If such large quantities of Black PET are being used in the food industry to sell food in all supermarkets, then this recyclable resource needs to be used for the manufacture of further new Black containers, rather than being buried in the soil at further cost to the tax payer, let alone the careless damage done to the environment. Please change our policy for the better. Thanks.

The area of Darley fields has already lost considerable habitat with the cutting down of dozens of trees, many of which were not on original plans for flood defences. Now the other side of the river will lose habitat diversity as the banks are cleared. Kingfishers have been noted there. The environmental impact will be considerable. Also spring is well on its way and many nesting birds and small mammals will be destroyed. STOP THIS SENSELESS CLEARENCE

Hinkley Point C is a vastly expensive project which has a good chance of failing, at great cost to UK electricity consumers. The model of reactor chosen for Hinkley Point C, the EPR (European Pressurised Reactor), is proving to be a technical disaster. Four are under construction in Finland, France and China and all overdue and over cost - the one in Finland is 9 years behind schedule. The cost of the Hinkley programme has escalated to £18billion and is likely to rise further. At present, the UK demand for electricity is falling and the cost of energy on world markets is also falling. Renewable technologies such as solar and wind are also rapidly becoming cheaper and represent far better value for money if we wish to invest in low-carbon electricity production. The Hinkley reactors will be funded by EDF, a company largely owned by the French government. Its finance director has resigned as he believes the company cannot afford the project. In order to attract investment in the project from France and China, the UK government has guaranteed a unit price for the power produced which is roughly three times the current price. This will inflate the electricity bills of all consumers for decades to come. Since it is a Government decision, it is effectively a tax which we can in no way avoid. A government which professes to believe in the free market has rigged the market by promising the French and Chinese investors a large return on their investment. Any profits will leave the country. Hinkley Point C is an infrastructure project that will end up as a white elephant. The next generation will not understand why we allowed such a grandiose project to be built. They will be left to pay the price through inflated electricity bills and to deal with the nuclear waste which the reactors will produce.

The Kings Arms has been on its current site in the centre of Kingsbridge since 1775 and has offered hospitality to locals and visitors since that time. It is currently closed and is in a dilapidated state - spoiling our main street which otherwise enjoys virtually fully occupancy with independent traders and giving a terrible impression to visitors new to the town. We want to open a dialogue with the owners to see about reinvigorating the building and to let it, once again, be the heart of our community.

With Five Quarters nolonger in operation there is only Cluff Natural Resources with licences who want use the North East as a testbed for undersea coal gasification (UCG), an experimental method of squeezing out the remaining drops of coal. They have received licences to test down the NE coast from Seaham to Hartlepool In Australia linc energy UCG wells were found to leak the same substances to groundwater as can be released by fracking resulting in a 320km zone be made around the plant. There are dangers of blowbacks and explosions. Many test have failed. It has never been used on a commercial basis. The gas produced is syngas or coal gas. It is a mixture of methane (natural gas), carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and hydrogen. They plan to pump it back into the hole they have made using Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). This is another process that has not been fully tested. Surely it would be better to use renewables and not produce the CO2 in the first place? There is of course the carrot of job creation. Any jobs created by UCG/fracking will be highly specialised. However, if the same amounts of money were to be invested in renewable energies and/or home and public building insulation, which the public have been shown to prefer as the majority of surveys have shown. There would be far more new jobs and far fewer environmental concern's. For more information see Frackfreehartlepool.co.uk

This is a nature reserve and contains an array of wildlife that will be affected as a consequence of building on the green land.

We can make a choice whether we wish to eat this food or not. We currently have no idea of the long term effects of this type of process

Hilperton Marsh [aka the Gap] is a flood plain and building over 200 houses risks increasing the risk of flooding for homes and businesses in the area and overloading the current water courses and drains. What's more it's a beautiful open area of green fields, historically dividing the village of Hilperton from the town. It is an easily accessible area used by both local residents and people from other areas for recreation and to enhance the quality of life for both young and old. Trees and hedges that support wildlife including bats, owls and kingfishers will be felled. The Hilperton relief road which has been built across the centre of the Gap is now being used as an excuse to build on the land - not the purpose that it was constructed for. Both Councillors for this area are opposed to these plans. One Councillor, Cllr Steve Oldrieve said: " The whole of the Hilperton Gap is vital to the well-being of our community and we cannot allow unwanted piece-meal speculative housing developments to destroy it." It's time to stand up to Save the Hilperton Gap. If enough of us support this petition it will put pressure on Wiltshire Council to refuse planning permission and consider alternatives to protect this land for future generations.

