Barker-Mill Estates, a large local landowner, plan to build 11 houses on pristine fields inside the New Forest National Park and the plans look like the first phase of a large development If these plans go ahead it will set a precedent for developers all over Britain to build on greenfield sites inside our National Parks. This proposed development site is on the edge of the village of Ashurst inside the New Forest National Park. The fields are currently used as grazing land for horses and are situated next to the local schools. Barker-Mill Estates have offered to build a car park and cycle/footpath for the local schools in exchange for the schools' support for their building proposals. We support safer access to the schools and urge Barker-Mill Estates to provide the proposed cycle/footpath whilst protecting the fields.

On 22 May 2014 GP's are to vote on whether to introduce appointment charges (estimated £10 - £25 per visit). If this vote is passed it could mean the end of our NHS, free at the point of use. The NHS is currently being dismantled under the guise of an ineffective system and more consumer choice. Increased GP workload and patient demand driving this issue is largely as a result of government policy, hospital closures and privatisation. GP income has fallen by design and patient charges are not the answer. "How many times are we going to fall into the traps set by our political masters?" asks Gurdave Gill, GP Partner writing on the Pulse Today website. "Patient charges are NOT the answer. User charges deter the sick and poor as much as the 'worried well'. Expensive and bureaucratic to collect, evidence shows patients delay seeking medical advice when user charges are introduced. Delay in diagnosis can cause significant harm. If we know this to be fact, to introduce charges appears to suggest that our incomes are more important than any potential harm to the patients. Is this ethical? "The current crisis in Primary care has been manufactured to create a pressure from GPs for charges. [...] We should be demanding increased resources from Government and not our patients. The NHS returned £5bn underspend to the treasury in the last 3 years. The cost of the purchaser-provider split exceeds £10bn pa yet delivers absolutely no patient gain at roughly the entire cost of primary care! {...] We need to identify the correct target and demand our representative bodies are more effective rather than the incompetence/collusion with Government we have seen in recent past. The minority of pro-privatisation GPs leading the call for charges need to be recognised for what they are. We must not be persuaded by the 'greedy and dims' amongst us.” And how about that consumer choice? Right now we have the best of both, individual private healthcare and tax-payer funded. Both are a form of 'paid for' healthcare, one is paid for by the individual, the other paid for and negotiated collectively. If the asset strip continues we will only have the most expensive poorly-negotiated option open to any of us. That is no choice at all. UPDATE The BMA's current position on this motion as outlined to one of our members, obviously, it would be naive to rest on these laurels: "The BMA's current position is not in favour of charging patients for GP appointments. Introducing charging would undermine the basis of the NHS; that healthcare is free at the point of use, and patients receive care based on their clinical need. A fee charging system could require an expensive bureaucracy to collect money from patients. It is also possible that the charges may deter vulnerable patients from seeing their GP which could lead to delays in treatment. However, there will be a motion debated at the Local Medical Committee (LMC) conference in York later this month. If the motion is carried, this does not mean it will become BMA policy. BMA Policy is decided at our Annual Representative Meeting (ARM) in July [ed- It's actually Sunday 22 - Thursday 26 June 2014] and motions are proposed by individual branch of practice conferences (e.g. GPs, consultants, junior doctors etc) and submitted for debate by geographical divisions. It would require further consideration by the BMA's leadership and the BMA's Annual Representative Meeting in July. It is understandable that GPs are looking at raising these kind of ideas, given the enormous pressure on GP services. Many GP practices are struggling from a combination of rising patient demand and falling funding that ministers have failed to recognise. However, the BMA feels that we don't need a complicated and unfair charging system to be introduced for GP appointments. We need the government to provide the resources to enable GPs to deliver the care that their patients need. I hope this is helpful and that it clarifies the BMA position for you." Links: Facebook page that inspired this petition: https://www.facebook.com/healthcharge Pulse Today - GP leaders to vote on whether to support patient charges for appointments: http://bit.ly/1lrI1gg LMC Conference - Full Agenda: http://bit.ly/fullagenda BMC/GPC: http://bit.ly/bmcandgpc BMC Annual Meeting: http://bma.org.uk/working-for-change/arm-2014-info Wessex LMC: http://bit.ly/aboutWessex

