County council hears Abbott's bypass petition, but stalemate continues

Why it matters: Every closure of the Orwell Bridge is estimated by the Suffolk Chamber of Commerce to cost the local economy around £1 million, with roughly 60,000 vehicles a day forced onto alternative routes. The petition is the latest attempt to push Suffolk County Council's Reform UK administration towards committing to a specific solution ahead of a cabinet report due in September.

The details: The petition was presented under the council's constitution, having passed the threshold of 3,931 signatures needed to bring it before councillors. Abbott, the lead petitioner, addressed the chamber for around five minutes, followed by responses from the leaders of the council's four opposition groups, before Cllr Christopher Hudson, Cabinet Member for Transport and Highways, replied on behalf of the administration.

Ipswich MP’s bypass petition handed in – but will it change anything?

Ipswich MP Jack Abbott says his 4,000-signature petition proves patience has run out over the Orwell Bridge. Council leader Michael Hadwen says he is “fully supportive” of finding a solution, but his response gives no sign that Suffolk County Council’s position has shifted.

Ipswich.co.ukOliver Rouane-Williams

What they're saying: Abbott told councillors the petition had been signed by more than 4,000 residents as well as "major businesses and organisations across the county." He argued the council's May decision to examine "all options" could not replace the detailed technical work already carried out in a previous strategic business case, and said alternatives such as improvements to the Ely and Haughley rail junctions – while valuable – would not resolve the Orwell Bridge's "single point of failure."

"It's time to get serious," he said, urging the council to move on from what he described as a "do nothing" approach. He said he'd had "a very constructive meeting" with council leader Michael Hadwen and pledged to help lobby government for funding if the September report produced "credible, deliverable, affordable options."

Green Group leader Cllr Andrew Stringer said his group did not believe a bypass should be the only option pursued, and questioned why previously promised rail improvements had not yet been delivered. He raised concerns about the scale of housebuilding a bypass could require, and called for progress on reducing HGV traffic before further commitments were made.

Conservative leader Cllr Richard Rout backed the principle that "a solution must be found" for days when the bridge shuts, and said a northern route was "clearly one of those solutions" – but said every alternative should be examined before a costly business case is commissioned. He said the administration was "moving with pace" following the Conservative-backed amendment in May, but flagged that the September report had not yet appeared on the council's forward plan, and asked Abbott to attend future strategic transport meetings, following his absence from the past two.

Labour leader Cllr Martin Cook said Ipswich's road network was "completely full, not just on bad days, but every day," blaming two decades of inaction under Conservative administrations. He pointed to recent county council funding for the A140 and A12 as evidence that the authority could act on road schemes when it chose to, and asked: "Will you break with 20 years of failure, or will you continue with it?"

Liberal Democrat leader Cllr Inger Lockington raised concerns about how a bypass would be funded, questioning whether it would depend on significant new housebuilding to make the scheme viable, and referred to specific concerns in her own division.

The administration's response: Responding for the administration, Cllr Hudson acknowledged "the problem is patent" but said the solutions were "more complex," citing an estimated cost of "hundreds of millions, if not half a billion pounds."

He said the council would need updated transport, environmental and financial evidence before it could make an informed choice, and warned that any scheme requiring significant new housebuilding would need to be weighed carefully. He said the council would compare all alternatives – including bridges, tunnels and improvements to the existing road network – before consulting residents and stakeholders and publishing a "transparent business case."

He gave no fresh commitment to a bypass specifically, saying any final decision would rest on whether a scheme "can be justified financially" and balances transport, environmental, affordability and local needs.

Reform to explore tunnel and estuarial crossing as northern bypass alternatives

Suffolk County Council will explore building a tunnel or estuarial crossing as an alternative to an Ipswich northern bypass, with a report to go to cabinet by the end of September.

Ipswich.co.ukNicola Sebastian

What's next: Suffolk County Council's cabinet is still expected to receive a report on transport options in September.

The bottom line: More than 4,000 signatures and speeches from all sides gave the bypass campaign a fresh airing at Endeavour House, but the administration's response – as expected – stopped short of committing to a specific route. September's cabinet report remains the point at which Suffolk County Council is expected to show its hand.

Don't forget: If you enjoy our content, please add Ipswich.co.uk as a "preferred source" on Google so you can easily find more of the content you value.

This article cost us ~£54 to produce

It's free for you to read thanks to the generous support of our partners. Please support us by supporting them.