Traffic fumes kill more than 20 times more people than road accidents (40,000 compared to fewer than 1,800) and damage health - including children's lungs. Research says making streets traffic-free can increase footfall and trade by up to 40 per cent. That and a 20mph limit would make the town a healthier and more pleasant place to live.

South Normanton Active Residentis (SoNAR) needs your help. This development will bring more heavy traffic through the village of South Normanton which is already at saturation point due to regular traffic issues from the M1 and A38. We need to - Say NO to more HGV's, Vans and Cars through our village - Say NO to more noise, pollution, congestion and accidents. Suppport SoNAR by signing our petition today! Thank you.

Because this area has very many trees and has a large biodiversity and is very important to the environment and peoples mental wellbeing when they visit it . This area is an amenity and we believe that they are under threat of upcoming development , under Government guidelines they should be given preservation orders in such circumstances.

I was told today by one soft drinks company, (who I contacted for information about their products’ jackets), that they didn’t have that information to hand. They then phoned me back, to say, “it’s entirely recyclable”. Well, if it is, surely that info should be added to the jackets. I was also told, by the same person, that, just as I wouldn’t recycle a baked beans tin without washing it first, their drinks’ jackets should be removed BEFORE recycling their plastic bottles. What? A simple line of text on the jacket about its material would suffice. Lucozade Rubens Suntory LTD, Britvic and others need to be more transparent. It’s vital for consumers to not only be aware of their drink’s contents, but also what the entire packaging is made of, for recycling purposes and to make an informed choice. Companies should declare precisely which material the jackets are made from, giving consumers the information needed when selecting a drink. In this age of environmental awareness and increased environment responsibility, consumers require to be better informed. We have a moral and ethical right to know if the jackets are entirely safe to recycle, (and, conversely, if they are potentially damaging to the environment and wildlife). And ... if we’re supposed to peel off the jackets and recycle the bottle and jacket separately, then this needs to be stated on the jacket. It certainly should not be a matter of guess work, assuming because the plastic bottle is recyclable, then the jacket must be too!

Plastic levels have become unmanagable and the enviroment is suffering badly. Our oceans are massively polluted and marine life is severley affected. There are many organic alternatives to plastic so why are we still using plastic??

Shark populations around the world are in rapid decline. Sharks grow relatively slowly, take many years to mature and produce relatively few young. These characteristics make sharks, like this porbeagle, particularly vulnerable to over-exploitation. This vulnerability is exacerbated by the large and growing demand for shark fins and the general lack of management of shark fishing. Populations simply cannot replenish at the same rate as they are caught and finned to meet market demand. Banning the sale of shark fins and shark fin soup in the UK will be one step in the right direction to protecting all species of shark around the globe. It is cruel to leave sharks to die in the ocean with all of their fins removed from their bodies. Help put an end to the endangerment and cruelty to sharks and make the UK a better place.

Single-use plastic water bottles are polluting our environment as they are non-biodegradable. Studies have also shown that traces of plastic are found in the liquids they hold, which has the potential to be damaging to human health. Reusable bottles and cups can last a lifetime and save people money in the long-run. There are many alternative materials to plastic packaging that are biodegradable and just as effective.

Opening hours at Sandy Lane have already been reduced but the closure of Sandy Lane will mean residents of South Warrington are faced with journeys across the town, to recycle their rubbish. This only contributes to Warrington's traffic congestion, something we wish to reduce. Please sign this petition to urge the Council to keep Sandy Lane open - or provide alternative recycling facilities in South Warrington

The citizens of Suffolk Coastal already pay significant amounts of council tax, in which waste disposal is included. There is no reasonable explanation to why we should be trying to find extra funds to support a service that is already included.

Because I like catching a glimpse of Stonehenge as I drive past on the A303. Putting the road in a tunnel will spoil this pleasure for millions, and their children.

With the increasing popularity of the North Coast 500 (NC500), promoted in part by Highland Council, we are seeing ever-growing numbers of visitors to the NW Highlands and these people also require access to facilities in order to avoid more cases of human waste being left by the roadside. As part of its budget proposals for 2018/2019 Highland Council are closing public toilets at the following locations in the county of Sutherland: Achmelvich, Kinlochbervie, Rhiconich, Scourie, Smoo Cave, Lairg, Kylesku, Talmine, and Tarbet. The total estimated savings come to just £67,000 per year yet we consider these to be essential services, both for local people and tourists & others visiting the area. Additionally, these closures will discriminate against the elderly, infirm, disabled, and those with long-term illnesses whose ability to do without a regular rest break is impaired. Highland Council's suggested alternatives, such as making use of facilities in nearby businesses and village halls, are both impractical and presumptuous. Do the decent thing, Highland Council: Scrap your plans to close these public toilets.

The preservation of the Sutton Estate is strongly supported by The Victorian Society due to its fine architecture, historic value and its contribution to the Chelsea Conservation Area. Furthermore, RBKC have given no explanation whatsoever for why the Estate was not originally included in the Conservation Area, since all other buildings of that period are, and as a result remain protected from demolition. The Sutton Estate is an Edwarian social housing estate completed in 1913, the largest ever built at that time, comprising 16 red-brick blocks, designed by renowned architect Edward Charles Philip Monson. It was founded in 1900 with the funds of entrepreneur and philanthropist William Sutton who left his fortune to provide housing for the poor. Clarion Group (who took over Affinity Sutton) propose to demolish the historic estate and replace it with an ugly modern block which The Chelsea Society calls “bland and lacking in character”, with a large part of the land to comprise luxury housing. James Hughes of The Victorian Society wrote in support of the estate's preservation, saying “Sutton Dwellings is an early example of social housing which makes a positive contribution to the local area and sits well with the 1915 Samuel Lewis Trust Dwellings opposite. With its handsome proportions it is unsurprising that many residents are unhappy at leaving...Affinity should spend its money on sensitive restoration rather than demolishing this early attempt to address inequality in London.” There has now been a date set, 9th May, for the appeal of their plan, which was rejected on the grounds that it did not provide enough replacement social housing. The new plan will still fall short in social housing by 70 apartments.