Petition to Slough Council, James Swindlehurst
Wedding present for Harry & Meghan: Love for the homeless
I've been involved with SHOC for a number of years, they are a homeless drop in and assistance facility in Slough, I wrote about them in my book Recovery. With the gut wrenching irony that only 2018 can provide SHOC themselves are now being made homeless by Slough council, meaning the vulnerable clients that depend on them will be in even more trouble. But we can fight back on their behalf with the Recovery Movement. Many of the rough sleepers swept out of Windsor as result of Councillor Simon Dudley's proposed economic cleanse in preparation of Prince Harry's wedding to Meghan Markle will need SHOC and other local facilities to care for them. As a wedding present for Harry and Meghan and as a rebuke to the low frequency conduct of Councillor Dudley and any who would further victimise the vulnerable, we are asking that Slough Council agree to a "change of use" for a building in the town that will enable SHOC to have a new home. It will cost them nothing but the ink in the pen to commit to a 'change of use' for this building - you know how easy it is to do that - councils have to do it every time they turn a local shop into a supermarket chain express store. If you think this would be a great gift for the Royal Couple, a beautiful way to celebrate their love SIGN THIS PETITION. This is the perfect way to ensure that love and community trump selfishness and profit as well as being the perfect wedding present for a cool couple. Let's face it, what else can we give them? They must have enough toasters. Sign the wedding card to show your support and to get SHOC and Slough's homeless a permanent home. And stay tuned for more opportunities to join the Recovery Movement.
Petition to Bjorn Ulvaeus, Ingrid Sutej, Staffan Holm, My Blomgren, Lambeth Planning, Coin Street Community Builders, Mamma Mia The Party, Cllr Jen Mosley, Cllr Kevin Craig, Cllr Ben Kind, Kate Hoey MP, Petter Hakanson, Cllr Clair Wilcox, Cllr Joanne Simpson, Gorel Hanser, Florence Eshalomi, Cllr Lib Peck
Björn Ulvaeus: don't put your Abba-themed party on land intended for social housing
We are raising funds for a legal challenge to stop this injustice! Help here thanks: everyclick.com/mmtp Read why this is important... Waterloo residents oppose plans for an Abba-themed restaurant party venue Mamma Mia -The Party! (MMTP) to be constructed on land that has always been earmarked for social housing in a highly residential area. The impact will be catastrophic with 500 party revellers flocking every day/night (twice at weekends!) to an area that is already overly congested with tourists and vehicles. Landowners Coin Street Community Builders (CSCB*) have an obligation to provide social housing on this site but this obligation runs out in 2025 and after that, the land would be lost to the community forever, if MMTP is still going by then. What's wrong with this proposal? The lease for this proposed 'temporary' pop-up theatre was originally for 10 years! Now reduced to 5 years with an intent for 10 years - who are they trying to kid? The venue/site is right next door to hundreds of people's homes Crowds of 500-1000 people would bring anti-social behaviour from 6pm-11.30pm/midnight daily, e.g. noise, litter, public urination, intrusion into people's space/gardens There would be an increase of vehicles to transport visitors and for deliveries, with no extra parking facilities in the vicinity This would increase pollution not only in terms of air quality but also noise and light pollution from the venue itself There has been minimal local consultation and no public consultation yet the planning application has already been submitted giving very little time to voice concerns One of London's biggest crises is the lack of 'affordable'/social housing. CSCB has a duty to provide this and could easily do so with temporary pop-up housing as evidenced by the project in Lewisham https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/18/pop-up-village-in-south-east-london-to-house-homeless-families And Abba's Bjorn Ulvaeus and team could easily find another venue for their riotous new party attraction that would draw unwanted drunken revellers to highly residential parts of Waterloo. MMTP in Stockholm is set in an entertainment resort so come on Abba - please don't sell the people of Waterloo down the river! Help us to find a solution that works for all. *Background: CSCB acquired the site cheaply along with several others in 1985 after a ten-year campaign by the local community to get affordable housing and facilities including workspaces, a community centre, shops and a park. They were sold the sites on a subsidised discount by the Greater London Council on the basis that they would swiftly develop a community-backed scheme approved in 1983. CSCB haven’t built any affordable housing for 15 years, and earlier this year, privately stated that they don’t intend to build any more. They claim that they intend to ‘move forward’ on the site as an extension to the Neighbourhood Centre. But this is already the biggest community centre in London given the modest number (220) of households served by it! Mostly it is vacant or taken up with commercial events, not community activities. The board of CSCB is non-elected. Residents have a reviewable 5 year lease only, with no say in the running of CSCB.
