Regular readers will know that we’ve covered the vexed question of the former care home in Hungerford numerous times over the last nine years. It’s been a strange in a way because despite many people’s efforts, nothing much has actually happened – that is in many ways the story. The wretched joint venture between WBC and Sovereign, which accomplished nothing, seems now to have been humanely put down.

Credit must go to local ward member and Housing portfolio holder Denise Gaines for trying to get the project moving. One of the surprising things she discovered last year is that, contrary to what HTC and others were regularly assured, the place wasn’t about to fall down but was actually in quite good condition.

The original plan was for the building to be demolished and be replaced with eight social-rent homes which the town, and West Berkshire, badly needs. For some reason this proved beyond the power of the WBC/Sovereign JV to create. On the face of it, the fact that the building could be used seemed like good news for the town.

Or maybe not. Earlier this year, an application (ref 26.00555/REG3) was lodged for “proposed change of use from Class C2 (Residential Institution) to Class C1 (Hotel/Hostel) to provide supported temporary accommodation with onsite management and security measures. Construction of new air source heat pump compound and cycle store. Relocation of bin store.” You can see the application details by clicking here and entering the above reference number.

Although the cost of emergency accommodation in hotels that this would save WBC is considerable, there are equally considerable doubts among the local community as to who will be using the new facility and how it will be managed. These concerns might have been lessened were WBC to have engaged with Hungerford Town Council (HTC) and thus the local community before the plans were submitted.

This didn’t happen but it’s not too late to set up some kind of steering group involving WBC, HTC, whoever’s running the facility and local residents to keep an eye on things. If all is going well it can meet less often. Given the amount of money (perhaps £3,600,000pa) that WBC is likely to save off its hotel bills, I also wonder if 24/7, rather than just working-hours, supervision of the site might be affordable, at least at the start, and also likely to pay dividends in terms of problem avoidance and community security.

The application was considered in detail at a particularly long meeting of HTC’s Environment & Planning Committee on 20 April, the minutes of which you can read here. The main upshot of this was HTC’s letter of objection to the proposal whih you can read below. These reflect not only the views of HTC but also of the many of the local residents.

I won’t try to summarise this but I do urge people to read it before making any comments of their own. HTC is fortunate in having a Councillor who is a highly experienced housing manager and housing consultant and she was largely responsible for this response.

We’d also recommend that you read the two-page Planning Statement and also this four-page FAQs document on Hungerford Town Council’s website. These were written by WBC and provide their view of the matter and printed copies have been delivered to the neighbouring properties.

If you want to comment on the application (you can do to so to support it, to oppose it or with a neutral stance) please remember that comments can only be considered if they’re made to WBC in one of the approved ways. Posts on social media, letters to media organisations or comments made on blogs or websites do not count. The more comments that are received the better as that will give the decision-makers a more rounded view of the issue. As mentioned before, HTC’s response is well worth reading before you respond.

As WBC is the applicant (and also because more than ten objections have been received) the matter will be determined by the Western Area Planning Committee, rather than merely by officers. There’s quite a backlog at present so it’s impossible to say when this will happen. You should be able to make your comments right up until shortly before the committee makes its decision. When we have news of when it will be considered we’ll let you know. Anyone who has commented on the application will be contacted by the Clerk of the Committee in advance to explain how they can participate in the discussion.

A statement from Hungerford Town Council, 5 May 2026

At the Hungerford Town meeting on 5 May, the Mayor read out a statement on the subject which echosed the sentiments expressed in its official response (see section below). This, along with some comments from two other Councillors, is published in full in the “Chestnut Walk” section of the Hungerford Town Council update for April/May 2026.

