You are on page 1of 6

Appendix N

Quality assurance

Main report on phase two consultation

Appendix N - Quality assurance


N.1
N.1.1

Introduction
In accordance with The Planning Inspectorate Advice note fourteen: Compiling the consultation report we have undertaken safeguards to ensure that feedback comments are grouped appropriately. This appendix sets out the process followed.

N.2
N.2.1

Quality assurance process


Figure P.1, sets out the process that has been followed in relation to grouping feedback comments received. The following sections explain the process undertaken in further detail. Figure N.1 Quality assurance process
Using the quesitons in the feedback form

Stage of the process (sites only)

Thematic grouping, eg transport, noise and vibration, air quality and odour

Thematic sub-grouping of feedback: - splitting feedback between supportive and neutral comments, objections, issues and concerns and suggestions - within a theme grouping detailed comments, for example within transport effect on parking provision or concerns about access route

Checking

Using the questions in the feedback form


N.2.2 As set out in section 3.2, as far as possible feedback comments received were analysed against the question which they were submitted against in our feedback form (see appendix M for further details). This approach was only deviated from when it was clear that the comments made in response to a particular question related to another part or a question within the same part of the feedback form. Where feedback was submitted in alternative forms, as far as possible, feedback was placed against the questions within our feedback form. In

N.2.3

the feedback form, respondents were asked to state their view on certain questions by means of tick boxes. For these questions, views were only assigned where the respondents view point was clear from their feedback. Where the respondents point of view was not clear, this part of the question was left blank. Where no feedback was received in relation to a particular question, it was left blank. Where feedback was received that did not respond to any of the questions in the feedback form, it was entered into a separate part of the feedback form for other comments.

Stage of the process


N.2.4 The feedback form contained three parts: N.2.5 Part 1: Our preferred sites Part 2: Need, solution, tunnel route and alignment Part 3: Consultation process

For feedback received in relation to part 1 of the feedback, we undertook an additional categorisation of comments which reflected the content of the site information papers. Feedback was therefore sorted in relation to whether it related to: Site selection Management of construction works Permanent design and appearance Management of operational effects

High level grouping of feedback against themes


N.2.6 Feedback was then assigned a high level theme. These differed depending on the part of the feedback form. The themes are set out in table P.1. In order to assign a high level theme, feedback to each question was read and the appropriate high level themes assigned. Table N.1 High level themes Part of feedback form Part 1: Site selection Part 1: Management of construction works High level themes Site selection Alternative sites General feedback comments on key issues General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues Air quality and odour Construction working hours and programme Construction site design and layout Historic environment

N.2.7

Part of feedback form Part 1: Permanent design and appearance Part 1: Management of operational effects

High level themes Land quality and contamination Lighting Natural environment (aquatic) Natural environment (terrestrial) Noise and vibration Open space and recreation Planning and development Socio-economic Structures and utilities Townscape and visual Transport and access Water and flood risk

Permanent design and appearance General feedback comments on the key issues General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues Air quality and odour Historic environment Land quality and contamination Lighting Natural environment (aquatic) Natural environment (terrestrial) Noise and vibration Open space and recreation Planning and development Socio-economic Structures and utilities Townscape and visual Transport and access Water and flood risk Need for the project Solution including the tunnel and alternative

Part 2

Part of feedback form solutions Part 3

High level themes Tunnel route including alternative tunnel routes Tunnel alignment including alternative tunnel alignments and feedback on drive strategy Previous consultation activities Attendance at exhibitions Project information Consultation process

Detailed grouping of feedback


N.2.8 Once feedback had been assigned a theme, it was assigned a sub-theme. This process entailed firstly determining whether the feedback received was making a supportive or neutral comment, raising objections, issues or concerns or suggesting mitigation/suggestions or alternative solutions. Secondly sub-themes were assigned to reflect the detailed points raised in feedback comments. We introduced a series of processes to ensure that similar feedback was dealt with in a consistent manner and that our anticipated list of detailed points could be adapted as necessary. The steps undertaken were: within the team analysing the feedback, individuals were assigned different high level themes and analysed all feedback assigned that theme. This had two benefits: (i) it ensured that similar feedback received on the same and different sites were dealt with in a consistent manner; and (ii) provided an additional stage of checking in relation to allocation of high level themes since high level themes could either be deleted or added at this stage. if new points were raised by respondents during the analysis process, new sub-themes were added and feedback assigned against these points if the sub-themes did not reflect the feedback received, these were reworked to reflect the points that were raised within the sub-themes we created an other category where comments which did not neatly fit within the existing list and were only raised by a few respondents could be assigned if specific points were raised by respondents in relation to a specific site or specific point, points could be bespoked to include this additional detail. For example, the standard code is: should use/consider an alternative site; in light of feedback received at Acton Storm Tanks the point became should use/consider an alternative

N.2.9

site, specifically one that causes less nuisance to residential properties.

Checking
N.2.10 A sample of the feedback assignments were reviewed to check for consistency of theme and sub-theme assignment and to review the need for additional or revised sub-themes. This process was undertaken by a team member who was not directly involved in the analysis process. Additionally, a selection of correspondence received and details of the themes and sub-themes that were assigned was reviewed by the project team to confirm that it agreed with the approach that had been adopted. This process did not identify any changes to the assignment of themes or sub-themes.

N.2.11