Save Our Trailer! Bombetta London, is proud to be based in Wanstead and grateful to be voted by its customers as an Opentable Dinner's Choice award and reviewed by Time Out as one of the best Italian restaurants in London, and with glowing reviews in GQ Magazine, The Evening Standard as well as featuring in The Good Food Guide for the last 2 years. Buying fish locally from people in Wanstead, such as Kevin the fishmonger, bread from Ronnie who owns The Duke and The Bread Station and a regular feature in silent auctions and raffles to support local schools, we now need local support. The Bombetta Trailer has now been parked up in our own loading bay, not causing anyone any problems since June 2017! Now in these difficult economic times, our small little independent restaurant is being squeezed by the council. Our trailer is under threat and we are calling for the local community to help us by showing their support for our trailer to be parking in our own loading bay. The council are limiting our ability to use the space we lease and it will threaten the commercial viability of the business. The Background: - Station Approach is a privately owned road on which Bombetta London is based, leading from Wanstead High Road to Snaresbrook Station. - There are loading bays in front of the building for the exclusive use of the occupier, us. - We invested heavily to develop the site from an empty shell which had prior to our arrival, remained vacant for some time. This space is directly in front of our restaurant and forms part of our 20 year lease. - The site was awarded a restaurant A3 planning permission and was purpose built with that in mind, with a chimney fume extract point through the centre of the building. Therefore thoughts about the use and practicality of the loading bay, which is in front of the front door, perhaps were lacking. - Our alcohol licence covers any seating in the ‘loading bay area’ and recognises these practical issues. - Initially Bombetta London took on the lease and applied several times to pave the area as the exclusive user of the space, but this was rejected on the grounds that it made the road narrower. Bombetta spent thousands of pounds with various appeals but to no avail, as in addition to utilising the space more effectively, it also would make the area more safe. - Since this time new buildings have been granted planning permission making the road narrow by default anyway, to house a taxi office and initially and laundrette, now a coffee kiosk. - In addition the car spaces opposite the Bombetta London loading bay have been removed, making the public highway wider than the buildings that were approved. - Bombetta London also rents three parking spaces on the road for its staff and customers and for deliveries so that there is no impact on the road. - The council have previously suggested that the trailer prevents emergency vehicles accessing the station, however the restaurant has provided countless photos of emergency vehicles easily accessing the location and provided detailed vehicle sweep flow diagrams at considerable expense that show an emergency vehicle could access the station even when there were parking spaces opposite. - The trailer can be accessed from inside the restaurant meaning that it can be used for people to sit in, adding value to the restaurant and making it safer for people to enjoy alcohol and food in the space permitted and using the space that Bombetta London are leasing more effectively. - The trailer also protects people physically who come in and out of the restaurant space, from traffic that otherwise would be walking directly onto tarmac from the front door with free flowing traffic and is illuminated with lighting within the walls in addition to internal lights which help highlight it to drivers. - Redbridge council last had dialogue with Bombetta London in November 2017 and have only now in March 2019 sent a letter demanding the trailers immediate removal. - In the latest correspondence, that has come out of the blue, there is now a shift away from concentrating on the narrowness of the road and a focus on how the trailer negatively visually affects the site and area. We adamantly disagree with the council that the our trailer parked on our loading bay is aesthetically an eyesore and should be removed on this basis. We decorate it internally with flowers, candles and fairy lights and externally with flowers and rosemary bushes all within the Load Bay area. Once spring there is here to stay, there would be fresh flowers in pots also along the base. We rely heavily on the seating area to generate enough income to survive. We invested all our funds into developing the site, so this coupled with the length of the lease would make re-location challenging. It would also leave another location in Wanstead empty and it would be a challenging location for many businesses to occupy. Our customers seem to love the area, the roof of the trailer slides back in the summer and as it is parked in our loading bay, if it wasn’t the trailer it could be a van still in the space or a roped off area still used for customers but far less safely. If anyone has any influence over the Redbridge planning office or can offer any support, we really hope you’ll help us. We have until the 12th of April to put in an appeal and we are currently thinking about all our options.

