ALAN BRUNNING HAS POSTED THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE ON THE SWF FACEBOOK PAGE: The New Development. How many people believe that making the B1012 Burnham Road into an Urban Street is going to improve the traffic flow through the town from Burnham? This is what is going to be installed unless we ALL get together and protest. I am not against the homes but am against the lack of a new northern by pass. The existing plan will mean that the majority of traffic will divert using Ferrers Road right through the middle of our town.. It will also mean that the town will be gridlocked during the morning rush from 06:30 to 8:30. THIS HAS ATTRACTED A NUMBER OF COMMENTS, MOSTLY FAVOURABLE and support for his suggestion that a meeting should be held to discuss a strategy. 

CENSORSHIP: Unfortunately the Infrastructure Group is barred from the SWF Facebook page (we have applied twice - no response) so, although, it's not ideal, we will make use of the alternatives to deal with the major points. 

A good question is: "What is WIG trying to do?"  Basically we are trying to improve the infrastructure (the clue is in our name) not stop houses being built (as that would be a Quixotic battle). 

Here's the latest social media post which gives more details: 

BRIEFLY – there is a potential opportunity to have the recent planning decision Judicially Reviewed with a view to getting the infrastructure plans substantially improved. We are focussing predominantly on the highways implications at present - as you know, these will severely affect the Burnham Rd (B1012) - the main means by which we get in and out of South Woodham. As many of you will also know, the planners and developers have kindly gone out of their way to screw up - thereby providing what appear to be grounds for Judicial Review. The Town Council mentioned Judicial Review its Response to Stage 2 Masterplan Consultation for Site 10 and more recently claimed that traffic documents are “inaccurate, out of date and have no bearing on the local reality of the traffic flows” (according to a local newspaper article: 

Bob Massey famously said of the infrastructure proposals for the new development: "I think we should take this beyond traffic and include the school and include the flooding. Because if those three areas are not fully covered then I'm afraid you're throwing the residents of South Woodham under the bus." We leave it to you to decide if we are collectively staring up at the integrated chassis of a Routemaster. 

Unfortunately 'the legal option' is the only language the planners in this area understand - and it's the only way to deal with hit and run developers who build and then run off with massive profits, leaving local residents and businesses to live with the chaos they cause for decades. 

The Infrastructure Group has already obtained legal advice that the Aarhus Convention would almost certainly apply here because of the environmental significance of the planning proposals. This convention, for example, puts a cap on the claimants cost liability at e.g. £5,000 for individuals. 

If, as seems likely, we get a favourable opinion, the cost of mounting this challenge can be met by crowd-funding.  A recent survey of the public showed strong support for this measure: 95% voted "YES" in South Woodham. In the SWF 'Mini-Survey', 90% of the respondents wanted 'an elected body' to undertake any 'further action' - but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. We are currently leafleting businesses in SWF. Those that want to contribute can contact us at 

IT ONLY TAKES ONE SUCCESSFUL JUDICIAL REVIEW TO SET A PRECEDENT THAT WILL BENEFIT THE TOWN AND ITS ENVIRONS FOR DECADES TO COME in that it will bring an end to 'hit and run' raids - because the perpetrators will know that, if there is one success, there will be many more to follow. 

With thanks 

The Woodham Infrastructure Group 

(Aiming to improving the local infrastructure - not stopping house building)