This petition has been launched by the Protect Frome Valley @ Stapleton Community Association, formed in February 2015 in direct response to a proposed development on green open space adjacent to Eastville Park Lake (see photo opposite) that enjoyed multiple protective designations in Bristol’s planning policies and yet was still extremely vulnerable to what we regard as a speculative and wholly inappropriate development proposal. Bristol needs more homes: we recognise and accept this. We also recognise that this will place increasing pressure on our much loved and used green open spaces. However, Bristol does not need to sacrifice these precious and finite resources in order to meet this need. In its report ‘From Wasted Space to Living Spaces’, the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) identifies that up to 30,000 homes could be built on brownfield sites in the Bristol area. The report, based on research conducted by the University of the West of England (UWE), highlights Bristol as one of the few local authorities already doing much in this regard but acknowledges that more needs to be done – both locally and nationally – to protect green open space from being lost forever. The report’s recommendations call for: A clear and consistent ‘brownfield first’ approach in planning policy Bringing back an effective strategic tier of sub-regional or county level planning Ensuring that strong strategic and local plans are encouraged, implemented and updated across the country Giving the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) greater powers and resources to redevelop large and difficult sites Developing a proactive approach to identifying brownfield land, with increased focus on regenerating large sites with multiple owners Reintroducing mandatory reporting to the National Land Use Database (NLUD) and make its data more accessible Providing assistance to smaller builders by identifying smaller sites and offering incentives for development such as the increased use of local development orders (LDOs) The full report can be found at http://bit.ly/cprerpt. We urge Bristol City Council to use the year of European Green Capital to adopt these recommendations so far as possible at City level, and in so doing develop Best Practice models as an example to other local authorities. As population densities increase, access to green open space becomes ever more important for our physical and mental wellbeing and for our beleaguered wildlife. We must make every effort to keep Bristol the wonderful place it is in which to live and work. If the legacy of our year of European Green Capital is to have any real meaning for the ordinary people of Bristol, it will lie in the quality of the Green Infrastructure that we hand on to the next generation. We urge you to support this petition. Please follow this link to the Bristol City Council e-petition site and sign the petition there , because if we reach 3,500 signatures on the BCC site, it will trigger a full council debate. http://bit.ly/bccpetn Thank You!

The Hog's Back is a steep chalk ridge that runs between the towns of Guildford and Farnham in Surrey. It is 154m above sea level at its highest point and provides far reaching and dramatic views across open countryside to the north and south. The ridge is a nationally important and much loved feature of the North Downs, formed during the last Ice Age and one of England's oldest known roads. Four farms (Blackwell, Wildfield, Chalk Pit and Manor) lie at its eastern end and are under threat from development. Guildford Borough Council has earmarked Blackwell Farm for a 2,250-home development and expansion of a business park in its draft Local Plan - a move that would burst through, and enclose, an area of ancient woodland, which forms the green belt boundary on the west side of Guildford. This sprawl would open up the floodgates for a ribbon development along the slopes of Hog’s Back. The University of Surrey, which owns the land, is already pushing to increase the development to 265 hectares (3,250 homes). This is despite promises to open up this area as an informal recreational space - promises made when the University took 64 hectares out of green belt in 2004. The farmland under threat lies on the boundary to the Surrey Hills AONB and provides views into, and out of, the Hog's Back ridge. Part of site lies within the AONB. It also includes a designated Area of Great Landscape Value, areas of ancient woodland, areas of Grade 2 and 3a farmland, medieval hedgerows, and remnants of 18th century parkland. It is adjacent to a scheduled ancient monument and to a Site of Nature Conservation Importance, and is home to many rare flora and fauna, including 4 bird species of principal importance for biodiversity. The site is also of historic importance: it includes that last remaining undeveloped corner of Guildford Royal Park - Henry II's hunting ground and an important part of the town's heritage - and it provides the last remaining views of Guildford Cathedral where it rises from an entirely rural setting. The Hog's Back itself is steeped in history. It was used by worshippers travelling to Stonehenge and much later by pilgrims visiting Thomas a Becket’s shrine at Canterbury. Views from the ridge have been admired by literary figures, such as Daniel Defoe, Jane Austen, Lewis Carroll (who is buried on the Hogs Back) and Aldous Huxley. Save Hogs Back is opposed to the development of these farms and any further urbanisation of the Hog's Back landscape. We call on Guildford Borough Council to withdraw this site from its Local Plan, and on Brandon Lewis to tighten up planning legislation so that there is more robust protection for AONBs and their settings. We also call on the University of Surrey to abandon its plans to cash in on this land and instead to honour its promise to the people of Guildford to open up this area for walkers, riders, cyclists etc, whilst keeping it as a working farm. For further information, please visit www.savehogsback.co.uk

