The pier was opened in 1881 and the pier train is in the Guinness Book of Records as 'the oldest working pier train in the world'. It provides a vital link between Hythe and Southampton and is a part of our history and heritage. The community led campaign encourages increased use of our waterways and in turn, this will help to reduce traffic congestion on our roads into the city and pollution levels both sides of the water.

We citizens of Lancashire, put politicians in place to represent our needs. We are sovereign, and have the highest form of political authority--you are temporary. Our local council, made up of councillors democratically elected by us, and charged with serving our interests, is exactly the right body to make decisions on local matters. The government have displaced our democracy in Lancashire and we intend to make our vote count next time round. WE THE UNDERSIGNED: PLEDGE TO VOTE FOR NO CONSERVATIVE MP IN THE UPCOMING PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

Update Unfortunately, despite having a temporary reprieve in January this year, the Greenspace is once again under threat. Glasgow City Council have been again been approached with a proposal to have the land declared surplus and sold for development of flats. Our councillors have been asked to comment on this proposal. The likely outcome of this part of the process is unclear. The more signatures we have on the petition, the stronger the case against that proposal will be, and the more pressure we can place on the City Council to listen to the community, and save the Greenspace for the third, and hopefully final, time. Our much-loved green space on Broomhill Avenue is under threat again - this is a vital green space for families, walkers and dog-walkers to enjoy in the area. If this space goes to be replaced by more housing, this could lead to many families leaving the area in search of accessible green space. (https://www.facebook.com/broomhillavenuepark/) Right now, Glasgow City Council are in negotiations with a developer which could lead to flats being built on our sole green space in the area. Shouldn't Glasgow City Council be preserving this space to help promote physical activity in local communities and be on ongoing legacy from the Commonwealth Games? This is especially sad as in 2008, Glasgow City Council (GCC) promised us that the Broomhill Avenue Greenspace would "be excluded from any future development packages", and assured us that there was no need to officially protect the site as it would be protected under the councils own rules and guidance on open spaces. GCC themselves list the site as part of the "green corridor" which is intended to provide areas for protection of wildlife, which begs the question of why the negotiations over a sale are taking place at all? Although this area is not an official park, it is tended and maintained by local residents and the trees, wildlife and open space are an important part of the community. The space is cared for - residents and children in the community have been working on the site and planted hundreds of flower bulbs, cleaned up rubbish and prepared bird and bat boxes to provide homes for wildlife, with more planting planned coming. All of this hard work is at risk, if the proposed sale goes ahead. We need as many people as possible to hold Glasgow City Council to their promise. Please sign and share our petition to help us protect the site and save a small, but important local resource for the benefit of the residents, wildlife, children and dog walkers who value and appreciate this area. Thank you for your support.

