HOW TO OBJECT TO THE NEW CONSULTATION
DEADLINE TO RESPOND: 22ND JUNE
Nearly 2,000 people objected the first time. Now we need you to do it
again — and here’s exactly how.
WHAT'S HAPPENED?
In October 2025, Suffolk County Council (SCC) asked the applicant — TRU7 — to provide more information about their industrial pit application. In February 2026, TRU7 submitted their responses.
Their response covered 11 topics including transport, noise & vibration, air quality and a ‘Need Case.’
Fundamentally, none of the new information mitigates the harm an industrial pit in this area would cause. The B1077 is still not fit for purpose – the proposed industrial pit is still the wrong development in the wrong area.
The application remains entirely for private greed, not public need.
WHAT DO I NEED TO DO?
SCC has opened a new consultation on the additional information provided by TRU7. This means we now need to you to submit an objection on the new information provided.
-
Your original objection still stands: you don’t need to repeat it.
-
This is a new objection: responding to the new information provided by TRU7.
-
Submit your objection by Sunday 22nd June 2026. Although later submissions will still be accepted before the Planning Committee meets (likely July or September 2026,) we would recommend you object by 22nd June to have the most impact.
-
Write in your own words: do not copy and paste information from this guide or your objection will not be valid.
WHAT COULD I WRITE?
Below we outline the sort of grounds on which you may wish to submit a fresh objection. These are for guidance only: as before, please write your objection in your own words.
Even a short objection counts: The simplest form of objection would be to state that you have read and considered the Reg 25 submissions by TRU7 and that they do not change your previous objection. You wish to object again to the application.
TRANSPORT & TRAVEL: THE ROADS SIMPLY CAN'T COPE
The B1077 is a narrow, rural road that runs through the heart of Westerfield village. It already has a level crossing that causes daily traffic delays. It is not designed for, and cannot safely handle, the large number of HGV movements that an industrial pit would bring.
TRU7’s proposed ‘fixes’ — such as raising kerbs and cutting into embankments — do not solve this problem. They are minor adjustments to a road that is fundamentally unsuitable.
Your objection to the new consultation could say:
-
The B1077 is too narrow and dangerous for constant HGV movements — TRU7’s changes do nothing to fix this, and the application underestimates the effect of the HGV movements. The road cannot be widened and no amount of minor adjustments will make it safe for this level of use.
-
The industrial pit would increase HGV traffic by 151% — that’s a huge and unacceptable increase on a road used daily by pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.
-
There is no safe alternative route. Church Lane and Lower Road are not suitable options.
-
Suffolk’s own designated Strategic Lorry Routes exist for a reason — the B1077 is not one of them, and that tells you everything.
-
The application breaks the rules set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Suffolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan:
-
Para. 116 of the NPPF states that a development must be refused if it creates an unacceptable impact on highway safety – the B1077 clearly fails that test.
-
Para. 224 goes further, stating that minerals developments must have safe and suitable access.
-
Suffolk’s own Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Policy GP3) also requires an appropriate location with suitable road access.
This proposal fails on all three counts, and therefore must be refused.
THE 'NEED CASE': THE NUMBERS DON'T ADD UP
TRU7 have submitted a document attempting to prove that there is a shortage of sand and gravel in Ipswich and surrounding area (the Ipswich SPA), and that this industrial pit is needed to fill the gap. But their figures are wildly exaggerated.
The correct aggregate tonnage to build a new home is 60 tonnes, of which 43 tonnes are sand and gravel* (the balance is recycled material and crushed rock.) TRU7’s document uses a figure of 350 tonnes of aggregate for every new home — more than nearly six times overstated. This inflated figure is used to manufacture a ‘shortage’ that simply does not actually exist.
*March 2026 Suffolk Aggregates Assessment
Your objection to the new consultation could say:
-
TRU7’s ‘Need Case’ uses figures that are much higher than the official number, according to the Suffolk Aggregates Assessment (March 2026).
-
The data is manipulated, claiming a future shortfall that does not exist. The application claims between 4.9 million and 6.2 million tonnes of sand and gravel will be needed for the Ipswich SPA – the true figure is around 1.5 million tonnes.
-
Planning decision needs to be determined by Suffolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan: not on a document written by the applicant that uses figures that are incorrect.
-
The application contains a contradiction: TRU7’s ‘Need Case’ states that deliveries would go directly from the industrial pit to construction sites, but their main application says they would go to Sinks Pit first, with onward journeys from there. Both cannot be correct.
NOISE & VIBRATION: CONCERNS DISMISSED
SCC asked TRU7 specific questions about the noise and vibration their industrial pit would create. The answers provided are dismissive and inadequate.
Fynn Valley Golf Club — a well-established business right next door — has been completely ignored as a noise-sensitive location. Homes along the B1077 have also been overlooked.
Your objection to the new consultation could say:
-
The impact of noise and vibration on Fynn Valley Golf Club and local residents has not been properly assessed and Agent of Change principles in the NPPF are ignored completely. Rules are clear that when a new development moves into an area, it is the developer’s responsibility to protect existing neighbours from the noise and disruption they bring. TRU7 have completely ignored this – making no proper provision for their impact.
-
TRU7 were asked directly by SCC to provide more information about the noise impact on people using local footpaths and bridleways, and on workers at the site. The requests have been dismissed. TRU7 have even stated World Health Organisation noise guidelines as ‘not applicable’.
-
TRU7 have measured noise levels at the loudest, busiest part of the footpath network: This ultimately gives a misleading picture. The additional noise created by the industrial pit seems less significant than it would be in reality in quieter spots along the paths.
