creatures such as bats and owls which are sensitive to light levels. There are also other animals and birds living in the area which would be driven away by the increased noise pollution from scores of shouting youths and spectators, not to mention the increase in motor vehicles to the surrounding roads. There is also the aesthetic impact of these proposed monstrosities. The Meadows is a much valued retreat for residents and visitors from further afield alike, affording a rare stretch of countryside within an otherwise drab urban environment. For many, myself included, this area is a priceless oasis of calm and tranquility, therefore to allow light pollution and extended facilities for noisy sports would completely ruin the peace and beauty of the place. There is more than adequate provision for football throughout the city, yet woefully little green space locally. Developers are snapping up every tiny bit of grassland and building houses, offices and sporting facilities on them. There is NO NEED for yet more sporting provision here. My husband and I already have to put up with the offensive noise and light pollution from the vast stadium at the end of our road. To escape from it we frequently go down to Chorlton Meadows. To have this last area of unspoiled beauty desecrated by yet more blaring tannoys, bellowing teens and vast ugly invasive lighting would be completely intolerable, and we would therefore contest any move to this end by developers vociferously and resolutely.
    Flag
  30. 30
    Name: Kimberly Pryde on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  31. 31
    Name: Alexx on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  32. 32
    Name: Jane Harrison on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments: Is there not an alternative site that can be utilised for the teams if they are progressing?
    Flag
  33. 33
    Name: Louise Howarth on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments: keep the status quo and our open green space
    Flag
  34. 34
    Name: Emily Gardiner on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  35. 35
    Name: Carol Donaldson on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  36. 36
    Name: Mary O'Mahony on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  37. 37
    Name: Martin Leyfield on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments: This would disturb birds and bats. Birds need sleep like the rest of us. They use energy singing when they should be sleeping. The medows is for peace and tranquility and getting close to nature.
    Flag
  38. 38
    Name: Anonymous on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  39. 39
    Name: Karen Muir on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  40. 40
    Name: Kate Little on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  41. 41
    Name: Anonymous on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  42. 42
    Name: Ann Lewis on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments: Are they trying to develop this site by stealth?
    Flag
  43. 43
    Name: John Condy on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments: No to light pollution!!
    Flag
  44. 44
    Name: Tim Moorhouse on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  45. 45
    Name: John Condy on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments: No to light pollution!!
    Flag
  46. 46
    Name: Michael Rowe on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  47. 47
    Name: Lisa Kenny on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  48. 48
    Name: Catriona Nicolson on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag
  49. 49
    Name: Eleonor Burton on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments: I would like to add my concerns to the many voices which have already expressed concern about the proposed floodlights. Many of the objections that we have made in the past re the floodlights on the meadows hold true for floodlights here, too. ie the effects on the wildlife of the area, including the bats, the effect of increased levels of noise at night - noise travels quite a distance over the meadows, and already matches can be very loud. The proposed development is next to occupied properties, and the club is served by a small access road down a side street by a school, which is not suitable to accomodate the extra traffic that may be ibvolved in extending the club hours in this way.
    Flag
  50. 50
    Name: Natalie Horne on Jul 3, 2010
    Comments:
    Flag

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, ... 7 »

Sponsored links