Question 6
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 12799
Received: 30/04/2015
Respondent: John E Rolfe
Brownfield, but with increase in infrastructure.
See attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 12813
Received: 30/04/2015
Respondent: Mr David Wood
Yes. But only for new schools or hospitals!
See attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 12824
Received: 30/04/2015
Respondent: Crest Nicholson
Agent: Bidwells
We support the general consideration of Green Belt release because we consider that 'exceptional circumstances' exist through the Brentwood Local Plan process to do so.
See attached.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 12845
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Miss Kelly Bowers
Is this a question or a statement? I do not agree with using Green Belt at all. I strongly believe that Brentwood or elsewhere could be developed more.
Q1: No. I think the government need to look at unused inner city buildings, derelict land and so forth. Keep our Green Belt identify, protect our heritage and not overbuild.
Q2: No.
Q3: Yes. Keep our villages especially Blackmore as it is. We haven't the resources and the roads would become dangerous, congested and like a town.
Q4: Not sure.
Q5: No.
Q6: Is this a question or a statement? I do not agree with using Green Belt at all. I strongly believe that Brentwood or elsewhere could be developed more.
Q7: No.
Q8: Yes.
Q9: As in what provision? Don't know.
Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5
Other - Green Belts saved re Woollard Way - my road and my children's view and safety: 5
Q11: Houses: 2
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 1
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2
Other - Space and Tranquillity, English Heritage: 4
Q12: Quality of life, enjoying greenery of a natural environment. Safety for our children to grow up more free, not a built up area - this is why we moved to Blackmore, Woollard Way.
Q13: Don't know.
These questions are very biased and vague.
I do not want Woollard Way - the brownfield area of Green Belt to be developed / built on. This will devastate us. We moved here for the greenery and views. This will devalue our homes, effect our children's freedom and security. A close made into a noisy road would be categorically wrong and devastating. All the children love watching the horses, wildlife in the field next to use, they play out with no through traffic.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 12861
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Michael Jefferyes
Effort should be made to minimise erosion of the Green Belt - but any development in the Green Belt should prioritise brownfield sites to minimise the loss of visual amenity, recreation and wildlife habitat.
See attached.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 12878
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Dean Shepherd
No these should stay Green Belt as the feel of the area will become urbanised and not village like.
Q1: No
Q2: No
Q3: Yes - The proposed site will increase traffic to a quiet road in the village that doesn't have the capacity to accommodate increased traffic.
Q4: No because the site isn't located near the A127.
Q5: No.
Q6: No these should stay Green Belt as the feel of the area will become urbanised and not village like.
Q7: No.
Q8: Yes - The population of the village has increased and the shops are struggling to cope this is without future development.
Q9: No.
Q10:
Scenic Beauty: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5
Q11:
Houses: 3
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 2
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 3
Degraded/Derelict/Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure/ Recreation Facilities: 3
Q12: Yes - The additional funds should be spent improving residents safety by erecting more street lights and local buses.
Q13: Pedestrian safety and local street lights, buses, better road surfaces.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 12887
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Wayne Pluck
As villages should be maintained as villages and not for green belt land to
be developed on as that is the main aspect for buying propperty in these
locations. Local amenities are only capable of serving the vilage as it
stands and increasing population by way of development will casues
issues with these amenities. Rural location should be kept as rural as
that is the appeal to people who choose to live in these locations.
Q3: Yes - Plot 143 land east of Peartree Lane and North of Peartree Close
Yes we do not believe this should be use for devlopment of 50 dewelling
as this will comprimise the the rural asepect of the area and will heavly
congest the roads into the proposed plot. This will also affect the number
of local schools and doctors surgery and is not in keeping of the quite rural
area.
Q6: As villages should be maintained as villages and not for green belt land to
be developed on as that is the main aspect for buying propperty in these
locations. Local amenities are only capable of serving the vilage as it
stands and increasing population by way of development will casues
issues with these amenities. Rural location should be kept as rural as
that is the appeal to people who choose to live in these locations.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 12888
Received: 13/04/2015
Respondent: Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association
There is a serious structural flaw in Q6. 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.
