Strategic Growth Options
Search representations
Results for Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association search
New searchComment
Strategic Growth Options
Question 1
Representation ID: 9882
Received: 13/04/2015
Respondent: Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association
Yes. These broad areas should be subject to the objective of reducing private car use, encouraging the use of public transport, walking and safe cycling, and locating larger developments (if required) close to existing major roads and bus and rail hubs.
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
Question 2
Representation ID: 9886
Received: 13/04/2015
Respondent: Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association
Yes. It is vital to retain and to build sustainable communities with a mix of housing to meet the needs of public service workers, young people and older people with limited mobility options (i.e. no car).
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.
Object
Strategic Growth Options
217 Eagle Field, Kelvedon Hatch
Representation ID: 9889
Received: 13/04/2015
Respondent: Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association
Within Kelvedon Hatch there are limited in-fill and brownfield development opportunities and infrastructure is already hard pressed. It is important to retain the character of the village visually and historically and I would therefore not support development of Eagle Field or any other open community space.
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
204 Land to North of Blackmore Road, Blackmore Road, Kelvedon Hatch
Representation ID: 9892
Received: 13/04/2015
Respondent: Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association
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.
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
Question 4
Representation ID: 9896
Received: 13/04/2015
Respondent: Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association
The Dunton development brings with it the promise of new infrastructure in a balanced community. Other sites (e.g. east of Herongate) would bring increased pressure particularly on already inadequate roads and public transport.
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.
Support
Strategic Growth Options
Question 5
Representation ID: 9899
Received: 13/04/2015
Respondent: Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association
Subject to the retention of the characteristics of existing residential areas, safeguarding important environmentally-sensitive sites, and avoiding ribbon development. Any development should be subject to provision for adequate public transport and cycling/walking, shops, schools etc.
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
Question 6
Representation ID: 9910
Received: 13/04/2015
Respondent: Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association
Many existing brownfield sites are remote from existing village centres (e.g. Clapgate and Thoby Manor) and will generate high levels of private car usage particularly during travel-to-work/school times. This will profoundly affect existing communities for the worse. Sympathetic and proportionate release of green belt land on the outer edge of communities with generous provision for truly affordable housing for the children of existing residents and incoming young families would create more sustainable communities, subject to sufficient infrastructure. Existing open spaces within communities (amenity land, village greens, community orchards and other open spaces) should not be released under any circumstances.
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.
Support
Strategic Growth Options
Question 7
Representation ID: 9915
Received: 13/04/2015
Respondent: Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association
Subject to the need to retain and sustain village communities.
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.
Support
Strategic Growth Options
Question 8
Representation ID: 9919
Received: 13/04/2015
Respondent: Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association
Subject to ensuring the continued viability of village shops and other businesses by proportionate development.
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
Question 9
Representation ID: 9921
Received: 13/04/2015
Respondent: Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association
No. But existing open spaces (Poor's Field, Eagle Field, Swan Pond, various
areas of woodland and the amenity green in Kelvedon Green to the S of
Eagle Way bridleway) should be preserved to cater for the existing and
future residents of the village.
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.
