The proposed closures will reduce the accessibility of much needed NHS services to our communities. It will put added strain on services that are already stretched. Journey times to accident and emergency units and special care baby units will be increased for some communities, putting lives at risk. There will be added strain on the ambulance service. All closures will reduce accessibility for families and friends who wish to visit their loved ones, particularly as many sites are not well served by public transport. There will be added strain on an already stretched infrastructure across the county. Mental health services are already under funded with a shortage of inpatient beds in Dorset Psychiatric Hospitals. People have been known to have been conveyed by Private Ambulances to Private Hospitals in various parts of the country- sometimes hundreds of miles from their home, family and/or support network. Dementia services are vital in supporting those living with the condition and their families to live as independently as possible. Please see our website www.keepournhspublicdorset.com for further information. Join us on Saturday 15th October for a public demonstration.

The government want to change the way disabled people can appeal rejections and claim their benefits. The main change is holding the appeals over the telephone, on a webcam or even by reading submitted paperwork. The other worrying change is replacing a judge with a clerk or solicitor with no experience in disability law. Moving the process out of the courts to a decision made by a clerk or retired lawyer is dangerous as they don't have experience making fair decisions in this area. The clerk would also be given performance indicators likely to contain targets for how many people should be rejected. This makes the process more biased against the disabled person. If the changes go through, disabled people would only have their case heard through a virtual court or by submitting evidence on paper. This makes it much harder for disabled people to give detailed and persuasive evidence and for the clerk, to see how their disability affects their ability to work. When assessments for benefits are wrong, disabled peoples’ lives are turned upside-down. It put my family through months of stress and uncertainty. I was assessed as being fit to work although my condition means I can’t stand without help. But thanks to the appeals process in court, I won back benefits that were vital for my family’s survival. If I had gone through the new process I might not have got the benefits I am entitled to and rely on. For many disabled people receiving benefits can be a matter of life or death. The appeals process currently works for lots of people - these changes will prevent disabled people like me from fairly challenging assessments about a person’s ability to work. I count myself as lucky - I won my appeal and now as a family, we’ve managed to keep our heads above water financially. I worry about everyone else that might be wrongly assessed though, and what the proposed changes will mean for them. Everyone deserves a fair, legal hearing. The government are currently consulting on the changes so it's important we make our voices heard.

Fracking causes misery worldwide, with death's, cancers and disease. It is unethical and should be banned. It is no different to importing blood diamonds. This is supposedly banned so why not shale gas? I say we ban its use. I say ban its usage and the imports and drilling for it will end.

In the UK 40,000 people die early each year as a result of dirty air. We need to do everything we can to tackle this. One of the things that adds to the pollution in London is that bus drivers do not switch off their engines when their buses are stationary or parked. Anti-idling devices would help reduce emissions. Diesel emissions are causing ill-health in children and vulnerable adults. The cost of retro-fitting anti-idling devices would be more than covered by the fuel saving.

My mother died on 6th October of cancer. Instead of spending her last weeks in a hospice where her pain and nausea could be controlled and she could spend her days in peace she was in a crowded, noisy, stressful hospital ward being served unsuitable food she couldn't eat without vomiting and suffering pain. Last year MPs rejected the Assisted Dying Bill saying end of life care provision was good. They were wrong. Despite great compassion from the ward staff, my mother's last week was not a peaceful one because the local hospices are overstretched and could not offer her a bed in time. For the last seven weeks of her life she could not sleep because of the nightly shouting of patients who should have been in psychiatric or dimensia specialist care. This is not acceptable in the fifth richest country in the world. I ask MPs and the Departmenr of Health: is this how you would want to spend your last days?

