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

Builders are lobbying the government to keep planning policy as it is. They say that their industry depends upon Greenfield sites being available to build on, without the need to use up Brownfield sites first. This is causing misery across the country. We find that builders are cherry-picking the green fields on the edges of towns, because these are the easiest and most profitable sites to develop. Meanwhile, Brownfield sites are left to rot, or remain for years as piles of rubble in the heart of towns. There are alternatives to the present policies which would keep builders in work, provide apprenticeships, supply just as many homes, avoid conflict with communities and would halt the relentless encroachment upon our precious countryside. Please lobby the candidates for the coming general election to support the following proposals: • To bring back the sequential testing of land, so that applications to develop Greenfield sites can be turned down if alternative Brownfield sites exist. • To award grants for the decontamination of industrial land. • To give incentives to councils and builders to renovate empty homes. • To encourage the building of higher density homes on Brownfield sites, where this would not impact on the light and space of neighbours. • To increase the tax threshold for renting out rooms to lodgers, so that there is less single occupancy of homes. • To provide funding for the merging of houses, when this is appropriate, e.g. in large areas of high density housing, where a better mix is needed. • To follow one of the main objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework: of ‘allowing people and communities back into planning’. There is rigour in complying with the rest of the framework – why not with this? Merely inviting people to comment on proposals is not good enough - communities should be genuinely involved in the planning process.

The 'Friends of the River Nene' (FOTRN) has been formed as a group dedicated to improving everyone's experience when using or visiting the river Nene. As such we have volunteers willing to work to help the E.A., local councils and local landowners to improve all aspects of the enjoyment of this lovely river. Please sign our petition, which we hope will help us improve things.

In 2012, Gloucestershire County Council agreed a £500 million contract with corporate developer UBB (Urbaser Balfour Beatty) to build and operate a huge "mass burn" incinerator at Javelin Park, Haresfield, on the edge of the Cotswolds designated Area Of Natural Beauty, to be paid for using taxpayers' money. Negotiations were shrouded in secrecy and no public consultation was entered into with respect to cleaner and cheaper waste solutions [1], which were - and still are - available. We do not know the contents of the contract, because they have never been fully revealed. What we do know is that - democratic bodies representing over half of the county opposed the plans (2 MPs, 3 District Councils,19 Town and Parish Councils) - 3 weeks after the contract was actually signed, in 2013, the Gloucestershire County Council Planning Committee, after a full hearing of all sides of the debate, voted unanimously to refuse planning permission [2] And yet, on the 7th of January 2015, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Eric Pickles overturned that democratic planning decision. Now we are being told that if the Council uphold democracy and cancel the contract with UBB there will be a massive penalty to pay - up to £100 million - yet we are not being told how they have reached this figure. We have a right to know how this happened. It is our money, our environment and our health that are at issue and we are not being told the whole story. NOTES: [1] An MBT (Mechanical Biological Treatment) plant already has planning permission in Gloucestershire - and UBB themselves have been commissioned to build one in Essex. See the developer's own explanation of its advantages: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gVTCv92hHWNDs5LxcJ7CoEruEPxuad9gul-T9nIsuI4/edit [2] Among the reasons for refusal were: - evidence of air pollution and fear of health risk - competition with sustainable methods such as recycling - huge impact on the landscape - high CO2 emissions - significant import of waste from elsewhere required to maintain function

Please share: http://www.facebook.com/twyncrossing I’m sure I voice the opinion of many of us who are growing weary of playing chicken with the ever increasing traffic whilst trying to cross from the Twynyrodyn area over to Station Yard. This is a particularly important being the main route to the train station as well as an access to Tesco and the arcade. As you are no doubt well aware, this is an extremely busy junction for both cars and pedestrians however no planning consideration appears to have been given to the welfare of pedestrians, even as recent alterations to the one-way system has increased traffic-flow. The pathmarks carved into the banks of the road are testament to the brave souls who chance their luck! Please lend your voice for the inclusion of a safe pedestrian crossing to be developed as part of the town centre redevelopment plans. To highlight the reasons for prioritising this project as a matter of urgency, I would like to draw your attention to the Welsh Government’s Capitol Metro-Area impact studies: http://wales.gov.uk/docs/det/publications/131126-metro-impact-study-regeneration-en.pdf As a commuter of many years travelling to and from the city I welcome investment in public transport wholeheartedly, but this document is particularly of interest to the residents of Twynyrodyn / Penyard as this highlights: • The future planned development of 340 new houses in the area (not including the 100+ houses already under construction on the former Maerdy Hospital site). • Use of Twyn Hill as the main route for the inter-valley “regional bus rapid transit” route (see illustration, p. 52). Not forgetting: • The number of schools and nurseries located in the area. Again I am not against development (although yet more traffic is certainly a concern to ill-suited main roads – a matter I’m sure Heolgerrig residents will sympathise with), but if we are to be encouraged to use public transport and walk more then I feel it is only fair that we are allowed to do so safely. Thanks for your time, Mathew

Seafarers’ union Nautilus has applied to demolish this grand Edwardian home for sailors' widows, which stands on the River Mersey opposite Liverpool’s famous waterfront World Heritage Site. The imposing brick and stone Andrew Gibson House was completed in 1906 to provide a sanctuary for the widows of elderly sailors and men lost at sea, and was the gift of a wealthy Liverpool cotton merchant. Built by individual philanthropy and maintained by the collective contributions of individual Union members, the building represents a unique piece of Britain's maritime and welfare history. It stands in its own landscaped grounds with unrivalled waterfront views and is owned by the merchant navy union Nautilus, formerly NUMAST, that has managed the building and its extensive Marine Park retirement and convalescent estate for over a century. Until about a decade ago the building was in use, but it has since been left empty and has become increasingly derelict. Nautilus has now applied to the local authority, Wirral MBC, for prior approval to demolish the complex. The Council will meet to determine the decision in the next two weeks. Surprisingly, the building is unlisted, and the prominent site is likely to be sold for the development of waterside flats. The building has already demonstrated that it is ideal for repurposing to apartments, indeed the local authority has already granted permission for conversion, and has approved permission for some enabling development on the grounds. We urge Nautilus to work with the local authority, Wirral MBC, that supports renovation. In addition, there has been interest from several developers and at least three housing associations to convert the building. The building remains in essentially good order, requiring mainly remedial works to its roof and services, and it would be inexplicable and inexcusable for Nautilus to knock it down.