Second homes are no longer acceptable in rural and coastal communities that have severe housing shortages. Less than two thirds of the homes the South West needs each year are being built and the lack of supply is pushing up the region's house prices and rents. In Dorset the average house price is £261k. To get an 80% mortgage the required annual income is 14 times greater than the average £18.5k Across the South West, 21,500 new households are expected to form each year between 2013 and 2021 Private rents are expected to rise by 40% in the South West by 2020 The average house price in the region in 2012 was £225,001 - 55% higher than the average for 2002. Wages in the South West have risen by just 26% over the same period Every new home built in the South West adds £77,000 to the regional economy 1.8 jobs are created directly and in the wider regional economy for every new home built in the South West.

It covers only 2% of the UK and is the most valuable habitat for wildlife that we have in the UK. It is not fully protected at the moment because of loopholes in planning and short term government thinking. 440 ancient woods are at risk right now. These trees have breathed life into Britain for decades.

The cost of HS2 is huge and the long term benefits must be fully justified. Existing cost benefit analysis shows the investment will never be repaid - this is an unnecessary cost to the nation that we cannot afford. At the same time, the project will blight huge areas of southern Britain for many years of construction and in perpetuity - and for no gain. The government should upgrade the existing rail infrastructure and minimise the environmental impact for the same economic benefits and at much reduced cost.

The Point 10 is an iconic building built in Central Milton Keynes. Apart from its interesting architectural design, it was the first of its kind in the UK. Built in 1985, the building, then known as AMC The Point 10 was the first multiplex cinema in the UK. Besides the 10 cinemas, it also housed a gym, a nightclub, a number of restaurants, bars and other entertainment. Its image lit with 4 red lines was used on much of the marketing collateral of Milton Keynes as it evolved and developed through the 80's and 90's and took centre stage across the horizon as you drove past or through this growing city. The Point is an important piece of MK's DNA and its recent history. Please help us to save it by signing this petition.

The health risks of coal ash are well known and widely documented; coal ash containing arsenic, mercury, lead, and many more heavy metals, many of which are toxic. These toxic constituents of the coal ash extracted will pollute the air, the land and our drinking water; this poses acute risks of cancer and neurological damage, along with damage to the heart, lung disease, kidney disease, reproductive problems, gastrointestinal illness, birth defects, and impaired bone growth in children (PSR, 2009; 2010; 2014*).   The planning application 2013/0223 can be seen here: http://applications.barnsley.gov.uk/PlanningExplorer/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Planning%20Applications%20On-Line&TYPE=PL/PlanningPK.xml&PARAM0=681860&XSLT=/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/Barnsley/xslt/PL/PLDetails.xslt&FT=Planning%20Application%20Details&PUBLIC=Y&XMLSIDE=/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/Barnsley/Menus/PL.xml&DAURI=PLANNING We are alarmed that the coucil only wrote to a small number of houses in out village when the serious risk of lethal air pollution will effect every resident in Elsecar, Hoyland and their neighbouring areas. The 40, 000 cubic meters of toxic coal ash this application hopes to extract from a residential area would contaminate the air that we breath; many of the local residents already suffer respiratory issues such as asthma, bronchiectasis, COPD and lung cancers, along with many of the other aforementioned health problems, due to previous coal mining in this area. The proposed excration of coal ash would exacerbate existing health problems due to previous coal mining, and cause new lethal health problems for the residents of the village - the toxic dust would also coat our buildings, plants, allotments, outbuildings, and vehicles.   The detrimental effects that the proposed works will have on our air quality and also our quality of life are not acceptable. The planning application outlines the use of 15 - 20 x 20 tonne lorries transporting coal ash for a 6 - 12 month period; along with the toxic air pollution, is the issue of noise from these works, which will be in very close proximity to our properties, causing daily disruption to the residents; the only routes available to access the proposed sites are all small roads in a populated residential area which is home to people and children of all ages using residential housing, primary schools, churches, doctors surgeries, heritage facilities, leisure facilities and access to local transport.    Furthermore, these proposed works also pose serious risks to our properties. We have detailed structural and environmental surveys from the purchase of our properties which highlight the fragility of the local land and the neighbouring areas from previous mining. Many buildings in the village, and others in the surrounding areas, have been affected by subsidence in the past as a result of previous mining, with many local properties having encountered structural damage as a result.  We feel the proposed extraction of 40, 000cubic meters of coal ash poses serious short and long terms risks to the foundations of local and historic buildings on land which has been mined previously, contains air shafts and has experienced previous subsidence - to the extent that some buildings had to have remedial works carried out, and some were demolished.  We are deeply concerned that this proposal - which will affect the entire village - has not been communicated to all the residents it will affect. Only a small number of residents received a short notification letter from the Development Service department at Barnsley Council, leaving the majority of the village neighbouring unaware of the dangerous works being proposed. Many residents are alarmed by the seemingly covert nature of the handling of this application. Please help us to reject of this application, as we are deeply concerned about the dangers it poses to the health of the local residents, and the risks to the foundations and structure of our properties and local buildings. Thank you for taking the time to look at our petition, we hope you will support us with your signature and by sharing this through social media.

