Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It would help when the Council allow a plot to be a block of flats, or a house to be converted to 3 dwellings, that they get the INFRASTRUCTURE in place FIRST. This is not he fault of Thames Water it is the result of stupid Town 'Planning' ( which seems to err on the side of how many votes Labour can rustle up from a single application) Sorry for the cynicism- well actually I'm not because it is TRUE
I've noticed a few leaks in East Dulwich and some leak seem to go on for long durations with out repair. From what I can ascertain the leak problem is quite substantial underwater companies are hiding the fact that they have a problem. They're more interested in profiteering and then addressing leaks. Ofwat are slow to act and when they do there ineffectual at making sure companies actually maintain a well maintained infrastructure.

On the wider question of local infrastructure, I fear uncleglen is right. A case in point is the now thankfully shelved development at DHFC and Green Dale, where the developer proposed to build 155 dwellings where none currently exist. As someone deeply involved in the campaign to stop the development, I read through all the documentation, including comments from statutory stakeholders including the emergency services, utilities etc. One response that stood out among the mainly box-ticking that was going on was Thames Water's:


"The existing water supply infrastructure has insufficient capacity to meet the additional demands for the proposed development. Thames Water therefore recommend the following condition be imposed: Development should not be commenced until: Impact studies of the existing water supply infrastructure have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority (in consultation with Thames Water). The studies should determine the magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system and a suitable connection point.

Reason: To ensure that the water supply infrastructure has sufficient capacity to cope with the/this additional demand."


And was anything done to further investigate the impact on water supply? No, not a thing. Their response was completely ignored by the developers and the council, so if the plan had gone ahead, Thames Water would have have just had to lump it and deal with the consequences.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • As I said, it was my understanding. I worded it very carefully. I didn't/don't know for sure, so clearly not a fact. And hardly an "opinion", which is something completely different. You have no idea what reason anybody might have had for not voting for him (unless you can point to some opinion poll results which actually asked people?)
    • Also, just to add, the threat to kill someone's dog and try to kick it, is an additional extremely unpleasant layer. I have noticed a lot of the burst water balloons lying around in the park too- that is not great for the environment either.
    • I’m basing it on the fact that Jeremy Corbyn had repeatedly and on record said he is against mandatory vaccinations in any situation, and he wouldn’t disclose wether he had the Covid vaccine himself    as I said. Not as bad as his brother but very definitely a bit weird about the whole thing. Just say you had the vaccination Jeremy, say that everyone should and stop being weird in the middle of a global pandemic    it’s the same slippery evasive nonsense about Brexit and him. About Putin poisonings and him.     if you are happy with his evasiveness then you do you.  But there is a reason the country wouldn’t get behind him 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...