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.

The street is a residential street with a primary school, five religious establishments and some 60 units of sheltered retirement accommodation including elderly and sometimes vulnerable residents, with pedestrian access directly onto the street. This proposal represents a serious threat to public safety and health, and amenity. It will also increase traffic congestion and pollution rather than solve any of the pressing town centre problems.

Boris Johnson and TfL imposed a 15 year age limit on London taxi cabs to reduce emissions in the capital. TfL are a public body and their decisions must be evidence based, rational, proportionate and fair. The taxi age limit was introduced without proper testing to prove that the age limit would be of benefit. MPs and assembly members asked for the testing to be done but it was never carried out. The Defra report from 2013 proves that newer vehicles do not produce less harmful emissions than older ones. It concludes that all emissions strategies in London have failed. See section 4.3 page 44 for details on London Taxis. http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/reports/cat05/1307161149_130715_DefraRemoteSensingReport_Final.pdf London's taxi drivers would love to replace their current vehicles with ones that are fully electric or zero emissions capable, but these vehicles are not currently available. Taxi drivers must scrap their 15 year old vehicles, even though they meet current standards, and purchase new £40,000 diesel vehicles. These diesel taxis will not meet the standards of the Ultra Low Emissions Zone that Boris is planning to introduce in 2020 . Please sign this petition to get the age limit on London's Black cabs removed. If a London Taxi is fit for purpose and passes current emission standards it should be allowed to stay on the road.

Disabled Blue Badge holders rely on their cars to visit the doctor, go shopping or take part in leisure activities. They can't use public transport. Charging them to park is punishing them for being disabled. Blue Badge holders may choose to go elsewhere, impacting on the city's economy or park on double yellow lines causing congestion. How is this Creating Decent Neighbourhoods? Charging disabled residents and visitors to the city to park is detrimental to both the disabled person and Newcastle. Disabled staff with Blue Badges have to drive to work. It is not a choice. They can't use public transport. They can't walk to work. A free parking space for disabled employees with Blue Badges is not a luxury it is a reasonable adjustment. It is unlawful to ask a disabled person to pay for a reasonable adjustment. Disabled employees should not be made to pay for a reasonable adjustment. Charging disabled employees will raise £4,500 a year. This will make no difference to the Council but some disabled employees will no longer be able to afford to work. How will this make Newcastle A Working City? This action targets those Hardest Hit by Welfare Reform and government cuts and discriminates against the most isolated and excluded in society. Parking charges for the lowest paid staff will go up by 580% but those on the highest salaries will have no increase. People in low paid jobs are more likely to be from BME communities, carers, disabled or women. How does this Tackle Inequalities. Council staff earning less than £15,000 will be subsidizing parking for those earning over £100.000. How are these changes fair? How are they justifiable? Does this make Newcastle City Council Fit for Purpose? Newcastle is often voted the friendliest city in the UK. The Geordie welcome is world famous. Do the people of Newcastle really want their city to be known as a place that doesn't welcome disabled people? Does Newcastle City Council really want to be seen as widening the pay gap between their highest and lowest paid employees? Or does Newcastle want to be seen as a vibrant, forward thinking, Socially Just city that supports the most vulnerable, disadvantaged and excluded in society?

A New Town was built housing over 30,000 people right beside Aycliffe Village called Newton Aycliffe . The decision to close the East Coast mainline station in 1947 just as Newton Aycliffe was being built was a mistake. There is now plenty of demand for mainline services. People are forced to use private cars instead to access college opportunities and the jobs market in Durham, Chester le Street and Newcastle upon Tyne. The current Newton Aycliffe station is only on the Bishop Auckland branch line and goes to Darlington.

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

Improve the air quality; which has got worse within the county of Wiltshire. Its a know fact that vehicle diesel emissions, especially buses, do contribute to health issues. Several years ago Oxford City Council began the switch to bio-diesel buses with the result of reduced harmful emissions. The bio-fuel is manufactured from used cooking oil and other food industry by-products, which are from sustainable sources that do not involve the destruction of natural habitats or compete with the human food chain.