In March 2018, Alan Davey wrote "Our listeners are, we know, up for adventure, discovering new things and getting new angles and depths of knowledge on the familiar." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/9b05cdcd-5c23-4275-893a-9caf3ffd6dde accessed 16/03/2019) The reduction in broadcast time for the one BBC programme that fulfils this remit is a retrograde step, impacting on the pleasure of listeners, the work of artists (often in the most precarious endeavours) and the cultural status of the country. It would be hugely disappointing to lose such a broad, open and exploratory curated programme, and would be difficult to recapture its spirit in the changes proposed. Its reach cannot be replicated, its influence cannot be over-estimated. It is not just background radio to those who listen, but an essential part of their ongoing understanding of the cultural landscape and a connexion to the wider cultural community that is often in this area disparate and isolated, and as Luke Turner points out "Crucially, this has a huge impact on the diversity of the show’s programming"(https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/mar/15/bbc-radio-3-late-junction-carries-john-peel-spirit-into-digital-age accessed 16/03/2019). Although there are cost-saving to be acknowledged, the return on investment from this programme must outweigh any potential savings. The support of small local music venues, upcoming artists, avant-garde labels all benefit from the way this programme is curated and presented; to have that reduced so drastically will have a profound effect on those communities. It is also clear that BBC Radio 3 is the natural home of this programme. Re-iterating Peter Maxwell-Davies' warning at the introduction of Radio 3 that we might 'lose whole realms of experience' (Humphrey Carpenter 'Envy of the World' 1996:262), Late Junction has proved itself a bastion and for it to be shrunk so dramatically would be a sorry retreat. Please reconsider this decision.

Late Junction is a vital outlet for new 'folk' , 'experimental' and 'world' music. It is one of the only places on the BBC that gives a platform to new world music artists directly from the BBC Introducing uploader. To cut the already limited potential airtime will be damaging for both artists and fans of these genres. If the BBC needs to save money , please trim some fat from the mainstream programming and leave these vital areas to grow and thrive. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/mar/15/bbc-radio-3-late-junction-carries-john-peel-spirit-into-digital-age

The Leith Walk community is in real danger of being ruined. Local community businesses such as the Leith Walk Café, music venue, Leith Depot and others are threatened with early closure thanks to the actions of the developer, Drum Property Group. The University of Edinburgh who was their partner has now withdrawn from the plans. The red sandstone building at 106-154 Leith Walk used to house up to 40 offices and shops in its two floors. Yet even without a university tenant, the developer, Drum Property Group wants ‘vacant possession’ as soon as possible. Drum is threatening to end the leases of these last 4 businesses as soon as they can. Instead Drum could at least offer rolling leases until plans for the building are finalised which would give them a couple of years of life as the council recently rejected their planning application. Drum claims they want to take the needs of the local community into account when building new student accommodation. It can do this by offering existing businesses month to month or longer, repeating leases and also offering the vacant shops to new businesses on a similar basis. We call on Drum Property to Open The Shops at 106 -154 Leith Walk. Please sign below

1 Because the Inspection on the 23rd August 2018 was very damning and it was advised not to give a licence. 2 The Veterinary Report on the 1st October was equally damning quoting dogs with conditions such as:- severely damaged eye, deformed left hind foot, abscess under left ear, rotten teeth, born without left eyeball, bilateral protruding nictitians glands, entropion, ulcer left eye and eyelid infection. This is just a handful of some of the conditions in this hell hole of a place. There are no windows, dogs kept in tiny so called kennels on deep litter straw with liquid (mixture of urine and faeces) trickling out from underneath and under the feed bowls, filthy floor, filthy walls, heat lamps with the wires perilously close to the dogs. water bowls containing green water, very strong stench.

If the high school closes it will affect the whole community

As we know David passed away two years ago and he loved Scarborough Athletic and was a great Chairman as he stopped at nothing to get the club back home from thier temporary base 18 miles away in Bridlington. David never got to see the ground completed and seen a ball kicked in anger at the ground. But he did everything to get what we see today and with that the club has gone through a promotion to the league the old Scarborough FC left the footballing pyramid. I have gone to the council on my own to get this Street that currently has no name, only to be declined on a technicality that David had only passed away 2 years ago. I feel I’ve met all the other criteria like permission from David’s family and given enough reasons why the street should be named ‘David Holland Way’. I now want to get the Seadogs & the world of football if I can to try and overturn Scarborough Borough Council decision. Please help me with my request.

