Pontrhydyfen.....birthplace of Richard Burton, Ivor Emmanuel & Rebecca Evans, now a place of natural beauty where tourism is thriving. All year round, mountain bikers visit nearby Afan Argoed Country Park which boasts one of the finest bike paths in Europe. Visitors also come to the area to walk the Richard Burton Trail. Pontrhydyfen is also home to two rivers, the Pelenna and the Afan, both of which have suffered contamination in the past from the Industrial Age and Coal Mining. Cleaning up the rivers has been both expensive and has taken many years. The Foel Fynyddau forest is rich in wildlife - deer, badgers, pipistrelle bats, foxes and Red Kites, to name but a few. Unfortunately this is where a company, UK Methane, want to drill an Exploratory Borehole to test for shale gas. The people of Pontrhydyfen, Cwmafan and many residents in the Neath Port Talbot area do not want an Exploratory Borehole drilled on Land within the Foel Fynyddau Forest near Pontrhydyfen, Cwmafan, Port Talbot. The proposed Exploratory Drilling development will adversely affect the amenities of residents and visitors and carries a significant risk of: Disturbance to residents of this normally peaceful area from noise, light and traffic movements arising from 24 hour working. Disturbance to local wildlife; in particular badgers and bats Damage to already poorly maintained local roads from constant HGV movements Pollution of local water courses as a result of accidents and spillages on the site.

It is important to celebrate and commemorate the social history of the past and the community education of the future. The site has English Heritage and National Lottery Funded support to proceed forward with a preservation project and more support is forthcoming! The freeholder and Hackney Council promised the site as a Heritage and Arts Centre as early as 2009, but are now reneging on that promise in acquiescing to the freeholder's desires to profit from the site's transfer to residential use. If you have time, register your support in favour of saving the building for Heritage Community use to: [email protected]. And - if you are a Hackney resident - write to your local ward councillor! Stop the Greed! Save the Schoolhouse!

Everyone needs a decent secure affordable home in which to flourish. We therefore call on Brighton and Hove Parliamentary candidates to campaign for the following changes, and to vote for them if elected: • Bring back fair rents - a “Living rent” (achieved by rent controls) • Protect private tenants with long secure tenancies • Institute registration of all private landlords to ensure minimum standards of fire safety, energy efficiency and a decent home standard for private housing • Abolish the Right to buy and lift borrowing ceilings and restrictions so councils can again build social rented housing • Link rents policy to affordability not the market • End discrimination against tenants on benefits

The proportion of Scotland from which built development could not be seen has dropped by two fifths in 11 years, to 27% in 2013 - an immense change in Scotland's landscape. The remaining wild land has been officially mapped by Scottish Natural Heritage for inclusion in national planning policy. We the undersigned support the Mountaineering Council of Scotland in calling for no further industrial developments to be permitted in the areas of wild land that remain. Protecting the remaining wild land in this way will have many benefits: - Wild mountain landscapes form a vital part of Scotland's culture. - Wild and challenging landscapes inspire people to become more physically active, helping to combat national problems with inactivity; there is also strong evidence that they improve mental health - Tourism is one of Scotland's largest industries, and is by far the largest source of employment in the more remote communities that lie close to areas of wild land (the wild land itself, by definition, does not contain any communities). We need to protect jobs in these communities that depend on the continued existence of wild landscapes nearby. - Local councils will benefit from reducing the high costs they are currently incurring in having to deal with planning applications for inappropriate developments in wild land areas; the planning process, public inquiries and appeals often taking years. - The renewable energy industry will benefit by having been given clarity that wild land is not a suitable location for development. This will save money, time, controversy and reputational damage through planning battles in these areas. Renewable energy may be a vital part of Scotland's future, but wind farms - like all other large scale developments - can be sited elsewhere, in landscapes where visible development and intrusion is already prevalent. When wild land is developed, it is lost forever. More is being lost each year. We must protect what now remains of these precious landscapes.

An application for Bax Close is currently with Horsham District Council and has been timed by Bovis Homes to avoid the Local Neighbourhood Plan which is currently out for consultation. Access to Bax Close is proposed through New Town Road - both are narrow, single file roads and do not have the capacity for this much traffic. New Town Road also has a dangerous entrance/exit point on a hill and children walking to school (of which there are many) will be at risk. This is without consideration for the significant infrastructure issues in the village - huge traffic congestion, air quality issues, sewage plant at capacity, no primary school spaces.

We need to prevent the decision-making about the underground disposal of nuclear waste from passing to the Secretary of State and being taken away from the local government, with input from the general public.

To allow Jack’s Green development to go ahead would be illogical and wrong: Jack’s Green is a wilder version of Fine Shade with the wildlife and nature still undisturbed. The traffic congestion will be bigger (smaller roads), it is a new development as opposed to enlargement of an existing one. In addition to dormice (protected species on both sites) there are two extremely rare butterflies at Jack’s Green (purple emperor and black hairstreak) and the protected violet click beetle (only 1 of 3 sites in the whole of the UK). Also, Jack’s Green is close to the area of outstanding natural beauty (SSSI Belford Purlieus Ancient Woodlands). Any decision to approve Jack’s Green development would be made against public opinion. Please turn down this application on the same grounds you turned down Fine Shade Development. Keep Fine Shade fine and keep Jack’s Green green.