-
The hundreds of noise objections submitted by the public to SCC have simply not been addressed at all: no satisfactory assessment of noise and vibration effects from the proposed industrial pit has been provided.
AIR QUALITY: DUST AND POLLUTION IGNORED
TRU7 have acknowledged that air quality south of the industrial pit — as far away as the A1214 — will be negatively affected. But they claim this is due to the cumulative effects of other nearby developments (Ipswich Garden Suburb developments) not the industrial pit itself.
Your objection to the new consultation could say:
-
TRU7 have admitted there will be air quality impacts in the local area, but have failed to properly account for the industrial pit’s own contribution to those impacts.
-
Dust from quarrying operations — which can carry fine particles harmful to health — has largely been ignored.
-
A ‘no idling’ policy for lorries at the level crossing is a token gesture, not a meaningful solution — and there is no proposal for proper, full-time monitoring.
LANDSCAPE & HERITAGE: AN INDUSTRIAL PIT THAT DOESN'T BELONG HERE
The proposed site sits next to Westerfield Hall — a Grade II* listed building — and The Slade, a Grade II listed building. TRU7’s revised amendments do not lessen the visual or heritage impact on this landscape.
Your objection to the new consultation could say:
-
The changes to the landscape plans do not reduce the harm the industrial pit would cause to the local countryside and its historic buildings.
-
There is a new proposal to provide a 4.5m high and 100m long straw bale screen in front of the Phase 4 workings. This is completely out of keeping with the local landscape and wholly inappropriate next to a listed building.
THE ECONOMIC CASE: WHO REALLY BENEFITS?
TRU7 claim the proposed industrial pit will bring economic benefits. But the evidence from other rural quarry developments tells a very different story — local businesses suffer, property values fall, and the community is left worse off.
Evidence indicates that properties located within 5 miles of active mineral extraction sites experience reductions in value and, whilst planning law does not permit objections solely on the basis of property values, the wider economic consequences are highly relevant, and the financial consequences of widespread devaluation most certainly are.
Assuming the industrial pit results in a measurable reduction in property values, the impact would extend far beyond individual homeowners. It would transfer wealth out of our community, reduce confidence in the area as a desirable place to live and invest, and weaken the tax revenues for local government.
Property owners have a statutory right to challenge Council Tax bandings where valuations no longer reflect reality. On the basis that many residents pursue successful re-banding applications, the cumulative effect could be a significant reduction in Council Tax revenues.
TRU7 profit. The community pays the price.
Your objection to the new consultation could say:
-
No independent economic assessment has been carried out. There are only the applicants own claims.
-
The jobs on offer are few, temporary, and specialised — local residents are unlikely to benefit.
-
Local businesses that depend on the area’s rural character — leisure, tourism, hospitality — are likely to suffer significant economic harm.
-
Properties within several miles of active industrial pits typically lose value. While this isn’t itself a planning reason to object, the wider economic impact on our community absolutely is. If residential property values fall the resulting loss of household wealth will reduce spending within the local economy.
-
If property values fall, the council risks “group action” to reassess Council Tax bands for those properties affected. If everyone who objected drops just one band the council will lose tens of £millions in revenue which will inevitably mean cuts in services or increases in council tax bills for other residents
-
Increased HGV traffic will impose costs on local businesses and residents through congestion, delays, disruption and increased wear on local infrastructure.
-
The industrial pit risks discouraging investment by making the area less attractive to businesses, residents and visitors.
-
Any economic benefits are short-term and solely for the applicant, whereas many of the economic harms could be long-term or permanent and suffered by the community.
HEALTH IMPACTS
Very little new information is provided about the health impacts of the industrial pit. The applicant has essentially just repeated themselves on air quality, noise and transport. There is very little that is new, and crucially, nothing that is binding.
Your objection to the new consultation could say:
-
No commitments are made by TRU7, and suggestions are unenforceable. For example:
-
Controlled release of HGVs onto the network “where practicable”
-
Avoidance of peak periods “where possible”
-
A “willingness” to contribute to Traffic Regulation Orders.
-
-
A firm, enforceable, and comprehensive package of measures to ensure that the industrial pit produces no adverse health impacts is not included.
-
Statements such as “the HGVs would not materially affect” the B1077/Lower Road/Church Lane junction are demonstrably incorrect: 86 (or more) HGV movements every day are bound to affect a small junction in the heart of Westerfield.
-
What are essentially vague promises to act ‘where practicable’ or ‘where possible’ offer the community no real protection whatsoever. The health impacts of this proposed industrial pit on local residents have not been properly addressed.
HOW TO SUBMIT YOUR OBJECTION
-
Submit an objection online by clicking here.
-
Write to: Andy Rutter, Growth, Highways & Infrastructure, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road’ Ipswich. IP1 2BX. Please ensure you include planning reference SCC/0093/25SC in your response.
-
Email: planning@suffolk.gov.uk Please ensure you include planning reference SCC/0093/25SC in your response.
THANK YOU
We would like to thank everyone who has supported the campaign so far.
The response from local residents, businesses and organisations has been extraordinary, with more than 1,600 objections submitted to the original application. That level of community engagement has ensured that concerns about the proposed quarry have been clearly heard and carefully scrutinised.
This consultation represents another important opportunity to ensure that the latest information submitted by TRU7 is properly examined before any decision is made.
Whether you have been involved from the beginning or are engaging with the process for the first time, your participation continues to make a difference.
Thank you for your continued support.
Together, we can Stop the Quarry at Westerfield.