Views sought on Chilton Woods

Latest news from the Suffolk Free Press, suffolkfreepress.co.uk, @sfpsudbury on Twitter
Latest news from the Suffolk Free Press, suffolkfreepress.co.uk, @sfpsudbury on Twitter
0
Have your say

Residents are being urged to have their say on proposals for the Chilton Woods development in Sudbury.

The consultation, which begins on January 30, will detail proposals for the 1,250-home site, which is likely to include a new primary school, village hall, community woodland, pub, shops, sports pitches and walking and cycling routes.

Suffolk county councillor Jenny Antill, cabinet member for resource management, said: “The county council remains absolutely committed to seeing this development happen and there is much hard work taking place to ensure those living locally benefit from this development.

“I strongly encourage all those who have a connection with the area, however remote, to engage with us through the consultation exercise and drop-in exhibitions, enabling us to gather a well-informed view.”

As part of the consultation, residents will be able to view and comment on proposals for the site and see what has changed since a previous scheme was presented in 2012.

From January 30, plans and other information will be available on the county council’s website at www.suffolk.gov.uk/chiltonwoods.

The page will also include an online survey to help residents provide feedback.

Two drop-in exhibitions will be held at the Masonic Hall, in North Street, Sudbury, where plans will be viewable and officers from the project team will be on hand to discuss proposals and answer questions.

These will take place on Friday, January 30, from 2pm to 7.30pm, and on Saturday, January 31, from 10am to 1pm. The consultation closes at 5pm on February 16.

The county council said views and feedback during the consultation will be used to help inform the planning application, which it hopes to make in spring 2015.

Previously, two schemes for the 270-acre site have fallen through. Redrow Homes pulled out in March 2013, claiming the development was unviable.