STOP Rougham Airfield Relief Road

Signatures 2216 total

Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... 45 › »

1. 151
   Name: Lewis Wilby on Nov 30, 2006

   Comments:

   Flag
2. 152
   Name: Adrian Sprittles on Nov 30, 2006

   Comments:

   Flag
3. 153
   Name: Jean Lonsdale on Nov 30, 2006

   Comments: How ridiculous is that road! Common sense should dictate that to take it a few miles further, thereby avoiding the airfield and all the related problems wouls cost little more and prevent a great number of obvious problems.

   Flag
4. 154
   Name: Anonymous on Nov 30, 2006

   Comments: I strongly object to this relief road running through the airfield. Please spare a thought to those that use the airfield, save our vanishing countryside and use the alternative route. Bury St Edmunds will not be remembered for a relief road running through an airfield but it will be remembered as West Suffolks open air venue.

   Flag
5. 155
   Name: Bob Gnarly on Nov 30, 2006

   Comments:

   Flag
6. 156
   Name: Graham Cooke on Nov 30, 2006

   Comments: Cannot be allowed to happen

   Flag
7. 157
   Name: Simon Hay on Nov 30, 2006

   Comments:

   Flag
8. 158
   Name: Michael Howard on Nov 30, 2006

   Comments: I pay my taxes and I will have my say Keep England A Green And Pleasant Land, These field's hold many WW2 memories to many a person, let's respect the hero's that gave their lives to give us freedom Keep Rogham green. Keep The B in British

   Flag
9. 159
   Name: Keith Towell on Nov 30, 2006

   Comments: The proposed routeing seems daft with the A14, A143 and the existing B-road on the north side of the airfield all serving the same east-west purpose. When Beech Field at Wichita was extended, a very neat cut-and-cover took the road under the runway. The same technique could enable the new road to be run even more directly, without interfering with the historic site or the n-s runway, and largely avoiding having the road slice in two a precious green space.

   Flag
10. 160
    Name: Selwyn Forster on Nov 30, 2006

    Comments: "Stop Rougham Airfield Relief Road" NOW!

    Flag
11. 161
    Name: Colin Kerrigan on Nov 30, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
12. 162
    Name: Dave Pitchford on Nov 30, 2006

    Comments: This proposed relieve road should not be allowed to take place as it will have such a devastating effect on Rougham Airfield and to whom that use it. There are alternatives and they should be considered more so than this inconsiderate plan which is driven by cost, but with no consideration for what this will do now and in the future.

    Flag
13. 163
    Name: Peter Wilton on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments: A simple shifting of the route will save the listed buildings, the memorial and the airfeild as a whole.

    Flag
14. 164
    Name: Paulb on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
15. 165
    Name: John Ballinger on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
16. 166
    Name: John Ballinger on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
17. 167
    Name: Roger Bell on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
18. 168
    Name: Colin Baxter on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments: It always appears that airfields are not considered worth saving in the face of far more pollutive interests with very little historic worth.

    Flag
19. 169
    Name: Nigel Sutcliffe on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
20. 170
    Name: Colin Hughes on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments: The airfield is an amenity for the local community and the more southerly route for the road would be more suitable

    Flag
21. 171
    Name: Jan on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments: Others far more eloquent than me have given reasons similar to mine. It would be a tragedy to loose this historic airfield when there is a perfectly good alternative.

    Flag
22. 172
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
23. 173
    Name: Philip O'Donoghue on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
24. 174
    Name: Shaun Neville on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
25. 175
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments: UK general aviation industry is an important contributor to the UK economy in GDP terms as well as providing both employment and commercial opertunities for Rougham Airfield local economies. In these days of political correctness these types of local greenfield sites supplying private & business aviayion needs can be classed as environmentialy freindly., protecting the surrounding flora & forna and natural specieces which are continuingly under threat. The airfield also supplies dwell time & sporting opportunities as well as generating tourism for the local areas.

    Flag
26. 176
    Name: Tony Smith on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
27. 177
    Name: Anthony Harrington on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments: Rougham is a historic, active, vibrant airfield and should not be compromised by roads or other forms of development.

    Flag
28. 178
    Name: Ludovic COLIN on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
29. 179
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments: Why not widen thr existing road Or are there too many NIMBY's

    Flag
30. 180
    Name: David J Glover on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments: Enough is enough

    Flag
31. 181
    Name: Andrew Leak on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments: I am disheartened that yet another airfield is being completely dissected due to yet more building requirements that this area is struggling to cope with. Building a road through what is a historic site is catastrophic. Please reconsider the route planned for the road and use common sense for a change. Andrew Leak

    Flag
32. 182
    Name: Lindsey Devey on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
33. 183
    Name: Anthony John Langdon on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments: As land is available for the proposed route to the north of the Roughham industrial estate, this land could be used to accomodate industrial activty displaced from the Industrial Estate to allow the alternate route for the releif road favoured by those wishing to preserve the Control Tower Museum. The Control Tower and memorial are unique. Industrial activity can be moved.

    Flag
34. 184
    Name: Sue Theeman on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
35. 185
    Name: David Taylor on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
36. 186
    Name: Stuart Balding on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
37. 187
    Name: James Davies on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
38. 188
    Name: Diane Bruce on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments: There are lots of different groups who use this arefield and who need the space to enjoy the sport they are interested in. Take this away and there will be a alot of dissapointed people not to mention the historic nature of the airfield.

    Flag
39. 189
    Name: Russ Monhemius on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments: More roads are not the answer.

    Flag
40. 190
    Name: Robert Curtis on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
41. 191
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments: Why does this government want to continue to ruin the lansdcape of this country, when there is plenty of old buildings sitting dorment that could be used for new homes!! Cost thats all it is!! Leave Rougham alone

    Flag
42. 192
    Name: Paul Crispin 232748a on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments: Serious consideration must be given to the non disruptive alternative route possible,ie that which follows the route of the Airfield Southern perimeter track and existing road and passes through the Rougham Industrial Estate before exiting at General Castle Way to link with the new Junction 45 of the A14.

    Flag
43. 193
    Name: Matthew Binns on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
44. 194
    Name: Martin C on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments: Is it so nessary and in such and obstructive location to simply save money

    Flag
45. 195
    Name: Robert James Walker on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments: I AM A FREQUENTY FLYER AT THE AIR FIELD I WISH TO AD MY NAME TO STOP THE NEW ROAD BIENG PUT THROUGH THIS VERY SPECIAL AIR FIELD AS MY CHILDREN ALSO LIKE COMING TO THE AIRFILED AND TOWER. ROBERT WALKER

    Flag
46. 196
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments: I AM A FREQUENTY FLYER AT THE AIR FIELD I WISH TO AD MY NAME TO STOP THE NEW ROAD BIENG PUT THROUGH THIS VERY SPECIAL AIR FIELD AS MY CHILDREN ALSO LIKE COMING TO THE AIRFILED AND TOWER. ROBERT WALKER

    Flag
47. 197
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments: There are lots of different groups who use this space to enjoy the sport they are interested in.

    Flag
48. 198
    Name: Norman Cotterell on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments: I object to the link road. Do not destroy this lovely historial airfield.

    Flag
49. 199
    Name: Rosalind London on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag
50. 200
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 1, 2006

    Comments:

    Flag

Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... 45 › »