Inspired by the Parish Council Meeting
2nd June 2005
Dear Mr. Shuker,
Re: A120 Braintree to Marks Tey
I am writing to you regarding some concerns that I have regarding the proposed scheme.
I attended the Parish Council meeting on the 31st May where a gentleman spoke on your behalf. I was greatly concerned by some discrepancies that came to light. The gentleman admitted to the possibility of not knowing all the answers to our questions. I would like to point out that if he did not know the answers then it was a pointless exercise sending him? He did however know the answers to most questions that were asked.
We were informed that a Highways Agency presence was not at the previous meeting due to the fact that the Highways Agency would not attend an unorganised meeting. On Tuesday night it was put forward that the reason for non-attendance had been because of the General Election. I find this very alarming that there should be two reasons and am left wondering if they are both unfounded excuses.
It also came to light that in the Bradwell meeting the attendees were informed that the information leaflet would not be handed out. At the Parish Council meeting it was said that they would be. I was astounded to hear that there are still people in the parish that have not received any literature from yourselves at all. It is no excuse to say, as your representative did on Tuesday night, that you do not know what has happened and that you are still investigating. The deadline for people to get their views in is hurriedly approaching and it appears that the Highways Agency have done their best to evade getting the information out. In light that there is a considerable proportion of residents to the area who have no received the literature I would like to ask the following question:
When the results of the public consultation period are analysed what is the proposed methodology and as a result of the literature not being delivered, if the required population sample is not reached will the questionnaire be redistributed and a further period of time granted for it’s return? Or will flawed results be allowed to stand? If the required percentage is received from other areas but not from Cressing will the data be left biased or will this be rectified?
I am absolutely appalled at this confusion in information, both in different stories from the HIghways Agency and in the lack of distribution of literature.
My next set of questions pertain to my last letter from the Highways Agency. It has come to my notice that there is going to be severe disruption to the footpaths in the area. I would like to know exactly what is planned for the Essex Way. According to the plans that I have seen there will be a severance of the path, can you confirm that this will have a bridge over the A120 to retain access?
It also says that there will be the loss of the underpass at Galley’s corner. Could I ask what the rational behind this is and what facilities will be given to aid the crossing of these very busy roads. I find the grading of the footpaths very worrying. It appears that someone has taken a cursory glance in the general direction of the footpath and made a judgement, thereby fulfilling the criteria for a grade 1 survey. (I believe I am correct in how detailed a grade 1 survey is!)
In your letter of response you mentioned that you were not able to quantify the impact of the new road upon the local roads, but that you expected the traffic to be eased by the new A120. As there is no planned entry or egress from the road in-between the A12 and Braintree, this must surely increase the traffic through villages as they will not be able to use the major road because it does not allow them on or off. Is it the HIghways agency proposition to guess whether or not there will be an impact or will proper research be carried out in this area?
In your letter you implied that the road level may be sunk around the village. Can you categorically state that it will or it won’t? Giving vague implied suggestions is not enough for the residents of the area to be able to respond properly. If you do not state what the plan is and then state that we were given ample opportunity respond, this is surely unmoral when we can’t respond to what is not given!
At the meeting on 31st May it was stated that the proposed route on the literature was not in fact a proposed route, but just one of a few. I would like to point out that it does say on the literature that the route is the “proposed route” and others were options considered, I would like to note the past tense on this. The other routes were considered and the proposed route considered the best. If this so called proposed route was not the final choice or even the preferred route, why was it publicised in this way? Is this surely not misleading? If this is not correct then perhaps the gentleman should have been better briefed.
At this point I am very disappointed by the information that has and has not been given. I have found the literature and the maps provided on my last request to have been certainly thorough, but also felt that it was given in this format to have been an attempt to confuse. I would like to know what methodology has been employed and in this study and the reasoning for not releasing the analysed results after this public consultation. Finally, will all comments from letters be included in the data, or will it be purely on the results of the questionnaire.
Thank you very much for your time.