Update 03/01/17 Following our petition there were some community meetings held at Parson St School. At these it was heard “that petition really kicked up a stink!” [at the Council] and Metrobus acknowledged the need for additional safety measures, described many options and said they would consult the residents of Highbury road, though would give no timescale. Since then we have asked when we would have responses to the concerns that were submitted as objections to the traffic order and been told that no responses were formalised but the comments were taken into account as part of the decisions report. The decisions report does not get published – instead you have to write/email to get a response. Please take the time to do this, contact details below. It does not seem right that this is not automatically published given the high level of concern and numbers of us signing the petition – show them that the response is important by contacting them and asking for an update. If we all do this they will realise that it would be better to issue a public response and that we will not be fobbed off over our children’s safety. Also since the issues were raised we have had no indication of what action, if any, they will be taking and they have not communicated with the local school over this, despite there being ongoing campaigning for greater road safety prior to this new issue. There is another meeting but the council will not be writing to residents about this meeting (as it is not an official council event) – please attend if you can and show your support. Monday 16th January at 6.30pm at Parson St School, Bedminster Road entrance – share with everyone and encourage people to attend as all eyes will be on the turnout. If you would like any updates you need to contact Councillor Mark Bradshaw –do it as soon as possible so we start the New Year showing we are committed to keeping our children’s safety a priority. Correspondence address: c/o Labour Group Office City Hall PO Box 3176 Bristol BS3 9FS Bus. phone: 0117 353 3160 Email: [email protected] ************************************************************************************************ Original content The proposed changes will increase traffic on the already congested Bedminster Road. Hartcliffe Way and Highbury Road. These are roads directly by the school and where the school entrances are located and the community is already concerned about safety. Furthermore the proposed changes include removing a crossing which is opposite the school which children use to cross Hartcliffe Way (an exceptionally busy road) safely. With increased traffic and reduced crossings our children's safety is being compromised significantly. Please look at links and object through the council as well as signing this. (NOTE these 2 links no longer work as initial consultation has closed). https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/1116390/E14017-TRO-450+Hartcliffe+Way+movement+Restrictions.pdf/0c61715e-202f-4b69-8c83-b6a9045d02f1 https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/1116390/Statement+of+Reasons+v2.pdf/f7124074-9bf2-47ce-80de-ba3709f69d76 This is copy and pasted - it has the information to email/write and officially object - please take the time to do this - you are welcome to use points from this petition to do so. We have so many signatures and growing each day but we need the emails/letters too. Many thanks. ************************************ CITY OF BRISTOL (HARTCLIFFE WAY AND PARSON STREET, BISHOPSWORTH AND FILWOOD WARDS, CITY OF BRISTOL) (PRESCRIBED AND PROHIBITED MANOEUVRES) ORDER 20-- The City Council of Bristol hereby gives NOTICE it proposes to make a traffic order, the effect of which would be:- 1. to introduce a southbound in A4174 Parson Street prescribed straight ahead into southbound A4174 Hartcliffe Way at its junction with Parson Street eastbound carriageway; and 2. to introduce a prohibition of right turn from northbound on A1474 Hartcliffe Way into Parson Street eastbound carriageway. Further information available from 16th September 2016 Further details of all the proposals are contained in the draft order, which together with plans and a Statement of the Council’s Reasons for proposing to make the order may be inspected at the Citizen Service Point, 100 Temple Street, Bristol, BS1 6AG, between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Monday to Friday. The draft order, plans and Statement of Reasons are also available to view on the City Council website at www.bristol.gov.uk/trafficorders. In addition, the draft order, plans and Statement of Reasons are available to be inspected at Marksbury Road Public Library, Marksbury Road, Bedminster, Bristol, BS3 5LG during normal opening hours. How to object Objections to the proposals, together with the grounds on which they are made must be sent in writing to TRO Comments at the undermentioned address or by e-mail to [email protected] quoting reference CAE/NMT/P-1011A by 10th October 2016. Please include your name and address and note that all representations received may be considered in public by the City Council and that the substance of any representation together with the name and address of the person making it could become available for public inspection. Highways Service (WH) P. MANN PO Box 3176 Service Director Transport Bristol BS3 9FS Date: 16th September 2016

The young people of eastern Bath are desperately short of age-appropriate play facilities to encourage active, safe and fun play and to act as a social hub. The proposed skatepark in Alice Park would meet this need and improve the health and wider wellbeing of a large number of Bath's young people.

