Forum Message

Topic: Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing
Posted by: Martin Case
Date/Time: 31/10/17 07:54:00

Yes a mix of social and leisure amenities are vital to community cohesion, but currently Watermans is used primarily from other communities outside of Brentford yet still has to be subsidised by the local community. Brentford is in need of regeneration, however are we advocating the gentrification of yet another pocket of London and forsaking a greater social mix which produces a more diverse and inclusive community? The current Watermans site is a prime site and as such demands a high premium, but all this is doing is pushing land values up and up which in turn means developers have to maximise their return hence the poor provision of social housing within proposed developments in Brentford. So back to my original question are Watermans providing a vital service and one which should be prioritised over greater needs? 


Entire Thread
TopicDate PostedPosted By
Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 12:16:00 Martin Case
   Re:Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 14:46:00 Barry Jacques
      Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 16:32:00 Martin Case
         Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 17:06:00 Barry Jacques
            Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 22:49:00 Philippa Bond
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 22:53:00 Barry Jacques
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 23:02:00 Theo Dennison
                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing31/10/17 11:25:00 Martin Case
                     Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing01/11/17 00:43:00 Theo Dennison
                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing01/11/17 18:40:00 Barry Jacques
                           Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing04/11/17 16:59:00 Theo Dennison
   Re:Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 17:43:00 Martin Case
      Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 18:43:00 Adam Beamish
         Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 19:47:00 Martin Case
            Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 20:10:00 Raki Smith
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 22:19:00 Keith Iddon
                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 22:48:00 Adam Beamish
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing31/10/17 07:54:00 Martin Case
                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing31/10/17 08:12:00 Lorne Gifford
                     Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing31/10/17 12:16:00 Keith Iddon
                     Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing04/11/17 23:08:00 Theo Dennison
                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing05/11/17 13:17:00 Raymond Havelock
                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing31/10/17 16:15:00 Mark Skuse
                     Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing31/10/17 18:44:00 Keith Iddon
                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing31/10/17 18:52:00 Martin Case
                           Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing31/10/17 19:04:00 Keith Iddon
                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing04/11/17 23:12:00 Susan Kelly
                           Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing05/11/17 09:11:00 Emma Renton
                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing05/11/17 12:28:00 Keith Iddon
                                 Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing05/11/17 14:59:00 Jennifer Selig
                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing03/12/17 13:41:00 Philippa Bond
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing01/12/17 20:38:00 Martin Webb

Forum Home