The BearsWay project is an important initiative for increasing sustainable transport. It has sadly been shouted down by a small but vocal minority who do not like the changes. They have been reiterating several pieces of misinformation (below), and it seems that the local councillors have been swayed by their rhetoric. Many of the councillors who voted for the amendment which scrapped Phase 2 of the BearsWay did so in opposition to their own parties' sustainable transport policies (Lib Dem and SNP councillors, specifically). Some of the misinformation presented by the opponents to the BearsWay: 1) They claim that the road has been narrowed to an unsafe width, and is difficult to drive on, and that emergency response vehicles are unable to pass cars. Having had discussions with Blue Flag drivers, ROSPA advanced drivers, Driving Instructors, the Police, and Ambulance drivers, there is no evidence to support this assertion. If one drives to the speed limit (30mph), there is no difficulty navigating the traffic calming measures. We suspect that a number of people who used to drive the road at speeds in excess of the limit are angry that they can no longer do so. I have not spoken to an Ambulance Driver who had an issue with the width of the road. 2) They state that a majority of residents are against the proposals. There is no evidence whatsoever for this. There was a petition against the BearsWay which gathered 2,500 signatures, a number of whom are not local. There are 30,000 people local to the area, and 18,000 daily journeys on the road. 3) They complain that cyclists do not use the cycleway provided. This has been measured, and 92% of cyclists use the segregated cycle lane. There are several possible reasons for the minority not using it, including: It is very difficult to enter the cycle lane Northbound, as it requires crossing a busy lane of oncoming traffic, which is particularly difficult during peak times. Some cyclists were unaware of the cycleway, as it is not well signposted. The link from Burnbrae Roundabout to the crossing at MacDonalds is awkward to negotiate, and interrupts the route - it is far more straightforward Southbound to stick to the road for 200 yards until the crossing point moves the cycle lane to the left hand side of the road (and this also holds up traffic less than using the crossing lights) The BearsWay is not finished - the remaining phases would have addressed the issues in getting on to the cycleway safely. 4) The reduced lanes cause congestion. a) There was only ever one lane in each direction - this is the same. b) There is no evidence of increased congestion - the average journey time along Milngavie Road has increased by approximately 1.3 seconds according to a commuter who logged 150 of his journeys.. 5) There was nothing wrong with the road as it was, and therefore no need to change it. Note that 3,000 cyclists are KSI'd (Killed or Seriously Injured) on UK roads each year. This number is rising year on year. These deaths are caused by collisions with motor vehicles, most commonly when a motor vehicle driver violates the cyclist's right of way. Firstly, the old cycle lanes were poorly marked, and often poorly maintained as well; Cars regularly parked in them (they still do on the section from the Burnbrae Roundabout to Milngavie Precinct); Motor vehicles regularly cut into them in order to cut corners; Motor vehicles tended to drive faster than the speed limit. To conclude, a quote from an excellent article (Blog) on the need for change (Source here: http://www.magnatom.net/2016/09/east-dunbartonshire-time-for-change.html) It's not easy of course, because Change never is. It involves making some sacrifices. It means that a road might have to be a wee bit narrower. It means that occasionally you might have to wait behind a bus for 20 seconds. It means that occasionally at junctions, priorities might need to be adjusted. The odd parking space has to be lost! It feels like our liberties are being taken away from us. Are we truly free though? Is having a congestion free dual carriage way Bearsden Road which you can zoom down at 40 mph without impediment in your car really freedom? Only to be stuck in 2 miles of nose to tail traffic on the Switchback Road, which is already dual carriage way, so perhaps we need three lanes each way? What about those that can't drive, perhaps as they are too young, can't afford it, or are not able to through disability. Sure, the bus is one option, but it will never truly provide the freedom that we yearn, by taking us from where we live to where-ever we want to go. It will help to some extent, and is part of the integrated solution, but it is not the whole answer. Freedom only comes when all those who wish to travel, by whatever means they wish, can do it in a way that is safe, comfortable and convenient. As London, and countless other examples demonstrate, if you build it, they will truly come. And they will come with the many, many benefits that having a significant percentage of your populations travelling actively will bring. So I call on the politicians and especially the councillors of East Dunbartonshire to think carefully about the future. Not just their own future, or at the ballot box next year, but for the future of an area I am sure they really do care for. I ask for them to consider that Change, even politically difficult Change is not only desirable, but needed for the area to flourish. Yes there is a strong local voice against it, but then many of them don't want children to have freedom of safe movement. Is that what you and your party stand for? Really? If they choose not to invest in active travel, the area will drown under the weight of the motor vehicle, something that even many of the opponents of the BearsWay agree is an issue. Be on the side of change. Be on the side of a brighter, healthier, less polluted, less congested East Dunbartonshire.

