Disability and especially persons in wheel chairs need access more convenient to local shops. A disabled person driving with a blue Badge has difficulty finding places to Park and Surrey County Council action in Removing High street disabled Parking Bays is immoral. Our friends had driven down from London to Cobham ---could not find a disabled bay for Parking in Cobham -high street.

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.

Children walking to school are at such high risk of an accident a fatality is waiting to happen due to the SPEED Already we have had cars ( one car on its roof passenger trapped inside)

While people are struggling to pay bills and buy food in these day of austerity it is offensive to see companies like these wasting good food

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

Because so much information is (other than on food labels) is printed in size 6 and even size 5 point and is impossible for most people to read and understand. The elimination of ridiculously small print will allow he public to be properly informed.

When you buy a second hand vehicle you have no way of knowing whether the "registered keeper" is legally entitled to sell the vehicle. If you buy it and the "legal owner" disputes the sale you would have to give it back to the legal owner and lose your money paid. This would also stop the taking back of vehicles bought as "gifts" by the legal owner and given to the registered keeper. This has happened to my son, his dad bought him a car, and registered my son as the "registered keeper". They then fell out and the dad transferred the car into his own name as the "registered keeper", claiming that he was the "legal owner", then sold the car. Unbelievably, the dvla say this is allowed. The V5C document requesting the transfer was not signed by my son (the registered keeper) even though the document states that the registered keeper "must" sign. Apparently, the V5C wasn't signed at all! This isn't "fair" so by changing the V5C, prospective buyers and registered keepers will know where they stand as far as "ownership" is concerned.

For several reasons, I find this is important. Look around you, streets, parks, fields coast lines... all littered with empty and left behind bottles of any shape, size and form. The environment suffers, the costs to clean up the litter is a burden to the local councils, so it effects us all, because the extra costs reflect in our council tax. It would be an incentive for people of all ages and backgrounds, to be more environmentally conscious. Other countries, like Germany, have had this scheme for years, and even extended it to drinking cans. The UK should follow suit. Please sign the petition, if you agree.

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.

The government destroys or throws away too much It equipment due to security risks if the hard drives are removed from all laptops and pc's and a factory restore performed on all tablets and mobile phones to remove all data, then the equipment can be recycled without the risk of any data being compromised. Also by setting up workshops to train the unemployed you are giving them a skill set which will help them gain employment within the It industry.

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.