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. But investing in carbon-intensive fossil fuels is a distraction from the need to decarbonise our electricity supply. And it's hazardous. Studies show that fracking pollutes water supplies (with arsenic and lead), causes earthquakes, and spoils local communities. And there are nightmare stories coming form the States. Like in the town of Dimock, PA, residents have reported their water turning so brown that it stains crockery. Their water was later found to contain methane, and a host of toxic chemicals. But it gets worse. "My son had sores up and down his legs from the water." " My daughter... would have to get out the of the shower and lay on the floor." Those are the words from Greg Saunter, a local resident, whose water supply was shut off for his own good. He cannot shower in his own home. Or drink water out of his taps. Fracking has ruined his life. It cannot happen here. We call on the council to preserve the quality of life of it's residents, and reject all planning applications for fracking.

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. But investing in carbon-intensive fossil fuels is a distraction from the need to decarbonise our electricity supply. And it's hazardous. Studies show that fracking pollutes water supplies (with arsenic and lead), causes earthquakes, and spoils local communities. And there are nightmare stories coming form the States. Like in the town of Dimock, PA, residents have reported their water turning so brown that it stains crockery. Their water was later found to contain methane, and a host of toxic chemicals. But it gets worse. "My son had sores up and down his legs from the water." " My daughter... would have to get out the of the shower and lay on the floor." Those are the words from Greg Saunter, a local resident, whose water supply was shut off for his own good. He cannot shower in his own home. Or drink water out of his taps. Fracking has ruined his life. It cannot happen here. We call on the council to preserve the quality of life of it's residents, and reject all planning applications for fracking.

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. But this process is often hazardous. Studies show that fracking can pollute water supplies (with arsenic and lead), cause earthquakes, and spoil local communities. And investing in carbon-intensive fossil fuels is a distraction from the need to decarbonise our electricity supply. We call West Sussex Council to protect the quality of life of its residents and reject all fracking applications.

***PLEASE READ & SIGN *** 'Anaerobic digestion', the sanitised label given to a facility that proposes to 'digest' 45,000+ tonnes of household waste, food waste, farm sewage, and other nasty pathogen laden waste into household energy. This proposal so far has only given the reasons that it will provide 'green' energy and jobs! Firstly: it will only provide 5 full time jobs for Ramsbottom in a site that will be largely automated. Secondly: It can become a health hazard as it will be plagued with bad odours and pathogens that will be carried over the Ramsbottom valley and in close proximity to heavy populated areas with many schools and areas of natural beauty. Thirdly: The traffic generated by hundreds if not thousands of HGV lorries full of waste and tankers full of toxic sludge rumbling through Ramsbottom, Edenfield & Shuttleworth will create, every year (for many years), a problem that is in itself not 'green' and will cause untold damage to the road network in and around Ramsbottom. A road network that is already creaking under the pressure of new housing estates Bury council seem to think fit to cram into an already over populated and under-resourced town. Fourthly: Ramsbottom is a thriving small market town whose businesses and consequently many jobs depend on visits by tourists and produce from local farms. A permanent stink and threat to health could very well put all this at risk. A public exhibition on the proposed plans by Peel Environmental and Marshalls to build an anaerobic digestion facility at Fletcher Bank Quarry, Shuttleworth will be held at Ramsbottom Civic Hall on Wednesday the 26th June between 3.00pm and 8.00pm though I doubt this will be an opportunity to question or complain, more a PR exercise by 'Peel Environmental' !!!.....rather an oxymoron if I've ever heard one! PLEASE READ & SIGN if you believe Ramsbottom should stay a town of natural beauty and a haven for tourists.

Moorbank Botanic Gardens are under threat. In October 2012, Newcastle University revealed they were withdrawing support from the site that they have occupied for 90 years. Since then, the 50 garden volunteers, the Friends of Moorbank, have been working hard to save the garden and keep it open to the public. We have put forward plans to take over the care of the gardens but these have been rejected by the Freemen of Newcastle who are the landlords. They are planning to close the site to the public and relocate the plants of botanical interest. Thousands of visitors have taken the opportunity to enjoy Moorbank and learn more about plants, since the Friends of Moorbank was formed and volunteers opened the gates 10 years ago. Moorbank holds collections of rare plants not found in other UK botanic gardens. Losing this vital resource will have significant damage to the UK’s plant collections. There is a huge amount of public support for the gardens, please help us save this wonderful local resource by signing our petition.