It's around 8am on a dusky day in July 2016, and I'm standing on the far platform of Tain railway station, gazing out into the misty depths of the Dornoch Firth. The previous night I had come up on the late train - the 21:06 - from Inverness, though there's also a midnight service north. That left from Platform 7, which, intriguingly enough I had to walk across a car park to reach. Very few rail journeys start with a walk through a car park. But, increasingly often, many, many journeys from Wick and Thurso to Inverness involve a walk across a car park. This walk culminates with getting into a car and, well, driving down the A9. And why is this? There is a perfectly good rail line linking Thurso and Wick with Inverness, via the commuter towns of Dingwall, Tain and Invergordon, with four trains up it and down it each day (only one on Sundays). Many people marvel at the beauty of the line - it traverses all kind of landscape; the Beauly Firth, the Dornoch Firth, the Cromarty Firth, the mountains of Sutherland, Loch Fleet, incredible seascapes, marshy vistas, and vast tracts of peat bogland (the Flow Country). The line also connects with the NorthLink ferries north from Scrabster, near Thurso, to Orkney, and many people use these each year. In fact, I do. It's why I was at Tain in the first place. At Dounreay, on the north coast near Thurso, there used to be a nuclear power station. As this is decommissioned, things are transported out to Sellafield by rail. There's also timber extraction going on near Kinbrace en route - and the trees could be transported by rail. So why are people not using the line as much? Unsurprisingly, it's to do with the service. Things have become very unreliable. Delays and cancellations occur very frequently. Stops are often omitted at some of the line's busiest stations - including Thurso and the recently-reopened Beauly and Conon Bridge - to make up the time lost. The chronic problems behind these occurrences are caused by a combination of missing infrastructure and absent crew members. Out of these two, the infrastructure is the biggest problem with the line. But why is this? Well, the line is single track for its whole length, aside for some 'passing loops'. This is where there are two lines, or 'double track', but only for a short distance (think road 'passing places'); and there are loops at Muir of Ord, Dingwall, Invergordon, Tain, Ardgay, Lairg, Rogart, Brora, Helmsdale, and Forsinard. Otherwise, the train's can't pass each other. Because of this, delays can build up, causing a knock-on effect that leads to cancellations and skip-stopping. The stretch of railway between Inverness and Dingwall has only one passing place, at Muir. But this line is shared with the service to Kyle of Lochalsh (for Skye) and sees 13/14 trains per day in each direction (7 on Sundays). That's nearly 30 trains a day; and the constraints provided by the lack of track on the Far North Line, in particular between Inverness and Muir, mean that many, many of these are delayed, or cancelled. And so we return to Tain. My train northwards arrives a couple of minutes late. Not much of a delay, though we manage to pick up more and more delays on route, so that we end up around 15/20 minutes behind time on reaching Thurso. This makes commuting between the towns and villages on the southern section of the line and Inverness very difficult. And it also severely affects the northern end, too; because Thurso serves the ferry services at Scrabster and Gills Bay to Orkney. People need to be able to make their connections; being shunted out into a taxi at Wick doesn't help with things. But there is a solution. Until 1966, there were six miles of double track between Clachnaharry - to the west of Inverness - and Clunes, near Kirkhill. Since this was ripped away, this bottleneck has become worse, and worse, and worse. This is the solution; the Lentran Long Loop, as it's become known to the Friends of the Far North Line (or FoFNL). But why the name? Well firstly, it would go through the Lentran are. And secondIy: in railway terms, a 'dynamic loop' is a passing loop that's long enough to allow two trains to pass without stopping. For example, there's a couple on the main line south of Inverness, and there's one on the line from Glasgow to Barrhead and Kilmarnock. Having the Lentran Long Loop would improve services massively. An hourly service from Inverness to the towns of Easter Ross - Beauly, Muir of Ord, Conon Bridge, Dingwall, Alness, Invergordon and Tain - would become possible. Scenic tourist trains could run down the line, boosting the local economy in a ways similar to the North Coast 500 road route. The line could become a major freight corridor. But, more importantly than all of those: the trains could run on time. The ball is in your court.

