Kingsley Road runs alongside two primary schools and is used by pedestrians, cyclists, cars and buses. After much campaigning by Kingsley Community Primary School, a zebra crossing has been added to the road, however many cars still speed through it and ignore pedestrians crossing the road. In order to make the road safer for all road users, we the undersigned propose reducing the speed limit to 20mph and enforcing it with a speed camera. Residents who live on Kingsley Road have reported that it is difficult to reverse out of their driveways currently, as other cars drive past so fast. A child from Kingsley School has been involved in an incident on the road. Many parents with children at the schools are in favour of reducing the speed limit, as are local residents. There is no need for this road to have a 30mph speed limit. A driver driving at 20mph is far less likely to be involved in a road collision than one driving at 30mph.

George Osborne has announced plans to take £70 a week away from thousands of people with disabilities, by cutting Personal Independence Payments (PIP). For many of us, this will mean losing the crucial support which enables us to get out of the house. Many people in our area would be hit hard by this cut. This petition calls on our local MP to do all they can to stop this cruel and unfair plan. Please, show your support for local people with disabilities and help stop the cuts to PIP.

To make it possible for people to enjoy their work and leisure time at home in relative peace without the deafening cacophony of an endless stream of power tools. The professional gardeners using these items tend to wear ear defenders which goes to show what a racket they make. I have personally had to abandon a weekend barbecue with friends as we could not hear each other speak due to the use of 3 power tools at once by the next door neighbours gardeners for over an hour. Surely this breaches noise pollution levels?

It is unhealthy for young children too be working adult hours. My reasons for this petition as follows. In other European countries like Finland, Norway etc children do not start school until the age of 7 and these countries are higher academic achievers than England. The physiological effects of these long hours that primary children are doing is very dangerous for their short term and long term health. For example, as an adult. We all know what it fells like to wake up early and come home late. Our stress levels increase in the start of the day. If we count how many hours our children are at school sitting behind a desk or on the dirty floor is inhuman. Also they might be forced to play outside in the cold weather and are only allowed in when it is raining heavily. Ofsted should not be grading a primary on their attendance because the very idea that the government are assuming, that missed days at school will have a drastic impact on the child's future is absurd. No one knows what the future holds. As parents I do believe that under the UN convention of children's right, we are the representatives of these humans and we need to get out of the out of date policies that are still in placed. So please help to make a difference to the education our children need. Thank you!

A change back to plastic child proof bottles which could be recycled would lead to lowering the cost of medicines to the NHS and also reduce the impact of the waste generated from the current packaging methods on the environment. Plastic recyclable packaging is also more easily opened by elderly people or those with arthritis and other debilitating health problems.

Bristol is now the second most congested city in the UK and pollution kills nearly 200 people a year. Yet in the last 3 years just 1 km of truly protected cycleway has been built. Bike Life survey shows that in Bristol – 80% of people support increasing the safety of cycling 70% of people want to see more spent on safer cycling infrastructure The next Council needs to make a comprehensive network of safe, connected cycle routes.a priority.

When asked 86% people believe in the importance of seasonality, and 78% claimed to shop seasonally, however only between 5-10% of people knew when various fruit and vegetables are actually in season. Supermarkets are increasingly providing customers with products that are out of season; using artificial growing techniques and transportation across hundreds of miles. Although these can be seen as advancements in technology or production yield, supermarkets should help people make more informed choices when it comes to sustainability and health. If Supermarkets set up a clear section of their shops with products that are "In Season" locally with tasty recipe information to go with it, we can be happier in the knowledge our food retains more of its nutrients, is aiding local businesses, may be grown organically to help biodiversity and tastes better too! This is not necessarily about eliminating food that is out of season, because everything is in season somewhere in the world! It is about a designated area for all the goodies that are "In Season" locally - it's not a big change to re-jiggle stock so that the seasonal stuff is in one place. From broccoli, apples and peppers in March to apricots, cabbage and new potatoes in May, give us the opportunity to make informed decisions. Buying in season also supports local businesses by being more economical. Harvesting "In Season" means less reliance upon artificially creating climates and long term storage systems which could result in cheaper produce for the consumer. Why the big 5 should listen: Tesco aims to reduce its CO2 emissions and help children learn about food - seasonality is a big part of natural food production. ASDA and Morrison's are starting to sell wonky veg, showing a clear move towards consumer demand for healthy, local, seasonal, chemical free products. Sainsbury's aim to be the "greenest grocer" with "20 by 20" goals for health, the environment and sustainability and an "In Season" section would be a great step towards this. The Cooperative Food has an ethical food policy to support British farmers, help producers with Fairtrade and play an active role within our communities. If you have any questions or suggestions please feel free to message me or leave a comment :)

