As we’ve regularly reported, West Berkshire Council is considering closing the Resource Centres in Hungerford, Newbury and Calcot, which “provide care and support during the day for disabled, vulnerable and older people.” The services wouldn’t vanish but would, under this proposal, be transferred to a private provider: possibly in the same locations, possibly not.

An uncooked dish

The budget consultation last year proposed that these services be outsourced. This was brought to February 2025’s WBC budget meeting without most of the necessary work having been done about finding and costing replacement services. I compared this to a dish which had been prepared in advance and served up at a feast without anyone remembering to have first put it in the oven.

This confusion having been revealed at the meeting, WBC’s Leader Jeff Brooks announced that, unless the savings could be realised and the same or better level of service provided, the closures would’t go ahead.

Since then, work has been conducted by WBC. This has included looking at possible alternative providers and getting information about the experience of individual users. It seems that tweaking the way the charges (which are capped by law) operate and exploring other uses to which the buildings could be put to at other times are both possible options.

Portfolio holder Partick Clark re-confirmed in late August that “no changes will be made until we are entirely confident that we have found a solution that works for everyone. Hopefully we can reach that conclusion in the next month.” This is set to be discussed and/or announced at the Executive meeting on 25 September. I understand that a petition to retain the Centres under their current management will also be presented at this meeting.

A municipal visit

On 14 August, Hungerford Mayor Helen Simpson and Town Councillor David Reeves visited the town’s Resource Centre (see image above). “The work they do there is amazing,” they told me.”The Centre provides invaluable support to a wide range of vulnerable people, some with severe disabilities, or dementia. There is definitely a need for what it provides.”

The Centre’s Manager Zoe Williams confirmed that the visit had been a “happy occasion” and the residents were delighted to meet the visitors. “We are always looking for new ways to involve the community,” she added. “We would love to hear from anyone wanting to know more about the activities we provide or to find out how they can apply to be a volunteer – get in touch with us on 01488 682601.” She also stressed that the Hungerford Centre currently has spaces available every day.

No one thinks the services these three centres provide are not needed: the question is rather how, where and by whom these will provided. 25 September should see a resolution to this. The uncertainty will by then have been going on for over seven months. Many will be hoping that the decision is to leave the Centres as they are.

Three other things

Three other points have recently emerged.

The first concerns what exactly “the same or better than” means. What criteria will be used to asses this? Would these only be measurable ones like the number of clients who can be accommodated, the number of staff and the opening hours, or would more intangible factors be take into account as well?

These – which would particularly apply if the service were provided somewhere else – might include the exact facilities, the ease of access, the catering arrangements and the extent to which the services being compared addressed matters like social isolation and community engagement. These are not easy to measure but need to be taken into account if a fair comparison is to be made. Have they been?

Secondly, the building in Hungerford is quite large and on two floors and well capable of being used for other purposes, as Patrick Clark has recognised. This potential benefit needs to be seen as one of the advantages which staying in the same location and under the same management would provide, even if this can’t be realised immediately.

Finally, there’s the question of what will happen to the buildings if the new providers didn’t want to use them. Disposing of such properties would be a challenge in any case. However, I understand that there’s a restrictive covenant on the Hungerford which restricts to the use to pretty much what it’s doing at present. This could perhaps be set aside but it would be expensive and not a great look. I’d imagine that the restrictions would also apply to the proceeds of a sale or to anything new that were built on the site.

Of course, WBC could turn the building or the site into social housing, which would presumably satisfy the covenant. However the eight-year fiasco of Chestnut Walk about half a mile away will not give local residents any great hope about such a project.

It’s worth mentioning as well that a similar difficulty would also apply with the Calcot centre. The building is owned by WBC but sits on land owned by Tilehurst Parish Council which would, I believe, need to approve any change of use. Any resulting legal or administrative work to give WBC free use of either of these buildings would have to be regarded as a cost which wouldn’t apply were they to continue as they are.

Decision day

As mentioned above, this will be on 25 September.

It’s often easier to leave any arrangement as it is. Though this can result in decisions not being taken when they should be, in this case it also seems to be the best option. Two of the three centres are running at capacity, the staff are committed and experienced and the user experience seems to be positive. In Hungerford at least there are additional ways the building could also be used.

New services rarely produce all the expected benefits or savings immediately – or at all – and that’s even if everyone can agree how the benefits of old v new are to be measured. Then there are the potential legal issues which could make the job of re-purposing the buildings almost impossibly complicated.

As WBC has something that works and which offers a service it legally has to provide, there’s much to be said for it retaining them. A bit of investment, particularly in marketing the Hungerford centre, would be needed. That might also result in extra uses being found for it.

One other suggestion: change the names. “Resource Centre” doesn’t say what they do; indeed, for years I thought that they provided something like IT services. As they are in fact community and day-care centres, it would do no harm to call them that.

By an irony, the coverage of the possible closure has done more than any marketing work to publicise them. Hopefully this can be replaced by publicity of a more planned and positive kind in the future.

Brian Quinn