Anonymous [Signature #425]</h1> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #425]</h1> <p>Mon, 27 Jun 2011 04:59:14 UTC</p> Anonymous, Ayr, South Ayrshire </article> <article> <h1>Retu Manhas [Signature #424]</h1> <p>Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:20:43 UTC</p> Retu Manhas, Warwick </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #423]</h1> <p>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:09:29 UTC</p> Anonymous, Earlsfield </article> <article> <h1>Jessica Metcalf [Signature #422]</h1> <p>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:14:28 UTC</p> Jessica Metcalf, Harpenden </article> <article> <h1>Margaret Rose [Signature #421]</h1> <p>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:06:47 UTC</p> Margaret Rose, London </article> <article> <h1>Rhodri Shaw [Signature #420]</h1> <p>Mon, 8 Feb 2010 04:51:10 UTC</p> Rhodri Shaw, Earlsfield, London<p>I strongly oppose any expansion on the proposed gypsy site.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #419]</h1> <p>Sun, 7 Feb 2010 05:06:27 UTC</p> Anonymous, London </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #418]</h1> <p>Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:58:34 UTC</p> Anonymous, London<p>YES against this large site</p> </article> <article> <h1>Edward Mawby [Signature #417]</h1> <p>Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:11:51 UTC</p> Edward Mawby, Earlsfield, London </article> <article> <h1>Jill Lovett [Signature #416]</h1> <p>Fri, 5 Feb 2010 03:28:50 UTC</p> Jill Lovett, Earlsfield<p>There are already huge problems from fly-tipping into the river and abandoned vehicles etc. Earlsfield is a unique and varied area that has shown great improvement in the quality of life for it's residents over the past few years, why should this be compromised? The Wandle is a valuable natural resource in a very built up area and a haven for wildlife. With the opportunity to develop this riverside area please think very carefully about the implications for the people and wildlife who live here!</p> </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #415]</h1> <p>Thu, 4 Feb 2010 07:06:55 UTC</p> Anonymous, London </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #414]</h1> <p>Thu, 4 Feb 2010 07:06:09 UTC</p> Anonymous, London </article> <article> <h1>Ben West [Signature #413]</h1> <p>Wed, 3 Feb 2010 07:58:40 UTC</p> Ben West, Earlsfield<p>The current site should be maintained as, although there are some problems with fly-tipping and kids hurtling around on scooters in the summer, it is not of major concern. I moved to the area aware of its existence. However, to extend it to the wider Garratt Mills site is unacceptable as there is insufficient infrastructure in place to cope and may just compound the issues already. Surely, a spread of sites is better to share the burden across the Borough rather than concentrate it in 1 area</p> </article> <article> <h1>peta bowen [Signature #412]</h1> <p>Tue, 2 Feb 2010 05:48:41 UTC</p> peta bowen, earlsfield </article> <article> <h1>cleve eakin [Signature #411]</h1> <p>Tue, 2 Feb 2010 05:45:21 UTC</p> cleve eakin, earlsfield </article> <article> <h1>Matthew Sears [Signature #410]</h1> <p>Tue, 2 Feb 2010 02:41:48 UTC</p> Matthew Sears, Southfields, London<p>Please carefully consider the views of the local residents to Earlsfield area.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #409]</h1> <p>Tue, 2 Feb 2010 01:27:03 UTC</p> Anonymous, Earlsfield </article> <article> <h1>Frederic Portier [Signature #408]</h1> <p>Tue, 2 Feb 2010 11:20:59 UTC</p> Frederic Portier, Earlsfield, London<p>I would like to strongly object to the increase of the traveller site - as it may impact the value of my property.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Claire Carmody [Signature #407]</h1> <p>Tue, 2 Feb 2010 11:17:55 UTC</p> Claire Carmody, Earlsfield, London<p>I would like to strongly object to these proposals on the basis that I have not been informed prior to this decision being taken and also that it may affect the value of my property. I feel that the community should be allowed an input into such a decision.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Emma Pearce [Signature #406]</h1> <p>Tue, 2 Feb 2010 05:19:54 UTC</p> Emma Pearce, London </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #405]</h1> <p>Mon, 1 Feb 2010 07:22:39 UTC</p> Anonymous, Wandsworth, London<p>We strongly object to the Gypsy and traveller site in Earlsfield.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #404]</h1> <p>Mon, 1 Feb 2010 06:45:52 UTC</p> Anonymous, Earlsfield </article> <article> <h1>Carol Saker [Signature #403]</h1> <p>Mon, 1 Feb 2010 06:34:11 UTC</p> Carol Saker, London<p>Local facilities such as Schools, Nurseries,<br /> GP Surgeries, services for the elderly, services for children and adults with disabilities, maternity services (already under stress at St. George's) hospitals, psychiatric services, transport, refuse collection etc will have the utmost difficulties dealing with a huge influx of<br /> famillies and single people.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Sam Allen [Signature #402]</h1> <p>Mon, 1 Feb 2010 05:07:11 UTC</p> Sam Allen, Earlsfield, London<p>I do not have a problem with the existing traveller site but an planned expansion would be detrimental to the area. I sincerely hope this development does not go ahead.