Powered by iPetitions - Start your online petition now

Signatures 635 total

Page: « 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... 13 »

  1. 51
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 13, 2013
    Comments: I wish to express my concern at the Planning application to extent the travellers site in Grappenhall.
    Flag
  2. 52
    Name: Olivia Harvey on Jan 13, 2013
    Comments:
    Flag
  3. 53
    Name: Daniel Sutcliffe on Jan 13, 2013
    Comments:
    Flag
  4. 54
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 13, 2013
    Comments: this is a sin!!!!
    Flag
  5. 55
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 13, 2013
    Comments:
    Flag
  6. 56
    Name: Mrs Susan Thornton on Jan 13, 2013
    Comments: I feel the site is encouraging more travellers to the area, they are currently parked up on Blackcap Rd (roundabout) they have been there weeks. Also they park in other parts of Appleton Thorn. They leave rubbish, knock on doors etc.
    Flag
  7. 57
    Name: Alan Barton on Jan 13, 2013
    Comments: I vigorously object to the proposal for the travellers site forTravelling families in the Green Belt in Grappenhall, located at the corner of Broad Lane and Cartridge Lane, Grappenhall
    Flag
  8. 58
    Name: Nicola Miller on Jan 13, 2013
    Comments:
    Flag
  9. 59
    Name: Nigel Goulden on Jan 13, 2013
    Comments: This application completely comprises the inappropriate development of “greenbelt land” and i object strongly to the application being granted.
    Flag
  10. 60
    Name: Nigel Goulden on Jan 13, 2013
    Comments: This application completely comprises the inappropriate development of “greenbelt land” and i object strongly to the application being granted.
    Flag
  11. 61
    Name: Sarah Lawley on Jan 13, 2013
    Comments: I object to this application as i believe it completely comprises the inappropriate development of “greenbelt land” in this area.
    Flag
  12. 62
    Name: Peter Brown on Jan 13, 2013
    Comments: an insidious attempt to create a permanent site for travelers who contribute nothing to the local community
    Flag
  13. 63
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 13, 2013
    Comments:
    Flag
  14. 64
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 13, 2013
    Comments:
    Flag
  15. 65
    Name: Lindsay Grace on Jan 13, 2013
    Comments: How come this is even being considered on green belt land.
    Flag
  16. 66
    Name: Rob Hawcroft on Jan 13, 2013
    Comments: Thanks for highlighting this to us.
    Flag
  17. 67
    Name: Stephen Grace on Jan 13, 2013
    Comments: Most sincerely object to this if they were not travellers I believe it would not be given the time of day.
    Flag
  18. 68
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 13, 2013
    Comments:
    Flag
  19. 69
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 13, 2013
    Comments:
    Flag
  20. 70
    Name: John Goulden on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments: This application completely comprises the inappropriate development of “greenbelt land”.
    Flag
  21. 71
    Name: Elaine Inett on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments: This has aready gone ahead without permission and should be refused and made to remove the said 'at least' on my least count 12 vans.
    Flag
  22. 72
    Name: Andrew on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments:
    Flag
  23. 73
    Name: Marian Longshaw on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments: The lack of attendance at the meeting was surely down to the feelings of hopelessness and helplessness felt about the application as well as many residents not being aware that the meeting was taking place. Despite huge opposition when planning permission was sought and turned down previously, it was then allowed on a temporary basis. Instead of the travellers now being asked to move on or to gain permission legally, they intend to expand their accommodation! I found it worrying that the relationship between their representative and council members seemed quite familiar, almost as though they were going through the motions before allowing permission.
    Flag
  24. 74
    Name: David Longshaw on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments:
    Flag
  25. 75
    Name: John Longshaw on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments:
    Flag
  26. 76
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments: No issue with existing set up- but this larger site should not be approved.
    Flag
  27. 77
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments: I strongly object to both the existing set up and the new application
    Flag
  28. 78
    Name: Gerald Brown on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments: I oppose this application
    Flag
  29. 79
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments:
    Flag
  30. 80
    Name: Mike Phillips on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments: There can not be one rule for them and another rule for us. Green Belt land is Green Belt land! And that means no building.
    Flag
  31. 81
    Name: Wilf Roylance on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments: get em offf
    Flag
  32. 82
    Name: Daniel Hesketh on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments: too many of them already
    Flag
  33. 83
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments: This is a flagrant abuse of the planning rules that everybody else has to adhere to but travellers abuse it all the time and seem to get away with it.The outcome will be that the rest of us will adopt the same underhand tactics next time we need planning consent.
    Flag
  34. 84
    Name: Dorothy Mcfarlane on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments: I oppose the planning consent of application 2012/20274
    Flag
  35. 85
    Name: Ronald Mcfarlane on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments: I oppose planning consent in respect of application number 2012/20274
    Flag
  36. 86
    Name: Brian Smith on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments: no building allowed on green belt land. This will set a precedant.
    Flag
  37. 87
    Name: Peter Houghton on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments: I live at Appleton Thorn and have already logged my objection, however I'm puzzled that the original permission which I objected to has expired and don't remember anything about it being extended. I've asked the council why they are still on the site but no response.
    Flag
  38. 88
    Name: Lynda Clare on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments: I oppose this extension to the current set up.
    Flag
  39. 89
    Name: Mark Clare on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments: I oppose this extension to the current set up.
    Flag
  40. 90
    Name: Peter Whitehead on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments: It is appalling that a development, of this sort, should be allowed on green belt land.
    Flag
  41. 91
    Name: P Moir-Riches on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments:
    Flag
  42. 92
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments:
    Flag
  43. 93
    Name: Anne Henshall on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments: There can't be one rule for them and another rule for us. Green Belt land is Green Belt land and we need to preserve these areas. Move them to Brown sights similar to what the all the house builders are doing now.
    Flag
  44. 94
    Name: David Cooke on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments:
    Flag
  45. 95
    Name: Catherine Edwards on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments: I have sent email to Warrington council regarding this. We do not want them living in this area.Last time travellers set up home near by our car was broken into, our child bike stolen. They were using the path and road as a tolilet and leaving their litter all over the floor. I do not want them attempting to attend the school that my children go to. We pay over the odds to live in this area and we do not want it!!!!
    Flag
  46. 96
    Name: J.jackson on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments:
    Flag
  47. 97
    Name: Lindsey Etheridge on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments: I strongly object to the destruction of existing Green Belt land to create a significant Housing Development which is incompatible with surrounding properties.
    Flag
  48. 98
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments: I am 8 1/2 months pregnant so am unable to attend the meeting on 24th January however I agree that it seems that the proposed development is very much an infringement of the Green Belt rules.
    Flag
  49. 99
    Name: David Jones on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments:
    Flag
  50. 100
    Name: Anthony Middleton on Jan 14, 2013
    Comments: Do these families make a contribution to society ie taxes,if not why not? This site is next door to an industrial estate. Do they intend to stay on this site or sell at a profit in the future? Is the site for residential use or as a commercial venture?
    Flag

Page: « 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... 13 »

Sponsored links