We are the bereaved families and survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire. On the 14 June 2017 we lost 72 of our loved ones. We will never get our loved ones back but we are determined to make sure that something like this never happens again. That’s why we are campaigning for change and to make sure everyone can live in a safe home. It should seem obvious to anyone who saw the pictures of the Grenfell Tower fire that dangerous combustible materials must be banned but the Government still hasn’t made a final decision on whether to introduce one. And we know some companies that make products like those used on the Grenfell tower have been arguing against a ban. We’ve spent months speaking to experts to understand how Grenfell tower, where our families lived, came to be so dangerous. We know that combustible materials and a shoddy refurbishment contributed to the dangerous fire that night. We’ve uncovered an industry and system that seems to put profits over people and failed to keep families safe, using dangerous materials and dodgy testing practises. We want to make sure dangerous combustible materials are banned from high rises, schools, hospitals and any building were vulnerable people live or work. And any materials used are independently, properly and transparently tested. It’s over a year since the fire and these materials are still in use. We urgently need to ban these dangerous materials to make sure people are safe in their homes.

Do you want to save Tarporley's precious, affordable retirement flats, Oathills Lea? Where will our elderly population go, if this complex is closed or sold off by Weaver Vale Housing Trust? Oathills Lea is currently under review and its residents are worried sick, as you can imagine. Built in 1970, Oathills Lea has 23 retirement flats for residents aged 50 and over. It is the perfect location, especially for the less mobile residents and those who no longer drive. The bus stop is just 100 yards; the Co-op 250 yards; post office 250 yards; village centre 100 yards; doctors 0.5 mile(s). All of this helping our older villagers maintain their independence. Oathills Lea is the only accommodation of it's sort in the village. Not only is it made up of individual flats, but there is a communal area where the residents congregate in the afternoons to socialise with each other. Many of it's former and current residents have always lived in Tarporley and others have sold their homes and moved here to be closer to their families. None of us want to be evicted from our homes and it is putting the more vulnerable villagers under immense pressure and stress. What will Oathills Lea be replaced with ? Weaver Vale Housing Trust, recently you were promoting the flats as a "Home for Life". Why have you gone back on your word ? Why aren't you filling the empty flats, when given the ageing and increasing population of Tarporley and the surrounding villages there is probably a demand for them ? If anything more retirement flats are likely to be needed over the years. PLEASE sign our petition and share it with your friends and family

The stink and odours are damaging quality of life for residents in Little Burton Farm, and Kennington The constant and cumulative odour exposure has become "severe odour annoyance"- a major concern of the WHO (World Health Organization) Headaches and other health risks are a common occurence Children can't play outside in their own gardens Doors and windows need to be permanently closed Utilizing gardens for BBQ's and other social events is severley affected With 1000's more homes planned in the area and increased sewerage, things can only get worse

The people of Thanet, demand that the land located at Hartsdown Park be allocated to the existing tenants in situ, allowing them to continue to enjoy uninterrupted use of their premises. The community units are to be retained, allowing each tenant the opportunity to purchase their areas either individually or as a collective, ensuring that all community projects currently sited are allowed to continue to serve the community.

Trump wants to build 500 “luxury” houses on a protected Aberdeenshire coast. These homes will be unaffordable to anyone except the rich, featuring villas planned to sell for over £1 million. No plans for affordable houses, which were promised as part of the planning permission, have been made public. They do not appear in the proposed development brochure. This location is entirely inappropriate for a housing scheme; it’s far from amenities and is opposed by people living nearby. Planning permission for the golf resort was issued on the basis that the “economic benefit outweighed the environmental harm”. But the rare protected dunes that form part of the estate have been “partially destroyed” since Trump began construction on the resort, and there’s been little benefit to the community. Trump cannot be trusted to deliver on his promises for this resort, and this new development will further damage the beautiful North Sea coastline whilst lining his own pockets. What’s more, we’re signing Scotland away to a man who deals in lies and hate, which will damage the country’s reputation.

