Planning Inspector Diane Cragg has allowed an appeal for a steel storage, processing and distribution facility in West Suffolk countryside, overturning the council’s refusal.
The appeal involved a proposal by AJN Steelstock, GEO.E. Gittus and Sons, and Dencora Construction Ltd for a steel storage, processing and distribution facility on land west of Saxham Business Park, Risby. The development represents an investment of over £100 million and is anticipated to generate annual turnover of £87 million, supporting 270 total employees including 70 new positions.
The Inspector found that economic benefits outweighed policy conflicts with countryside protection (§130). The decision was based on:
- Substantial economic benefits (£100m+ investment, 270 jobs) (§§94-95)
- No suitable alternative sites identified through sequential assessment (§§59-64)
- Environmental mitigation measures including BREEAM Excellent standards and 10% biodiversity net gain (§§98, 102)
- Comprehensive landscape screening and acoustic measures (§§21-24)
The Inspector noted that the development was Development in the countryside contrary to Local Plan policies (§§124-125). There would also be landscape impacts, which would have a moderate adverse effects on rural character (§§48-50). In terms of agricultural land impacts, despite the loss of 19.66 hectares of Grade 3a agricultural land (§§51, 66) and local concerns regarding traffic, noise, and visual impact (§§77-83).
This decision demonstrates how substantial economic justification can overcome countryside protection policies. The Inspector’s approach to weighing economic benefits against policy conflicts (§130) suggests that where developers can demonstrate genuine job creation and investment on this scale, decision-makers may be more willing to depart from development plan policies.
The sequential testing part of the case is noteworthy – the Inspector accepted that no suitable alternatives existed despite the Council highlighting potential sites (§§59-64). This indicates that thorough site selection processes, combined with evidence of operational constraints (including noise and highways) and infrastructure requirements, can justify development on high-value agricultural land even where other sites might theoretically be available. This was a compelling piece of evidence for why the facility needed to be located on the Appeal Site.
From an environmental perspective, the Inspector gave positive weight to BREEAM Excellent standards and biodiversity net gain measures (§§98, 102). These were benefits which also assisted in overcoming policy objections.
The Appellants were represented by Rapleys (Sarah Smith and Jason Lowes) and instructed Sioned Davies at No5 Chambers with early advice from Thea Osmund Smith.
Decision date: 25 September 2025 | Appeal Ref: APP/F3545/W/25/336149