George, real people are struggling to deal with the effects of fracking in communities all over the world. From contaminated water that is unsafe to drink, wash and bathe in, through to the effects of poor air quality on health, damage to local economies through to the loss of tourism and agriculture and the decimation of areas of outstanding beauty and scientific interest. Here is a video link you might care to watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3K0kV7UcME. Fracking requires large numbers of wells (usually 8 per square mile), huge quantities of water that will be forever poisoned, and industrial development of the English countryside on an unprecedented scale whilst causing and not preventing a rise in greenhouse gases (shale gas and oil are fossil fuels and so emit greenhouse gases - did you know?). George you have scrapped the Green Charter at a time when many of our European cousins are investing heavily in green technologies, making huge innovative strides in solar and other renewable technology and banning fracking because of its inherent risks and dangers. Still more countries have extended temporary bans due to their concerns, to allow more time to thoroughly assess the dangers. Others that have already suffered the negative consequences of fracking are now taking measures to prevent further fracking. Oh and by the way - I can see no evidence that fracking will drive prices down at home here in the UK. There is no guarantee that gas fracked in this country would be used here. We, as you well know, are part of a free market economy so gas will be sold wherever it will generate the largest profits. Those profits will go back to the corporates and their shareholders, not our economy unless, of course, we manage to close all those pesky off shore loop holes by the time those profits are made (Starbucks anyone?). Meanwhile with oil prices scraping the bottom of the proverbial barrel and the price of solar electricity falling fast, the likes of Citibank say big power stations could be redundant in 10 - 20 years’ time! What then will happen to the wells George? Who will be responsible for their upkeep and/or decommissioning and at what cost environmentally and economically?. Where will the contaminated water go? Perhaps you are hoping it will just seep neatly away into the cracks caused by fracking (along with the other 60% of water that 'goes missing' during the fracking process), that is assuming that the wells are even up and running by this deadline. Me? I like my water fresh from the tap, preferably uncontaminated. Fracking has the very real potential to adversely affect the food we eat, the water we drink, the air we breathe and the ground we walk on (remember the earthquakes George, that Cuadrilla admitted to causing?). Therefore we, the undersigned, request an immediate cessation to this Government's pro-fracking policies and any pro-fracking activity currently taking place until a thorough INDEPENDENT, cross party, scientific analysis and review has taken place with any research and conclusions reached made transparent and fully available to the public. We thank you for your earliest attention in this matter.

The use of air fresheners in public spaces has become increasingly widespread. The health of the general public has been overlooked and it has become almost impossible to avoid contact with air fresheners and indoor pollutants as we go about our daily lives. Air fresheners have a detrimental affect on health, particularly on those suffering from migraine, asthma, respiratory problems and allergy. Around 5.4 million people in the UK are currently receiving treatment for asthma including 1.1 million children. Please join this campaign to help improve public awareness and urge the UK government, local councils and businesses to take action to safeguard public health.

13 climate protesters are facing prison to silence protest against new runways which would wreck Government policy to protect us from catastrophic climate change. The Paris agreement underlines the need to cut emissions now. Aviation is the fastest growing source of carbon emissions and the only way to reduce emissions from aviation to a safe level is to reduce the number of flights. Despite David Cameron’s ‘no ifs, no buts’ election and manifesto promise to not build a new runway following massive public outrage at the proposals, the Government is now breaking its promise. There is more than enough aviation capacity for people’s annual holidays and the declining number of business flights. Airport growth is driven by a minority of frequent fliers who take the majority of UK flights to second homes and tax havens. Meanwhile, emissions from aviation are destroying people’s lives. People in the Heathrow area, who already have to breathe illegal levels of air pollution and suffer intolerable noise, would now see their homes destroyed. People across the UK have been flooded at Christmas, and every year hundreds of thousands more people die due to climate change - mostly in poor countries in the Global South, the people least responsible for emissions. The Government is expected to make its decision on whether to expand Heathrow or Gatwick – or neither, if we are successful – this year. It’s one or the other: build new runways or protect us from climate chaos. The people in the Global South who are dying due to climate change already have no voice in the debate. We can show them that jailing peaceful protesters will not silence those of us who do.

Mark Spencer MP recently received a free game bird shooting weekend courtesy of lobbying group British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC). We are, in turn, asking our MP to stop accepting gifts from shooting lobbyists and from now on support a ban on the damaging practice of driven grouse shooting. There are many very good reasons for banning driven grouse shooting: -Government subsidies support this practice (at a time when everywhere else is feeling the brunt of cuts: why aren't millionaire landowners?); -the illegal killing of grouse predators (especially the hen harrier, which is now almost extinct in England due to persecution on grouse moors); -grouse moors are extensively 'managed' in such a way that causes far higher flood risks downriver; -increased water pollution (which inflates our water bills- there is evidence that bills would be cheaper if the rich man's driven grouse shooting was banned); -increased greenhouse gas emissions due to the practice of burning the moors to keep a habitat that boosts grouse numbers; -millions of birds are killed each year.