In this day and age I firmly believe that Hunting with Hounds is barbaric and unnecessary. This awful suffering must end if we are to be considered a civilised Nation

I believe we need to ban the use of polystyrene used in packaging in the UK to ensure the health of our people and the planet. Currently, there is a campaign to stop micro beads but this needs to extend to polystyrene. A new report from the National Research Council in the US has upheld the listing of styrene as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” in the National Toxicology Program’s 12th Report on Carcinogens (RoC). There is “convincing relevant information” in mechanistic studies that observed DNA damage in human cells that had been exposed to styrene. Not only is polystyrene toxic to humans, causing cancers, it pollutes the environment much like plastic. I have spent many days on beach cleans and have found these particles littered across the shore break. It breaks down into smaller particles which look like food, confusing fish and mammals, who then digest it. The polystyrene, after being digested by fish then ends up in our food chain. I've seen small children playing with this 'snow', I've seen the stomach lining of fish and birds littered with it. These are the fish that die from it, what of the fish that end up on our table? I call for the use of this substance in all packaging to be banned as a matter of urgency. Take away packaging litters our streets, it is extremely difficult to recycle, often ending up in land-fill and in our seas. There are numerous affordable cardboard, vegetable starch alternatives that break down in an environmentally friendly manner, easily preventing the pollution of our planet and our bodies. Please stand with me to ensure that this small, simple change is implemented by our government making a big difference to all of our lives.

Fracking causes misery worldwide, with death's, cancers and disease. It is unethical and should be banned. It is no different to importing blood diamonds. This is supposedly banned so why not shale gas? I say we ban its use. I say ban its usage and the imports and drilling for it will end.

In the UK 40,000 people die early each year as a result of dirty air. We need to do everything we can to tackle this. One of the things that adds to the pollution in London is that bus drivers do not switch off their engines when their buses are stationary or parked. Anti-idling devices would help reduce emissions. Diesel emissions are causing ill-health in children and vulnerable adults. The cost of retro-fitting anti-idling devices would be more than covered by the fuel saving.

Closing existing rail lines and converting them to BRT is a bad idea for five key reasons: • environmental impact • passenger comfort and perception • loss of network benefits • reliability • cost It is widely acknowledged that given a choice, people see rail / light rail as a superior mode to bus, and would be more encouraged to switch to rail should the service be enhanced. Removing the line from the rail system means that people would see it as ‘just another bus route’, rather than as a feeder to the rest of the rail network. Bus usage has been on a steady downward trend outside London since 1986 whilst rail usage is at record high levels. On the environmental impact, a simple appreciation of physics confirms that the rolling resistance of a rubber-tyred vehicle on a concrete track is significantly higher than steel wheels on steel rail. Furthermore the imposition of BRT would imply dismantling of the existing Overhead Line Equipment (OHLE) which allows trains / light rail to operate with zero emissions at the point of use. On the contrary, it is assumed that buses operating under BRT would have to be self-powered, each having to carry around their own power unit, with consequent penalty for weight and hence fuel consumption. If they were to be diesel-powered, this raises serious questions about the impact on local air quality. The consequences of pouring thousands of tonnes of concrete to create the guideways in itself is a CO2-intensive activity, additionally noting that doing so through Bricket Wood would be within a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). On reliability and cost, a ‘pioneering’ scheme on the old Cambridge to St Ives railway line suffered severe delays, cost overruns and quality failings – which are still being addressed. To make the service more attractive and boost ridership, ABFLY have long been calling for an increase in the service frequency on the single track line, which provides a train every 45mins in each direction. They believe this can be achieved by installing a ‘passing loop’ and bringing in a second train to operate a higher frequency shuttle. The costs of building a passing loop are thought to be somewhere between £4m and £7m based on historical estimates. Whilst the Hertfordshire Rail Strategy, published last July, dismisses the passing loop as, “unlikely to be considered by funders as a priority, as it would require provision of two train sets and train crew in place of the current one, making it difficult to achieve a favourable business case”, no such business case has ever been presented for public scrutiny, and in any case it is thought to be severely undermined by a high level of usage going unrecorded because of ticketless travel on the branch. This issue has recently been acknowledged by the Department for Transport’s very own figures. According to the Transport Vision document, the cost of the BRT scheme is quoted at £90m, over ten times the price of a passing loop, but no business case is presented for BRT either.

