Partly Cloudy

Partly Cloudy

max temp: 6°C

min temp: 1°C

Search

Adastral Park 2,000-home community could be under way in 2017

PUBLISHED: 06:00 02 September 2016

Martlesham Heath and Adastral Park

Martlesham Heath and Adastral Park

Archant

Developers are expecting work to start on what critics have labelled a “new town” at Martlesham Heath next summer – with up to 240 new homes to be built every year.

Land at Adastral Park has been earmarked for 2,000 homes, along with 60,000sq m of extra employment space in an innovation park with linked university provision, a mixed-use local centre, school, hotel, energy centre, public park and other areas of public open space, plus further community facilities.

There would also be major changes to the road network, and an upgrading of the A12 alongside the site.

CEG, a land promotion and property company specialising in the promotion of large scale development opportunities throughout the UK, is negotiating with BT to purchase the site.

The company said it was preparing and would be submitting a new planning application and Environmental Impact Assessment this autumn or winter.

A company spokesman said: “CEG is thrilled to be involved in this exciting project. The promoter’s team has undertaken an extensive amount of investigative work and has begun the preparation of application material.

“Simultaneously with the negotiations to purchase the site, CEG have undertaken an extensive amount of technical work in order to fully assess all issues associated with the site.

“Work on site is expected to commence in mid-2017 all with the potential to deliver early housing for occupation by late 2018/2019.

“As infrastructure is completed and site development progresses it is anticipated that the Adastral Park site will be completing for occupation between circa 120 and 240 homes per annum from 2020/2021.

“CEG will be undertaking local engagement ahead of the proposals being submitted and will continue involvement of the existing community throughout the planning processes. CEG look forward to working in partnership to deliver the high quality and sustainable development and community necessary for this important site.”

No Adastral New Town (NANT) challenged the process by which Suffolk Coastal District Council selected BT’s land for major development and claimed it was unlawful and would put at risk the Deben Special Protection Area for birds, taking its case to the High Court.

38 comments

  • Mark , Ipswich bristol , lot to read on the website but very informative , after reading other comments on here as well, I see why support for the idea is growing . To remove one layer of a council especially SCC would be ideal !.Like others on here I will now be advocating A unitary Ipswich . Thanks.

    Report this comment

    Macke

    Friday, September 9, 2016

  • Macke- I'm sure Mark will elaborate- but a Unitary Authority would mean removing a layer of local government- in this case- Suffolk County Council. A new authority would then be responsible for administering all of the duties of local government- which would mean they would be far more accountable to local people. You only have to look through recent commentary from local people on stories such as transport and you will see the criticism Ipswich Borough Council receives- not that they are in any way responsible for it. It just highlights really well that a lot of people do not understand who is responsible for what in their local area. Specifically in the case of Ipswich, the Borough boundary was last amended in the Victorian era! Not surprisingly, the urban extent of Ipswich how now outgrown this boundary and essentially 'Ipswich' is as good as spread out over parts of Mid Suffolk District Council, Babergh District Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council. Unfortunately, this means that Ipswich doesn't get much of a say in what happens on its boundaries. Prime examples would be Belstead Meadows, development around the Holiday Inn on London Road and Adastral Park. These may be sound areas for development, but without proper planning under a single authority, it is piecemeal and the infrastructure required for all of this will never keep up, let alone getting ahead of the game. You could have a Unitary Authority purely based on the boundary of Ipswich Borough, but a 'Greater Ipswich' or 'Orwell' authority, perhaps stretching from Claydon through to Felixstowe, taking in enough to the north to be able to deliver important infrastructure such as the Northern Bypass. The whole area needs this. Suffolk Coastal DC are merging with Waveney- this will mean the HQ of this authority will be in Lowestoft- and this cannot be good for the Orwell Peninsular or indeed the eastern portion of Ipswich? Indeed, Suffolk Coastal have always neglected Felixstowe in favour of places such as Aldeburgh, Southwold and the like. This is not about an 'Ipswich land-grab', more of a reflection of the reality of how the area has developed. In economic terms, if you include the 'Orwell Peninsular', our economy is much larger than that of Norwich for example- but I don't think many people would believe this? The area could prosper enormously from a joined-up authority. Orwell Bridge improvements? Northern Bypass? Enough development to warrant significant improvements to local rail- the infrastructure for this is largely already here. A proper growth plan for the Port of Felixstowe to enable it to stay ahead of what it now has in significant competition, A14 improvements through Suffolk to link in with the improvements around Cambridge? A12 improvements between Ipswich and Colchester? At some point the A12 will increase to 3-lanes- but I don't hear Suffolk banging the drum enough at the moment to ensure this makes it north of Colchester! A12 improvements north of Ipswich? Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft have great potential to become national leaders in the servicing of off-shore infrastructure- only 40 odd miles by road but takes an age to get there- strategic links could be made with this specialised employment with the University of Suffolk? Even the Port of Ipswich could branch out to service off-shore infrastructure- it is very well placed for this. We live in a great area, which has enormous potential- but it will never realise this under the current government set-up. If you are interested- take a look at orwellahead.co.uk and contact Mark through there!

