So we can get more kids of the street and into their local skatepark where you can be active with your friends and in the future there may be some sort of events. Please sign!

Chester city is under attack from untrammelled developments to provide for accommodation for students of Chester University. There is no restrictions, no planning, to ensure an area can accommodate the student numbers and no regard paid to the wishes of residents who live with the problems of being swamped by the numbers of students living within their area, Within the City's residential areas, family housing has been converted into housing of multi occupation for student accommodation . In the Garden Lane area a tipping point has been reached where the student numbers exceed those of residents . Residents have decided to leave the areas because of the problems posed by high student numbers. With the displacement of established residents by students the area has had an increase in low level anti social behaviour including noise pounding out from house, street or gardens at all hours , vandalism of vehicles , private property, and vomiting and urinating on the streets. The arrival of undergraduates has ripped the heart of the Garden Lane area they aren't interested in tending gardens ,or cutting hedges, moreover they keep odd hours and throw late night parties Some streets in the area in which they live now resemble slums, refuse being left in garden and littering the streets, grass uncut and fences broken. An old pensioner in the area said it was like living in a war zone . Properties in the areas have suffered with physical changes,are unkempt and suffer from squalor and dereliction. The streets suffer from permanent 'street blight'. The use of licencing condition and restricting orders on HMO's are necessary to control the area and ensure that existing residence are protected from further degradation in the quality of their lives . What is necessary is however is policies , strategies and action that address the future demand for student accommodation which do not damage the historic heritage of the City Centre and enable residential areas to provide family accommodation not blighted by studentification

The desecration has already started, trimmers have been out, we have had a temporary reprieve after i had a go at the gardeners and they left. Then Plymouth police wildlife crime adviser got an undertaking from one of the committee to not do anything for two weeks! We have to stop it and stop it now!

Everyone wants to walk beside the river on the THAMES PATH National Trail but at Maidenhead there is a 30 metre missing-link which needs to be completed in accordance with the Council's Rights of Way Improvement Plan of 2005. A recent decision to complete this riverside link has been overturned in favour of a roadside footpath along the A 4094 which will require a PRIVATE CAR PARK built in BRIDGE GARDENS conservation area. This car park will be for office staff and owners of the adjacent property 'Bridge View' in Ray Mead Road, where some do not have parking space and are unlawfully using the existing footway. A campaign has been ongoing for many years to establish a riverside path over a former boatyard slipway. But now the Council plan to confine walkers to a narrow pavement beside a busy road instead and destroy an area of public gardens. BRIDGE GARDENS was secured through a Compulsory Purchase Order by the Council in 1946 when it was described as an attraction quite unique 'for the benefit of all the residents of Maidenhead'.

A planning application (Mendip District Council reference 2013/2608/OTS) is outstanding on a field that lies between Packsaddle Way, Frome and the hamlet of Spring Gardens. The application for 107 properties would effectively link the two communities together and would mean building on land beyond the town boundary, in open countryside – thus setting a dangerous precedent for future planning applications in the town. Whilst the date for objection to this planning application has passed (March 2014) we remain concerned about the potential outcome. By signing this petition, we wish to record our objection to this application and ask the authorities to reject this proposal. This petition is coordinated by PROD, a local group whose objective is to protect the fields and valley lying to the north of Packsaddle and Mendip Drive estates, stretching to Innox Hill and Spring Gardens, from residential development.

Pre application planning consultation shows Austerity design is worse than anticipated due to Lewisham council not putting funding in to this which they could from the redevelopments that are causing need for school places. Sir Francis Drake Primary school is in one of Lewisham boroughs most deprived areas Evelyn Ward, it a local one form entry community school with capacity for 210 children. 52% of school pupils are have English as a second language, 41% are on free school meals and the proportion of disabled pupils and special educational needs is above average. Despite the disadvantages -Currently it is in the top 8% of school in the country for the 2013 SATS and recognised by the DFE as in the top 250 schools in the country measured by the progress made by disadvantaged pupils. The RT Hon David Laws MP Secretary of State congratulated the school for "being exceptionally effective in educating disadvantaged children providing them with a good start in life and a strong springboard into secondary education". Ofsted: Pupils thoroughly enjoy school and this is reflected in their attendance, which is above average. The school provides a very positive and vibrant learning environment, and pupils therefore feel safe and secure. All pupils are equally valued, as the school motto indicates, ‘Everyone is valued and all succeed.’ This ensures that the school strongly promotes equality of opportunity, and does not tolerate any form of discrimination. Pupils have extremely positive attitudes towards learning, and engage thoughtfully in all activities. Their behaviour around the school is often exemplary. They get on well together, and show considerable respect and care for each other. Despite its success the school has become earmarked for demolition and on its tiny site the plan is to rebuild it as a 3 storey "Pilot" Austerity "baseline design" school with reduced classroom space to provide 30 reception places for 2016 and doubling the capacity of children to 420 on the same small site. Baseline Design schools (Aka Austerity schools) The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) is seriously concerned about the unproven ‘Austerity School’ scheme.RIBA President Angela Brady said: 'Our students, teachers and local communities deserve great schools - environments that are beneficial to the best-quality teaching and learning. In these times of austerity of course we need to cut our cloth on all spending; however, the government's proposals for the design and construction of future schools are far too restrictive with too much focus on short-term savings. They say that the scheme’s overall space reduction is ‘ignoring the safeguarding of environmental comfort’ and it is ‘not ensuring discipline and student wellbeing’. They maintain that there is ‘a failure to create functional spaces for excellent teaching’, that ‘students and teachers will be deprived of quality environments that are proven to support teaching and learning’ and the scheme is ‘disregarding statutory requirements for accessibility and inclusion’. The RIBA believe that it does ‘not deliver long-term sustainability and value’. Only time will tell the success of this scheme but for now, the children of SFD will become the first ‘guinea pigs’ for the success or failure of this type of building development. Why is this happening? The council is allowing private developments to build new homes without adequate primary provision. Instead the council has over the last four years opted to enlarge 75% of their primary schools instead. Locally we have 1432 new homes being built but the council says it has no sites to build new schools. Demolishing Sir Francis Drake will not resolve the need for primary places for the developments the council has agreed but it will permanently disrupt and change it irreparably. The council says "The Mayor and Cabinet report (April 9th 2014) provides evidence that there is a need for a school in this locality looking forward to the end of this decade. The due diligence conducted by the government's Education Funding Agency, which would manage the new build, also confirms this." We are asking the council to build a new school that they truly need- a new school would bring an additional 60 reception places in to the locality. We say no to the demolition and rebuild of our successful well maintained, inclusive and diverse little community school so that's it "exceptional work" can go on.

