Vibrant and thriving High Streets are important to everyone. UK High Streets are currently facing a number of major challenges, including our current business rates system that is out-of-date, unfair and hitting some of the smallest retailers the hardest. Although there are also other challenges to be overcome, Government action on this issue would have a quick, positive and significant impact on our high streets. We are asking the Government for an urgent review and reform of the Business Rates system to help protect the future of the UK High Street and create a level playing field for all businesses.

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.

Wiltshire Council have closed St. Aldhelms play area citing it is too expensive to maintain, having neglected it (and other parks in the area and across Wiltshire) for a sustained period of time. It is a hugely important amenity which is well used by children of all ages, and must be saved for the community.

Student Nurses who are in receipt of a bursary receive over £500 less in their third academic year of study. Their final year of study is the same length as years one and two making the reduction on loan unjustified. This has been in dispute for nearly a year with no explanation as to why the reduction occurs.

The judge has now determined that the Home Office breached our human rights and that we satisfied all of the application requirements all along and that we need to be together, but we still face a long wait for him to come home. On 13th December 2017 we were devastated to find that the visa was refused on the basis that I as the sponsor didn't meet the financial requirement and that bills were not submitted to prove we lived together therefore our relationship wasn’t considered genuine. When in fact, all relevant documents were submitted to prove my income of £19,500 and bills were also submitted in both our names. Our solicitor asked the Home Office to reconsider their decision the day after the refusal but this has never been acknowledged. Solicitor lodged our appeal on 18th December. My local MP had also contacted the HO who had refused to review the decision outside of appeal procedures. My local MP had also made comments such as "if he leaves you after 18 months of obtaining the visa I cannot help you" she had already judged the situation without even knowing us. On the 17th December 2017 things took a turn for the worst as I was sectioned under 136 of the mental health act by police and taken to hospital after trying to jump from a bridge above a busy motorway in order to kill myself because of the stress & anxiety that the home office had caused by separating us against our own will. We will never be able to describe the emotional abuse we have suffered at the hands of the Home Office, there just isn't any words for it. This led to me losing my job on 10th January 2018 due to issues with my mental health and personal life affecting my work. Luckily I was able to find new employment almost immediately, but it left me in a position where I wasn't able to visit my fiance due to fear of losing my job again. After a frustrating few months of trying to get our lives back on track, both myself and fiancé made a complaint to the home office due to their incompetence, they refused to speak to me as I am not the applicant and refused him because he was out of country. We threatened the home office with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman as we couldn’t make a formal complaint to which they finally agreed to review the decision 27th February after saying that they could never review a decision outside of appeal procedures. They only received the appeal from the tribunal on 16th March. We was very hopeful that finally someone would realise there was a mistake made. In the meantime we had submitted 3 expedite request to the First Tier Tribunal on the basis of my mental health deterioration which were refused for the judges not taking my mental health seriously. After chasing the review agreed by the Home Office for 9 weeks, on the 3rd May 2018 review completed by the HO but they had maintained the refusal on the financial requirement but now stated they believed our relationship. How could they still get it wrong when the evidence was clear in their face?! After a complaining to the resident judge about how previous judges had treated my mental health, this lead to our case finally being expedited and on 6th June 2018, our hearing took place, to which the Home Office never showed up or submitted a bundle. The Judge allowed our appeal on the day as he found I did meet the requirements all along and that it was a breach of our human rights to keep us apart. on 23rd July 2018 received the court determination letter after chasing the court every week! The Home Office now have 28 days to appeal the allowed decision which we are confident they wont due to no error of law being made. Our human rights have been breached enough, why should we have to wait a further for him to come home, I need him home as he is the only family I have. We just want to move on with our lives.

Jean is 68 years old and lives in Edinburgh. She was born with arthrogryposis, a condition which affects the joints and muscles and prevents development/growth in the legs. Jean is 4 foot 5 inches and wears heavy callipers and surgical boots weighing 3kgs. Each step is a challenge and for the past 20 years Jean has relied exclusively on her specially adapted Motability car to lead an independent life. Recently due to new guidelines for Personal Independence Payments, she has been told that she is no longer entitled to a car. This is unacceptable. Everything Jean undertakes is adapted, adjusted and limited by her physical handicap. Her balance is poor due to no ankle or knee flexion, she struggles with cobbles, uneven ground, steps, kerbs and slopes. If one of her callipers breaks, she is 100% immobile. Public transport is not an option. Boarding a bus requires the use of both arms, leaving no option for carrying any shopping. The height of the seats leaves her legs dangling unsupported, causing swelling and pain. It is of the utmost importance that Jean is permitted to maintain her independence through the provision of a specially adapted car. Her condition will never improve. Taking her car away will leave Jean housebound and reliant on the help of others. To deprive Jean of her car after 20 years, at the time of her life that she needs it most, is cruel and unnecessary. Under the new PIP guidelines Jean’s mobility was reassessed and she was deemed to walk with a “good gait”. The assessment was conducted by target-driven private contractors employed by the DWP. Given her medical condition and profound disability this assessment is evidently deeply flawed. Edinburgh West MP Christine Jardine said that assessments were often “box ticking exercises with no understanding of peoples’ situations”. This certainly rings true for Jean. There is no doubt that Jean should qualify for the enhanced rate of the mobility component of PIP. Please help us persuade Sarah Newton to support Jean’s case by signing and sharing this petition.

