Policy required eight affordable homes on site. The developer will build none and pay £75,367, cut by £25,373 at the meeting itself to fund GP capacity.
Twenty-five homes are planned at the former Newbury Manor Hotel on London Road, and none of them will be affordable. The council’s own policy required eight on the site. Instead the developer would pay cash, and the size of that payment was cut by £25,373 in a paper published on the day of the meeting.
West Berkshire Council’s Western Area Planning Committee considered the scheme on Wednesday 16 September. The figures below come from the officer report in the agenda pack and from the update report circulated at the meeting, both published by the council.
What is proposed
Applications 25/01863/FULMAJ and 25/01864/LBC were made by SCP Newbury Manor Ltd for the hotel site at London Road, Newbury RG14 2BY. The scheme involves:
- removing the modern hotel extensions from Newbury Manor, which is Grade II listed
- demolishing Millwaters Cottage, a curtilage listed building
- restoring the Manor and converting it into two semi-detached homes
- building 23 new homes, with roadways, turning areas, parking and landscaping
- 25 homes in total, made up of 6 two-bedroom, 6 three-bedroom and 13 four-bedroom
The site is bounded by the River Kennet to the south and sits in the Kennet and Avon Canal East Conservation Area. It has areas in Flood Zones 2 and 3, a tree preservation order, and it lies in the catchment of the River Lambourn Special Area of Conservation.
The affordable housing requirement, and what happened to it
Policy SP16 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Review requires 30% affordable housing on sites of 10 homes or more on previously developed land. The officer report works that out plainly:
“In this instance 25 dwellings are proposed, the site is previously developed land and requires 30% of dwellings to be affordable housing. This equates to a provision of 7.5 dwellings; rounded up to the requirement of 8 dwellings on site.”
None are proposed. The applicant first argued that affordable housing was not viable, and that a cash payment in place of it was not viable either. The council’s housing officer recorded the response in the consultation table:
“Disappointed to note that a viability assessment noting that providing affordable housing in not viable, and neither is an off-site financial contribution.”
The housing officer’s own figure for the requirement was nine units, seven at social rent and two first homes, which does not match the case officer’s eight. The report does not reconcile the two.
The council then hired an external consultant to test the developer’s viability case. The consultant confirmed the developer’s assumptions were fair, and a revised offer followed: an off-site contribution of £100,740 in place of building any affordable homes. (Officer report, paragraphs 7.1 to 7.7)
The number changed on the day of the meeting
The heads of terms printed in the agenda pack asked for two separate sums: £100,740 for affordable housing and £25,373 for primary healthcare. The update report circulated at the meeting corrected that. There was only ever £100,740 to go round.
“Due to the viability of the site, there is a surplus of £100,740 which is available for affordable housing contributions and the contributions towards primary healthcare. It is suggested that this is split between affordable housing and the primary healthcare contribution.”
So the affordable housing contribution fell to £75,367 and the healthcare contribution stayed at £25,373. The two add up to exactly £100,740. (Update report, item 4(2))
The healthcare money was not optional. The Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care Board objected to the application unless £25,373 was secured towards additional clinical capacity at Strawberry Hill GP Surgery, or another identified primary care project serving the development.
What the developer would have to pay in total
| Obligation | Amount or requirement |
|---|---|
| Affordable housing, off site | £75,367 |
| Primary healthcare | £25,373 |
| Carbon offsetting | £22,274.48 |
| Site amenities | Management company for the open space, the weir and the riparian areas |
| Safeguarding land | Land for a future cycle route along the A4 London Road |
| Council's costs | Administration fee for the legal agreement |
The carbon payment is required even though the scheme beats the policy target. Policy DM4 asks for a 63% cut in carbon emissions from on-site measures. The submitted energy statement shows 65% from on-site measures, rising to 82.94% once photovoltaic panels are counted. The shortfall against net zero is what the £22,274.48 covers.
Where it actually stands
Officers recommended approval, and the council’s register still records the application as awaiting decision. That is not a contradiction. The recommendation is conditional:
- if a section 106 agreement is completed by 16 December 2026, the Development Manager is delegated to grant permission
- if it is not completed, the Development Manager is delegated to refuse it
The refusal reasons are already drafted, and there are five of them, one for each obligation: affordable housing, public open space, carbon offsetting, safeguarding land and the healthcare contribution. The first says the district “has a high affordable housing need and an affordability ratio above the national average”.
Listed building consent under 25/01864/LBC was recommended for delegated approval separately.
The objections officers set aside
Newbury Town Council objected, citing overdevelopment, the lack of private amenity space and flood risk. It was consulted again on amended plans and its objections stood. Officers answered the overdevelopment point with density: the site works out at 22 dwellings per hectare, where policy expects 35 in Newbury.
Only three members of the public made representations, two of them objecting. Their points were mostly about trees, the boundary with Two Rivers Way, and Block B sitting close to the river.
Two statutory objections were resolved before the meeting. The Environment Agency first objected over an inadequate flood risk assessment, likely harm to the River Lambourn SAC and an insufficient ecological buffer, then withdrew and recommended conditions. Thames Valley Police lodged a holding objection about the layout of the open space and overlooking of parked cars.
Two officer criticisms survive in the report. The scheme conflicts with policy SP15 on housing mix: 52% of the homes are four-bedroom, where policy expects 10 to 15%, and there are no one-bedroom homes at all where policy expects three. And the council does not accept the developer’s flood sequential test, naming the Regency Park Hotel in Thatcham and sites at Midgham and Bradfield Southend as places it believes were discounted without a reasonable basis.
The report also records that the statutory decision date was 3 December 2025, extended by agreement to 19 June 2026. It was determined three months after that.
What it means for you
If you are waiting for affordable housing in Newbury, this scheme adds none. The £75,367 goes towards provision somewhere else in the district, and the council has not said where.
If you are registered at Strawberry Hill GP Surgery, the £25,373 towards clinical capacity there only materialises if the section 106 agreement is signed. Nothing is secured until it is.
Nothing can start on site yet. Permission has not been issued, and on the officer recommendation it cannot be until the legal agreement is complete. If 16 December passes without it, the recommendation flips to refusal.
You can check the application yourself on the council’s planning register, and we track the town’s bigger cases on our Newbury planning news page. The committee papers are on the meeting page for 16 September. The draft minutes had not been published when we checked on 20 September, so the wording of the resolution and any vote are not yet on the record.
Sources
- West Berkshire Council, Western Area Planning Committee, 16 September 2026, agenda and reports for the meeting date, the item numbers and the published documents.
- Officer report for 25/01863/FULMAJ and 25/01864/LBC for the description of development, the housing mix, the affordable housing policy calculation, the viability history, the consultation responses, the sequential test criticism, the recommendation, the heads of terms and the refusal reasons.
- Update report for item 4(2), 16 September 2026 for the amended heads of terms and the £100,740 split.
- West Berkshire Council planning register, 25/01863/FULMAJ for the application documents and the current status.
Have your say