Powered by iPetitions - Start your online petition now

Signatures 87 total

Page: 1, 2

  1. 1
    Name: Matthew Bentham on Jul 13, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  2. 2
    Name: Eleanor Bentham on Jul 13, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  3. 3
    Name: Marguerite Smith on Jul 13, 2011
    Comments: This is much too near the war memorial and other amenities in our lovely park. It would be very bad for the area.
    Flag
  4. 4
    Name: Gayle Knight on Jul 13, 2011
    Comments: It is not an appropriate site for a mast
    Flag
  5. 5
    Name: Liz Pilkington on Jul 13, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  6. 6
    Name: Melissa Moorhouse on Jul 13, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  7. 7
    Name: Paul on Jul 13, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  8. 8
    Name: Sean Kerr on Jul 13, 2011
    Comments: This location is unsuitable as it has a lot of amenity value which will be jeopardised if this was to go ahead.
    Flag
  9. 9
    Name: Brian Beston on Jul 13, 2011
    Comments: I wish to offer this protest agaist the proposal to erect this phone mast out side of a local park. The park is a Green Flag awarded park and therefore to go ahead with such a scheme would be detrimental to not only to the park but to the surrounding area
    Flag
  10. 10
    Name: Anthony Bentham on Jul 13, 2011
    Comments: Please refer to the Sunday Times article below which cites one quarter of the staff at a special school near a mobile phone mast suffering from tumours (only exposed during working hours) and 31 people around the same street! We cannot let this happen where children live, go to school and play! http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/article1687491.ece
    Flag
  11. 11
    Name: Michael Carr on Jul 13, 2011
    Comments: Ultimate eye sore.
    Flag
  12. 12
    Name: Danny Cassidy on Jul 13, 2011
    Comments: No Mast
    Flag
  13. 13
    Name: Laura Beston on Jul 13, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  14. 14
    Name: Paulette Smith on Jul 13, 2011
    Comments: The site seems totally inappropriate. Surely there must be somewhere more suitable ie not in a residential area and conservation area.
    Flag
  15. 15
    Name: Andrew Briggs on Jul 13, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  16. 16
    Name: Andrea Bentham on Jul 13, 2011
    Comments: I would like to object strongly to this monstrosity being placed in our midst!
    Flag
  17. 17
    Name: Rev'd Enid Briggs on Jul 13, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  18. 18
    Name: Irene Burdell on Jul 13, 2011
    Comments: Absolutely appalling , why can't they put it at the top of the coppice if they really have to erect one at all, definitely not in a residential area and in a park where children visit every day.
    Flag
  19. 19
    Name: Diane Dewhurst on Jul 13, 2011
    Comments: This can't happen .
    Flag
  20. 20
    Name: Trevor Adams on Jul 14, 2011
    Comments: We have been thro this previosly a few months ago, and that proposal was thrown out. To place this ugly mast in a conservation area, outside the local park which is very popular & visited by hundreds of families each week, within view of those within the park and all those driving past. Why cant this mast be situated in a less prominent position? There is waste ground behind properties on Royds St or in the newly planted wooded area that has footpaths access and not in view of any houses or from the road, this ground has lower growing trees & threrefore not going to affect signal strength. Trevor Adams.
    Flag
  21. 21
    Name: DAVID CLIMPSON on Jul 14, 2011
    Comments: A totally unsuitable site for a mast
    Flag
  22. 22
    Name: Jo-ann O'Brien on Jul 14, 2011
    Comments: Too near Residential area. Should not be allowed in a Conservation Area. Not in keeping.
    Flag
  23. 23
    Name: Anonymous on Jul 14, 2011
    Comments: This seems an unsuitable place for the mast
    Flag
  24. 24
    Name: Kerry Gormley on Jul 14, 2011
    Comments: I would propose that Hyndburn Borough Council adopt the 'precautionary principal' with regard to ALL planning applications that have any potential/suspected health risks. telecommunication mast have only been around a few years and no one can be certain that there are NO health risks. Before the council adopt the precautionary principal this application can and should be refused on the grounds of loss of amenity and visual impact.
