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.

There has been a Green Dragon pub on or near this site since 1726 and we feel very strongly that this traditional part of Winchmore Hill life should be maintained. When properly managed the pub was a vibrant centre of the community filled with laughter and conversation and we believe that with proper ownership and management it can be again. The building is an important historical landmark which identifies Winchmore Hill to those passing through, and as such prevents the area from being just another faceless section of Green Lanes. The pub has survived wars and countless other times of great difficulty and poverty over nearly 300 years, yet we are in danger of allowing it to be destroyed now just because of a few years of poor turnover and somebody's desire to make a quick profit. Please help us to save The Green Dragon and ensure its future at the heart of our community where Winchmore Hill residents can gather together to laugh, talk, eat, drink and celebrate as so many generations have before.

Easton is planned for a massive housing development over the next 10-15 years, unless the local residents fight against it. Surrounding areas such as Costessey, Queens Hills, Bawburgh, Marlingford and Colton will all be affected if this proposal goes ahead. The area cannot cope with such a large development: Roads We all know that Longwater and Dereham Road are horrendously busy, at rush hour especially. We've all sat in queues after doing our shopping, on our daily commute or just to get into the city. Queens Hills has just one access road and residents there have to suffer long tailbacks already. Add another 900 houses, each with an average of 1.5 cars per household all commuting and shopping - that's a minimum of another 1350 cars on our local roads from this development alone. Include the local sites already agreed for construction and this equals thousands more cars. Many of our roads are in poor condition with no funding to improve them; they will not cope. Medical services How long is the current wait for a routine GP appointment? Roundwell and Mattishall surgeries struggle to keep up with demand for the existing residents. 900 new homes will add 2-3000 new patients onto their books. How long can residents wait to see a doctor or a dentist? School St Peter's C of E Primary School already has two temporary classrooms and split lunch breaks. The expected increase in children in relation to the school will be three times the number of pupils. Parking/drop off provision has been poorly planned and the traffic survey to assess this need was completed in half term. The Council's answer given to traffic issues outside the school - parents and children will be encouraged to walk! Flooding Anglian Water have reported Easton, an area of high ground, will change from a low risk to a medium risk of flooding if the development goes ahead. All surrounding low lying areas will therefore be at significant risk of increased flooding. Marlingford, Colton, Bawburgh could all be affected. Wildlife Easton is surrounded by fields containing the habitats of different species of deer, bat and newt. Some of these are endangered, most notably the Great Crested Newt which is officially protected. Adequate surveys and provisions to protect these creatures have not been completed. Showground events Some of the areas proposed for development are currently used for parking during events. Where will these vehicles go? Will the public be able to access the events if there is insufficient parking? Easton is already a traffic jam during the bigger shows. The promise of new facilities? The proposals outline plans for some amenities, however, these are not scheduled for completion until 75% of the houses are built and occupied, if at all. There is no profit for developers for building amenities and there is no contract clause to force them to provide them. A village shop - who will take this space with Longwater so nearby? The new village hall is barely bigger than the existing and has half the number of parking spaces - this will not be suitable for a population increase of 150%. Our fair share In addition to Queens Hills' ongoing development, there is currently large construction also occurring in Costessey including the Hampdens and a further 495 at Lodge Farm. South Norfolk District Council and Norwich are already meeting the required 5 years worth of future housing obligations, with over 6.7 years worth already approved for full planning, giving a total of around 20,000 new homes. Hasn't this area had its fair share of development? How much more can it deal with? Everybody who lives in Easton and the surrounding areas will be affected by this development if it remains unchallenged. Objection! Having considered the development proposals, I am signing this epetition to object to the planning application of 2014/2611 in Easton, Norfolk. Please email the decision-makers here on [email protected]; [email protected].

This is a much loved beautiful part of Rural Kent. Developments should be kept to outskirts of towns or cities not small country villages. Total of over 1600 houses currently proposed in the Sittingbourne area!! Orchards are an ever diminishing, fundamentally important part of our countryside - this area is loved and enjoyed by all the local families as free access is given for walking across the Orchards. Doctors, Schools Hospitals cannot take this increase in volume the road network pollution and other impacts to the local environment cannot sustain this development. PLEASE TAKE 5 MINUTES TO OBJECT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT Individually object to the planning application in writing or email below quoting:- Pond Farm Newington 15/500671/OUT Mid Kent Planning Support, Maidstone House, King Street, Maidstone ME15 6JQ Email: [email protected] Some objection reasons:- • Is not in Swale Borough Council's local plan for housing-wrong location • Would increase the village size by 30% • Loss of grade 1 farm land & risk to rare species of wildlife • Would increase pollution on Newington high st to over acceptable EU levels • Totally destructive to local wildlife and nature • Not a sustainable site no transport infrastructure plans