Whilst the original scheme was for one of the most beautiful structures ever proposed – and had already affectionately earned the nickname ‘the helter-skelter’ – the new tower is incredibly mundane at best. Not only is the new design entirely uninspiring but it is completely out of scale with its surroundings. Over the last decade a collection of iconic towers each in proportion to the other has arisen in the city. The new tower’s boxy form is not only boring but the way it hulks over its surroundings completely detracts from them. Now the developers maintain that the redesign was necessary as the curved panels which formed the beautiful summit of the original design were too expensive. Given the fact that rental rates in the city are soaring and the fact that there are significant costs associated with redesigning the scheme, demolishing the current works and delaying completion by several years, it would hardly seem worth it even if the focus is solely on the bottom line. However, whatever the scale of the impact on the bottom line, its absolute minimization cannot be the sole focus regardless of any aesthetic costs when it comes to a structure of this size that will completely dominate views across London for well over a century. Obviously I am against the current design and will sound like an anti-development campaigner. However, nothing could be further from the truth. I am a skyscraper enthusiast as I believe high density design is environmentally friendly and can create an exciting skyline. I just fear that the scheme will turn public opinion in the city against the development of further high-rises. While I argue that bad designs should not be approved, I believe the government should use all resources available to actively encourage good developments. When presented with a scheme of such high quality design as the original Pinnacle proposal, the government should do everything within its power to ensure that it comes to fruition. If, as the developers claim, the original design was too expensive, the government in its capacity to both encourage business and beautification of the cityscape, should have found ways in which to increase the financial return on the structure. For instance, permission could have been given to extend the tower by another forty meters or so. Not only would this have provided another ten stories of rentable space, but it would have, at 328 meters, secured the title of tallest building in the European Union and maintained it in 2020 when the Hermitage Plaza towers open in Paris. I know that some will say that chasing records is a wasteful egotistical exercise, but I am sure the majority of Londoner’s would rather host the tallest structure on the continent than play second-best to Paris. I do believe there is an inherent benefit in pursuing beautiful, record breaking projects. If an attitude of always settling for the mundane – such as this new proposal – is allowed to propagate, it eventually feeds through into the psyche of the surroundings. Meanwhile, an environment where the boundaries are forever being pushed has an invigorating atmosphere that stimulates achievement and aspiration throughout the population. I do not believe that when Britain produced the fastest locomotives at the end of the 19th century, when America launched its moon missions and the Classical world constructed its glorious monuments that each of these was merely a product of its countries technological leadership at the time. Rather, I believe pushing to develop world beating structures is inspiring to the population and drives further progress back into society. I therefore think government must encourage good design, not only by denying permission to ugly buildings but by doing everything possible to encourage the development of great ones. Now I know that one or two people may complain that slightly extending the height of a tower would make it overbearing. But I do not think it would be more than two as I do not think there are many people who would be perfectly content for a building of 288 meters to be constructed by their property but not one of 328 – hardly anyone would be able to tell any difference at all. In fact the vastly more noticeable impact of increasing the height of a skyscraper is that the extra capacity it would yield would allow for the demolition of an entire crumbling tower block somewhere else and its replacement with a park. I am aware that the very earliest proposal for the Pinnacle was for a tower of 307 meters and this was vetoed by the Civil Aviation Authority. However, I really do not think that we should be allowing poor airport planning to spill over into poor city planning – especially in the heart of the United Kingdom’s economy. Rather than stunting the development of this city, the CAA should be looking to address the utter inadequacies of its infrastructure with a new hub airport that would eliminate flights over central London.

As a skilled professional or student, minimum wage is completely out of line with market level and does not reflect the time required to learn the trade and the expensive equipment photographers must buy, maintain and replace regularly. Zero hours contracts are also exploitative and indicate that ad hoc work will be given. In this case the ethical choice would be to form a partnership with a local photographer/ several local photographers for these events or offer a competitive rate of pay as this would lead to the university paying a fair price for the service received .

It is essential that we decarbonise the UK's electricity generation sector. Onshore wind has made a very significant contribution to delivering decarbonisation to date and had been moving towards a position of being independent of subsidies. Brutally cutting subsidies now will effectively destroy the onshore sector at a critical time in its development. This makes no environmental or economic sense, just as decarbonisation targets are about to be missed and we are approaching the Paris Climate Change Summit. The Government's own surveys show that onshore wind commands the support of over two thirds of those asked, far more than fracking. The Govt's destruction of the onshore wind sector will destroy invester confidence in UK renewables and will fly in the face of global moves to protect the climate.

All children who previously used this partially funded current bus service, as it currently stands face an unsafe pedestrian route to/from school if on foot, due to the lack of a safe crossing point. Alternatively, this will result in many more cars trying to use already heavily congested roads through two bottleneck points, one through Ellon town centre and the other at the foot of Hospital Road. There will be further safety issues regarding the school drop off areas around each primary and this will undoubtedly lead to further risks to the children, caused by insufficient access to safe drop off or parking areas.