Individuals who do not have their own transport have had opportunities to work in towns and cities reduced. Individuals with transport have had the option to help reduce their carbon footprint seriously limited as direct rail travel is not available at peak times.

To cut a long story short, I could loose out on £1337.70 of maternity pay because I have two jobs! I am not alone in this. We need a transparent system that allows all mothers to take their full income into account when calculating maternity pay, no mater their working situation. Currently, if you are eligible for statutory maternity pay through an employer, you are not eligible for maternity allowance- even if your income from your employer is a small fraction of your total earned income. This means that many new mothers are missing out on thousands of pounds in maternity pay simply because the system does not provide an option to take your full income into account. For those on a low income already, this is the difference between eating and not eating, at a time when the health and wellbeing of new mothers and and babies are hugely vulnerable. It presents unnecessary stress for pregnant women, which can effect the health of an unborn child. After celebrating the news of my pregnancy with my employers, I was soon shocked to discover how complicated and unfair the maternity pay system is. Along the way I came across these responses from people I went to for advice (I am paraphrasing): Citizens Advice Bureau - 'Oh no, I hate maternity pay, it's so complicated. I'll have to ask my supervisor'. My employers (who have been extremely supportive)- 'I've asked for advice from other HR and finance people I know, but no one could help as they were worried about misadvising'. HMRC- 'yes, you do seem to fall into a bit of a loop hole' and 'I don't really know what to suggest' IT SHOULDN'T BE THIS HARD! Maternity pay for working mothers falls into two categories: Statutory maternity pay (for employees earning over £118/week) and Maternity allowance (for self employed people and those who do not qualify for SMP due to low earnings or not being employed for the minimum term). As far as I am aware they both pay up to £145/week for 39 weeks, and all of this money comes from the government (not your employer) through national insurance contributions. If you earn less than £145/ week you can claim 90% of your earnings. This doesn't seem too bad... However, I discovered that because I qualify for SMP through my part time job ( just £5/week over the threshold, ) I cannot apply for Maternity Allowance, which would allow me to take my other earnings into account. So I would get £110.70 /week rather than £145. To cut a long story short, I could loose out on £1337.70 of maternity pay because I have two jobs! This seems wildly unfair, but I can imagine that my circumstances are the tip of the iceberg. There will be people out there who only only just hit the threshold, in the same trap but losing more of their entitlement because the system doesn't recognise their situation. We need a system that allows all mothers to take their full income into account, no mater their working situation. This could be a system that allows SMP to be topped up with MA, or one calculation method to fit all. Here are some tips for those in my position: *I AM NOT AN EXPERT So lease check out your facts before you make any rash decisions* ACT FAST! your employer can do the maths to work out roughly what you might be entitled to before your 'qualifying period'. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER and it may come down to the difference of 1p. HMRC had the most accurate advice and YOU CAN CALL THEM to ask questions, check your qualifying period etc. My employers were great, but many would not bother to do the digging that they did and it helped me understand the situation. HMRC employee help line 0300 200 3500. Your 'QUALIFYING PERIOD' is the 8 weeks/2 months from which they take your average income. It is not so easy to work out- for me it was 4 and 5 monthly pay days before my due date, approximately week 17-25 of pregnancy (before you are obliged to tell your employer) but it may depend on a few things like how you are paid and when you are due. I worked out that I either needed to have my pay cut by £50 during my qualifying period (so I don't qualify for SMP- seems bonkers, right?), or earn about £350 more (so I qualify for more)- your employer may be supportive and let you adjust your hours accordingly. If you DO NOT QUALIFY FOR STATUTORY MATERNITY PAY then you can take income from multiple jobs into account through MATERNITY ALLOWANCE including self employment. CHECK YOUR NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS online, you may need to set up an account to do this. For maternity allowance you need 13 contributions in the 66 weeks before leave- if like me you're trying to work all this out before you've done your tax return(for my self employment), you won't be able to see the current year, but you can pay at the end of the year- I also believe your can back pay some contributions, so check it out ASAP but don't fret. DON'T TAKE THE FIRST ANSWER you are offered, digging about may make your maternity leave a lot less daunting. Try not to stress out (I did not manage this one). I do not know anything about shared parental leave but I'm sure that's a whole other barrel of fun!