The current uncontrolled and incoherent construction of high-rise buildings dominating the London skyline to the detriment of both local areas and the city's general appearance needs to be brought under control. According to the Evening Standard, planning permission has been given for a further 288 high-rises, with who knows how many more to come? A coherent, effective and independent process (including proper consultation with those who will be most affected by the new buildings) that takes into account the visual, social and economic impact on those who have to live and work in their shadows needs to be established, preventing the permanent destruction of the city for the benefit of a few property developers and absentee owners. London desperately needs both affordable and social housing for those of us who work and try to live in the city, but these towers are no answer to that, and instead replace much-loved and familiar streetscapes that can offer the high-density, low-rise accommodation that most people want. Their architecture is all too often either mediocre or the result of famous architects exercising their egos at our expense; in addition to which too many are built and bought by overseas purchasers seeking to secure their wealth in empty properties in London, bringing no tax benefits to the city itself and exacerbating the lack of affordable housing for the rest of us. At the moment great stretches of the Thames are being walled-off by dismal glass towers for the private enjoyment of their occupants (to the extent that they are occupied) and the exclusion of all others. Even the status of Houses of Parliament as a Unesco World Heritage site is threatened by these invasive monsters. Offering £5000 in compensation to people whose houses would be permanently deprived of direct sunlight (as was recently offered by property developers on the Mount Pleasant site) is not only insulting but an admission of the deleterious effect these buildings can have on their neighbours. We need all those, including the millions of tourists who visit us every year, who love the chaotic, multitudinous, living creature that is London, to make known their rejection of these tacky gleaming stakes through its heart.

To the residents of Exeter, people who work in Exeter and visit Exeter, together with those who love Exeter… In an increasingly commercialised world, people should have the freedom to choose when they are exposed to advertising. In public open spaces we should be free from private and commercial interest and advertising should not be allowed to disfigure our city. We are Citizens not Consumers. Imaging how much more beautiful our city could be if it were not covered up by ugly advertising hoardings. Sao Paulo, Auckland, Bergen, Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Vermont, and 1,500 towns throughout the world have already banned external advertising. In the UK, Bristol has a campaign to ban outdoor adverts. Plymouth has already banned adverts for pay-day loan companies, whilst Leeds, Newcastle and Bristol are considering it. We should add our wonderful city to the growing movement to reclaim our open spaces. CONSUMER PRESSURE: Excessive advertising encourages us to run ever faster on the treadmill of modern consumer life with damaging consequences. It contributes to growing consumer debt and to the consumption of ever increasing amounts of the earth’s finite resources. Additionally advertising is increasingly sowing the seeds of unhappiness by persuading the consumer to be dissatisfied with what they have got, and so creating an artificial need to buy the next thing. Evidence from the Good Childhood Inquiry indicates that the most vulnerable groups to commercial pressures - children and young people - show higher rates of mental health problems. Removing advertising in public spaces, such as billboards, would free us in our outdoor environment from the pressure to consume and allow us to see previously obscured parts of our city. Any remaining empty spaces can be reclaimed for the purpose of art, poetry and inspiring social campaigns (e.g. volunteering, encouraging recycling). VISUAL POLLUTION: Currently there are laws on air pollution, noise pollution and light pollution - now is the time to take back our city from this visual pollution so that we can be citizens rather than just consumers. There is no doubt that the removal of advertising can change the appearance of our city enormously and allow us to see parts of the city previously hidden to us, opening up new exciting vistas. For more information see – “The Advertising Effect” http://www.compassonline.org.uk/publications/the-advertising-effect-how-do-we-get-the-balance-of-advertising-right/ Joint campaign by Exeter Friends of the Earth and Steady State Devon

Full stripes have been an Albion tradition for over 100 years but the apparent design will render them almost invisible. The change of design has been introduced witjhout consultation with supporters, most of whom seem to be opposed to the new look. Football support should be about heritage and identity not just marketing gimmicks to try to make new merchandising opportunities. * Petitioners will refuse to buy new shirt designs and associated merchandise.

