Link to printer friendly version of this page (PDF)
Notes on Statement of Consultation (Note 1) with further information from the Local Development Framework Consultation report (Note 2)
Study was of questionnaire sent out to community pulse in April 2007 (page 85) plus individuals and stakeholders.
The bar chart in the Core Strategy Statement of Consultation page 86 shows the responses from 500 community pulse participants and 51 individuals/stakeholders (Total sample 551).
|
Option one |
Option two |
Option three |
||||||
| No | % | No | % | No | % | |||
| Yes | 190 | 40.5 | 150 | 36.6 | 165 | 40.7 | ||
| No | 280 | 59.5 | 260 | 63.4 | 240 | 59.3 | ||
| Total | 470 | 100 | 410 | 100 | 405 | 100 | ||
| Difference | -90 | 19 | -110 | 26.8 | -75 | 18.6 | ||
|
Percentage variation between option one and option three is 0.4% |
||||||||
Note 2
Responses from 500 community pulse respondents only
as reported in Local Development Framework consultation questionnaire results.
Note 3
|
Option 1 |
Option 2 |
Option 3 |
|||||||
| No | % | No | % | No | % | ||||
| Yes | 171 | 39 | 149 | 36.3 | 166 | 41.5 | |||
| No | 265 | 61 | 261 | 63.7 | 237 | 58.5 | |||
| Total | 436 | 100 | 410 | 100 | 405 | 100 | |||
| Difference | 94 | 22 | 112 | 27.3 | 71 | 17.5 | |||
| Percentage variation between option one and option three |
1 exceeds 3 by |
||||||||
| Yes answers |
0.2% |
||||||||
| No answers |
0.2% |
||||||||
| Difference between yes and no |
4.5% |
||||||||
Analysis
The total number of ‘yes’ answers (505 with stakeholders/individual responses and 486 community pulse only) is only slightly less than the sample of 500.
The number of ‘no’ answers (763 in both cases) indicates that just over half of the community pulse respondents ticked more than one ‘no’ box but that stakeholders and individual responses only ticked ‘yes’ boxes..
‘Total’ differences are probably due to faulty questionnaire design. It is reasonable to assume that most respondents would have ticked only one ‘yes’ box for their preferred option. Some would have gone on to tick ‘no’ for all the other options and others for only their least favourite, others none at all.
With these points in mind what credibility can be given to the final paragraphs in the following statement of consultation?
“Greenfield Homes - There is a clear negative response to any suggestion of Greenfield housing development. The least negative response is for the Option 3, whilst the greatest is for the concentration option (Option 1). The variance between yes and no is the smallest in the dispersal option (Option 3) which could indicate the least strong feelings about this option.
Greenfield housing attracted the largest number of individual comments, some from developer interests starting the process of promoting or maintaining the momentum at their sites, e.g. Hooks Lane and Hampshire Farm. The comment was made that land north of Leigh Park featured in all the Options, although that area is subject to environmental designations.
Concentration was suggested to be more in accordance with government advice. Option 1 would not provide affordable housing across the area where a general need exists. However, it was also recognized that the greatest affordable housing needs are around Havant and that this should be the focus, even more so than Waterlooville, which has substantial outstanding development at the MDA. Option 2 attracted support from respondents by introducing land north of Emsworth where some potential exists. One developer felt that Option 3 was the most sustainable although others consider it to be the least as it wouldn’t make the best use of facilities at the main centres. The Highways Agency has concerns that whilst concentration is more likely to result in fewer trips, proximity to the Strategic Road Network could result in more trips. With dispersal it is important to take account of the cumulative trips from more sites on the Strategic Road Network.”
The final statement “For greenfield housing the preference was more towards dispersal” thus in no way derives from the consultation process either in terms of numerical analysis or the above comments paragraph which is totally inconclusive and which indicates that the real reason for choosing option three ‘dispersal’ is not being made transparent. For example the developer attracted to land to the north of Emsworth is hardly impartial.
It seems that far clearer and more transparent analysis of environmental considerations, infrastructure implications, and quality of life issues is needed before the core strategy preferred options can be accepted.
Notes
1. Core Strategy Statement of Consultation referred to in the preferred options document.
- The figures were obtained from scaling the printed bar chart. Minor errors are therefore probable; this is unavoidable as the actual figures are not published.
- Council and Democracy > Consultations > Havant’s Citizens’ Panel > Citizens’ Panel Results > Consultations 2007 > Local Development Framework Consultation http://www.havant.gov.uk/havant-8509 follow link to questionnaire results (web page 8479)
