NANT is not opposed to the creation of jobs on the BT site but does not see why BT needs the income from sale of greenfield land to pay for maintenance and improvement of its building (this is what BT has said in various documents). BT’s annual profits to 31 March 2010 were £1.007bn and in the past it has funded maintenance and improvement of its buildings from revenue. There are no documents from SCDC showing that 2000 houses are needed in that single location, even if the extra jobs were created. Once that greenfield land is built on it’s gone forever.
It is also clear from various documents from BT, SCDC and SCC that, if the BT housing development goes ahead (and with it substantial new infrastructure – changes to A12 junctions, schools, increase in capacity at the Martlesham Creek sewage plant, electricity supply upgrade etc), the long term plans are for more development all round the area – this will become a town the size of Woodbridge with a congested A12 running through the middle of it. This is not a risk – it’s a long term certainty and the BT proposal is key to it all.
It’s no coincidence that BT’s planning consultants are Town Planning and Urban Design consultants. This is what they say about their work so far for BT – http://www.davidlock.com/Site/martlesham_heath.html – they say “The site has been successfully promoted through Suffolk Coastal District Council’s Local Development Framework”. Does this mean they have influenced the LDF to get what BT wants?