Land Adjacent to Homes in Upper Eddington, Hungerford, Remains Contaminated

Contaminated land near Hungerford, which led to a developer’s imprisonment, is still too tainted for new construction. This conclusion comes from a report submitted to planners, who subsequently refused permission for a new build on land west of 14 Upper Eddington.

The application sought permission for a new, detached, two-storey home with landscaping, new vehicular access, and a driveway. Thirteen members of the public lodged formal objections, raising concerns over lead levels in the soil and other issues.

One resident conducted a soil survey involving hand excavation and scientific testing. This allowed for examination and sampling of the critical upper layer of surface soil, which new occupants would frequently be exposed to. The results showed unacceptable levels of lead and other heavy metal contaminants.

In 2023, the Newbury Weekly News reported that the land on two nearby homes, built against planning enforcement attempts, was highly contaminated. Developer John Forbes had submitted a false soil sample to the National House Building Council (NHBC), hiding the fact that the land contained 12 times the permissible level of lead, and then sold the homes. He was later jailed for 27 months for fraud.

The homes were built in defiance of an enforcement notice, leading councillors to label them “overbearing.” The NHBC has since undertaken remedial works to reduce contamination levels.

A design and access statement urged planners to allow the new development on land west of number 14, claiming the proposed dwelling would be sustainable and of high-quality architectural design that respects the character of the setting. It stated the development would not negatively impact neighboring properties or the character of the area.

Hungerford Town Council’s environment and planning committee did not object. However, the 13 residents who did raised concerns about potential land contamination, overlooking, parking, and size. One resident stated, “A two-bed dwelling on top of the two four-bed dwellings already towering over nearby properties and blocking natural light is and will be overbearing.”

Another resident mentioned, “In January of 2024, I carried out an investigation of this site on behalf of a prospective purchaser. I excavated and conducted in situ tests on soils for toxic metals and sent soil samples for laboratory analysis. My report showed that shallow soils to depths of at least 0.5m at all seven trial hole locations are contaminated with unacceptable concentrations of lead and other contaminants. This site will need remedial works to be fit for habitation, similar to the neighboring properties at Harefield House and The Gables.”

A planning officer’s report noted concerns regarding rights of access and boundary accuracy, stating these issues are private legal matters and do not constitute material planning considerations. However, it added, “Insufficient information has been provided to address groundwater flood risk and surface water drainage. Furthermore, the application does not include a Sustainability Statement or Energy Statement and therefore does not demonstrate how climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, carbon reduction targets, and net zero requirements will be achieved. The proposal is considered contrary to the development plan and national policy, and planning permission should therefore be refused.”