    Report this comment

    IpswichBristol

    Thursday, September 8, 2016

  • Macke, thanks for your note. If Theresa May's government really wants to reach out and transform our great urban centres, then they must find a way to share power with them. Many Suffolk Conservatives still talk of ye ole Rotten Boroughs, yet they now bask in their rotten shires which have had an unfair balance of power for 42 years! Devolution for Suffolk and Norfolk will leave an undemocratic and unaccountable two tier system. With 2 County Councils and 159 County Councillors; plus 14 Borough or Districts with 631 councillors. You can never run a successful venture like this! We must have 6 unitaries. Suffolk east and west, Norfolk north and south, plus Greater Ipswich and Greater Norwich. If our urban towns are to bear the brunt of housing and population growth they must be a) empowered b) reflect the true urban area they serve c) have single direction d) be directly accountable to the citizens that live here. If you have chance, take a look at our open letter to Andy Wood, who was the focal point for Devolution Suffolk and Norfolk. See orwellahead co uk blog. If you look at Oxford and Oxfordshire Deveolution which is ahead of us, you will see that Oxford, which was always a county borough like Ipswich and Norwich, is seeking a similar deal to become a city region. Greater Ipswich and Greater Norwich need this to allow our two great regional centres to compete nationally and internationally and secure infrastructure to sustain them. Rural parts of Suffolk and Norfolk should also set up with between two to four unitaries that reflect and represent their common interests and needs.

    Report this comment

    Mark Ling

    Thursday, September 8, 2016

  • Sorry Mark I like the idea of a unitary system just wanted to know how it works , the star really needs to sort this website out !!

    Report this comment

    Macke

    Thursday, September 8, 2016

  • Comments gone astray again ! Mark ling please explain how a unitary Ipswich would work .

    Report this comment

    Macke

    Thursday, September 8, 2016

  • To Mark Ling , Reading your comments and deebers (farage)!. it's got me very interested . It clearly sounds like you are the man in charge of this Unitary idea . It is starting to sound very appealing indeed so can you please explain how it would work ? Would we vote the same way as for Ipswich borough elections , what would happen to SCC and how would it affect parish councils . Great debate by the way . Many thanks, macke

    Report this comment

    Macke

    Thursday, September 8, 2016

  • Well I see Greater Ipswich as a bit like the Brexit scenario . The reason Ipswich people voted out of the EU was because totally unelected bureaucrats were making decisions for us , basic telling us what to do . Here in Ipswich we have the same thing unelected OLD MEN sitting in SCC offices, they don't live in Ipswich yet they run and control the place ! The P&R debacle , travel Ipswich and the WDC, major things that we as people of the town have no say in BUT Scc think they know better ..whether you like IBC or not you can vote them in or out . You cannot do that with SCC . I see an unitary elected greater Ipswich council fully accountable as putting the power back in the peoples hands, not the likes of Gummer , not noble in fact no single vanity leader if you don't like them you can vote them out ! Now that must be better for the residents of the Greater Ipswich area to have control back.

