1,620 petitions

Update posted 2 hours ago

Petition to Michael Gove, Theresa May MP, Sadiq Khan

air pollution caused by grown-ups #shamethegovernment

The Supreme Court was very clear in its ruling against the government which ordered ministers to come up with a plan to bring air pollution down within legal limits as soon as possible. That was in 2015! Mr Gove, you are now in charge of the environment and the air our children are breathing in.  Mr Khan, you as the mayor of London issues the highest pollution warning and most children don't even know about it and even if they do, they have no choice. Adults are deciding for them. They are still sent outside to play in school playgrounds and sports fields. Some schools advised asthmatic children to make sure they bring their inhalers. Some schools are starting to install pollution filters.  We put seat belts on our children before driving a car. We put helmets on their heads to ride a bike. There is a smoking ban in cars with children, we have smoking bans in hospitals.  Why are we then harming our children knowingly with toxic air pollution on a daily basis? We need a national air pollution warning system, contacting on a daily basis, all schools and nurseries to protect the future generation. Mr Khan, as the mayor of London your are taking some action, but your plans will take years to show results. Much more can be done to force and incentivise change, NOW! NOW you can replace the bus fleet instead of planning on buying non diesel buses from 2018. NOW you can start imposing car idling penalty notices. NOW you can make sure all vehicles need to pass strict MOT if necessary introduce a London MOT. Planning bike routes need to be coordinated with other road closures. Current HS2 plans add to pollution for the next 10 years and are completely inadequate. During building work create traffic free zones around schools and pedestrian areas only. How can the Zoo sign off a lorry car park contract for 600 pollution lorries in and out a day for HS2 construction. How can you force kids to take in the extra pollution of 1200 lorries a day past their playground. How can you accept that kids need to stay in schools and breathe only filtered air, keeping windows shut! Mrs May, your government on the other hand, is hiding behind mysterious plans that change nothing for the foreseeable future. Climate change is on the back burner and you continue David Cameron's policy of 'if we ignore it long enough it might go away'! Plans to make a significant impact on our climate are constantly shelved and dragged into the open under duress and court enforcements. They continue to be insufficient! The minister for transport need to work hand in hand with the minister for the environment and not just the minister for future trade deals! Our children cannot wait any more. They are grown-ups with destroyed lungs by the time we get our act together. They deserve a government taking the lead and bringing down the number of all citizens who need inhalers to cope with air pollution. They deserve mayors who take unpopular decisions to force change but also a government that helps their citizens financially, be it through tax breaks or fully financed implementation schemes to pull it off together. Paying for the replacement of an entire bus and taxi fleet costs less than caring for NHS lung patients who are only 2 years old now. Our children deserve parents, uncles, neighbours, grandmothers, teachers, in fact all grown ups, who take care of the environment and who take care of them, the most precious asset of this nation. Our children want to know what all grown-ups are going to do to address this terrible and inexcusable problem  - NOW!

A Bielesch
89 supporters
Update posted 20 hours ago

Petition to Peter Box CBE

Wakefield Council - Keep The Managers on Wintersett Lakes

In the grand scheme of things, our cause is not an important one. (Natural disasters, wars, life threatening illnesses etc:)  But a lovely guest asked me to set up a petition here too - so that people have all sorts of ways to let Wakefield Council know that having the opportunity to come stay here is very important to them. They  (you) care about the right to spend time in the countryside in a safe, welcoming way.  The current planning system has lots of hurdles to jump through, designed to protect green belt. We all want that.  The planning system is not there however to make it 'impossible' for people like us to provide access to green belt in ways that you want.  Green belt  belongs to us all, and sharing the privilege of living here,  in a way that respects others and allows us to try and make the  experience  of staying here as good and safe as we  possibly can  is what the planning system can facilitate if local Councils want to support it. We need  to stay here in  our mobile home to enable others to stay here in that safe,welcoming way. The Council have the power to make the decision to support or  oppose us in providing this essential quality service for you. You - our guests and potential guests  have presented them with very robust justification of why we need to be here on site, on hand  for you  and  for Wakefield's reputation as a supporter  of quality tourism. Wakefield Council call themselves a listening Council - You are asking them to listen to you!

