During the autumn of 2014 National Grid ran a consultation called "North West Coast Connections" asking members of the public how it should get power from the proposed new Moorside power station in west Cumbria into the high voltage transmission grid. On 17 June 2015 – despite widespread opposition - National Grid announced the decision to take forward its preferred option. This would see huge new pylons and overhead lines in the Lake District National Park and other sensitive protected areas, causing massive damage to the beautiful landscape and wildlife. At 50m tall, the new pylons would be twice the height of existing pylons and more than twice as wide. They would break the skyline from many viewpoints and create a permanent eyesore. National Grid provided an alternative offshore option for the public to comment on. The offshore route would take the powerline underground and then out to sea, where cables laid in the sea bed would link it into the national grid near Blackpool. National Grid has always accepted that this route is feasible, but it is not the route it wanted to take . In a previous public consultation in 2012, there was overwhelming support for the offshore route because it had the least impact on the Lake District. Although the majority of respondents to the 2014 consultation also supported the offshore option, National Grid has disregarded the wishes of the public. A number of stakeholder organisations that supported the onshore option did so with the proviso that National Grid takes satisfactory measures – such as routing cables underground - to mitigate the effects of pylons in sensitive areas. It now appears likely that adequate mitigation will NOT be offered. National Parks were created in order to protect beautiful areas for the people of Britain; we do not want to see 27 miles of 50m tall pylons (connected by multiple conductor wires) in and next to the Lake District National Park. We want your help to persuade National Grid that the offshore option IS the best route because it would both secure our future electricity supplies AND protect the Lake District’s wonderful landscapes. As well as signing the petition, please also consider joining Power Without Pylons (membership free) and Friends of the Lake District. You could also write to newspapers, newsletters and magazines; and if you live in an area likely to be affected, contact your MP and raise concerns with your parish council. As well as this petition, we are currently running a write-in campaign to encourage members of the public to contact National Grid, the MP and Liz Truss the Environment Secretary directly to express their concern and objections to taking the pylons onshore and not considering undergrounding in spite of the damage that pylons would do to the Lake District's landscape. You can access the campaign here: www.saynotopylonsinthelakedistrict.org.uk For more information: www.friendsofthelakedistrict.org.uk/News/response-to-national-grids www.powerwithoutpylons.org.uk www.northwestcoastconnections.com Note: this petition was initiated by Kate Willshaw of Friends of the Lake District ahead of the "North West Coast Connections" consultation, which has now ended. Kate has invited Power Without Pylons to continue to promote it.

Neath Port Talbot has for centuries been an industrial area but now in the 21st century, the surrounding countryside is starting to return to its former glory with much of the area now supporting a thriving tourist industry. The people of Neath Port Talbot would like to keep it this way and do not want any form of shale gas or oil extraction by any method whatsoever, namely by Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking), Coal Bed Methane or Underground Coal Gasification.

