Stop development of Traveller site in Grappenhall Green Belt

Signatures 635 total

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

1. 451
   Name: Anonymous on Jan 20, 2013

   Comments:

   Flag
2. 452
   Name: Neil Crowley on Jan 20, 2013

   Comments:

   Flag
3. 453
   Name: Tracy Crowley on Jan 20, 2013

   Comments:

   Flag
4. 454
   Name: Anonymous on Jan 20, 2013

   Comments: Cant have one rule for travellers and another for the rest of the community. WBC need to provide appropriate convenient sites on brown field land and notify a far wider group of people of similar applications.

   Flag
5. 455
   Name: Anonymous on Jan 20, 2013

   Comments: Planning departments need to take into account the community and ensure full consultation in surrounding area

   Flag
6. 456
   Name: Anonymous on Jan 20, 2013

   Comments:

   Flag
7. 457
   Name: Roger Anthony Cowgill on Jan 20, 2013

   Comments: Absolutely horrific-the existing site is a disgrace and expansion should be actively opposed.

   Flag
8. 458
   Name: Victoria Gordon on Jan 20, 2013

   Comments: Following the two at Walton and Daresbury, please stop this !

   Flag
9. 459
   Name: Mike Sweeney on Jan 20, 2013

   Comments: I object to this proposal in the strongest possible way,

   Flag
10. 460
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 20, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
11. 461
    Name: Julian Pearson on Jan 20, 2013

    Comments: No objection to a small site but the current plot is too small for more than 3-4 caravans

    Flag
12. 462
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
13. 463
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
14. 464
    Name: Chris Worsley on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
15. 465
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments: This planning application should be refused - the land is green belt and the current site as it stands can be seen from the main road and is a complete eyesore on what once was a beautiful landscape, The application is a blatant attempt to manipulate planning laws and would be better suited to waste land or brown field site which would be better suited due to access to local facilities.

    Flag
16. 466
    Name: Andrew Cotter on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
17. 467
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
18. 468
    Name: Robin Bradshaw on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments: I wish to strongly object to this retrospective application which should clearly be rejected on the grounds that it has been made to circumnavigate the Planning laws in the UK in order to get housing development in green belt. This must not be allowed to go through.

    Flag
19. 469
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
20. 470
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
21. 471
    Name: Laura Cade on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
22. 472
    Name: Mat Bradshaw on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
23. 473
    Name: Ann-Michelle Clare on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
24. 474
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
25. 475
    Name: John Pownall on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments: This is a gross abuse of Planning and would be an obvious dereliction of duty by officers in WBC if the new proposal were to go through! I am wholeheartedly against any expansion at this site. I would add that I was against the proposals in the first instance

    Flag
26. 476
    Name: David Barratt on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments: I wish to strongly object to this application and the inappropriate development of green belt land. Warrington has so many unused brown sites. Application must be denied.

    Flag
27. 477
    Name: Maureen York on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
28. 478
    Name: Valerie Eyes on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
29. 479
    Name: Elizabeth Eyes on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
30. 480
    Name: Steven York on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
31. 481
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments: Signing this petition to support the objection to any expansion plans to site additional caravans and associated buildings on the existing land located at the corner of Broad Lane and Cartridge Lane.

    Flag
32. 482
    Name: Dr Janice Pownall on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments: I object to the manipulation of Planning Laws. Green Belt should remain Green Belt!!

    Flag
33. 483
    Name: Clare Davies on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
34. 484
    Name: Jeremy Davies on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
35. 485
    Name: Lesley Peak on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments: It is outrageous that planning is even being considered in this green belt area. There appears to be a separate set of planning laws for travellers that do not apply to the rest of us.

    Flag
36. 486
    Name: Karen Petrie on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
37. 487
    Name: Emma Waterhouse on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments: Please please please do NOT do this!!!Noone wants it to happen so please re think these plans!!!!

    Flag
38. 488
    Name: Derrick Colcombe on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
39. 489
    Name: Sarah Fishwick on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
40. 490
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments: These travellers should have to abide by the same rules of planning as every body else has to. Treating them differently causes resentment by law abiding citizens

    Flag
41. 491
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments: The 3 years that they have been allowed to stay is up, and they should be forced to move on after all they are suppose to be travellers

    Flag
42. 492
    Name: Jack Prescott on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments: one set of rules for all. not on Green Belt

    Flag
43. 493
    Name: Anne Prescott on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
44. 494
    Name: Helen on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
45. 495
    Name: Kevin Crawley on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments: I object strongly to this blatant disregard for planning laws and the rights of law abiding tax paying citizens and residents of the borough

    Flag
46. 496
    Name: Christopher Crompton on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
47. 497
    Name: Patricia Lythgoe on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments:

    Flag
48. 498
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments: Strongly object to this planning. Green belt should be green belt.

    Flag
49. 499
    Name: Sandra Whelan on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments: An absolute no to expanding the caravan site on broad lane as this is green belt land and this request goes against all rules and regulations in place to protect our green heritage. There is a vast selection of brown belt land available for purchase and ability to build on so this has to be their only option - just like it is for warrington born and bred folk who have to follow the rules!!!!!!

    Flag
50. 500
    Name: MICHAEL ALCOCK on Jan 21, 2013

    Comments: Green belt is what it says Green Belt!!! Not an area for people to live who do not contribute to the benifit of the land & its surroundings.

    Flag

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