The basis for demolition rests on the poor structural condition of the church, particularly the tower. The Historic Environment comments accompanying last year's pre-application for demolition confirmed that the building has some cracking but, a recommendation by the structural engineers to monitor the cracks had not been carried out. While stone work, in particular the east end shows some sign of delineation, the Historic England Stone Expert, regarded it not to be the worst case he has seen. The Council's response was that a proposal to demolish the listed church would not be supported on the basis of the incomplete nature of the information and evidence pertaining to its structural condition and the nature and extent of any processes that have or are occurring on site and within the structure. As no additional information has been submitted with the current pre-application we conclude that insufficient information and evidence has been provided to outweigh the substantial harm that would result from the loss of the designated heritage asset and, as such, the demolition cannot be supported. St Paul's church (1848) was extended by J D Sedding in the 1880s in the Perpendicular style using dressed coursed local stone with granite and Polyphant stone dressings; scantle slate and dry Delabole slate roofs with coped gable ends. The church has a six bay aisled nave, south porch at west end. Two bay chancel with organ chamber north of choir, chapel north of sanctuary, tower south of choir, vestry south of sanctuary, brick vaulted crypt underneath the east end. The three-stage embattled tower with angle buttresses has corner statues of Sir Richard Grenville, Sir John Elliott and Bishop Trelawney; three niches (with two carved statues surviving of Christ and St George, St Paul has been removed) to second-stage. Peter Beacham says in the new Pevsner guide (2014) 'the exterior is highly accomplished'. The interior is more modest with six-bay aisles having granite piers with four-centred arches to the north side and round arches to the south. There is some good detailing. The fixtures includes works by the workshops of Robinson of London, and stained glass by Laver, Barraud & Westlake which includes a seven light 'Te Deum' east window in memory of the Mayor of Truro, Sir Philip Protheroe Smith, who died in 1882. It is believed that the stone pulpit to the south side beneath the tower arch came from St Clement's Church and is C15. The oak pulpit has blind ogee tracery and was given to the church in 1901 in memory of Lady Protheroe Smith. The building has a rich history. William Mansell Tweedy, a local banker, paid for the building of St Paul's Church circa 1848 as an overflow church for the parish of St Clements. The architect for the original church is unknown but it consisted of a nave, chancel, south aisle and south porch. In 1864 the church was consecrated and acquired its own parish. In the early 1880s a major programme of extension was undertaken by J. D. Sedding. He replaced the single bay chancel with a much larger structure which included an organ chamber and a chapel, dedicated top St Clement, to the north and a chapel (now the vestry) and the tower to the south. The new work by J. D. Sedding was consecrated in 1884 by Bishop Wilkinson. In 1889 the north aisle, which was probably by Sedding, was completed and the church was re-opened on 27th June 1889. The battlemented tower was completed in 1910 by the architect's nephew E. H. Sedding.

We citizens of Lancashire, put politicians in place to represent our needs. We are sovereign, and have the highest form of political authority--you are temporary. Our local council, made up of councillors democratically elected by us, and charged with serving our interests, is exactly the right body to make decisions on local matters. The government have displaced our democracy in Lancashire and we intend to make our vote count next time round. WE THE UNDERSIGNED: PLEDGE TO VOTE FOR NO CONSERVATIVE MP IN THE UPCOMING PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

Update Unfortunately, despite having a temporary reprieve in January this year, the Greenspace is once again under threat. Glasgow City Council have been again been approached with a proposal to have the land declared surplus and sold for development of flats. Our councillors have been asked to comment on this proposal. The likely outcome of this part of the process is unclear. The more signatures we have on the petition, the stronger the case against that proposal will be, and the more pressure we can place on the City Council to listen to the community, and save the Greenspace for the third, and hopefully final, time. Our much-loved green space on Broomhill Avenue is under threat again - this is a vital green space for families, walkers and dog-walkers to enjoy in the area. If this space goes to be replaced by more housing, this could lead to many families leaving the area in search of accessible green space. (https://www.facebook.com/broomhillavenuepark/) Right now, Glasgow City Council are in negotiations with a developer which could lead to flats being built on our sole green space in the area. Shouldn't Glasgow City Council be preserving this space to help promote physical activity in local communities and be on ongoing legacy from the Commonwealth Games? This is especially sad as in 2008, Glasgow City Council (GCC) promised us that the Broomhill Avenue Greenspace would "be excluded from any future development packages", and assured us that there was no need to officially protect the site as it would be protected under the councils own rules and guidance on open spaces. GCC themselves list the site as part of the "green corridor" which is intended to provide areas for protection of wildlife, which begs the question of why the negotiations over a sale are taking place at all? Although this area is not an official park, it is tended and maintained by local residents and the trees, wildlife and open space are an important part of the community. The space is cared for - residents and children in the community have been working on the site and planted hundreds of flower bulbs, cleaned up rubbish and prepared bird and bat boxes to provide homes for wildlife, with more planting planned coming. All of this hard work is at risk, if the proposed sale goes ahead. We need as many people as possible to hold Glasgow City Council to their promise. Please sign and share our petition to help us protect the site and save a small, but important local resource for the benefit of the residents, wildlife, children and dog walkers who value and appreciate this area. Thank you for your support.

