| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:No Water | |
| Posted by: | Adam Beamish | |
| Date/Time: | 08/06/13 13:15:00 |
| My point is that developments can't be refused planning permission because a statutory undertaker, in this case Thames Water, can't deliver a satisfactory level of service. I consistently argue that developments should attract a high level of financial contributions to pay towards improvements to local infrastructure and such like, which is precisely why personally speaking I'm opposed to the Brentford FC proposals. |
| Topic | Date Posted | Posted By |
| No Water | 21/05/13 07:41:00 | Sarah Spain |
| Re:No Water | 21/05/13 11:52:00 | Pat Kingham |
| Re:No Water | 21/05/13 13:32:00 | Natasha Manganaro |
| Re:Re:No Water | 21/05/13 19:03:00 | Raymond Havelock |
| Re:Re:Re:No Water | 22/05/13 11:28:00 | Natasha Manganaro |
| Re:No Water | 07/06/13 20:09:00 | Ron Curant |
| Re:Re:No Water | 07/06/13 23:24:00 | Anthony Waller |
| Re:Re:Re:No Water | 08/06/13 07:18:00 | Ron Curant |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:No Water | 08/06/13 13:15:00 | Adam Beamish |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:No Water | 08/06/13 13:34:00 | Sarah Spain |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:No Water | 08/06/13 17:42:00 | Ron Curant |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:No Water | 09/06/13 11:12:00 | Anthony Waller |