    Report this comment

    deeber

    Wednesday, September 7, 2016

  • Gobby, this is exactly the point. When you say Ipswich is a mess, just whom is responsible and are they accountable? Well since 1974 it is SCC, not IBC, who is largely responsible for education, strategic planning, transport planning, economic development, highways, social services, libraries, environmental and public health, major finance, media, tourism, crime (PCC) and major investment. All this was controlled by a directly accountable Ipswich County Borough before, but now we have SCC with cabinet style arrangement with not a single person from Ipswich making all our decisions for the town, whilst our town has no say or sway or proportionate representation at the top table. And even on district issues like retail, local business rates, parking, some planning, leisure, is the Borough's control of the centre not totally compromised when SCDC, Babergh and MSDC can do their own thing with no care or vested interest in the consequence ? Even if you had Richard Branson run Ipswich, it would still be a dogs breakfast because the governance structure is totally broken. Bring back a unitary authority for Ipswich, and one that reflects our real urban area now, and then we may at last have sensible and accountable direction and governance.

    Report this comment

    Mark Ling

    Wednesday, September 7, 2016

  • Unitary authority? Greater Ipswich? In principle OK but in reality I'm against it. When the people living within the SCC area look at what life has become like in the areas under IBC's control, they will fight tooth and nail to prevent any unitary authority that runs the risk of turning their areas into the mess that IBC has made of Ipswich. And I don't blame them, I would too if I lived there.

    Report this comment

    Gobby

    Wednesday, September 7, 2016

  • Yes, I think that the borders of Ipswich need to be rethought, and there are merits in a unitary Ipswich. However, be careful to resist rewriting history. The port of Felixstowe grew because Trinity college Cambridge saw an opportunity to create a major container port on their land, and because it came into the ownership of P and O, at a time when inflexible labour practises at London and Liverpool blocked their adoption of containerisation. Fair play to Felixstowe, but this was not because of anything Ipswich did in particular. In fact a lot of Liverpudlians ended up providing the labour. Regarding BT, this was as a result of government policy to decentralise and the Post Office at Dollis Hill was one of its targets. Ipswich bypass.... Was basically justified because of additional container traffic to and from Felixstowe port. Meanwhile, what happened to the much vaunted Ipswich engineering businesses? Ransomes and Rapier were shut down by its Sheffield owners, RSJ diminished from its employment of msany thousands to mere hundreds. Cocksedge went, as has Cranes. Ipswich, like many other industrial engineering centres has had to reinvent itself, and we should count our lucky stars that councillors in Suffolk Coastal have had the foresight to approve and support the hugely successful businesses there. IBC has spectacularly failed to do similarly. Look at what's currently being built on the old Cranes site... A supposed business park, being filled with car dealerships. Yes, a unitary might work... But not if IBC were to run it. Perhaps SCDC would do a better job?

    Report this comment

    David C

    Tuesday, September 6, 2016

  • David C- of course you are correct AP, Sizewell and PofF have never been within the Borough of Ipswich, but they have both relied on, and continue to rely on, the infrastructure that the urban centre of Ipswich provides- professional and support services, housing, education, leisure and cultural facilities, a large labour market, transport infrastructure and the industrial heritage of Ipswich for which there was a really good skills base for both Sizewell and PofF. The point is the whole area would thrive under an Unitary Authority which has the ability to effectively plan for the region. It's interesting that you think that the it probably would be a good thing however!

    Report this comment

    IpswichBristol

    Tuesday, September 6, 2016

  • David C, what is odd is to completely ignore the structures of local politics at the time these assets came to Suffolk, or to ignore that Ipswich was a key stakeholder and influence in their being here, or more dangerous still to continue with a structure of local government that continued to expand and benefit from greater Ipswich whilst excluding it from all key decision making on the area it sustains. Of course atomic plants were built in rural areas, but they still need local labour, engineering expertise, local infrastructure and local government support. As county town and prominent stakeholder of the former East Suffolk Authority, and a county Borough too, Ipswich was a critical partner and leader. Same with BT, which did not locate here because Martlesham was a regional power and centre for engineering excellence , but because back then Ipswich was. It is an outrage that Ipswich has now become Suffolk's outcast due to unfair and unbalanced local government reform. Building on Ipswich's infrastructure yet giving it no say is a disgrace.