There are hundreds of acres of brownfield sites in the Stroud District which could be used to build the new housing required for the people of the Stroud District. However, developers don't want to build on these sites because it costs them more money than building on green fields.We should not allow the greed of developers to dictate local housing policy. If we still need more land for housing, once the brown field sites have been developed, we can then consider building on green field sites. The Government have said development should be on brownfield sites first so why aren't Stroud District council enforcing this policy? The Government have also said its a bottom up policy with local people deciding where houses should be built. This is our opportunity to tell Stroud District council.

Canal & River Trust (CART) declared on 13th February 2015 that from 1st May this year it will refuse to re-license all boats that “don’t move … far enough or often enough” to meet its Guidance for Boaters without a Home Mooring – unless they take a permanent mooring. This places boat families under unique pressure as many cannot afford a mooring. Many boat dwellers work locally and some are key workers. Many require access to local services such as health care and schools and will be put to extreme difficulty if forced to move unreasonable distances. Like it or not, socio-political realities have made the waterways an affordable housing resource for many families. Canal & River Trust has long denied this reality, describing themselves as a 'navigation authority' and harbouring a marked hostility towards the water-based community. This position is no longer tenable and CART needs to accept its responsibilities as a landlord. MORE INFORMATION CART's new policy sets requirements that go beyond those stated in Section 17 (3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995. Boat dwellers are happy to comply with the clearly stated, lawful requirement not to remain continuously in any one place for more than 14 days. However, the 1995 Act does not contain any requirement to travel a minimum distance or to follow any specific cruising pattern beyond the 14-day limit. The new policy means that boat dwellers are being forced to travel distances that put them out of reach of their jobs or their children's schools, and make it impossible for them to access health care or to stay near elderly relatives. If they choose to keep their homes they will be faced with the need to give up working, take their children out of school, miss out on vital health care and abandon elderly family members. If a boat licence is terminated, or renewal refused, the boat is then unlicensed. CART has the power under Section 8 (2) of the British Waterways Act 1983 to seize, remove and sell unlicensed boats from its waterways. Section 13 (3) (a) of the British Waterways Act 1971 gives CART the power to demolish a houseboat that it has seized. In cases where a boat is lived on, CART obtains a Court Order and also obtains an Injunction banning the boat dweller from ever returning to its waterways. Breach of an Injunction carries the penalty of arrest and imprisonment. Therefore, the boat dweller not only becomes homeless but loses the only asset that they own. Information provided in response to a Freedom of information request showed that in 2010-2011 the enforcement team had a target to seize 100 "non compliant" boats each year. When boats are seized, CART contracts with a firm of Bailiffs to tow the boat away and the Police are present. Permanent residential moorings that boat dwellers can legally live on are in very short supply. Where they exist, they are very expensive (up to £25,000 per year in London). The majority of marinas will turn you away if you live on your boat. Over 90% of permanent moorings are non-residential (“leisure moorings”). CART knows that if boat dwellers live on leisure moorings they risk having planning enforcement action taken against them for unauthorised residential use. In London and the south there is a severe shortage of moorings and mooring fees are vastly inflated. CART's own directly managed moorings are priced using an auction system where the highest bidder wins. Some private moorings have waiting lists of 9 years and more. There is no security of tenure for boat moorings so even if you do take a mooring, you could be evicted at the whim of the marina owner. CART is the largest inland navigation authority in the UK. It owns or manages some 80% of the waterways. The Environment Agency and other smaller bodies own and/or manage the remaining 20%. If CART refuses to renew the licence of a boat dweller, there are few, if any, other places that a boat dweller can take their boat. CART's latest move is yet another attack on the right to use and live on a boat without a permanent mooring; a right that Parliament enshrined in law in 1995 when it passed Section 17 (3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995. Before 1995 British Waterways (which became CART in 2012) sought powers to force all boats to have a mooring and criminal penalties against anyone caught living on their boat without a permanent residential mooring and a houseboat certificate. Parliament refused British Waterways these powers and acted to protect the 10,000 or so boat dwellers that would have become homeless in 1995 by wording Section 17 (3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 in such a way that it included a wide variety of patterns of boat use including those boat dwellers who needed to remain close to a place of work, children's education, health care or elderly relatives. The reasoning behind the wording of this section can be found in the Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committees that drafted the 1995 Act.

Beach Road school was built in the 1800's and is a beautiful example of historical architecture. It has served as both an infant and junior school for thousands of pupils and also found usage in both the First and Second World War as an army hospital. It was closed in 2008 when the school was merged with William Gladstone. If properly looked after this building could stand for another 100 years, but, of course, the solution is simply to demolish it. Please, let's have our say and not let Sefton Council take the easy way out and demolish what could be a useful building. These decisions to demolish are usually met with regret in years to come as they will never be rebuilt and the history is forever lost. Stand up now while we can. Thanks for your support.

* Proposed footbridge will be entering onto a road (Park Avenue) beside the only turning circle in the street, which in itself is dangerous due to turning cars. On the other side of the bridge is another road where no speed controls will be put in place due to this part being out of remit of the plans. * The proposed footbridge will be over the deepest part of the water which can be fast flown and this may be dangerous to curious children who sometimes like to play around the burn. * There are already 2 entrances onto Park Avenue, that could be designed to be more safe i.e:- railings on Seafield Road with adequate lightening, proper fencing around the burn and upgrade the existing bridge at the shallow part of the water

The National Park was set up to protect an area of natural beauty and this act goes against this aim. It is asset stripping, selling off our national heritage and should be stopped.