藍澄灣業主社群

 找回密碼
 註冊
搜索
熱搜: 活動 交友 discuz
查看: 1144|回復: 3
打印 上一主題 下一主題

. [複製鏈接]

Rank: 4

跳轉到指定樓層
1#
發表於 2004-7-31 19:28:49 |只看該作者 |倒序瀏覽

Rank: 8Rank: 8

2#
發表於 2004-7-31 20:50:52 |只看該作者

Re: 申訴專員受理環保署失職調查 但要我們提出證明

[quote:faf5909eae="Rambler Villager"]請大家教教本人 如何回信?[/quote]


....   邊有可能會有o個d document ... 我地又無間諜  :em03:

使用道具 舉報

Rank: 2

3#
發表於 2004-8-1 00:55:41 |只看該作者
Quite Difficult to find document...

使用道具 舉報

Rank: 2

4#
發表於 2004-8-1 13:53:17 |只看該作者
We cannot provide document regarding this. However I think that we should focus on whether EPD ever evaluate the impact of the road to RC. So I suggest that we should ask:

1) Can EPD provide environmental evaluation report on the impact of the road to RC?

2) If EPD never evaluate the impact of road to RC how come they approve the road design so close to RC? Can they prove that the design follow the guideline?

3) How come the relevant department allow CK to sell RC as permanent apartments for more than 1000 residents? Did they ever evaluate the impact of the newly designed main truck road so close to RC? Can they prove the design follow the guideline?

4) If the relevant Government departments cannot provide the relevant documents this can prove that Government do make mistake in this process. Due to such mistake the distance between a newly designed main truck road and new developed RC cannot comply to the Government environment protection guideline for design of new road. Hence the relevant Government departments need to take up the responsibility of making a mistake.

使用道具 舉報

您需要登錄後才可以回帖 登錄 | 註冊

Archiver|手機版|藍澄灣業主社群

GMT+8, 2024-12-2 03:32 , Processed in 0.028246 second(s), 10 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X2

© 2001-2011 Comsenz Inc.

回頂部