The area of concern has played host to a FunFair that has a long and glowing reputation for providing not only recreation for children but also has in the past raised money for the war effort and even managed to purchase a Spitfire Fighter for the War effort. Alongside the Fair can be found the Cricket pitch and Pavilion which is in use during the Cricket season and is very much a part of Village life. Had the Council had the necessary foresight they would have proposed to build the Centre on land especially purchased for this venture i.e. Naishes field across the road from the NNR site and out of harms way. There are several options available on this site for developing the Centre including one option that would utilise an underpass to keep visitors away from crossing Swincoate road. Bear in mind the Council in it's infinite wisdom failed to get the last centre built without causing serious problems even to the extent of building over the roots of several Veteran Oak Trees, at least one has since died. They also failed to take account of disabled persons and access to the forest and that even today have failed to rectify matters. Please give your support to this petition and help the forest and NNR to stay intact for future generations to come. Thank You from all concerned.

This is important because it will help save the environment.

Why leaf blowers should be banned. There are many reasons why leaf blowing machines should be banned. Noise Pollution: Leaf blowers can be as loud as 105dBs - any sound above 85dBs can permanently damage hearing. Noise at this level and even the constant whine in the background causes distress to people who are trying to work from home or trying to rest. Health Effects: Exposure to loud noise causes high blood pressure, heart disease, sleep disturbances and poor mental health. Air Pollution: Gas leaf blowers create high levels of formaldehyde, benzine, fine particulate matter and smog forming chemicals which are known to cause dizziness, headaches, asthma attacks, heart and lung disease, cancer and dementia. Kills Insects and bugs: From a distance of 1ft, their 180-200mph jet stream maim or kill insects and small animals such as voles, hedgehogs, moles, dormice and grass snakes. Detrimental to Birds and Wildlife: Excessive noise also has a detrimental effect on birds and wildlife since it limits their ability to mate and find food. With the recent fuel crisis, it is unconscionable that fuel would be wasted on filling leaf blowers.

Given the choice between purchasing eggs from caged or free range hens, the British public have proven that they care enough about animal welfare to have this inform their purchasing decisions. Independent research has found that 79% of UK consumers take animal welfare into account when shopping, yet most of the method of production labelling in this country is still voluntary and insufficiently regulated and enforced. http://www.rspca.org.uk/getinvolved/campaign/foodlabelling/works Requiring those manufacturers who source meat from intensive "factory" farms to declare this on their packaging by law would help consumers make an informed choice at the point of purchase, while encouraging people to think about where their food comes from and the quality of life the animals involved receive before they become our dinner. The research indicates that 8 out of 10 British shoppers would support this, and the "Labelling Matters" campaign offers a tool for lobbying DEFRA and the EU as individuals with regard to chicken meat: http://www.rspca.org.uk/getinvolved/campaign/foodlabelling/takeaction http://www.onekind.org/campaigns/food_labelling/ It is our opinion that this does not go far enough; and we think that pigs, sheep, cows, and fish deserve the same consideration as chickens. In addition, the meat industry is a major contributor to climate change, and intensive farming methods exacerbate this. While it is unrealistic to expect people to stop eating meat all together, this move would give consumers an indication as to how much their purchasing choices contribute to this global crisis. http://www.cowspiracy.com/ http://www.fawf.org.uk/documents/FAWF_Labelling_Food_FINAL.pdf

The development and use of renewable energy sources is required to protect the future of all who live and work in Gloucestershire from Climate Change. The current strategy of the Pension Fund administered by Gloucestershire County Council Pension Comittee to invest many many £millions in large fossil fuel companies is compromising the future of those of us who live in Gloucestershire and those who contribute to or are receiving GCC pensions.

It is estimated that supermarkets waste around 180,000 tonnes of food each year, with far higher waste in the supply chain caused by their unnecessary cosmetic standard policies, which contribute towards waste of around 3 million tonnes in the supply chain. In Norwich there are over 7,000 children living in poverty, with the effects of childhood malnutrition lasting a lifetime at a significant cost to the taxpayer, with increased spending on social services, criminal justice, healthcare and extra educational support arising from an upbringing below the breadline. The need to redistribute unsold food to those who can’t afford to feed themselves has become so urgent that a number of organisations have recently joined together to form Norwich Food Hub – which aims to collect food from supermarkets, bring it to a central city-centre location for sorting, and redistribute it to community groups helping those in food poverty. Since forming we’ve been in contact with over 15 organisations interested in receiving food, including 6 breakfast and after-school clubs for young children. By supplying to these groups alone we could be feeding over 250 people each day. Using food waste to feed the hungry is not a solution to food poverty. That should be addressed through fair and sustainable welfare policies. However whilst both food waste and food poverty co-exist we need to organise so that this food can be used to help people in need. Support from the Council would go a long way to achieving our aims and reducing food poverty in our city.

Tunnock's is a well known and loved Scottish brand, not only in its native Scotland, but around the world. Tunnock's should pave the way in the biscuit industry as being a leader in important environmental issues and show to be ecologically and environmentally responsible. Using uncertified palm oil in biscuits is contributing to the destruction of rainforests and the near extinction of orangutans and Sumatran tigers. For the unsustainable palm oil industry to flourish indigenous people´s homes are threatened, deforestation leaves animals homeless, carbon dioxide emits poison contributing to greenhouse gases and animals such as orangutans are either killed, badly hurt, starved, or left as orphans. Enjoying a Tunnock's Tea Cake should not reflect such monstrosities.

