204 Land to North of Blackmore Road, Blackmore Road, Kelvedon Hatch

Showing comments and forms 1 to 4 of 4

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 4162

Received: 13/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Susan Scanlan

Representation Summary:

I believe this site would be detrimental to the village, as a large development would be unsustainable and change the character of the village.

Full text:

Q1: No - I do not agree with the North of the Borough Option. Substantial building would not be sustainable. Country lanes have to be used to access A414 and M11, causing much erosion. The bus service is poor and doesn't run after early evening and is infrequent with regard to Kelvedon Hatch. Although there is a newly built Doctors Surgery, there are only 4 doctors, and an increase in the population would mean even longer waiting times. The local primary school is only small and I would imagine it would have trouble accommodating a significant number of new pupils. It is also important for the villages to maintain their own identity and not merge into an urban sprawl, which could happen if Green Belt on the edge of villages is used for housing.

Q2: Yes

Q3: Yes - 201. Environmentally this would cause noise and light pollution. Various wildlife live and feed in this field including bats, owls and other birdlife i.e. sparrow hawks, green woodpeckers and thrushes and starlings, all in decline. The corridor of land is important for wildlife and I believe on this agricultural greenbelt would be detrimental. If this site were to be developed it would increase the size of the village by almost half again, which would be unsustainable.
204. I believe this site would also be detrimental to the village, as again a large development would be unsustainable and change the character of the village.
217. This is an area used by villagers for dog walking, picnics and general recreation. If this were developed it would deprive the village of a much needed amenity.

Q4: I think the Dunton Garden Suburb would be a good option especially as it could provide funding for A127 improvements.

Q5: Yes

Q6: It would be better to develop brownfield sites.

Q7: Yes

Q8: Yes

Q10:
Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 5

Q11:
Houses: 2
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 2
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 3
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land : 2
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2

Q12: Yes

Q13: Green infrastructure should be as important as all the others, to maintain a healthy society both physically and psychologically.

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 9892

Received: 13/04/2015

Respondent: Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association

Representation Summary:

There is some low-grade agricultural land on the edge of the village (e.g. the site identified as "north of Blackmore Rd") that could be released for proportionate development with provision for affordable housing both for the children of villagers who would wish to stay in the community and cannot currently afford to do so, and for younger families who would inject new vitality into the community, and sustain its school and local businesses.

Full text:

Consultation Questionnaire see attached.

Email: Strategic Growth Options Consultation - incorrectly structured question

Hi

I am in the process of completing the Strategic Growth Options consultation questionnaire and an unable to proceed because of what I consider a serious structural flaw in Q6.

Q6 reads: In order to provide for local needs is in preferable to greenfield sites on the edge of villages to be released, or to develop brownfield sites (both within the green belt)?

A Yes or No answer is required (with the option to comment).

However if the answers to Q6 are to be interpreted statistically, it is clearly not possible to answer a multiple choice question with a yes/no answer. Any qualification in the comment box renders analysis impossible.

This elementary error renders one of the most important questions raised in the consultation meaningless. I cannot believe that such a fundamental mistake in questionnaire construction can have been made on a key issue.

I would regard any answer to this question as invalid.

I would be interested to hear your comments as a matter of urgency.

Attachments:

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 13003

Received: 07/05/2015

Respondent: Mr Barry Bunker

Representation Summary:

Proposals are inappropriate when you consider them in the context of trying to maintain the rural nature of the "VILLAGE of Kelvedon Hatch ". The open farm land and grazing "scrub" areas are part of the sites pleasing aesthetics and charisma, with the wildlife.. It is essential that green spaces and preferrably active smallholdings and pastures are allowed to survive and be encouraged for the personal development of the next generation and future villagers.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 13011

Received: 07/05/2015

Respondent: Mr Barry Bunker

Representation Summary:


The infrastructure is not capable of supporting this size of growth as it is currently at capacity nor is there potential to increase the existing infrastructure to meet prospective demand. Adverse effects will have significant impact on existing householders.The Foul and Surface Water drainage, water and gas supplies. The Doctors Surgery and Schooling facilities are already strained and traffic flows in the feeder roadways to sites will be dangerous , and unpleasant for all concerned. An in depth infrastructure suitability study is required.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments: