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under the UN convention of children's right, we are the representatives of these humans and we need to get out of the out of date policies that are still in placed.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

St Nicholas churchyard trees are all in a Conservation Area and all have Confirmed TPOs. They have the support of eminent scientists and other professionals and important organisations. They are essential to wildlife. They must not be destroyed on the basis of foolish lies. The Church must honour its policy on protecting wildlife and its habitat: trees. Please help Charlwood save its churchyard trees and sign our petition ASAP and ask others to sign it also ASAP! If you can also produce a letter in support of the trees, please send it ASAP to our organisation The Protection of Charlwood's Natural Heritage (PCNH) by email ( [email protected] ) and we will send it to the appropriate authorities. Please address your letter to “Whomever it may concern”. If you are against the use of chemicals to kill live tree stumps (which can contaminate the churchyard and the surrounding environment), then please also sign ASAP our second petition via this link: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/help-charlwood-surrey-protect-its-churchyard-and-surrounding-gardens-from-chemical-contamination

The Landfill Communities Fund is at risk. The Landfill Tax A landfill tax was introduced in 1996 and has been very successful in reducing the amount of waste we send to landfill. It has been a big help in driving more recycling. The tax is paid by the waste companies who have contracts with local authorities and businesses. These Landfill Operators pay £84 per tonne of waste they deposit in the ground. And HM Treasury receives around £1.3 billion in tax revenues. The Landfill Communities Fund Most brilliantly of all, Landfill Operators can choose to re-direct part of their tax bill to local communities near landfill sites rather than paying it to the Treasury. In 2016-17 they can divert 90p of every £25 of tax they owe; so long as £1 goes to a community project. The local community normally fundraises for the missing 10p in every pound. To date, most Operators have jumped at the chance to do this and since 1996 local communities near landfill sites have been able to invest over £1.4 billion in 51,000 projects. These projects have had an amazing impact on Churches and Community groups: from building extensions to Churches, to providing resources to start-up play groups, to funding community wildlife projects, etc. there is no doubt that both our Churches and local communities are richer for the help they have received. HOWEVER the scheme is under threat. Urgent action is required to ensure local community projects don’t lose £39 million every year. The Threat The Government is proposing to change the legislation so that Community Groups are no longer allowed to pay the missing 10p. Instead only Landfill Operators would be allowed to pay this. This may seem a small detail but it would in fact close down the scheme as we know it. This is because the scheme is a voluntary one – and the cost to a Landfill Operator of having to find the 10p match funding would be significant. One major operator estimates this would amount to it having to find £500,000 of additional money each year. As a result, nearly all the main landfill operators have said they will not be able to find such money. They would therefore stop using the system of tax credits. Yet Churches and local community groups have found this missing 10p in the pound time and time again. Finding match funding has never been a barrier to spending from the Landfill Communities Fund - in fact it is already oversubscribed at least twofold. So, for no good reason, Churches and Community groups stand to lose millions (£39m in 2016-17 to be precise). And the country stands to lose a great ‘polluter pays’ scheme that is one of the biggest sources of funding for community projects. More Background In light of the economic conditions, the Treasury has been keen to ensure that the Landfill Community Fund is spent as quickly as possible - to pump money in to the economy. The Treasury therefore challenged Landfill Community Fund bodies to reduce the amount of grant funds they were holding in their banks. Most funders met the challenge, with a minority failing to largely because of funds committed for longer term projects not yet being released. But despite their efforts the Treasury’s overall spending target was not met. The Treasury was not happy and so last year HMRC ran a consultation asking for ideas for increasing the speed of spending. Some of respondents to the 2015 consultation highlighted the regulatory bureaucracy around the 10p for every pound they were finding. Others said it would be great not to have to fundraise for this 10p at all. No-one said they would prefer nothing to a 90% grant for their project. Yet these consultation responses are being used by the Treasury to justify the new proposals - proposals which would all but close down the scheme. How you can help Write to your local M.P. expressing your concern about the potential loss of the Landfill Communities Fund, asking your M.P. to raise this matter with the Exchequer Secretary of the Treasury, Damian Hinds M.P. urging him to allow local communities to continue to cover the 10% third party contribution. or Respond to the Treasury consultation on the statutory instrument, as proposed by HMRC and required to implement the changes. See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-legislation-the-landfill-tax-amendment-regulations-2016. The deadline is 3 February 2016. The clauses in the statutory instrument that related to this change that should be removed are – clauses 6,8(a,bii,biii,c,&d), 9 and 10.