In April 2013 a weedkiller (this was the heavily toxic Glymark) was sprayed around the circumference of Camden Square. All visible wildlife immediately disappeared. No birds, no squirrels - absolutely nothing. For three months no birds flew through the square. Even the ravens, hardy carrion crow, were nowhere to be seen. Local councillors and environmentalists came down to the square to witness the devastation. It was agreed that no chemicals would be used on Camden Square for a period of a year and the wildlife monitored. We have actually succeeded in keeping Camden Square pesticide free for two and a half years. But the Councillors want to change that now....... On Thursday 12th November this year, at a meeting about the “improvement and maintenance” of the Square, the big guns were wheeled out with the attendance of no less than THREE Camden Councillors! The decision was reversed, without giving the community a chance to martial the numerous local opponents of the spraying of glyphosate. Councillor Phil Jones stated that there is a HUGE BUDGET to be spent on the square and yet he cannot afford the expense of a little hand weeding? He claimed that our petition had only 200 signatures to date (seriously untrue!) and that there was a lack of support for keeping the Square chemical free. Angela Mason denied even attending the meeting in April 2013 where she observed the absence of wildlife and that birds had stopped flying through the Square. Her tune has now changed. As we know, London is heavily polluted. Camden Square is a sanctuary hidden right in the heart of it all that still remains. It is a valuable and ancient lung. The attendees at this “Camden Square Community Meeting” showed no resistance to proposals to tear up all beautiful rose bushes and axe the central horse chestnut tree, as they find it “ugly”. It took a whole year for the square to be repopulated with wildlife. It is of the utmost urgency that Camden Council enforces a total ban of the use of ALL chemicals on the square. The current threat is Glymark, which contains Glyphosate. Glymark/Round Up/Glyphosate is created and distributed by corporate giant Monsanto, the inventors of the deadly weapon Agent Orange, which devastated Vietnam and its people during the Vietnam War. Monsanto sadly has huge respectability, with high-level supporters and even an American law, which states they can never be held responsible if their products are proved to be harmful to humans or animals. http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-protection-act-signed-by-obama-gmo-bill-written-by-monsanto-signed-into-law/5329388 Monsanto are leaders of the GM revolution, which means that 90% of US crops are now genetically modified. According to e-newsletter “Sustainable Pulse” and many other studies, “For the past 35 years Monsanto has known of the link between glyphosate and cancer, but has systematically worked to cover it up through scientifically fraudulent methods in its safety testing research programme.….. For the first time the authors, Dr. Anthony Samsel and Dr. Stephanie Seneff, presented in tabulated form the data contained in secret Monsanto studies conducted in the period 1980 – 1990, which showed unequivocally that animals exposed to different quantities of glyphosate in their food supply developed tumorigenic growth in multiple organs.” “Monsanto Stunned – California Confirms ‘Roundup’ Will Be Labeled “Cancer Causing”. American news sources declared in September 2015: Holland is the latest European country to forbid the use of glyphosates in eg. residential areas. These chemicals are toxic, not only to the environment, but also to human beings and pets, causing permanent damage to eyesight and respiratory disorders. Toddlers and children frequent the square and will be at severe risk. Please sign with urgency to stop the destruction of Camden Square wildlife. An ultimate ban on such toxic chemicals in Camden, London and further is the ultimate goal. Here's the article from Camden New Journal in 2014: http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2014/may/councils-chemical-weedkiller-burned-pet-dogs-and-killed-squirrels-campaigners-claim. Digging Camden Square all up, chemicalising it, re-sculpting it just to qualify the spending of a budget, plus pandering to some deeply un-naturalistic homeowners who want to feel that they are presiding as in Hampton Court, is a crime against our ancient and beautiful Square.

The permission was granted by the Forest of Dean District Council for their ownership, but the Monmouthshire Council have been making excuses for the last few years since the original proposal. All over the UK county after county's citizens have been benefiting from these valuable resources for leisure and transport purposes. Why are we waiting and consistently fobbed off with trivial excuses all the time? There are no cycle paths through Chepstow while everywhere else benefits. Despite all the Bills, Papers, and Consultations you pass and now 'The Wales we Want' campaign, we are ignored. This path would enable less able bodied people to access the beauty of the Wye Valley, it would provide business and opportunities locally, and hold these opportunities within Chepstow and surrounding villages where presently people go further afield for leisure facilities. Also it would encourage forms of sustainable transport such as cycling and walking, enabling many people to leave their cars at home. The already established paths in the UK are used by thousands everyday for multiple purpose. Why are we denied this resource, is it because our Council is blind to the future?

Horizontal hydraulic fracturing, ‘fracking’, is a way of extracting oil and/or gas. Water, sand and toxic chemicals are injected at high pressure into underground rocks to shatter them. This releases the gas/oil which can be collected. The oil and gas industries claim that fracking will increase UK energy security and create jobs. But the amount of gas or oil estimated to exist in shale/coal bed formations and the amount that can be extracted are very different. The evidence in the US is that - contrary to extravagant industry claims of a century of natural gas - fracking wells are already dropping in production. It is an extremely expensive extraction method that cannot provide a long-term return. It cannot create either energy or job security. However, fracking is not just expensive economically, but more disturbingly in the costs to the environment and human health as well as that of livestock. There have been many instances in the US of ground and surface water contamination as a result of fracking activities, some of which have caused drastic health problems and even necessitated state or corporate provision of alternative drinking water. Access to drinkable water is one of the key achievements of developed nations. Water Aid states that 768 million people worldwide - roughly 1 in 10 - still don't have access to safe water. Do we in Britain, one of the most advanced nations in the world, want to risk members of our own population joining that number? Absolutely not. But that's exactly what fracking would risk. All oil wells are concrete-and-steel constructions that will eventually fail, and even in the short term, fracking wells have an estimated 6% chance of a fault of some kind (industry estimate). The specifics of local geology and underground watercourses cannot be reliably predicted or legislated for. For a fracking site to be profitable, hundreds of wells are required. The maths - and the logic - isn't difficult. This practice is simply too dangerous, and the return too uncertain, expensive and limited, to justify. As for jobs, they go where the political will and the entrepreneurs go. The oil and gas industry would have it be a choice between environment and jobs. This is misleading and profoundly unhelpful - the Council and indeed the Government should support job creation in the renewables industry which (unlike the oil and gas industry) is actually in steady growth, and will reduce carbon emissions... We therefore call on the council to preserve the quality of life of Gloucestershire's residents and those of the UK in general, and reject any and all planning applications for fracking including Coal Bed Methane and Underground Coal Gasification applications, whether now or in future.

