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.

Currently we are doing far too little to help reduce the effects of climate change and we can't wait until a change of government to make the necessary changes. Since the latest election we have gone backwards and this is outrageously irresponsible of a government that is there to protect it's people.

There have been multiple inventions across the world in the last few years that would alleviate congestion and aid the restricted movement public in this country, if the law were modified. Currently these PMD's do not fit into our highways act simply because they aren't disabled carriages, are motorised and so cannot be driven on the pavements and are too slow for the road networks. I propose that room should be made in the highways act and by extension in the Cyclist part of the Highway code for the use of properly registered and maintained "safe" Personal Mobility Devices. These devices are growing in popularity across the world (I believe at the last count the Segway for example was a legal form of transportation in 30 different countries now) and simply sticking our head in the sand and quoting legislation based on an act that was made in 1835 is putting us at risk of missing the boat on properly regulating the safe and controlled use of these devices. If we were to open the doors on this issue, we could provide laws and rules to do things like prohibit the use of these PMDs inside so that people do not injure themselves riding around the office as I have seen in one Youtube video, but also we can regulate the types of PMD allowed on Cycle lanes for example. Most of these PMDs are limited to 10mph the equivalent of a fast run, so could legitimately use cycle lanes and pavements where it is safe to do so, if the law were changed to allow these vehicles to be treated similarly to bicycles. Furthermore, if these PMDs were treated like a stage between a bicycle and motorbike, they could be taxed and regulated like a discount motorbike. Allowing for further regulation and control, perhaps even licensing to promote safe usage of them too (which is more than is required for Disability "buggies"). Currently Disability "buggies" have 2 classes -4mph they are allowed unrestricted access to public areas, +4mph these vehicles have to have a tax registration and have road legal lighting on them. There is a section in the Highway code for the correct use of these devices, most of them are electric and most of them are often used in public areas with little or no danger to the public. All I am asking, is for a similar allowance for Safe Personal Mobility Devices to be given a fair chance to be used by a public who are crying out for an alternative to sitting in traffic jams all day, whether using public transport or not, or having to get all hot and sweaty cycling to work through fume and traffic clogged streets. Providing a section in the Highways act to classify PMDs would allow for this development. To further my argument, most of these PMDs are also electric and so would be far less polluting than even the most eco-friendly hybrid bus that Boris can sponsor. You ride your electric PMD in to the office in the morning, charge it back up using the company solar panels, then ride it home and plug it back into your solar panels at home, much better than riding a hybrid bus that uses a diesel generator to charge its batteries when it's outside of the congestion zones.

UK farmers are subsidised millions of pounds by the British taxpayer. Despite this there is no effective regulation or carrot-and-stick approach to prevent soil erosion, plant trees and manage rivers to properly manage river uplands and prevent downstream flooding. Promoting natural flood defences and flood plains is more cost-effective. The Govt needs to stop focusing only on last resort man-made flood defences and tackle the root causes of devastating flooding, addressing its own contradictory policies.

Although the scientific community have understood the dangers we face in climate change this is only just beginning to filter into the general public. MPs seem to be very loath to understand the issues. People have been saying fracking is safe rather than understanding that it is another fossil fuel and will contribute to global warming. Its short term safety is irrelevant. Why not spend our time and energy cleverly to produce the gas for our carbon neutral future. Invest in the small because we understand the big picture. Who are the lobbyists that persuade our MPs to allow our landscape to be ransacked for something that will only encourage more extreme climate events? Biomass gas could be an income stream for our farmers and Councils while giving us a carbon neutral gas. Invest now in our long term future - not in a fossil fuel.

It's absolutly vital that all waterways are drained correctly and if the outfall being ditches or rivers are not clear and dredged fields flood and overwhelm the rivers causing them to breach their banks and flood defenses causing havoc and damage to property's, animal livelihood in flash floods and extra costs reinstating burst flood banks which could all be avoided if dredging of rivers and ditches were carried out yearly, it's such a simple process which could save massive costs in repairs and insurance claims.

Members of the public find it difficult to support a political party 100%. Our system is out of date, our MPs out of touch, the public go unheard. We agree with points made by the Lib Dems, the Conservatives, Labour, the Green Party, the SNP etc and sometimes we disagree with them all. Either way we can't communicate with the government effectively. The system needs to work for us all but instead it's dusty, nobody really understands it or cares to sort it out with any long term vision. We need to start again. Simplify. Direct questions, direct answers. If regular referendums were to take place, the public are truly part of the process, allowing us to demonstrate what we care about, that we're united and want to invest in the future of this land and it's people. Less moaning and more doing, having a proactive and fair say, feeling satisfied that the decisions are being made and supported by the majority of the UK. Let the UK public vote for their future. This Kingdom can then begin to feel proud and respected, and most importantly, united.