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #401]</h1> <p>Sun, 31 Jan 2010 03:45:39 UTC</p> Anonymous, Earlsfield </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #400]</h1> <p>Sun, 31 Jan 2010 03:43:09 UTC</p> Anonymous, Earlsfield </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #399]</h1> <p>Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:10:43 UTC</p> Anonymous, London </article> <article> <h1>Jason Cooper [Signature #398]</h1> <p>Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:30:47 UTC</p> Jason Cooper, Earlsfield </article> <article> <h1>Sharon Griffiths [Signature #397]</h1> <p>Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:30:06 UTC</p> Sharon Griffiths, Earlsfield </article> <article> <h1>Neil Bird [Signature #396]</h1> <p>Sun, 31 Jan 2010 07:40:50 UTC</p> Neil Bird, London </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #395]</h1> <p>Sat, 30 Jan 2010 02:24:05 UTC</p> Anonymous, Southfields<p>disgraceful!</p> </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #394]</h1> <p>Sat, 30 Jan 2010 10:42:57 UTC</p> Anonymous, London </article> <article> <h1>Sally Ellaway [Signature #393]</h1> <p>Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:10:36 UTC</p> Sally Ellaway, Earlsfield, London<p>The gypsy / traveller site already causes problems in the local area at its current size. However its impact on the local residents is currently bearable. Occupants regularly fly tip on the streets outside our houses including the dumping of an entire mobile home in 2007. There are also issues with children on mini motor bikes and scooters - all apparently unlicensed hurtling up and down the streets at high speed.<br /> Keep the site small build and build another somewhere else to limit the impact.</p> </article> <article> <h1>robert kihlstrom [Signature #392]</h1> <p>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:13:14 UTC</p> robert kihlstrom, london<p>obviously from previous history of these sites there will be cost to borough in crime and social problems<br /> and extra financial burden of more welfare claimants -<br /> in addition there is now reason why travellers should be allowed to circumvent planning laws which will definately happen without any prosecution which ordinary resident would face.</p> <p>councillars are elected to protect wandsworth residents and not put them at risk so it is councillar duty to be against this site.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #391]</h1> <p>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:05:27 UTC</p> Anonymous, London<p>Please do not allow a gypsy and traveller site in Wandsworth. This is the most ridiculous idea. It is a totally unsuitable place to have a site like this.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Andrew Higgins [Signature #390]</h1> <p>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:31:40 UTC</p> Andrew Higgins, London </article> <article> <h1>Fiona Higgins [Signature #389]</h1> <p>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:29:53 UTC</p> Fiona Higgins, London </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #388]</h1> <p>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:47:23 UTC</p> Anonymous, London<p>Few problems at present – growing the site will create local problems. Flytipping already apparent in area as is thuggish antisocial behaviour. There are 2 empty plots on current site therefore NO demand. Need to pushback at govt Another ludicrous policy wasting yet again more taxpayers money</p> </article> <article> <h1>Angela Elasad [Signature #387]</h1> <p>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 02:52:54 UTC</p> Angela Elasad, Putney </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #386]</h1> <p>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 05:31:48 UTC</p> Anonymous, London </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #385]</h1> <p>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:29:40 UTC</p> Anonymous, LONDON<p>Why? The area has improved so much of late....why wreck it!</p> </article> <article> <h1>Carole Smila [Signature #384]</h1> <p>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:08:55 UTC</p> Carole Smila, London </article> <article> <h1>Simon Weaver [Signature #383]</h1> <p>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:29:38 UTC</p> Simon Weaver, London<p>Don't even think about it Wandsworth Council!</p> </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #382]</h1> <p>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:32:47 UTC</p> Anonymous, Putney </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #381]</h1> <p>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 05:09:22 UTC</p> Anonymous, London </article> <article> <h1>Ashley Maw [Signature #380]</h1> <p>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:58:11 UTC</p> Ashley Maw, Earlsfield<p>To be honest I think this is quite a major change in the local area to not bring it to the attention of local residents. It would nice to be consulted and in the light of the very little information I have been giove I wholeheartedly object to this expansion.<br /> Very badly handled by the local council!!</p> </article> <article> <h1>Richard Prime [Signature #379]</h1> <p>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:08:47 UTC</p> Richard Prime, Earlsfield </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #378]</h1> <p>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:53:09 UTC</p> Anonymous, London<p>Earlsfield does not have the infrastructure or facilities to support this development.