Woods Lane, Melton Hill and Bloors

I’ve come back from China to see continuing controversy re Bloors and development – at both Melton Hill and Woods Lane.

Now, there are many reasons for anger.  The utter arrogance and lack of concern shown in these dealsby both the company and local district councillors. The lack of strategic planning by the flaccid representatives we elect and employ to represent OUR interests. The clear adverse impact on local  lives and incomes.

On top of this I am deeply offended by the ridiculous desire some people are showing  to try and reframe  opposition to these developments into a narrative of country NIMBYs incapable of accepting change and modernity. Trying to dismiss objectors as Luddite bumpkins.

What arrogant ignorant rubbish!

This is a case of rational people objecting to yet more expensive unnecessary housing for rich incomers while modestly paid locals have been priced out of the town they lived in for generations.

To reframe it as anything else is arrogant, offensive and intellectually dishonest !

4 thoughts on “Woods Lane, Melton Hill and Bloors”

  1. Observant residents of Woodbridge and Melton will observe that Woods Lane is still being used both ways by vehicles delivering, not to the road works, but to the Bloor Homes development. There is obviously one set of rules, approved by Suffolk Highways for Bloor Homes and another for local residents!

  2. Dear Caroline
    I share you anger. But the Woods Lane development was approved not by local councillors but by planning central government body on appeal by developers. It is curious that developers have the right of appeal when turned down, but when a council actually approves an inappropriate development (like cheese wedges on Melton Hill) there is no way local people can appeal other than through the costly courts! So much for local democracy.
    The council keeps talking about ‘sustainable building’. But what is sustainable about several hundred houses on the edge of town beyond anything which appeared in the ‘town plan’, where they will all no doubt have to get in their cars on A12 to go to work someone else like Ipswich!

    1. The primary issue, though is that Suffolk Coastal was appallingly slack in getting its 5 year land supply identified. If it had done this, the Secretary of State would not have been able to uphold an appeal. As it is, it was open season. You won’t find Suffolk Coastal admitting this!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.