Signatures 166 total
-
1
Name: Sara Rankin on Feb 5, 2013Comments: Not one person I know who lives in barton le clay wants this to happen. we love our village and want it to stay a safeand polesantbplace to live in.Flag
-
2
Name: Sarah Young on Feb 5, 2013Comments: they will make the schools under rescource and amenitiesFlag
-
3
Name: Sarah Young on Feb 5, 2013Comments: they will make the schools under rescource and amenitiesFlag
-
4
Name: Katy Bucknell on Feb 5, 2013Comments: why spoil a beautiful village. big mistake.Flag
-
5
Name: Gill Piercy on Feb 5, 2013Comments: Not enough school places and amenitiesFlag
-
6
Name: Marianne Steele on Feb 5, 2013Comments: The village cannot cope with the proposed sitesFlag
-
7
Name: Lorinda Matthews on Feb 5, 2013Comments:Flag
-
8
Name: Jamie Nagy on Feb 5, 2013Comments:Flag
-
9
Name: Lee Prendergast on Feb 5, 2013Comments:Flag
-
10
Name: Jeremy Prendergast on Feb 5, 2013Comments:Flag
-
11
Name: Anonymous on Feb 5, 2013Comments:Flag
-
12
Name: Sharon Court on Feb 5, 2013Comments:Flag
-
13
Name: Brian Aitken on Feb 6, 2013Comments:Flag
-
14
Name: Amie on Feb 6, 2013Comments:Flag
-
15
Name: Ann Gatland on Feb 6, 2013Comments:Flag
-
16
Name: Mark Webb on Feb 7, 2013Comments:Flag
-
17
Name: Mark Newman on Feb 7, 2013Comments:Flag
-
18
Name: Adrian Minta on Feb 7, 2013Comments: another additional drain on a already oversubscribed local school systemFlag
-
19
Name: David Neale on Feb 7, 2013Comments: I am strongly against the proposed traveller site in barton Le clayFlag
-
20
Name: Jeanette Mckenna on Feb 7, 2013Comments: I strongly object to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites in Barton-Le-Clay, Bedfordshire and agrre with the above points.Flag
-
21
Name: Matthew Paine on Feb 7, 2013Comments: I strongly object to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites in Barton-Le-Clay, Bedfordshire and agree with the above points.Flag
-
22
Name:
Linda Hoenes on Feb 7, 2013
Comments: I strongly object to the proposed gypsy and travellers sites in Barton-le-Clay and agree with the points raised in this petition.Flag -
23
Name: Anonymous on Feb 7, 2013Comments: The proposed sites are on green belt , a normal building development would be rejected on this basis . Proper consultation with local council and residents has not taken place . The placement of these sites would mean 3 gypsy sites within a 3 mile radius of the village putting increasing pressure on local amenities and schools . I am also concerned about the reports from other areas with gypsy sites that crime / theft increases in the area and those responsible reside within the sites.Flag
-
24
Name: Julia Cox on Feb 7, 2013Comments: The two proposed sites are totally in contradiction with Council policies on greenfield sites, agricultural land usage and protection of the greenbelt. Both sites also do not meet the stage 3 criteria listed. There is an existing traveller site at Pulloxhill, I utterly fail to see why there needs to be the potential of 3 traveller sites within such a small area. I feel the proposed usage for this land by CBC is totally inappropriate and impractical.Flag
-
25
Name: Christopher Cox on Feb 8, 2013Comments: Looking down the list of the criteria set out by CBC, within the Gypsy & Traveller Local Plan, to establish the suitability of the two sites, there is clearly every reason to disregard both sites on numerous counts. This is, however, providing that CBC intend to reach a decision by following their own guidelines & not by simply ignoring them or misinterpreting them. I do fear however that there are already signs of this given that the fundamental reasons for deeming the sites as unsuitable should have been taken into account during the 1st & 2nd stage assessment that would have seen them eliminated from the initial list of potential sites. I can't help but feel that this whole process is being driven without justified reasoning in order to reach a particular target. I therefore strongly urge CBC to consider the implications of making recommendations that clearly contradict their own local plan. Unfortunately if the same approach is adopted for the 3rd assessment then there really isn't any point in having an assessment process at all. These sites would not provide a practical solution to the needs of Travellers however their development would prove detrimental to both the natural environment & the settled community.Flag
-
26
Name: Chris Burgess on Feb 8, 2013Comments:Flag
-
27
Name: Sharon Graham on Feb 8, 2013Comments: I strongly object to the inclusion of sites 15 & 16 in Barton le Clay. The 2 sites if approved could potentially mean having to accomodate more than 200 school aged children for which the current infrastructrure can not withhold. The Luton Road site is at risk of flooding as it already does so when we have had prolinged spells of rain. My detailed objections are documented in my letter to Jonathon Partridge.Flag
-
28
Name: Chris Buss on Feb 8, 2013Comments: If this travesty is allowed to happen, I WILL stop paying my council tax to offset the reduction in my property value. I suggest that everyone in Barton does the same. We vote in our councillors to represent us, the people of Barton Le-Clay. It's time for them to earn their keep! If they allow this to happen, they will have failed in their duty!Flag
-
29
Name: Judy Burgess on Feb 8, 2013Comments:Flag
-
30
Name: Martyn Green on Feb 8, 2013Comments: Don't ruin our beautiful countryside and push our village amenities beyond breaking point.Flag
-
31
Name: Anonymous on Feb 8, 2013Comments:Flag
-
32
Name: Anonymous on Feb 8, 2013Comments:Flag
-
33
Name:
Santina Bailey on Feb 8, 2013
Comments: This should never happen especially as this is on green belt landFlag -
34
Name: Jacqueline Potter on Feb 8, 2013Comments: Already over burdened amenities - doctors, dentist and particularly schools would not cope with the extra demand. Sewerage and water services would not cope. Encroachment on the Green Belt and SSSI protected status of Barton Hills. Flood risk and protected species, flora and fauna needs to be determined. Increase in traffic in the village and getting onto the bypass also will be a huge problem.Flag
-
35
Name: Joanne Bayliss on Feb 8, 2013Comments: Signing against proposed sites In Barton le clayFlag
-
36
Name: Lisa Mallery on Feb 8, 2013Comments:Flag
-
37
Name: Summer Bailey on Feb 8, 2013Comments:Flag
-
38
Name: Alex Bailey on Feb 8, 2013Comments:Flag
-
39
Name: Suzanne Kehoe on Feb 8, 2013Comments: This must not happen - our countryside must be saved along with our villages.Flag
-
40
Name: Anna Butler on Feb 8, 2013Comments:Flag
-
41
Name: Anonymous on Feb 8, 2013Comments:Flag
-
42
Name: Anonymous on Feb 8, 2013Comments:Flag
-
43
Name: Kristen Lawrence on Feb 8, 2013Comments:Flag
-
44
Name: Paul Lawrence on Feb 8, 2013Comments:Flag
-
45
Name: Mandi Hudson on Feb 8, 2013Comments: i fully object to the plans, neither site is safe for people to live on.Flag
-
46
Name: Stephen Hudson on Feb 8, 2013Comments: The village infrastructure cannot support more people.Flag
-
47
Name: Dee Holmes on Feb 8, 2013Comments: I object to these plansFlag
-
48
Name: Wendy Gill on Feb 8, 2013Comments: I object to the proposed sites.Flag
-
49
Name: David Gill on Feb 8, 2013Comments: i fully object to the plansFlag
-
50
Name: James Gill on Feb 8, 2013Comments: im opposed to the proposed traveller sites.Flag