We consider that the public toilets are needed: *by the increasing numbers of visitors to the town arriving on foot, by bicycle, bus and car *by local residents and business owners; not all businesses have their own toilets *by the many users of the adjacent Lothian Gardens especially children and their parents and *by people working in the town on a day to day basis as part of their trade.

A company called Progress Power is applying to the government for permission to carry out plans to build a Power Station on Eye Airfield industrial estate. Eye is an ancient town with over one hundred listed buildings and about 2,000 inhabitants. Progress Power say they posted the area with 17,000 information leaflets last year, yet not one entered my postbox. An awareness group has been formed locally called Common Concern http://commonconcern.onesuffolk.net through which I first heard about this power station. It is almost too late for protest as the government is about to give Progress Power the go-ahead, partly because very little local protest was voiced. Of course, this is because it seems to have been kept carefully under wraps. We have seen no plans for mitigation and, in fact, the plans that are available from Progress Power are out of date and unreadable. Each visualisation is a bird's eye view and the enormous size and height of the buildings is completely understated. The airfield already has four large wind turbines, which can be seen for miles around, a waste disposal site and a chicken litter power plant, along with many other light industries. I think this is more than enough of a contribution to energy and conservation from the people of Eye. We don't want a huge power station in Eye, it seems totally unsuited to the site. The A140 road, beside which it will be built, is already heavily overloaded with traffic and the hazards created by the building and servicing of this site will cause even more danger. We want Progress Power to think again about the site they choose, if indeed the power station is necessary at all. It is apparently only going to run 60 days a year as a back-up source, but the inhabitants of Eye will have the huge eyesore for 365 days a year, plus noise and light pollution. Switching a power station on and off causes more pollution and noise than continuous running. After 25 years when the power station becomes obsolete, it will be left standing as the safest form of closure. Eye, so far, is a place of quiet and dark nights, where the night sky can easily be seen. This is not the right place.

More houses on Sheppey means more people on Sheppey. It is obvious that these ‘new’ people need jobs, medical services, pre-school and school places, better transport to get on and off and around the island, and many other facilities. Despite promises from previous developers, the considerable amount of new housing which has already appeared has not been accompanied by any such new infrastructure. Sheppey people are therefore unhappy at the expansion of Sheppey so far; traffic congestion, in particular, is truly awful. Bus and train services are not good enough to persuade residents to abandon their cars. There is not enough work for the existing population, most of whom commute on and off the island every day, compounding the traffic problems. This is all very bad for the environment and, ultimately, for the economy. The Facebook page “Sheppey NO more houses” offers photographic evidence for this congestion. It also demonstrates considerable disquiet at the way Kent County Council, Swale Borough Council and developers are perceived to see the Isle Sheppey as a profitable ‘dumping ground’, especially for London overspill.

The time has come for us all to stand together and show Medway Council and Developers that we will no longer sit by and watch further urbanization of Hoo, We will no longer sit and watch the disgraceful way Medway Council has all but abandoned the people of Hoo, Yes they are very vocal in their opposition to the airport and the Lodge Hill plan, but where are their voices opposing the creeping Development around our homes, Where is their commitment to rural communities like Hoo. Now is the time to ask those political parties whom will be looking for your votes next year what they are doing about the destruction of farming lands to build more and more homes, and the impact of such developments on those already living here and coping with crumbling roads, overcrowded schools, second rate medical provision where waiting times for doctor’s appointment grow daily, a local hospital in special measures, the closing of the last bank on the peninsula …… the list grows longer weekly

We are endeavouring to create a country park on the only existing green space left in Whitstable. It is our intention to restore ancient woodland by planting a large number of native trees, creating a large wildlife meadow, a community park with first class disabled access, a safe and natural environment for child to play in and working with and the guidance of Kent Wildlife Trust in order to improve the area.

Because it is our ancestral home and we have a right to live there granted to us by queen Arthur