We've been aware TDBC have been planning to replace the aging metal Mini Ramp at Staplegrove for a long time. As far as we're aware, there has been no user group consultation with the skateboarding, BMXing or other communities in the town, The plans have been passed without any proper consultation with the wheel sports community in Taunton. The design shows the existing 4 foot mini being replaced with a skatelite 6 foot mini and a separate 10 foot vert ramp. Which aren't connected in anyway. The plans are completely outdated and unwanted by the overwhelming majority of the demographic it would apply to. We already have several ramps exactly like the ones that are proposed in the local vicinity and not one of them is used for it's intended purpose because they have absolutely no appeal. They are cheap and horrible things; Skatelite ramps are of a time now gone and so in part are these kind of basic designs. Councils all over the country have clocked that these ramps aren't wanted and are opting for concrete parks and ramps designed by professional skatepark builders. Hamilton Park is a well used and well loved park because of the fact that time and care was spent planning, designing and corresponding with the right people to get the right thing built. With next to no correspondence with the people that would actually be using the facility, this WILL be a complete waste of the councils, tax payers and other funders money. Viridoor Green and Lyngford Park are perfect examples of this. The right people were not involved with planning and there are now two parks that are not used and have been essentially written off to the community. The planning application can be found here. Along with PDF links to the proposed plans. http://www2.tauntondeane.gov.uk/asp/webpages/plan/PlAppDets.asp?casefullref=34/17/0010 While the planning has already been passed, we feel it's not too late to let TDBC hear our voice. If you agree that the plans for two separate outdated ramps should be revised and replaced with a properly up to date professionally designed concrete ramp, then please sign this petition. I'm sure I speak for almost every person whether they be a skateboarder, BMXer, rollerblader, when I say that we do not want these awful ramps!

After speaking to residents along the full length of the Village, the majority of people mentioned either suffering near misses with speeding vehicles, being fed up of 'boy-racer' types speeding noisily through through our streets at all hours and also disdain at users of the A470 using our village as a short-cut. We have only one speed camera by The Swan Inn aimed at slowing people down as they enter the Village from Nantgarw. Firstly - this only slows down drivers at the first 50ft of Cardiff Road, at which point they can drive any speed they like past the school, shops and surgery. Secondly, the camera doesn't stop everybody from speeding through the Village from the Tongwynlais end and exiting the village at speeds of approximately 50mph towards Nantgarw. The traffic situation needs urgent attention and we, the residents are now prepared to enter an official dialogue with the Local Authority with the view of agreeing a plan of action to make our community a much safer place.

It is important that our Shire Hall is used and preserved being of historical significance to the town. It is totally unnecessary to have a new development built for the purpose of the History Centre when we have this building vacant that would bring character to the project rather than a costly development made of glass.

All over the UK there are eyesore properties. They stand festering for years, getting more and more dilapidated, depressing everyone who sees them, spoiling the look of the local area, attracting flyposting, flytipping and worse. Local councils have legal powers to do something about this, under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. And they do sometimes use this power when an an eyesore property is reported to them. They write a letter to the owner, giving them a deadline of usually a few months to get the necessary repairs done. But more often than not the deadline passes, the owner has ignored the letter and done nothing. The next step is for the council to take the owner to court, but how often does that happen? Time and time again, local residents like me who have reported an eyesore property are disappointed and frustrated, because the local council doesn't follow through. And when that local resident tries to get an update, the council ignores them. For example, the photo above shows a dilapidated corner shop with flats above it in south-east London which was reported to the council in June 2016. It was made an enforcement case, but no repairs have been done, and the council are not replying to emails asking for an update. The shop closed down in May 2017 - it's been suggested that the offputting appearance of the building had something to do with the business failing. Several people have commented that the building is beginning to look dangerous, and one person reports that pieces of masonry fall off onto the pavement when it rains. On 31 August 2017 the council rejected a Freedom of Information request, asking whether or not they are taking legal action against the owner. One interpretation of this would be that they are not taking legal action, but don't want to admit it. So please sign this petition – if it means a change in the law, then let's go for it. Because as council tax payers we have the right to see greater transparency in what our local councils are doing, or not doing, on our behalf. It will give those councils the motivation to keep up the pressure on owners to do essential repairs, because the information will be visible for all to see. Let's all get together to make eyesore properties a thing of the past, and help raise the standards of neighbourhoods all over the country. Thank you.

There is no heart to this village anymore. Unless you can count Tesco as a viable community (as it is prolific to the extreme in Braintree) to meet people in GNGV? Due to an originally chosen bad choice of 3 planning applications and succession of bad management, the site was closed earlier this year. It is the Centre of what is supposed to be a community, but due to the aforementioned reasons, in order to make up for lack of profits the prices went up and drove customers away. It was a lack of foresight from 3 planning options that Braintree District Council allowed this inappropriate venue to be built. It was not the favoured option but they did it anyway. From other local 'family' orientated pubs, the format can work and has a proven track record. The fact that Shepherd Neame and Braintree District Council made a bad decision in choosing this option is not the fault of the community. We have to live with those decisions. I do not think that a simple redevelopment of the land for housing is conducive to the inclusivity of residents to form a coherent community. I doubt that will happen in a concession of the local predominant Tesco that seem to litter the district of Braintree. We have 4 stores already and if that's the heart of the community then it is dead. I would ask people put their name to this petition to evidence that the community wants to retain a central point where they can meet. A village hall is insufficient for an inclusive social environment as the activities are specific to what's available. Should you choose not to sign, then I think we will be resigned to a demolished pub that's replaced by more houses.

