The list of official responses to the Neighbourhood Plan in the previous post is as interesting for the organisations that were never invited to respond as for the actual responses themselves.
Jim Boot, the consultant who has the unenviable task of matching comments to policies, has supplied a list of the groups consulted: Statutory consultees – WyeNP
For those who haven’t got time to read it, the list is made up of local councils, utility providers (or their representatives in the case of energy), the highways agency, network rail, mobile phone operators, and organisations whose job it is to protect the environment (Natural England, English Heritage etc).
Then there are four sections which Ashford (who draw up the list) have chosen to leave blank:
- Voluntary bodies whose activities benefit all or part of the neighbourhood area
- Bodies representing the interests of different racial, ethnic or national groups in the neighbourhood area
- Bodies representing the interests of different religious groups in the neighbourhood area and
- Bodies representing the interests of disabled people in the neighbourhood area.
Perhaps voluntary organisations do not have the capacity to review village neighbourhood plans. However there’s an important issue here. No-one else is going to look at the plan from the perspective of disabled people for example.
And, in terms of promoting sustainability, we cannot rely on the Highways Agency to fight for a traffic free Cycle Route 18.
Neither can we expect the large energy generators to promote local renewable energy generation.
Or the water utilities to look at ways that the community could use less water.
I’m dreaming up someone to contact about water.. and maybe waste as well. Waste is a resource after all which could provide income for the community.