Jackie Avison
475 supporters
Update posted 1 day ago

Petition to Kirsten England

STOP the building of an incinerator in the AIRE VALLEY

Endless Energy have re-applied for and have been granted  Planning Permission (by BMDC)to build an enormous incinerator - in the middle of this valley - the area of a football pitch and the height of eight double decker buses with a 60m chimney.   Endless Energy are trying to tell us that this is a good thing for local people. It is NOT. It is TERRIBLE for the beautiful Aire valley, AWFUL for the surrounding area and APPALLING for the Environment. The only winner is Endless Energy and associated companies.  WE CAN STOP THIS! Incinerators are burning waste which could be otherwise recycled. The UK already has enough incinerators to burn our non-recyclable waste so they are burning recyclable waste to keep the incinerators going. The plant will release a cocktail of particulate matter, chemicals, metals, dioxins and furans - the most toxic chemical known to science. The major source of dioxins & furans in the environment come from burning waste!  Experts have warned these are all a major cause of cancers, birth defects, breathing difficulties and heart disease. These poisons will fall over a wide area around the Aire Valley and beyond, wherever the winds take it. The waste that this plant burns is NOT our local waste. It is commercial and industrial waste brought from anywhere! The plant will NOT bring a major job boom to the area - again as suggested in the local press. In fact a maximum of 80 staff may be required and many of these are already employed by the European operating Company.  Incinerators throughout the country have a maximum staff of about 40. Local residents will NOT benefit from cheaper energy bills - as was implied in the press.  The plant will be a huge, ugly, monstrosity clearly visible from thousands of windows and gardens throughout the Aire Valley. Also clearly visible from the grade 1 listed National Trust property. An eyesore in a beautiful valley which will be severely detrimental to the whole area. TO HELP TO PREVENT THIS HAPPENING PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION

Jane Stone
8,886 supporters
Update posted 2 days ago

Petition to Manchester City Council

Ask Government to step in and REFUSE the Planning Application for the huge dark towers