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.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 12925
Received: 05/05/2015
Respondent: Mrs Leanne Wenban-Price
Where available, brownfield sites should be considered above Greenfield sites. There may be instances where the release of small amounts of Green Belt land around villages provides opportunities for these villages to grow in a sustainable manner. However, this should only be considered once brownfield options have been exhausted and where the development would create a positive and balanced impact on the community. Releasing all of the Green Belt land around West Horndon village for example would not create a positive or balanced impact on to the existing community. An isolated Green Belt release to allow for limited development that would provide access to the park could be acceptable for example.
See attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 12937
Received: 05/05/2015
Respondent: Mrs Anika Perry
It is preferable to use brownfield sites.
See attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 12950
Received: 05/05/2015
Respondent: Mr Ronan Hart
Yes. This enables houses to be build near young peoples parents. I think it is very important for the community.
See attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 12970
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Anderson Group
Agent: Bidwells
Greenfield sites are preferred.
See attached documents.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 12974
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Anderson Group
Agent: Bidwells
We consider that greenfield sites on the edge of villages should be considered for release, particularly where there is insufficient brownfield land to provide for locally generated need for new development in villages such as Blackmore. Green Belt impact has been considered; SA identifies a lack of brownfield sites int eh rural area; Blackmore is of a size that can have a proportionate level of growth to it.
See attached documents.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 12984
Received: 07/05/2015
Respondent: Mr Ian Stratford
Brownfield development would preferable to greenfield if dispersed expansion must be done (but given the dismal state of local transport, I can't see why this would be a good idea)
See attached.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 13015
Received: 07/05/2015
Respondent: Mr Barry Bunker
Use brownfield sites where the development is not impinging on the surrounding areas by the proposals put forward and effectively overcrowding an otherwise green "Village" environment. Use of Greenfield sites will have impact on Infrastructure as do all developments but this aspect can be integrated into the new Greenfield design proposals and have a lower impact on the existing population of a balanced village community.Proposals in whatever form they are presented will inevitably stress the village occupiers who are affected and measure of this stress should be taken into account when imposing the will of others onto the final decision.
See attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 13016
Received: 07/05/2015
Respondent: Mr Barry Bunker
It is simply not democratic to effectively ruin the village environment and its occupants wellbeing with unacceptable proposals to satisfy politically driven targets.The authority serving the people should man-up to resist and stamp out suggestions of unsatisfactory and unachievable objectives.
See attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 13029
Received: 08/05/2015
Respondent: Mrs Elaine Smith
I would not consider green belt housing development to be benificial to viliages they may be attached to. Brown field sites are far better to devleop and could possibly be seen as an improvement.
See attached.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 13059
Received: 14/04/2015
Respondent: Mr Kenneth Wooldridge
Large areas of proposals are Green Belt areas. These should be absolutely untouchable. No ifs or buts.
See attached.
Object
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 13070
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Joan McCready
No, no, no.
Q1: This entire exercise is pathetic when shipyards, coalmines and factories were closed down there was a need for an excercise such as this in those locations.
Q2: See my husbands answers.
2 yes by all means consider the issues, providing that the answer in Q1 is considered.
3 One who is opposed to the envisaged growth there seems to be little point in commenting on an y individual site.
5, No - the previous answers deal with this.
6 No, no, no.
7. No - Turn the disused office blocks into factories.
10
Scenic Beauty/Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5
11
Nature Reserves/Wildlife: 2
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded/Derelict/Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 4
Leisure/Recreation Facilities: 2
8 Yes - But no more supermarkets.
9 Yes - Instead of farmland being sold to developers, use ot for leisure.
4 None. The A127 is developing into a built up corridor from London to Southend.
12 No - This whole programme should have been rejected. We have an MP who is a member of the government, what is his part in this?
13 The previous answers deal with this.
1.14 Consultations. For a consultation process this must be seen as a disgrace.While there has been talk of growth - only today (16/02/2015) have we seen consultation documents. It has to be asked just who has been consulted.