It is, of course, right and proper that everyone should pay their due taxes, but by asking for these new powers it sets a worrying precedent. At the moment they can recover owed taxes once a court ruling has been obtained, but it seems they want to get rid of this restriction on their activity and be able to operate free from any legal ties. It is especially worrying that they are bringing this in under the Finance Bill 2015, mentioned in the Budget, but without any details. The government has issued a public Consultation Direct Recovery of Debts (DRD) seeking views on their proposals to introduce into the Finance Bill 2015 the right of HMRC to recover debts over £1,000 by direct access to the debtor's bank accounts. This Consultation paper reveals the full details and everyone should be very worried as this is an unbelievable threat to our civil liberties. At present, HMRC has to go to court to seize money owed and prove it is necessary. Under the new proposals, the 'debt' can simply be removed from the debtors account at the "click of a mouse" and the debtor will have just 14 days to appeal. The 'threshold' is stated at being £1,000 which can be made up over a range of smaller debts and can INCLUDE TAX CREDITS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE. But once power is included in the 2015 Finance Bill the threshold amount can be altered and could affect many thousands of individuals. More worryingly, this precedence could pave the way for other debts (eg council tax arrears) to be removed and for the period of debt to be shortened without further legislation; effectively giving HMRC free reign to raid our personal finances at their leisure. HMRC has a history of frequently making mistakes in their calculations and have to adjust and re-adjust tax assessments. If they have unrestricted access to bank accounts, there is a strong possibility they may well take out monies incorrectly. Please don't let this happen: it is too much power and no one, or government department should be above the law.

The number 30 bus from Richmond to Keld in North Yorkshire is very important to me as it is my lifeline. Living in a rural area, independence is very important for me but following cuts by North Yorkshire County Council my bus service has been withdrawn completely meaning a loss of independence which in turn has triggered a return of severe depression and anxiety. I travel by bus regularly for my dentist,doctors and psychiatric appointments all of which are over 9 miles away. I am now no longer able to go shopping and do any kind of leisure pursuits with my son as I am unable to get a connection from Richmond to travel by train should I wish to do so. My son who also uses the bus has now had to stop drama classes as he can no longer get home in the evening. The loss of this service is having a detrimental impact on my state of mind and well-being and we feel our right to public transport has been taken away leaving us in total isolation. Richmond our nearest town is over 20 miles away. I cannot drive and I am unable to afford a taxi or costs of other transport as I live on a limited budget. Having to move away from this area would have a devastating impact on my mental health as I would have to leave my job, where my employers are totally supportive of my mental illness, my home where my landladies are also supportive of my mental illness. Many other people in the surrounding areas have also been badly affected. Both the Government and local council must understand that cutting bus services to make short term savings has hugely detrimental effects on people. Upper Swaledale also gets a lot of tourists and walkers along the Coast 2 Coast path and Pennine Way during the year who also use the bus services. Cutting off access to the countryside means that businesses and the tourist industry will also suffer. Please sign my petition to Leader of North Yorkshire County Council: Councillor John Weighell calling for them to think again and reinstate the number 30 bus service between Richmond to Keld.

