Strategic Growth Options
Search representations
Results for Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association search
New searchComment
Strategic Growth Options
Question 11
Representation ID: 9923
Received: 13/04/2015
Respondent: Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association
Houses - 3
Commercial / Industrial Buildings - 2
Nature Reserves / Wildlife - 3
Farmland - 3
Woodland - 3
Degraded / Derelict / Wasteland - 1
Infrastructure - 2
Leisure / Recreational Facilities - 2
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 10
Representation ID: 9924
Received: 13/04/2015
Respondent: Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association
Scenic Beauty / Attractiveness - 5
Outdoor Recreation /Leisure Use - 5
Wildlife Interest - 5
Historical Interest - 5
Tranquility - 4
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 12
Representation ID: 9925
Received: 13/04/2015
Respondent: Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association
The importance of encouragement to use public transport, cycling and walking, and discourgement of over-dependence on private transport cannot be over-emphasised. Currently public transport in my part of the borough is infrequent and often unreliable, discouraging use and providing a justification for the exclusive use of private cars (often with only one occupant).
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 13
Representation ID: 9926
Received: 13/04/2015
Respondent: Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association
In order of priority:
1) Public transport
2) Safe cycling (segregated lanes on major roads/some minor routes reserved for cyclists and pedestrians)
3) Faster broadband
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: 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.