Imagine if manufacturers had to say how long they expect their products to last and backed it with a guarantee. For the first time people will be able to make a real choice when they buy something. e.g. "Do I get the £15 kettle that lasts 1 year? or the £30 kettle that lasts 5-6 years?" This makes things simple. We deserve to know what we are buying! "Planned Obsolescence" (where manufacturers purposefully design their products to break or be unfixable) is on the rise. It might bring profits in for shortsighted companies, but it is a growing disaster for the environment and it means that we are stuck buying the same shoddy things again and again. Having your kettle/hoover/dishwasher break is not just annoying, it traps people in a cycle of poverty. But there's something we can do! If people know how long something is expected to last, we can see if the "cheap prices" are really worth it. It's likely that companies will realise that have to do better, and up the durability of their products or risk having to publish some dismal figures. Us consumers have been trapped by these companies strategies for too long and it's time for us to get some power back. The power of choice. Please sign the petition. The planet will thank us all. We can do it! Tara PS. Follow and share the campaign with the hashtag #built2break

Winchester was an important Roman city and later became the Anglo-Saxon capital of Wessex under King Alfred the Great. It is the birthplace of England, where much of its language, heritage, culture, democracy, education and law was established, and it holds an exceptional position in British history. The Silver Hill proposals encompass 5 acres, a very considerable proportion of the city centre, and they constitute the most significant and contentious development in Winchester’s modern history. Everyone agrees that this part of the city centre needs to be regenerated, but the objections of thousands of residents to the current proposals are due to the overwhelming scale and dismal nature of its architecture. A dull and uniform mass of such size will suffocate the appeal and character of an historic cathedral city. It will jeopardize the city’s future vitality, and its outdated retail concept will emasculate the city’s thriving high street, the oldest in northern Europe. The objections are also based on Winchester City Council’s failure to procure the contract, so that over the last 13 years they have only ever considered the one proposal by the one developer, T.H. Real Estate (aka Henderson). Residents have questioned why, when Winchester is so full of architectural talent, has the Council never considered any alternative, more sympathetic proposals for what should be a civic-led development. They have also asked how, when Henderson’s 2014 proposal was derailed by a Judicial Review, the Council has agreed to let Henderson revert to an earlier version of the proposal approved in 2009, which both parties declared was unviable. Despite being roundly criticised by a High Court Judge for being in “serious breach” of the procurement regulations, the Council has failed to take the opportunity it has had to remedy the situation, the result being the relentless progress of a senseless and entirely predictable disaster, in the face of huge opposition. Winchester was the foundation of England, and the joyous charm of its city centre reflects a spirit of a cohesive community respectful of its historic environment. Don’t let that be lost. Winchester deserves a future as rich as its past, and only with your intervention can that be assured. For more information on the campaign please visit: - the Winchester Deserves Better website: http://www.winchesterdeservesbetter.com/ - the Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/winchesterdeservesbetter - or the Twitter page: https://twitter.com/Best4Winchester For more information on SAVE's alternative scheme, being developed by Winchester architect Huw Thomas, please see our website and press release: http://www.savebritainsheritage.org/news/campaign.php?id=343 To donate to SAVE Britain's Heritage and support the campaign please click on the 'donate' button on our homepage: http://www.savebritainsheritage.org/index.php