Cumbria is the second largest county in England covering 2632 square miles, therefore it is extremely challenging for an Ambulance Service to provide excellent clinical care in a timely manner. As part of a cost saving plan the management of our Ambulance Service are proposing to reduce night time cover by a third in Carlisle, Cumbrias only city. They are also reducing the night time provision provided by a Rapid Response Car in the town of Penrith which is manned by a Paramedic some 16 miles south of Carlisle. This will have a detrimental impact on patient care & safety as a reduction in resources will mean that patients may have to wait even longer than they do now on some occassions. It will affect not only residents in Carlisle but most probably all of North Cumbria as Ambulances that cover outlying rural towns & villages are pulled into Carlisle to respond to the proposed shortfall in resource. Cumbria is a unique county and as such cannot and should not suffer any detriment in the provision of patient care provided by the Ambulance Service just because of its size. We are campaigning to keep the Ambulance resources that we currently provide for our patients within Cumbria. To make these cuts will have an impact on patients and could ultimately cost lives. Please support our campaign

There is a suggestion that the BBC may be being used to promulgate propaganda in this affair, may not be unbiased or may be being coerced or influenced to serve one particular agenda. This suggestion should be investigated and BBC conduct explored in the light of their charter.

The Teignbridge Local Plan which has just been adopted, has a policy to allocate 2000 new houses in the Matford area of Exminster Parish and a further 500 houses in the adjoining Alphington part of Exeter. This is a total of 2500 new houses which will generate 5750 new residents. There is currently a Draft Development Framework for SWE1 and SWE3 out for for consultation with an end date of 23rd May. It is very important that Teignbridge District Council ensure that the proposed mitigation to encourage the residents of the new development to use the new Ridge Top Park for recreation and dog walking rather than visit The Exe Estuary SPA, is put in place before any development starts. Exminster has already had one bird habitat destroyed when the Cirl bunting habitat on NHS land at Hillcrest was deliberately sprayed with weed killer to destroy the crops sown by the RSPB for the Cirl Buntings winter feed. The hedges and hedgerows were then cut back severely to remove the habitat where the Cirl Buntings lived. This happened last November when Planning Consultants were assessing Hillcrest for possible housing development in the future. The Exe Estuary, which includes the RSPB Exminster Marshes Reserve, is now at risk. Studies such as The Exe Disturbance Study clearly show that the increased number of people using the area for recreation and dog walking is already impacting on the birds and their habitat. Teignbridge District Council has carried out Assessments under The Habitats Directive. They concluded that the SWE1 development is part of an in combination effect of around 12,400 houses in Teignbridge and this together with further 12,000 houses in Exeter and 15,000 houses in East Devon making a total of 39,400 houses over 20 years generating an additional 90,000 people will have a Likely Significant Effect on The Exe Estuary SPA. The provision of a 70 hectare Ridge Top Park (SWE3) as a Suitable Alternative Green Space (SANGS) as well as other proposed mitigation measures are needed to mitigate this. The Exe Estuary was designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) in 1992. It is an internationally important site and is also designated as a Ramsar Site, European Marine Site and Site of Special Scientific interest (SSSI). It is a relatively small estuary but one which supports and sustains a wide range of designated habitats and species. The Exe Estuary also qualifies under Article 4.1 of The Birds Directive by supporting overwintering populations of Avocet (being one of only three SPAs classified for non breeding Avocets) and the Slavonian Grebe. The Exe Estuary also qualifies under Article 4.2 of The Birds Directive by supporting overwintering populations of migratory species and as a site supporting an internationally important assemblage of birds. More than 20,000 wintering waterfowl are found here including Black Tailed Godwit, Dunlin, Lapwing, Grey Plover, Oystercatcher, Red Breasted Merganser, Wigeon and Dark Bellied Brent Goose. There is potential harm if development near to The Exe Estuary goes ahead without appropriate mitigation in place, to the ongoing ability of The Exe Estuary to support and sustain its designated habitat and species. The Exe Estuary is a particularly small Estuary meaning that there is potentially little space for PEOPLE and BIRDS. The Bird Habitats of The Exe Estuary must be prevented from further harm. Teignbridge District Council, as the competent authority, has a duty to ensure the protection of sites such as The Exe Estuary which is classified for its habitats and species of European importance. Please help us to make sure they do by signing the Petition.