The BearsWay project is an important initiative for increasing sustainable transport. It has sadly been shouted down by a small but vocal minority who do not like the changes. They have been reiterating several pieces of misinformation (below), and it seems that the local councillors have been swayed by their rhetoric. Many of the councillors who voted for the amendment which scrapped Phase 2 of the BearsWay did so in opposition to their own parties' sustainable transport policies (Lib Dem and SNP councillors, specifically). Some of the misinformation presented by the opponents to the BearsWay: 1) They claim that the road has been narrowed to an unsafe width, and is difficult to drive on, and that emergency response vehicles are unable to pass cars. Having had discussions with Blue Flag drivers, ROSPA advanced drivers, Driving Instructors, the Police, and Ambulance drivers, there is no evidence to support this assertion. If one drives to the speed limit (30mph), there is no difficulty navigating the traffic calming measures. We suspect that a number of people who used to drive the road at speeds in excess of the limit are angry that they can no longer do so. I have not spoken to an Ambulance Driver who had an issue with the width of the road. 2) They state that a majority of residents are against the proposals. There is no evidence whatsoever for this. There was a petition against the BearsWay which gathered 2,500 signatures, a number of whom are not local. There are 30,000 people local to the area, and 18,000 daily journeys on the road. 3) They complain that cyclists do not use the cycleway provided. This has been measured, and 92% of cyclists use the segregated cycle lane. There are several possible reasons for the minority not using it, including: It is very difficult to enter the cycle lane Northbound, as it requires crossing a busy lane of oncoming traffic, which is particularly difficult during peak times. Some cyclists were unaware of the cycleway, as it is not well signposted. The link from Burnbrae Roundabout to the crossing at MacDonalds is awkward to negotiate, and interrupts the route - it is far more straightforward Southbound to stick to the road for 200 yards until the crossing point moves the cycle lane to the left hand side of the road (and this also holds up traffic less than using the crossing lights) The BearsWay is not finished - the remaining phases would have addressed the issues in getting on to the cycleway safely. 4) The reduced lanes cause congestion. a) There was only ever one lane in each direction - this is the same. b) There is no evidence of increased congestion - the average journey time along Milngavie Road has increased by approximately 1.3 seconds according to a commuter who logged 150 of his journeys.. 5) There was nothing wrong with the road as it was, and therefore no need to change it. Note that 3,000 cyclists are KSI'd (Killed or Seriously Injured) on UK roads each year. This number is rising year on year. These deaths are caused by collisions with motor vehicles, most commonly when a motor vehicle driver violates the cyclist's right of way. Firstly, the old cycle lanes were poorly marked, and often poorly maintained as well; Cars regularly parked in them (they still do on the section from the Burnbrae Roundabout to Milngavie Precinct); Motor vehicles regularly cut into them in order to cut corners; Motor vehicles tended to drive faster than the speed limit. To conclude, a quote from an excellent article (Blog) on the need for change (Source here: http://www.magnatom.net/2016/09/east-dunbartonshire-time-for-change.html) It's not easy of course, because Change never is. It involves making some sacrifices. It means that a road might have to be a wee bit narrower. It means that occasionally you might have to wait behind a bus for 20 seconds. It means that occasionally at junctions, priorities might need to be adjusted. The odd parking space has to be lost! It feels like our liberties are being taken away from us. Are we truly free though? Is having a congestion free dual carriage way Bearsden Road which you can zoom down at 40 mph without impediment in your car really freedom? Only to be stuck in 2 miles of nose to tail traffic on the Switchback Road, which is already dual carriage way, so perhaps we need three lanes each way? What about those that can't drive, perhaps as they are too young, can't afford it, or are not able to through disability. Sure, the bus is one option, but it will never truly provide the freedom that we yearn, by taking us from where we live to where-ever we want to go. It will help to some extent, and is part of the integrated solution, but it is not the whole answer. Freedom only comes when all those who wish to travel, by whatever means they wish, can do it in a way that is safe, comfortable and convenient. As London, and countless other examples demonstrate, if you build it, they will truly come. And they will come with the many, many benefits that having a significant percentage of your populations travelling actively will bring. So I call on the politicians and especially the councillors of East Dunbartonshire to think carefully about the future. Not just their own future, or at the ballot box next year, but for the future of an area I am sure they really do care for. I ask for them to consider that Change, even politically difficult Change is not only desirable, but needed for the area to flourish. Yes there is a strong local voice against it, but then many of them don't want children to have freedom of safe movement. Is that what you and your party stand for? Really? If they choose not to invest in active travel, the area will drown under the weight of the motor vehicle, something that even many of the opponents of the BearsWay agree is an issue. Be on the side of change. Be on the side of a brighter, healthier, less polluted, less congested East Dunbartonshire.

