We would like to see a people parking bay or parklet in every street in Hackney. The provision of official parklets by Hackney Council in three locations in Hackney in three years is welcome and we recognise Hackney is ahead of the curve in London. However, it will take a millennium to have a significant impact on the parking environment in Hackney. Therefore, we would like to work with the Council to develop a community and business led 'parklet' programme that will allow people and businesses to invest in the public realm. This experimental community parklet allows the gauging of public support for such an idea. Please do let the experiment run its course. The bay is very popular with residents and passers by. The visitor book has hundreds of positive comments: https://goo.gl/photos/gUA8bbtaMamuCcUC8 Walking is the most common way for people to get around in Hackney but while car parking dominates kerbside space there is little provision for pedestrians to rest. Many people, including older and disabled people, and people with kids need regular rest stops while walking, and pavements are too narrow for walking let alone placing benches on them. The popularity of this people parking bay is demonstrating that resting spots for pedestrians are likely to very popular. The people parking bay was a lead article in Local Transport Today. https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/parking-review/news/53699/hackney-resident-wants-to-convert-parking-bays-into-people-places www.peopleparkingbay.com

My nan has lived on the 12th floor of a Shepherd's Bush Tower block for 40 years. She is 77, if a fire broke out in the flats on her floor or higher she couldn't be reached. She walks with a walker and wouldn't make it down the stairs. Who would save her ??? In light of the Grenfell Fire it's now More important than ever. The firefighters did an Amazing Job but they didn't have the resources to reach the top. This isn't their fault it's due to cuts, those victims had to wait for a crane from Surrey!

Michael Gove voted to sell off our forests and woodland preserved by the Forestry Commission. He has received over £100,000 in support from an oil company. He supports fracking and voted to allow drilling in our National Parks. He tried to remove climate change from the school curriculum when Education Secretary. He has voted against measures to tackle climate change. He voted for the badger cull. He supports fox hunting. More info: https://politicalscrapbook.net/2017/06/gove-voted-to-privatise-the-forests-and-has-taken-over-100000-from-a-big-oil-boss/

Imagine that pile of rubbish pictured creating a corresponding mountain of tax revenue from whomever is unnecessarily putting non-recyclable materials into the supply chain. In Germany, the supermarkets themselves have bins near the checkout area into which customers are tacitly invited to place their unwanted packaging items for the retailers to dispose of. We need to minimise the use of non-recyclable packaging in retail, especially our fresh food. I used to work at a labelling factory: there are other viable ways of packaging, tagging, labelling and barcoding products that do not entail use of non-recyclable products. Nor is there any need for food retailers to ask customers to use plastic bags to package products such as loose vegetables in for weighing at tills (they need to be transparent for the person on the till to identify what they're weighing). It used to be that loose items would be weighed by staff in the same way as at their delis, where barcoded labels would be produced for the till staff to scan at checkout. More recyclable products - not film, tetrapack, or anything else that is not widely recyclable - should be used. I also want to see a ban on the use of any non-recyclable disposable gloves used in food retailer outlets such as a well known sandwich retailer, whose staff seem to change gloves each time they touch meat and are then trained to put on new gloves when they make another sandwich: there must be a better way. Retailers could be taxed for the amount of packaging waste they put into the system , and for the amount of non-recyclable packaging they are bringing into the system from their plants and the products they bulk buy and sell on. This would reduce non-biodegradable waste in landfill, and encourage reduction of unnecessary packaging - I don't want film around a DVD or a cucumber - which are uniform in price anyway - so that the supermarket can put a barcode on that rather than the products directly. The UK should especially given the Brexit choice, prioritise innovation in packaging technology that could be sold to the world instead of perpetuating the inertia that seems to plague politicians on green issues (possibly for fear of upsetting sectors that lobby and contribute to the economy, and perhaps also donate to political parties). For example Amazon have reduced their non-recyclable packaging (although they do not apparently pay enough tax): we should take the principles and positive elements of what such global corporations do and apply them more widely, and look into other countries' green packaging solutions. Ministers should stop their myopia and short-termist electioneering campaigns over-focusing on natural greed and our desire to preserve individual wealth, and look at ways to boost our economy, further the manufacture and use of green technologies, reduce waste in landfill and increase tax revenue from the massive national and international corporations controlling our food industry and pricing. The reality is that all the larger supermarkets are trying to convince us that they are ethical and have a corporate social responsibility, and this would be a good way of demonstrating that they mean it. Not everyone I know on social media has awareness of green organisations trying to further this project as a common aim, but would support the idea of such a tax: even if they do not believe in recycling, the vast majority would like to have less recycling to do, and would agree with there being fewer non-recyclables in the supply chain and the notion that corporations should be paying more tax. Green issues and tax revenues affect us all - many excuse their failure to recycle because they say our species is hurtling toward its doom in any event. It is exactly that sort of attitude that is damaging our world: we should expend our energy on ways to save ourselves instead: if we can get to the moon why can't we stop over-relying on non-recyclable packaging?