At the moment traders south of the Border can refuse to take such notes causing much embarrassment and frustration for visitors. Even the Scottish Secretary Mr Mundell, MP for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, in 2009!! said: “Many people, myself included, have tried to pay with Scottish banknotes in England, only to find them questioned. This is exasperating. And when a Scottish note is refused, that can even leave Scots in restaurants or petrol stations unable to pay for what they have bought.” Nearly ten years after Mr Mundell`s attempt at a private bill nothing has changed. I don`t know a single Scot who has not experienced this embarrassment or indeed a single English person who has been welcomed to Scotland by being told your sterling is not welcome here. The time has come to stop this antiquated discrimination and bring in new law to stop it.

The Welfare Secretary Esther McVey wants to "kill off" a new government website which would help millions of people keep track of their pensions throughout their careers, because she thinks it's not the government's job to help. Without it millions of pension pots are at risk of being lost. According to estimates by the Department for Work and Pensions, 50 million pension pots will be lost by 2050 without an official website to help workers to keep track of savings through their careers. The website has already been successfully tested, and was due to be rolled out nationally soon. It's all the more urgent because new laws to boost pensions have led to 9 million workers being automatically enrolled on to workplace schemes in recent years. A huge petition signed by thousands of us will show the government we expect them to keep their promises and continue to roll out the pensions dashboard.

Hackney Council now admits its proposed road closures in the Walford Rd area could increase traffic on Stoke Newington Church Street by up to 21.8% (2,080 extra vehicles per day). That’s far higher than the 5-7% "worst case" scenario stated in their consultation. Church St is a lovely road at the centre of the N16 community where people live, work and go to school. It already suffers from heavy traffic; many homes there are illegally polluted. The street is home to two schools, both of which have worrying levels of pollution, and it's home to nurseries. In places the buildings are higher than the street is wide, so pollution can get trapped. The pavements are narrow and, in addition to worsening air quality and adding to congestion, extra vehicles could lead to more accidents. The road simply can’t cope with more traffic.

There is a very good chance it may lead to the scrapping of district and borough councils. This is undemocratic. It takes away decision making powers from the people. We pride ourselves in our local communities but this decision will leave all decisions up to a faceless bureaucracy that know nothing of the local areas. We want to still be able to make our own decisions about where and how we live.

The Welsh Government (2015) household survey states that 47% of households have a pet with 62% of those owning a dog, which was by far the most popular animal. This is a very large community that could be negatively impacted by the proposed changes. The Animal Welfare Act supports dogs requirement for exercising off leads for their health and wellbeing. The proposed restrictions disadvantage those with mobility issues, lack of access to transport or financial hardship from accessing green spaces for their dogs needs. The health benefits of dog ownership and walking are well documented which should be incentivized not deterred. One recent study by The University of Lincoln and Glasgow Caledonian University found that dog owners over the age of 65 get an average of 22 more minutes of walking a day than those without one. BUPA (2017) reported dog walkers have: lower stress and depression levels; lower incidence of type 2 diabetes, breast and colon cancer; lower cholesterol and blood pressure; lower body mass index; improved sleeping; and better community connectedness. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt6wq5k0 There is a cost to accessing a lot of recreational activities and dog walking has been accessible for many. According to research by American Express (2016) British dog owners estimate they spend an average of £1,252 annually on their pet, equating to over £10.64bn across the country as a whole. Dog ownership is a boost to the local economy further with their patronage to the ever popular and increasing dog friendly cafes.

To promote/maintain the mental and physical health and wellbeing of local residents and visitors; To retain the rural nature of this town and its views of importance; To safeguard the tranquility of this particular area for existing and future residents; To protect the wonderful natural landcapes and rich biodiversity of this area; To continue to provide wild open spaces, where local children and adolescents can experience and connect with nature (which is also linked with improved childhood mental health and wellbeing, similarly to adults); For the District Council to take the lead and set new nationwide standards, by truly putting biodiveristy and health & wellbeing, at the heart of their local planning decisions. Can I please suggest that everyone read the plan, spread the word and also make their own individual representations via the official response form on NFDC website: http://www.newforest.gov.uk/localplan2016 Then.email it to: [email protected] Or post it to: Policy and Plans Team, New Forest District Council, Appletree Court, Beaulieu Road, Lyndhurst, Hampshire, SO43 7PA. By 12/08/2018. This area is used widely by a lot of residents, who may not live directly by the proposed sites and therefore may not have received correspondence from the NFDC about the plans...so please spread the word far and wide so.we can send a united response to the NFDC that calls for some reasonable changes to the proposed Local Plan!