Wilbury Avenue is a quiet residential street, with many elderly people, children and pets. Not only is excessive speed a danger, it also destroys the quality of life of the area.

With the update works on the A27 and the forecast increase in traffic, a pedestrian crossing is desperately needed at this point. The road is being crossed regularly by pedestrians to access 4 schools, 2 pre-schools and a pub as well as normal journeys between friends and relatives. This safety feature is urgently needed and should have been included in the original upgrade plans for the A27. There is a crossing on every other major junction along this stretch of the A27 but not one at probably the most frequently used, certainly by young children. For the safety of our children as well as parents, locals residents and those who support the local public house, please support this petition to push for the Council/Highways Authority to install a fully lighted pedestrian crossing as a matter of urgency.

Women born in 1953 have been hit twice. All people, including men, have had their pensionable age changed once and it may well change again. These women do get their pension - at the old rate, women born in 1953 will not get the increase standard rate - have no chance to increase their pension by 10% p.a. if delay receipt to increase their pension (that option is now reduced to 5%.) - we have paid NI contributions for more years than people who will benefit at the new rate. This means that any woman born in the same month (but in 1950) - received their pension at 60.5, who those born in that month of 1953 will start getting theirs at 64.9 years - by delaying their pension to receive at 64.9 like me, they would either get about 44% more pension than me for their life or have 229 more weekly payments if we both died at the same age and received our pensions at the same age. - The average life expectancy of someone 3 years old older than me is not a lot different from me. The government are changing rules by stealth. Changing these rules more than once so they can approach this in a divide and conquer way as only those effected at each change might complain. Each time they change they revisit part of the age groups they have already changed and add a further age group. If you aren't affected this time, you may be affected next time. When it happens to you, it doesn't mean that they won't revisit or change or delay again especially at a time close to when you thought you would retire.

This golf course has been open for over 100 years. I and many residents have been using this golf course for over 40 years. It is a place much loved for it's idealistic beautiful views and the wildlife that live there, It is a place of peace and tranquillity and it is enjoyed by all different age groups and families, where small children enjoy feeding the squirrels and enjoying the nature that this beautiful. place has to offer. There are also listed buildings that hold alot of history. People of all ages can enjoy not only the views but can also enjoy a refreshing drink and tasty food in the cafe run by very welcoming staff. Please lets stop Lewisham Council from closing this beautiful open space where us people enjoy going to either play a game of golf or just enjoy walks or taking our children there, or just to have some peace in such tranquil surroundings

In the 21st century, in one of the richest countries in the world we shouldn’t have people who don't have shelter, one of the most basic necessities of human life. Homelessness is wrong, we should end it now. I took this video about eight months ago, this lady is still homeless https://youtu.be/DnWwzxcTX-U. Eliminating homelessness sounds impossible, but it’s not. This Government report (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7596/2200485.pdf) in 2012 identified that there were 40,000 homeless people, both people living on the street and those living in inadequate temporary accommodation. That's a lot of people, too many, but it is less than one person in 1,000, which makes it perfectly manageable. It cost us £1bn a year to keep those people, £25,000 per person. That’s daft, to spend £25,000 a year, about an average salary, and not even manage to provide decent accommodation, in some cases provide no accommodation. The reason for homelessness is simple, there aren't enough homes. If there were enough homes nobody would be homeless. It is said that homeless people have other problems, issues with drugs, alcohol, mental health, family breakdown, sometimes just bad luck. That is probably true, but it's not a reason why we should add not having a home to their problems. The solution isn't even expensive, in fact in the long run it would save us money. If we built the homes then that £25,000 a year would pay for them in less than ten years, in the long run it would save us money. There is an international organisation called Housing First http://www.homeless.org.uk/our-work/national-projects/housing-first-england which has pioneered the approach of first providing homes and then supporting people's other needs, it works. This isn't just about homeless people, it affects us all. Increasing numbers of people have no prospect of buying a home because they are too expensive, the alternative is renting but rents are also steadily rising. A housing shortage helps to fuel the increasingly unaffordable cost of housing for all of us. Homelessness is the sharp tip of an iceberg we’re all scraping against. Please sign this petition to ask the Government to act to end homelessness.

