Hands clasped in a circle. Reads "The change starts with you. Make a difference in your community today"

UPDATE – FEBRUARY 2022

Cllr Stephen Robinson, Leader of Chelmsford City Council (CCC), has recently written in response to criticisms of the plans for the Burnham Road (B1012). He says he has discussed his response with the Essex County Council (ECC) Cabinet Member for Highways and the CCC Director of Sustainable Communities (amongst others).

His reply is both disappointingly dismissive and poorly considered. Amongst the misleading statements in Cllr Robinson’s reply, is: “As you probably know, the South Woodham Ferrers Neighbourhood Plan was overwhelmingly backed by residents in the recent referendum, and has now been adopted by the City Council.” This sounds quite reassuring until you run some reality checks.

For a start, there was widespread suspicion in advance of the vote that Cllr Robinson and others at CCC and ECC would pretend that a ‘Yes’ vote for South Woodham Ferrers Neighbourhood Plan meant the town had knowingly and fully endorsed the plans for highways. This is NOT the case! The SWF Town Council published a statement in October last year making it clear that a vote for the Neighbourhood Plan could not be deemed to be such an endorsement. It contained the following advice for residents: “The adoption of our Neighbourhood Plan at next week’s referendum will not in any way take away any of the rights for all residents, lobby groups, statutory bodies and other interested parties to comment and interrogate fully on all planning issues including highway issues that will be part of any planning application for all future development throughout South Woodham Ferrers, however large or small, as they arise.” With that assurance in front of them, votes from those who did take part in the referendum were: 1497 (73%) in favour of the Neighbourhood Plan, whilst 558 (27%) were not. That’s just over 2000 participants out of a town with a population of around 17,500. Given the amount of publicity the Plan received, that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement; particularly as voters reasonably took into account the Town Council’s reassurance that a ‘Yes’ vote didn’t necessarily them agreeing upfront to all local roads plans.

The surveys of public opinion: In contrast to Cllr Robinson’s simplistic reasoning about local opinion: from an independent 2020 survey on the road design proposals, 95% of the 756 local respondents thought the proposal would result in severe traffic congestion. Another survey last year produced an almost identical result, as well as confirming the view that a replacement bypass is really the only way forward – literally and figuratively.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts…

Chelmsford City Council continues to hide behind the Secretary of State’s enquiry (which was supplied with markedly inaccurate data on the morning rush hour traffic flow on the B1012 ) – instead relying on some ‘whipped’ votes for the Master and Local Plans to ensure that these were approved by the Cabinet and Policy Boards. (Because these were broadcast due to Covid restrictions, there is a video record of the proceedings of the key meeting). These committees were assured by CCC that in due course a full transport assessment would address highlighted issues. Hence the can got kicked down the road. However, Cllr Robinson’s response gives the impression that all decision-makers are already fully on board with what is now being proposed. He seems to infer that any clamour from the public or their local representatives (i.e. those already struggling with local roads under severe stress) is unfounded.

Cllr Robinson goes on to say: “The Inspector did consider evidence from objectors promoting a new northern bypass. However, she was not persuaded that it was necessary or able to be delivered.” It transpires, however, that she was given evidence from Essex Highways that the peak am flow on the B1012 around SWF was a mere 15% of capacity. Whilst it was inferred that this was at the busiest time it was subsequently discovered that this figure refers to a time when there is very little traffic on this road. The intrusion of this inconvenient fact does not, however, appear to have altered Cllr Robinson ‘s opinion one iota.

Since then, the Transport Assessment has been strongly criticised in the report produced by an expert independent consultant on road transport and highways design.

Plan for the worst – Hope for the best: In its excellent initial response to the Masterplan, SWF Town Council mentioned judicial review as a possibility. We believe that ‘jaw jaw is better than war war’ and that we should follow all the conventional routes to stand the best chance of ending up with a situation which is satisfactory to all concerned (with the possible exception of those who hoped to walk off with huge profits and leave Woodham and environs with massive problems for decades to come.) However, Councillor Robinson appears to be set on continuing to attempt to defend the indefensible so we have to be in a position to plan for the worst and consider all available options if the Planners try to force through their half baked plans.

With that in mind we have contacted the barristers’ chambers which acted for Tom Lynch who successfully had a Canterbury Council planning decision judicially reviewed – and we have a quote for the initial costs involved.

That said, it is in everybody’s best interests to avoid the necessity for this eventuality but we think it’s important to undertake the groundwork at this stage so as to enable quick action to be taken should the need arise particularly in view of the costs and the work involved.

UPDATE – FEBRUARY 2022

Are we about to be ‘thrown under the bus’?