Unilever owns PG Tips, the UK's most popular cup of tea. Let's call on them to remove ALL plastics from tea bags - it is usually polypropylene. Teabags won't completely biodegrade if they have plastic in them. People in Britain drink 165m cups of tea EVERY day - with 96% of those from tea bags. That adds up to billions of pieces of plastic. As a market leader and the recent purchaser of Pukkha teas which doesn't use plastic in its tea bags, Unilever could help make a positive difference to the environment by removing plastic now. Polypropylene is a plastic and 20% is not a small or insignificant amount when multiplied up by the millions and millions of tea bags used daily around the world. All of these plastics remains un-degraded in the environment. There have been many campaigns to keep plastics and microplastics out of our seas, highlighting the harm they do to marine life. But the same is true of plastics on land as they can cause harm to birds and small mammals. We need to keep ALL plastics OUT of our environment. I believe that it is possible to use another material that is biodegradable - plant or fabric based. In fact, I understand that there is already one brand of conventional teabag which is polypropylene-free made by Jacksons of Piccadilly, so it is technically and practically possible. Let's make our environment plastic free and fully compostable with a change to the materials used in our tea bags.

The fashion industry is renowned for being the 4th most polluting industry in the world, While some companies have admirably already started to focus their efforts on sustainability, I am concerned that real change will not be effected without government intervention. Without state regulation, there is very little, or nothing, to oblige companies to adopt better work ethics and ensure that the production process follows a moral and ethical code. We are unlikely to inspire change within the fashion industry without an incentive or government supported initiative. Taking tobacco consumerism as an example, studies have found that there was little change in people’s habits simply by printing warnings on cigarette packets. However, once the UK government took steps to ban smoking in public places the number of smokers dropped significantly. I would urge the British government and the European Parliament to consider the imposition of regulation within the fashion industry, to include production, environmental protection and working conditions. If we consider fast fashion for a moment, have you ever really given thought to the practices that companies must engage in overseas in order to produce such vast amounts of clothing on a large scale, still managing to sell them to consumers at £2-£5 per piece and yet also retain profitability? Fast fashion aside, how do luxury brands manage the huge quantities of waste they produce and how do they dispose of it? Many do not turn their mind to these matters because they are not within eye's reach. However, as a leading country in the Western world where we are increasingly concerned with climate change, where we pride ourselves on human rights and where we have enacted new laws to tackle slavery in the modern world, we have a duty to ensure that the things we consume (whether produced nationally or internationally) all meet a standard that we should be entitled to expect. It is time to encourage a political dialogue between the government and the fashion industry. Purely for reference, please consider the following: -The report ‘Fashion Transparency Index’, from Fashion Revolution; https://issuu.com/fashionrevolution/docs/fr_fashiontransparencyindex2017?e=25766662/47726047 Movies: The True Cost - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaGp5_Sfbss RiverBlue: https://vimeo.com/190158582 How French government effectively implemented new regulations for the production and use of plastic http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-bans-plastic-cups-plates-cutlery-energy-transition-for-green-growth-a7313076.html?cmpid=facebook-post

It is the only public access sports area in West Bodmin. There is no indication they would replace it. Bodmin is already an air pollution management area. The traffic fumes in the area of the car park will remain at the bottom of the valley and increase the already existing air pollution problem.