Unconventional gas exploitation - "fracking" - is a ridiculous idea. The Government's arguments used to justify fracking are as follows: That it will create jobs, that it’ll bring down energy bills, that it’s good for our energy security and it's a transition fuel to a green energy economy. 1. That it will create jobs. A Department for the Environment and Climate Change’s (DECC) report estimated a maximum of 24,300 of them. Yet 400,000 jobs could be created by 2020 by investment in the clean energy sector. 2. That it’ll bring down energy bills like it has in the US. But the UK’s geology is more complex than in the US, which means that the process here will be uneconomic. Even if that wasn’t the case, unlike the US, the UK exports gas as part of a European gas market, and as fracking companies will sell to the highest bidder of these European countries, there could never be a guarantee that UK energy users would be the beneficiaries. 3. That it’s good for our energy security A House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee recommendation was that shale gas should not be relied on to contribute to energy security. An energy security expert has said the best way to reduce energy security risks is to promote renewable power generation, improve energy efficiency and reduce overall energy demand. 4. A transition fuel to a green energy economy. Department for Energy and Climate Change-commissioned report on fracking’s greenhouse gas emissions has been shown to be based on poor data and exaggeration. When the actual figures are factored-in, the report shows that burning shale gas to produce electricity is about as bad as, or very possibly even worse than burning coal! The arguments against fracking are so numerous: The UK’s geology is too complex for fracking to be safe or economic. The UK’s geography means we don’t have America’s wide open spaces away from the population or agriculture. Water contamination. The UN has listed seven different ways this can occur. The huge quantities of water required. The carcinogenic properties of the chemicals used. Air pollution. Earthquakes. Industrialisation of countryside and loss of agricultural land to roads, well-pads, pipelines, compressor stations and so on. Traffic/chemical spills/noise and light pollution. Impact on tourism. Even if none of the above applied this doesn’t discount the big one – climate change. A growing number of climate change scientists are recognising that to have any chance of us staying below the two degree increase in global temperature that is required to avoid catastrophic climate change, we have to leave 80% of all already discovered fossil fuels in the ground. So why does this government want to find more of the stuff if we can’t burn it? Not all governments are hell bent on fracking - far from it. There are bans or moratoriums on fracking in France, Germany, many American states, and at least twelve other countries worldwide. And there are attractive alternatives, particularly for the UK as we have the best renewable energy resources in Europe. That’s where our energy security is - and the 400,000 jobs to get our economy back on track. A policy of support for fracking is a vote-loser. As elected representatives of Burnley we the community call on you to say no to fracking and yes to keeping Burnley frack free?

Unconventional gas exploitation - "fracking" - is a ridiculous idea. The Government's arguments used to justify fracking are as follows: That it will create jobs, that it’ll bring down energy bills, that it’s good for our energy security and it's a transition fuel to a green energy economy. 1. That it will create jobs. A Department for the Environment and Climate Change’s (DECC) report estimated a maximum of 24,300 of them. Yet 400,000 jobs could be created by 2020 by investment in the clean energy sector. 2. That it’ll bring down energy bills like it has in the US. But the UK’s geology is more complex than in the US, which means that the process here will be uneconomic. Even if that wasn’t the case, unlike the US, the UK exports gas as part of a European gas market, and as fracking companies will sell to the highest bidder of these European countries, there could never be a guarantee that UK energy users would be the beneficiaries. So the argument about not importing from Russia doesn't stand! 3. That it’s good for our energy security A House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee recommendation was that shale gas should not be relied on to contribute to energy security. An energy security expert has said the best way to reduce energy security risks is to promote renewable power generation, improve energy efficiency and reduce overall energy demand. 4. A transition fuel to a green energy economy. Department for Energy and Climate Change-commissioned report on fracking’s greenhouse gas emissions has been shown to be based on poor data and exaggeration. When the actual figures are factored-in, the report shows that burning shale gas to produce electricity is about as bad as, or very possibly even worse than burning coal! The arguments against fracking are so numerous: The UK’s geology is too complex for fracking to be safe or economic. The UK’s geography means we don’t have America’s wide open spaces away from the population or agriculture. Water contamination. The UN has listed seven different ways this can occur. The huge quantities of water required. The carcinogenic properties of the chemicals used. Air pollution. Earthquakes. Industrialisation of countryside and loss of agricultural land to roads, well-pads, pipelines, compressor stations and so on. Traffic/chemical spills/noise and light pollution. Impact on tourism. Even if none of the above applied this doesn’t discount the big one – climate change. A growing number of climate change scientists are recognising that to have any chance of us staying below the two degree increase in global temperature that is required to avoid catastrophic climate change, we have to leave 80% of all already discovered fossil fuels in the ground. So why does this government want to find more of the stuff if we can’t burn it? There are attractive alternatives, particularly for the UK as we have the best renewable energy resources in Europe. That’s where our energy security is - and the 400,000 jobs to get our economy back on track. A policy of support for fracking is a vote-loser. As elected representatives of Rossendale we the community call on you to say no to fracking and yes to keeping Rossendale and Darwenfrack free?

