Current planning law states that if a developer will make less than 20% profit on a new development, they can ignore a council's regulations about building affordable and social housing. Leaked documents from several developers have shown that the maths they use to work out their profit margins are purposefully misleading, allowing them to claim they will make less than 20% profit on a development by undervaluing the prices of the houses they will sell and over-costing the labour. To combat this Islington, Greenwich, Lambeth and Bristol councils have introduced a policy that forces developers "viability assessments" to be made public. By bringing these dodgy maths into the public domain, Councils, campaigning groups and individuals will be able to hold developers to account and force them to use more honest maths.

It will bring the community together and keep children off the streets. Also for people who don't feel confident may even give them a chance to get out and meet new people. There is not much to do in mynydd isa and I think a skatepark would bring a lot of different people together to all enjoy it as one.

Network Rail has a programme of closing non-vehicular Rail Level Crossings, ostensibly to improve safety, although many have no safety issues and the resultant closure or diversion of Public Rights of Way (Footpaths and Bridleways) will severely damage the public's ability to enjoy our wonderful countryside. The process is currently being pushed through in the Anglia region, with 63 crossing closures proposed for Essex alone, but eventually every part of the country will be affected. This scale of closures would have a devastating and unprecedented effect on our Public Rights of Way, destroying or degrading many established routes. Often these are historic paths and most are older than the Railways themselves. Mott Macdonald, the consultants being used by NR, are employing a legal device called a Transport and Works order and involves:- Closure of a large swathe of crossings at a time. No opportunity for the case for each crossing to be tested at a public enquiry. Only a limited programme of consultation in which many local people and the public at large have no knowledge of the plans and their implications. Only limited options being presented and no opportunity for consultees to argue for alternative approaches. Some of NR's solutions destroy the pleasure in using the path, such as diverting it long distances beside the railway, but some are dangerous in themselves where pedestrians are to be directed along roads without verges. Where statistics show a genuine safety issue then action may be necessary but in many cases this is not the case. And if NR were genuinely concerned with safety and not just the convenience of banishing the public from its estate it would be proposing bridges, tunnels, and other safety devices at points of concern, rather than their draconian and undemocratic approach.

There is no crossing facilities at all other than several speed bump crossing zones on earlsgate, with several in place on the same road. The lower end of the village has no crossing provision at all. All children utilise the church on a daily basis, plus there are vulnerable adults in the village that would gain some independence if they could cross the road safely to get to the shops.

Displacement caused by gentrification is exacerbated by developers greed for increased in land values. Gentrified areas cover 1/16th of London's area (Akinson, 2008).In a number of instances (Heygate Estate, Aylesbury Estate and Carpenter Estate) whole communities have been displaced in the process of physical renewal. Many areas of London have been occupied by the middle classes causing the original working class residents to be displaced (Glass, 1994). Developers magnify the problem by creating indirect and direct causes of displacement. Developers are directly avoiding the social housing needs of the city (Booth, 2016). Their new buildings put pressure on the housing market leading to the indirect pricing out of low income individuals (Atkinson, 2000).Developers are even willing to pay fines implemented due to the lack of social housing as they see the beneficiaries in avoiding their implementation (Wainwright, 2015; Booth, 2016). Private developers benefit, from gentrification, at the expense of communities in London. The City Claim back campaign is worried everyday Londoners will be displaced, by the greed of developers, through gentrification.

Public consultation on the Asda site is a sham. RER, the company promoting this, haven't listened to a word said to them. They want to maximise profits by squeezing even more expensive high-rise apartments on the site; more than double the existing consent. They try to sweeten this by offering a new school in the wrong place, next to Cubitt Town, and a theatre we don't need and didn't ask for. Of course the petrol station people want isn't included!

