Stand Against Razor's Farm

Signatures 406 total

Page: « ‹ 1, ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 › »

1. 251
   Name: Anonymous on Dec 7, 2012

   Comments: strongly agree that any new development in that area will severely hinder traffic flow for current and any new residents.

   Flag
2. 252
   Name: Helen Worgan on Dec 7, 2012

   Comments: Existing road infrastructure cannot support further traffic and local schools are completely full. There is no plan to provide permanent school places.

   Flag
3. 253
   Name: Matt Ward on Dec 8, 2012

   Comments: Increased traffic + no new road infrastructure + already extremely congested roads on SP and A33 = poor planning. The council should be ashamed of their decision with such a proposal. And where will the train station be? There is no sign of it on Croudace's plan.

   Flag
4. 254
   Name: Robert Ricket on Dec 8, 2012

   Comments: We don't need this as it will clog up the streets of Chineham and add to the already overstreached infrastrucutre of the area.

   Flag
5. 255
   Name: Christine Robertson on Dec 8, 2012

   Comments: I totally agree with all of the comments above.

   Flag
6. 256
   Name: Sue Westrep on Dec 8, 2012

   Comments: Proposed new development should NOT be allowed. Ridiculous traffic problems around here already!

   Flag
7. 257
   Name: Richard Buxton on Dec 9, 2012

   Comments:

   Flag
8. 258
   Name: Anonymous on Dec 10, 2012

   Comments: Appreciate it for helping out, superb information. "Our individual lives cannot, generally, be works of art unless the social order is also." by Charles Horton Cooley. moncler outlet http://supermonclercoats.webs.com/

   Flag
9. 259
   Name: Nigel Alderman on Dec 10, 2012

   Comments:

   Flag
10. 260
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 10, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
11. 261
    Name: Nicole Ivy on Dec 10, 2012

    Comments: Stop destroying perfect land!

    Flag
12. 262
    Name: Abigail Russell on Dec 10, 2012

    Comments: This development cannot be allowed to go ahead. The area is already under strain with it's lack of local infrastructure, an increase in housing here will cripple the area.

    Flag
13. 263
    Name: Mrs Valerie Monger on Dec 11, 2012

    Comments: How many of the people who make these decisions live in the area being ruined!!

    Flag
14. 264
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 11, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
15. 265
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 11, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
16. 266
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 11, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
17. 267
    Name: Hannah Miles on Dec 11, 2012

    Comments: The local area (Including Sherfield, Chineham & mainly Popley have been subjected to an enormous amount of house building over the last 6 years and the infrastructure simply can not cope. There are not enough school places, doctors, dentists etc for existing houses let alone the plans for more housing. It simply can not be allowed to go ahead

    Flag
18. 268
    Name: Catherine Walford on Dec 11, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
19. 269
    Name: Liz Blencowe on Dec 11, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
20. 270
    Name: Justin Deal on Dec 12, 2012

    Comments: Agree with points 1,2and 3 raised

    Flag
21. 271
    Name: SCOTT KENDALL on Dec 12, 2012

    Comments: OBJECT TO PLANNING PERMISSION!

    Flag
22. 272
    Name: JJ/Nevitt on Dec 12, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
23. 273
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 13, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
24. 274
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments: No more development needed, there are no extra support facilities being proposed.

    Flag
25. 275
    Name: Annette Jefferies on Dec 14, 2012

    Comments: I am totally against this planning application, our local amenities are already stretched to capacity. We do not need anymore houses being built in or near Chineham.

    Flag
26. 276
    Name: Nigel on Dec 15, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
27. 277
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 16, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
28. 278
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 16, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
29. 279
    Name: Katie Strickland on Dec 17, 2012

    Comments: Increased congestion can only cause more accidents in the area. Our schools are already over subscribed so another 480 homes will only exacerbate the problem. More importantly we need to preserve so e of our decreasing greenland.