Increased supply and quality comes from competition and incentives, not from over regulation or divisive taxation policies. There's a hole in the bucket and it's not being refilled quickly enough. Private landlords are selling up in droves, thus reducing the pool of better quality homes available to rent. Private investment into much needed rental housing is being strangled, and this MUST STOP! National and Local Government policies are discouraging private investment into rental accommodation, especially in recent years. This is already negatively impacting housing development and the wider economy. If the supply of private rental accommodation continues to contract, demand will cause rents to increase and ordinary people will find it even harder to find flexible and affordable housing. Taxing suppliers, whether directly or by stealth, is always passed on to consumers. In this case, that means upward pressure on rents. There have been several forms of stealth taxes and indirect taxation applied to private housing providers. These include; the taxation of finance costs, increased Stamp Duty Land Tax, banning tenant fees and Selective Licencing. Government and Local Councils need to stop milking private housing providers like cash cows and reverse all such policies before further suffering is caused. Badly informed campaigning could also undo all the good things the Housing Act 1988 achieved. We urge Government to be mindful of this.

Under the Equality Act 2010, a house cannot be refused to be let to someone because of disability, gender, race, sexual orientation or religion; these are known as protected characteristics. However - with suitable disabled accommodation being very sparse among social housing - downstairs toilet facilities, first floor apartments, bungalows, etc, are being refused to be let to potential tenants on the basis the potential tenant is in receipt of a government subsidy towards rent. These subsidies are awarded because individuals are unable to work due to disability, yet disabilities are a “protected characteristic” under the Equality Act. No matter whether you are willing to provide references, admin fees, bonds, or consent to a credit search. Due to lack of social housing, disabled people are being pushed into the private rental market yet being discriminated against and refused housing there too. No person should be discriminated against for something that is beyond their control; where else are disabled people supposed to live? It’s a daily struggle to live in a house that’s not suitable, I think it’s abhorrent that disabled people are being refused to rent in the private sector because they receive a government subsidy towards rent. Take a look at properties for rent near you and see how many say "no DSS"! Imagine how difficult it would be for someone disabled looking for somewhere to live. It is discriminatory. Please take a moment to sign this petition!

Residents safety due to compromised site access Small community; living in residential close, with currently 12 privately owned homes and a few rented garages. 
The houses are built wall to wall, parking and access to the close is limited to one small road. A few council garages are being rented out to some of the home owners(for over 28 years); all other non-garage tenants/property owners park on the street in front of homes and or in overcrowded near by streets. The council has only just notified the garage tenants that the garage area is now identified as a site for the development of 3 storey block of 9 flats. Since there is no other access to the close other than by a small road, the increase amount of traffic, lack of parking space will have an overbearing impact. Fire engines may encounter difficulty accessing the close in the eventuality of a fire and access will be limited for most rescue services, as well as for waste and recycling bin lorries. (Cars have already been damaged by recycling lorries due to the current lack of space within the close, documented evidence for these incidents can be provided). Parking issues Note: There is no public transport in the immediate area/ the local demographic is families and retired couples. Past recorded fatalities due to congested road on Biggin Hill (situated next to Arkell Grove) have not been taken into consideration in the planning development safety survey. The removal of the garages would force its current renters (over 15 cars parked inside or outside the garages) to locate currently ‘unprovided’ parking. In addition to this, 9 flats means an average of 12 cars (calculated using Croydon’s statistics of average number of cars per inhabitants as per 2011’s census) which will also require parking. Arkell Grove itself is fully occupied by its residents’ cars. No provision has been made for any parking for the new building, to add to this, additional cars from local residents will require to locate parking in ‘unprovided’ congested adjacent roads, such as Biggin Hill. A Controlled Parking Zone would be of no help, as the area is such that only residents park here (as opposed to streets located nearby developed areas) and would be be additional cost for residents. Residents and children safety Note: as well as families, the close has two active ofsted registered childminders / home based. In this close live numerous families with very young children who use the close as a safe ground, they play and meet in the area of the proposed site. A) Having a building site in such a small and confined area would certainly present a danger to the safety of these children. (heavy lorries, and excavation) B) The new house development would remove the direct area in which family and children play and meet. Overshadowing / Loss of sunlight The height of the building is such that any house in its shadow would lose access to the sunlight they currently have. Residents Privacy The planning is talking about the development of a block of flats which would look directly over the gardens of the adjacent houses and would remove the direct access to their properties. Environment One of the adjacent gardens has a very tall and mature tree on the border of the proposed site and the development plans would compromise the roots of this tree, rendering it unstable and therefore at rick of dying and falling. Sewage issues and waste disposal All the immediate area to the proposed site privately owned, with no access to the site, how will the issue of sewage be resolved? Croydon has just announced that they are reducing waste collection in this area. Again, this could be a major health problem for this area. Questions: 1) Housing mix. The council policy states they need to built approx 30k by 2031, quote: 60% need to be 3 bedrooms or more as this is largest demand. So why so many 2 beds flats are being built? Why not build 2 storey homes? This would be a realistic target and would resolve many of the concerns raised by local residents. 2) Access to sites. How all these issues are being answered? What about the poor access to the site, the narrow roads and lanes; *Cars being required as public transport is not where it should be.. One of Croydon new policy is looking to address issues round creating additional access methods, where is this being addressed in this proposal? What about sewage and waste disposal, when croydon has just announced that they are reducing waste collection in our area…? 3) If the permission was granted, has the following been taken into consideration? Which days a week will the work be carried out? ie solid 5/6 day week or on and off some weeks? Could quieter works be done weekend? Access: Clearly only one point of access , how will this be addressed? 1. Deliveries Times (this is a very important point. Early morning when childminders get children dropped off OR over weekend when local children playing outside is not acceptable.) 2. General car congestions. Frequency of construction vehicles, What and when? initial large delivery of bricks that would block access, pavements, danger to children playing. This is all health and safety Builders need to address. Builders will need restrictions in place for them to park on road. Has this been accurately assessed? We have raised a petition to provide the list of individuals part of the local community and or relatives supporting the appeal if the development permission is granted