Consultee Comments for Planning Application 26/00555/REG3, 20 April 2026

Application Summary

• Application Number: 26/00555/REG3
• Address: Hungerford Old Peoples Home Chestnut Walk Coldharbour Road Hungerford RG17 0DB Proposal: Proposed change of use from Class C2 (Residential Institution) to Class C1 (Hotel/Hostel) to provide supported temporary accommodation with onsite management and security measures. Construction of new Air source heat pump compound and cycle store. Relocation of bin store.
• Case Officer: Lauren Hill

Consultee Details

• Name: Hungerford Town Council
• Address: Hungerford Library, Church Street, Hungerford RG17 0JG
• On behalf of: Parish Council

Comments

HTC – Objection. Based on the following:

1. It conflicts with the Hungerford Neighbourhood Development Plans housing priorities on housing mix and tenure and with the HNPs objectives on respecting and enhancing the character of the neighbourhood and the way it functions. A high – density hostel for temporary accommodation catering for a transient population of predominantly younger single people, conflicts with the established residential nature of Chestnut Walk. It is a concern how effective this proposed scheme would be in assisting community cohesion.
2. The occupants of this scheme are most likely to be from around West Berkshire as a whole, not just Hungerford. How the occupancy is envisaged after local government reorganisation occurs has not been addressed.
3. The proposed scheme does not represent good quality of design. The scheme appears to have been designed inside out to accommodate a high density institutional model that maximises the numbers of bedspaces and therefore occupants, rather than considering the site from the outside in as a design opportunity to create a building of high quality that would sit well in the local context, contributing to visual amenity.
4. The layout of the so -called flexible family units is particularly lacking both in design terms and in management terms. No details about the treatment of these units ,how they are made flexible from a construction point of view; the quality, the security of movable walls, the protection from fire and from vandalism and other risks. The design, security and privacy of these flexible units in occupation.
5. From a management plan perspective no evidence has been provided as to how these units are flexibly adopted for families to use and under what circumstances this should happen. This raises concerns about the safeguarding policy in the potential mix of children with vulnerable single non – related adults .
6. The design and relationship of the scheme to the existing neighbouring premises, the potential for overlooking and reduction in privacy to the houses and gardens needs to be addressed.
7. The proposed treatment of the alleyway running behind the site and bordering the gardens on Priory Avenue is unclear. The gardens are fenced and one has an access gate to the garage area. The alleyway as is represents a vulnerable access point; it has been subject to incidents of flytipping and remains a security risk, with the introduction of the proposed scheme this location has potential to become an area of informal congregation that may lead to antisocial behaviour.
8. Insufficient detail has been provided about the intended external amenity provision for occupants of the Temporary Accommodation, its location and use. Concerns about the impact on the neighbouring properties from external space including increased noise, the effects of smoking and vaping odours which will detract from the quiet enjoyment of neighbouring gardens and rooms opening onto them.
9. The information about security on the site is not detailed or satisfactory, particularly considering the 24 – hour operation of the proposed temporary accommodation. The provision of some kind of security presence out of hours is not defined, nor costed.
10. No supporting plans have been provided on mitigating the risk of crime, nor designing out crime, which is a major local concern; clarification is needed as to how the management of this scheme will provide security to neighbours, safeguard the scheme residents and prevent the ingress of criminals intending to entrap residents of the temporary scheme into criminality themselves.
11. Noise. Increased use of laundry and kitchen facilities audible noise impacting the neighbouring properties especially in the current configuration of doors and windows within the proposed scheme. No evidence has been provided about the levels of noise and its mitigation if required arising from the heat pump proposed for the scheme.
12.  The energy efficiency measures are disappointing. While we welcome the intent to introduce these, the opportunity has not been taken to consider an improved range of products. In any future proposal we want to see a proper environmental management plan that involves the increased use of solar panels and other measures to bear down on costs in the longer term.
13. Car parking. There is not sufficient evidence of staffing plans and resident profile to assess the true demand for vehicle parking, nor the likely increase of traffic movements e.g. deliveries, resulting from catering for the scheme, to justify no change from the current provision of three spaces.
14. The staffing and management plan is lacking in detail; three part-time staff is a very low provision for a 24-hour scheme; the plan for security cover by an external party is unclear as to hours, duties and presence on site; similarly it is uncosted and it is unclear how this provision will contribute to the financial savings that the Council are seeking from this scheme.

Background to the issue, 8 April 2026

We’ve covered this story many times since the plans were first announced to re-purpose the building in 2017. It’s not been a happy tale and has mainly been characterised by inaction. This summary article helps to set the scene.