862 petitions

Update posted 2 days ago

Petition to Geoffery Cox QC MP

Inquest to find if air pollution caused my daughter's death

My beloved daughter Ella died in February 2013 - aged just nine years old. At the time we were told she died because of her asthma. But new evidence has come out linking her death to illegal levels of air pollution - so I’m calling for a new inquest into her death. I’ll never forget the day we lost Ella. It was in the early hours of the morning on the last day of term. She had already picked out her outfit for the end of term disco. But just a few hours later she suffered coughing fits followed by several seizures. She was hospitalised and we lost her. She never made it to the party. Ella was born healthy. She was an active and happy child - cycling, skateboarding, playing football and excelling at swimming. She dreamt of becoming a pilot. Then when she was six she developed asthma, and the frantic hospital visits began. An inquest in 2014 into her unexpected death concluded that Ella died due to a severe asthma attack followed by a seizure, possibly caused by an allergic reaction to something in the air. But the exact cause has remained a mystery. Since then, coverage of the UK’s toxic air pollution increased and I began to think this could be the missing link. New medical research shows that Ella’s frequent hospital admissions were linked with spikes of illegal levels of air pollution around our home near the south circular road. Her final hospital admission took place during one of the worst air pollution episodes in our local area. A renowned medical consultant studying our case found there was a “real prospect that without illegal levels of air pollution Ella would not have died”.  This isn’t just about Ella. Air pollution causes around 40,000 premature deaths per year in the UK (1), and levels of nitrogen dioxide have been illegally high since 2010 in the vast majority of urban areas in the UK (2). The government has been taken to court three times over the illegal levels of air pollution in the UK and lost each time. And yet still the authorities are failing to act. A new inquest wouldn’t just help me get answers about my daughter’s death. Linking air pollution to her death would be a legal first and would make the government look at how to learn from this to avoid future loss of life. It would pile pressure to clean up our toxic air and make sure what happened to Ella never happens to another child. Please sign to call for a new inquest into Ella’s death  (1) (2)    

Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah
60,920 supporters
Update posted 2 days ago