Speeding motorists are creating a very unsafe environment for the elderly, children and animals.

The Victorian legacy of Col North at Avery Hill comprises the magnificent but semi-derelict Winter Garden, the highest in the country and second largest after Kew; and the 'hidden gem' of his former Mansion, comprising his ballroom and picture gallery (used by the University as its library); his sculpture gallery (the entrance to the library); the entrance portico and lounge (now the senior common room). See the campaign video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD-AFaUGZik Since the collapse of the University's Lottery bid in December 2014, which would have re-united the Winter Garden and Mansion into one cohesive heritage, tourist and education resource, the campaign has been seeking to revive the spirit of this bid. Although around £4m+ funds have been pledged by the University - following representations to them by the council - from its proposed sale to the DfE for creation of a 1,100 student Harris academy boys' secondary school, the current proposal is that the Mansion becomes part of the school. The campaign (https://www.averyhillpark.org.uk/the-campaign.html) is awaiting the final detailed proposals from the DfE, expected in the New Year. However, in meetings both with them and Greenwich Council planners, the campaign has expressed its reservations as follows: - excessive traffic will be generated by the new school, adding to the already generated by Crown Woods; - access to the park by vehicle may become restricted or prohibited at certain hours; - the impact of the school design on the view of the Winter Garden from the park; - the impact of the school design in terms of railings and the loss of the area's natural 'Mansion' ambience; - potential damage to the Mansion's heritage assets from use by a large boys' secondary school and the inappropriate ownership of a heritage asset by a school rather than a Trust dedicated to its preservation and use by the public for recreation, functions, art, culture, tourism and education; - the central requirement for a viable business plan for the Winter Garden's future; the HLF saw ownership of the adjoining Mansion as crucial to its viability; - concern over lack of proposals to re-create the three links running between Mansion and the three wings of the Winter Garden, which would create a fully flexible heritage asset. The Campaign held a very well-attended public meeting in October 2019 and is gearing up for a major public campaign in the New Year to lobby for its agenda as the planning process unfolds in 2020. Anyone wishing to take a part in the campaign should contact [email protected]

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 their faulty maths into the public domain, Councils, campaigning groups and individuals will be enabled to hold developers to account and force them to use more honest maths.

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 is either hidden from the public or 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. This kind of policy should also be introduced in Liverpool. 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. There are a number of internationally recognised projects working in Liverpool towards the development of new housing models, but the battle for affordable, high quality housing inevitably needs to be fought on many fronts. Changing the legislation to ensure all developers meet their responsibilities to the communities in which they are building will have tangible benefits to the people in the city.

Motorists are driving above the 30 mph speed limit, accidents are happening. Someone will be seriously injured or killed.

In the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire, people are rightly concerned about fire safety in their buildings. A 2013 coroners report into the 2009 fire at Lakanal House, Camberwell, recommended sprinklers in every tower block. But right now only two of the borough’s 181 social housing tower blocks have sprinklers installed. This accounts for 1.1 per cent of social housing tower blocks in the borough, and means 98.9 per cent of high rise blocks do not have sprinklers installed. Will you take a moment to sign the petition and ask the council to the right thing?

Transport Scotland has made available its proposed routes for the A96 dual carriageway from Hardmuir to Fochabers. The purple route P1 is shown to go directly through Macbeth's Hillock - a site that legend has it is where Macbeth and Banquo met the witches who told them their fate. It then travels east through Brodie Home Farm, immediately adjacent to Brodie Castle (a Scottish Tourist Board four star and Gold Green Tourism Award Winner property), owned and managed by the National Trust for Scotland who describe it as the "Ancestral home of Clan Brodie, with an outstanding art collection and magnificent library". The route then moves north and skims along the edge of Culbin Forest,  an area designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The Forestry Commission notes that "The diverse landscape and unusual species here have achieved national and international recognition and are protected by law".  The RSPB calls it "A breathtaking coastal reserve, full of wildlife". It then crosses the Moray Coastal Trail which allows locals and tourists alike to enjoy "a coastline alive with wildlife that would be the envy of many other regions in Britain". What is the value placed on the detrimental impact to so many of the wonderful historical assets of this area? Quite apart from the significant environmental and ecological delights that this option destroys, it cuts the close-knit rural communities of Dyke, Kintessack, Moy and Loanhead right down the middle. All the children from this area go to school in Dyke Village School, and the Village Hall and Church are the epicentres of activity for this community. It destroys the homes of people who have lived in this community their whole lives and obliterates the tranquility and beauty of those who remain there. What is the value placed on the destruction of a community? This is an area frequented by cyclists, bird watchers, anglers, horse-riders and walkers with its wide network of quiet, beautiful roads and tracks. It is a key attraction for tourists. What is the value placed on the destruction of our local economy, with tourism, self-catering accommodation, farming and a wealth of local businesses? From a practical point of view, the proposed route crosses, not once, but at least twice, the Gas Pipeline and Storage System that runs from Inverness to RAF Lossiemouth. It spends a significant amount of time in areas designated as medium or high risk of flooding on the SEPA flood maps. What is the cost of this proposed route through land patently unsuitable for anything other than birds, animals, people and water? Please lend your support to this petition asking Transport Scotland to reconsider it's proposal and exclude this as a potential route for the A96 dual carriageway.