This petition is relevant to all rural communities who face new electricity transmission lines due to the growth of nuclear and renewable energy Anglesey is a rural, island community in North Wales, with a small population. Income and house prices are well below the national average. Agriculture and tourism are vital to the local economy. We oppose National Grid’s proposal due to the impact on: 1 - The landscape - which will adversely affect tourism 2 - Property prices - which will not be compensated 3 - Health - there is growing evidence of adverse effects of electro-magnetic fields (EMFs) 4 - Farming - leading agricultural organisations are opposed If Ofgem considered these impacts, National Grid would use underground or subsea cables. This petition is relevant to all rural communities who face new electricity transmission lines due to the growth of nuclear and renewable energy Mae Ynys Môn yn gymuned wledig yng ngogledd Cymru, gyda phoblogaeth fechan. Mae Incwm lleol a phrisiau tai yn llawer is na'r cyfartaledd cenedlaethol. Mae amaethyddiaeth a thwristiaeth yn hanfodol i'r economi leol. Rydym yn gwrthwynebu'r cynnig y Grid Cenedlaethol oherwydd yr effaith ar: 1 - Ddirwedd yr Ynys - a fydd yn cael effaith andwyol ar dwristiaeth 2 - Prisiau eiddo - ni fydd yn cael ei digolledu 3 - Iechyd - ceir tystiolaeth gynyddol o effeithiau andwyol o feysydd electromagnetig (EMFs) 4 - Ffermio -Mae'r prif sefydliadau amaethyddol yn gwrthwynebu peilonau Petal Ofgem yn ystyried yr effeithiau hyn, byddai Grid Cenedlaethol yn defnyddio ceblau tanddaear neu tanfor

This decision affects everyone in the village of Greenfield, where the Flour Mill pond has been fished for decades with no reporting of fishers injuring themselves or giving rise to health and safety concerns. The people of Greenfield wish this decision to be overturned and reversed as it was made with no consultation from local people, and against the recommendation of Flintshire County Council officers. This decision is not only destroying the landscape that many love to come and visit, but also the habitats of wildlife in the area and the surrounding environment.

As parents and other local community members, we are worried about the health impacts, among many other impacts, that the exploratory drilling and fracking in our area will cause. Licences have already been granted in this area, and exploratory drilling may well take place before the end of 2017. Water companies have already warned that drinking water could be contaminated with methane gas and chemicals used in fracking, in any drilled area. These are our villages, where we and our children live, grow up and go to school. This is their home and safe place. If there should even be the smallest risk that their health would be affected by fracking or exploratory drilling, we should be able to object to it and our MP should object to plans*, in the best interest of his or her constituents. *We ask that they object to action which includes exploratory drilling as well as actual extraction, whether it uses less or more than the prescribed cubic volume at each stage or in total - if less, it can slip through and be carried out under current legislation, without planning permission, or giving locals the chance to formally object.* Fracking uses huge amounts of water that must be transported to the fracking site, which is going to have an environmental impact. Other possible risks include: - disposal of significant quantities of radioactive waste water - thousands of HGV movements for every frack - noise pollution - risk to local wildlife and our beautiful villages and surrounding countryside - It is understood that house prices may also be negatively affected in a fracked area. Whichever way we all vote, we want the elected MP to pledge to proactively fight fracking in this area, for the sake of the people who live here.

Euston Road and Hampstead Road are two highly polluted areas in Central London not far from the Telecom Tower. 12 to15 mature large trees in St. James' Gardens and several more in front of Euston station, highly valuable in combatting pollution damage to our health caused by constant heavy traffic, are to be cut down to make way for a HS2 which is being built to knock 20 mins off a journey to the West Midlands. St. James' Gardens provides a very pleasant haven of tranquility in the midst of a busy, polluted area at the back of Euston Station and supports wildlife- young birds. Historic gravestones and a monument provide an impressive reminder of our history ( sailors intercepting slave ships) in the 19th century. I used to play there when I was a child on the swings, now replaced by a well-used sports pitch; a toddlers' playground also exists. HS2 has been passed by Parliament but is there really NO WAY that this company cannot preserve the scarce bit of beautiful nature that has existed in this area for so many years and gives respite to so many? Furthermore, Camden Council has, apparently of necessity, sold community green space to private developers. Again, in a built-up residential area, these green spaces are precious for adults and children alike : of course, it's the trees again which have to go to make way for the luxury flats. If you value peace of mind and your health, please sign this petition. I can't tell you how much it means to me mentally and physically, to be in a beautiful, quiet space and, judging by the scarves which have carefully been tied round all the trees to be chopped; so do many others.

These three condemned trees, each marked with a white dot, have been growing in the churchyard for a century, enhancing its beauty, providing a home to its wildlife, and, in a time of climate change, bringing much needed benefits to the environment. They are perfectly healthy, and we believe there is no good reason why they should be felled. Walking beneath them, and seeing them through the changing seasons, is a daily pleasure, which should not be denied to future generations. Because planning permission has already been granted to cut them down, time is of the essence when it comes to saving these trees.