Adlingfleet Common is a beautiful place set in the rural village of Adlingfleet in East Yorkshire. In the height of summer when the grass is long, butterflies flit from flower to flower whilst hares stand upright watching out for foxes and stoats. The buzz of bumblebees harvesting the nectar of the clover rich pasture is interrupted by the calls of hedgerow birds staking claim to their territories. Barn and short-ear owls hunt the margins whilst marsh harriers and buzzards circle above the adjoining fields. The ancient pond provides the ideal habitat for damsel and dragonflies that dart through the air in an array of multi-colours changing direction with split second timing. Tadpoles seek refuge in the margins as the kingfisher dives for the next unsuspecting minnow. Adlingfleet Common is 60 acres of refuge that sits, as a drop in the ocean, amongst 1000's of acres of the most intensively “farmed” land in the country and is registered, under the CRoW act, as a public space and also serves as a bridleway. Adlingfleet Common needs to be protected. In June 2014 the Cow Lane Committee, who are responsible for the "care" of Adlingfleet Common, permitted the spraying of a cocktail of pesticides. The derogation to spray was authorised by DEFRA. The common was sprayed with a total of 90 litres of Lupo and 30 litres of High Load Mircam at a cost of £1090 to the tax payer. Both Lupo and High Load Mircam are not permitted for use in public spaces. The spraying of these chemicals killed off many species of plants resulting in a major loss of habitat for butterflies and insects, may have resulted in the polluting of the pond and adjoining water courses and put the public at unnecessary risk to pesticide exposure. The pungent odour of chemicals lingered for over 3 weeks after spraying. It is important that small pockets of land are responsibly managed and set aside for the flora and fauna to flourish. If not they will be lost to the ravages of industrial farming - along with the butterflies, dragonflies, hares, bees, birds and every other creature that is unable to exist in a toxic environment. With your help we can take a step to making a change and this can ultimately effect us all. Success will result in protection for Adlingfleet Common but may set an example for other important wildlife habitats to be protected. Protected for the environment. Protected for you and your children. Protected for future generations. Funding for Legal Action We are presently trying to raise funds via Crowdfunder to assist in legal action against the Cow Lane Committee. Full details can be found here: http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/save-adlingfleet-common/

There is far to much food waste when we have people going hungry. All stores should be required to donate unwanted food to charities and to food banks. It should apply to any supermarket with a footprint of 400 square metres or larger. If companies flout the law they are to incur fines. Supermarkets are to sign a donation deal with charities, which will be able to increase the quality and diversity of food that they currently get and distribute. In terms of nutritional balance, they currently have a deficit of meat and a lack of fresh fruit and vegetables. This will hopefully allow food-banks to push a fresh source of nutritional quality food to people and families in need.

No area should be contaminated by chemicals when it is not necessary. Live tree stumps can grow back into attractive bushes or trees if not killed by chemicals. Please sign our petition ASAP and get others to sign it ASAP. If you would also like to send us letters against the use of chemicals to kill trees and live tree stumps: please send them ASAP to our Email address and we will forward them to whomever it may concern. Our organisation is The Protection of Charlwood's Natural Heritage (PCNH). Our Email is: [email protected] If you'd like to help stop the felling of the churchyard trees please also sign ASAP our other petition using this link: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/please-help-charlwood-save-its-churchyard-trees-and-sign-our-petition-2