In the longer run it will be cheaper, allow for more open democracy, less pomp and ceremony and rebalance to country away from its London-centric attitude

Caerphilly CBC has drawn up a new Health and Leisure Strategy that would see 7 of the 11 leisure centre in the area close, including the much loved and well used Cefn Fforest baths. There was a wonderful turn out to the public meeting about the closures on Wed 17th June, where over 100 people spoke with anger and passion against the short-sightedness of these plans. Some comments include: - the difficulties travelling to another area for leisure means that children and adults alike would not be able to exercise or swim as frequently - None of the schools in the area were consulted and yet most use the school for swimming lessons - the hypocrisy of the council encouraging healthy living and yet taking away a prime resource for improving health and well being - the negative effect on our children who won't be able to walk to a local baths, we talked of the wonderful outdoor pool in Pontllanfraith, which is still missed - losing the baths will no doubt effect poverty in a ward that already has one of the highest levels in the whole of Caerphilly Despite the three County councillors saying that they would fight to keep them open, we need to do all we can to let Caerphilly CBC that we are absolutely opposed to their new strategy and they find alternative ways of saving money that will not effect the well-being of so many, as well as the opportunities for our children.

We are losing so many iconic shops in town and this would be a blunder on the highstreet to change it to the name Fenwick

1 in 4 mothers did not get a midwife when they needed one (according to a a survey by the Royal College of Midwives and Bounty) . http://protect.rcm.org.uk/news Pressure on staff leads to low morale and nearly one third of midwives with less than 10 years’ work experience are intending to leave the profession within a year. Over half of obstetric units do not employ enough consultants to ensure appropriate cover at all times. Evidence suggests quality of care is less good at weekends. The rate of babies who are stillborn or who die within seven days of birth compares poorly with the other UK nations and some European countries – and this is just not good enough. http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news/maternity-services-report/ Do something now. Sign the petition before conditions get to the point where many experienced midwives are no longer there to train the students and to give appropriate care. Sign before we end up with more than 1 in 4 mothers getting little to no support at one of the most important times in their lives.

A popular community green space, owned by SCC (Shropshire County Council), is under threat of being developed as a sporting facility, By OCC (Oswestry Cricket Club) We are petitioning to Shropshire County Council for Brynhafod field to maintain a beautiful, green urban environment, inclusive to ALL members of the community, including toddlers, wheel chair users and dog walkers.

In his portfolio as Care minister, Norman Lamb made strides in parity of esteem for mental health, but promises need to be kept. In April 2015, maximum waiting times standards for mental health were introduced, but how are specialist services going to meet these targets? Without the targets, very ill patients are waiting over a year for an assessment. There simply isn't enough appointments, services or professionals. Secondly, the NHS England specialist criteria dictates that patients can only receive treatment when they have reached a critical point. This contradicts all evidence on early intervention. 1.6 Million people in the UK suffer with an eating disorder. This evidence is based on NICE research carried out in 2004. Recently reports have highlighted that numbers of hospital admissions amongst teenagers have doubled in two years. Eating disorders are serious mental illnesses. 1 in 5 people can die from complications or suicide. They have the highest mortality rate of all mental illnesses. However sufferers are also able to recover. Like with cancer, if an eating disorder sufferer is able to access treatment early their chances of making a full recovery are greatly increased. If treatment is delayed or intermittent treatment can become costly leading to hospital admissions, additional complications and costs to other areas in their life such as work, school, housing and social relationships. I, have first hand experience of this, and know many others who have been turned away from treatment to devastating effects. I have often said that you wouldn't turn a patient with a broken leg away from A & E and expect them to wait till the other leg was broken. My own case study saw me relapse with my eating disorder. I had previously had intensive inpatient treatment for anorexia nervosa, but sometimes you just aren't fixed straight away, or you haven't learned to cope alone fully, which is what happened to me further down the line. I was strong enough to recognise that things were going wrong, but having waited a year for a referral and my mental wellbeing falling off a cliff I was getting desperate. When eventually I did get my assessment, I was told my condition wasn't serious enough to meet the criteria, and was discharged. During this process, I lost a lot more weight, and ended up in A & E with malnutrition. I have since received private outpatient treatment, which my parents have supported me with and am now in a stable place. I still have bad days, but I am a lot stronger and am positive in my ability to recover. My outpatient therapy lasted a year and 3 months, and cost £25 a week for a therapist (trainee to keep costs low) and £105 a fortnight for a dietitian. I saw a consultant at a reduced rate of £50 for 30 mins 3 times over a year. This should be the minimum for eating disorders outpatient treatment, and yet I would not have got both even if I had got outpatient treatment through the NHS. For eating disorders you need to tackle the physical and the mental side by side in recovery. I haven't gone into too much detail about BMI and criteria, but when I was told I didn't meet their strict criteria for treatment, I did a lot of investigating and was able to deduce what this meant via NHS England (official source). Due to a lack of funding the criteria is only set up to treat patients when their illness requires a physical intervention. This focusses more on severe anorexia nervosa and occasionally bulimia nervosa. However, the challenge is that by the time patients reach this point inpatient is the only option, and a lengthy admission is needed to save a life, becoming A & E for eating disorders. The crisis is when someone requires a bed, and there are no beds available, before a person is ready for discharge. The current method is not focussing on prevention, but focussing on interim solutions. If the NHS wants to save money, it needs to be innovative and focus on a criteria which is preventative, backed up by all the calls that early intervention is cost effective and saves lives. Furthermore this approach reaches a broader number of diagnosis's which the current criteria ignores. PLEASE SIGN THIS IMPORTANT CAMPAIGN http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/14/eating-disorders-long-waits-nhs-treatment-lives-risk#comments

This decision was taken at a time when Wrexham is facing severe cuts and public services are under threat. We feel that the local communities in Wrexham should be put first and these funds should be spent on local communities and not councillors allowances.

This would help everyone who has breathing problems like Asthma and also clean the air we breath, the country has come under fire on air pollution and this would help in this matter and may save the lives of the ones who struggle to breath more so if connected to Hayfever as well. Please sign and think of these people.