sky coverage of NANT 1st Oct


The story so far

BT Submitted a planning application in 2008 ,  followed by another in 2009, to build 2000 homes on the greenfield site to the south and east of the BT site adjacent to the Suffolk Coasts and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Also in October 2008  BT wrote to the East of England Regional Assembly in response to a request  saying that their site could potentially accommodate up to 3500 homes. Suffolk Coastal District Council (SCDC) have produced a "Local Development Framework" (LDF) . There was significant public opposition to the policies chosen and none of our local representatives voted for it.

Our mission

NANT's mission is to protect the quality of the environment and local communities in the area currently threatened by Suffolk Coastal District Council's planning strategy and BT's planning application. Their proposal is to build at least 2,000 houses on greenfield land next to Adastral Park. We oppose BT's planning application and the Local Development Framework in its current form. We are working to persuade Suffolk Coastal District Council to use the opportunity opened up by the coalition government’s changed policies to consider other options. We are not opposed to house building, but we dispute the figures for the number of houses needed. We are pushing for a reassessment of actual housing need. We want to see the area next to Adastral Park retained as farm land or restored to its original heathland state. We want Suffolk Coastal to distribute future housing over a number of smaller developments across the district, and better meet the need for affordable housing in rural areas.

Reasons to reject the plan

The area’s rural character. Impact on the environment. Worsening traffic congestion. Building on Greenfield land. Destroy nearby villages. Exacerbate climate change. The local education system. Housing won’t be near the jobs. It will be an eyesore. New ‘community’ isolated. Houses aren’t needed for jobs. Planning Application premature. More:

BT Adastral Park homes protesters lose court fight

BBC coverage here.

Protesters landed with £10,000 legal bill after losing High Court appeal

EADT Coverage here.

NANT Press Release 10.15am Tuesday 17th February 2015

We are very disappointed that the Court of Appeal has turned down No Adastral New Town’s (NANT’s) appeal concerning the allocation of 2000 houses at BT’s Adastral Park site at Martlesham as part of Suffolk Coastal District Council’s core strategy.

NANT had succeeded in the High Court in establishing that SCDC’s process of selecting . . . → Read More: NANT Press Release 10.15am Tuesday 17th February 2015

Councillor frozen out of voting on housing bid in his own district

Interesting EADT article about Framlingham housing read here.

EADT Coverage on Appeal

See coverage here.

Update on the Appeal Hearing Jan 21/22 2015

The first day of the hearing was our opportunity to explain in more detail our grounds for questioning some elements of the judgement against us at the High Court hearing last February.  Richard made our case very clearly (to our ears anyway).  The atmosphere was relatively relaxed,  the judges appeared to listen carefully to what Richard said, . . . → Read More: Update on the Appeal Hearing Jan 21/22 2015

EADT:Suffolk Coastal faces two court dates to combat challenges over housing

Coverage of our case plus Yoxford where SCDC are refusing permission for 26 homes. See here.

Date for Appeal

We now have a date for our case to be reviewed in the court of appeal – it will be on 21-23rd January 2015. We will update further when there is further news.

Ipswich Star:Felixstowe: Fears voiced that resort could be made to take extra 2,000 homes

Fears voiced in Felixstowe and the Trimleys about  Court Appeal. Read here in the Ipswich Star

High court appeal – some comments from NANT

Lord Justice Clarke’s decision indicates that the issues raised by NANT have sufficient merit to justify examination by three senior judges in the Court of Appeal.

We feel that this vindicates our decision to start our legal action. We did not make that decision lightly but the SCDC’s intransigence left us with little choice.

. . . → Read More: High court appeal – some comments from NANT