Potton Against New Traveller Sites (PANTS)

Signatures 775 total

Page: « ‹ 1, ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, ... 16 › »

1. 451
   Name: Joy And Edmund Homewood on Feb 2, 2013

   Comments: wwith 150 new dwellings on the way and we have already got a travellers site the market town will be over run and loose its idenity and parking inthe square will impossible. i cant see we need another travellers site.

   Flag
2. 452
   Name: Rosie Napier on Feb 2, 2013

   Comments: I value my saftey and property having had experiance of travellers in my past.

   Flag
3. 453
   Name: Anonymous on Feb 2, 2013

   Comments: I feel we do have a traveller site already and I dont feel the surrounding areas are capable of taking more

   Flag
4. 454
   Name: Anonymous on Feb 2, 2013

   Comments: Already too many

   Flag
5. 455
   Name: John Hare on Feb 3, 2013

   Comments:

   Flag
6. 456
   Name: Paul Saunders on Feb 3, 2013

   Comments: I agree wholeheartedly with the details of this petition as we already have one site and feel that an increase is an unfair bias on Potton/Sutton.

   Flag
7. 457
   Name: Eve Saunders on Feb 3, 2013

   Comments:

   Flag
8. 458
   Name: Anonymous on Feb 3, 2013

   Comments: I am furious about this. As a new resident to Sandy we've just bought our house which we have scrimped and saved for years along with sacrificing family holidays to get it. Now we feel our house we be devalued. We have already witnessed antisocial behaviour by travellers in a pub in Sandy recently. We already have one gypsy site why should we have any more. I feel the distribution of these sites around the areas of central beds is unfair. The sites need to spread out amongst central beds not concentrated to certain areas. To concentrate the sites in sandy/potton etc will only bring concentrated antisocial behaviour/crime. A close family member of ours was a victim of theft by gypsies last year. It is a fact that travellers only bring with them trouble and crime.

   Flag
9. 459
   Name: Anonymous on Feb 3, 2013

   Comments:

   Flag
10. 460
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 3, 2013

    Comments: My concern is the children of the travelling families and the impact they have on the other children in the community. Some of the traveller childrens behaviour in and out of school is unacceptable and spoiling the enjoyment and education of other children.

    Flag
11. 461
    Name: Chris Mijalski on Feb 3, 2013

    Comments: Someone needs to stand up and explain why us AGAIN ?

    Flag
12. 462
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 3, 2013

    Comments: Enough is enough

    Flag
13. 463
    Name: Alistair Blackley on Feb 4, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
14. 464
    Name: C Ball on Feb 4, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
15. 465
    Name: Margaret Hargreaves on Feb 4, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
16. 466
    Name: Keith Hargreaves on Feb 4, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
17. 467
    Name: Richard Byford on Feb 4, 2013

    Comments: Other areas should be considerd. There are already several traveller sites in the Potton area.

    Flag
18. 468
    Name: Ian Chatwin on Feb 4, 2013

    Comments: find one resident that wants any of these sites in potton and this voice will be quiet

    Flag
19. 469
    Name: L Harpur on Feb 4, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
20. 470
    Name: Isabella Chatwin on Feb 4, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
21. 471
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 5, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
22. 472
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 5, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
23. 473
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 5, 2013

    Comments: We already have one traveller site located in Potton so further developments should be located elsewhere and NOT in Potton

    Flag
24. 474
    Name: Not Happy on Feb 5, 2013

    Comments: what a joke if this does happen i for one will not pay my council tax !!!!!!!! because i am not paying a penny towards these sites when they can live there for nothing and i have to pay almost 2 grand how is that fair !!!!!!!!!! we all need to go to the council meetings there is one tonight at 7pm at the potton comunity centre at brook end and again on saturday in the potton libary we all need to attend to make are feeling know and well done pants hope you keep this going

    Flag
25. 475
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 5, 2013

    Comments: I'm a resident of Sandy and feel this is unfair distribution of these traveller sites within central beds

    Flag
26. 476
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 5, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
27. 477
    Name: Susanne Anton on Feb 5, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
28. 478
    Name: Susanne Anton on Feb 5, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
29. 479
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 5, 2013

    Comments: Why are most of the proposed sites concentrated in the Potton Ward. All wards should take their share and a vote on this should be made by all council representatives not just a few.

    Flag
30. 480
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 5, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
31. 481
    Name: Simon Durkin on Feb 6, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
32. 482
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 6, 2013

    Comments: An utter disgrace this is even being considered. I agreee wholeheartedly with all the comments especially those from individuals who have been direct victims of crime (as I have) from these parasitic, lawless yobs. I don't wish to get all NIMBY about this but if Potton has more of these disgusting filthy individuals thrust amongst us I will be moving away and seeking recompense for the blighting of my property. Direct community action required, NIMBY thank you.

    Flag
33. 483
    Name: Sarah Bell on Feb 6, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
34. 484
    Name: Mrs. Elizabeth Gardner on Feb 6, 2013

    Comments: NO, NO, NO to any more Traveller Sites in our in our community

    Flag
35. 485
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 6, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
36. 486
    Name: Dawn Ray on Feb 7, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
37. 487
    Name: Ian Quick on Feb 7, 2013

    Comments: I live in Sandy a feel that the sounding area has its share of sites and has done its part.Good luck with this, and I wish you all the best.

    Flag
38. 488
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 7, 2013

    Comments: No more thank you. One site is enough in the local area.

    Flag
39. 489
    Name: Kevin Murphy on Feb 8, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
40. 490
    Name: Helen Kapur on Feb 8, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
41. 491
    Name: Anon on Feb 8, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
42. 492
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 8, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
43. 493
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 8, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
44. 494
    Name: Sally Page on Feb 8, 2013

    Comments: It is difficult to rationalise how such an unfair distribution of proposed sites could be chosen by the elected representatives of the whole of Mid Beds

    Flag
45. 495
    Name: Sally Page on Feb 8, 2013

    Comments: It is difficult to rationalise how such an unfair distribution of proposed sites could be chosen by the elected representatives of the whole of Mid Beds

    Flag
46. 496
    Name: Sharon Clayton on Feb 9, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
47. 497
    Name: Gwen Dale on Feb 9, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
48. 498
    Name: Colin Dale on Feb 9, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
49. 499
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 9, 2013

    Comments: I confirm my support for the petition to not increase the number of traveller sites in Potton . The proposal is disproportionate in its weighting on Potton and additional sites would further impact the services and infrastructure of the community .

    Flag
50. 500
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 9, 2013

    Comments: I confirm my support for the petition to not increase the number of traveller sites in Potton . The proposal is disproportionate in its weighting on Potton and additional sites would further impact the services and infrastructure of the community .

    Flag

Page: « ‹ 1, ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, ... 16 › »