Closing existing rail lines and converting them to BRT is a bad idea for five key reasons: • environmental impact • passenger comfort and perception • loss of network benefits • reliability • cost It is widely acknowledged that given a choice, people see rail / light rail as a superior mode to bus, and would be more encouraged to switch to rail should the service be enhanced. Removing the line from the rail system means that people would see it as ‘just another bus route’, rather than as a feeder to the rest of the rail network. Bus usage has been on a steady downward trend outside London since 1986 whilst rail usage is at record high levels. On the environmental impact, a simple appreciation of physics confirms that the rolling resistance of a rubber-tyred vehicle on a concrete track is significantly higher than steel wheels on steel rail. Furthermore the imposition of BRT would imply dismantling of the existing Overhead Line Equipment (OHLE) which allows trains / light rail to operate with zero emissions at the point of use. On the contrary, it is assumed that buses operating under BRT would have to be self-powered, each having to carry around their own power unit, with consequent penalty for weight and hence fuel consumption. If they were to be diesel-powered, this raises serious questions about the impact on local air quality. The consequences of pouring thousands of tonnes of concrete to create the guideways in itself is a CO2-intensive activity, additionally noting that doing so through Bricket Wood would be within a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). On reliability and cost, a ‘pioneering’ scheme on the old Cambridge to St Ives railway line suffered severe delays, cost overruns and quality failings – which are still being addressed. To make the service more attractive and boost ridership, ABFLY have long been calling for an increase in the service frequency on the single track line, which provides a train every 45mins in each direction. They believe this can be achieved by installing a ‘passing loop’ and bringing in a second train to operate a higher frequency shuttle. The costs of building a passing loop are thought to be somewhere between £4m and £7m based on historical estimates. Whilst the Hertfordshire Rail Strategy, published last July, dismisses the passing loop as, “unlikely to be considered by funders as a priority, as it would require provision of two train sets and train crew in place of the current one, making it difficult to achieve a favourable business case”, no such business case has ever been presented for public scrutiny, and in any case it is thought to be severely undermined by a high level of usage going unrecorded because of ticketless travel on the branch. This issue has recently been acknowledged by the Department for Transport’s very own figures. According to the Transport Vision document, the cost of the BRT scheme is quoted at £90m, over ten times the price of a passing loop, but no business case is presented for BRT either.

Because there can be no right in a world where hospitals are filled with civilian casualties from towns turned into warzones, where parents dig their murdered children from the rubble of their homes, where neighbourhoods resemble scenes from history books and those who should be protecting them are actively contributing to the wholesale destruction of life.

The existing statutory footpath transgresses all the current standards and the surface of the relevant portion of National Cycle Route 43 passing through the yard is unsatisfactory. The reinstated canal towpath will also provide safe uninterrupted passage during the restoration of the buried lock and canal.

We believe that hospital closures and mergers have a negative impact on services provided and patient care. This proposed merger will result in a reduction of staff, available appointments and operation availability. There will be no maternity provision on the Wirral at all. One hospital instead of three will result in fewer beds being available. We already know the problems experienced in these hospitals at times of high demand, and this will be further worsened. We believe that merging hospitals will reduce the number of staff required, impacting on areas already suffering from economic deprivation and high levels of unemployment and poverty. Increased risks of fatalities due to the transport problems frequently experienced in travelling on the major road routes from Wirral and Chester to Ellesmere Port. Increased travelling time and distance will make being sick or disabled even more of a financial hardship than it already is. Travel can already be problematic for people with numerous or frequent hospital appointments and this will again negatively impact on patients wellbeing.