• Reject Park Lane Group Housing Development in Strand Meadow
    There are many reasons why houses should not be built in this area, and the developer "Park Lane Group" are using well-known loopholes in the system in an attempt to build homes for pure profit without taking into account the needs and concerns of the local community. - Originally, 12 out of 30 homes were to be 'affordable'. However, recent revised plans show all properties to be full market value because the developer has now deemed the project to be no longer viable if any of the homes are made 'affordable'. This is a well-known planning loophole to get around the requirements set by government and council that all new planning developments on AONB (areas of natural beauty) should include a minimum amount of affordable housing. - This development does nothing to provide homes to meet known local housing needs - People in Burwash need housing the can afford and must not be priced out of the village by the greed of housing developers - The planning protection afforded by the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natual Beauty (AONB) must not be chipped away by speculative housing developments - The field and its surrounding ecology should not be destroyed for an exclusively 'non-affordable' estate - The lack of parking in Strand Meadow creates severe traffic congestion. The problems of the extra traffic that will be generated during the construction of the houses and after the houses are occupied have not been properly addressed - The developer's traffic report is outdated and uses data from 2006. Photographs of the area were deliberately taken at a time when there was less traffic in Strand Meadow and does not accurately portray the amount of cars parked during evenings and weekends. Most importantly, there is already limited access for emergency service vehicles and refuse collections. - Burwash Traffic already created danger for pedestrians and other road users: a) at the A265 junction with Shrub Lane, b) the narrow ends of the High Street and c) along Shrub Lane - Changes to the drainage provisions requested by East Sussex County Council to reduce risks of flooding and protect the River Rother from further deterioration have been ignored - The design of the housing is wholly unsuitable and the density of housing units within the AONB is too great - Plans for sewage disposal have been left deliberately vague. Southern Water have confirmed they have no extra capacity to handle sewage. The Environment Agency's stated policy is that permits for treatment plants where there is existing sewage pipework are likely to be refused.
    83 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Martyn Wright
  • Save Penny Pie Park
    Barnsley Council are wanting to build a gyratory on Penny Pie Park in Pogmoor effectively turning the remaining park into a roundabout. The objections are: It’s a much loved and used green space by a variety of people from young children, teenagers, dog walkers, disabled, the elderly, people reading papers and everything in between. Obesity levels are on the rise and to take away one of the few large green spaces would be a detriment to the community. Children would end up on street corners or in their bedroom Both noise and air pollution would rise due to the felling of healthy trees We should be discouraging cars rather than creating ways to encourage them to come into town so improvements should be made to our public transport system The park is a lifesaver as the Yorkshire Air Ambulance lands on the park due to the hospital not having a helipad this is usually to support the Embrace service The park creates an income as the Scott Pullen & Son Fairground comes several times a year The park is maintained by a Community group who organise events throughout the year. They have been nominated and won awards including Pride of Barnsley. They have raised funds to provide a pathway, trees, shrubs and are still doing the good work. Tree sculptures have been created around the park incorporating a story/nature trail for the younger children.
    2,811 of 3,000 Signatures
    Created by Lyndsey Darren Picture
  • Re placement Gates
    Gates have been erected at Maudland Road thru to Seymore Road, South Shore, Blackpool, it is understood the gates were for the security of the rear of St Heliers Road. The placement of the gates has restricted access to and from Bancroft park and the South Shore area as well as easier access to bus routes on Lytham Road and the main gate of Blackpool Gateway Academy. These inconveniences have had a detrimental effect on the residents of St Heliers Road, Saville Road, Maudland Road, Baron Road, Stansfield Street and Central Drive and beyond. The problems cover a range of issues, namely lowered security, health issues, traffic problems and the general wellbeing of the community. Repositioning the access to this walk way will allow access to Bancroft park and South Shore and improve the wellbeing of many of the residents.
    68 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Debby Godfrey-Brown
  • Biking trails in hermitage
    Many people would benefit from exercise and entertainment provided by the park , in addition to providing a safe environment the whole community to learn to ride bikes including autistic youth.
    8 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Iain Roberts
    An iceskating rink would be a perfect idea for local residents and a tourist attraction. The local icerink from Norwich is in Peterbourough (1 hour 38 minutes.) This is inconvenient for those who wish to bond with family, spend time with community due to it being too far to travel.
    3 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Suzanne Cubitt
  • Help the Arkell Grove, Upper Norwood residents
    Residents safety due to compromised site access Small community; living in residential close, with currently 12 privately owned homes and a few rented garages. 
