Time To Fight Again For A Crossing – Please Sign Our Petition

Hullbridge Road  in sunshine

Here’s very some disappointing news.

Last summer the County Council agreed to have a pedestrian crossing in Hullbridge Road opposite Lubards Farm. It was ‘signed off’ by the the councillor who was in charge of highways at that time.

However since then a new councillor has taken over, Rodney Bass, and he has rejected the crossing on the grounds that there isn’t a pavement on both sides of the road. πŸ™

But we also get the feeling that the officers advising him in County Hall in Chelmsford, who hadn’t been to the local highways panel that discussed this, didn’t have a clue as to what activities happen at Lubards Farm or why people wanted a crossing.

We are not giving up. We are starting another petition and will battle once more to get a crossing – it will be discussed at the next Local Highways Panel on January 14th.Any help with the petition will be gratefully received.


  1. erm, please could we get back to the topic. I don’t know about anyone else but I have encouraged my family and friends to read this thread to find out about the crossing. It is now one of the most read threads list, so potentially more people will come and read it. I hope that they are not put off reading the whole thread.

  2. Cjav re post #49
    No, I answered your question with the plain facts and am simply continuing to point out the offensive error which Cllr Black still refuses to correct, and which for some reason you choose to support him in perpetuating his libellous statement.
    Jim Cripps re post #50
    The ‘base question’ and offence is Cllr Black’s arrogant refusal to admit he was wrong from the very start of this thread in stating that Cllr Bass rejected the crossing scheme, the opposite was indeed the case, and the solution to correct it is both easy and in Cllr Black’s hands. My offence, according to your anarchic logic it seems, is of daring to tell you the truth rather than accept Cllr Black’s statement about a highly respected senior County Councillor.

  3. Given that Cllr Chris Black has now had ample time to digest the Report by EC Highways Officers on the proposed Lubbards Farm Crossing sent to all the Members of the Local Highways Panel on 8th January; isn’t it about time for him to correct his opening statement to this thread?
    As I have stated all along, it was NOT ECC Cllr Bass that cancelled the proposed crossing, it simply fails national transport Guidance and whilst it does so Highways Officers will NOT be able to implement it, irrespective of any number of petitions and petitioners signing them.
    Chris, you raise false hopes and waste peoples time with your intransigence, and you owe a public apology to Cllr Rodney Bass for wrongfully accusing him of cancelling it.

  4. The Mighty Oz
    Actually it is partly untrue, but only to the extent that the Report was sent by email to all LHP Members a day earlier than I erroneously stated, on the 7th January indeed!!! So even more time given Cllr Black to digest it.

  5. No, Oz I do not think that’s true.

    This proposal has been to the panel several times and highways staff clearly know the site because early on they carried out a one-day survey there. Now there actually is a small length of footway there already. But if there was a national legal requirement to have a footway all the way from Rawreth Lane or Watery Lane on that side of the road I am sure that one of the highways officers would have said early on at the one of our meetings “I’m sorry councillors, but the lack of a footway there makes this impossible”. That certainly didn’t happen. Instead the scheme was overwhelmingly supported by the panel and approved by the then portfolio holder.

    It is clear that other councils view these things a little differently. For example Cornwall state that a crossing needs “Safe and sufficient pedestrian standing areas and routes to the crossing point.” Which is reasonable. So we need a footway the length of Hullbridge Road on the eastern side (which we have) and a footway from Lubbards Farm to the crossing (which could be achieved fairly easily)

    Therefore I do not think it fails national traffic guidance and it should not have been cancelled

  6. Chris Black re #62
    So Cllr Black is branding everyone (Cllr Bass, all EC Highways Officers, our LHP Officers and me too presumably, except himself) a liar. Now, to boot, he claims that he has superior technical expertise on highways matters than the EC Highways technical officers who quite properly refused to implement the crossing because in their professional opinion it transgressed national Guidance, despite all the requisite financing and prior authorisations put in place from both Cllr Bass and his predecessor Cllr Louis otherwise permitting them to proceed?
    High time to stop digging yourself a deeper hole Cllr Black and apologise.
    Michael Buzza re #60
    Not point scoring merely ensuring the truth will out, or is it quite all right with you for Cllr Black to get away with his truly ugly blackening of others’ good reputations?

  7. I raise a point here. If an industrial estate is built as proposed for the land adjacent Fairglen Interchange will pedestrian residents choosing to walk to work, or visit a company, have a footpath provided from the A129 London Road on both sides of the A1245 and a pedestrian crossing connecting both pavements in order to meet National Transport Guidance.
    Has this been considered in the Local Development Framework as I have not seen it?

  8. Colin Seagers at #63 – I’m not trying to blacken anyone’s reputation. I obviously don’t claim “superior technical expertise” but at just about every meeting of the development committee councillors disagree with how planning or highways officers interpret situations. That’s a normal part of council decision-making This is no different.

    Greenbelt at #64 – interesting point, I don’t recall seeing anything about a crossing.

  9. #66 – There wasn’t any substance on any aspects of the Allocations Document, at the very best it is a
    bunch of conceptual ideas. We actually drew attention to the absence of footpath/crossing/bus service/vehicle ingress & egress impact assessments
    in our 3000 word (5000 signature) formal objection that was ignored by the “government” Inspector.

  10. Chris Black re #66
    It is very different to your analogy. You are falsely accusing County Councillor Rodney Bass of rejecting the Lubbards Farm Crossing, which Highways officers have already confirmed to you was NOT the case, and of which I have also now reminded you on a number of occasions. Recant.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.