Petition to Cllr Brian Thomson, Cllr Jane Ann Liston, Cllr Dominic Nolan, Cllr Ann Verner
Remove the HMO Ban
"St Andrews students pay highest rents in Scotland" was a newspaper headline last Summer, but students do not need a newspaper to tell us this. Every student that has experienced private accommodation in St Andrews will complain about three things: high competition, high rent, poor quality. St Andrews is a small town, and private accommodation is a valuable resource. University accommodation is expanding, but so is the student population, and the desire for private accommodation within the student community remains as strong as ever. The HMO ban has not worked. Students have seen rent prices increase exponentially. Competition for private accommodation is more fierce than ever. Landlords are completely apathetic, failing to maintain reasonable quality properties when they know their properties will be leased anyway. Malpractice is rife. Students are encouraged to sign illegal leases. Properties that have failed to obtain a HMO license have had the third or fourth bedrooms locked, with two students covering the additional rent between them. All of this is a result of over-saturation and increased competition. The HMO ban is directly responsible for taking usable, rentable bedrooms off the market. The Fife Council commissioned North Star Report shares these findings, and concludes that the HMO ban has completely failed to address the needs of both residents and students. To maintain the HMO ban, or to expand it across the town, is to completely invalidate the experience and rights of students in St Andrews. We do not want to take over the town. We do not want to force out families. We want affordable, reasonable private accommodation that works for all people in St Andrews. In the upcoming HMO review, we ask that the HMO ban is removed. Our student representatives will continue to cooperate to find a solution that benefits all. We would welcome more complex legislation that addresses the needs of all community members, but the HMO ban does not address the problems of students in any way, and only exacerbates them. It is unacceptable as a stop-gap, and it is unacceptable to implement housing policies that serve only part of the community. The HMO ban is not the answer. We ask that you remove it at the upcoming Fife Council Review.
Petition to Department Work And Pensions, House Of Lords, dwp
DWP Do NOT turn Support For Mortgage Interest Benefit into a loan
Benefit - called (SMI) Support For Mortgage Interest is a lesser payment, paid to people that are in receipt of certain qualifying benefits, similar to Housing Benefit, but paid to non working sick or disabled or unemployed persons buying their own homes, as opposed to being a tenant and receiving rent paid, SMI contributes smaller amounts to the mortgage lender to cover ONLY PART of the INTEREST ONLY. THE ISSUE - Government want to turn this welfare benefit into a repayable loan!!They also intend to add interest and admin fees.To ensure they get their benefit monies back - they will place their name - in the form of a CHARGE on the sick / disabled / unemployed person's house deeds and persons will not be able to move or sell until that 'loan' - that 'Charge' is paid back, in full, with interest accrued and fees. (Save any variants in the plan on moving with permissions)!This is wholly UNFAIR as tenants, that receive a lot more in rent payments will not have to pay those sums back! It is unfair that persons likely worked, saved deposits, paid Stamp Duty in thousands of pounds and VAT and more tax on bills and so on and have fallen on hard times, no fault of their own!WHY SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT CLAIM A STAKE IN PEOPLE'S PROPERTIES?!They say it will impress the tax payer - but HOLD ON, property owners / mortgagees were and ARE tax payers!I urge you ALL to STOP THIS!! Answer this - (regardless of whether you are unfortunate to be on benefits due to unforeseen circumstances or working, as it could be you in future, always remember that)! - WOULD YOU LIKE ANOTHER PARTY - THE GOVERNMENT PLACING A CHARGE ON YOUR HOME, (if you haven't volunteered say under a help to buy scheme that is) but PRIVATE 'owner', mortgagee?! I think you would refuse?!There is nothing fair about this.These SMI recipients could say receive £200 per month (or 4 week) on a £700 mortgage - therefore having to find the other £500 per month, as well as bills and necessary outgoings! So if that was (as per this Gov plan) added up, more interest, on top of mortgage that recipient is already struggling to pay, the mortgage and this CHARGE together grows even bigger. Remember NO PART OF SMI pays towards the actual mortgage - merely a small part of interest ONLY!If you are a working FIT healthy person or on Tax Credit for example and don't agree with persons having to be on sick welfare or benefits full stop, then I urge THINK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX - many sick, disabled, non working people may have fought to campaign to stop something or gain for you. You cant resent genuinely sick or disabled persons or people that lose their job through no fault of their own - so don't let the Gov. punish the vulnerable even more, by forcing a claim on their homes, nor making benefits repayable!PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE PETITION and know that if it works, at least you, your family members or future generations won't be affected, if they fall on hard times, become ill etc.
Petition to Sadiq Khans' Ballots Consultation
Ensure votes for residents on estates facing regeneration
Last year, council estate residents and housing activists campaigned to get the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, to give those under threat of 'regeneration' a ballot on whether they agreed to having their homes demolished. Sadiq Khan has now agreed in principle, but has released a Consultation Paper on the process. As many residents know, this will make or break whether ballots actually give a democratic voice to council estate residents. We have outlined amendments that will ensure this happens. We call on Sadiq Khan to tighten up his proposals in several ways including : The minimum number of homes demolished to trigger a ballot should be 10 homes. The decommissioning of supported housing must also be balloted. The ballot should be after a concrete proposal has been produced. Whether there is a ballot should affect Planning approval. All residents should have a vote. As the mayor committed in his manifesto, regeneration should only go ahead with majority resident support. Do not demolish good homes - All residents must have final say via ballot on any regeneration/demolition plan - Rents need to stay at council 'social' rent levels - Right of return must be contractually enforceable - All financial and technical information about estates to be made public - Leaseholders must have a right to return or receive full market value of their property.
