New pan-Asian buffet restaurant to open in Newbury's Kennet Centre
Newbury News Ltd. Print-Digital-Social
Newbury News Ltd. Print-Digital-Social
Fri, 04 Mar 2016
PLANNED improvements and expansion to Hungerford Primary School have been "put on hold."
The bombshell was dropped this afternoon (Friday) and follows news of devastating cuts to buses, the town library, Hungerford Children's Centre and Handybus bus passes.
A district council statement read: "The decision was made earlier this week in consultation with the school's governors and teaching staff."
The project would have improved and increased the amount of teaching space, allowing the school to increase the maximum intake each year from two forms (56 pupils) to 2.5 forms (75 pupils).
A decision has been taken to postpone the project "for at least a year."
For a full report on the implications for education in Hungerford, make sure you pick up a copy of the Newbury Weekly News next Thursday.
Meanwhile, you can have your say.
Are you a parent of a child at Hungerford primary School?
What will this mean for the future of the school?
Contact Hungerford and Lambourn Valley reporter John Garvey via email at john.garvey@newburynews.co.uk or by telephoning 01635 564 528.
Leave your comment
Share your opinions on Newbury Weekly News
Article comments
Sykesy
18/03/2016 - 10:10
purplepenny is absolutely right about poor relation to Newbury. The formation of West Berks Council was a disaster for Hungerford - why couldn't we have kept Royal Berkshire and our own council.
Reply
purplepenny
04/03/2016 - 17:05
Here we go again....this is exactly what they did to John O' gaunt school, for years, the new facilities, 6th form block, performing Arts block, etc. Plans were made, architects paid for, public meetings held and costings agreed..and then, every time, it was 'delayed' bacause of financial constraints. When parents gave up and sent their children elsewhere WBC said there was no point in spending money on a school with falling numbers!! Hungerford, always the 'poor relation ' to Newbury.
Reply