Claps from packed West Suffolk Council room as AJN Steelstock’s plans for ‘alien’ steel facility off Newmarket Road, in Great Saxham refused

A packed council chamber cheered after plans for a new ‘alien’ steel facility were refused despite a local business of 70 years promising new jobs.

Members of West Suffolk’s development control committee met this morning in front of a packed room of residents to discuss AJN Steelstock’s plans for a new steel storage facility on land off Newmarket Road, in Great Saxham.

The company, one of the largest steel stockholding companies in the country, has two sites – one in Kentford, employing 200 people of which 40 are based at a headquarters building at Saxham Business Park, and the other in Henstridge, Somerset.

The company said it needed to expand as operating from two separate local sites was not viable and, with the Kentford facility overtrading by 40 per cent, a new facility was needed.

The application, from AJN Steelstock, GEO. E. Gittus & Sons and Dencora Construction, for the 55,230sqm facility on a 12ha site included steel storage, steel processing, company headquarters offices, access, loading, unloading and turning space as well as a new access and roundabout from the existing highway.

Local backlash

The proposals generated a lot of local backlash, however, with The Saxhams and Risby parish councils, as well as local ward members and West Suffolk’s new MP, Nick Timothy, all objecting to the scheme — a total 176 objection letters were also submitted by residents across two consultations.

The objections were all taken into account with a final officer recommendation for refusal confirmed in the report.

The refusal was recommended due to the site’s location on high-quality agricultural land, as flood risk, and the lack of a legal agreement securing £750,000 for the delivery of off-site footpath/cycleway enhancements to Westley as well as skylark mitigation land for at least 10 years.

These concerns, as well as others including noise, traffic, and light pollution, were also all laid out this morning by objectors.

Vivien South, one of the neighbouring residents, said: “As a potential close neighbour, I’m very disturbed this proposed site is being considered at all — due to the adverse effect of light pollution, Risby and the surrounding area will suffer.

“The proposed AJN site would be totally unsuitable for the rural historic village of Risby, it would have an immense adverse effect on residents’ health, wellbeing and safety, and undoubtedly have a negative effect on the local village wildlife.”

Robert Beckett, another neighbour, added accidents would be inevitable.

He said: “The Risby road system is inadequate for the existing volumes, the proposed potential of over 100 additional movements would overwhelm us.

“The A14 is frequently blocked due to roadworks and accidents, sat navs would take potentially hundreds of heavy vehicles through our village, past our school, and our quality of life would suffer.”

Cllr Ian Turner, the vice chair of Risby PC, also said residents were unsure of the enforceability of certain conditions, including those to do with noise and traffic.

He added: “This application has caused worry, anxiety, and concern across the village as demonstrated by the significant levels of objection from residents.

“If this application were to be approved, it will blight Risby forever, and spoil what is currently a beautiful Suffolk village.”

Addressing these accounts from residents, Ewen McLeod, the applicant, stressed the further 70 jobs created, along with the safeguarding of many others, would present a significant economic benefit.

He added: “AJN steelstock is a Suffolk success story founded in Bury St Edmunds 70 years ago and it is growing to become one of the largest steel stock holding companies in the UK, playing a national role in the construction industry.”

Mr McLeod also said the council had not come forward with an alternative site for the facility and suggested the proposals had been supported by officers until the last few weeks.

He added: “The honest position is that West Suffolk has not been able to identify a more suitable alternative with the subject site being the only available and deliverable option that meets all of AJN’s operational requirements.

“The application was always going to come to planning balance and we were disappointed that three weeks before this committee [meeting], that the scheme was no longer be supported.

“We feel that AJN’s economic benefits greatly outweigh the objections.”

Mixed debate

When it came to debating the application, members were somewhat split, with some stating the economic benefits outweighed the impacts, while others stressed the latter took precedence instead.

Cllr Peter Armitage said: “We seem to be faced with what looks like a wonderful opportunity for employment in the area.

“The thing against it, to me, is farmland in particular, and I’m not sure quite what value farmland has these days apart from producing food. In terms of biodiversity, as far as I can see, Suffolk farmland is a waste.”

Cllr Phil Wittam added: “We are building lots and lots of houses, with lots and lots of people moving around the Bury St Edmunds area, it would be such a shame to lose this opportunity for employment and economic benefit to our town.”

A decision to mind the application for approval against the report’s recommendation, which would have meant officers needed to produce a risk assessment, was proposed but defeated with five votes for and nine against.

Cllr Ian Houlder, who is also a ward member for Barrow, said the development was ‘a completely alien construction in the countryside’.

He added: “Obviously, the applicants have put a great deal of effort, time, and expense into the application but it doesn’t get away from the headline fact that it’s against our policy.”

Cllr Marilyn Sayer, also said: “I would very much like to support this application because it’s a local business and we would like to keep businesses like this local.

“Unfortunately, looking at the plan, the size of this complex is completely inappropriate for this area — it would take Usain Bolt over half a minute to run from one end to the other.”

A proposal to refuse the application in line with the officer’s recommendation was made by Cllr Don Waldron, who suggested allowing one ‘developer to bulldoze their way through’ would set a dangerous precedent.

The second vote was carried with 10 votes for — with Cllr Roger Dicker being the one to switch sides — and four against, earning a round of applause from a packed room of residents.