My son just like many other children like to play under trees in the park. Imagine my horror when I realised that a chemical called glyphosate had been used in the public area he and his friends chose to play in. The tell-tale signs are all around the Wadards Meadow area of Cogges in Witney, but this petition is to ask Cottsway to withdraw its use on every public area managed by they in any part of the district and country. There are many questions about glyphosate's safety and various studies have highlighted many concerns. Whilst glyphosate's safety is in question, we politely and with respect ask that Cottsway Housing Association stops using immediately. Find out more about glyphosate here: http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2379278/glyphosate_is_a_disaster_for_human_health.html

Last November, Liz Truss the Environment Secretary launched the Pollinator Strategy with its aim of protecting pollinating insects which support our food production and the diversity of our environment. As I'm sure you're already aware, bees numbers are in serious decline and action needs to be taken now. This strategy sets out a 10 year plan to help pollinating insects survive and thrive. One of the main reasons our bees are in decline is the loss of suitable food sources and a home. Councils across the UK are ignoring the letter and spirit of the pollinator strategy and continue to blindly cut roadside verges which do not need cutting for road safety purposes. It's time to ask all UK councils, the Highways Agency and businesses etc which have grass verges and grassland on site to do their bit to support the spirit of the Pollinator's strategy. The lack of suitable food for pollinators is a huge issue and our bees are starving because of our obsession with tidiness. If this strategy is adopted it would make a huge difference to the lives of bees and other pollinators across the UK before it is too late. We acknowledge that safety must come first on our roads but with the size of most road verges there should be no conflict between this and conservation. For many verges a regular annual late summer cut and removal of mowings will keep the verge open, safe and thriving with interesting wildlife. We also agree that certain verges must be cut regularly cut to maintain clear lines of visibility – this is particularly crucial at junctions where a ‘visibility splay’ has to be maintained at all times. On some busy roads this also applies to the first metre from the edge of the carriageway. Further information can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-pollinator-strategy-for-bees-and-other-pollinators-in-england Please ask your local council to adopt the Pollinator strategy for managing road verges to benefit wild flowers and other nature. Priorities for safety and access, along with budget constraints and difficulties with the collection of litter and grass clippings can mean that enhancing their wildlife value is often low on the list. But we believe that the adoption of a few basic principles will improve our verges for nature, bringing benefits for wildlife, for us and for future generations.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Government must take more action to reduce air pollution. At the moment, diesel trains pass through already polluted cities, causing more illness and premature deaths. Diesel trains also have a bigger carbon footprint than electric trains. The towns and cities along the route will not be able to meet air quality and carbon emissions targets until the Midland Mainline is electrified.

