Two maps and no masters? Consultation confusion at Chilton Woods

'We should face the fact that the whole process is totally flawed.  All parties should now step back and allow the new Babergh Development Framework to make its way to adoption in an orderly way.  After that, more detailed consultation should resume.'

What is going on at Chilton Woods?  This scheme, which it is hoped will deliver some 1050 additional homes to the north of Sudbury, is the most important change that will affect our area in the years to come.

It is unfortunate therefore that the current situation can only be described as a complete mess.

I have been up to my neck in this issue for several weeks, and despite this I find the situation complex and hard to explain.  However it is very important for all who live locally that the planning process is clear and open.   The future of the area depends on it.  So please take time to read this article.

In the current Local Plan for the area, adopted in 2006, a site for 700 homes was designated to the north of Sudbury, largely in Chilton.  None of these houses have yet been built. The new Local Development Framework, which is likely to be approved later this year, plans for 800 additional houses in the Sudbury area. It is expected that 350 of these will be situated in the Chilton Woods area, making a total of 1050 houses in all. 

The key debate is where these additional houses should be placed?  Should they be accommodated by expanding the area of the existing land allocation to the north?  Or should they be placed on land to the west of Tesco adjacent to the main roads?

At the time of writing we have two different maps of the site, prepared by two different bodies, with two different agendas and timescales.  

The first map, prepared by Redrow, the developers, appointed by the County Council who own much of the land, was made public in March.  It was this plan that was seen at the Acton Annual Parish Meeting, which caused much distress, and about which I wrote on this site in a post on Friday April 20th. link here  This, the Redrow Plan, is superficially quite well worked out, and shows the new development being accommodated to the north of the current land allocation, extending over the Acton boundary and further out into open countryside and Chilton airfield.

It is a plan which, in my view, optimises profitability for the developer and also the return for Suffolk County Council.

The other, let’s call it ‘The Babergh Plan’, was published last week after a process of informal stakeholder consultation in March.  It is a land allocation map that forms part of the Local Development Framework for the District.  This map, along with a very weighty document covering the whole of Babergh, will, subject to Member agreement, go out to public consultation for 6 weeks from the beginning of June.( map here at the very end of the document ) It is clear that, despite initial signals to the contrary, the officers have listened to what local people have said to them, and allocated land for additional development along the northern Sudbury by-pass west of Tesco.  The northern boundary of the development remains unchanged. It is only an outline on a map at this stage but it is quite different in scope from the Redrow plan.

For some weeks now Redrow has been consulting about its plan. Despite its bright colours and apparent solidity, it has not been made sufficiently clear that its scheme is little more than a kite flying exercise. Because the Babergh Development Framework is still under consideration, the additional land needed under the Redrow plan has not been allocated. Indeed, the papers published by Babergh last week suggest that land will be allocated elsewhere instead.  Nevertheless, undaunted, Redrow continue to propose holding a number of public consultation meetings on their scheme next week.   Following representations from Babergh, the company is, I understand, now proposing to include a board on which the Babergh proposals will be outlined, but being realistic this is more likely to confuse the public than to clarify the situation.

Three parties are involved here, Babergh, Suffolk County Council and Redrow.  A number of questions need to be answered, including:

Why did Redrow not wait until the allocation of land under the Babergh Core Strategy was known before commencing its own consultation? (I am told that Babergh asked them to hold back.)

Has Redrow come under pressure to make its pre-emptive strike?

Redrow and Babergh have been in pre-planning application discussions on Chilton Woods for some time.  Did Babergh encourage Redrow to plan to build to the north, but then at the eleventh hour, and due to public pressure, change their mind with regard to where additional land should be allocated?

Why, when challenged, did Babergh claim that at a consultation meeting stakeholders regarded the location of the additional development land as unimportant?

Why have Babergh Members, particularly those likely to be involved in considering any ultimate 

planning application, not been warned, as they generally are, against attending meetings hosted by a developer?

In short, what is going on here? Much ado about nothing, A comedy of errors, or a tragedy with a more sinister plot? Since all three players tell a different tale, it is hard for the audience to judge.

At a time when ‘localism’ is supposed to be the name of the game and local people are being asked to shape the places where they live; in a new era of transparency and clarity, the people of Sudbury and beyond are being presented with a muddle of competing schemes, the most energetically promoted of which is of doubtful legitimacy.  How valid are any opinions given under such circumstances?    I would suggest that consultation undertaken against this background is pretty worthless.

We should face the fact that the whole process is totally flawed.  All parties should now step back and allow the new Babergh Development Framework to make its way to adoption in an orderly way.  After that, more detailed consultation should resume.