    Flag
30. 280
    Name: Mark McClelland on Dec 17, 2012

    Comments: Everytime a new development is planned for the Chineham, Sherfield, Bramley area there is no account given to amenities. The local Tesco store is already unable to cater for the increased population from recent developments, the village lanes are insufficient for current let alone increased traffic levels, no additional investment in school, medical, youth or other much needed local community infrastructural support.

    Flag
31. 281
    Name: Michael Devenport on Dec 18, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
32. 282
    Name: Alexandra Macedo on Dec 18, 2012

    Comments: According to the above reasons and to all other problems they lead to, it is of no sense to build 480 homes. It is an action that will only fully benefit a handful of people and prejudice everyone else.

    Flag
33. 283
    Name: Elizabeth Whittaker on Dec 18, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
34. 284
    Name: Natalie Bertrand on Dec 19, 2012

    Comments: I object to the Razor's Farm development in an area that has already been developed . Razor's Farm will negatively impact our area with more pollution, more traffic, environmentally stripping our forestry out and casting out wildlife. Globally, the climate is changing and this area is in a flood plain. More development will have a negative impact and I feel that BDBC better sites i.e., Mandydown, that BDBC can build upon for housing requirements.

    Flag
35. 285
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 19, 2012

    Comments: Basingstoke already comes to a standstill due to poor infrastructure during icy or bad weather conditions, why are we adding to the issue? The extra housing also means that Chineham will become a rat run due to increased traffic, resulting decrease in safety for our children crossing the roads. With no educational or health facilities planned, increased burden will be placed on our existing facilities.

    Flag
36. 286
    Name: Gill Stringer on Dec 19, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
37. 287
    Name: Michelle Baker on Dec 19, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
38. 288
    Name: Ian Barron on Dec 20, 2012

    Comments: I object to this development

    Flag
39. 289
    Name: Douglas Hunter on Dec 20, 2012

    Comments: I am not in favour of this potential development of 425 new houses being called 'Razor Farm Development'. We do not have the road infrastructure or exits from the potential estate for 1,696 cars nor can we cope with the additional sewage, water requirements, surgeries, dentist and education requirement. Again Basingstoke & Dean officers who are our representative are not taking note of what the Basingstoke population want. They will create another traffic nightmare for Chineham residents same as they have done for Brighton Hill and the residents of that side of town; can they not learn from past mistakes? I am not against new houses but I want all the infrastructure - road, traffic, sewage, schools, doctors, dentist, local shops and leisure facilities build before a single brick is laid down for housing; it is far to easy for the builders to just build and move on and leave the fall out to the residents.

    Flag
40. 290
    Name: Bridget Hunter on Dec 20, 2012

    Comments: Never mind the lack of education provision, road infrastructure and medical services, our sewage & water services are at capacity. we will all drown in our own waste if this goes ahead.

    Flag
41. 291
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 21, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
42. 292
    Name: NM & EA Williams on Dec 21, 2012

    Comments: i back the petiton strongly against this ridicilous plan

    Flag
43. 293
    Name: Christopher Moore on Dec 21, 2012

    Comments: Against further housing without provision for better roads, medical, schools and railway station.

    Flag
44. 294
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 21, 2012

    Comments: We have had enough of the new housing development please think of the increase in traffic, noise and polloution

    Flag
45. 295
    Name: Philip Espinasse on Dec 21, 2012

    Comments:

    Flag
46. 296
    Name: Wendy Sneddon on Dec 21, 2012

    Comments: this is a ridiculous proposal.The schools & medical practice are struggling to cope with Chineham & Sherfield Park as it is. this MUST not go ahead.

    Flag
47. 297
    Name: Frank .Hynes on Dec 22, 2012

    Comments: Act now before it is too late.

    Flag
48. 298
    Name: Frank Hynes on Dec 22, 2012

    Comments: Act now before it is too late.

    Flag
49. 299
    Name: James Dean on Dec 23, 2012

    Comments: I am against this further development when there already is a far better site to the north of the town. I would much rather a train station instead which would help bring in jobs to the business park.

    Flag
50. 300
    Name: Martin Appleford-cook on Dec 23, 2012

    Comments: The area cannot handle any more development.

    Flag

Page: « ‹ 1, ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 › »