The pier was opened in 1881 and the pier train is in the Guinness Book of Records as 'the oldest working pier train in the world'. It provides a vital link between Hythe and Southampton and is a part of our history and heritage. The community led campaign encourages increased use of our waterways and in turn, this will help to reduce traffic congestion on our roads into the city and pollution levels both sides of the water.

The basis for demolition rests on the poor structural condition of the church, particularly the tower. The Historic Environment comments accompanying last year's pre-application for demolition confirmed that the building has some cracking but, a recommendation by the structural engineers to monitor the cracks had not been carried out. While stone work, in particular the east end shows some sign of delineation, the Historic England Stone Expert, regarded it not to be the worst case he has seen. The Council's response was that a proposal to demolish the listed church would not be supported on the basis of the incomplete nature of the information and evidence pertaining to its structural condition and the nature and extent of any processes that have or are occurring on site and within the structure. As no additional information has been submitted with the current pre-application we conclude that insufficient information and evidence has been provided to outweigh the substantial harm that would result from the loss of the designated heritage asset and, as such, the demolition cannot be supported. St Paul's church (1848) was extended by J D Sedding in the 1880s in the Perpendicular style using dressed coursed local stone with granite and Polyphant stone dressings; scantle slate and dry Delabole slate roofs with coped gable ends. The church has a six bay aisled nave, south porch at west end. Two bay chancel with organ chamber north of choir, chapel north of sanctuary, tower south of choir, vestry south of sanctuary, brick vaulted crypt underneath the east end. The three-stage embattled tower with angle buttresses has corner statues of Sir Richard Grenville, Sir John Elliott and Bishop Trelawney; three niches (with two carved statues surviving of Christ and St George, St Paul has been removed) to second-stage. Peter Beacham says in the new Pevsner guide (2014) 'the exterior is highly accomplished'. The interior is more modest with six-bay aisles having granite piers with four-centred arches to the north side and round arches to the south. There is some good detailing. The fixtures includes works by the workshops of Robinson of London, and stained glass by Laver, Barraud & Westlake which includes a seven light 'Te Deum' east window in memory of the Mayor of Truro, Sir Philip Protheroe Smith, who died in 1882. It is believed that the stone pulpit to the south side beneath the tower arch came from St Clement's Church and is C15. The oak pulpit has blind ogee tracery and was given to the church in 1901 in memory of Lady Protheroe Smith. The building has a rich history. William Mansell Tweedy, a local banker, paid for the building of St Paul's Church circa 1848 as an overflow church for the parish of St Clements. The architect for the original church is unknown but it consisted of a nave, chancel, south aisle and south porch. In 1864 the church was consecrated and acquired its own parish. In the early 1880s a major programme of extension was undertaken by J. D. Sedding. He replaced the single bay chancel with a much larger structure which included an organ chamber and a chapel, dedicated top St Clement, to the north and a chapel (now the vestry) and the tower to the south. The new work by J. D. Sedding was consecrated in 1884 by Bishop Wilkinson. In 1889 the north aisle, which was probably by Sedding, was completed and the church was re-opened on 27th June 1889. The battlemented tower was completed in 1910 by the architect's nephew E. H. Sedding.

The proposed closures will reduce the accessibility of much needed NHS services to our communities. It will put added strain on services that are already stretched. Journey times to accident and emergency units and special care baby units will be increased for some communities, putting lives at risk. There will be added strain on the ambulance service. All closures will reduce accessibility for families and friends who wish to visit their loved ones, particularly as many sites are not well served by public transport. There will be added strain on an already stretched infrastructure across the county. Mental health services are already under funded with a shortage of inpatient beds in Dorset Psychiatric Hospitals. People have been known to have been conveyed by Private Ambulances to Private Hospitals in various parts of the country- sometimes hundreds of miles from their home, family and/or support network. Dementia services are vital in supporting those living with the condition and their families to live as independently as possible. Please see our website www.keepournhspublicdorset.com for further information. Join us on Saturday 15th October for a public demonstration.