After years of neglect under private ownership, South Parade Pier is in danger of collapse. This iconic structure has dramatically decayed over the past six months and is now boarded up and derelict, creating an eyesore for both local people and tourists. Although a sale was widely publicised, the pier has not been transferred to new owners and no remedial repairs have been carried out since the winter storms. Without proper investment, it continues to decay before our eyes. By signing this petition, you are demanding that Portsmouth City Council take action to preserve this Grade Two listed building, treasured by both residents and visitors to Portsmouth. By ordering the owners and operators of South Parade Pier to carry out end-to-end repairs, the council could reverse the decline of this key seafront area, encouraging growth for both new and established businesses - as has happened in many other seaside resorts. South Parade Pier has important historical and cultural value. British and Canadian troops embarked from there on their journey to Normandy for the D-Day landings in 1944. Winston Churchill and Montgomery addressed huge audiences there. Rock legends Pink Floyd, Genesis and David Bowie all performed there - and filming of The Who's rock opera 'Tommy' led to the infamous fire in 1974. Generations of Portsmouth residents and tourists have walked, danced and gathered on the pier since 1879. By lending your support, the pier may once again become both a hub for the local community and an asset for the city of Portsmouth - but we must act swiftly.

The desecration has already started, trimmers have been out, we have had a temporary reprieve after i had a go at the gardeners and they left. Then Plymouth police wildlife crime adviser got an undertaking from one of the committee to not do anything for two weeks! We have to stop it and stop it now!

Everyone wants to walk beside the river on the THAMES PATH National Trail but at Maidenhead there is a 30 metre missing-link which needs to be completed in accordance with the Council's Rights of Way Improvement Plan of 2005. A recent decision to complete this riverside link has been overturned in favour of a roadside footpath along the A 4094 which will require a PRIVATE CAR PARK built in BRIDGE GARDENS conservation area. This car park will be for office staff and owners of the adjacent property 'Bridge View' in Ray Mead Road, where some do not have parking space and are unlawfully using the existing footway. A campaign has been ongoing for many years to establish a riverside path over a former boatyard slipway. But now the Council plan to confine walkers to a narrow pavement beside a busy road instead and destroy an area of public gardens. BRIDGE GARDENS was secured through a Compulsory Purchase Order by the Council in 1946 when it was described as an attraction quite unique 'for the benefit of all the residents of Maidenhead'.

A planning application (Mendip District Council reference 2013/2608/OTS) is outstanding on a field that lies between Packsaddle Way, Frome and the hamlet of Spring Gardens. The application for 107 properties would effectively link the two communities together and would mean building on land beyond the town boundary, in open countryside – thus setting a dangerous precedent for future planning applications in the town. Whilst the date for objection to this planning application has passed (March 2014) we remain concerned about the potential outcome. By signing this petition, we wish to record our objection to this application and ask the authorities to reject this proposal. This petition is coordinated by PROD, a local group whose objective is to protect the fields and valley lying to the north of Packsaddle and Mendip Drive estates, stretching to Innox Hill and Spring Gardens, from residential development.

