SuffolkNews explores whether infrastructure - roads, heathcare and education - can keep up as Bury St Edmunds grows by thousands of homes
‘Bury just cannot cope with more homes. The infrastructure isn't there. Traffic and pollution will overwhelm the once-beautiful little town.”
This view from a member of the public is not an uncommon one.
Like many towns across the country, historic and picturesque Bury St Edmunds is growing and residents have concerns over the extra pressure this places on the roads, schools, doctors’ surgeries and pharmacies.
The Government has said it is committed to getting 1.5 million new homes built in England by 2029.
Bury – whose name is eponymous with the 9th century king and martyr – is the largest town in West Suffolk and, according to the 2021 census, has a population of 41,855.
To meet housing need, West Suffolk Council’s current local plan – a blueprint for growth that must follow national planning policy – makes provision for at least 13,005 net new homes and associated infrastructure across the district over the period from 2024 to 2041.
Site allocations for housing for Bury are set to bring around 4,000 new homes, across six sites.
The local plan says: “The level of development in Bury St Edmunds is influenced by the need to meet the overall housing requirement and the spatial strategy.
“The distribution of development across the district takes into account existing environmental and physical constraints and the overall capacity for growth in the settlement.”
Bury sites allocated for housing within the local plan include several to the eastern edge of Bury, bordering Moreton Hall, including the former Rougham Airfield, which is set to take about 500 homes.
Moreton Hall Residents’ Association (MHRA) recently met with housebuilder Crest Nicholson, which is bringing forward plans for the former airfield site, to share residents’ views, including strong concerns around infrastructure.
Meanwhile, a planning application for up to 160 homes north of Mount Road, in Rougham – a nearby local plan site – has also attracted concerns from Moreton Hall residents, who have fears over the cumulative impacts of more housing developments on infrastructure.
Andy McGowan, vice-chair of MHRA, told the Bury Free Press that in its Big Listen survey and whenever speaking with residents, the issue of infrastructure ‘comes up time and time again’ whether that be the lack of healthcare provision compared with the increasing number of houses or pressures on our roads.
He said: “In the past couple of years we have seen one pharmacy shut completely and the other forced to reduce its hours - yet no sign of plans to help increase the pharmacy's capacity given the hundreds more homes going up and close to a thousand more in the pipeline in the area.
“The ongoing issues with HGVs using junction 44 [at Sainsbury’s] and Orttewell Road rather than junction 45 [at Rougham] places even more strain on key sections of the roads.
“The roundabout by Sainsbury's is often a particular pinch point. And the ongoing issue with Royal Mail parking means that section of Skyliner Way remains effectively a single-lane road trying to service cars, buses and HGVs alike.
“And you only have to visit Airfield Road or Sebert Road at school drop-off and pick-up times to see the huge pressures being placed on those areas as demand for school places increases with the houses being built.”
He pointed out the need for fresh plans for new walking and cycling routes to come forward from Suffolk County Council following the scrapping of controversial proposals last year that looked to make a section of Barton Road one-way.
He also said for young people to access employment, education or social opportunities outside of Moreton Hall without adding to air pollution, we had to improve the availability of buses. Currently, the M33 service through Moreton Hall is only around once an hour, with no provision on Sundays or past about 6.50pm.
And in terms of health infrastructure, he said there needed to be more easily accessible sports provision available, including swimming.
Mr McGowan said in the residents’ survey, many people were not opposed to the idea of more houses in principle - they were opposed to more houses without the infrastructure to support them.
He said: “With huge housing developments in the pipeline in Rougham, these will place even greater strain on our existing infrastructure and so this is why we feel there needs to be a really clear plan for infrastructure in the area, and a plan which is put together with local residents and businesses.”
As Bury continues to spread east, it is edging ever closer to the villages of Blackthorpe, Rushbrooke and Rougham.
