The following is a letter from South Woodham Ferrers resident Alan Harper on the plans for Burnham Road.

If you would like a letter to be featured in Readers' Letters at Burnham and Dengie Nub News, just email it to the editor at [email protected].

Alternatively, use the 'Nub It' button to submit your letter via our website using the link here.

On 21 October, the residents of South Woodham Ferrers (SWF) will be invited to vote on whether to accept or reject the Town Council Neighbourhood Plan.

The main concern is the current plan for the B1012 Burnham Road - concerns that not only affect the residents of SWF, but also those who use this route on a regular basis. This road is officially designated as a B road but in practical terms is an A road masquerading as a B road, it being the principal route on and off the Dengie Peninsula.

As a long-time resident, I have watched with alarm as a neighbourhood plan which condones the narrowing of Burnham Road evolved, resulting in it becoming an 'urban street'. Chelmsford City Council's (CCC) Local Plan also advocates narrowing this road. Initially, SWF Town Council raised detailed and coherent comments on the local plan that appear to have had no effect on the intentions of CCC. But now, just before a referendum is about to be held, it is asking the residents of SWF to vote yes to the neighbourhood plan - effectively performing a complete U-turn.

We are told that a local plan takes precedence over a neighbourhood plan, in which case there seems to be little point in the latter and the local plan now supports the half-baked proposals for Burnham Road.

The town council states that a government decision still has to be forthcoming regarding Bradwell but the current debate about the fragility of the UK's power supplies makes construction more likely than not.

There is a strong impression that the reason for advocating a yes vote is that the town council will receive 25 per cent as opposed to 15 per cent of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), which is payable on each house built. But does this relatively small pot of money compensate the town and the surrounding areas for being gridlocked during peak periods because the roadways are altogether inadequate?

It is plainly obvious that Burnham Road is currently severely overloaded and the traffic problems will increase as houses continue to be built east of SWF. There is also the potential problem regarding construction traffic associated with the building of the Bradwell Power Station, thereby adding to the volume of traffic on this road - a road which is intended to be restricted in width, with several crossing points to interrupt the flow of traffic.

Southend Borough Council has recently announced the success of a £5 million scheme that has resulted in a flow of traffic that has reduced air pollution, so why CCC is intent on doing the opposite is one of life's mysteries.

The great fear is that a rat run will be used by drivers seeking to avoid the slow-moving traffic along Burnham Road trying to find a quicker route, and the 'diverted' traffic will try to find its way through the streets of SWF - resulting in huge jams affecting the whole town.

Worse still is the effect on air quality from all types of vehicle travelling in low gears between the several closely-spaced crossing points. This pollution, arising from the unacceptable amount of stop/start traffic flow, is especially significant for the pupils of Woodville Primary School that borders this road at the new (ill-conceived) roundabout located at the junction with Hullbridge Road.

The town council states that it has no input into road matters and that Essex Highways is responsible. However, goal posts have changed position recently when it was revealed that, if the development was to be built in phases (involving less than a critical number of houses) then Essex Highways need not be consulted.

However, logic would suggest that it should be the cumulative effect of the completed phases that should dictate the level of infrastructure improvement required. A proper and sensible infrastructure improvement would include a new bypass that would accommodate, without interruption, through traffic taking it to the north of the new development - Burnham Road currently acts as that bypass.

CCC and ECC, however, seem most reluctant to consider this possibility or, indeed, provide any other useful contribution that may reduce the chaos and health hazards that will result from the current proposals. Indeed, it is anticipated that the first phase will be built in a location that would effectively prevent the construction of any northern bypass.

Whether the one-off payment the town receives is 15 per cent, 25 per cent or 100 per cent, no amount of money will compensate for the impending disruption, traffic chaos, potential health problems and general misery that will be dumped on the residents of the town who are entitled to expect the authorities to carry out their duties with due care and diligence. They should balance the long-term best interests of the town against any benefit derived from a transitory monetary reward.

Although it will only be the residents of SWF who will be allowed to vote in the referendum on 21 October, there will be an opportunity for anyone to make their feelings felt when CCC shortly launches a consultation on the planning application.

Although it is SWF that will be primarily affected, many others - particularly those travelling from the east of the town and to a lesser extent anyone in the county who has to pass along the B1012 Burnham Road in order to work or visit family et cetera - will suffer as a result.

Countryside has recently advised that it now has a website dedicated to the development at www.countryside-swf.co.uk and readers are urged to visit this site in order to inspect the proposals, particularly with regard to Burnham Road which will affect them.

Sadly, the views of the residents and businesses in the area are being ignored by decision-makers who have no local knowledge and no will to find a fair solution that works well for all concerned.

Best regards,

South Woodham Ferrers