Lorry park at Land South Of Felixstowe Road Stratton Hall

What was proposed

The outline scheme sought up to 70 lorry spaces, an office, driver’s building, staff parking, landscaping, CCTV and lighting, with access and layout included.

“Committee Report Planning Committee (South) – 24 February 2026 Application no. DC/23/2930/OUTLocation Land South Of Felixstowe Road Stratton Hall Suffolk Application typeOutline Application ApplicantPrologic Services Ltd. ParishStratton Hall ProposalOutline Application (Some Matters Reserved) - Construction of lorry park comprising up to 70 no.”

“Public rights of way run through the countryside to the southeast of the site. Immediately south of the site is the railway line that runs broadly parallel to the southern boundary of the site. 3.Planning History • DC/20/0815/FUL | Construction of a lorry park comprising 82 lorry parking spaces, a covered maintenance bay, two storey office accommodation, a single story driver's mess, 13 car parking spaces, 1 disabled car parking space, motorcycle parking, bicycle parking, a…”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the site strategically placed, meeting an evidenced need, and found that economic and public benefits outweighed limited visual and ecological harm.

“Having said that, I think the conclusion of the Addendum, that the development will result in a ‘low level’ of ecological harm when all proposed measures are taken into account is correct, although this would perhaps be more correctly categorised as ‘local’ scale harm if using the EcIA criteria as there is no criteria for ‘low level’ harm in ecological impact assessment. I don’t think the existing ecological value of the site is sufficient to elevate it above ‘local’ value.”

“9.41Significant weight should be given, collectively, to the public benefits of: reduction in unauthorised HGV parking locally; devoted lorry parking site with driver facilities to meet an evidenced need; construction jobs creation; and improvements to supply chain to the Port of Felixstowe. 9.42Local Scale Harm to ecology/biodiversity carries moderate weight and is a clear adverse impact arising from the proposal.”

Officer report

What people objected to

Twenty-eight objections cited lack of need, countryside development, traffic, noise, light, air pollution, landscape, biodiversity, security and settlement coalescence.

“The Inspector who ruled on the Innocent Farm Lorry Park development stated that not only should this development not be allowed as it was not needed nor was there any need for an alternative to substitute it. •Inappropriate location for employment. •The application sets out that the site is located within the Port of Felixstowe which is incorrect. •The proposal relates to a business associated with the Port of Felixstowe, so it should be located within the port area.”

“Junction with A14 not suitable for traffic manoeuvres by HGV’s. •Use of A45 for lorry parking not currently policed but should not be a reason to accept the proposal or establish a precedent. •Increase in noise, light and air pollution •Impact on the setting of the National Landscape. •Visual impact / change to landscape setting which is currently rural. •Impact on biodiversity / wildlife – particular mention of skylarks using the site.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, a parish council councillor and the applicant’s agent spoke about countryside impact, traffic, need, ecology, facilities and site operation.

What members debated

Members debated the site’s location, policy conflict, ecology, traffic, cycling, drainage, facilities, space allocation, need and whether benefits outweighed local harm.

“Councillor Bennett recognised the need for lorry parking as a Felixstowe Councillor. Cost is a factor and so is the distance from the A14 and the Dock. It is 5 miles from Felixstowe but impacting a different area. The farm opposite is right next to the A14. If this was located right next to the A14 like at the Orwell truck stop then it would be a different scenario. The Local Plan has parts that indicate against a development like this.”

“The Planning Manager said there would need to be an additional condition to include EV charging for cars and HGVs. The foul drainage strategy needed to be conditioned. A proportion of the site must be made available for non Prologic lorries and the equality of welfare facilities would be picked up by reserved matters.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application as contrary to biodiversity, environmental quality, landscape character and settlement coalescence policies because the benefits did not outweigh the harm.

“After discussions it was agreed that the scheme should be refused as contrary to policies SCLP10.1 (Biodiversity & Geodiversity), SCLP10.3 (Environmental Quality), SCLP10.4 (Landscape Character) and SCLP10.5 (Settlement Coalescence). Members felt benefits would not outweigh the harm.”

“That the application be refused as it was contrary to policies SCLP 10.1, 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 and the benefits would not outweigh the harm.”

Minutes