    Flag
  25. 25
    Name: Geoff & Gina Roberts on Jul 14, 2011
    Comments: the location is totally out of character for a phone mast and is incompatible with the council's planning policy as the site is within a conservation area
    Flag
  26. 26
    Name: Anthony Renton on Jul 14, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  27. 27
    Name: Karen Perry on Jul 14, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  28. 28
    Name: Stuart W Briggs on Jul 14, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  29. 29
    Name: P. Delaney. on Jul 14, 2011
    Comments: how many mobile phone masts are already in the area ? do we really need any more. can O2 and Vodafone give me a written gaurantee that there are no health issues ?
    Flag
  30. 30
    Name: John Chapman on Jul 14, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  31. 31
    Name: Louise Tattersall on Jul 14, 2011
    Comments: I know the masts have to go somewhere but there must be more discreet places it can be placed.
    Flag
  32. 32
    Name: Mr E C And Mrs H C Barrett on Jul 14, 2011
    Comments: This is not a suitable place for this mast; it is in the Christ Church Conservation Area, it is close to two schools, a primary and a nursery school and the wind up here in the winter has to be experienced to be believed. We have serious concerns both for the radiation risk and the security of the mast itself if it were to be erected.
    Flag
  33. 33
    Name: Luke Holmes on Jul 14, 2011
    Comments: I am writing with utter disgust about the proposed planning application for O2 & Vodaphone to erect a mast at the entrance to Oak Hill Park, Accrington, This for one is a conservation area and should be kept so at all costs, also in Oak Hill Park is one of the largest memorials outside of the capital city to our soldiers of Accrington who lost their lives in the 1st World War, this is a desecration to their memories if this monstosity was to be placed outside the park gates. This must never happen
    Flag
  34. 34
    Name: Margaret Rothwell on Jul 14, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  35. 35
    Name: Gordon Whewell on Jul 14, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  36. 36
    Name: Marion Whewell on Jul 14, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  37. 37
    Name: Rodney Mollo on Jul 15, 2011
    Comments: An objection has already been submitted.by me.
    Flag
  38. 38
    Name: Edward O'Brien on Jul 15, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  39. 39
    Name: Jo Brown on Jul 15, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  40. 40
    Name: Pete Brown on Jul 15, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  41. 41
    Name: Mark Kerr on Jul 15, 2011
    Comments: We have enough coverage, we need to draw a line.
    Flag
  42. 42
    Name: Danielle Woods on Jul 15, 2011
    Comments: my relatives live right next door to where this phone mast is looking to be placed, on hollins lane, and the amout of people developing cancerous tumours near mobile phone masts are extremely worrying. i do not wish for this mast to be put in place
    Flag
  43. 43
    Name: Michelle Woods on Jul 15, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  44. 44
    Name: Anonymous on Jul 15, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag
  45. 45
    Name: Norrie Durber on Jul 15, 2011
    Comments: It should not be sited next to a park and so many schools. We should be protecting the health of the nation's children.
    Flag
  46. 46
    Name: Sarah Kopec on Jul 15, 2011
    Comments: This could potentially cause serious health risks to people in the surrounding areas, which is made worse by the fact that there are many nurserys and schools nearby. It also poses a threat to conservation as many wildlife's natural habitats may be destroyed. It is also an eye-sore, and is disrespectful to the war memorial situated in the park.
    Flag
  47. 47
    Name: Heather Aaron on Jul 15, 2011
    Comments: no to the mast.
    Flag
  48. 48
    Name: Anonymous on Jul 16, 2011
    Comments: Health risks, conservational sacrifices and it's an unecessary eyesore!
    Flag
  49. 49
    Name: John Kopec on Jul 16, 2011
    Comments: This is not right. The detrimental health implications to residents and school children as well as to the wildlife in the area is dispicable.
    Flag
  50. 50
    Name: Andrew Kenyon on Jul 16, 2011
    Comments:
    Flag

Page: 1, 2

Sponsored links