The site is completely inappropriate for a development of this kind for the following reasons: This precise area is prone to frequent flooding, the last time being on 18th September 2014 where many existing houses were flooded and the main A365 road was closed for two days. The land completely surrounds a grade II listed building that will lose all of it's views and will likely suffer increased risk from flooding from the developed land. The A365 (Bath - Melksham) road that bisects the two sites is a known traffic blackspot often leading to long tailbacks in both directions. Additional traffic on this route will increase the risk of accidents and nearby narrow residential lanes being used as rat-runs. Local infrastructure including primary/secondary schools and GP surgeries are already over-subscribed and cannot cope with the anticipated additional 1000+ extra residents. The nature and character of this semi-rural area including the nearby villages of Shaw and Whitley will be profoundly affected for the worse by this development.

This is a unique terminus building with a roof attributed to I K Brunel. It was built before 1872 when the line from Totnes to Ashburton was opened. It was taken over by the Dart Valley Railway in 1965 but because the A38 Dual carriageway was about to be build on the track bed between Ashburton and Buckfastleigh this was not part of the Light Railway order of April 1969. It then became a garage (Station Garage) which is likely to be closed in the future and the building and the area around it developed. It is not a listed building but is of historical importance. It needs protection from demolition. See http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/a/ashburton/ for information If you wish to write to Dartmoor National Park Authority please still do so.

Barrowland Park provides a public open space for Glasgow that acted as a key gateway to the east end of the city - on a key route to Commonwealth Games venues. Barrowland Park is a typical example of what a commonwealth games legacy should be. It cost £725,000 of public money and is an excellent example of what was needed to make the east end of Glasgow more welcoming. The park is well used and many visitors from all over the country as well as locals have commented on how it enhances the Gallowgate. To remove the park would be an unbelievable waste of public money!

Woking Borough Council are planning to demolish 500 plus properties on the Sheerwater Estate in Woking, plus all local shops and the church. With total disregard to us, the residents, who have been given estimates on our properties at well under the current market value, this proposal will put many at serious risk. Built 60 years ago, the estate is home to many people their late 80's and 90's, who will be forced unwittingly into residential care. There are also parents with disabled children whose homes are already adapted for their needs, a mixture of owner occupiers and families in rented accommodation. With a strong community spirit, low crime rate and no vacant properties, the plans are affecting everyone and causing stress and trauma. The houses are solidly built and in very good condition, with some of the listed properties only 30 years old. NO ONE wants to move away from Sheerwater and we are totally against these proposals. Woking Borough Council are avoiding answering our legitimate questions and concerns. Where will they relocate hundreds of homeless tenants? With offers far lower than the market, can people afford to move? What about schooling and the risk to children? Will dependants and their families remain together? Please sign this petition to Save Sheerwater now!

Teignbridge District Council intends to issue a compulsory purchase order to force a a farmer off his farm in Devon so that they can use the land for a country park for SANGS (sustainable alternative natural green-space). The farm land has been farmed by the same family for over 60 years, and is a mixture of arable, sheep and cows. The council maintain that they are required to offset the loss of land a couple of miles away, and that they need to provide alternative green space. However, putting a park on this farmer’s land would require car parks to be built, possibly another road, and people using it would need to drive there. Warren Farm is adjacent to South West Water’s sewage works, and we understand that Natural England advises that ‘Sangs’ should not be in close proximity. (Appendix 4: Natural England SANGS Guidance dated 03.07.07, "SANGS must be free from unpleasant intrusions (e.g. sewage treatment works smells etc"). Cllr John Goodey, of Teignbridge District Council, states that Warren Farm would be the ideal location for the SANGS (necessary because of the 1,200 new homes being built in Dawlish), and that it ticks all the boxes for Natural England. As well as being adjacent to a sewage works for South West Water, it is Grade 1 agricultural land. In Exminster, still managed by TDC, the land for SANGS was provided by the developers when they built all the new houses there. If Cllr Goodey states that this SANGS location is ideal as it would protect the nature reserve at Dawlish Warren, why did Teignbridge D.C. give permission for houses to built there a few years ago - Sandpipers Court - if they are so concerned. The farm has been farmed with countryside preservation to the fore for the last decade, and it is a habitat and feeding ground of the endangered cirl bunting, and also the endangered snipe. The way that the Warren Farm is managed benefits the local environment and wildlife through countryside stewardship, and should be promoted and recognised. How can it be morally justified that a council can force a farmer off his land and out of business in order to provide land for green space in order that developers can build houses on other green space? The land is being usefully used for agriculture, and is not an eyesore, and there are public footpaths across and around some of the fields. It is both morally and ethically wrong to prevent a farmer from growing food on a well-managed farm in this world of food shortages. There is land currently for sale in close vicinity, why can the council not buy that land which is actually for sale? Another option would be to open up the Cofton woodland walks to the general public - the land is presently already parkland and goes down to the Warren, and this could be arranged with the owners without putting them out of business. Alternatively, Cllr Humphrey Clemens is a tenant farmer on farmland owned by Devon County Council, part of which is on the coast adjacent to Smugglers' Inn, and has excellent, possibly even better coastal views than Warren Farm. This land is already owned by Devon C.C., so should be a much cheaper option, and would have the added benefit of attracting people away from the Dawlish Warren nature reserve, and thereby protecting it. Britain...imports 40% of the total food consumed and the proportion is rising (http://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/issue/uk.html, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council), so why are we getting rid of quality farmland, if this plan by Teignbridge DC goes ahead. If this compulsory purchase order of quality working farm-land is allowed to go ahead, what is there to prevent Teignbridge District Council issuing further compulsory purchase orders in the future? We the undersigned hereby oppose Teignbridge District Council's proposed compulsory purchase order of Warren Farm, and urge you to use your powers in Government to prevent this.

ANGUS COUNCIL ROADS DEPARTMENT SET TO PUT AN END TO SMALL BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN THE SCOTTISH TOWN OF BRECHIN – HELP US TO STOP THIS NOW!! The people of Brechin should be aware of the workings within their Council, as they are about to demolish several small business lock-ups on the East Mill Industrial Estate, in preparation for the forthcoming River Defence Scheme. Their plan is to construct an earth embankment on this site, necessitating the demolition of several small business units thereon, when a wall along the bank of the River Esk would provide adequate flood prevention. At the inception of the Scheme in 2010, drawings were provided showing this wall, but the Council has backed out of this on the basis of cost, DESPITE BEING AWARDED >£13M for the project! In so doing, they are forcing the small businesses to close up, with no relocation plans or offer of realistic compensation. MP’s and the Scottish Parliament have been asked to intervene to help protect the rights of the people involved - none of whom objected to the Scheme in principle - but no positive responses have been received to date. The consequences of this are dire for those entrepreneurs, who have nowhere to go and are powerless to fight the Council, whose advice is to SCRAP YOUR BELONGINGS AND GET OUT! We have to demand that the Council provides alternative accommodation for those enterprises or reverts to its original plan of erecting a Flood Defence Wall before the BULLDOZERS ARRIVE IN JANUARY 2015. Please show your support by signing this petition.

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.