Thames Valley Police lodged a holding objection, saying it was never consulted. The register shows 21 comments, 19 of them objections and none in support.
Thames Valley Police has lodged a holding objection to West Berkshire Council’s plan to turn Hungerford’s former care home into temporary accommodation for homeless households, and says it was never consulted on the application at all.
The force’s designing out crime officer, Dan Washington, wrote to the case officer on 7 August. His letter was published on the planning register on 17 August. It opens: “It is recognised that the consultation period for the above application has now passed. However, I was not consulted on the application and was only made aware of it on 6th August 2026.”
Hungerford is about eight miles west of Newbury.
What is proposed
The council owns the former Hungerford old people’s home at Chestnut Walk, off Coldharbour Road, RG17 0DB. It closed in 2017 and has stood empty since. The council’s own consultation page says the building has been “affected by vandalism, break-ins, and fire damage” in that time.
Application 26/00555/REG3 seeks a change of use from Class C2, a residential institution, to Class C1, hotel or hostel. The register describes it as “supported temporary accommodation with onsite management and security measures”, plus a new air source heat pump compound, a cycle store and a relocated bin store.
The council says the scheme would provide:
- 12 bedrooms, with parts of the building able to be configured as separate multi-room family units
- daytime staffing by the council’s Housing Operations and Tenancy Support teams
- a professional security presence outside staffed hours
- housing for West Berkshire households in immediate need, not permanent homes
It is the council’s second scheme of this kind. The first, Walnut Close in Thatcham, opened in early 2025 and takes up to 24 families.
What the police asked for
The letter is confined to crime prevention. It says a “very limited level of information” has been supplied, so the safety of the scheme cannot be assessed as it stands. Its central concern is the layout:
The proposed integration of family accommodation and single-person accommodation with shared facilities raises serious concerns regarding the safeguarding of children, while the proposed layout raises concerns regarding the safety and security of vulnerable adults.
It asks for revised information before a decision is made, including:
- family units kept completely separate and self contained, with no internal access between the two accommodation types and their own entrances
- Family Unit 2 moved to the eastern end of the building, where defensible space around it is achievable
- fob-activated access control rather than keys, extended to bedroom doors
- a single main entrance to the main accommodation, with other external doors used only as fire exits
- details of how the building is compartmented, so residents can reach only the areas they need
- secure boundary treatment and planting, particularly around ground-floor windows
- a lockable, covered cycle store, because the example submitted “would not be secure”
- window and door specifications to the Secured by Design Residential Guide (2025)
- CCTV locations, camera specifications, coverage and management arrangements
The town council objected in April
Hungerford Town Council objected on 21 April on 14 separate grounds. Several of them foreshadow the police letter: it complained that no plans had been provided on “mitigating the risk of crime, nor designing out crime, which is a major local concern”.
Its other points included:
- a conflict with the Hungerford Neighbourhood Development Plan on housing mix and tenure
- safeguarding, in “the potential mix of children with vulnerable single non-related adults”
- the alleyway behind the site, already subject to fly-tipping, becoming a place of informal congregation
- three parking spaces, which it says cannot be justified without evidence of staffing and resident numbers
- “three part-time staff is a very low provision for a 24-hour scheme”
The council’s environmental health officer wrote again on 23 July, after the plant compound was moved, to say only: “I note the change in location for the plant compound but my previous comments remain.”
The numbers on the register
The register’s public comments tab records:
| Chestnut Walk, 26/00555/REG3 | Count |
|---|---|
| Total consulted | 28 |
| Comments received | 21 |
| Objections | 19 |
| Supporting | 0 |
We have not reported the content of individual residents’ comments. The tally above is what the council’s own register records.
The deadlines do not agree
If you want to comment, do it today rather than later in the week. Three different closing points are currently in print, and they do not line up.
- The planning register’s dates tab gives a Latest Consultation Expiry Date of Thursday 27 August 2026, which is today.
- The council’s consultation page says representations to the council’s own, non-statutory consultation “must be received by us by 5pm on Friday, 28 August 2026”.
- The same page says formal support or objection must go through the planning portal “by midday on Thursday, 30 August 2026”. 30 August 2026 is a Sunday, not a Thursday. The only Thursday nearby is today.
The application is still flagged “open for comments” on the register, and in practice councils accept representations up to the point a report is written. Neither of those is a guarantee. Comments go in through the planning register entry for 26/00555/REG3, which needs a Public Access account, separate from a West Berkshire “My Account” login.
Two other dates on the register have already passed without effect. The council set itself a determination deadline of 14 May 2026 and an agreed expiry date of 20 August 2026.
What happens next
The council is holding a question and answer session on Thursday 3 September, 6pm to 8pm, at Hungerford Youth and Community Centre, Priory Road, RG17 0AL. No booking is needed. Councillor Denise Gaines and Nick Caprara, the council’s service lead for housing, will set out the themes coming out of the consultation and take questions.
The application is then expected to go to the Western Area Planning Committee on Wednesday 16 September. The register’s “actual committee date” field is still blank, so that date is the council’s intention rather than a fixture. Because the applicant is the council itself, the application is a REG3, decided by councillors on land the authority owns.
One footnote from the same address. An application to demolish this building and build eight houses, 21/01868/FULD, was validated on 12 August 2021 and is still listed as “awaiting decision” five years later.
What it means for you
- To object, support or comment formally, use the planning register, not email. Comment today given the conflicting deadlines.
- To ask questions in person, the 3 September session in Priory Road is open to anyone, with no booking.
- Objections are only counted on planning grounds. The police letter is a good model: it argues layout, access control, boundary treatment and surveillance, all of which a committee can attach conditions to.
- If the committee grants permission, the management arrangements are shaped by what has been raised, so detail submitted now still matters after a decision.
Our Newbury planning news page tracks applications across the district as they are validated.
Have your say
We read every message. To comment on this story, email the newsdesk and we may publish a selection of responses: hello@newburytimes.co.uk.