Petition to Manchester City Council


Plans for a 40 storey tower 300m from our historic Manchester Town Hall have been given planning permission by Manchester City Council. The massive development is within 250m of 72 listed buildings and 9 Conservation Areas and will dominate the Grade I listed Town Hall and Albert Memorial.  Can you PLEASE help Manchester Civic Society to raise £6,000? This will allow them to engage one of the best heritage solicitors in the country to look closely at the case and see if there are grounds for a legal challenge. Just click here: CROWDJUSTICE Manchester's Civic Society, backed by heritage groups such as SAVE Britain's Heritage and the 20th Century Society is willing to push forward if enough people can help. Sadly, these groups don't have much money- unlike the Singapore  billionaire developers.  The money is for initial legal advice from specialist heritage lawyers Harrison Grant, to explore whether or not the decision to grant planning permission by the Council was reached lawfully, and if so to bring a challenge, which could also make the developers re-think their plans. The Government's Secretary of State has decided NOT to step in, but gave no reasons, so obtaining expert opinion is our only way forward now.  Manchester Civic Society, SAVE Britain’s Heritage, the Victorian Society, Twentieth Century Society and Historic England have all raised serious concerns about the impact of this scheme on Manchester's fantastic historic city centre.  Please give as much as you can, to help us fight back against these damaging and irreversible plans. Here is the link again: CROWDJUSTICE When the plans went to Manchester City Council's Planning Committee on 8th March, only 10 councillors were allowed to vote on this HUGE decision. Despite 1400 objections to the original plans and almost as many to some revisions, only  SIX councillors said yes, THREE said no and one abstained. Hundreds of people wrote to ask the Secretary of State to step in step in and appoint an independent planning inspector to make this planning decision instead of Manchester City Council. He'd already said he wanted to have a look at the plans - but he left his job soon afterwards and his replacement decided not to take any action - but gave not one reason for the decision.  Please click CROWDJUSTICE and help! We will get what we settle for - SO PLEASE DON'T SETTLE FOR THIS!!! At 40 storeys this is still a HUGE tower, totally out of scale with this historic setting, just 300m from our listed Gothic Town Hall. It overpowers Manchester’s historic core and dominates several conservation areas.  Manchester will be caused irreversible, permanent harm by such height and bulk on this site, for generations to come. There are 6 key points: 1. 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 2.  this is an inappropriate location for these buildings, which don't reflect, respond to or respect their surroundings  3. the proposals are too tall and too bulky thus not sustainable, due to their impact on Manchester's  historic environment. They fail to build a high-quality environment 4. 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 5. the benefits of the proposals are narrow, partial, and insufficient to balance the harm done to Manchester's assets.  6. the Council is a legal partner with a financial stake in the St Michael’s proposals so will will profit directly from its development, and has demonstrated publicly at senior level that it is not impartial in the matter.  This a matter of more than local importance, and only central Government can offer a credible, independent and impartial the decision Central Government should step in. Thank you, Lesley The Council is BOTH business partner in the development company that put these plans forward AND the planning authority - so it gave itself planning permission for the buildings. Many, including national media had 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 for building higher on those too - i.e. it's a precedent, and won't end here - the developer says that the designs for the skyscraper is what the Council asked for - 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. The Leader of the Council says that objectors have made "silly" aguments, and 'just don’t like tall buildings'. That's nonsense, as comments in this petition make plain. Our problem with the tower is NOT style - just location-  it's too big and in the wrong place, 300m from the Town Hall entrance, overwhelming our civic centre. +A town hall boss was quoted in the Manchester Evening News saying that  '...given the cash already ploughed into Neville’s project, it is ‘highly unlikely’ it will not be granted planning permission'. - 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’s HUGE and would have a huge impact on Manchester's nationally significant civic centre for generations to come.   ASKING CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO MAKE THE DECISION     There were sound and solid reasons to ask Central Government use its power to step in and stop Manchester City Council 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 Manchester's Planning Committee's close-fought  decision to approve the application. The full Council of 96 members didn't get to vote on the planning application, given the "quasi-judicial" nature of the planning process - so those 10 Planning Committee members were the only ones to have had a vote on a planning application that will cause permanent, irreversible and substantial harm to our city centre's nationally significant heritage assets.  The revisions show a huge tower of 40 storeys (replacing two at 31 and 21 storeys), next to a bulky office block. While some welcome changes have been made - the Sir Ralph Abercromby pub and the classic east frontage of the old Police Station escape demolition - these plans are still wrong for this key site in our historic core.  The original two giant black towers got the biggest planning response in Manchester’s history. Over 4,500 people signed this petition against them, and some 1,400 people formally objected to the planning application, which was frozen for rethinking as a result - a new architect was brought in. and the new reality is 40 storeys of bronze metal, next to a bulky office block. We may or may not like the style of the design, but the planning issue is that whatever the material and colour, it’s not whispy and ethereal  - it’s an enormous tower in an out-of-scale and crammed development dominating and overwhelming Manchesters historic core, in a conservation area surrounded by several other conservation areas.   This giant tower is still too big and much too dominant for this location. There are obvious economic benefits to developing an underused site, but building so extremely high is not necessary to acheive the jobs and regeneration. Those benefits can largely be gained without such height and the damage to Manchester's historic core - the extra benefits from extreme height simply don't outweigh the damage done to our city core. National Planning Law says that where designated heritage assets are to be harmed, either planning consent should be refused, or the developer must demonstrate that the harm caused will be outweighed by sufficient benefits.The benefits here are just not sufficient for this damage, which will be permanent and irreversible. Development here will obviously bring economic benefits, including jobs - a major priority for Manchester. but it's NOT EITHER/OR. Without the overwhelming tower there will still be jobs and economic benefits.  The developer acknowledges in his application that the plans will cause a high level of harm to our historic core, but still wants the Council to agree. They say the harm will be outweighed by the benefits they list in pages 87-89 of the Heritage Statement Impact Report  - have a look... Many of those benefits are only for the dwindling synagogue congregation, and many would still apply if more respectful and sympathetic plans were brought forward. A more appropriate and respectful development would still bring economic benefits, and could be an attractive new destination for Manchester. But right now, the benefits do NOT outweigh the level of harm. Manchester will have to live with this decision for generations to come.  Thank you, Lesley BIG THANKS TO ALL WHO HAVE SUPPORTED THIS PETITION!      ONLY 10 COUNCILLORS WERE AT THE COMMITTEE, 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. Good decisions on planning applications should be the business of ALL our councillors.  

5,426 supporters
Update posted 2 days ago

Petition to Roseanna Cunningham, Jo O'Hara, Nicola Sturgeon

Save the Scottish wildcat by protecting Clashindarroch Forest!

The Scottish Wildcat is one of the rarest animals in the world; there are only 35 of them left on earth. A third of them live in the publicly owned Clashindarroch Forest in the Scottish Highlands, but they are in danger from logging by the Scottish Government’s Forestry Commission Scotland. If this doesn’t stop immediately, the wildcat will become extinct. I’ve always loved cats, and these wildcats - often dubbed the ‘Tigers of the Highlands’ - are particularly special to me. I'm a filmmaker and got to really know about them 12 years ago filming them for a wildlife documentary. Learning they were truly on the verge of extinction I knew I had to act and, with some expert help, I set up a project to protect and conserve them called Wildcat Haven. But now I need your help to keep them alive. Wildcat Haven have found 13 wildcats in this forest. It is their last and only known major stronghold and breeding site. But logging is taking place in the middle of kitten season, disturbing wildcat mothers, which could make them abandon or even eat their young. The logging will tear the wildcat population apart, and threaten many other rare animals that live in the forest alongside them. Please sign our petition urgently calling on the Scottish Government to immediately halt the logging and exploitation of Clashindarroch Forest to ensure the iconic Scottish wildcat survives. You can stay up to date on this campaign and the organisation that discovered these wildcats and wants to protect them, Wildcat Haven, at and also on

Steve Piper
232,247 supporters