As your constituent, I was concerned recently in the local press to hear you state “In the event of such a vote, I would vote to repeal it. In my judgement, and the judgement of others, the Act does nothing to protect wild animals and, in many cases, is actually detrimental to animal welfare when other methods of control are deployed, several of which can be indiscriminate.” what concerns me is not your statement which is based not on any research or based on facts but rather ideology but you seem to think this is a common view held by your constituents. I would also like to highlight there are many within your own political party who do not support the repeal of this law http://www.conservativesagainstfoxhunting.com/ Also I would recommend you read the following report http://www.league.org.uk/~/media/Files/LACS/Publications/Hunting-Act-Report-2014.pdf I’ve seen a video about hunting that I just had to send you. One of the key arguments of those who support hunting is that it is necessary for ‘wildlife management’ – put more simply, they suggest it is good for controlling fox numbers. I really want you to watch this as it is vital to the debate about the potential repeal of the Hunting Act. A League Against Cruel Sports investigation found 16 fox cubs being kept in a barn, 200 metres from a hunt kennels. An employee of the hunt, their terrier man who is registered as living at the hunt kennels, was filmed entering the barn. Why would a hunt be keeping foxes? The only sensible conclusion is that they had been taken and kept simply to be hunted. The video shows other examples which back up this conclusion. This is not ‘wildlife management’, it is animal cruelty. The video can be found here: https://youtu.be/D7PjfphDsc0 If you would like to hear more information about Wildlife management and help dispel some of the myths from the pro hunting lobby. we will love to see our MP for a local debate on the matter. I hope you will consider this information when voting on the repeal of the Hunting Act. If you would still consider voting for repeal in light of this evidence, I’d really appreciate an explanation why? MPs are meant to be local representatives who vote according best interest of their constituents. Basingstoke is mostly a urban seat and this vote will little impact on them but our MP should at lest speak to her constituents as many would have strong views on animal welfare In the ten years since the Act was passed, it has proven to be an effective and popular piece of legislation. Yet, since its introduction, the Hunting Act has been the target of considerable attack from the pro-hunt lobby which has waged an on-going and concerted campaign of disinformation about the Act. Ministry of Justice figures demonstrate that the Hunting Act out-performs all other wild mammal legislation in England and Wales, having both the highest number of convictions since it was introduced (341 from 2005 to 2013) and conviction rate (65% of charges laid under the Act have resulted in convictions). The successful prosecution of registered hunts private prosecutions against illegal hunters. Subsequently, evidence gathered by team of professional investigators has been used to convict 18 people associated with registered hunts, with more cases still proceeding through the courts. While public support for the prohibition of hunting has always been high, it has increased substantially in the past ten years. The latest polling from Ipsos MORI, conducted in 2014 on behalf of the League, shows: 80% of people think fox hunting should remain illegal 86% think stag hunting should remain illegal and 88% think hare hunting and coursing should remain illegal Some of those pushing for repeal of the Act point out that illegal hunting still takes place. Unfortunately this is true, and like everything from drug laws to speed limits - the problem lies not with the Act, but with those who flout the law. So, ten years on, the Act is working well and with a few simple improvements in some specific areas it can be even more effective. If the law is kept it can be improved on in the future Prohibiting the use of dogs below ground - this is arguably where the worst cruelty occurs in hunting, not only to wild mammals pursued underground with limited opportunity to escape (usually foxes and badgers), but also to the dogs sent below ground to find these animals and either flush them out or hold them at bay. Inserting a ‘reckless’ provision to ensure the killing of wild mammals during a trail hunt cannot be passed off as an ‘unfortunate accident’. Increasing the punishments available to the courts so that the Act is brought in line with other animal protection legislation. Thank you for your time. Thank you in advance for your reply.

These are the people who have so much potential yet they throw away their money on nothing but a bag of chemical which at times can lead to death and many other things. At the end of the day this is the society your living in, would you rather live in a dangerous society with people running about of their heads on drugs, or a place without drugs, a safer and happier environment

On the 24th June 2015 a court in the Netherlands set an amazing precedent. The Dutch government is now legally bound to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020, due to a legal case taken up by 900 citizens who would be adversely affected by rising sea levels due to climate change. Under the Conservative government we have gone backwards in regards to renewable energy. Homes and the environment are being put under threat due to broken promises, failure to take positive strides towards sustainability, fracking and the recent finding of oil in Sussex. We are already in a position where we cannot consume more than 20% of our current fossil fuels if we are to stay within two degrees of global warming so as not to reach the tipping point that has been agreed by climate scientists. Therefore we need to be moving towards renewable energy, sustainability rather than further increase our dependence on fossil fuels. Let's make our government take responsibility for their inaction and make it a legal requirement to put sustainability back on the agenda in the United Kingdom.

At the 2013 consultation on preferences for growth in North Tyneside to 2032, 37% of respondents expressed a preference for seeking other options rather than build any new homes, and a further 47% preferred working with neighbours to reduce the requirement to 10-12,000 homes. Only 10% of respondents expressed a preference for building 16,000 homes. The council have selected this option and the Draft Local Plan 2015 sets out plans to build 16,000 extra homes in this plan due to be agreed in 2015. The difference between the chosen growth option and those preferred by the vast majority of respondents is approximately 5000 homes. This is the number of homes planned to be built at two important greenfield sites at Murton and Killingworth Moor. We believe that North Tyneside Council's decision to adopt the higher growth model goes against the clearly expressed view of respondents to the 2013 consultation for no new homes or fewer new homes to be built. We are calling for the Draft Plan to be re-written based on the preferred low / no growth model, and remove proposed plans for 5000 new homes.

Castlefields Park is habitat for buzzards, owls, squirrels, songbirds, turtle doves, bats, and insect life, and mass tree removal will disturb them greatly. The birds require high trees in which to perch; the trees are a precious asset to the park and the community. Please sign the petition and also email your concerns to [email protected]. Thanks.