    Report this comment

    Mark Ling

    Tuesday, September 6, 2016

  • Mark Ling, you make some odd statements, for example that Sizewell nuclear power station was drawn by Ipswich. This was not the case. Sizewell and other nuclear power stations were located in remote rural areas where they would have least local resistance, not in urban powerhouses as you suggest. Regarding BT, is it not the case that Adastral Park has never been in Ipswich? And is it not also the case that BT are also planning to expand the business park and that some of the residential development will be home to workers in that new development? A Greater Ipswich authority probably would be good for this area, but you can't deny that all the developments you laud such as Felixstowe port and Adastral Park have happened outside of the boundary of Ipswich, and without the benefit of a unitary. So, you need to try to be a bit more balanced please

    Report this comment

    David C

    Monday, September 5, 2016

  • It strikes me that this is all the wrong way round. Bring the jobs here then house the workers. People will commute tow work, but if you speculatively build homes and the economy tanks you are stuck with 12 built houses. Our own Waterfront is a fine example, and it happened in Ireland at the beginning of the recession. If the jobs are there the infrastructure can be adapted and improved, but if developers plonk stuff in without considering how it will be used it will be inferior and not work well

    Report this comment

    Sentinel Red

    Monday, September 5, 2016

  • Deeber- I would reach out to you again to make contact with Mark- as probably the most vocal supporter of Greater Ipswich- your help and input would be very helpful and appreciated

    Report this comment

    IpswichBristol

    Monday, September 5, 2016

  • Totally agree with Mark Ling , I think this development is a turning point for the area .It will pave the way for similar major house builds to be plonked on the perimeter of Ipswich , a bit like the major shopping parks that are rapidly growing on the outskirts without any thought of road infrastructure whatsoever.It cost over £1 million to change the road network adjacent to john lewis b & q area ,an afterthought ! It is vital to PLAN better ,Ipswich is FULL , once the northern fringe is complete that's it . Ellsmere (IBC) is being forced to buy land outside the borough (sugar beet) giving future council tax receipts to another council and that's just barking mad ! It's up to the likes of the star , the MPS , councillors etc to promote a need for a GREATER IPSWICH forget Ipswich town centre vision group that's far too narrow a vision, we need A Greater Ipswich Vision group so if we are to have builds like AP we have to improve infrastructure first like a Northern bypass not more traffic lights !

    Report this comment

    deeber

    Monday, September 5, 2016

  • David C- I absolutely agree- as I said before I think this is a good place for growth. Although your comment on building in Aldeburgh would be political suicide- but the demand for housing here and in much of SCDC's rural areas is huge. That said, 'Greater Ipswich' does support a huge proportion of Suffolk's economy, through its workforce, housing, education and business hubs. IBC's boundary is full, it literally does not have anywhere to go other than the Northern Fringe. The IBC boundary is so outdated it is just absurd and bears no relationship to the current urban extents. What a Unitary Authority could deliver is a joined up, coherent plan for the greater urban area. It is common sense that with big employers such as PofF and AP relying heavily on the infrastructure of Ipswich, that an authority represents this area as a whole, and not in a piecemeal fashion as is currently the case.

    Report this comment

    IpswichBristol

    Monday, September 5, 2016

  • David C- I absolutely agree- as I said before I think this is a good place for growth. Although your comment on building in Aldeburgh would be political suicide- but the demand for housing here and in much of SCDC's rural areas is huge. That said, 'Greater Ipswich' does support a huge proportion of Suffolk's economy, through its workforce, housing, education and business hubs. IBC's boundary is full, it literally does not have anywhere to go other than the Northern Fringe. The IBC boundary is so outdated it is just absurd and bears no relationship to the current urban extents. What a Unitary Authority could deliver is a joined up, coherent plan for the greater urban area. It is common sense that with big employers such as PofF and AP relying heavily on the infrastructure of Ipswich, that an authority represents this area as a whole, and not in a piecemeal fashion as is currently the case.