(Sign petition with email "opt-in" to be kept informed. Scroll down for media comment and for info +email addresses for Manchester councillors.)  THANK YOU! WE'RE MAKING A DIFFERENCE - BUT IT'S NOT OVER YET!    These destructive plans have been temporarily put on hold ⏸ by the developer after huge numbers of objections - but only, they say, for "refinements" at street level - the two huge towers stay the same. The developers still want and expect the Council to agree to the plans when they press "play" ▶️ so we must ask Government to intervene and appoint an independent planning inspector. We CAN ask Government, and they CAN agree - all it takes is an email to   WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG WE HAVE   Government would have to intervene before the Council makes the planning decision, and while we don't know when that would be, we know that if the developers were making any significant changes, planning law would require them to withdraw the application - but they've only paused it. Guardian 15 March. The process could start up again quickly, so we can't just wait - we must ask Government NOW to make the decision to step in before the Council agrees the plans. Please help! Here's that email address again:  - see below on what we should say. THIS IS WHY THE COUNCIL SHOULD NOT DECIDE The Council is a business partner in the development company that put these plans forward - but it's also the planning authority so would be giving itself planning permission to build these towers. Many, including the media (see below), have severe doubts as to whether the Council can be impartial and objective, because: it has a big financial stake in the plans being approved: it's a landowner and business partner in the development company, and will get £millions from its share when planning approval is given planning approval for these towers will immediately increase the value of nearby Council-owned land so that they can demolish and rebuild higher on those too, again, gaining £millions - i.e. it's a precedent, and won't end here the developer says that the designs for the skyscrapers are what the Council asked for - i.e. that the Council has encouraged and promoted these plans, which will permanently and irreversibly harm our city  the Council clearly and strongly supports the plans at the most senior level. For example, the Leader of the Council has said (M.E.N.) that objectors have made "silly" arguments, and "just don’t like tall buildings". That's nonsense, as comments in this petition make plain. Our problem with these towers is that they're in the wrong place, 500ft from the Town Hall entrance, overwhelming our civic centre. Last summer, a town hall boss said that  "...given the cash already ploughed into Neville’s project, it is ‘highly unlikely’ it will not be granted planning permission" (also M.E.N). The Council often has to decide on planning applications where it has some sort of interest, such as school extensions. But this nothing like a school extension - it would have a huge impact on Manchester's nationally significant civic centre and beyond.  ASK CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO MAKE THE DECISION     There are thus sound and solid reasons to ask Central Government use its power to step in and stop Manchester City Council from making this planning decision and allowing these towers to be built. The law allows this - but only for applications that are of more than local interest. In those cases, the Secretary of State can appoint an independent Planning Inspector to make the decision instead. This is the only alternative to the fourteen councillors on Manchester's  Planning Committee deciding to approve the application. The full Council of 96 members doesn't get to vote on planning applications, given the "quasi-judicial" nature of the planning process. The 14 Planning Committee members would be the only ones to have a vote on a planning application that will cause permanent, irreversible and substantial harm to our city centre's nationally significant heritage assets. None of their ward constituents have been consulted, as none of them represent the city centre. (Scroll down for more information on the committee and the councillors.) WHAT SHOULD WE SAY? If you agree that Government should intervene, please email the Department of Communities and Local Government at this address: - keeping in mind that Government will only step in for applications that are of more than local interest. (NCPU is the National Planning Casework Unit in the Department for Communities and Local Government.) "More than local interest" is the key point to mention: it's number 4 in these 6 key planning reasons why the application should be refused: this is an inappropriate location for these buildings, which don't reflect, respond to or respect their surroundings  the buildings are of poor design and appearance, from street level upwards  the proposals fail to comply with the Council’s Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework, or to fit with the Guide to Development in Manchester and published Conservation Area policies substantial harm would be caused to the setting and significance of important heritage assets of more than local importance, including our nationally valued Town Hall and civic buildings the proposals are not sustainable due to their impact on the historic environment and failure to build a high-quality environment the benefits of the proposals are narrow, partial, and insufficient to balance the harm done to our city's assets.  The reference number to add is 14664/FO/2016. WHAT THE MEDIA SAYS National and local press, TV, and radio have commented on this planning application and the harm it would do to Manchester's heritage assets. Some have also commented that the Council is unlikely to listen to objectors. It’s been everywhere from The Star and the Sun to The Times, on the BBC and Granada, and even in the USA news. Here’s a few: The Times, 17 February, said "Manchester’s leaders should resist this attack of tower-mania." That "the Council leader has made his allegiances clear and that if Manchester's councillors won’t look after the city’s interests, then Sajid Javid should step in." (i.e. the Secretary of State - see below.) Manchester Evening News, 20 February: M.E.N. The Council is compromised by the cash deal for the site, undermining "…the ability to take a clear-eyed decision on something...worth so much to the city purse". The Guardian, 20 February: Guardian "Don’t trash Manchester’s history to make way for skyscrapers." The Guardian, 23 February: Guardian "Wanton vandalism." +The architect says that the Council pushed re the design. Manchester Confidential, 21 February: ManCon People are angry about the planning system. "The current planning regime plays at engagement. It appears to care little for public consultations or written responses. It seems to regard both as visits from troublesome and undesirable relatives, a duty rather than a virtue." The Guardian, 15 March: Guardian "Gary Neville has admitted his £200m plans for two bronze skyscrapers in Manchester city centre have “failed miserably” in the wake of huge opposition from heritage groups. The former England footballer faced a fierce backlash for his plans to bulldoze three historic buildings to make way for luxury flats, hotels, offices and restaurants. On Wednesday Neville said he had asked Manchester city council not to consider the application in its current form and that it would undergo further refinements." Manchester Confidential 15 March ManCon "We have failed miserably" said Gary Neville.  