Petition to ealing council
Build affordable housing on the Gurnell Leisure centre Site - West London
Ealing Council intends to allow developers to build luxury housing on the Gurnell Leisure Centre site in return for a contribution towards the cost of improving the swimming pool. This contribution is welcome, but it is wrong to allow development on public land which waives the usual requirement for at least 25% of new housing to be to be affordable/social stock, while we are so desperate for social and affordable housing in the area. This must no be allowed to happen. Ealing currently has over 10,000 people on its social housing waiting list and current property prices are out of the reach of the majority of people. The average house price in Ealing is now £650,000 and average room rents are £825 pcm (£1400pcm for a 1 bed flat). Between 2014-15 the number of social houses increased by only 68 and affordable homes to buy by 480. People who have grown up in the Borough are having to move out, something that is happening right across London. Where are our teachers, nurses, doctors, bus drivers, cleaners, police all going to live? We are in desperate need of affordable housing and we must all be concerned about the mass sell-off of public land. We need genuinely affordable housing, not just a new swimming pool. Please join with me by signing a petition to Ealing Council requesting that they reconsider their policy to abandon its commitment to affordable and social housing.
Petition to ealing council, Sadiq Khan, Jeremy Corbyn MP
Stop the housing development on public open space to fund the Gurnell Redevelopment
This is a petition to register our objection ad lack of support for the proposed high density housing development on public open space to fund the redevelopment of Gurnell Leisure Centre. Some of the reasons for our objections are set out below: the sell-off of public land and use of an enabling private housing development; the size/height of the proposed housing development;the lack of social and genuinely affordable housing in the proposed development; the lack of involvement of local residents in the initial vision and specification for the leisure centre; the lack of consultation with local residents prior to alternatives being ruled out for the upgrade of the leisure centre, and the timeline decided; the failure of the Council to adopt a competitive procurement process to ensure best value for the community in an open and transparent procedure; the lack of infrastructure (schools/NHS/A40 access/parking/etc) to cope with the projected numbers of extra people the housing development will bring; the disruption that will be caused for at least 2 years while construction of the leisure centre takes place, and an unspecified amount of time for the housing development. We feel the Council has failed to consider other alternatives which would better benefit the community. The council could instead spend the £12m they are contributing on refitting the current leisure centre, rather than sell off our public land to this housing developer. Approval by Ealing Council would deny best practise in public consultation and bring the Ealing planning system into disrepute, setting a dangerous precedent. ACTION REQUIRED: For the council to abandon the current proposals. For the Planning Committee to refuse the planning application. For the council to properly consult with the community on a Neighbourhood Plan to ensure the community has a leading role in the redevelopment of Gurnell Leisure Centre and the use of open land in this and the wider neighbourhood.
Petition to Broadland District Council and South Norfolk Council
Green Belt for Norwich
Amazingly, there is currently no officially designated Green Belt around Norwich to help protect our green spaces and open countryside from excessive, inappropriate and unnecessary development. There are currently hundreds of planning applications to build thousands of houses on green field sites around the periphery of one of England’s most important historic cities. We all benefit from the rural open character of the hinterland around this fine City and its loss will be a tragedy for us all. That’s why CPRE Norfolk feels strongly that we must show Government and local authorities how important it is to us and why it needs better protection. Data on household projections by the Office for National Statistics demonstrates that the number of new houses provided for in local plans greatly exceed requirements. CPRE Norfolk believes that where there is a proven need for new houses, brownfield sites should be considered first, as they are less damaging to the countryside, create less of a carbon footprint, plug into existing infrastructure, are more convenient places to live and help keep the local economy thriving. As our local authorities begin the process of reviewing the recently adopted local plans for Norwich and its surrounding districts with the likelihood that they will have to accommodate even more growth beyond 2026 until 2036 on top of what we already consider to be excessive growth, it is now more urgent than ever that Norwich has a Green Belt in place to protect the setting of this historic city and the countryside from the onslaught of never ending development and the consequent urbanisation of this rural county. This petition will be sent to: Broadland District Council, South Norfolk Council, Norwich City Council, Norfolk County Council and the following Norfolk MPs: Richard Bacon MP, Sir Henry Bellingham MP, George Freeman MP, Norman Lamb MP, Brandon Lewis MP, Clive Lewis MP, Keith Simpson MP, Chloe Smith MP, Elizabeth Truss MP. CPRE Norfolk www.cprenorfolk.org.uk Campaign to Protect Rural England March 2016