    Report this comment

    IpswichBristol

    Monday, September 5, 2016

  • We also seem to be forgetting the 1200 homes planned on green field land south of Grange Farm. These were originally proposed when the 2k home at Adastral were under threat from NANT. Now that threat has been removed, the 1200 home plan seems to remain. Add that to all the homes currently planned for Trinity College land in the Felixstowe area and I wonder if enough traffic lights could be produced to satisfy SCC demand? As for healthcare, schools etc. well we should just stick our heads in the sand and pray what's there copes. Whilst generating much revenue, of course.

    Report this comment

    paul e.

    Monday, September 5, 2016

  • BT employees dont need brand new accommodation, they already live in Ipswich suburbs of IP4 and !P5. BT is not carrying out some kind of Joseph Rowntree worker's housing model, they are simply looking to capitalise on their land by building 2000 houses due to high demand for Greater Ipswich. BT is not a SCDC business, it was enticed into this area because Ipswich had more than 20 engineering giants, provided skilled labour, and once had a joined up plan and infrastructure for growth. As a full County Borough, and as direct county town and stake holder in the East Suffolk Authority it was Ipswich's draw that brought in BT, Sizewell A and Port of Felixstowe. Ipswich has a charter from 1518 that gave the town complete jurisdiction over the Orwell river and its shores from Ipswich to Land guard. So, if Greater Ipswich is to continue to carry a third of Suffolk's population and housing, and two thirds of its economic clout then it must been fairly empowered, a full stakeholder, and the true area it influences must have an accountable local government structure reflecting the citizens that live here and not those north of the Deben who have no care or interest for the impact.

    Report this comment

    Mark Ling

    Sunday, September 4, 2016

  • IpswichBristol, the driver for this development is that BT.. A Suffolk Coastal business.. wants to develop its business park and thinks that an adjacent residential development will provide the labour force. This is nothing to do with Ipswich or a northern bypass. Those residents will be able to walk or cycle to work. Of course, SCDC could have insisted that they live in Aldeburgh and built a new motorway to Adastral Park.... The simple fact is that the SCDC 'required housing numbers' are directly related to where the need is driven from, and that's the fringe of Ipswich and Felixstowe. Nothing wrong with that.

    Report this comment

    David C

    Sunday, September 4, 2016

  • David C- I don't think many people would disagree that AP is not a good location for new housing- the concern is that Suffolk Coastal can use the Ipswich fringe to deliver a huge chunk of it's required housing numbers- without any consideration of the infrastructure which supports it- much of which is only there largely because of Ipswich and Felixstowe. It is great for Suffolk Coastal- they can largely protect all of their 'nicer' villages, not upsetting their Conservative heartlands. I welcome this development, but a Greater Ipswich Unitary Authority would be able to effectively plan for the whole Orwell Peninsular, which ironically could still include protecting villages, but with the ability to plan strategic infrastructure improvements- that has to be the right way to do things?

    Report this comment

    IpswichBristol

    Sunday, September 4, 2016

  • Dumping is to deposit, typically in a careless or hurried way. So, quite clearly SCDC is depositing 51 percent of its entire planned housing for the next 25 years on the edge of the A12 14 orbital. This area has always and still is clearly be sustained by Ipswich. I have no problem for Ipswich and Orwell to find the solutions but not unless we have infrastructure, representation and a voice to match our true area. Melton based SCDC avoids house building anywhere north of the Deben. It does not care about the impact to Ipswich and the Orwell corridor. This is not a new town, it is a another new suburb for Greater Ipswich. It is clearly dumping. If Greater Ipswich and Orwell is to take the brunt then we need a single voice for Ipswich and Orwell, not the unaccountable, detached, distant, rural focus group at SCDC.