Pre application planning consultation shows Austerity design is worse than anticipated due to Lewisham council not putting funding in to this which they could from the redevelopments that are causing need for school places. Sir Francis Drake Primary school is in one of Lewisham boroughs most deprived areas Evelyn Ward, it a local one form entry community school with capacity for 210 children. 52% of school pupils are have English as a second language, 41% are on free school meals and the proportion of disabled pupils and special educational needs is above average. Despite the disadvantages -Currently it is in the top 8% of school in the country for the 2013 SATS and recognised by the DFE as in the top 250 schools in the country measured by the progress made by disadvantaged pupils. The RT Hon David Laws MP Secretary of State congratulated the school for "being exceptionally effective in educating disadvantaged children providing them with a good start in life and a strong springboard into secondary education". Ofsted: Pupils thoroughly enjoy school and this is reflected in their attendance, which is above average. The school provides a very positive and vibrant learning environment, and pupils therefore feel safe and secure. All pupils are equally valued, as the school motto indicates, ‘Everyone is valued and all succeed.’ This ensures that the school strongly promotes equality of opportunity, and does not tolerate any form of discrimination. Pupils have extremely positive attitudes towards learning, and engage thoughtfully in all activities. Their behaviour around the school is often exemplary. They get on well together, and show considerable respect and care for each other. Despite its success the school has become earmarked for demolition and on its tiny site the plan is to rebuild it as a 3 storey "Pilot" Austerity "baseline design" school with reduced classroom space to provide 30 reception places for 2016 and doubling the capacity of children to 420 on the same small site. Baseline Design schools (Aka Austerity schools) The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) is seriously concerned about the unproven ‘Austerity School’ scheme.RIBA President Angela Brady said: 'Our students, teachers and local communities deserve great schools - environments that are beneficial to the best-quality teaching and learning. In these times of austerity of course we need to cut our cloth on all spending; however, the government's proposals for the design and construction of future schools are far too restrictive with too much focus on short-term savings. They say that the scheme’s overall space reduction is ‘ignoring the safeguarding of environmental comfort’ and it is ‘not ensuring discipline and student wellbeing’. They maintain that there is ‘a failure to create functional spaces for excellent teaching’, that ‘students and teachers will be deprived of quality environments that are proven to support teaching and learning’ and the scheme is ‘disregarding statutory requirements for accessibility and inclusion’. The RIBA believe that it does ‘not deliver long-term sustainability and value’. Only time will tell the success of this scheme but for now, the children of SFD will become the first ‘guinea pigs’ for the success or failure of this type of building development. Why is this happening? The council is allowing private developments to build new homes without adequate primary provision. Instead the council has over the last four years opted to enlarge 75% of their primary schools instead. Locally we have 1432 new homes being built but the council says it has no sites to build new schools. Demolishing Sir Francis Drake will not resolve the need for primary places for the developments the council has agreed but it will permanently disrupt and change it irreparably. The council says "The Mayor and Cabinet report (April 9th 2014) provides evidence that there is a need for a school in this locality looking forward to the end of this decade. The due diligence conducted by the government's Education Funding Agency, which would manage the new build, also confirms this." We are asking the council to build a new school that they truly need- a new school would bring an additional 60 reception places in to the locality. We say no to the demolition and rebuild of our successful well maintained, inclusive and diverse little community school so that's it "exceptional work" can go on.

A company called Progress Power is applying to the government for permission to carry out plans to build a Power Station on Eye Airfield industrial estate. Eye is an ancient town with over one hundred listed buildings and about 2,000 inhabitants. Progress Power say they posted the area with 17,000 information leaflets last year, yet not one entered my postbox. An awareness group has been formed locally called Common Concern http://commonconcern.onesuffolk.net through which I first heard about this power station. It is almost too late for protest as the government is about to give Progress Power the go-ahead, partly because very little local protest was voiced. Of course, this is because it seems to have been kept carefully under wraps. We have seen no plans for mitigation and, in fact, the plans that are available from Progress Power are out of date and unreadable. Each visualisation is a bird's eye view and the enormous size and height of the buildings is completely understated. The airfield already has four large wind turbines, which can be seen for miles around, a waste disposal site and a chicken litter power plant, along with many other light industries. I think this is more than enough of a contribution to energy and conservation from the people of Eye. We don't want a huge power station in Eye, it seems totally unsuited to the site. The A140 road, beside which it will be built, is already heavily overloaded with traffic and the hazards created by the building and servicing of this site will cause even more danger. We want Progress Power to think again about the site they choose, if indeed the power station is necessary at all. It is apparently only going to run 60 days a year as a back-up source, but the inhabitants of Eye will have the huge eyesore for 365 days a year, plus noise and light pollution. Switching a power station on and off causes more pollution and noise than continuous running. After 25 years when the power station becomes obsolete, it will be left standing as the safest form of closure. Eye, so far, is a place of quiet and dark nights, where the night sky can easily be seen. This is not the right place.

More houses on Sheppey means more people on Sheppey. It is obvious that these ‘new’ people need jobs, medical services, pre-school and school places, better transport to get on and off and around the island, and many other facilities. Despite promises from previous developers, the considerable amount of new housing which has already appeared has not been accompanied by any such new infrastructure. Sheppey people are therefore unhappy at the expansion of Sheppey so far; traffic congestion, in particular, is truly awful. Bus and train services are not good enough to persuade residents to abandon their cars. There is not enough work for the existing population, most of whom commute on and off the island every day, compounding the traffic problems. This is all very bad for the environment and, ultimately, for the economy. The Facebook page “Sheppey NO more houses” offers photographic evidence for this congestion. It also demonstrates considerable disquiet at the way Kent County Council, Swale Borough Council and developers are perceived to see the Isle Sheppey as a profitable ‘dumping ground’, especially for London overspill.