The damage to the environment and economy of areas where this has been allowed is well documented. Poisoning of the water supplies, health issues, earthquakes are not imaginary and if you want an economic reason, property values can drop by 30% and you can find yourself unable to get house insurance. An estate agent in Poulton le Fylde, near one of Cuadrilla’s drilling sites, told the Observer "There are a lot of properties coming on to the market, and some of the owners are saying they want to get out before prices start dropping” Other local estate agents have said sales have fallen through because properties are near a fracking site. Herefordshire is an agricultural area and a tourist attraction, being an area of outstanding beauty. Experience in the US shows that fracking can create problems for local agriculture, including the loss of agricultural land, and concerns about water resources. Jumping forward to September 2015, you will have heard on BBC Hereford & Worcester that a new round of applications were to be allowed in the South of Herefordshire in the Wye Valley Area Of Outstanding Natural Beauty and in autumn of 2016 were issued. Thanks largely to public resistance accompanied by adverse oil prices South West Energy handed back the licences but made clear that this is a 'temporary' reprieve and they would be back, The fight continues ... Meanwhile a documentary is in editing stages at present. Thanks to those who have caught up with the plot and all the new additions to signatures. . Further info: Nationwide Mutual, the largest US farming insurance underwriter, announced in 2012 that “from an underwriting standpoint we do not have a comfort level with the unique risks associated with the fracking process to provide coverage at a reasonable price." What would be the impact on tourism of hundreds of shale gas wells and associated infrastructure? In Australia, local tourism bodies are among the opponents of unconventional gas developments. The Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management has said that the UK should “not encourage fracking as a part of our energy mix until there is more evidence that operations can be delivered safely, that environmental impacts are acceptable and that monitoring, reporting and mitigation requirements are comprehensive and effective. Mark Menzies, the Conservative MP whose constituency covers much of the area in Lancashire where Cuadrilla has been active, has said “I do not believe that the regulatory system is robust or transparent enough to instill public confidence should permission be granted to the industry.". Having fought off a previous attempt by South West Gas & Oil, we achieved a temporary stay, but with current news 2 years later in 2018 we can no longer consider ourselves safe we must raise attention to the fact that we are in an area where previous attempts have taken place. Go tell your friends again that this is no longer a distant threat but a very real one right on our doorstep . For recent updates watch our associated facebook pages. Here is an explanation for beginners: https://www.facebook.com/frackfreeshires/videos/1971358513123509/

“We are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences.” — Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist GM foods have not been shown to be safe to eat No long term human feeding studies have been done. Ever. There is Zero evidence that demonstrates GM food, or produce derived from GM fed animals is safe for humans to eat. Food Standards Authorities are ignoring their own, and independent scientific research and failing to acknowledge numerous studies which prove GM food and animal feed is definitely not ‘substantially equivalent’ and is in fact, potentially un-safe for human and animal consumption. UK and European food standards agencies are failing the public by relying on biased, short term data from the companies who manufacture GM crops & animals and stand to benefit financially and commercially from regulators turning a blind eye. Biotech-Accidents Happen We don’t want to be a GM feeding experiment especially in light of 2012 European food safety research documenting how a biotech “accident happened” After years of GM crops being on the market, a viral gene with serious potential to harm human health has been ‘discovered’ in 54 commercially available GM crops. Apparently, this was an ‘unintended accident.’ New genes and gene products, mostly from bacteria, viruses and other non-food species are being introduced. There is potential for transgenes, viruses & antibiotic resistance markers to spread out of control causing damaging & un-intended consequences to humans, animals and the environment. Health Independent scientific research has shown GM foods to cause tumour growth, damage the reproductive system & digestive tract and detrimentally affect the liver and kidneys of animals fed a GM diet. Research in 2012 demonstrated that rats fed GM maize died prematurely. No-one seems to know what damage GM foods are doing to humans, although there are unexplained increases in allergies, especially to soya, since the introduction of GM foods. GM and non-GM cannot co-exist. GM contamination of conventional and organic food is increasing. Consumers want GM free food Consumers don't want to eat GM foods or animal products raised on GM feed. Recent FSA research show the majority of consumers don’t want to eat animal products produced with GM food. We don’t trust GM companies to be in control of our food Chemical Poisoning Most GM crops are grown to be resistant to chemicals such as glyphosate. In Argentina and Paraguay, doctors and residents living in GM soy producing areas have reported serious health effects from glyphosate spraying, including high rates of birth defects as well as infertility, stillbirths, miscarriages, and cancers. Independent data shows glyphosate spraying has increased since the introduction of GM crops. Agricultural Diversity It is crucial that a diversity of crops can be grown side by side without contamination. GM crops have caused a serious emergence of “superweeds” resistant to pesticides. Farmers should be allowed to save their seed and re-plant it should they choose. The use of heritage seeds and traditional seed varieties should be able to continue. We don’t want control of the world’s food supply in the hands of a few biotech company directors. Environmental Pollution Genetic pollution contaminates, forever. Studies have shown the survival rates of Monarch butterflies and ladybirds are threatened by GM pollen and increased spraying due to genetically modified crops. Farmers who wish to grow non-GM crops have been sued by the biotech companies when GM contamination has occurred because their neighbours were growing GM crops. What’s the point? It is widely acknowledged as a myth that GM crops can help solve world hunger, even by the CEO of one of the companies who manufactures GM crops. The solutions to world hunger are complex, and political will is needed to contribute towards solutions. Farmers worldwide are rejecting GM crops. Current GMO’s have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability. “If some people are allowed to choose to grow, sell and consume GM foods, soon nobody will be able to choose food, or a biosphere, free of GM. It’s a one way choice, like the introduction of rabbits or cane toads to Australia; once it’s made, it can’t be reversed.” – Roger Levett The time has come to choose between a GM-based, or a non-GM-based, world food supply.