    Report this comment

    Mark Ling

    Saturday, September 3, 2016

  • Dumping? Homes get built where there's a demand, or the perception of one from a developer. Are we seriously suggesting there's a need for these homes in northern Suffolk Coastal? Need to see the big picture here folks. Homes at AP will help develop the business park also, and provide much needed new growth. By all means keep the pressure on for a northern bypass (although a distributor road to replace Foxhall Road and a north south link between Kesgrave and Bucklesham Road would probably be better). But please don't talk about dumping, as that's not the case.

    Report this comment

    David C

    Saturday, September 3, 2016

  • I also agree that they should straighten up Foxhall Road where the bend is. Unitary Authority, Greater Ipswich and Northern Bypass.

    Report this comment

    Ipswich Entrepreneur

    Friday, September 2, 2016

  • Not sure where my comment went ? Still too many builds and not enough new roads. Northern bypass now !

    Report this comment

    Macke

    Friday, September 2, 2016

  • Reading the comments I have to agree , I have had lots of comments withdrawn and we are fed up with Gummers broken promises in Ipswich . Adastral park will have a knock on affect on the whole eastnorth east side of Ipswich as will the northern fringe build . We must get that northern bypass as soon as possible .

    Report this comment

    Macke

    Friday, September 2, 2016

  • Thanks Deeber- the trouble is there aren't nearly enough of the businesses and residents speaking out on this issue. Appreciate that a few do on here but more need to start banging the drum so our representatives, including the media, take notice!

    Report this comment

    IpswichBristol

    Friday, September 2, 2016

  • Deeber and Mark- agree. Deeber, the problem with Highways is often that 'technically' traffic surveys and projections will show roads and junctions over capacity, but only during peak periods, which is considered acceptable. The problem is that SCC haven't got the clout to push back on what is acceptable. Of course, if a Greater Ipswich authority had control of all of these, then the picture would look very different. Planning and Highway Control within the same organisation, with a proper strategic overview of the region? Makes sense to me.

    Report this comment

    IpswichBristol

    Friday, September 2, 2016

  • Mark and Ipswichbristol , it's not the residents of Greater Ipswich that need convincing it's the media (Eadt and the star) . They are fully behind Gummer and whatever he says goes ,the moderators block far too many comments now. Never see or hear from Dr Dan he may represent a quarter of the Ipswich population and more than Gummer in the greater Ipswich area.Yet little is heard from him , he does not even sit on the Ipswich vision board ! Until you convince the media to take note of what the public actually want then your calls for a Greater Unitary Ipswich are falling on deaf ears.Business would love to see a Greater Ipswich so would the new university and other groups I'm sure of that BUT it would mean Gummer losing his power and I can't see that happening, happy to support you on this website but you need to target the media.

    Report this comment

    deeber

    Friday, September 2, 2016

  • Disagree with foxhall road being unaffected by adastral park build and other builds in the area .. the local parish council are anticipating a large increase in the use of foxhall road especially from the A12 to bent lane . They asked for speed limits to be reduced and better road signage ,Bus stops being better signposted and grass verges maintained . SCC promised months ago New road markings further up foxhall road they have still not materialised. It's council against council and it ain't working.

    Report this comment

    deeber

    Friday, September 2, 2016

  • Brilliant idea, lets make Ipswich even more gridlocked than it is now. Will the developers of this wonderful (poorly built) new housing estate live in the local area and use the surrounding area daily like the rest of us poor mugs. I hope so i really hope so.

