Provided the developers commit to contribute on the same basis as other RRC residents , we could possibly reconsider .
N
Natasha
5 years ago
Reject access to enclosure
S
Sam Cowen
5 years ago
No
D
Dragana
5 years ago
NO
A
Aditi Bhat
5 years ago
No
Y
Yannick Kala Konga
5 years ago
74B Stiglingh Road
K
Kamal Dullabh
5 years ago
No from us
M
Michael Zive
5 years ago
No - 51 Bevan Rd
M
Mark Dickason
5 years ago
Featured
Vote No due to increased security risk and the safety of the children walking, playing and riding their biks in the streets.
L
Lucy Marshall
5 years ago
No
J
Jono Maxwell
5 years ago
NO
J
Jolene Dawson
5 years ago
Featured
No to including Tyto development into the RRC enclosure.
Their inclusion offers no benefit to the RRC community, only cost. The and lower contribution means they won’t even cover the additional cost they causing the enclosure to incur, especially if additional entrance is required. Good for Tyto, not good for residents, more cost, more risk, more congestion. No from 22 River Road
A
Andiswa Ndoni
5 years ago
No to the extension. Identified risks can’t be mitigated.
T
Thembelani
5 years ago
No, 14B Shelley
A
Anonymous
5 years ago
No
A
Anesu Faith Chaibva-King'ori
5 years ago
No.
G
Gary Mailich
5 years ago
No - 46 River Rd
L
Linda Reid
5 years ago
Featured
NO to extend RRC.
Wessels road turning into Gary absolutely can't support more vehicles queuing in the evenings. The extra contributions won't cover the extra need for road maintenance and protection services. We would certainly need an extra manned access point to handle the increased traffic and even at full contributions that would be tough to manage.
No
Provided the developers commit to contribute on the same basis as other RRC residents , we could possibly reconsider .
Reject access to enclosure
No
NO
No
74B Stiglingh Road
No from us
No - 51 Bevan Rd
Vote No due to increased security risk and the safety of the children walking, playing and riding their biks in the streets.
No
NO
No to including Tyto development into the RRC enclosure. Their inclusion offers no benefit to the RRC community, only cost. The and lower contribution means they won’t even cover the additional cost they causing the enclosure to incur, especially if additional entrance is required. Good for Tyto, not good for residents, more cost, more risk, more congestion. No from 22 River Road
No to the extension. Identified risks can’t be mitigated.
No, 14B Shelley
No
No.
No - 46 River Rd
NO to extend RRC. Wessels road turning into Gary absolutely can't support more vehicles queuing in the evenings. The extra contributions won't cover the extra need for road maintenance and protection services. We would certainly need an extra manned access point to handle the increased traffic and even at full contributions that would be tough to manage.
No to the extension