Approx. £1.9m was wrongly collected from 70 thousand motorists who were not aware they were even entering a bus lane. The adjudicator said the signs were confusing and inadequate, so these fines should not be enforced. Innocent motorists, many of whom were visiting the nearby Children's Hospital, have paid the fines not realising the Councils serious errors, but no offence whatsoever has been committed. Birmingham City Council are refusing to repay the money and now refuse to discuss this in the public domain, reverting to debating in a private session with no one else allowed to know what has happened in the meeting. Citizens and visitors to Birmingham, experiencing recently altered city centre road layouts, will find this confusing. You can read more about how this happened here: http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/new-birmingham-city-centre-bus-6681476

Glandwr Cymru, who own the canal in water from Clydach to Ynysmeudwy, wish to restore this section (including the lock) and, in conjunction, with the City and County of Swansea regenerate the site. The plans include a small number of new homes, an attractive public open space and improved pedestrian and cycle access to the area. This will completely reinvigorate the lower end of Pontardawe Road, enhance the environment and bring significant benefits to the community. The Swansea Canal Society fully supports this restoration and development plan. On the 2nd of December, the CRT Development Manager, has been allocated a ten minute slot at 5.00pm to present the full plans to all the Swansea Councillors. The Swansea Canal Society sincerely hopes that you too will support this scheme. We wish to hand in a petition of support for this project to the Leader of the Swansea Council on December the 2nd. Please add your name to this petition.

This proposal will have a permanent detrimental effect on the biodiversity and historic environment. One of the last unspoilt areas of county Durham is under threat of irreversible destruction for executive housing and sheltered accommodation. The area is home to the bats, badgers, otters and many more protected species. The spa grounds is a conservation area & county wildlife site and a greenfield site. Ancient woodland will be felled to make way for an access road. This application contravenes all of the National Planning Policy Framework guidelines and the local plan for the area.

Of all the houses on the Esplanade front in Greenock it's boldest, brightest and most fun. And this shouldn't change. 'Inverclyde's head of regeneration and planning Stuart Jamieson stated: "The bright yellow and gold tones of the dwelling are not colours which would traditionally have been used on a house of this period style or have been found within this part of the Greenock West End Conservation Area. The colours form an intrusive feature within the streetscape and are therefore not appropriate.' Reference - Inverclyde Now 04/11/2014 - http://www.inverclydenow.com/photostream/13257-yellow-house-is-too-bright-for-planners This is micromanagement from the council on a ridiculous level. The result of being adverse to change and using redundant policies as a reason. Judging by the response on Inverclyde Now's facebook post of this issue it appears that a majority of people wish the council to reverse this decision and are quite happy with the colour of the house. Such reasons as: "its their house, brightens [the] place up something different !" "Shocking! It's their house and should be able to paint it any colour they like. This town is miserable and dreary and our council are trying their hardest to finish it off any way they can" and "I love the yellow house as do my children it's their house let them do what they want with it !" These are just a few of the hundreds of replies. Can you imagine an Esplanade in which all the houses followed suit? Resulting in a warm, vibrant and fun coastal scene. Welcoming the many cruise ships that dock in Greenock. I'm sure tourists to the area would love to see such a sight yet Inverclyde council appear to be stuck in their old, dreary ways by requesting the owners to repaint the house a more 'acceptable' colour. Are the council representing the views of local people on this? Because that's what they're supposed to do. Let them know what you think.

HIGH TRAFFIC impact, on congestion, queuing and air quality in Malton, especially Yorkersgate, Butcher Corner, Castle Howard Rd, Middlecave Rd and Horsemarket Rd HIGH VISUAL impact, on the countryside, AONB, footpaths, and nearby properties HIGH SIZE at 500 houses, 25% size of Malton today=25% more traffic HIGH UNCERTAINTY on this OUTLINE ONLY application in amounts/location or retail and commercial development, and amounts/location of high rise buildings, where open space would be, where access would be, consequent lack of guarantee of how much traffic or visual impact there would be, lack of a building design tied to the application leading to uncertainty of what any of the development would really look like in practice HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL to the development of a Neighbourhood Plann, which would give residents a genuine say in where they think housing should go in Malton and Norton.

Fracking carries significant risks. Strong evidence suggests risks of significant health and environmental damage, damage to the quality of home and family life—and damage to property. Fracking releases pollutants into the air and risks polluting water supplies. Stories come in from all over the world. The evidence is well supported and researched. Families can't drink water. Cattle die. Children suffer. There are also risks from fumes, vibration, heavy traffic, from light pollution, and much, much more. The UK government is ignoring important democratic and human rights considerations in its 'dash for gas'. Human rights to health, to a healthy environment, to enjoy wellbeing don't even figure in the debates. On top of this, ordinary people, many of whom have never, ever protested before, are being subjected to underhand tactics designed to intimidate them and which violate their civil and political rights. Enough is enough. The UK government has important responsibilities under human rights law. It is time to ban fracking until a full human rights impact assessment has been made, based on the best evidence, and independent of the companies with an interest in fracking the UK.

