Dear Editor

In contrast to the customary tenor of letters in your columns, I would like to question whether the current resistance to virtually any housing development in our villages is really in the interests of Herefordshire.

The countryside must not be despoiled by incongruous suburban style estates. However, the rural housing stock is now increasingly the preserve of, typically elderly, ‘well heeled’ residents who have made money elsewhere.

Few can now hope to buy a rural property for the first time purely on the basis of locally derived incomes; this all impacts on the viability of local facilities whilst the ageing rural population creates massive strains on health and social care services.

Reviewing the Minutes of our local Parish Council (Bridstow) for the period for which these are available on its website (admittedly only roughly the last two years) indicates that the Council has objected to all proposals to construct houses in the village, including one for a single dwelling.

The Local Development Framework for Herefordshire seeks to ensure adequate levels of future housing provision focused within areas where it can reasonably be accommodated, with Neighbourhood Plans shaping development on the basis of local considerations.

Sadly, in Bridstow at least, the Neighbourhood Plan preparation process is being heavily influenced by individuals who appear strongly motivated by a desire to resist any form of development in the vicinity of their own homes. Key requirements of the Code of Conduct have not been followed.

The organisation of the distribution and collection of questionnaires for the public consultation process was severely flawed and, at the end of the open event, the ‘map’ on which the public had indicated where they would and would not wish to see housing development take place was altered. The issues involved were discussed at the November meeting of the Parish Council but, because these elements are not statutory requirements, it decided no real effective response is needed.

Perhaps not surprisingly in light of the above, the consultant supporting the exercise has brought forward proposals which appear designed to sharply constrain future development and to focus it in some ‘eyebrow raising’ locations, including sites which will likely never be practically developable.

Without a fundamental ‘resetting of the compass’ of the exercise, we risk ending up with a Neighbourhood Plan which is essentially a ‘nimby’s charter’ designed to protect selfish private interests at the expense of the continuing slow death of the village as a community.

George Barrett

Bridstow