Signatures 52 total
Page: 1, 2
-
1
Name: Paul Regan on May 25, 2007Comments:Flag
-
2
Name: Darren Baker on May 25, 2007Comments:Flag
-
3
Name: Anonymous on May 28, 2007Comments:Flag
-
4
Name: Piers Metcalfe on May 28, 2007Comments: This proposal is definitely not inkeeping with the areas regeneration.Flag
-
5
Name: Anonymous on May 28, 2007Comments: i am appalled by this planning application as it does not fit the profile of the area. the area needs to lose the industrial atmosphere, not enhance itFlag
-
6
Name: Carrie Bassett on May 28, 2007Comments: I'm not at all happy that the local residents were never consulted on this - this is the first I have heard of these plans. We need to regenerate this area, not cause further disturbanceFlag
-
7
Name: Anonymous on May 28, 2007Comments: I am particularly concerned regarding the increase in noise, dust and vibration and that this project is not keeping with regeneration of the area. I am also concerned that myself, a resident for 10 years, was not made aware of these plans.Flag
-
8
Name: Anonymous on May 28, 2007Comments: Extremely concerned that residents were not consulted. These plans totally contradict the regeneration of the area. It is now residential, not industrial.Flag
-
9
Name: Alan Leckie on May 28, 2007Comments: I do not see why there has to be an aggregates processing plant next to the wharf. The aggregates should be shipped in and lorried out without being processed on the Peruvian Wharf site. The Aggregates Plant will ony cause the rest of the site to be laid waste, and will not lead to the best use of the investment in transport infrastructure - specifically the west Silvertown DLR station. The local community which includes a Primary School suffers more than its fair share of polution already from the paint factory etc. without dust being blown over us on the prevailing winds.Flag
-
10
Name: Amanda Tomlinson on May 28, 2007Comments:Flag
-
11
Name: Maxeen Hone on May 29, 2007Comments:Flag
-
12
Name: Penny Marsh on May 29, 2007Comments:Flag
-
13
Name: David on May 29, 2007Comments: I oppose the planning applications for the reasons above. When I bought my flat nearly 5 years ago I was led to understand by the council that the land in question would be used for retail or leisure. The plans are totally against the wishes of residents - there is not one I have spoken to who agrees with the plans!Flag
-
14
Name: ANTHEA VIDLER on May 29, 2007Comments:Flag
-
15
Name: Martin Davies on May 29, 2007Comments: I object to the Peruvan Wharf Planning application on the grounds of inadequate consultation with local residents; the massive increase in noise, dust and vibration; the massive, dangerous increase in heavy lorries along North Woolwich Road, and becuase it is not in keeping with the regeneration of the area. I acknowlede that it has to remain a working wharf, but believe more suitable proposals could be made (e.g. Capital and ProvidentFlag
-
16
Name: Charlene Gower on May 29, 2007Comments: We do not need any more industrial unit's in the area spoiling the amazing views and potentially damaging wildlife. Also the increase in heavy goods vehicle and noise is not wanted.Flag
-
17
Name: Martin Gower on May 29, 2007Comments: This is not something we need in the area.Flag
-
18
Name: B O'Reilly on May 29, 2007Comments: These two applications are unbelievably inappropriate - a step backwards in the regeneration of the area.Flag
-
19
Name: Anonymous on May 29, 2007Comments:Flag
-
20
Name: Anonymous on May 29, 2007Comments:Flag
-
21
Name: Bianca Miller on May 30, 2007Comments: I am very much opposed to the planning permissions for the Aggregates site and the recycling site because of:Flag
-
22
Name: Anonymous on May 30, 2007Comments:Flag
-
23
Name: Alastair Craft on May 30, 2007Comments: Heavy lorries along North Woolwich road will greatly disturb local residents who live adjacent to it, especially at night time.Flag
-
24
Name: Philip Liptrot on May 30, 2007Comments: The industrialisation of this site will conflict seriously with the current and planned residential developments along North Woolwich Rd. I am fundamentally opposed to the application in it's current form.Flag
-
25
Name: Anonymous on May 30, 2007Comments:Flag
-
26
Name: Anonymous on May 30, 2007Comments: I object strongly to the applications bid to develop the site for a recycling or aggregates operation.Flag
-
27
Name: Linda Brookes on May 31, 2007Comments: I object to the Peruvan Wharf Planning application on the grounds of inadequate consultation with local residents; the increase in noise, dust and vibration; the increase in heavy lorries along North Woolwich Road, which is already a dangerous rat run for many motorist avoiding the A13. Don't we have enough noise to put up with, with City Airport on our door step. What is wrong with the recycling plant already in place on the Isle of Dogs. Are the residents of the very expensive newly built apartments complaining already about the noise and smell. How can this proposal be in keeping with the regeneration of the area.Flag
-
28
Name: Anonymous on May 31, 2007Comments:Flag
-
29
Name: Anonymous on Jun 1, 2007Comments:Flag
-
30
Name: Keith Collins on Jun 1, 2007Comments: I strongly protest against the proposed development of Peruvian Warfe on the grounds listed aboveFlag
-
31
Name: Col Kennedy on Jun 1, 2007Comments:Flag
-
32
Name: Vlad Botic on Jun 1, 2007Comments:Flag
-
33
Name: Claire Boshier on Jun 4, 2007Comments:Flag
-
34
Name: Kerry Church on Jun 4, 2007Comments:Flag
-
35
Name: Cassandra Church on Jun 4, 2007Comments:Flag
-
36
Name: Lorraine Church on Jun 4, 2007Comments:Flag
-
37
Name: ANNA MORT on Jun 4, 2007Comments:Flag
-
38
Name: Amanda Smith on Jun 6, 2007Comments:Flag
-
39
Name: Jill Smith on Jun 6, 2007Comments: This is not suitable for this siteFlag
-
40
Name: MW on Jun 7, 2007Comments:Flag
-
41
Name: Sarah Carter on Jun 8, 2007Comments: yes i agree with you, i was upset when i heard what they were planning to do. they have no consideration the resident of b.v and it bad enough with the lorry now as sometimes my house shakes a bit with the lorryFlag
-
42
Name: Michael Levene on Jun 10, 2007Comments: as a resident i would regard this proposed development to be a serious retrograde step in a developing residential area.Flag
-
43
Name: Michael Levene on Jun 10, 2007Comments: as a resident i would regard this proposed development to be a serious retrograde step in a developing residential area.Flag
-
44
Name: Doug Brookes on Jun 11, 2007Comments: Based on current housing development in this area of London, placing any form of industrial site here makes no sense. It will degrade residents standard of living and cause untold problems in the future.Flag
-
45
Name: Anne Daly on Jun 12, 2007Comments: I strongly protest against this for the reasons listed above.Flag
-
46
Name: David Grocott on Jun 18, 2007Comments:Flag
-
47
Name: Robert Man on Oct 4, 2007Comments: I object.Flag
-
48
Name: Elaine Williams on Jan 8, 2008Comments: The Capital and Provident proposals for a mixed use scheme on Peruvian Wharf were rejected by the Secretary of State largely on the grounds that residential units were sited next to Knights Animal Rendering plant which was likely to lead to complaints. Knights and the adjacent Manhattan Wharf have now ben purchased by Ballymore properties\who intend to redevelop the sites for housing. One of the principal reasons for the refusal of the C&P Peruvian Wharf scheme therefore no longer exists. The scheme with its covered aggregates wharf should clearly be reconsidered.Flag
-
49
Name: Judy Barr on Jan 9, 2008Comments:Flag
-
50
Name: David Bullions on Jan 9, 2008Comments:Flag
Page: 1, 2