Dear Mr. Shuker,
Re: A120 Braintree to Marks Tey
I am writing to you regarding some concerns that I have regarding the proposed scheme.
I attended the Parish Council meeting on the 31st May where a gentleman spoke on your behalf. I was greatly concerned by some discrepancies that came to light. The gentleman admitted to the possibility of not knowing all the answers to our questions. I would like to point out that if he did not know the answers then it was a pointless exercise sending him? He did however know the answers to most questions that were asked.
We were informed that a Highways Agency presence was not at the previous meeting due to the fact that the Highways Agency would not attend an unorganised meeting. On Tuesday night it was put forward that the reason for non-attendance had been because of the General Election. I find this very alarming that there should be two reasons and am left wondering if they are both unfounded excuses.
It also came to light that in the Bradwell meeting the attendees were informed that the information leaflet would not be handed out. At the Parish Council meeting it was said that they would be. I was astounded to hear that there are still people in the parish that have not received any literature from yourselves at all. It is no excuse to say, as your representative did on Tuesday night, that you do not know what has happened and that you are still investigating. The deadline for people to get their views in is hurriedly approaching and it appears that the Highways Agency have done their best to evade getting the information out. In light that there is a considerable proportion of residents to the area who have no received the literature I would like to ask the following question:
When the results of the public consultation period are analysed what is the proposed methodology and as a result of the literature not being delivered, if the required population sample is not reached will the questionnaire be redistributed and a further period of time granted for it’s return? Or will flawed results be allowed to stand? If the required percentage is received from other areas but not from Cressing will the data be left biased or will this be rectified?
I am absolutely appalled at this confusion in information, both in different stories from the HIghways Agency and in the lack of distribution of literature.
My next set of questions pertain to my last letter from the Highways Agency. It has come to my notice that there is going to be severe disruption to the footpaths in the area. I would like to know exactly what is planned for the Essex Way. According to the plans that I have seen there will be a severance of the path, can you confirm that this will have a bridge over the A120 to retain access?
It also says that there will be the loss of the underpass at Galley’s corner. Could I ask what the rational behind this is and what facilities will be given to aid the crossing of these very busy roads. I find the grading of the footpaths very worrying. It appears that someone has taken a cursory glance in the general direction of the footpath and made a judgement, thereby fulfilling the criteria for a grade 1 survey. (I believe I am correct in how detailed a grade 1 survey is!)
In your letter of response you mentioned that you were not able to quantify the impact of the new road upon the local roads, but that you expected the traffic to be eased by the new A120. As there is no planned entry or egress from the road in-between the A12 and Braintree, this must surely increase the traffic through villages as they will not be able to use the major road because it does not allow them on or off. Is it the HIghways agency proposition to guess whether or not there will be an impact or will proper research be carried out in this area?
In your letter you implied that the road level may be sunk around the village. Can you categorically state that it will or it won’t? Giving vague implied suggestions is not enough for the residents of the area to be able to respond properly. If you do not state what the plan is and then state that we were given ample opportunity respond, this is surely unmoral when we can’t respond to what is not given!
At the meeting on 31st May it was stated that the proposed route on the literature was not in fact a proposed route, but just one of a few. I would like to point out that it does say on the literature that the route is the “proposed route” and others were options considered, I would like to note the past tense on this. The other routes were considered and the proposed route considered the best. If this so called proposed route was not the final choice or even the preferred route, why was it publicised in this way? Is this surely not misleading? If this is not correct then perhaps the gentleman should have been better briefed.
At this point I am very disappointed by the information that has and has not been given. I have found the literature and the maps provided on my last request to have been certainly thorough, but also felt that it was given in this format to have been an attempt to confuse. I would like to know what methodology has been employed and in this study and the reasoning for not releasing the analysed results after this public consultation. Finally, will all comments from letters be included in the data, or will it be purely on the results of the questionnaire.
Thank you very much for your time.
posted by A120 Action Blog at 3:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home