As you are probably aware; Navitus Bay Wind Park (1) will be located off the Dorset and Hampshire Coasts, to the west of the Isle of Wight, and also visible from Bournemouth, Poole and Swanage. I understand this development could produce the equivalent energy to power 800,000 homes and reduce carbon emissions by up to 1,125,000 tonnes per annum. This will be a tremendous contribution to our country's energy needs and carbon reductions. It will also help towards our renewable energy target of 15% which in the past few years has been behind plan and behind the progress rates of many other EU nations (2). I am very concerned however that a small group of local activists are using information that has little to no scientific backing to discredit this development and are creating fears about the impact on tourism and jobs in the area. I would urge you to balance any of their views against the report produced by The University of Edinburgh, presented to a Committee of the Scottish Parliament (3) in which there is clear consensus that there has been no measurable economic impact, either positively or negatively, of wind farms on tourism and concludes that “while some strongly held localised and anecdotal opinion exists, the Committee has seen no empirical evidence which demonstrates that the tourism industry in Scotland will be adversely affected by the deployment of renewable energy projects, particularly onshore and offshore wind” I appreciate the turbines will be visible from the coast on a clear day but believe this to be a small and perfectly acceptable compromise for the benefits delivered. Furthermore, I personally confirm that this development will not any way restrict the frequency or manner in which I enjoy the beach and coastal areas in the effected locations. 1. www.navitusbaywindpark.co.uk 2. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/reports/doc/com_2013_0175_res_en.pdf 3. www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EconomyEnergyandTourismCommittee/Reports/eeR-12-07w-r.pdf

Because it will save the public thousands whilst boosting the economy and helping us achieve our climate goals. It's a win win win situation. Unless you're a shareholder for an energy company.

There is widespread public anxiety among the local people about the effect of the new house building on flood risk and lack of amenities to be provided on the new estates. A full investigation into flood risk, taking into account the effects of climate change, needs to be done and also a reassessment of the need for provision of services such as schools, surgeries and community centres, before building work is resumed. Also, most of the houses are not being built to a sufficiently high standard of insulation for the future and are still being fitted with gas boilers! Delaying construction would allow the new building regulations to come into effect to force an improvement in standards.

Every year countless people become sick. Water polluted with sewage causes gastroenteritis, stomach upsets, ear, nose and throat infections, eye infections and in severe cases hospitalisations. It also also incredibly damaging for local wildlife, sea grass meadows, fish populations etc. See these articles for more info https://news.sky.com/story/sewage-pumped-into-sea-turns-idyllic-cornwall-cove-brown-in-dramatic-footage-described-as-shocking-12735013#:~:text=%22We%20saw%20370%2C000%20sewage%20discharges,blue%20spaces%2C%22%20she%20added. https://www.sas.org.uk/news/evidence-of-illegal-sewage-discharges-are-revealed-in-our-2022-water-quality-report/ Film by https://www.tinandcopper.co.uk/ - https://tinandcopper.co.uk/surfers-against-sewage/

To protect and preserve the ancient Parish of Ifield for present and future generations to enjoy.