Suffolk County Council replied to Nick Timothy’s letter — sent to Suffolk Highways last month — in which he raised a series of concerns and asked a number of detailed questions, about the closure of the A134. The closure, and the implementation of a 43-mile official diversion, has caused serious problems and disruptions for residents and commuters, and access issues for emergency vehicles.
To read the response please see below.
I have been provided with the following information which has been split out by each concern in your letter:
Question: There are also strong concerns about the ability of emergency vehicles and care workers to access and help patients during the period of road closure. What arrangements are in place to accommodate access, and what is your assessment of how they operated during the first weekend of closure?
Hopkins Homes and Suffolk County Council (Network Assurance) fully acknowledge the importance of ensuring that emergency response times are not compromised. As such:
- Priority Emergency Access via Low Green to Nowton Road: Hopkins Homes have confirmed that dedicated operatives will be in place at all times during the road closure periods to facilitate emergency vehicles, ensuring immediate access when required.
- Suffolk County Council has notified Suffolk Fire & Rescue, East of England Ambulance Service, and Suffolk Police to plan for their operational readiness. Suffolk County Council will provide a copy of the notification served to the emergency services as part of implementing the Temporary Traffic Regulation Order for the weekend closures.
- Hopkins Homes coordinated an emergency access drill on Low Green, Nowton, before the initial road closure to ensure that their operatives could respond quickly in emergencies. It is standard practice for operatives to manage emergency service access during a road closure whenever possible. However, not all projects that involve a road closure can accommodate this; for example, the A134 section cannot facilitate such access.
Network Assurance understand that there may be concerns regarding carers access to the residents. Network Assurance have been liaising with Adult and Community Services in relation to the planned road closures and they are working with the care providers to continue to deliver their services. Network Assurance are also in contact with the blue light services and have received positive feedback on Monday, 24February regarding the current measures in place (please see accompanying document “Email A134 EEA Amb 24-02-25_redacted.pdf”).
Question: Google Maps, Waze and AA Route Planner are not clearly showing that the A134 is closed during weekends, so heavy goods vehicles are still being sent in the direction of that road. For example, Google Maps is currently showing road works but no road closure, while the AA Route Planner does not show the road being closed. This incorrect traffic information is likely to compound the problems. Is it possible to address this with all due speed?
Despite Network Assurance’s best efforts to inform Google and TomTom about the road closures through their partner, Causeway – https://One.Network, Google may not be accurately reflecting this information at the moment. Unfortunately, this situation is beyond the control of Suffolk County Council and other local highway or transport authorities across the UK.
These services also depend on crowd-sourced data, so the issue may resolve over the next few days or weeks as more precise information is gathered by Google and other platforms beyond the control of Suffolk County Council.
Network Assurance would recommend directing constituents to Suffolk County Council’s online platform https://one.network for the most up-to-date details to assist in planning their journeys.
Question: There are considerable safety concerns about the narrowness of rural roads being used by drivers avoiding the official diversion route. This extra traffic is a considerable disturbance for residents living on alternative routes. This past weekend many motorists turned to using smaller rural roads which are not suitable, many of which are single track roads for long sections without pavements for pedestrians or passing places. For example, lorries have used Rushbrooke Lane, part of which has apparently collapsed. Another byway that experienced heavy congestion was Hawstead Lane, which has an average width of 2.8m. These roads are simply too narrow to accommodate two-way traffic for most vehicles, let alone heavy goods vehicles.
Also on communications, some residents have noted that the closure of Low Green, which has an average width of 4.2 m, has led to rat runs down a number of other country lanes which are also too narrow. What is the answer from Suffolk Highways to this complaint?
Following feedback from a public engagement session on 5 February, further discussions with Hopkins and their supply chain have led to an update in traffic management plans. In addition to the previously announced measures, Rushbrooke Lane and Low Green will both now become ‘no through roads’ and therefore only accessible to residents (and specific business for goods deliveries). This change was made in accordance with demands from local residents to close the roads, preventing ‘rat runs’ for drivers seeking to avoid the works. Rushbrooke Lane will be closed from the junction of North Hill and only accessible from Rougham Hill. Low Green will be closed at the junction with the A134 and only accessible from Nowton Road. These changes will be closely monitored to assess its impact and effectiveness.
Network Assurance are aware that unofficial alternative routes are being used by the travelling public to get to a required destination. Network Assurance are currently reviewing these locations and working with Hopkins Homes and their Traffic Management company to look at any further possible mitigation measures. As the works progress, Network Assurance will continue to monitor the unofficial alternative routes whilst promoting the official diversion route.
