Land east of 52 Exeter Road, Claydon

Decision

dismissed, 8 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: A Wright

Authority

Mid Suffolk (East of England)

Appeal reference

6010228

Application reference

DC/25/05276

Procedure

written representations

Development

Use of land to store building materials for two years (retrospective)

Site context

settlement edge, open countryside

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(b), S5(1), F4, F7, DP3, P3, N2

Development plan policies

Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan Part 1 2023 SP03, SP09, LP16, LP24, LP27

Main issues

location; character; living conditions; flood risk; ecology

Summary

Two years' storage of building materials on an open plot at the end of a new housing cul-de-sac in Claydon, outside the settlement boundary. Dismissed. The inspector applied the Annex B "settlement" definition: an undeveloped plot outside the boundary that merely adjoins houses is not within a settlement, so S5 applied. Materials storage was not an S5(1)(b) rural business needing a countryside location. Independently, the lack of an FRA (F4/F7), the risk to great crested newts (N2), and character and amenity harm each told against it.

Issues and findings

• Transition. Further comments on the 2026 Framework were invited (DL ¶3).
• Settlement status. "Its definition of settlement includes predominantly built-up areas and areas defined as such in the development plan. The site adjoins houses but does not contain any buildings or structures. Given the boundaries on the Policies Map and the situation on the ground, the site is not within a settlement" (DL ¶8).
• S5(1)(b): FAIL. "the proposed storage of building materials is not a rural business or service where a location outside settlements is necessary" (DL ¶9).
• Flood F4/F7: FAIL. "Policy F4 … does not exempt such development from the requirement to provide an FRA" (DL ¶25). F7 "indicates that the development should be refused" (DL ¶27).
• Ecology N2: FAIL. GCN presence "cannot be ruled out", and survey conditions are not appropriate (DL ¶29-32).

Planning balance

"the benefits of the proposal are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects, so it does not meet the requirement for development outside settlements in Policy S5" (DL ¶35). The inspector ran the S5(1) balance even after finding the use outside category (b), rather than going to S5(4).

What made the difference

Settlement status was decided on both the Policies Map boundary and the ground: an undeveloped plot is not "predominantly built-up". Once outside, a use with no locational need falls outside S5(1)(b). The missing FRA and ecology survey were independent failures that a condition could not cure.

Transferable points

• Land adjoining houses but itself undeveloped, and outside a Policies Map boundary, is outside the Annex B settlement (DL ¶8).
• S5(1)(b) requires the business to need a countryside location. General storage does not (DL ¶9).
• F4 applies to temporary uses on land at surface-water risk. A missing FRA cannot be conditioned (DL ¶25-26).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Site adjoins 52 Exeter Road at the end of a completed estate cul-de-sac; outside the Claydon settlement boundary
• Surface water flood risk; no FRA
• Great crested newts in ponds within 275 m

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.