Update 03/01/17 Following our petition there were some community meetings held at Parson St School. At these it was heard “that petition really kicked up a stink!” [at the Council] and Metrobus acknowledged the need for additional safety measures, described many options and said they would consult the residents of Highbury road, though would give no timescale. Since then we have asked when we would have responses to the concerns that were submitted as objections to the traffic order and been told that no responses were formalised but the comments were taken into account as part of the decisions report. The decisions report does not get published – instead you have to write/email to get a response. Please take the time to do this, contact details below. It does not seem right that this is not automatically published given the high level of concern and numbers of us signing the petition – show them that the response is important by contacting them and asking for an update. If we all do this they will realise that it would be better to issue a public response and that we will not be fobbed off over our children’s safety. Also since the issues were raised we have had no indication of what action, if any, they will be taking and they have not communicated with the local school over this, despite there being ongoing campaigning for greater road safety prior to this new issue. There is another meeting but the council will not be writing to residents about this meeting (as it is not an official council event) – please attend if you can and show your support. Monday 16th January at 6.30pm at Parson St School, Bedminster Road entrance – share with everyone and encourage people to attend as all eyes will be on the turnout. If you would like any updates you need to contact Councillor Mark Bradshaw –do it as soon as possible so we start the New Year showing we are committed to keeping our children’s safety a priority. Correspondence address: c/o Labour Group Office City Hall PO Box 3176 Bristol BS3 9FS Bus. phone: 0117 353 3160 Email: [email protected] ************************************************************************************************ Original content The proposed changes will increase traffic on the already congested Bedminster Road. Hartcliffe Way and Highbury Road. These are roads directly by the school and where the school entrances are located and the community is already concerned about safety. Furthermore the proposed changes include removing a crossing which is opposite the school which children use to cross Hartcliffe Way (an exceptionally busy road) safely. With increased traffic and reduced crossings our children's safety is being compromised significantly. Please look at links and object through the council as well as signing this. (NOTE these 2 links no longer work as initial consultation has closed). https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/1116390/E14017-TRO-450+Hartcliffe+Way+movement+Restrictions.pdf/0c61715e-202f-4b69-8c83-b6a9045d02f1 https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/1116390/Statement+of+Reasons+v2.pdf/f7124074-9bf2-47ce-80de-ba3709f69d76 This is copy and pasted - it has the information to email/write and officially object - please take the time to do this - you are welcome to use points from this petition to do so. We have so many signatures and growing each day but we need the emails/letters too. Many thanks. ************************************ CITY OF BRISTOL (HARTCLIFFE WAY AND PARSON STREET, BISHOPSWORTH AND FILWOOD WARDS, CITY OF BRISTOL) (PRESCRIBED AND PROHIBITED MANOEUVRES) ORDER 20-- The City Council of Bristol hereby gives NOTICE it proposes to make a traffic order, the effect of which would be:- 1. to introduce a southbound in A4174 Parson Street prescribed straight ahead into southbound A4174 Hartcliffe Way at its junction with Parson Street eastbound carriageway; and 2. to introduce a prohibition of right turn from northbound on A1474 Hartcliffe Way into Parson Street eastbound carriageway. Further information available from 16th September 2016 Further details of all the proposals are contained in the draft order, which together with plans and a Statement of the Council’s Reasons for proposing to make the order may be inspected at the Citizen Service Point, 100 Temple Street, Bristol, BS1 6AG, between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Monday to Friday. The draft order, plans and Statement of Reasons are also available to view on the City Council website at www.bristol.gov.uk/trafficorders. In addition, the draft order, plans and Statement of Reasons are available to be inspected at Marksbury Road Public Library, Marksbury Road, Bedminster, Bristol, BS3 5LG during normal opening hours. How to object Objections to the proposals, together with the grounds on which they are made must be sent in writing to TRO Comments at the undermentioned address or by e-mail to [email protected] quoting reference CAE/NMT/P-1011A by 10th October 2016. Please include your name and address and note that all representations received may be considered in public by the City Council and that the substance of any representation together with the name and address of the person making it could become available for public inspection. Highways Service (WH) P. MANN PO Box 3176 Service Director Transport Bristol BS3 9FS Date: 16th September 2016

Deer Park Medical Centre is a GP Practice providing an excellent service to a large number of people in West Witney due to close on the 3rd November 2016. It is currently being serviced under contact to Virgin Care. Whilst many of us do not agree with the privatisation of health services, Virgin are undoubtedly providing a good service. Whatever it takes to keep this practice open must be done. You cannot seriously consider allowing it to close. Other GP practices in Witney are already badly overstretched and waiting times for an appointment are often measured in weeks. This is not the case at Deer Park, I am a patient and have never had to wait more than days, also they operate walk in clinics for urgent cases. Please don't use the people of West Witney as political pawns in this dangerous game.

We feel it is frightfully inconvenient to expect users to struggle inside WHSmith merely to use our local Post Office. It will be over crowded and is ill equipped in terms of size. There would be no ticket queuing system. Moving our Post Office to the WHSmith could lead to the eventual closure of the service, meaning Eastbourne could end up with no post office counter services whatsoever - why? It is disgraceful. Our population is continuing to grow!

The government have announced proposals to close the Magistrates’ Courts in Camberwell Green and Hammersmith. This comes only months after a decision was made to close 84 courts in England and Wales including ten in London. When that decision was made, the rationale offered by HM Courts and Tribunals Service for one of the closures, Feltham Magistrates’ Court, was that there was capacity for Hammersmith magistrates’ court, described by HMCTS as a “modern purpose-built courthouse” to absorb its work. The closure of the busy Camberwell Green Magistrates' Court would leave four deprived London boroughs without a Magistrates' Court. The government’s consultation offers no assessment on the impact for the 100 or so, predominantly female staff currently employed at the courts. The difficulty in reaching alternative courts and the costs of traveling in London is likely to lead to more miscarriages of justice due to the longer journey times acting as a deterrent to victims and witnesses. The proposals place great emphasis on alternatives to the public physically traveling to a court building such as the expansion of digital technology and the wider use of video links. Existing technology is unreliable and often results in delays, and any new technology needs to be properly tested and evaluated before decisions are made on court closures. These further closures make no sense and will seriously restrict access to justice, causing further delays in the delivery of justice and undermine public confidence in the justice process.