Update 03/01/17 Following our petition there were some community meetings held at Parson St School. At these it was heard “that petition really kicked up a stink!” [at the Council] and Metrobus acknowledged the need for additional safety measures, described many options and said they would consult the residents of Highbury road, though would give no timescale. Since then we have asked when we would have responses to the concerns that were submitted as objections to the traffic order and been told that no responses were formalised but the comments were taken into account as part of the decisions report. The decisions report does not get published – instead you have to write/email to get a response. Please take the time to do this, contact details below. It does not seem right that this is not automatically published given the high level of concern and numbers of us signing the petition – show them that the response is important by contacting them and asking for an update. If we all do this they will realise that it would be better to issue a public response and that we will not be fobbed off over our children’s safety. Also since the issues were raised we have had no indication of what action, if any, they will be taking and they have not communicated with the local school over this, despite there being ongoing campaigning for greater road safety prior to this new issue. There is another meeting but the council will not be writing to residents about this meeting (as it is not an official council event) – please attend if you can and show your support. Monday 16th January at 6.30pm at Parson St School, Bedminster Road entrance – share with everyone and encourage people to attend as all eyes will be on the turnout. If you would like any updates you need to contact Councillor Mark Bradshaw –do it as soon as possible so we start the New Year showing we are committed to keeping our children’s safety a priority. Correspondence address: c/o Labour Group Office City Hall PO Box 3176 Bristol BS3 9FS Bus. phone: 0117 353 3160 Email: [email protected] ************************************************************************************************ Original content The proposed changes will increase traffic on the already congested Bedminster Road. Hartcliffe Way and Highbury Road. These are roads directly by the school and where the school entrances are located and the community is already concerned about safety. Furthermore the proposed changes include removing a crossing which is opposite the school which children use to cross Hartcliffe Way (an exceptionally busy road) safely. With increased traffic and reduced crossings our children's safety is being compromised significantly. Please look at links and object through the council as well as signing this. (NOTE these 2 links no longer work as initial consultation has closed). https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/1116390/E14017-TRO-450+Hartcliffe+Way+movement+Restrictions.pdf/0c61715e-202f-4b69-8c83-b6a9045d02f1 https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/1116390/Statement+of+Reasons+v2.pdf/f7124074-9bf2-47ce-80de-ba3709f69d76 This is copy and pasted - it has the information to email/write and officially object - please take the time to do this - you are welcome to use points from this petition to do so. We have so many signatures and growing each day but we need the emails/letters too. Many thanks. ************************************ CITY OF BRISTOL (HARTCLIFFE WAY AND PARSON STREET, BISHOPSWORTH AND FILWOOD WARDS, CITY OF BRISTOL) (PRESCRIBED AND PROHIBITED MANOEUVRES) ORDER 20-- The City Council of Bristol hereby gives NOTICE it proposes to make a traffic order, the effect of which would be:- 1. to introduce a southbound in A4174 Parson Street prescribed straight ahead into southbound A4174 Hartcliffe Way at its junction with Parson Street eastbound carriageway; and 2. to introduce a prohibition of right turn from northbound on A1474 Hartcliffe Way into Parson Street eastbound carriageway. Further information available from 16th September 2016 Further details of all the proposals are contained in the draft order, which together with plans and a Statement of the Council’s Reasons for proposing to make the order may be inspected at the Citizen Service Point, 100 Temple Street, Bristol, BS1 6AG, between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Monday to Friday. The draft order, plans and Statement of Reasons are also available to view on the City Council website at www.bristol.gov.uk/trafficorders. In addition, the draft order, plans and Statement of Reasons are available to be inspected at Marksbury Road Public Library, Marksbury Road, Bedminster, Bristol, BS3 5LG during normal opening hours. How to object Objections to the proposals, together with the grounds on which they are made must be sent in writing to TRO Comments at the undermentioned address or by e-mail to [email protected] quoting reference CAE/NMT/P-1011A by 10th October 2016. Please include your name and address and note that all representations received may be considered in public by the City Council and that the substance of any representation together with the name and address of the person making it could become available for public inspection. Highways Service (WH) P. MANN PO Box 3176 Service Director Transport Bristol BS3 9FS Date: 16th September 2016

