QUESTION 174: Do you agree

Support

Representation ID: 821

Received: 29/07/2021

Respondent: JCPC Ltd

Agreed

Comment

Representation ID: 896

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Bressingham and Fersfield Parish Council

Representing the stated views of Bressingham & Fersfield parishioners, we do not agree that there is a need for a Village Clusters Plan and we oppose the sites proposed for Bressingham: allocated sites SN3019 and SN4036 and shortlisted site SN4037.

If the plan goes ahead despite this, we agree that it is essential that it be Monitored.
However the Monitoring Framework should include detailed monitoring of essential features of the Plan.
Metrics chosen should meaningful in assessing delivery of the plan's objectives: -Percentage of affordable housing and their take up should be monitored instead of number of builds.

Comment

Representation ID: 1119

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Green Party

Concerned that the monitoring framework is worded in a way that the number of affordable homes including social housing will not be sufficiently delivered. It mentions AH will be delivered in accordance with the GNLP. Some documents in the GNLP indicate that the local council can opt to change the percentage. The Indicator should be changed to a firm figure such as 50% thereby ensuring clusters actually benefit younger local people. The clusters should concentrate on smaller properties for families and specifically exclude Five Bed Executive Houses, these can be accommodated if required by those developments of 12 or under.

Comment

Representation ID: 2064

Received: 21/07/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Please see attachments for full response.
We recommend including an indicator for the historic environment within the framework.