Fireworks with an explosive bang frighten ex-service people; people with anxiety; stops cows from lactating; panics dogs, cats, birds and other pets; can cause heart attacks / shock and result in death for animals which accidentally consume the products of fired / misfired explosive devices i.e. fireworks. Pets and people go missing around the time of Diwali, Halloween, Bonfire night , Eid, New years (all), other parties. The loud bang is unnecessary to the firework's impact. Please save our planet's lifestock and get this unnecessary noisy element banned. Let's enjoy the whizz ssshhhh of fireworks and reject the shotgun effect.

Glandwr Cymru, who own the canal in water from Clydach to Ynysmeudwy, wish to restore this section (including the lock) and, in conjunction, with the City and County of Swansea regenerate the site. The plans include a small number of new homes, an attractive public open space and improved pedestrian and cycle access to the area. This will completely reinvigorate the lower end of Pontardawe Road, enhance the environment and bring significant benefits to the community. The Swansea Canal Society fully supports this restoration and development plan. On the 2nd of December, the CRT Development Manager, has been allocated a ten minute slot at 5.00pm to present the full plans to all the Swansea Councillors. The Swansea Canal Society sincerely hopes that you too will support this scheme. We wish to hand in a petition of support for this project to the Leader of the Swansea Council on December the 2nd. Please add your name to this petition.

This display will only happen ONCE, it takes time and organising for people and family's to save their money and find time to get to London to see this, for anyone 100 plus miles away it gets very expensive, this applies to well over half the population.

This effectively removes the main option for exercise in the local area for anyone without a considerable income (whom already have many private fitness options). There are no other alternatives in Saltash. It will add to the UK's obesity problem, effectively costing the council more in the long run. It's a terrible idea that isn't thought through at all, this ruthless cost cutting jeapordises the health of Saltash residents.

This proposal will have a permanent detrimental effect on the biodiversity and historic environment. One of the last unspoilt areas of county Durham is under threat of irreversible destruction for executive housing and sheltered accommodation. The area is home to the bats, badgers, otters and many more protected species. The spa grounds is a conservation area & county wildlife site and a greenfield site. Ancient woodland will be felled to make way for an access road. This application contravenes all of the National Planning Policy Framework guidelines and the local plan for the area.

For 46 years Stonebridge playground has served the community. It has supported 3 generations of children and young people with special events, camping trips, and opportunities for fun and learning. It’s well-used and well loved. The playground has been crucial in the integration of many different ethnic and cultural groups including children with special needs. The playground has a lot of support not just from the community. Former Olympic gold medalist, Audley Harrison MBE, who attended when he was a boy, has championed our cause. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83x9Z61Edkk&feature=youtu.be And the local paper the Brent & Kilburn Times is behind the campaign: http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/environment/stonebridge_adventure_playground_campaigners_reach_their_1_000_signature_petition_target_1_3826047 But we are a small charity fighting a large organisation, Brent Council. They want more homes and more school places for children. We say what happens after school, at weekends and in school holidays? Not just for the children of one school, but for many in this area; when there is nothing for them, nowhere to meet their friends, We need to save this sanctuary in the midst of a concrete jungle for children and young people!

Of all the houses on the Esplanade front in Greenock it's boldest, brightest and most fun. And this shouldn't change. 'Inverclyde's head of regeneration and planning Stuart Jamieson stated: "The bright yellow and gold tones of the dwelling are not colours which would traditionally have been used on a house of this period style or have been found within this part of the Greenock West End Conservation Area. The colours form an intrusive feature within the streetscape and are therefore not appropriate.' Reference - Inverclyde Now 04/11/2014 - http://www.inverclydenow.com/photostream/13257-yellow-house-is-too-bright-for-planners This is micromanagement from the council on a ridiculous level. The result of being adverse to change and using redundant policies as a reason. Judging by the response on Inverclyde Now's facebook post of this issue it appears that a majority of people wish the council to reverse this decision and are quite happy with the colour of the house. Such reasons as: "its their house, brightens [the] place up something different !" "Shocking! It's their house and should be able to paint it any colour they like. This town is miserable and dreary and our council are trying their hardest to finish it off any way they can" and "I love the yellow house as do my children it's their house let them do what they want with it !" These are just a few of the hundreds of replies. Can you imagine an Esplanade in which all the houses followed suit? Resulting in a warm, vibrant and fun coastal scene. Welcoming the many cruise ships that dock in Greenock. I'm sure tourists to the area would love to see such a sight yet Inverclyde council appear to be stuck in their old, dreary ways by requesting the owners to repaint the house a more 'acceptable' colour. Are the council representing the views of local people on this? Because that's what they're supposed to do. Let them know what you think.

We should have a choice of buying music without swearing in for our children. They will sell more when we have the option to download the radio version.

1. Rural areas are liable to decline if their infrastructure and services – public transport, education, GP practices, cottage hospitals, street lighting, etc – are not effectively funded and supported. Unless these are of a good standard and accessibility, businesses will not be established in rural areas, those already there will be unable to attract workers, and this will run counter to the government’s own policy (see Truss, E., 2014, “Stimulating Economic Growth in Rural Areas”, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). 2. Those who live in rural areas are entitled to a reasonable standard of services and national infrastructure. The cuts in grant to local authorities have made it impossible for rural counties to maintain services and infrastructure at a level anywhere near comparable to that provided in metropolitan areas. 3. Some government policies have been implemented without consideration for the impact on rural areas – e.g. the raising of the school/training leaving age to 18, requiring all young people to reach centres of population on a daily basis, while councils are forced to remove subsidy for buses that could get them there and no government provision has been made for this. Thanks to LM and AB

so people can walk home safely and be seen

People in the affected areas are suffering from increased crime and fear of crime, such as damage to cars and property. Taxis, the fire brigade and police can't see house numbers in the dark, delaying responses, which could threaten people's safety - the police apparently oppose KCC's action. People are worried if they have to go out in the dark streets because they could trip on uneven pavements and tree roots. This affects many people who return from work late at night or have to leave very early to get to work. I live in Thanet, and there have been many complaints about KCC's policy of turning off lights on social media such as Streetlife, and this affects most people except those who live on main roads.

We believe this ban is unnecessary and heavy handed. Laws regarding damage to public property already exist (this is the basis of the councils plan to ban skateboarding around the war memorial area) and we believe singling out skateboarders for special treatment is an extremely negative way to approach a diverse group of mostly respectful, active and creative individuals. We also believe that skateboarding is an activity that should be encouraged by the city council as a positive, healthy, sociable and green way for people, from a wide range of social backgrounds and age groups, to enjoy themselves and interact with the world around them. We are in agreement that the war memorial should NOT be used by skateboarders (or BMX, Inline, scooter etc) and should be left as a place of respect and contemplation for those it represents (the ban covers a much larger area than the memorial gardens and monument), however we believe that a simple sign or even CCTV camera would suffice to discourage anyone who tries to misuse this area. We believe the ban would also be difficult to enforce, waste police time and criminalise youths who are just trying to enjoy themselves.