The department for work and pensions (DWP) are sending doctors misleading letters stating that their patients do not need a “fit note” anymore because they’ve been found fit for work. This letter will leave severely ill and disabled claimants unable to obtain Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) to which they are entitled pending appeal. This threatens the doctor – patient relationship and puts patients at risk of damaging their health further and leaves them in serious financial difficulties. Case Study Like thousands of others, Louis* was too ill to work and needed the vital income ESA provides – but his claim was refused. Louis was blocked from claiming ESA as he awaited his hearing, due to a misleading letter sent from the DWP to his doctor without Louis’ knowledge. Louis had to rely on food-bank vouchers, went into debt, accrued rent arrears and faced an increased risk of eviction. It took moving GPs and relying on new evidence from a clinical psychologist stating how his mental health would deteriorate further if he did not obtain the fit note, and therefore the benefits he needed to survive. Louis is not alone. These letters are sent to the GP of every person after they have been refused ESA - before they've finished the appeal process. 88% of our clients win their appeal and are entitled to ESA again. It is not for the DWP to interfere with the GP and their patient. Sign the petition today.

When a fire is reported the first appliance should reach it in 10 minutes or less, this standard should be achieved in at least 80% of cases: Under these proposals this will not be possible. The response across Surrey would increase by 38 seconds but Runnymede would be hit particularly hard: Fordbridge has a 12 minute run to Egham using blue lights, Camberley is approx 18 mins and Chobham (with only intermittent ‘retained’ staff) around 16 mins. 3 appliances are needed for an incident on the M25 or M3 and 4 appliances needed for a house fire, despite these demands Egham station regularly attends incidents in Berkshire. What has Egham and surrounding area done to be excluded from very minimum standards? The potential for disaster and life-loss is self evident. Surrey Fire and Rescue Service has experienced brutal cuts, with 131 firefighter positions slashed between 2010 and 2018 – a 17% reduction in the workforce. The proposed cuts would see a further 70 firefighter posts axed in the area, cutting numbers by 22% since 2010. This follows a December 2018 report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) voicing “serious concerns” about the service’s effectiveness and efficiency in keeping people safe and secure from fire and other risks. Proposals from Surrey County Council would see drastic reductions to fire cover at night, with Egham, Painshill and Banstead fire stations closed at 18:00. Fire cover at Guildford, Woking, Camberley, and Fordbridge would be cut in half. The drastic reductions to firefighter availability at night are under the guise of what the council calls “risk-based cover”, as more fires occur during the day than in the evening. However there is, in reality, a far greater chance of fire deaths at night, as victims are often asleep. Home Office figures show that, from 2017-18, 73% of all deaths from residential fires and 77% of all deaths from accidental residential fires occurred between the hours of 18:00 and 09:00. The appalling Grenfell fire started with an electrical fault at 1 am. Response times in the area have already suffered, with it now taking an average of nine minutes and 13 seconds for a crew of four firefighters to arrive at a fire, the longest response time for Surrey on record. In 1994/5, it took just six minutes and 52 seconds to send a larger crew of five, showing the cumulative effect of decades of cuts to the service. These proposals offer no improvement in public safety and do nothing to address how firefighters are supposed to keep themselves safe. We value the work of our fire fighters, their safety and we value our lives and we reject the proposals. Additionally you can reply to this consultation, the comments box is the most useful part: https://www.surreysays.co.uk/environment-and-infrastructure/surrey-fire-and-rescue-service-making-surrey-safer/?fbclid=IwAR3aKxMm4psO81f53Twzq_RJGx91OEkRDEmU1reUstGt6f3L2wAw1BR-NCY

To ensure that our animals are better protected and animal abusers punished appropriately