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Holly Jones [Signature #377]</h1> <p>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 07:18:52 UTC</p> Holly Jones, Earlsfiled London </article> <article> <h1>Francesca O'Keeffe [Signature #376]</h1> <p>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 05:12:22 UTC</p> Francesca O'Keeffe, London </article> <article> <h1>Laura Bygraves [Signature #375]</h1> <p>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:39:57 UTC</p> Laura Bygraves, wandsworth </article> <article> <h1>neil livingston [Signature #374]</h1> <p>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:42:34 UTC</p> neil livingston, earlsfield </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #373]</h1> <p>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:20:54 UTC</p> Anonymous, London </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #372]</h1> <p>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 04:04:39 UTC</p> Anonymous, Earlsfield </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #371]</h1> <p>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:45:39 UTC</p> Anonymous, london </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #370]</h1> <p>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:45:12 UTC</p> Anonymous, london </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #369]</h1> <p>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:44:17 UTC</p> Anonymous, london </article> <article> <h1>Omar REhman [Signature #368]</h1> <p>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:41:33 UTC</p> Omar REhman, Wandsworth </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #367]</h1> <p>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:40:07 UTC</p> Anonymous, London<p>Earlsfield does not have the suitable transportation, commercial or educational structure to support such inclusion into the community. This would not be an appropriate action to pursue for any party.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Jason Leggatt [Signature #366]</h1> <p>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:31:41 UTC</p> Jason Leggatt, Southfields, London<p>I think it is disgraceful you are sneaking in a travellers site in Earlsfield.<br /> I am 100% against this and am happy to join any campign to fight against this.<br /> This is compltely wrong.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #365]</h1> <p>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:29:52 UTC</p> Anonymous, London </article> <article> <h1>James Vizor [Signature #364]</h1> <p>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:15:57 UTC</p> James Vizor, London, Greater London<p>I am very much against this idea of having a travellers site in Earlsfiedl. It will increase crime and lower housing prices.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Matt Ramsden [Signature #363]</h1> <p>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:13:58 UTC</p> Matt Ramsden, London<p>This is a ridiculas idea and a waste of our council tax. Not only that, but it will effect the value of my house, the quality of the area and its safety.</p> <p>There is not much green area in Earlsfield as it is. Why fill it? What possible reason could there be for this?!!</p> </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #362]</h1> <p>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:13:54 UTC</p> Anonymous, London </article> <article> <h1>Jonathan Whaley [Signature #361]</h1> <p>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:08:57 UTC</p> Jonathan Whaley, London<p>Absolutely, no no NO to this proposal</p> </article> <article> <h1>Alexandra Hearn [Signature #360]</h1> <p>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:46:16 UTC</p> Alexandra Hearn, London<p>This is totally outrageous and I wholeheartedly object.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Mark Thompson [Signature #359]</h1> <p>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:04:50 UTC</p> Mark Thompson, Earlsfield </article> <article> <h1>kate lody [Signature #358]</h1> <p>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:01:44 UTC</p> kate lody, London<p>I have just bought a house in Earlsfield, i do not want to live next door to a gipsy site.</p> </article> <article> <h1>hugo raworth [Signature #357]</h1> <p>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:53:33 UTC</p> hugo raworth, London </article> <article> <h1>Caroline Montagu [Signature #356]</h1> <p>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:56:14 UTC</p> Caroline Montagu, London<p>Obsolutely no expansion beyond the 12 caravans currently premitted</p> </article> <article> <h1>James Davidson [Signature #355]</h1> <p>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:51:25 UTC</p> James Davidson, London </article> <article> <h1>Dominic Allom [Signature #354]</h1> <p>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:07:26 UTC</p> Dominic Allom, Earlsfield </article> <article> <h1>Kedar Ramnath [Signature #353]</h1> <p>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:57:48 UTC</p> Kedar Ramnath, London, London </article> <article> <h1>Sanjeev Gidda [Signature #352]</h1> <p>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:51:09 UTC</p> Sanjeev Gidda, Earlsfield, London<p>We, the undersigned, protest against the proposed development of the Gypsy and traveller site in Earlsfield. This will only fuel the current crime and security problems in the area. We do not want nor need any more problems. This will also impact on property prices in the area and would drive residents and business out of the area. Police are already struggling, do the council need to make life worse for everyone?!