Firstly, MS is incurable and progressive. Drug treatment is already a postcode lottery across different NHS areas/hospitals. Drugs which keep us as active, mobile and employable are of huge benefit to patients and to society. Neurologists report very good results from Fampyra and Sativex. Currently, patients with the help of the Neurologists are able to try Fampyra for 4 weeks, but are told thereafter that they must pay £2,500 approx if they wish to continue treatment. Cost-effectiveness includes use of long term drug treatments to stem, as far as possible, the relapses and disease progression of this illness. To ask MS patients to pay for drugs which may enable them to move about more freely (and continue in employment if applicable) is to create a two-tier service for those with this illness. Secondly, the prospect of MS patients not being able to access specialist MS Neurologists is outrageous. The proposals (1.4 - Regular Review) make clear that non-specialist professionals could carry out reviews with patients. Consider a cancer patient being told to have reviews of their illness/progression/treatment plans with their GP rather than an Oncologist specialising in their particular kind of cancer. It doesn't bear thinking about, does it? Yet MS patients are facing that scenario if these proposals are enacted. The brain is the most complex living organism known to Man and Womankind. Diseases of the brain are little enough understood, without the prospect of non-specialists being involved in reviews, treatment plans etc. Say no to these draft proposals. The consultation period ends on 10 June 2014. Please support this campaign and those of us with MS, their loved ones, their Neurologists, their employers. We need your help.

Sure Start Children's Centre services in Newcastle are facing a two thirds cut in funding over the next three years. This will mean closure of services, buildings, parents groups, activity for young children across the city. It will mean at least 100 jobs will be lost across the council and the voluntary sector. It will mean the opportunities for children and parents will continue to be worsened, following significant cuts already 2010, and the axing of the councils play and youth services last year. SSCCs in Newcastle are all rated Good and Outstanding by Ofsted, reach the vast majority of children under 5 and their families offering universal as well as targeted services. The council proposals:  For the three year budget cycle (2013 – 2016) - the cuts proposed equate to over £5 milllion (or approx. 65% of the total budget) The first £1 million savings have already been agreed, with a proposal for a further £1 million this year and then £3 million for the year 2015-16.   Overall the cuts since 2011 will equate to over 70% with the budget being reduced to less than £3 million from approximately £10 million in 2010-11.   The review of Sure Start and Early Years Services has now been incorporated with the Family Services Review which is being asked to cut £670,000 over the next two years out of budget of £2.3 million which is a 34% cut in services to the most vulnerable families, children and young people.   50% of these services are delivered by the council and 50% by the Community and Voluntary Sector. The city council have estimated that for the work they directly deliver this would equate to the lost of 63 full time equivalent posts (i.e. this will actually be more than 63 people losing their jobs as many jobs are part-time or may be job share) we can only estimate that the equivalent level of job cuts would be made by the Community and Voluntary sector meaning the job cuts proposed would be at least 126 full time posts (probably between 130 and 180 people losing their jobs)   The review has not identified which Sure Start Children’s Centres, Services, Buildings or staff will face cuts.   The councils review timetable includes: ·         April 2014 onwards: Options appraisal (looking with partners at what the cuts could like and coming up with proposals) ·         July 2014: Consultation on the proposed cuts and closures ·         August 2014: Partners agree which options are to be implemented ·         September 2014: Implementation of the cuts for both 2014-15 and 2015-16. ·         March 2015: All cuts implemented.   The councils proposals for 2014 – 2016: http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/sites/drupalncc.newcastle.gov.uk/files/wwwfileroot/your-council-and-democracy/budget_2014-15_-_pc_-_2_-_family_services_review_0-25_incorporating_early_years.pdf   Previous year budgets: http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/your-council-and-democracy/budget-annual-report-and-spending/budget   Unison’s campaign page: http://unison-newcastle.org.uk/sure-start.html   Motion passed at Unison Newcastle City AGM: http://www.unison-newcastle.org.uk/assets/files/AGM2014/140210_18%20Motion%20-%20Save%20Sure%20Start.pdf