Hampshire Energy Group supports the Bullington Cross Wind Farm, but on the understanding that there will be substantial degree of local ownership; we have suggested 10% . We believe this ownership should be via a community owned, controlled and managed co-operative that benefits the Hampshire community. We are in negotiation with EDF Energy Renewables to ensure that will be the case. Most people in Hampshire support Wind Farming. Nationally, 64% support wind farms and only 11% are opposed to on-shore wind farming. In Hampshire, there are only about half a dozen places that are suitable for wind farming. Each needs to be windy, away from homes but close to roads and not in areas of outstanding national beauty or in national parks. Bullington Cross is isolated, windy and, being at the junction of two of Hampshire’s busiest roads, is noisy. The nearest large village is 3km away from the site. There are no nearby areas of natural beauty nor are they any national parks. The site is made up of open arable farmland, in between areas of woodland. Part of the site is used as an organic farm; and will continue to be used for that purpose. Hampshire Energy Group (HEG) believes that the benefits of wind farming should be shared fairly and equitably. We think it is fair that the financial benefits should be shared with the local community. These benefits should not just go to the large multi-national developers and the big global banks. We also think that local people should have a say in how our wind farms are operated. We can have a more equitable share if part of Bullington Cross Wind Farm is owned by the local community. We believe that the best way of doing this is via a co-operative. You can find out more about co-ops here. Co-ops are owned by their members; work on a strict one member one vote basis and are democratic. Co-op members will be asked to invest in the Co-op; and receive an interest payment on the money invested. HEG – and our negotiating partner, Energy4All – are negotiating with EDF over the financial terms for a 10 per cent community investment. We expect that the return on investment will be substantially greater than rates from building societies!

Eric Pickles recently announced his intention to introduce new planning guidance allowing communities to block windfarms (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2013/jun/06/wind-farms-shale-gas-fracking-energy). While any move to increase local democracy should be welcomed, it appears the government has no intention of granting similar powers to communities threatened with fracking projects. Fracking – the process of extracting gas from rock such as shale – is highly disruptive to nearby communities, poses a very significant threat to groundwater and human and animal health, is extremely energy-intensive and has huge implications for climate change. Furthermore, even optimistic estimates suggest the UK has only enough shale gas to keep the country going for a few years. Whatever your views on fracking or windfarms, there can be no conceivable justification for allowing communities to block windfarms – which generate clean, infinitely renewable energy far into the future – but not fracking projects. If anything, communities should have greater powers to block fossil fuel projects than renewables, given that we’re edging ever closer to the point at which climate change becomes irreversible and entirely out of our control. Alas, this is another clear example of the present government’s relentless pursuit of gas, and its ambivalence towards renewable energy; the announcement has come just days after the government voted against introducing stringent new targets to decarbonise our electricity supply by 2030. The recent revelation that a third of government ministers have strong links with the fossil fuel industry and the finance sector that bankrolls it (http://www.wdm.org.uk/climate-change/one-third-uk-government-ministers-linked-uk-companies-fuelling-climate-change) may begin to explain their refusal to place any barrier in the way of their dash-for-gas. This is not a petition to stop communities from blocking windfarms; it is a petition calling on the government to recognise the gaping inconsistencies in any planning guidance that allows communities to block windarms – whose impacts are, after all, reversible – but not fracking projects, which, conversely, will leave an appalling legacy for our children and grandchildren of contaminated aquifers and a climate spiraling out of control. By signing the petition you are sending the government a clear message that vested interests cannot be allowed to influence planning policy, especially when so much is at stake. Communities must be given the power to block fracking projects.

The land is a protected piece of open land which allows exceptional vistas of Hythe and Shorncliffe and should not be developed. The current proposals of 150 residential flats and houses on the site will change the character of Hythe forever and will lead to the almost inevitable development of the adjacent golf course to a similar residential density. The land at Princes Parade has been dredged, its been quarried, it’s been land filled, it successfully defended us against Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler, it protects us and our Ancient Scheduled Monument from the ravages of the sea and provides a unique habitat for wildlife. The land creates fantastic vistas of the surrounding hills, it is a protected open space, It has a recorded planning history which should make it undevelopable for residential purposes. Definitely worth fighting for! http://saveprincesparade.org/

The current wording of the proposal does not recognise that sustainable development includes economic considerations. The proposals could give unintended additional emphasis on one of the three aspects of sustainable development, all of which must be considered when taking decisions on future development. In Clause 6 the proposed requirement for assessing economic advantages and disadvantages of developments would cause great difficulty in practical delivery. It would also put at risk 40 years of case law developed under the existing system and could lead to major delays in planning decisions.

