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.