THERE WILL BE DAMAGE TO OUR CITY: THE DEVELOPER SAYS SO: In their own planning application, the developer says: "The proposed development will also result in major adverse impacts on the setting of the Grade I Town Hall, Grade II* Town Hall Extension, Grade II* Central Library and Grade I St Ann’s Square and consequently also the character and appearance of the Albert Square, St Peter’s Square and St Ann’s Square Conservation Areas. The Heritage Statement therefore concludes that "the proposed development will result in substantial harm to the identified heritage assets." That is what Historic England said last July - that these plans "would cause a high level of harm" to our city centre - but their view was dismissed by the developer. The same developer is now admitting in his own planning application that Historic England were right. Thousands of us agree with Historic England that there would be unacceptable, irreversible and permanent damage to our city centre. The comments in this petition can be read on-line (click on "join the conversation" below).  The "St Michael's" development proposals on the site of the old Bootle Street police station in Manchester city centre are just 150 metres from the Town Hall entrance in Albert Square. The dark 31 and 21 storey towers will overwhelm a heritage area of national importance - Albert Square, the Town Hall and our historic civic centre -  and will be seen from many miles away. They're of much more than local significance, will have an impact on much of Greater Manchester and will be seen by millions of people.  ONLY 14 COUNCILLORS WILL MAKE THE DECISION, BUT SHOULD ALL 96 MANCHESTER CITY COUNCILLORS KNOW WHAT WE THINK?  It is the job of your local Councillor to represent your views and opinions and to decide how the Council should carry out its many important functions. Their job is to represent public interest, as well as the individuals living within the ward in which he or she has been elected. To find your local councillor: - their email addresses are all listed so that you can tell them your views directly. The full Council of 96 members does NOT get to vote on planning applications, given the "quasi-judicial" nature of the planning process. The decision is made by 14 Planning Committee members only. They are listed on the Council website: Councillor Ahmed Ali (Rusholme) Councillor Shaukat Ali (Cheetham) Councillor N Ali (Deputy Chair)  (Levenshulme) Councillor Barrett (Sharston) Councillor Chohan (Longsight) Councillor Curley (Charlestown)    Councillor Dar (Moston) Councillor Ellison(Chair) (Didsbury West) Councillor Fender (Old Moat)    Councillor Kamal (Gorton North)       Councillor Paul (Withington) Councillor Siddiqi (Gorton North) Councillor Watson (Whalley Range)  Councillor Madeleine Monaghan (Sharston) None of these councillors represents the city centre, in which the buildings would be located, so their constituents have not been consulted by the Council on this planing application, even if they work in or travel to the city centre and would have an opinion on these plans for permanent harm to our unique civic heritage. None of the three councillors who do represent the city centre are members of the Planning Committee, so they don’t have a vote, although one of them may be allowed to speak at the meeting for a limited time. They are: Councillor Joan Davies Councillor Beth Knowles Councillor Kevin Peel  Also, although Councillor Pat Karney is "Lead Member for the City Centre" he is not on the Planning Committee either, he may be able to speak. MORE INFORMATION:   Only local residents and limited organisations were invited to see the model of the plans shown for just 8 hours in September.  After complaints, one extra day was added as a last chance in October.  Since that consultation, where 70% of people objected to what they saw, only the colour of the towers has changed - from black to bronze. The photograph above shows the developers model, on which every building was coloured white - including the giant dark towers, here coloured to show them clearly. White was not an honest or realistic way to show their impact - they're huge, and 500ft from Manchester Town Hall. The plans revealed last summer had changed drastically in less than a year, from light-coloured medium-rise blocks to two high-rise black towers of 31+ and 21+ storeys (both have a 'crest' on top). The smaller is an office and the larger a 5* hotel and luxury apartments -"a place for leaders to call home". These towers are grossly inappropriate to this location. They don't reflect, respond to or respect their surroundings. They are in the wrong place, out of proportion and overwhelm everything around them, including the town hall, central library and both old and new buildings in the city centre. The lower areas are crammed commercial sales areas, not the 'public open space' promised, and the already dark and dank Bootle Street will become even worse with a new 4/5 storey, essentially blank wall with one narrow alley. The Council has already said NO to smaller towers further away from the Town Hall than these giants, so its support for these plans is inconsistent and bewildering. Manchester's policy on tall buildings says they'll be supported where they are "appropriately located", and that they "...should complement the City's key existing building assets and make a positive contribution to the evolution of a unique, attractive and distinctive Manchester, including to its skyline and approach views. Suitable locations will include sites within and immediately adjacent to the City Centre with particular encouragement given to non-conservation areas..." These towers are in a conservation right next to other conservation areas.  The developers want the Council to decide that the 'benefits’ of building the towers would outweigh the permanent and irreversible harm done to our city - but the 'benefits' are insufficient - too limited, too narrow, and in some cases not even real or relevant. The 'benefits' listed include some limited 'public open space', some initial building jobs and later on, jobs in a hotel, offices, a few shops and lots of drinking and eating places - and the synagogue congregation get a brand new building. But the 'public' space isn’t a benefit - it’s not public, is largely a cul de sac for commercial sales and is mostly in permanent shade. And, obviously, jobs and new business activity would still be provided with a different, better and more appropriate design that doesn’t scar our city centre for ever. It isn't an 'either/or' decision. This petition will be updated from time to time, so you can stay informed of important changes or developments, including the date and location of the Planning Committee meeting.   Developers email: Developers information line: 0800 032 5725. Developers website: (click on tiny words at the bottom of the home page "download consultation"). More pictures and info on Dropbox at:  

4,535 supporters