Family home since 1982, i moved back in to help my father from illness and to stop my depression, my father passed away suddenly and the council want me and 15 year old son out of the house, my youngest son comes every weekend, has adhd and will not accept change into a new house, explained this to the council but they will not listen, tried to pay the rent but they will not accept it from me.

Our GP services are on their knees Our roads are gridlocked due to sheer number of cars, limited roads out of Midlothian and poor public transport for many areas Our schools are bursting at the seams with children being shipped out of catchment schools due to lack of space Lack of investment into community resources - there are few services for our elderly, teenagers and young children. Our green belt is disappearing - with a significant impact on our health and the environment Private housing is not a priority - we need to prioritise council and housing association accommodation

Lewisham council are planning to demolish Reginald House and Old Tidemill Wildlife Garden – if their plans go ahead, the residents will lose their homes and a unique community wildlife garden will be destroyed. We want the plans to be re designed in partnership with the community. The plans CAN be redrawn to build the same or more social homes, but keep Reginald House and Tidemill Garden. Our community demands: *Refurbish Reginald House, give residents a ballot* Reginald House residents have good homes, but council has refused to listen to them or to consider a plan which keeps their homes. Instead the residents have been lied to and harassed by council officers, and their homes run down. Lewisham Council should respect its residents’ needs and wishes and not break up communities. As in other developments, residents must be given a ballot on regeneration plans. *Keep Old Tidemill Wildlife Garden a community garden for ALL* Any redevelopment must include, not bulldoze, the thriving Garden which was built in the 1990’s by local people, teachers, parents and kids from Tidemill School. An alternative architectural plan shows how the garden and Reginald Road CAN be kept by building on the playground and developing the old school buildings. This area has some of the highest pollution levels in London, which will only get worse if the garden is lost. And the green space on the site should be kept public, not transformed into private gardens as under the current plans. *Public land, and public money, should be 100% used for the benefit of the public* Lewisham Council want to sell this land, meaning a valuable public asset will be lost forever. Millions of pounds of public money is being spent to subside this development, behind a cloak of secrecy due to the ‘confidentiality clauses' of the Council’s private partners. This land should be redeveloped in partnership with the community - to build as many social homes as possible but keep our invaluable current homes and community Garden. We want the council and developers to truly partner with the community to redraw the plans for the site!

Health workers get paid so little, they work long frequently unsociable hours. They need to be able to afford to live near where they work so they don’t have to add huge travel time and costs to their daily life. Our lives are literally in these people’s hands and we need to give them the respect that they clearly deserve and one way we can show this respect is to let them have affordable housing. The house prices in Camden are extremely high, we have a huge amount of very expensive housing already. The average house price in this area is over a million pounds and the average London wage for a nurse is only £24,963. How on earth are the backbone of our health service supposed to afford to live anywhere near where they work? Affordable nurses housing should be sacrosanct. The Royal Free London NHS foundation and Camden council need to backtrack on these plans as a matter of urgency. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/18/royal-free-secretly-planning-to-develop-100-year-old-hospital-into-luxury-flats?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=blast2018-05-22