Potton Against New Traveller Sites (PANTS)

Signatures 775 total

Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... 16 › »

1. 151
   Name: Bob Hearson on Jan 26, 2013

   Comments: Enough is enough - It's somebody else s turn now.

   Flag
2. 152
   Name: Lynn Sexton on Jan 26, 2013

   Comments:

   Flag
3. 153
   Name: Anonymous on Jan 26, 2013

   Comments:

   Flag
4. 154
   Name: Anonymous on Jan 26, 2013

   Comments:

   Flag
5. 155
   Name: Claire Staplehurst on Jan 26, 2013

   Comments: I feel that there isn't a fair representation of locations for these proposed sites. Potton already has an existing site, and with ever more housing going on in Potton, resources will be stretched, as well as infrastructure issues.

   Flag
6. 156
   Name: Roger Staplehurst on Jan 26, 2013

   Comments: Potton already has a well-established site, that if expanded or additional sites were added to Potton, would not only massively increase the population, but would directly affect those families and house values nearest to the sites. Consideration for these sites should be prioritised to locations who have no such facilities.

   Flag
7. 157
   Name: Rob Dunkley on Jan 26, 2013

   Comments:

   Flag
8. 158
   Name: Roy & Helen Johnson on Jan 26, 2013

   Comments:

   Flag
9. 159
   Name: Anonymous on Jan 26, 2013

   Comments:

   Flag
10. 160
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
11. 161
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
12. 162
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
13. 163
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
14. 164
    Name: Kate Aris on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments: I agree, keep the cost of our local community tax down, surely it would be better to extend a site than establish a new one!

    Flag
15. 165
    Name: Vic Brown on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
16. 166
    Name: K Farrant on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments: NO MORE SITES

    Flag
17. 167
    Name: Lisa Corrin on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
18. 168
    Name: Peter Mulhearn on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
19. 169
    Name: Chris Davis on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments: i fully agree with the comments in the news letter

    Flag
20. 170
    Name: Peter Mulhearn on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments: I was for many years a Special Constable in Potton and have an intimate knowledge of the problems caused to Potton residents by an excessively large Travellers site. Since the size of the existing site was reduced following a long investigation and subsequent prosecutions the relationships between those on the site and the residents has been quite stable. Anything which threatens to jeopardise that stability would not just be to the detriment of Potton residents but also to the existing residents of the site as it was in the past.

    Flag
21. 171
    Name: Mr Kavanagh on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
22. 172
    Name: Mr E. Kavanagh on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
23. 173
    Name: Maureen Kavanagh on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
24. 174
    Name: A.woodcock on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
25. 175
    Name: Robert Woodcock on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
26. 176
    Name: Ramon Wilkinson on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments: I see no reason why the travelling community should have preferential consideration for housing (siting of caravans) over the local population. Allocating sites is no different than identifying land to build houses which is not happening!

    Flag
27. 177
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
28. 178
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
29. 179
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
30. 180
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
31. 181
    Name: Mr & Mrs M J Bicknell on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
32. 182
    Name: S. Cherry on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments: Why are there a disproportionate number of proposed sites in the Potton area - almost 50%, when the majority of councillors on the planning committee have not proposed anything in their wards, looking after themselves as usual. We demand they present at a public hearing.

    Flag
33. 183
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
34. 184
    Name: Katie Goodyer on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
35. 185
    Name: Andrew Goodyer on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
36. 186
    Name: Liz Hanway on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments: Concerned about local infrastructure especially ontop of new housing development

    Flag
37. 187
    Name: Ross Hanway on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments: Concerned about local infrastructure especially ontop of new housing development

    Flag
38. 188
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments: Feel there has been no thought for the potton residents on having another traveller site

    Flag
39. 189
    Name: Jason Cheal on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
40. 190
    Name: W E Cheal on Jan 26, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
41. 191
    Name: Denise Peirce on Jan 27, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
42. 192
    Name: Martin Degens on Jan 27, 2013

    Comments: We already have a disproportionally high number of sites in our ward without the addition of more

    Flag
43. 193
    Name: Sarah Degens on Jan 27, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
44. 194
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 27, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
45. 195
    Name: Neil Paris on Jan 27, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
46. 196
    Name: Glenn Hermans on Jan 27, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
47. 197
    Name: M.Ansell on Jan 27, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
48. 198
    Name: Dave Collins on Jan 27, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
49. 199
    Name: N Farestvedt on Jan 27, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
50. 200
    Name: Gavin Ross on Jan 27, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag

Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... 16 › »