1. Rural areas are liable to decline if their infrastructure and services – public transport, education, GP practices, cottage hospitals, street lighting, etc – are not effectively funded and supported. Unless these are of a good standard and accessibility, businesses will not be established in rural areas, those already there will be unable to attract workers, and this will run counter to the government’s own policy (see Truss, E., 2014, “Stimulating Economic Growth in Rural Areas”, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). 2. Those who live in rural areas are entitled to a reasonable standard of services and national infrastructure. The cuts in grant to local authorities have made it impossible for rural counties to maintain services and infrastructure at a level anywhere near comparable to that provided in metropolitan areas. 3. Some government policies have been implemented without consideration for the impact on rural areas – e.g. the raising of the school/training leaving age to 18, requiring all young people to reach centres of population on a daily basis, while councils are forced to remove subsidy for buses that could get them there and no government provision has been made for this. Thanks to LM and AB

1) It is not sustainable to develop new sources of fossil fuels. If climate change is to be limited to 2°C, which is necessary to avoid catastrophic impacts, 80% of proven fossil fuels reserves cannot be burnt. We note that, with one quarter of the county less than 5m above sea level, Kent is very vulnerable to the rise in sea level that will result from our changing climate. 2) All water supplies in Kent are severely stressed. Fracking requires very large quantities of clean water (almost 19 million litres per frack). There is not an adequate water supply in Kent to sustain fracking. 3) Fracking produces very large quantities of polluted water which contain radioactive elements from deep underground. Water treatment plants cannot safely dispose of this waste. 4) Water supplies can be polluted by fracking due to pollutants leaking from the shale rock, or from wells drilled through an aquifer. There are many cases of water pollution from fracking documented in the USA. 5) Kent’s roads are already busy with many heavy goods vehicles. Development of onshore oil or gas extraction would require many truck movements, increasing the heavy vehicle goods traffic on Kent’s major and rural roads. 6) We value the peace and amenity of Kent’s countryside, and oppose onshore oil and gas development that would industrialise rural Kent. Production from onshore wells is short-lived, requiring many wells to be drilled. 7) Financial analysts, the Chancellor and the onshore oil and gas industry all accept that development of shale oil and gas in the UK will not reduce the price of gas.

Our West Hendon are a group of concerned residents on the West Hendon Estate that believe that the developments taking place benefit private developers at the expense of our community. We fear the development is going to force many people from our community out of the estate and possibly out of London. We are therefore making the following demands of Barnet Council, Barnet Homes, Barratt and Metropolitan Housing Association.

"The Rough" is an adjacent greenfield site which has been the target of developers for decades. The plan includes re-building Ascot Heath School between the "The Rough" and Ascot Stud Farm, leaving the eastern half of this greenfield site susceptible to creeping status change. It is important because this is green belt designated as a Special Protected Area and because there are other East Berkshire sites with infrastructure (sewers, arterial roads, hospitals) much more suited to new housing developments.

During the autumn of 2014 National Grid ran a consultation called "North West Coast Connections" asking members of the public how it should get power from the proposed new Moorside power station in west Cumbria into the high voltage transmission grid. On 17 June 2015 – despite widespread opposition - National Grid announced the decision to take forward its preferred option. This would see huge new pylons and overhead lines in the Lake District National Park and other sensitive protected areas, causing massive damage to the beautiful landscape and wildlife. At 50m tall, the new pylons would be twice the height of existing pylons and more than twice as wide. They would break the skyline from many viewpoints and create a permanent eyesore. National Grid provided an alternative offshore option for the public to comment on. The offshore route would take the powerline underground and then out to sea, where cables laid in the sea bed would link it into the national grid near Blackpool. National Grid has always accepted that this route is feasible, but it is not the route it wanted to take . In a previous public consultation in 2012, there was overwhelming support for the offshore route because it had the least impact on the Lake District. Although the majority of respondents to the 2014 consultation also supported the offshore option, National Grid has disregarded the wishes of the public. A number of stakeholder organisations that supported the onshore option did so with the proviso that National Grid takes satisfactory measures – such as routing cables underground - to mitigate the effects of pylons in sensitive areas. It now appears likely that adequate mitigation will NOT be offered. National Parks were created in order to protect beautiful areas for the people of Britain; we do not want to see 27 miles of 50m tall pylons (connected by multiple conductor wires) in and next to the Lake District National Park. We want your help to persuade National Grid that the offshore option IS the best route because it would both secure our future electricity supplies AND protect the Lake District’s wonderful landscapes. As well as signing the petition, please also consider joining Power Without Pylons (membership free) and Friends of the Lake District. You could also write to newspapers, newsletters and magazines; and if you live in an area likely to be affected, contact your MP and raise concerns with your parish council. As well as this petition, we are currently running a write-in campaign to encourage members of the public to contact National Grid, the MP and Liz Truss the Environment Secretary directly to express their concern and objections to taking the pylons onshore and not considering undergrounding in spite of the damage that pylons would do to the Lake District's landscape. You can access the campaign here: www.saynotopylonsinthelakedistrict.org.uk For more information: www.friendsofthelakedistrict.org.uk/News/response-to-national-grids www.powerwithoutpylons.org.uk www.northwestcoastconnections.com Note: this petition was initiated by Kate Willshaw of Friends of the Lake District ahead of the "North West Coast Connections" consultation, which has now ended. Kate has invited Power Without Pylons to continue to promote it.

-The steps are an iconic place. They have been used extensively by demonstrators. For instance, in the run up to the Scottish Independence Referendum, the steps were widely used by both "Yes" and "No thanks" campaigners. -The steps are popular. Many people use them as a place to sit, eat their lunch, socialise and listen to buskers. -There aren't many places in Glasgow City Centre to sit. Apart from George Square, there really isn't anywhere you can sit. -The steps provide excellent views over Buchanan Street and beyond. These views are captured by local photographers and artists.