The houses are built wall to wall, parking and access to the close is limited to one small road. A few council garages are being rented out to some of the home owners(for over 28 years); all other non-garage tenants/property owners park on the street in front of homes and or in overcrowded near by streets. The council has only just notified the garage tenants that the garage area is now identified as a site for the development of 3 storey block of 9 flats. Since there is no other access to the close other than by a small road, the increase amount of traffic, lack of parking space will have an overbearing impact. Fire engines may encounter difficulty accessing the close in the eventuality of a fire and access will be limited for most rescue services, as well as for waste and recycling bin lorries. (Cars have already been damaged by recycling lorries due to the current lack of space within the close, documented evidence for these incidents can be provided). Parking issues Note: There is no public transport in the immediate area/ the local demographic is families and retired couples. Past recorded fatalities due to congested road on Biggin Hill (situated next to Arkell Grove) have not been taken into consideration in the planning development safety survey. The removal of the garages would force its current renters (over 15 cars parked inside or outside the garages) to locate currently ‘unprovided’ parking. In addition to this, 9 flats means an average of 12 cars (calculated using Croydon’s statistics of average number of cars per inhabitants as per 2011’s census) which will also require parking. Arkell Grove itself is fully occupied by its residents’ cars. No provision has been made for any parking for the new building, to add to this, additional cars from local residents will require to locate parking in ‘unprovided’ congested adjacent roads, such as Biggin Hill. A Controlled Parking Zone would be of no help, as the area is such that only residents park here (as opposed to streets located nearby developed areas) and would be be additional cost for residents. Residents and children safety Note: as well as families, the close has two active ofsted registered childminders / home based. In this close live numerous families with very young children who use the close as a safe ground, they play and meet in the area of the proposed site. A) Having a building site in such a small and confined area would certainly present a danger to the safety of these children. (heavy lorries, and excavation) B) The new house development would remove the direct area in which family and children play and meet. Overshadowing / Loss of sunlight The height of the building is such that any house in its shadow would lose access to the sunlight they currently have. Residents Privacy The planning is talking about the development of a block of flats which would look directly over the gardens of the adjacent houses and would remove the direct access to their properties. Environment One of the adjacent gardens has a very tall and mature tree on the border of the proposed site and the development plans would compromise the roots of this tree, rendering it unstable and therefore at rick of dying and falling. Sewage issues and waste disposal All the immediate area to the proposed site privately owned, with no access to the site, how will the issue of sewage be resolved? Croydon has just announced that they are reducing waste collection in this area. Again, this could be a major health problem for this area. Questions: 1) Housing mix. The council policy states they need to built approx 30k by 2031, quote: 60% need to be 3 bedrooms or more as this is largest demand. So why so many 2 beds flats are being built? Why not build 2 storey homes? This would be a realistic target and would resolve many of the concerns raised by local residents. 2) Access to sites. How all these issues are being answered? What about the poor access to the site, the narrow roads and lanes; *Cars being required as public transport is not where it should be.. One of Croydon new policy is looking to address issues round creating additional access methods, where is this being addressed in this proposal? What about sewage and waste disposal, when croydon has just announced that they are reducing waste collection in our area…? 3) If the permission was granted, has the following been taken into consideration? Which days a week will the work be carried out? ie solid 5/6 day week or on and off some weeks? Could quieter works be done weekend? Access: Clearly only one point of access , how will this be addressed? 1. Deliveries Times (this is a very important point. Early morning when childminders get children dropped off OR over weekend when local children playing outside is not acceptable.) 2. General car congestions. Frequency of construction vehicles, What and when? initial large delivery of bricks that would block access, pavements, danger to children playing. This is all health and safety Builders need to address. Builders will need restrictions in place for them to park on road. Has this been accurately assessed? We have raised a petition to provide the list of individuals part of the local community and or relatives supporting the appeal if the development permission is granted
    161 of 200 Signatures
    Created by Sarina McCavana
  • No to road closures that increase traffic on Church St
    Hackney Council now admits its proposed road closures in the Walford Rd area could increase traffic on Stoke Newington Church Street by up to 21.8% (2,080 extra vehicles per day). That’s far higher than the 5-7% "worst case" scenario stated in their consultation. Church St is a lovely road at the centre of the N16 community where people live, work and go to school. It already suffers from heavy traffic; many homes there are illegally polluted. The street is home to two schools, both of which have worrying levels of pollution, and it's home to nurseries. In places the buildings are higher than the street is wide, so pollution can get trapped. The pavements are narrow and, in addition to worsening air quality and adding to congestion, extra vehicles could lead to more accidents. The road simply can’t cope with more traffic.
    782 of 800 Signatures
    Created by Heidi Early
  • Opposing the introduction of 'public spaces order dog control'
    The Welsh Government (2015) household survey states that 47% of households have a pet with 62% of those owning a dog, which was by far the most popular animal. This is a very large community that could be negatively impacted by the proposed changes. The Animal Welfare Act supports dogs requirement for exercising off leads for their health and wellbeing. The proposed restrictions disadvantage those with mobility issues, lack of access to transport or financial hardship from accessing green spaces for their dogs needs. The health benefits of dog ownership and walking are well documented which should be incentivized not deterred. One recent study by The University of Lincoln and Glasgow Caledonian University found that dog owners over the age of 65 get an average of 22 more minutes of walking a day than those without one. BUPA (2017) reported dog walkers have: lower stress and depression levels; lower incidence of type 2 diabetes, breast and colon cancer; lower cholesterol and blood pressure; lower body mass index; improved sleeping; and better community connectedness. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt6wq5k0 There is a cost to accessing a lot of recreational activities and dog walking has been accessible for many. According to research by American Express (2016) British dog owners estimate they spend an average of £1,252 annually on their pet, equating to over £10.64bn across the country as a whole. Dog ownership is a boost to the local economy further with their patronage to the ever popular and increasing dog friendly cafes.
