Signatures 175 total
- 1
- 2
-
3
Name: Fran Monks on Mar 27, 2009Comments: I think this area does not need any more single occupant developments. There are many families living in the area and there are very scarce facitilies for community activities. It would be a massive missed opportunity to create yet more intensive accommodation and not create a community facitility out of this beautiful buildingFlag
- 4
- 5
- 6
-
7
Name: Alexander Buck on Mar 27, 2009Comments: I am thoroughly disappointed at the ignorance of certain Local Authorities in regards to the development. I can understand that some areas are in need of improving and providing more accommodation, but it should not be at loss of our heritage and the buildings that are characteristic of the area.Flag
- 8
- 9
-
10
Name: Sally Evans on Mar 27, 2009Comments: This house needs to be supported by the Council and used for the local communityFlag
- 11
- 12
- 13
-
14
Name: John Davies on Mar 27, 2009Comments: I believe the proposed development is wholly inappropriate for this area and would effectively destroy fine period house.Flag
- 15
-
16
Name: Anonymous on Mar 27, 2009Comments: I am against this proposal as I think this historic building should be saved for community use.Flag
-
17
Name: Melanie Prior on Mar 28, 2009Comments: - the building would be better used as a community facility, giving a focus to the community, stimulating local groups, and providing a resource for youth, family and others. - the proposed building is out of character with the area, and would harm the environment of park, pond and almshouses; and Pond House itself, along with the adjacent Georgian houses.Flag
- 18
- 19
-
20
Name: William Chapman on Mar 28, 2009Comments: Pond House is a fine building, in a fine setting. It is the focal point of the local conservation area. Breaking this Grade II* house into 10 flats will inevitably destroy its internal character. The development on Mildenhall Road is too high, too dense and too ugly. There is insufficient parking on Mildenhall Road as it is. There must be better solutions to restoring Pond House.Flag
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
-
25
Name: Deb Rindl on Mar 29, 2009Comments: This house is a wonderful part of our heritage and changing it to flats and building another block, which is not in any way in keeping with the surrounding buildings, would be a real blight.Flag
- 26
-
27
Name: Richard Burdett on Mar 29, 2009Comments: There are enough ugly buildings in the Pond area already. I do not see the need for more.Flag
-
28
Name: Dr Anna Chapman on Mar 29, 2009Comments: Pond House is too fine to be broken into so many flats. The development on Mildenhall Road is too massive, too ugly and too dense. It impinges on the fine rear elevation of Pond House.Flag
- 29
-
30
Name: Marcus Galloway on Mar 29, 2009Comments: Hackney has changed a lot over the years, a lot for the better, It would be nice to keep a little bit of history for all members of the current Hackney community and former members of the Hackney communityFlag
- 31
- 32
-
33
Name: Molly Porter on Mar 29, 2009Comments: I support the views of the Clapton Pond Neighbourhood Action Group on this and any related matters. As residents they truly care for the character of the immediate area, as shown by their support for amenities, regular meetings and Newsletter.Flag
- 34
-
35
Name: Toni Williamson on Mar 29, 2009Comments: Pond House is in such a focal point of the area and of such a size that this planning application should go to public consultation and not be dealt with in peremptory fashion.Flag
-
36
Name: Anonymous on Mar 29, 2009Comments: I think the pond house should be preserved and left as is, and let out/ owned as is, not a as lots of flats and new additional add ons to the house.Flag
-
37
Name: Anonymous on Mar 30, 2009Comments: Clapton is an area in much need of protection of its heritage buildings and promotion of character of the area, and this scheme to build a block of flats would clearly impair any progress in that regard.Flag
-
38
Name: Louise Perkins on Mar 30, 2009Comments: This proposal is both short sighted and unimaginitive. The CPNG have worked so hard to preserve this area and this would certainly not enhance it. I am against the proposal.Flag
-
39
Name: Myfanwy Vernon-Hunt on Mar 30, 2009Comments: I feel very strongly that such a large development inside the conservation area is not something the area would benefit from. This huge project would detract from the character of the area around he Pond. It is also a great shame that the Historic house and its out-buildings would not be open and of use to the community.Flag
-
40
Name: Charlotte Arrowsmith on Mar 30, 2009Comments: Fine historic area, would be a terrible shame to compromise thisfor the sake of unnecessary development. There are already numeous apartments biuldings some of which are empty- we do not need any more.Flag
- 41
- 42
- 43
-
44
Name: Guy Strickland on Mar 30, 2009Comments: From the information I have read in the planning application I do not think that the proposed project does anything to enhance the area around Clapton Pond. Pond House needs a much more sensitive and appropriate approach.Flag
- 45
-
46
Name: Danielle Harway on Mar 30, 2009Comments: I am against this proposition for the above reasons.Flag
- 47
-
48
Name: Anonymous on Mar 30, 2009Comments: The planning proposal is not in keeping with the conservation area and the area of Clapton Pond.Flag
- 49
-
50
Name: Cllr Linda Kelly on Mar 30, 2009Comments: I do not believe this development will enhance the conservation area or benefit the community as a whole. I would like to see this building brought back to its former glory and used for the community a place of history and learningFlag