Residents prepare challenge
A group of Newbury residents has opened a public legal defence fund in an attempt to challenge West Berkshire Council’s decision to approve an 87-bed care home on the former Hitachi headquarters site in Kiln Road.
The coalition says it is preparing to take the planning decision to the High Court, arguing that the meeting at which the application was approved was affected by severe committee fatigue and pressure to clear outstanding cases. Residents describe the outcome as a serious failure in the way the decision was made in law. The claims have not been tested by the court.
The application was considered by the council’s western area planning committee during what residents describe as a marathon final session. Their proposed legal case centres on the committee’s assessment of the building’s likely effect on privacy and its visual presence. They argue that councillors relied on an incorrect understanding of the land’s shape when reaching their decision.
Dispute over the site’s topography
According to the residents’ representative, Catherine Morse, the committee considered the three-storey building on the basis that it would be substantially concealed by an even topographical depression measuring three metres. Ms Morse disputes that description, saying the ground rises sharply across the development area and that the dip is two metres or less in parts.
“The double standards are absolutely staggering,”
Ms Morse also alleges that this difference would leave the building standing about a metre higher than the committee’s calculations suggested. She says that would affect the conclusions reached about overlooking, privacy and the development’s visual dominance. Those points form part of the residents’ stated grounds for seeking a legal review of the approval.
Residents point to other decisions
The coalition has further criticised what it regards as inconsistent treatment of applications discussed at the same committee meeting. It compares the care home decision with the refusal of retrospective permission for a padel court at The Retreat at Elcot Park hotel, where noise affecting nearby residents was cited.
Residents also refer to the rejection of a single-window domestic extension, saying the council applied residential amenity policies strictly in those cases while taking a more permissive approach to the proposed care home. Ms Morse characterised the contrast as evidence that different standards had been applied to neighbouring developments. The council has not, in the supplied material, responded directly to that criticism.
| Issue | Position reported |
|---|---|
| Care home proposal | 87-bed facility approved on the former Hitachi site |
| Residents’ response | Public fund launched and possible High Court challenge prepared |
| Council’s planning approach | Urban areas, including Newbury, identified as a focus for housing and economic development |
Regeneration policy in the background
West Berkshire Council says urban areas such as Newbury will be the main focus for housing and economic development. Its approach includes using regeneration and changes of use within existing built-up areas, as well as redeveloping suitable previously developed land for housing and employment.
That policy provides the wider planning context for the former headquarters site, although residents’ objections focus on the particular design, height, setting and potential effects of this scheme. The dispute therefore extends beyond whether the land is suitable for redevelopment in principle. It also concerns how the committee assessed the proposal and whether the information used in reaching its decision was materially accurate.
The legal fund now gives the residents a route to seek advice and pursue their proposed challenge. Any High Court proceedings would need to establish that the council’s decision was unlawful, rather than simply demonstrate disagreement with the planning judgment. Until such a case is issued and considered, the approval remains the decision made by West Berkshire Council’s planning committee. The supplied information does not state how much the fund has raised, whether a claim has formally been lodged or when any court hearing might take place.