We need this bus! It's always full into London and out.

Caewyd y rheilffyrdd yma yn y 1960au gan ynysu ardaloedd helaeth o Gymru. Mae angen eu ailagor i ailfywiogi'r ardaloedd maent yn rhedeg trwodd. Byddai eu hailagor yn helpu pobl leol i gymudo, yn hwyluso mynediad i wasanaethau iechyd, siopa ayyb, ac yn helpu myfyrwyr i fynychu prifysgolion yng Nghaerfyrddin, Llanbedr Pont Steffan, Aberystwyth a Bangor. Fe fyddai’n hwb i dwristiaeth yn yr ardal, ac yn lleihau'r nifer o gerbydau nwyddau trymion (megis pren, cynnyrch archfarchnad ayyb) o’r ffyrdd cul i’r rheilffordd, sy’n fwy diogel a chynaliadwy. These lines were closed in the mid 1960's and have left these areas of Wales very isolated. They need to be reopened to reinvigorate the areas they pass through. The reopening would help local people with commuting, access health services, shopping, improve access to the universities served by the lines in Carmarthen, Lampeter, Aberystwyth and Bangor. New lines will also boost tourism in the area and enable much of the heavy commercial traffic (timber, supermarket goods etc.) to be shifted from narrow roads to rail, which is much safer and more sustainable.

This is across the UK, but our campaign is aimed at Wales. If we group together and help each other, we can have a greater influence, so please support our local campaign and if we can help with yours please do get in touch. Fences are cut and pulled up, gates are left open, animals are let loose, paths and tracks are left impassable, knee high in mud, quagmires, paths rutted and washed away because the surface has been loosened by the heavy and constant abuse of vehicles; A constant stream of vehicles, where once there was peace with only the odd farmer off to check on his livestock, or person walking their dog, or just out with the family. People of all ages are intimidated while trying to stop trespass on their own land, surrounded by circling motor bikes or vulgar shouts from abusive 4 x 4 owners. SSSI (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) are also being abused, where is the support from the Countryside Council for Wales to enforce the protection of their Sites? Police are too slow to turn up and provide little support to stop these law breakers. What is the point in passing the trespass law or designate SSSI sites, if there are no Councillors, Countryside Council or Police representatives who will help enforce legislation. This is across the Wales, so if we group together and help each other we can have a greater influence, so please support our local campaign and if we can help with yours please do get in touch. Currently our group is in the Llangollen / Denbighshire / Wrexham area and we desperately need your support to lobby the Local Council , Countryside Council and Police to help us in our campaign . We have a Facebook page, please join / like it and also sign the campaign. https://www.facebook.com/Saveourpathsllangollen

The provision of a bridge or underpass with lifts will improve access to Sudbury Branch line rail services for those with impaired movement, heavy luggage, wheelchairs, bicycles and children. The current lack of lifts mean many people cannot access rail services and are forced to travel by road instead. Installation costs will be offset by increased passenger numbers as a consequence of investment. To download a poster click here: http://bit.ly/1KGG10B ... or for further details read our Press Release here: http://bit.ly/14nVzW4

Like many Londoners, I usually buy a monthly or weekly travelcard. However, if I take a week or two off work I will not renew my card until back at work. I did this over Christmas and on several occasions went into central London for the day at a cost of £8.90. The price is now a whopping £12. I also worry that people who do not work a regular 5 day, 9-5 type of job will find this price hike punitive. It feels like we are being punished for living in the outer London boroughs. However, hitting those in outer London with this massive price rise is only the start. If we don't stop this now, next year they will come for the central London travelcard too. Off peak travel is a vital tool in spreading passenger journeys and easing the rush hour crunch. With train and bus fares rising an average 2.5%, a rise of over 34% is an outrage.