Public transport is not reliable when staff work shifts as bus timetables are reduced and some staff are having to rely on buses and trains which can add up to 2 hours if not more on to an already busy working day when in some instances a car journey is only 30 minutes for the same destination. Staff are already under pressure to arrive at work on time without having to try and find a parking space. All we ask is that Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS continue to provide an off site car park for their staff to allow staff to travel to work in the knowledge they will be able to park their car safely and will have a parking space. The staff who already use the current off site car park are happy to walk the 10/15 minutes from the car park to the hospital and would be happy to continue to do this.

In June 2014, the Government introduced charges for using the Child Maintenance Service. To apply for a maintenance assessment it costs £20.00, with no guarantee any maintenance will ever be received. To then have the maintenance collected, more charges are imposed on both parents. The paying parent pays an extra 20% on top of their maintenance assessment and the receiving parent has a further 4% of their maintenance deducted. This means on an assessment of £100, the paying parent actually pays £120 and the receiving parent only gets £96, with the government taking a total of £24, not including the application fee. So far the charges have totalled over £8.5 million and are rising to a staggering £1 million per month. This money should be supporting the future of children and going towards essentials such as clothes, healthy food, books, education and heating. The charges are designed as a deterrent for using the Child Maintenance Service and it is feared that thousands of children are not receiving maintenance as a result. Even the government’s own research predicted 100,000 fewer parents would make maintenance arrangements because of the introduction of charges. Where maintenance is received it is often at a lower amount, either because parents feel pressured to accept a lower payment rather than use the Child Maintenance Service and face charges, or because they use the service and have money deducted by the government. The new system also puts extra pressure on relationships between parents, particularly when there is a history of abuse and/or violence. Studies have shown how essential child maintenance is for lifting the growing number of children living in poverty out of that desperate and disadvantaged situation. The charges are due to be reviewed at the end of the year so now is the time to call on the government to end this unfair tax on single parent families. Sign the petition asking the Minister for the Department of Work and Pensions to end all charges for the use of the Child Maintenance Service.

My son was diagnosed with Autism around 5 years ago, but not in Sefton. His diagnosis was received through one, locally commissioned NHS Trust, and looking back, the pathway to diagnosis was founded on clear, pre-determined steps that every child in the area followed. This process was well defined and simple, whilst meeting all clinical guidelines; resulting in my son receiving a diagnosis of autism within 6 months of referral. In comparison, my daughter is currently on the Autism Assessment Pathway in Sefton. As a parent, it quickly becomes clear that this process is inefficient, not fit for purpose, and very much based on an ad hoc, undefined approach. Across Sefton, it is well known that the result of this approach, is an average timespan of 4 years to diagnose a school aged child with autism, from the time of referral. Every step on the pathway, requires separate referrals, and it has been evidenced that overall, the waiting times for each appointment, are massively outside clinical guidelines. The results of this are catastrophic for everyone involved: The child who doesn't understand their own difficulties for example, and who is left untreated; the family who desperately need help to support their child and maintain equilibrium in the home; and interestingly, with the current system being so inefficient and time consuming, the financial implications and waste of public funds must be severe! In fact, the consequences of ignoring this cannot be underestimated, with further health issues arising, specifically from the stress and strain placed on children and families who are left powerless. Put simply, this MUST change with immediate effect, and Sefton's Autism Pathway brought in line with clinical guidelines at least. Simple, clearly defined steps, coming from a single referral for assessment, must be identified and put into practice. It is obvious to say, that decisions must now be made, that prioritise the health and wellbeing of children and families across Sefton. However, a clearer, unified pathway, would also bring the additional benefit, of a more cost effective approach that protects public funds.

This would incentivise railway companies to put on enough carriages or services so that people could travel sitting down on seats, instead of standing up or blocking the aisles. I don't like having to pay some £60 for a standard class off peak return to London only to find some mornings that I have to stand for much of the journey, or chance sitting in a reserved seat and hoping that the seat holder doesn't turn up.

In 2014, the Imperial War Museum privatised its visitor & security services. the company they appointed (Shields Guarding) had no experience in running museums and the results have been catastrophic impacting on workers, the services delivered to visitors and the care of collections. Workers have endured two years of mismanagement, as well as payroll and pension administration problems. The original contractor, Shield Guarding, has now gone bust and has been taken over by multinational Noonans. They also have no experience in managing museums and are focusing on cutting jobs for profit rather than improving services. Workers & the PCS Union have raised numerous Health & Safety concerns that go ignored. It is now an urgent for the Imperial War Museum to end privatisation. PCS members have raised alarming concerns about security and safety arrangements at the museum as a result of cost-cutting and the potential for a major incident to take place. The PCS culture group supports the call for a review of privatisations in the sector and for these contracts, like at the National Gallery, the British Museum or Tate, to be brought back in-house.