Bramham estate in Leeds wants to sell off Red Flagged Green Belt by exploiting a section of the national planning guidelines referred to as 'very special circumstances'. This allows development on Greenbelt if the profits can be used to fund repairs to listed buildings, improve land elsewhere etc. Which would be fine if this were to benefit the surrounding populace. In this case it does not, as visiting Bramham is severely restricted. Bramham has proposed an open day a year to allow visitors should the plans be approved. So Nick Lane Fox would be using the money for home improvements only he would benefit from. We do not believe Nick Lane Fox and the Bramham estate should be allowed to get away with exploiting this loophole. Which will only cause misery to residents in surrounding villages of Scarcroft, East Keswick, Bardsey and Collingham. Collingham who have recently lost land to another development of many houses. We believe this is a test case of sorts and that should it be approved will open the floodgates to similar developments all over the country. Further to Note: The proposed site for build is located on flood plains that have been seen to flood very regularly and already affect existing properties in recent years many times. Amenities within the area are already stretched to breaking point with schools been full and waiting times at the surgery getting longer. The A58 is stretched to capacity at busy times of the day and the further pressure of 140 house with at least two cars each will only add to the mayhem in mornings and evenings.

Mismanagement of local government finances in the B&NES district now means that rubbish collections will only take place on a fortnightly basis after November of this year. If there is one public service that is required to run smoothly to maintain public standards of health and cleanliness, that is rubbish collection. The present B&NES administration don't seem to understand that fewer rubbish collections will inevitably lead to increased risks to the health of all of the residents and also visitors to the area, or that their plans for extra numbers of wheelie bins probably aren't sufficient to prevent the inevitable increase in animal and gull nuisance, let alone the probable odour issues that are certain to arise as numbers of uncollected binbags mount up in the summer months. Say that you do not agree with these badly thought out plans and want to live in a cleaner, safer, and less smelly environment than B&NES council have got planned for their residents. Demand that weekly bin collections are retained and that the Conservative led council actually work on behalf of those they claim to represent, instead of reducing an extremely important public service regardless of consequences.

The villagers have not asked for this mast. There is no proven need or demand for a Vodafone mast. Such a mast would be out of keeping with the area, an area of outstanding natural beauty on the edge of Pembrokeshire Coastal National Parks. It is within 500m of the local primary school and all the inhabitants including children and the elderly in between. We are all concerned about the potential and far-reaching health risks associated with this new technology especially for the many children and ageing population in Llangwm and Burton. We also think it will be an unsightly and unnecessary addition to our pretty Pembrokeshire village. Many tourists come to Llangwm (as featured on Penelope Keith's Hidden Villages) and surrounding villages to get away from things like masts and enjoy what a rural village has to offer. This mast will be in full public view on entering the village of Llangwm and visible from most of the houses situated within it and Port Lion. This has not been put to the public vote or any kind of democratic process. No planning supposedly necessary. The landowner lives elsewhere so he will just take the money offered and have no adverse effects to his lifestyle. Please add your supporting vote. We need as many objections as possible. Why should Vodafone be able to put these things anywhere they like? According to the National Planning Policy Framework Section 5: 43. In preparing Local Plans, local planning authorities should support the expansion of electronic communications networks, including telecommunications and high speed broadband. They should aim to keep the numbers of radio and telecommunications masts and the sites for such installations to a minimum consistent with the efficient operation of the network. Existing masts, buildings and other structures should be used, unless the need for a new site has been justified. Where new sites are required, equipment should be sympathetically designed and camouflaged where appropriate. In this case there is already a mast base station situated in Burton near the top of New Wells Road. This seems very close for another base station to be required. Also the position of this new mast and the minimal tree coverage mean that it will not be camouflaged at any time of year and only from one side during the summer months. The new design of this mast also means it will be a prominent feature during the winter months not in sympathy with the countryside at all. Add your vote if you agree and support us in keeping this ugly structure from dominating our village.

Claire says, "This is important because the people using these facilities are the friends and family of people from our community. With the amount of housing being built this problem can only get worse and it is our parents and grandparents who will be the ones to suffer. "The most vulnerable in our society deserve the best care and facilities that we are able to provide. The care provided by Eskgreen and The Hollies is second to none but they provide that care in spite of the chronic under investment made by our council and government."

At the moment it is neglected and needs improving for the local people who use the park

It is important because the Local Planning Committee are not taking into consideration the views and objections of the residents. We have sent in numerous letters to the Planning Committee and have had little response from them, we feel that this is an issue that concerns us but any community facing large Development on unsuitable sites.