The new development North of the Burnham Road will take place. It would be pointless to pretend otherwise. However, the Woodham Infrastructure Group and many others believe the proposal to urbanise the Burnham Road, adding a cross roads, more traffic lights and pedestrian crossings will create significant congestion, encouraging through traffic, cars/HGV’s, to use Ferrers Road as a rat run. The scheme has the potential to ‘lock in’ the 8000 residents south of Ferrers road at peak time. As Cllr B Massey put it, we will be “thrown under the bus.’

The map below in image 2 shows the nine crossings proposed in Countryside masterplan

As the ‘Woodham Infrastructure Group’ our prime objective is to ensure that highway decisions associated with this development are not detrimental to our town and those who live on the Dengie by providing ‘improvements to the local and strategic road network as required by the Local Highways Authority’ and that the development will meet the Chelmsford Planning Policy DM30. (Chelmsford Local Plan 27th May 2020 pages 168 and 237 development will not have an unacceptable impact on air quality and the health and wellbeing of people The link is: https://www.chelmsford.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-local-plan/adopted-local-plan/

Downgrading the Burnham Road (B1012) and the Bicknacre road (B1418) to urban streets.

The Local Plan & ‘Master Plan’ and the recent newsletter from Countryside Properties show at least 9 pedestrian crossings, a new roundabout – and cross roads with traffic lights to replace the existing Old Wickford Road roundabout (B1012/ B1418 intersection www.countryside-swf.co.uk (slide 8). Essex Highways and Countryside maintain these changes will improve traffic flow on the Burnham Road. SWF Town Council supports the scheme stating “Your Town Council supported the downgrading of the Burnham Road to a 40mph one” as seen p 55-57 in the June/ July 2020 pre submission version of the Neighbourhood Plan (see below). It adds:

‘Creation of a new northern by-pass, redirecting east west traffic. Such an approach would be very expensive and, given the topography and wider landscape constraints, would result in a significant diversion and added cost implications. Although this remains the Town Council’s preferred option, it was ruled out through the Local Plan’. The text and plan were removed from the July 21 version prior to the vote. https://www.southwoodhamferrerstc.gov.uk/Neighbourhood_Plan_26846.aspx

The Map shown below in image two shows our suggested route for a northern pass.

The Rat Run

Our former Mayor Bob Massey stated, “We need to consider the danger of the rat-run”. As Councillor Roberts suggested, “if the quickest route is to take the Ferrers Rd round the centre of the town, that will cause a lot of danger to a lot of people.”

On 23 March 2021 CCC and Essex Highways declared: “There is no plan to re-route traffic along Ferrers Road by a change to signage, …… However, Ferrers Road is classified as PR2, a local distributor road, which is a multipurpose through route with no frontages. Therefore, if traffic chooses to route this way instead of along B1012 it cannot be legally restricted.”

If Ferrers Road becomes the major route though the town, by default, the 8,000 people who live to the south of this road would be locked in at peak times. There are only official 2 crossings for them to access the same facilities needed by the 4,000 new residents to the north who, we are told, need at least 7.

SWF Neighbourhood Plan (NP)

The NP is the result of a great deal of hard work and it contains lots of good ideas BUT, given that “a Neighbourhood Plan may not directly contradict a Local Plan” is it naive to ignore the possibility that a vote for the NP would be interpreted, by those who don’t have South Woodham’s best interests at heart, as support for the Local plan and therefore the Developer’s Master Plan both of which plan to turn Burnham Road into an Urban Street.

Why no Northern By Pass

Chelmsford City Council (CCC)/Essex County Council (ECC)/ Essex Highways and the Developer have dismissed a northern bypass because of:

Cost

A letter dated 26/4/2018 from the then leader of CCC; Councillor R Whitehead to our MP mentions a possible “road to the north of the site” but says “this would be very expensive” and, moreover “it would use up a lot of the proposed site, making it unattractive to purchasers. “
Environmental

3 March 2021 CCC cabinet reply; It was considered that the harm of providing a new road to the north of development on the wildlife site, biodiversity and landscape, would be unlikely to outweigh the benefits to traffic flows on other roads.

We would respectfully point out that, if harm to “the wildlife site, biodiversity and landscape” are their primary concerns, leaving the site as it is now is far the best option – so maybe, in future, ‘Countryside’ and other developers should look at brown-field sites for the affordable housing that is desperately needed. Given that the decision has already been made to build houses here, it is imperative that the necessary infrastructure is provided – a consideration that should be at the heart of each and every planning decision. Sadly, in this part of the world, the planners work on a ‘cross your fingers and hope for the best’ basis.
The physical barrier

The physical barrier provided by a northern bypass would restrict current and future development by Countryside Properties. The by-pass would have to be built on the higher ground below the ‘green necklace’(see above), restricting the number of low density high value homes and preventing urban sprawl.

