Saturday, 8 December 2012

Why it is that Wokingham are so in favour of 200 houses, loss of green space and foodstore and a hotel.

It does not matter that letters for the the initial 2011 consultation suggested nothing of new property developments, another superstore, a hotel and loss of more green space having recently lost the cricket field.

2011 Consultation letter circular version

Busy locals would have guessed and in their absence approved to any scale of development and debt any councilmen might come up with. The encouragement of the people who give them the most attention,  developers and land owners hoping to profit is bound to fall in line with the wishes of locals no doubt fed up of living in a rural market town.

The fact that the Regeneration officer was Cllr Matt Deegan who has absolutely no personal interest negotiating very big profitable deals with wealthy individuals (as a personal wealth adviser) and the project did not grow outside anything most 'Market Town' voters could dream of from the initial consultation letter.

We are all in 80% in favour of the proposals.

Manipulative data survey has prooven it.

If you would like to see how manipulative survey data works here is a very good example.

Q1 - Do you think the scheme responds effectively to Wokingham's character as a market town with small retail units and well-managed public realm

Q2 - Peach Place - What elements of the scheme do you support?

Q3 - Peach Place - What elements of the scheme do you think could be improved?

Q4 - Elms Field - What elements of the scheme do you support?

Q5 Elms Field - What elements of the scheme do you think could be improved?

Q6 - What level of diversity would you like to see in the streetscene? A = breaking up buildings into different parts. B = Number of slightly different blocks using a variety of materials. C = Splitting the street into a number of blocks, same design

Q7 - The proposals for the park include a number of spaces; open grass, events space, play area, fountains, orchard/meadow area.  Do you agree with these? Q8 - Do you think we've missed any spaces?

Q9 - What do you think should be included in the play area?

Q10 - What type of seating would like to see in the park and where?

Q11 - Do you have any other suggestions for how public art could be included in the park?

Q12 - Our analysis of Wokingham identified key features that make-up the town's heritage feel - do you think we have missed any key characteristics?

What is lacking from this set of questions?

How about list of things you do not like? You are never invited to disprove. Only suggest improvements.

The key things the bulk of the town do not support. Loss of open space, hotel, Super food store, the are contentious and strangely absent from the survery.

Here is the data from the survey with loaded questions. Just download it and have a quick scan. Do not take my word for it. Remember it was filled in by people chosen by and paid by those backing the scheme.

And here are the conclusions. Which are all petty and accessible to read and was publicized, unlike the consultation itself, but seems to bare no relation to the data.

Now. If you were the kind of person that they present themselves as at your door come voting time. Would you conduct a consultation that way?

Quick interview in town on a Friday Midday quickly shows a significant difference between public sentiment and the results interpreted by vested interests conclusions from the survey.