It's around 8am on a dusky day in July 2016, and I'm standing on the far platform of Tain railway station, gazing out into the misty depths of the Dornoch Firth. The previous night I had come up on the late train - the 21:06 - from Inverness, though there's also a midnight service north. That left from Platform 7, which, intriguingly enough I had to walk across a car park to reach. Very few rail journeys start with a walk through a car park. But, increasingly often, many, many journeys from Wick and Thurso to Inverness involve a walk across a car park. This walk culminates with getting into a car and, well, driving down the A9. And why is this? There is a perfectly good rail line linking Thurso and Wick with Inverness, via the commuter towns of Dingwall, Tain and Invergordon, with four trains up it and down it each day (only one on Sundays). Many people marvel at the beauty of the line - it traverses all kind of landscape; the Beauly Firth, the Dornoch Firth, the Cromarty Firth, the mountains of Sutherland, Loch Fleet, incredible seascapes, marshy vistas, and vast tracts of peat bogland (the Flow Country). The line also connects with the NorthLink ferries north from Scrabster, near Thurso, to Orkney, and many people use these each year. In fact, I do. It's why I was at Tain in the first place. At Dounreay, on the north coast near Thurso, there used to be a nuclear power station. As this is decommissioned, things are transported out to Sellafield by rail. There's also timber extraction going on near Kinbrace en route - and the trees could be transported by rail. So why are people not using the line as much? Unsurprisingly, it's to do with the service. Things have become very unreliable. Delays and cancellations occur very frequently. Stops are often omitted at some of the line's busiest stations - including Thurso and the recently-reopened Beauly and Conon Bridge - to make up the time lost. The chronic problems behind these occurrences are caused by a combination of missing infrastructure and absent crew members. Out of these two, the infrastructure is the biggest problem with the line. But why is this? Well, the line is single track for its whole length, aside for some 'passing loops'. This is where there are two lines, or 'double track', but only for a short distance (think road 'passing places'); and there are loops at Muir of Ord, Dingwall, Invergordon, Tain, Ardgay, Lairg, Rogart, Brora, Helmsdale, and Forsinard. Otherwise, the train's can't pass each other. Because of this, delays can build up, causing a knock-on effect that leads to cancellations and skip-stopping. The stretch of railway between Inverness and Dingwall has only one passing place, at Muir. But this line is shared with the service to Kyle of Lochalsh (for Skye) and sees 13/14 trains per day in each direction (7 on Sundays). That's nearly 30 trains a day; and the constraints provided by the lack of track on the Far North Line, in particular between Inverness and Muir, mean that many, many of these are delayed, or cancelled. And so we return to Tain. My train northwards arrives a couple of minutes late. Not much of a delay, though we manage to pick up more and more delays on route, so that we end up around 15/20 minutes behind time on reaching Thurso. This makes commuting between the towns and villages on the southern section of the line and Inverness very difficult. And it also severely affects the northern end, too; because Thurso serves the ferry services at Scrabster and Gills Bay to Orkney. People need to be able to make their connections; being shunted out into a taxi at Wick doesn't help with things. But there is a solution. Until 1966, there were six miles of double track between Clachnaharry - to the west of Inverness - and Clunes, near Kirkhill. Since this was ripped away, this bottleneck has become worse, and worse, and worse. This is the solution; the Lentran Long Loop, as it's become known to the Friends of the Far North Line (or FoFNL). But why the name? Well firstly, it would go through the Lentran are. And secondIy: in railway terms, a 'dynamic loop' is a passing loop that's long enough to allow two trains to pass without stopping. For example, there's a couple on the main line south of Inverness, and there's one on the line from Glasgow to Barrhead and Kilmarnock. Having the Lentran Long Loop would improve services massively. An hourly service from Inverness to the towns of Easter Ross - Beauly, Muir of Ord, Conon Bridge, Dingwall, Alness, Invergordon and Tain - would become possible. Scenic tourist trains could run down the line, boosting the local economy in a ways similar to the North Coast 500 road route. The line could become a major freight corridor. But, more importantly than all of those: the trains could run on time. The ball is in your court.

Many people use the road, especially the elderly, the potholes make it unsafe