In fact, land within the Rushbrooke with Rougham parish was brought into Bury in 2022 as part of a boundary change to include the Lark Grange development, at Moreton Hall, within Bury.
This was something that was opposed by Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish Council at the time, stating it wished to retain the parish’s current identity and boundaries.
Cllr Sara Mildmay-White, current chairman of Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish Council, said people there were ‘resigned’ to Bury linking with the parish.
“We need housing, don’t we, but it does worry me that we are getting overwhelmed in a way because of the lack of infrastructure,” she said. “I think it’s the speed and size of some of these developments that are really causing people concern.”
The nearby village of Thurston may be in a different district, in Mid Suffolk, but Cllr Mildmay-White said the massive growth there has had a ‘huge impact’ on Rougham yet they had very little sway.
County cllr David Nettleton, who represents the Tower division in Bury, said infrastructure – roads, health provision and community facilities – should match any proposed housing development.
He spoke of the need for improved public transport to tackle the traffic jams that are blighting Bury and other towns.
He said: “The solution is more train lines and train stations, improvements to the train stations, including Bury, a proper train station in Newmarket rather than the miserable platform and single line working there at present, and more buses linking residents and visitors to these railheads.
“A fleet of single-decker electric buses is needed to deliver this change, as are safe cycle routes in Bury. Wider pavements and narrow roads wherever possible. Polluting vehicles should be phased out as a public health measure, especially near schools.”
He also has a longstanding complaint about the lack of a GP surgery to meet the needs of his residents living in the Howard and Mildenhall Road areas in Bury, plus now Marham Park.
Privately-owned property company Pigeon, which has its office in Bury St Edmunds, is delivering the site north of Mount Road and the Bury West 485-home development, which is also an allocation in the local plan.
A spokesman for Pigeon said they were ‘particularly proud’ to get the Bury West development over the line, and the piece of infrastructure that will come with it – the relief road.
The spokesman for Pigeon said: “As a developer, we must mitigate our impacts, and we do our level best to ensure that’s the case. Developers know they have got to pay their way.”
He said Pigeon saw it as their duty as a responsible developer to have a conversation with local people about what they would expect to come from the development.
But he did say they were ‘not a silver bullet’ and could not solve every problem, for example where there has been underinvestment in infrastructure over many years.
How the West Suffolk Local Plan supports infrastructure delivery
West Suffolk Council said its Local Plan sets out where development can and cannot take place – and what infrastructure and facilities are needed to support planned growth.
Cllr Cliff Waterman, leader of West Suffolk Council, and Cllr Victor Lukaniuk, deputy leader, said: “Without a Local Plan new homes will still be built but with less protection for the countryside, less of a democratic voice over planning applications and less security over how we ensure developers pay toward infrastructure such as transport, health and education.
“The West Suffolk Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) has been prepared to support the new adopted West Suffolk Local Plan.
“Its role is to set out what infrastructure is needed to enable the delivery of new development, and to ensure that infrastructure is delivered. There are a suite of policies in the West Suffolk Local Plan 2024-2041 in relation to infrastructure.
“As part of preparing the West Suffolk Local Plan and IDP, we worked to engage with partners responsible for delivering infrastructure such as roads, schools and GP surgeries, to ensure that each of the sites allocated are viable and so can be delivered.
“We consulted with Suffolk County Council Highways and National Highways who are statutory responsible bodies for highways. We have also consulted with Suffolk County Council as the local education authority and with the local NHS partners amongst others.
“We also consult with our statutory partners such as the highways authority on the individual planning applications that we receive.”
They said as a planning authority, West Suffolk Council acted on the information and advice of statutory consultees, and a developer would then be required to either deliver the necessary infrastructure or pay a financial contribution towards mitigating impacts caused by the development.
A spokesperson for the county council said they assessed the current road and transport networks to see how they would be affected by a new development, and this includes taking into consideration any other developments which have been proposed.
“Appropriate improvements can then be made alongside any new developments to prevent traffic problems,” they said.