It is clear the world is heading for a man climate change disaster . Sending the wrong nessage out to car makers and customers will speed up the process of change , with more storms and floods. It I'd to to accept our social responsibilities and urge the government to think again.

Because 1. Buying Hinkley Point is a colossal mistake 2. Mrs May inherited the project from Osborne & Cameron, keen to develop Chinese trade, 3. but now finds it politically embarrassing to back out of this very bad deal Consequently, we need to inform the public 1. why the deal is bad 2. that there are better alternatives and 3. the Chinese and French can be placated while serving British interests Why is Hinkley Point such a bad deal? 1. It is far too expensive 2. There are undeclared costs associated with the nuclear legacy which make nonsense of published costs – we will have to look after the abandoned reactors and radioactive waste for centuries and nobody knows how to do it or cares how much it will cost 3. There is a huge risk of failure – no such reactor has yet been completed and the ones started (Finland 2005, France 2007) are unfinished, in deep technical trouble and seriously (by billions each) over budget 4. The risks are ultimately borne by us, not the French contractors or Chinese financiers – the project is too big to be allowed to fail by the Government of the day (not Mrs May) 5. Nuclear technology is in any case the wrong choice for filling our anticipated supply gap: nuclear energy gets more expensive as new ideas to improve safety are incorporated in the design; in contrast other well established methods of electricity generation such as gas or coal-fired turbines and particularly offshore wind and solar energy get cheaper by the day owing to accumulating experience and rapid technical development 6.IF it has to be nuclear, the Hinkley Point reactors are too big (small modular reactors can be built instead as needed, at a fraction of the cost and in much less time) and probably also the wrong technology (a debatable, but only secondary, point) Why is the Government pursuing it? The above problems with the Hinkley project are well known to Mrs May and her advisers, but 1. Mrs May inherited it from Messrs Cameron & Osborne, who promoted it mainly in order to develop tempting business relations with China. 2. Brexit makes such relations even more important as proof of GBplc's viability outside the EU Are there any alternatives? Technical alternatives are set out above, but how to meet the political and commercial imperatives? We must persuade the public, and thus influence the Government, to 1. Abandon Hinkley even at this late stage and with possible compensation costs and offer the Chinese and French Governments partnerships in implementing the chosen technical alternative (the Chinese are leaders in solar cell development and production and both the French and Chinese may be interested in offshore developments, small reactors and advanced research). 2. Maximise the benefits to UKplc by ensuring that a good share of work is retained (for example involving UK contractors and Rolls-Royce if small modular nuclear plants form part of the chosen technical mix). Balint Bodroghy BASC DIC (nuclear engineering) 5 Palmeira Avenue Mansions 17-19 Church Road, Hove, BN3 2FA REFERENCES Why Hinkley Point is a nuclear folly of Titanic proportions New Scientist 28.07.16 Michael Le Page Forget the economics of Hinkley Point, the politics are convincing Daily Telegraph Matthew Lynn 15 SEPTEMBER 2016 • 6:21PM If there’s one sure-fire way to irritate de Rivaz of EDF, it’s to mention Christmas turkeys. Emily Gosden, energy editor, Daily Telegraph 17 SEPTEMBER 2016 • 8:00PM Let's ditch Hinkley Point and HS2 to get more bang for our bucks, Daily Telegraph Liam Halligan 17 SEPTEMBER 2016 • 12:59PM Hinkley Point fires up Britain's nuclear ambitions Daily Telegraph 17 September 2016, 8:00pm Rolls submitted designs to the Government for Small Modular Reactors capable of generating 220MW, that could be doubled up to 440, a 10th of the size of a traditional nuclear power station. Rolls Royce Publicity: For some 50 years, Rolls-Royce has been helping Naval and utility customers maximise plant operation and safely extend plant lifetimes. Britain is “ideally placed” to take a global lead in the SMR market, which could be worth £400bn,

it would obviously help generate the power we need,also it would stop good arable land going to waste,not to mention the eyesore in the country syndrome.