A planning application has been made in this part of Bush Bank [11 houses], where, in the past forty six years, only three houses have been added. The development opposite my house is for three detached houses with detached garages and parking spaces.

 One of the two-story houses is directly opposite mine, obliterating the view from my front bedrooms to the Shropshire Hills to the north - see photo.

 I have no objection to the landowner, who has a young family, building a single house on the infill plot of 0.7acres. However, I have asked that the house opposite mine be removed from the development and, at the most, two houses be built to the east, to avoid obstruction of my view and loss of privacy, that is the ‘amenity’ which should be preserved, in accordance with the conditions for development attached to the Neighbourhood Plan.

 However, it appears from the Parish Council whom I met  on site and again at their Meeting to discuss the matter, and from the Council for Preservation of Rural England that there is nothing

any Council, high or low, can do to prevent rampant development at will, as the Government [entitled Conservative] has set the council targets for housing growth. If the targets are not met, council finances will suffer.

Furthermore, there is no right to a view and, provided the development is at least 20 metres away, there is deemed to be no loss of privacy.

 I have been told the Core Strategy for twenty houses to be built in Ledgemoor, King’s Pyon and Bush Bank over the next twenty years, with fewer at Bush Bank does not mean less than six houses in this area until 2021, but AT LEAST that number. The Government has stipulated that, contrary to the traditional planning, there should now be no upper limit to the number of developments in Herefordshire.

Bear in mind that this is not a conurbation with pressing housing problems.

 Clearly, landowners and farmers, who have been so impoverished by their circumstances and have, in the past had to content themselves with the meagre subsidies provided by taxpayers, sustained themselves with broiler houses, wind farms and fields of solar panels and covered the countryside in polythene tunnels, must add to their altruistic contributions housing estates on an unlimited scale.

 However, a lot of developers will get their fingers burnt and house owners in the immediate vicinity of one of these developments will see a fall in the value of their properties.

Perhaps, that is what the Government wants, in which case:

 ‘This England that was wont to conquer others hath made a wretched conquest of itself.’

S M Seaman

Bush Bank, Herefordshire