© 2020 Friends of Boars Hill
Friends of Boars Hill Preserving and enhancing our heritage

Our response to the feedback form

Q1. Do you agree that the campus is in need and would benefit from renovation and refurbishment? (Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly agree) Our Answer: STRONGLY DISAGREE Why: There is no absolute need for renovation and refurbishment except for PHBS themselves who want it in order to conduct their business operations. What is proposed is not “refurbishment” but a major demolition and rebuilding of a substantial fraction of the buildings on the site which would result in a massive increase in the volume and scale of the built environment. Any benefit this might bring would thus be at the expense of maintaining the openness of the Green Belt. Moreover, increasing the intensity (72 bedrooms) of use in the way proposed would constitute a precedent for further large scale development on this site. Q2. Please tick your three top priorities for PHBS and the surrounding area: (High-quality architectural design, Community facilities, Promoting cycling and walking, Education facilities, Environmental sustainability, Safety and security, landscaped areas) Our Answer: Tick any three boxes of the 7 suggestions and insert in the “Other please state” box: 1. Protect Green Belt 2. Minimise impact by reducing scale & residential use 3. Recognise the limited capacity of local road network Why: The questionnaire is clearly manipulatve in that, before a response can be submitted three irrelevant boxes must be ticked. However, the seven themes offered in the boxes are unimportant in comparison with the negative impact of the changes that are proposed. “Landscaped areas” does not address the Green Belt and “promoting cycling” comes nowhere near tackling the impact of such a development on a narrow country road network. Assuming that, like us, you would prefer to offer negative feedback on the selection of these issues, we would recommend ticking the three that you consider the least important. As there is so little space offered for a reply in the Q2 box (itself quite surprising since this is surely the most important question), use one of the bottom two boxes (Q4 or Q5) to make it clear that you selected them only in order to be able to submit your feedback and that you do not, in fact, consider them the most important issues. You may or may not wish to offer a comment about the professionalism, or lack of it, displayed in the construction of the feedback form. Q3. Are there any other community benefits that you think should be included? Our Answer: NO Why: This is a leading question in that it applies acceptance of the development in order to frame an answer. PHBS are attempting to identify community benefits to try to circumvent local and national policy on inappropriate development in the Green Belt. A public convenience or access to a canteen has never been needed or requested by those who value this unique landscape. Q4. What are your thoughts on our emerging proposals? Our Answer: They are scanty and lacking in any real detail. It is impossible to make an informed judgement Why: We have covered this under the News Tab above Q5. Any further comments or queries? Our Answer: What commitments would you be prepared to make to limit future development? WHY: This is a key issue for the Friends. You may have others.
© 2020 Friends of Boars Hill
Friends of Boars Hill Preserving and enhancing our heritage

Our response to the

feedback form

Q1. Do you agree that the campus is in need and would benefit from renovation and refurbishment? (Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly agree) Our Answer: STRONGLY DISAGREE Why: There is no absolute need for renovation and refurbishment except for PHBS themselves who want it in order to conduct their business operations. What is proposed is not “refurbishment” but a major demolition and rebuilding of a substantial fraction of the buildings on the site which would result in a massive increase in the volume and scale of the built environment. Any benefit this might bring would thus be at the expense of maintaining the openness of the Green Belt. Moreover, increasing the intensity (72 bedrooms) of use in the way proposed would constitute a precedent for further large scale development on this site. Q2. Please tick your three top priorities for PHBS and the surrounding area: (High-quality architectural design, Community facilities, Promoting cycling and walking, Education facilities, Environmental sustainability, Safety and security, landscaped areas) Our Answer: Tick any three boxes of the 7 suggestions and insert in the “Other please state” box: 1. Protect Green Belt 2. Minimise impact by reducing scale & residential use 3. Recognise the limited capacity of local road network Why: The questionnaire is clearly manipulatve in that, before a response can be submitted three irrelevant boxes must be ticked. However, the seven themes offered in the boxes are unimportant in comparison with the negative impact of the changes that are proposed. “Landscaped areas” does not address the Green Belt and “promoting cycling” comes nowhere near tackling the impact of such a development on a narrow country road network. Assuming that, like us, you would prefer to offer negative feedback on the selection of these issues, we would recommend ticking the three that you consider the least important. As there is so little space offered for a reply in the Q2 box (itself quite surprising since this is surely the most important question), use one of the bottom two boxes (Q4 or Q5) to make it clear that you selected them only in order to be able to submit your feedback and that you do not, in fact, consider them the most important issues. You may or may not wish to offer a comment about the professionalism, or lack of it, displayed in the construction of the feedback form. Q3. Are there any other community benefits that you think should be included? Our Answer: NO Why: This is a leading question in that it applies acceptance of the development in order to frame an answer. PHBS are attempting to identify community benefits to try to circumvent local and national policy on inappropriate development in the Green Belt. A public convenience or access to a canteen has never been needed or requested by those who value this unique landscape. Q4. What are your thoughts on our emerging proposals? Our Answer: They are scanty and lacking in any real detail. It is impossible to make an informed judgement Why: We have covered this under the News Tab above Q5. Any further comments or queries? Our Answer: What commitments would you be prepared to make to limit future development? WHY: This is a key issue for the Friends. You may have others.