There are hundreds of acres of brownfield sites in the Stroud District which could be used to build the new housing required for the people of the Stroud District. However, developers don't want to build on these sites because it costs them more money than building on green fields.We should not allow the greed of developers to dictate local housing policy. If we still need more land for housing, once the brown field sites have been developed, we can then consider building on green field sites. The Government have said development should be on brownfield sites first so why aren't Stroud District council enforcing this policy? The Government have also said its a bottom up policy with local people deciding where houses should be built. This is our opportunity to tell Stroud District council.

For all disabled people to be able to travel on buses. I was asked to leave a "first" bus the other week with my husband because the driver felt the bus was over crowded and although there was a seat beside the stairs, he said I could not sit there as it was again health and safety regulations. As we got off, my husband noticed, there was in fact a space beside a buggy that was already there

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 Engine Shed is a renowned training scheme which has transformed the lives of young people with learning disabilities for the past 25 years. They have helped many young people with learning disabilities gain skills in a real work environment and supported them to move into mainstream, paid employment. Trainees work alongside staff in the vegetarian café, organic bakery, organic tofu production unit and conference centre while developing skills for life. The Engine Shed is due to close down on the 19th February, 2015, due to Edinburgh Council stopping its funding. The.council says it will replace this with a new supported employment system, but critics point out that over 75% of Remploy employees are still unemployed after its closure. Let's ask Edinburgh Council to think again!

Beach Road school was built in the 1800's and is a beautiful example of historical architecture. It has served as both an infant and junior school for thousands of pupils and also found usage in both the First and Second World War as an army hospital. It was closed in 2008 when the school was merged with William Gladstone. If properly looked after this building could stand for another 100 years, but, of course, the solution is simply to demolish it. Please, let's have our say and not let Sefton Council take the easy way out and demolish what could be a useful building. These decisions to demolish are usually met with regret in years to come as they will never be rebuilt and the history is forever lost. Stand up now while we can. Thanks for your support.

Hartlepool hospital has systematically been stripped of it's A&E department and virtually all of it's clinical and surgical services, on a vague promise that an alternative hospital would be built on land at Wynyard. Now, the North Tees and Hartlepool Trust, our local Hartlepool MP, Iain Wright and the Hartlepool Borough Council are all on public record saying this will never happen. It was completely foolhardy and indeed negligent of Hartlepool Borough Council to allow the sale of this land to happen under these circumstances. I believe it was complete madness to allow a perfectly good training hospital to be stripped of it's staff, resources, assets and have the very land it sits upon sold from under it, without a cast iron guarantee of a replacement. I feel that this has been done surreptitiously, without the prior knowledge, consultation or consent of the people of Hartlepool

It has been proven that alcohol consumption at Scottish football matches leads to increases in violence and domestic violence. The ban has the backing of leading anti-abuse charities and has made football family friendly and reduced cases of violence, it should not be reversed.

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.

We love the Red Lion because it is a real hub of our close-knit community. We love the neighbourly feel, the great beer and even greater music nights, and we want to preserve it as it is.

The people most vulnerable people in society are being used for political gain. The measures being taken are punitive, uncaring and causing untold misery. People who are patently very ill are being told they are fit for work and are having all financial support removed. This has lead to suicides, hardship and suffering so great that even the United Nations are investigating human rights breaches by the UK Government. Living with a debilitating illness is hard enough without the fear of sanctions by an uncaring government churning your stomach every day of your existence. It causes mental anguish that is hard to explain to those who do not experience it and badly affects the general health of those in the firing line. The majority of claimants would give anything to be free of their illnesses and, unlike the portrayal by the minister that they are all freeloaders, have paid their NI contributions and are therefore entitled to the insurance they have paid for. There have been far too many mistakes made and far too many deaths associated with the war being waged on those in receipt of benefits.

* Proposed footbridge will be entering onto a road (Park Avenue) beside the only turning circle in the street, which in itself is dangerous due to turning cars. On the other side of the bridge is another road where no speed controls will be put in place due to this part being out of remit of the plans. * The proposed footbridge will be over the deepest part of the water which can be fast flown and this may be dangerous to curious children who sometimes like to play around the burn. * There are already 2 entrances onto Park Avenue, that could be designed to be more safe i.e:- railings on Seafield Road with adequate lightening, proper fencing around the burn and upgrade the existing bridge at the shallow part of the water

The court can only order exemption, if satisfied that the dog is not a danger to public safety; the court must now look at the temperament and past behaviour of the dog, whether the applicant is a ‘fit and proper’ person to be in charge of the dog and any other relevant circumstances. The changes will affect and be a death sentence to exempted dogs, much loved family members and companions - dogs which have already been found by a court of law, not to be a danger to public safety. The changes are draconian and do nothing to protect public safety. A family canine member may need to be appointed a new person to care for it, for a variety of reasons, including, housing issues, accident/injury, employment/work commitments, family commitments, divorce/separation. Due to the changes, someone can ONLY apply via a court application, which will be a complicated process for the average person to follow, to be the keeper if the previous person in charge of the dog is either dead or seriously ill. A non-legal person i.e. a rescue/animal welfare charity/company/local authority already registered or about to be registered as the owner on the exemption certificate should be able to re-home their exempted dog via a keepership change without restriction and appoint another registered keeper to the one appointed for any reason deemed necessary, thus saving the dog’s life. If the person to whom the exemption certificate has been issued is away and at a different address to their dog for more than 30 days over the course of a year, according to the new rules set out under SI 138, the dog must die; However, anyone for example who is regularly working away from home, visiting family, undergoing medical treatment/hospitalisation, travelling/working overseas, could be affected and their dog destroyed. This cannot be fair nor just, it is not necessary