The Town Council – and what comes next

As you probably know, the referendum on the Neighbourhood Plan resulted in a YES vote. We are very grateful to the Town Council for issuing the statement we requested. This makes it clear to all concerned (including those who don’t have SWF’s best interests at heart) that a vote for the Neighbourhood Plan was NOT a vote for the Local Plan or the Masterplan.) This statement put minds at rest and no doubt contributed to the sizable majority in favour of the Neighbourhood Plan. The Council is to be congratulated on the success of its campaign.

The objective of getting 25% of the CIL levy has been achieved and this will undoubtedly greatly benefit the town in the years to come. The task now is to set the Neighbourhood Plan, which is packed with good ideas, into an overall strategy for the town. The limiting factor, as we are all aware, was that the ‘town’ was forbidden to put anything in the Neighbourhood Plan which contradicted the Local Plan or the Masterplan – both of which were imposed from above and both of which have major shortcomings. Consequently there were, of necessity, gaps in the Neighbourhood plan which can now be filled on the basis of the wants and needs of those who live and work in Woodham.

We, of course, will continue the fight for adequate infrastructure. We will be commissioning a new report from a transportation Planning/Infrastructure Design Consultant just as soon as all the relevant documentation on the planning application has been released. The developers have all the time in the world to formulate their arguments, but we have a very limited timeframe in which to respond, so we have to be set up and ready.

Survey

There’s been a lot of water under the bridge since our last survey so we want to find out a little more about your views NOW so that we can respond accordingly. It includes questions about highways, so-called ‘public consultations’ and the plans for the fire station/service. (Downgrading the Station to ‘on call’ only.) Please take a few minutes to check out the survey. The link is here

Many thanks

About Us

There is a feeling that decisions affecting SWF and the Dengie are made far away by bureaucrats who don’t understand the local situation and have little or no interest in the well-being of the residents. There is also a distinct impression that ‘public consultations’ are mere tick box exercises – the views of the people who live here are never taken into account. All too often information is withheld from the public until AFTER the consultation period is over and AFTER a final decision has been made.

Starting in a small way, we hope to change all that.

We will concentrate on one aspect of the infrastructure on which there is a large measure of agreement . The Burnham Road (B1012) – the highway through which most of the traffic entering/leaving South Woodham and the Dengie – will grind to a halt during busy times if the day (and South Woodham will be gridlocked) unless a sensible solution is found to the problem that faces us: how to improve the roads to enable them to cope with the additional traffic generated by the new housing developments and the construction of the Bradwell B power station. There are, needless to say, other issues to consider – for example, the A132 is also under strain and we need to consider the impact of the changes on e.g. education, policing, the fire service, and healthcare.

The Situation

There are to be new housing developments in Maldon, South Woodham and the Dengie and, given the emphasis on reducing carbon emissions, it is not unlikely that there will be a new nuclear power station: Bradwell B.
This will generate a great deal of traffic both during the building phase and thereafter. It has been estimated that some 500-700 HGVs servicing the Bradwell B site alone will negotiate the Burnham Road each day.

The pinch point is the Burnham Road B1012, the town’s bypass (given that it runs along what is currently the northern border of South Woodham – although it will shortly bisect the town when the new development is completed.) It is already groaning under the strain and there are often tailbacks at the busiest times. There are no plans to widen the road or create a new bypass to deal the with additional traffic. All the bypasses currently under consideration to cope with the Bradwell traffic stop at the Maldon district border leaving SWF out completely. The Bradwell B team acknowledges that Latchingdon, Mayland etc need bypasses but the common exit (the pinch point leading to the A12) has been ignored. To make matters worse, Essex proposes to set up 6 uncoordinated pedestrian crossings along this section of the Burnham Road to link the new South Woodham development to the existing town and claims that this will have no adverse effect on traffic flow

One glance at a map is enough to demonstrate the problem this will cause, not only to South Woodham residents, but to all those living in or near the route from Bradwell B to the Rettendon Turnpike who have to commute by road.

UPDATE – FEBRUARY 2022

Are we about to be ‘thrown under the bus’?

Recent News:

Update – February 2022

Survey Comments & Update – 04/12/2021

Bradwell Planning Consultation Comments

The Tragic Roundabout

The Local Looming Infrastrue Crisis

Survey of Public Opinion (August 2020)

Masterplan submission for Strategic Growth Site 10: North of South Woodham Ferrers

Recent Correspondence

The Situation

An Update on Pollution 10/05/21

About Us