    Report this comment

    Dark Town

    Friday, September 2, 2016

  • In addition to 4500 homes that Ipswich Borough plans north of Ipswich, SCDC is set to dump half of its planned housing stock (4500 homes) immediately east of Ipswich. SCDC has habit of using the Greater Ipswich area for its housing, retail and business parks, yet has absolutely no interest in the infrastructure sustaining them or their impact on Ipswich. And now their future direction and ambition is a north facing “tie up” under a Lowestoft based Chief Exec. IBC has it faults but it does have an immediate and vested interest in the infrastructure sustaining the greater Ipswich area. From Ipswich to Felixstowe, Westerfield, Henley, Kesgrave, Martlesham, Trimley, etc, citizens of Ipswich and Orwell need to wake up and wise up. If we are to bear the brunt of housing and population growth we need to be working together and demanding a unitary council reflecting our area, equipped to serve and directly responsible to the citizens that live here.

    Report this comment

    Mark Ling

    Friday, September 2, 2016

  • In principle this is a good place to build new housing, and the employment expansion will hopefully attract more higher-paid jobs which will hopefully link in with the University. BUT, this should be growth within a Greater Ipswich, under an authority which can deliver the required infrastructure alongside the new development. It is absurd that IBC have to cram in mostly flats to try and even make some progress towards their housing targets whilst the higher quality, typically family housing is dumped on the peripheral without making any direct contributions to Ipswich. Until people actively get involved in campaigning for a Greater Ipswich, this is all a pipe-dream. But it could be achieved.

    Report this comment

    IpswichBristol

    Friday, September 2, 2016

  • 2000 new homes = at least 3000 extra vehicles on the already extremely busy A12 and A14 ! These Developers are getting away with murder !...every year they publish their increased Profits !....yet contribute absolutely nothing to our Road Infrastructure !.. A Northern By Pass is becoming increasingly urgent !...it is already necessary !...exactly who is 'Responsible' for actual Road Infrastructure Investment to support all these new Developments ?..

    Report this comment

    freedomf

    Friday, September 2, 2016

  • Trouble is SCC are only interested in providing traffic lights not anticipating and dealing with traffic and congestion. If Kesgrave didn't need a bypass, even when it was part of the planning approval for Grange Farm, they are unlikely to do anything about Foxhall Rd which will be unaffected by the Adastral Park development.

    Report this comment

    amsterdam81

    Friday, September 2, 2016

  • 'NANTS', don't worry, the new residents will all be using good old Ipswichs' facilities and infrastructure, and not paying a penny towards its upkeep. Your neighbourhood is now part of Greater Ipswich! Welcome!!!!!

    Report this comment

    Mike Derruki

    Friday, September 2, 2016

  • It does not mention any upgrade to foxhall road ? Foxhall road from the heath road roundabout to the A12 is a very busy road with several bottle necks on it , the bend at the nuffield , bell lane and Dobbs lane .When the schools are back next week it will be full of parents again parking everywhere . The planners MUST alter foxhall road first before this build and others in the area take place , the evidence is there ,even the white and yellow lines have virtually disappeared with the amount of traffic on it so it's time SCC woke up and did something about it.

    Report this comment

    deeber

    Friday, September 2, 2016

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

A Constable country village “under siege” from housing developers is considering divorcing Suffolk and joining Essex to fight back against development.

A planning inquiry into proposals to build 300 homes in Kesgrave has stalled after it was ruled that a key report on housing needs in Suffolk was needed for a fair decision to be made.

New university rankings revealed today show the University of Essex has climbed nine places while the University of Suffolk has appeared on the list for the first time.

Crew members from the lifeboat station in West Mersea battled for five hours this afternoon to save a wooden boat from sinking off the coast of Burnham-on-Crouch.

A drunk motorist who drove at speeds of up to 110mph during a police chase on Suffolk roads has been jailed for 16 months.

Children’s wards in East Anglia are being offered a state-of-the-art cinema room as part of Finite Solutions Cine-makeover campaign.

A mum from Woodbridge finished in the top 200 of runners taking part in this year’s Marathon des Sables.

Most read

Eating Out in the Broads

cover

Click here to view
the Eating Out
supplement

View

Visit the Broads

cover

Click here to view
the Visit the Broads
supplement

View

Most commented

HOT JOBS

Show Job Lists

Newsletter Sign Up

Sign up to the following newsletters:

Sign up to receive our regular email newsletter
MyDate24 MyPhotos24