    900 of 1,000 Signatures
    Created by Alice Hortop Picture
  • Save Charing Cross Hospital
    These plans will lose more than 300 acute care beds, and London will lose a hospital with a world class reputation for treatment. This is important to me on a personal level as my mother was treated there during her illness and received really excellent treatment. Here are the key findings of the Independent Healthcare Commission regarding the closure: - There is no completed, up-to-date business plan in place that sets out the case for delivering the Shaping a Healthier Future (SaHF) programme, demonstrating that the programme is affordable and deliverable. - There was limited and inadequate public consultation on the SaHF proposals and those proposals themselves did not provide an accurate view of the costs and risks to the people affected. - The escalating cost of the programme does not represent value for money and is a waste of precious public resources. - NHS facilities, delivering important public healthcare services, have been closed without adequate alternative provision being put in place. - The original business case seriously underestimated the increasing size of the population in North West London and fails to address the increasing need for services.
    13 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Anouska Sutherland Picture
  • Sense Not Fence - let's find alternatives to fencing at Stoke Lodge
    Cotham Academy continues to state that it will erect a 2m high, 1500m long perimeter fence around Stoke Lodge without the need for consent, they have confirmed they will start to build a fence in DECEMBER 2018. Cotham Academy has so far spent around £200,000 in their pursuit of fencing Stoke Lodge, under the premise of safeguarding and with the repeated inference that this is a requirement from Ofsted. Ofsted themselves have confirmed in writing “to be clear Ofsted has not required Cotham School to erect a fence on these playing fields”. Why doesn’t the local community want a fence at Stoke Lodge? ● There is no need for a fence, many schools today use open fields to play sport. The community, schools and sports groups previously coexisted peacefully at Stoke Lodge for nearly 70 years without a fence, many health and saftey experts have confirmed a fence is not required as have OFSTED ● This is the last remaining open green space in the area after two other school playing fields were sold off to developers, and it is vital to thousands within our community ● The fence leaves minimal space for walkways around the majority of the perimeter of the field and would be built over footpaths which people have used for over 70 years - these well trodden paths have validated public right of way applications awaiting a committee hearing ● No Equality Impact Analysis has been completed to assess the impact of the fence. Local people, including many with a range of disabilities, rely on access to this vital green space for their ongoing health and wellbeing ● No detailed risk assessment has been completed to determine the health and safety risks of installing a fence from those playing sports through to access for emergency services such as the air ambulance ● Stoke Lodge itself is a beautiful Grade 2 listed property, and planning is required for any development in the curtilage of a listed building ● Stoke Lodge contains many amazing trees under Tree Protection Orders, some of which are of national importance. The proposed fence will damage these trees ● The erection of such a large perimeter fence will cause irreparable damage to wildlife, with active badger sett/s and many other species of animals at the Lodge ● Bristol City Council, who own the land and act as landlord, has formally, publicly and repeatedly promised that Stoke Lodge would never be fenced What would the local community like to see at Stoke Lodge? ● For Cotham Academy to return to Stoke Lodge again for their sports lessons as soon as possible ● For Cotham Academy to leverage the best practice from many other schools in Bristol and beyond (with higher risks) who use open playing fields yet still get rated highly by Ofsted for safeguarding ● For local sports teams to be allowed by Cotham Academy and Bristol University, who currently sublet and maintain the land, to return to play sports at Stoke Lodge as soon as possible ● If Cotham Academy still believes that the perimeter of Stoke Lodge needs to be strengthened, for more appropriate and cost-effective solutions be implemented. ● For no further public funds (and vital school funds) to be wasted in pursuit of a ‘fence at all costs'.
    4,430 of 5,000 Signatures
    Created by We Love Stoke Lodge Picture
    5 of 100 Signatures
    Created by WAYNE NORMAN Picture
  • Make Hailsham’s High Street Disabled Access Friendly Again
    The High Street does look good with the improvements and the bollards were meant to stop cars parking on the pavement. But now there’s a problem on the narrow parts for disabled people using scooters and wheelchairs and people with prams. They can’t stop to go into the shops as another scooter/wheelchair/pram can’t get past and they can’t pass another from the opppsote direction. They can’t do a U turn either. Please sign so that Hailsham Town Council comes up with a solution to suit disabled people and the car parking problem. Even if you aren’t disabled please be kind and sign as disabled people are often thought of last, if thought of at all. Thank you.
    824 of 1,000 Signatures
    Created by Rebecca Fellingham