Skip to main contentEnter
Attwells logo

Attwells Solicitors

Proud supporters of free and independent local journalism in Ipswich

Attwells staff outside their Ipswich office

An award-winning local law firm

Rated as "Excellent" on Review Solicitors with an impressive 4.8/5 on Feefo.

Suffolk Chamber's A14 report reveals damning impact on Suffolk businesses as MPs speak out on proposed solutions

News
Attwells logo

Attwells Solicitors

Proud supporters of free and independent local journalism in Ipswich

Suffolk faces a potential economic crisis as 83% of businesses say ongoing A14 disruption will force them to cut jobs unless significant improvements are made within the next decade.

Why it matters: The stark warning comes from the Suffolk Chamber of Commerce's latest report, Broken Down, that reveals 87% of local firms have been negatively impacted by A14 disruptions in the past 12 months, with many considering scaling back their Suffolk operations.

The Broken Down report by the Suffolk Chamber of Commerce
The Broken Down report revealed 87% of local firms have been negatively impacted by A14 disruptions in the past 12 monthsOliver Rouane-WilliamsIpswich.co.uk

By the numbers: The Chamber surveyed more than 350 businesses across multiple sectors in November 2024:

  • 51% cited increased costs from disruption

  • 49% reported negative impacts on client retention

  • 32% mentioned staff issues, including childcare costs and retention problems

  • 85% said their investment plans will be impacted without improvements

For context: Businesses stated that the Orwell Bridge area causes the most significant disruption (81%), followed by knock-on delays of the Orwell Bridge (46%) and the Copdock Interchange (39%).

The Chamber's view: "Broken Down makes sobering reading. With no end in sight to the regular delays and closures across parts of this nationally vital road, many business owners and employers clearly feel abandoned by Government and National Highways," Suffolk Chamber's chief executive John Dugmore said.

Speaking at the report's launch, the Chamber stated it was "open to all concepts at this stage," including an Ipswich Northern Bypass, but stopped some way short of definitively backing it.

What's next: The Chamber's report outlines several crucial actions:

Immediately:

  • Funding for Ely and Haughley rail junction upgrades

  • Research into economic costs of A14 delays

  • Automated messaging service for closure alerts

Within 12 months:

  • National Highways traffic officers at major incidents

  • Earlier investment in Copdock Interchange

Within 24 months:

  • A government taskforce to investigate additional capacity as Orwell Bridge nears end of lifespan

James Cartlidge, Jack Abbott, John Dugmore, Paul Simon
James Cartlidge, Jack Abbott, John Dugmore, Paul SimonOliver Rouane-WilliamsIpswich.co.uk

What MPs are saying: Ipswich MP and Mission Champion for the East of England Jack Abbott, who recently wrote to the PM to request that the government prioritise an Ipswich Northern Bypass, was clear in his view that while he was very supportive of all the solutions proposed by the Chamber, only an Ipswich Northern Bypass would suffice in resolving the A14s issues.

When questioned by this publication if he believed it was possible to resolve the challenges highlighted by the report without an Ipswich Northern Bypass, he answered, "No," before labelling the concept of an Orwell Tunnell "bonkers" and an Upper Orwell Crossing "for the birds."

South Suffolk MP James Cartlidge spoke of the need for stakeholders to be open and honest about the costs of a bypass—financial and to our countryside—saying, "The question we're really asking is do we want to urbanise Suffolk?"

Meanwhile, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich MP Patrick Spencer agreed with the principle findings of the report, stating that "we need to think holistically about our transport infrastructure and collectively lobby to upgrade the links that are critical for the future economic health of Ipswich and wider Suffolk" but has publicly spoken out against an Ipswich Northern Bypass and did not attend the briefing.

The bottom line: All local MPs have backed the Chamber's calls for urgent action, but, as is often the case, there is likely to be disagreement amongst key stakeholders on exactly which options represent the best long-term solution, with Ipswich's two MPs already at loggerheads on the Northern Bypass and the Chamber of Commerce remaining "open to all concepts" but falling short of explicitly backing it.

Whatever happens next, to use the words of Ipswich MP Jack Abbott: "The cost of failing to act is far too high."

Attwells staff outside their Ipswich office

An award-winning local law firm

Rated as "Excellent" on Review Solicitors with an impressive 4.8/5 on Feefo.

Attwells staff outside their Ipswich office

Today's supporter

Attwells Solicitors

An award-winning local law firm. Attwells is rated as "Excellent" on Review Solicitors and holds an impressive 4.8/5 on Feefo.

Speak with us

Multiple unitary authorities 'vital' for Suffolk's diverse communities, councils claim

News
Attwells logo

Attwells Solicitors

Proud supporters of free and independent local journalism in Ipswich

A joint report from Suffolk's councils argues that the county's mix of rural, coastal, industrial, agricultural and urban areas requires more than one council to effectively serve residents.

Why it matters: The five district and borough councils say a single "mega-council" covering a vast geographical area could not focus on the competing needs of three-quarters of a million people as effectively as multiple unitary authorities.

What's driving the news: Suffolk County Council supports creating a single unitary authority covering the entire county, but this has been unanimously rejected by the five district and borough councils it would replace.

The details: Babergh District Council, East Suffolk Council, Ipswich Borough Council, Mid Suffolk District Council, and West Suffolk Council have each approved the report following a series of meetings where councillors examined and shaped the proposals.

In a joint statement, the council leaders said: "Multiple unitary authorities will produce services designed with residents in mind to meet local needs, drive improved outcomes, create value and save money in a sustainable way."

"Our joint proposal demonstrates that a one-size-fits-all mega authority will not solve the existing issue of large countywide services that will continue to drain money, require improvement, and potentially lead to further cost cutting."

By the numbers: The interim report claims multiple unitary authorities will provide:

  • Cost-effective and high-quality services for Suffolk residents

  • Long-term financial sustainability

  • Economic growth and support to local industry

  • Stronger democratic representation and community engagement

  • Governance systems which can adapt to future growth

  • Structures to support thriving communities and economies

The bigger picture: The councils argue their approach would support "a more balanced solution for the governance of the Mayoral Combined Authority" being set up next year for Norfolk and Suffolk.

What they're saying: "This is a generational change to the way local government and services are delivered and something we should seize," the council leaders stated. "It is a real opportunity to think holistically about how services such as leisure, housing and social care could help residents to thrive."

What's next: The interim report does not constitute a final decision. Councils will have further time to develop options to redesign local government, with community views "at the heart of this work."

The bottom line: "Our collective solution is the best way to deliver great services and value for money. It makes sure the 'local' stays in Local Government for Suffolk," the council leaders concluded.

Attwells staff outside their Ipswich office

An award-winning local law firm

Rated as "Excellent" on Review Solicitors with an impressive 4.8/5 on Feefo.

Load next article