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.

Although the Stockton Heath site is the smallest of Warrington’s three recycling centres it is considered by many to be the busiest. Residents from Stockton Heath, Appleton, Grappenhall, Thelwall, Walton, Stretton, Hatton and Lymm use the Centre. If the Stockton Heath facility is closed, local residents will have to travel across town to dispose of their rubbish. It is important that we show the strength of local opposition to the loss of the facility.

To reduce the environmental impact of this unnecessary waste.

1. Health (how wants sewerage in water) 2. Marine environment (The sea Life will be affected) 3. Economy (Gairloch is fishing port and highly dependent on tourist trade)

Plastic stirrers/stoppers are used for 4 seconds: they then last 4 centuries. There are alternatives available: metal tea spoons, bamboo, or sustainably-sourced wood, even. The plastic stirrer - this is the most absurd, damaging, pointless single-use plastic available - it should not be so. Don't offer them for free! You will save money, the world's environment and your reputation of being 'natural'. If we really want to potentially toxify our coffee or water with a stirrer, at least make us pay for the pleasure. C'mon - charge us!

There have been a lot of near misses with pedestrians, I witnessed a cyclist being knocked off his bike at school pick up time. I have seen numerous car accidents (all be it minor ones) which could of been a child. I think campaigns to get parents to use their cars less has failed and unfortunately some people are still being selfish and parking in forbidden zones. An area to cross safely away from the chaos will potentially save a child's life. Let's get as many signatures as possible to tell the council that we want and need a crossing!

Stink pits are fenced enclosures, bins or holes dug out by gamekeepers who then fill them with rotting carcasses of discarded game birds, as well as other wild and domestic animals in order to attract target species such as foxes in to a large quantity of snares. In this photo, taken on a Sheffield moor, it appears that ‘non-target’ species are being repeatedly captured - in this case mountain hares. The current approach to managing the Sheffield moors appears to be having a significant and detrimental effect on the local mountain hare population. This excessive use of snares by gamekeepers does not follow DEFRA's code of practice on the use of snares, or the industry's good practice guidance (e.g. BASC) of "quality over quantity". This is why we are calling for a ban on stink pits.

The board no longer represents the views of it's members, or the public on hunting. Trail hunting does not exist and was created to exploit loopholes in the Hunting Act. All of the hunts involved have vowed to continue hunting, and habitually go hunting without trails being laid with a pack of dogs trained to kill Foxes. They could easily convert to drag hunting if they wished to avoid killing animals, instead they go armed with terrier-men whose only purpose is to dig out animals that are hiding in fear of their lives. Despite banning terrier-men on National Trust land, the hunts still regularly go out to kill animals with no evidence of a trail being laid, and the National Trust do nothing to monitor the activity that they licence, instead answering their members concerns with disingenuous copy and paste answers, and all of this after they used their block vote to override the members wishes. Enough is enough, it is time for them to go!

Because greater access to the park will improve and lengthen lives across the city. The regular parking charge in Wollaton Park is a tax on the people of the city impeding access to the health benefits of green space. An disincentive where there should be an incentive. Citing Michael Marmot, the team at Public Health England have written a report titled 'Local action on health inequalities: Improving access to green spaces'; quoting from the report directly, this is the Summary: 1. There is significant and growing evidence on the health benefits of access to good quality green spaces. The benefits include better self-rated health; lower body mass index, overweight and obesity levels; improved mental health and wellbeing; increased longevity. 2. There is unequal access to green space across England. People living in the most deprived areas are less likely to live near green spaces and will therefore have fewer opportunities to experience the health benefits of green space compared with people living in less deprived areas. 3. Increasing the use of good quality green space for all social groups is likely to improve health outcomes and reduce health inequalities. It can also bring other benefits such as greater community cohesion and reduced social isolation. 4. Local authorities play a vital role in protecting, maintaining and improving local green spaces and can create new areas of green space to improve access for all communities. Such efforts require joint work across different parts of the local authority and beyond, particularly public health, planning, transport, and parks and leisure. http://www.hullpublichealth.org/assets/PHE/Briefing8.pdf The council claim to raise £300,000 revenue from parking charges. They do not account for the capital or ongoing costs directly associated with collection of that revenue. The indirect cost to the cafes, attraction and shops within the park, from deterred customers is also not considered material by the council. Thinking long term, recognising that the council will continue to look after the people of the city for perpetuity and the rising cost of social care, would the books be better balanced with a healthier elderly population in 10, 20, 30, 100 years time? The charge should be removed.

This is the United kingdoms legacy to its children We have a moral responsibility to retain Britain's wildlife, not wipe it out of existence. We have a responsibility to show our children compassion toward living beings We have a responsibility to show our children that the almighty £pound is not the be all and end all of our existence. - Morals before destruction - compassion before profit - responsibility, accountability and transparency

The company building Hinkley C in North Somerset, EDF Energy, has obtained a marine licence to dump 200,000 cubic meters of dredged-up mud and sediment in the channel Cardiff Bay. Experts fear the mud may be more radioactive than is currently understood. Critical concerns are: 1) There are 50 different radionuclides and testing has only taken place on 3 of these. 2) Only surface samples have been taken between 0 and 5cm, research from other sites has shown that if samples are taken from five times deeper, there can be a five times higher collection of radioactivity. 3) The large tidal range in the Brisol Channel means that waste could be transferred from the sea into land, either through coastal flooding or even sea spray heading up to 10 miles inland.

The new proposed scheme to start in June 2018 does not take into account the following issues - 1) Families, especially families with medical needs or pets, and what happens to any waste that cannot be fitted into the waste bin. Are you providing a larger bin for them? Or a variety of bins - e.g. one for nappies? 2) Where the excess household waste goes. Does each household over 2/3 people go weekly/fortnightly to the recycling centre to drop off their excess waste? This will produce more traffic, and more emissions to damage our fragile environment, and more queuing at the recycling centre at the weekend. 3) The increase in fly tipping by households that refuse to take their excess household waste to the appropriate place, or have too much recycling to deal with. 4) Reducing the regular collection of recycling will negatively affect families with children. Families with children are in the forefront of recycling with the younger generations supporting it widely. Family red and blue boxes are usually over flowing already, which should be appreciated. Collection every 2 weeks will cause strain on this, as 1 bin (equivalent to 5 boxes) will not be enough. What will happen to the excess recycling? Burnt in the garden? Transported to the recycling centre weekly? The space for recycling needs to be increased, not maintained a the current level. 5)Collecting garden waste at a cost to householders is not acceptable. Throughout the Spring-Autumn each household with a garden will collect garden waste. Not getting collected will lead to garden fires and unsightly gardens. Many avid gardeners are retired householders, pensioners with little money, who will find it very difficult to dispose of their garden waste without the council's help. Again, increasing the likelyhood of garden fires. None of that is good for our environment, for the ozone or the aesthetics of the district. Winter is less productive in the garden and a fee could be levied then if required. At any other time it is absolutely necessary, and any fee levied is clearly for profit. 6) Collecting food waste every week seems particularly premature as the number of households producing this waste for collection is currently low in comparison to other waste. Why increase this before the need is realized? It is much easier to put on the compost at home than a bin full of recycling or household waste. 7) Asking the local community throughout the district before making these major changes to the bin collection schedule.