</p> </article> <article> <h1>timothy hucker [Signature #351]</h1> <p>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:30:09 UTC</p> timothy hucker, earlsfield </article> <article> <h1>Polly Grimmer [Signature #350]</h1> <p>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 04:04:54 UTC</p> Polly Grimmer, London, London </article> <article> <h1>Christopher Meredith [Signature #349]</h1> <p>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:20:04 UTC</p> Christopher Meredith, Earlsfield </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #348]</h1> <p>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 04:50:52 UTC</p> Anonymous, London, London </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #347]</h1> <p>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 02:24:47 UTC</p> Anonymous, LONDON </article> <article> <h1>Andrea Maynard [Signature #346]</h1> <p>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 02:12:02 UTC</p> Andrea Maynard, London </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #345]</h1> <p>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 02:02:35 UTC</p> Anonymous, Wandsworth, Greater London </article> <article> <h1>Nina Syhanath [Signature #344]</h1> <p>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 01:32:59 UTC</p> Nina Syhanath, London </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #343]</h1> <p>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:21:32 UTC</p> Anonymous, Earlsfield<p>I object to the proposed increase/development of the site.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Claire Oscroft [Signature #342]</h1> <p>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:28:56 UTC</p> Claire Oscroft, Earlsfield </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #341]</h1> <p>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:59:08 UTC</p> Anonymous, London </article> <article> <h1>Karen Hannam [Signature #340]</h1> <p>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:19:24 UTC</p> Karen Hannam, Earlsfield, London </article> <article> <h1>Adrian Hannam [Signature #339]</h1> <p>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:18:09 UTC</p> Adrian Hannam, Earlsfield, London<p>There is enough pressure on Earlsfield's roads and infrastructure at the moment. Please stop trying to push ever larger numbers of people into the area.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Linda Lukic [Signature #338]</h1> <p>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:47:52 UTC</p> Linda Lukic, earslfield, surrey </article> <article> <h1>Shawn Browne [Signature #337]</h1> <p>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:39:29 UTC</p> Shawn Browne, earslfield, surrey </article> <article> <h1>Henry Eccles [Signature #336]</h1> <p>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:30:09 UTC</p> Henry Eccles, earlsfield<p>I am absolutely against the plans to extend land to gypsy and irish travellers at trewint street. The current infrastructure in Earlsfield is at breaking point and this development with further degrade the local enviroment</p> </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #335]</h1> <p>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 06:15:08 UTC</p> Anonymous, London </article> <article> <h1>Andrea Ruddock-West [Signature #334]</h1> <p>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 06:13:58 UTC</p> Andrea Ruddock-West, London, Surrey<p>I object that the council has hidden its plans to allow the construction of a gypsey/traveller site in Earlsfield, without allowing a public consultation to take place first.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Charles Helliwell [Signature #333]</h1> <p>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 06:12:18 UTC</p> Charles Helliwell, London, Surrey<p>I object that the council has hidden its plans to allow the construction of a gypsey/traveller site in Earlsfield, without allowing a public consultation to take place first.</p> </article> <article> <h1>hayley white [Signature #332]</h1> <p>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 04:32:12 UTC</p> hayley white, london, greater london<p>I am very concerned of the crime this will bring to the area.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #331]</h1> <p>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 03:44:27 UTC</p> Anonymous, London </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #330]</h1> <p>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:51:44 UTC</p> Anonymous, London </article> <article> <h1>Alec McCann [Signature #329]</h1> <p>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 09:49:29 UTC</p> Alec McCann, Earlsfield, UK<p>I object to extending the travellers site strongly.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Keith Roper [Signature #328]</h1> <p>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:17:04 UTC</p> Keith Roper, London<p>The human rights of the residents in Earlsfield need to be considered.</p> <p>As a resident in Earlsfield I object to the said gypsy and traveller site in Earlsfield.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Andy Thompson [Signature #327]</h1> <p>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:15:33 UTC</p> Andy Thompson, Earlsfield<p>As an Earlsfield resident and property owner, this proposal is totally unacceptable, as it can be nothing but detrimental to the area - I object in the strongest possible terms.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Dale Abbott [Signature #326]</h1> <p>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:30:10 UTC</p> Dale Abbott, London </article> </main></body></html>