The South Downs National Park is in under threat from a massive development by Durand Academy. Durand Academy’s proposed new school for 600 teenagers and 86 staff is the size of three superstores with almost the same population as the nearest villages. Its scale is totally inappropriate for such an important area of outstanding natural beauty. What’s at risk? The development will permanently damage the local environment – the night skies, tranquillity, landscape, flora and fauna - which the SDNPA has a statutory duty to preserve and protect. The development is only 60 metres from a protected Site of Special Scientific Interest. What will happen? Durand Academy’s children and teachers will be bussed in and out from London in convoys of coaches down narrow country lanes which are dangerous for such high levels of traffic. The only two approach roads are single track. The school is not accessible by public transport. All people and goods will have to access the site using their own vehicles. Who else is concerned? The Council for the Protection of Rural England and South Downs Society. The National Trust opposes the development saying that it is ‘contrary to the fundamental National Park purpose to conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the area.’ The National Trust is ‘particularly concerned about the impact of an average of 40 HGV movements per day for an 86 week build period and the impact on highway safety and the amenity of the National Park.’ What about the future? Durand Academy has not demonstrated that it can afford to sustain the project and has significantly underestimated the costs involved. We do not believe the project is workable without significant additional support from taxpayers and fear that we will end up with an abandoned project in the heart of one of the most beautiful areas of Britain which may be the gateway to further development. What do we want? We fully support the proposal to give inner-city children access to the countryside and the best educational opportunities possible but not in this place, not on this scale and not in this way. The 600 teenagers will be confined to a small site with space for only one football pitch and under strict curfew in a development that will cause irreversible harm to the precious environment they are meant to be able to enjoy. The South Downs National Park needs to be protected for all Britain’s children for all generations to come. It is time to say NO. Durand Academy claims that it has support from local people. We need to demonstrate that there is strong public opposition to the proposal. We don’t have much time. Please sign this petition and circulate it to your friends. For further information please see www.woolbedingwithredford-pc.co.uk/home/st-cuthman-s-development “Costs of running ‘Eton of state sector’ hugely unrealistic – West Sussex villagers object to boarding school for inner-city pupils, saying Government has got its sums wrong.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/costs-of-running-eton-of-state-sector-hugely-unrealistic-8585245.html The Independent, 24 April 2013: “National Trust is latest to object to inner city academy’s ‘Eton of state sector’ in West Sussex countryside – Body says site is not suitable for a school with more than 600 pupils.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/national-trust-is-latest-to-object-to-inner-city-academys-eton-of-state-sector-in-west-sussex-countryside-8586432.html?origin=internalSearch The Daily Telegraph, 22 April 2013: “The inner city and the village school – Proposals to site a south London boarding school in a leafy Sussex village have divided opinion.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/10010485/The-inner-city-and-the-village-school.html The Daily Telegraph, 22 April 2013: “Auditors investigate race row school – Plans for state-run boarding school at the centre of a Conservative race row face a Whitehall investigation after an intervention from a Labour MP.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10011449/Auditors-investigate-race-row-school.html The Daily Telegraph, 22 April 2013: “Boarding school row: It’s about planning, not race, local insist – Plans to open a new state boarding school for poor children from south London in a rural beauty spot are an “experiment” which will turn the pupils into “political footballs”, a local councilor has claimed.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/10009729/Boarding-school-row-Its-about-planning-not-race-locals-insist.html Image of Woolbeding Common © Copyright Chris Gunns and licensed for reuse under Creative Commons Licence.

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

At £8 billion, the Earl's Court redevelopment scheme is the largest in the world outside of China. It challenges the Government's committment to the Big Society and Localism and looks set to repeat the mistakes of property speculation that busted the Western economies. The campaign to save the Exhibition Centres, the rail depot and engineering works and the two council estates is on the front line battling to champion democracy and community in the face of rampant prfiteering by tax-havenbed entitiers at the expense of the poor, jobs and our international trade. The petition wording explains further.