The official signed diversion route follows A1302 – A143 – A1017 – A1092 – A134 and vice versa. The designated diversion route follows the established classification principle, ensuring it remains suitable for all vehicle types affected by the closure. Network Assurance acknowledge concerns about minor roads being used as alternative routes however these are not part of the official diversion route. Hopkins Homes will continue to monitor these and consider any additional measures, including additional signage and other strategies to mitigate rat-running and ensure safety.
Following the first weekend road closure, a review has been undertaken, and more enhanced signage has been installed at various locations including Hawstead Lane to deter the travelling public from using these routes.
Question: In light of the above, some residents have suggested that Hawstead Lane should become an access-only Route. I would be grateful for your view as to whether this is possible? Would Suffolk Highways also re-inspect the suitability of the following roads to ensure they are safe for the extra traffic that will inevitably use them during this period of disruption: Water Lane, Linkwood and Bells Lane?
This question was raised at the Parish Council event held on Wednesday, 26 February 2025, and answers were provided to the attendees. Implementing a one-way system on Hawstead Lane presents several challenges regarding enforcement, particularly in preventing drivers from ignoring the “no entry” signs and adjusting to the new road layout. This issue has been observed in other areas of the County, especially near the current A1088 bridge replacement, where police have issued public statements to discourage drivers from violating the “no entry” rules.
Additionally, there have been instances where similar measures were introduced and then removed on the same day due to safety concerns. These situations resulted in unintended consequences, such as increased speeds as drivers were not expecting oncoming vehicles in the lane. This problem was further exacerbated as adjacent roads experienced speeding, as drivers sought alternative routes around the one-way system.
In simpler terms, this situation is analogous to implementing double yellow lines near a railway station to prevent parking. As restrictions are introduced in one area, drivers often seek alternative routes, which can create additional issues elsewhere. By introducing measures on Hawstead Lane, we risk encouraging its use over the Official Diversion Route, which could place added pressure on surrounding roads and lanes as drivers choose to travel against the one-way system.
Question: Residents have pointed to shortcomings in the communications effort by Suffolk Highways and Hopkins Homes in advance of the road closure. I note that Suffolk Highways has said, in response to concerns that were put to them by residents, that a media release about the closure and accompanying arrangements was issued — and businesses notified — on 17 January, that Hopkins Homes met parish councils on 21 January to discuss roadworks and that there was a public engagement event on 5 February. However, my understanding from residents and parish councillors is that only Nowton Parish Council and Bury St Edmunds Town Council were consulted on 21 January. What is the reason that other parish councils — including Great Whelnetham and Hawstead — were not included in the consultation? Why was a longer period of notice and consultation not undertaken before the road closure and diversion were put into effect?
Under current legislation, Suffolk County Council (Highways Authority) is not required to conduct a formal public consultation on diversion routes associated with temporary road closures. The Authority’s primary responsibility is to ensure that all closures and diversions comply with statutory obligations set out in the Highways Act 1980 and the Traffic Management Act 2004, which require local authorities to secure the expeditious movement of traffic while balancing the need for essential infrastructure improvements.
The proposed diversion routes have been determined in accordance with national roadworks planning and traffic management guidance. While Network Assurance acknowledge that the designated official diversion route may cause inconvenience to some road users, it has been assessed as the most feasible alternative, given the constraints of the existing road network and the nature of the works.
Hopkins Homes, as the developer are responsible for these works, has conducted public engagement, including a session on 5 February 2025, following prior discussions with elected Council representatives. Furthermore, these works form part of the planning conditions for the development, which underwent the required statutory planning process and associated consultation.
Following the Hopkins Homes engagement session on 5 February 2025, and further discussions with emergency services regarding the request for additional road closures beyond the originally planned mitigation measures, it became clear that these closures were not anticipated during the initial communication phase. During the Parish Council meeting on 26 February, 2025, Hopkins Homes, with the support of Suffolk County Council, acknowledged that their communications should have reached a broader audience. Initially, the information was primarily directed at the parishes and businesses directly affected by the A134 Sicklesmere Road closure. This was further exacerbated when the additional mitigation (Road Closures) requested by the community, supported by the emergency services, were introduced.
The original Traffic Management Plan, from which the communications plan was developed, initially required a full closure of A134 Sicklesmere Road during the proposed weekends. Hopkins Homes took proactive steps to communicate the enhanced mitigation measures with the communities once they were finalised. As previously mentioned, these measures have facilitated emergency services access, which should remain one of our primary objectives.
