Signatures 26 total
Page: 1
-
1
Name: Dana Birksted on Jan 12, 2013Comments:Flag
-
2
Name: Ian Birksted on Jan 12, 2013Comments: I remain very unconvinced about the technical necessity for such a commercial mast in the very middle of a densely populated residential area, with narrow pedestrian pavements, where there are already several masts in close proximity.Flag
-
3
Name: Sheila Newman on Jan 13, 2013Comments: I heartily support this petition, especially with regard to the health hazards of yet another powerful mast in a highly populated area.Flag
-
4
Name: Elizabeth Beckman on Jan 14, 2013Comments: I support Camden's refusal of planning permission for the mast and cabinets in the conservation areaFlag
-
5
Name: Matthew McCarthy on Jan 14, 2013Comments: Nothing has changed since the last time I objected - this appeal is pointlessFlag
-
6
Name: Mina Sanai on Jan 15, 2013Comments: I totally support this petition. The health hazards are a great worry and the unsightly mast will be detrimental to the essence of this conservation area.Flag
-
7
Name: Vanda Renton on Jan 15, 2013Comments: This will spoil the appearance of this lovely streetFlag
-
8
Name: Charles Renton on Jan 15, 2013Comments: I oppose the erection of the proposed mastFlag
-
9
Name: Vicky Fobel on Jan 16, 2013Comments: This is an inappropriate place for a phone mastFlag
-
10
Name: Caroline Olshewsky on Jan 17, 2013Comments:Flag
-
11
Name: Caroline Olshewsky on Jan 17, 2013Comments: I am fully in support of this petition - a mast would be blight on a beautiful part of our local area.Flag
-
12
Name: Ruth Smilg on Jan 17, 2013Comments: This mast would add to the clutter of objects in this attractive street, which already has too many objects in it. The proposed mast is outsized and would be very unsightly.Flag
-
13
Name: Julian Smilg on Jan 17, 2013Comments: The proposed mast adds to an already busy corner, detracting from a very attractive road. The mast is much taller and larger than anything else in the road.Flag
-
14
Name: Patricia Zekaria on Jan 18, 2013Comments:Flag
-
15
Name: Douglas Maxwell on Jan 18, 2013Comments: The Heath & Hampstead Society deplores development of this nature in the conservation area and support Camden's refusal of planning permission. If needed at all, it should be sited in a less conspicuous poisition and / or in an area where it will not adversely affect heritage assets of acknowledged importanceFlag
-
16
Name: Anonymous on Jan 18, 2013Comments: We reside at 20 Redington Gardens and support the objections to the proposed mobile phone mast.Flag
-
17
Name: Izzy Smilg on Jan 18, 2013Comments: The mast will br too big and too near to the corner with Redington Road which has lots of boxes there already.Flag
-
18
Name: Jeremy Smilg on Jan 18, 2013Comments: The mast is completely inappropriate given the nature of the neighbourhood. Given the sites at Ashley Court and recent permission for the corner of Templewood this additional site is superfluous. A reasonable number of masts is sensible but their proliferation on a vast scale is simply not justifiable.Flag
-
19
Name: Anonymous on Jan 18, 2013Comments: I live at number 26 Redington Gardens and object to any more street furniture in our lovely road. Camden Council were right to refuse planning permission and I support their decisionFlag
-
20
Name: Sally Marlow on Jan 20, 2013Comments: The proposed mast will dominate the area and add visual clutter, as well as possibly be a health hazard to the children in the area.Flag
-
21
Name: Delilah Dyson on Jan 20, 2013Comments: There are far too many masts in the area already. In my experience they are not safe, and there is no proof that they are safe. I am very concerned and especially for our children!Flag
-
22
Name: Irving Yass on Jan 21, 2013Comments:Flag
-
23
Name: Marion Yass on Jan 21, 2013Comments:Flag
-
24
Name: David Lewis on Jan 26, 2013Comments: There are precedents in the adjoining Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation area for appeals being rejected (there may be more recent ones as well as the ones listed below). The Inspector should make a decision consistent with the adjoining conservation area where the type and age of dwellings is very similar to those in Redington Gardens: Land opposite 82 Addison Way (2007; C16919B/06) Land adjacent to 2 Lyttelton Road (2006; C16333A/05) Junction of Meadway and Kingsley Way (2006; C16474/05) Kenwood Close/Hampstead Lane (2006; C16391/05) Highways verge 190 Falloden Way (2004; C14891A/03) Spaniards Road (2001; C14341/01) Junction of Ossulton Way and Lyttelton Road (2001; C12083/00)Flag
-
25
Name: Montserrat Lopez Mestres on Jan 28, 2013Comments:Flag
-
26
Name: Carlos Galiano on Jan 28, 2013Comments:Flag
Page: 1