100% London teamed up with energy experts to come up with nine essential steps to a clean energy future for London. The mayor needs to stand with every Londoner, including businesses, schools, hospitals and local councils, to make sure we build a clean future for our city. Here’s what the new mayor should commit to do to make London 100% clean: - Fix up older homes, to make them warm and energy efficient - Invest in public transport - Create a network of renewable energy suppliers - Make cycling safe and accessible for everybody - A city-wide solar power strategy - Make freight carbon-free - Cleaner air through lower vehicle emissions - Use resources well, and recycle more effectively - Modernise our workplaces to make them energy efficient

As pointed out recently by the 2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change, the global health improvements witnessed in recent decades risk being undone by climate change.. We also know that most of the existing coal, oil and gas reserves must stay in the ground if this is to be avoided. However, the energy sector’s continued exploration for new fossil fuel reserves makes clear that they will only respond to market forces. The ethical and financial case for fossil fuel divestment is thus well founded, and widely supported by, amongst others, the President of the World Bank and Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO)- both public health physicians. Whilst we commend the Gates Foundation Asset Trust’s recent decision to divest $765.9 million worth of shares from ExxonMobil, we feel that this does not go far enough. By failing to divest from the major fossil fuel companies, the Gates Foundation is implicitly providing moral support to companies that continue to obstruct meaningful action to reduce GHG emissions. Just as important, it sends the wrong signal to many governments who continue to frame their energy policies under the influence of the fossil fuel industry. It also misses the opportunity to support a transition to a safer and healthier world through transfer of investment to the renewable energy sector. Constructive engagement with the fossil fuel industry is important, but the Gates Foundation is better placed to support the transformation of the energy sector if it does not simultaneously signal that it is morally acceptable to profit from industries that cause global warming and threaten the health, biodiversity and security of the planet. Yours sincerely, Dr David McCoy, Medact, UK Prof. Hugh Montgomery, University College London Prof Sue Atkinson and Dr Robin Stott, on behalf of the Climate and Health Council, UK Dr David Pencheon, Director, Sustainable Development Unit for the Health and Social Care System, UK ----------- If you are from outside the UK then please email [email protected] with the following details, and we will add you to the petition manually: Full name, Email, Job title, Country and whether you work in the health sector.

The Edinburgh International Festival's mission is to contribute to "many aspects of life, be it cultural and economic, education and society and enhances the lives of people not just in Edinburgh and Scotland, but around the world". We believe this vision is at odds with the human rights abuses and environmental destruction perpetrated by one of the Festival's sponsor: oil giant BP. BP is now being taken to court by Gilberto Torres (pictured above in the middle), former Columbian trade union leader, with the assistance of War on Want and a British law firm for being complicit in the crimes perpetrated by the oil company Ocensa. The company is accused of financing the torture, murder and disappearance of more than 12,000 people in the oil-rich and politically unstable region of Casanare. While issues of funding are of increasing importance to cultural institutions, we strongly believe there is no rationale to justify the reconciliation of fossil fuel corporations and the arts. Therefore, we are now calling on the Edinburgh International Festival to remove BP from its corporate sponsors.

Fracking is an inherently dangerous industrial process which poisons water aquifers. Do we want our families and future generations to suffer from the effects of chemically contaminated water in perpetuity? Environment America's Research and policy Centre’s report in 2013, which studied the impact of fracking across the United States, states that fracking poses grave risks to the environment and human health. For this reason the Scottish and Welsh assemblies have imposed a moratorium on fracking in Scotland and Wales. There have been many cases across the US where contamination of drinking water has led to serious impacts on health for humans and livestock. I urge anyone to get hold of it, it makes very sobering reading. Fracking is not a safe industry and the evidence from studies in the US backs this up. The visual and environmental impact of this industrial process on the landscape and to habitats is dramatic and therefore extremely concerning. Damage is caused by drilling through water bearing rock strata and pumping a cocktail of toxic chemicals at extremely high pressure in order to shatter oil bearing shale. Well linings break and degrade leading to irreversible contamination of aquifers. The vast quantities, millions of gallons, of water for this process must be taken in competition with the needs of irrigation for agriculture and our drinking water. The water becomes contaminated and cannot be recycled but has to be brought back to the surface and stored in reservoirs or dumped, leading to escape and further permanent damage to the environment. Fracking will without question threaten the purity and future security of water aquifers across England in densely populated counties including Surrey, Sussex and Hampshire. Drilling horizontally below for example beneath the South Downs National Park cannot be considered safe. In geological terms, this isn't very deep at all. Depth does not address the risk fundamentals that high pressure fracking and extraction from well head to oil bearing strata and in reverse in a environmentally sensitive and densely populated region poses to health. Fracking should be regulated with as much rigour as the nuclear industry is under European Environmental Impact Assessment regulation. The impact of fracking is such a critical and detailed issue for the UK, I urge everyone to review the evidence on fracking that is emerging from the US for themselves and not rely on ministerial briefings and support a moratorium on fracking in England until fracking can ever be proved to be a safe and sustainable industrial practice. There are proven safe and sustainable alternatives to securing the nation's energy requirements.

Pet owners. The elderly. Parents. Shift workers. We know the cost of a bit of fun. It's not just one evening. It starts at the beginning of October, and goes on and on, to Christmas, new year, and so on. Animals cannot tell that this is fun. It sounds like war. It sounds bad. It sounds scary.