Further concerns regarding the communications carried out by Hopkins Homes would be best answered by Hopkins Homes as the developer for the works and therefore, I have provided their contact details below –
- Phone number – 0800 035 2874
- Email – [email protected]
Question: There is frustration that Suffolk Highways failed to attend a public meeting in Nowton Village Hall on Wednesday 19 February, and advance notice of their absence was provided only provided a few hours before the start of the meeting. What was the reason for this?
The decision was made by Suffolk County Council, and agreed with the Parish Chair, that the item on the agenda should be removed on the grounds of public safety following intelligence of the potential significant number of people beyond Nowton being encouraged to attend. This would have been more than the numbers that could safely travel, park and be accommodated at the meeting in the village hall. It was notified to the Parish Chair that an online meeting would be setup for Parish Council representatives, and this took place on the evening of Wednesday, 26 February 2025.
Question: A number of constituents are concerned about the period of time during which the road will be closed, along with the added costs for residents that will result from extra fuel expended on longer trips. What is your understanding of the amount of night work which is happening on the roundabout during the period of road closure? Do you agree that night working on this site should be maximised in order to ensure that the public disruption from the road closure is kept to a minimum?
Network Assurance have had confirmation from Hopkins Homes that extended working hours are being implemented where reasonable and practical to accelerate progress, while also balancing the needs of site neighbours regarding noise disturbance. The below provides an overview of the extensive infrastructure works that Hopkins Homes are carrying out which include:
Drainage System Installation
- A new surface water drainage system with new gullies and lateral runs.
- Drainage levels will be directed towards the Nowton Park side of the A134.
Puffin Crossing and Associated Works
- Construction of a new signalised puffin crossing, including:
- New ducting across the road.
- Upgraded footways with tactile paving.
- Installation of new Intelligent Transport System (ITS) equipment, such as power supplies, cabinets, and loops.
Sewer, Electric and Footway Improvements
- Establishing a new sewer connection and building deep sewer chambers within the carriageway.
- Undertaking HV electric ducting works to support the electric connection for development
- Additional footway improvements as part of Section 278 works.
- Installation of two new bus stops.
Roundabout Finalisation
- Excavation to a depth of 1.1 meters to integrate with the existing road.
- New footway alignment, kerbs, and supporting works.
- Adjustments to the road layout.
- Planning and resurfacing, including:
- High Friction Surfacing (HFS) for the new signalled crossing.
- Line markings for the entire scheme.
With the scope of works considered above, the ability to maintain a single running lane (shuttle lane) safely during all these aspects of works is not possible which is why a road closure will be required by Hopkin Homes to undertake certain activities, allowing:
- Safe execution of works for both the travelling public and the workforce.
- Sufficient curing times of materials before reopening the road.
Question: I would also be grateful if Suffolk Highways could explain what alternatives were considered, in consultation with Hopkins Homes, in advance of this road closure scheme being decided upon? If alternative schemes were considered, would you be able to expand on why they were rejected?
Howard Construction had originally proposed to undertake works on A134 Sicklesmere Road, Bury St Edmunds using a full road closure with a duration of 12 weeks (84 days). However, Network Assurance challenged this request due to this being a major A road and taking into consideration the traffic volumes that use this road, they were requested to explore alternative traffic management and design options.
After negations, Hopkins Homes (Howard Construction) advised that following further redesign that they could carry out some of the works using a 30mph speed restriction in conjunction with 2-way Portable Traffic Signals (PTS) during the working week (Monday to Friday) and use a full road closure from Friday at 20:00 through to Monday at 05:00 to facilitate the works in the carriageway to be completed (16 days).
Network Assurance held several meetings prior to the works commencing to discuss and negotiate various options to keep disruption to a minimum for the travelling public however, unfortunately there were no other alternatives that were suitable to safely undertake these works then those currently proposed.
Weekend road closures are required due to the complexity of the work, including excavation and the installation of drainage and sewer systems, which cannot be safely or efficiently carried out under Portable Traffic Signals (PTS) alone. This may include equipment and activities that need the full width of the road to be undertaken safely and efficiently or activities such as trenching across the entire road to install pipework which cannot be completed whilst maintaining traffic flow.
The decision to fully close the road on weekends ensures both safety and efficiency. Weekend closures allow for uninterrupted work over extended periods, reducing the overall project duration. Allowing traffic through via temporary signals at weekends would pose significant safety risks to both workers and road users as there would not be sufficient carriageway widths to maintain a safe shuttle lane through the works during these key activities, while also considerably prolonging the time needed to complete the project.
