News

One of the council-run static Traveller sites in Twyford
advertisement

Should council increase Travellers’ sites?

March 01, 2012

A new study will reveal whether Wokingham should increase its target for Traveller pitches and consider giving formal approval to long-standing illegal sites after several plans for permanent Gypsy sites in the borough won approval on appeal.

Wokingham Borough Council says it has provided enough space for the Gypsy, Romany and Traveller communities according to the existing target of 21 pitches.

However, multiple planning applications for Gypsy sites around the borough, including a plan for Bearwood Road in Barkham, have won approval on appeal from the planning inspector after the council rejected the plans.

The planning inspectorate has said in its judgements that the old targets, which were part of the now-defunct South East Plan, are not an accurate reflection of the true need in Wokingham.

In response to this, the council is to spend £26,000 on a survey analysing what the demand is for Gypsy, Romany and Traveller sites in Wokingham.

Councillor Keith Baker, executive member for transport, said: “We refused the planning applications, although I can’t pre-empt planning decisions, because of the policy we have at the moment.

“We have been continuing to refuse them and recently the majority of them go through to appeal and recently we have been losing almost every one, the reason being because the planning inspectors are questioning the accuracy of the needs analysis.

“There is also a reasonable number of pitches without planning permission.

“We know they are illegal and they have been there for over 10 years.

“That actually makes it very difficult to evict them – we have effectively given them planning permission by not enforcing.”

Cllr Baker said the council is being tough on enforcement action for illegal encampments and officers are visiting known sites to ensure they keep to planning rules.

He said the pitches that have been illegally in use for more than 10 years could be left in the future as work to adapt the sites has already been done and it would be legally difficult to evict people from the sites after such a long period of time had passed.

Basildon District Council evicted dozens of people from Dale Farm in Essex last year following a 10-year planning row over the use of the site.

Wokingham council spent around £2,000 cleaning up after illegal encampments over the last three years and a further £4,700 on legal fees.

At present, the council has enough pitches to meet the existing target, however the new needs analysis could reveal further sites are needed.

The needs analysis would need to take place over two seasons due to the movement of Traveller, Gypsy and Romany people during the course of a year to assess the demand in Wokingham.

Static Traveller pitches include an area of hard-standing for a static mobile home, an area of hard-standing for a caravan and space for a utilities block.

| View Comments (11)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Most recent user comments 11 of 11

D_T the reason why refusals were given was we were under the imopression that the numbers of pitches required by and approved by the South East Regional QUANGO was already met. Therefore it was natural to refuse them.

Unfortunately, and you would know this from your previous work in the council as an officer, the vast majority of residents do not understand the travellers and are often very hostile. So there has to be a balance between residents who are anti and our legal obligation. We have chosen to restrit ourselves to our legal obligation which should satisfy both sides.

Cllr Keith Baker
07/03/2012 at 17:46

Cllr Baker - thankyou, I was a little unclear there wasn't I - WBC is under no obligation to pay for/build any pitches themselves; just to ensure that more pitches are provided.

Which makes you wonder why, when Mr Felix Cash wanted to build 7 or 8 pitches opposite Bearwood Golf Club (using his own money), the council repeatedly rejected his application.

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
05/03/2012 at 15:54

We thought we had an approved requirement foir travellers sites already. After all it was approved by a senior government body but that does not seem to be acceptible to the planning inspectors. So if that is not good enough how do you think they would consider one produced by students or the council itself.

We continue to have a policy that says we have reached our requirements. That means recommendations to the planning committee will continue to be refuse. If and when that goes to appeal we will continue to defendour this position.

We will continue the eviction process of iullegal sites already successfully demonstrated several times over the last 12 months.

To Damiano_Tommassi, you say you used to work in this area then you will know clearly that there is no rule that says who should provide pitches only that pitches need to be provided. There is a debate to be had about whether the council should actually provide the pitches with all the build and maintenance cots involved or should they simply act on their legal requirents and get them to be built privately.

Cllr Keith Baker
04/03/2012 at 10:49

Very interesting article which has certainly given me food for thought. I own a site which has road frontage on to Hyde End Road, Spencers Wood which is part of the Reserved Housing Site promoted by Taylor Wimpey and David Wilson Homes. It would seem to me that my land would be suitable for promotion as a travellers site as it would fit wonderfully with the existing village and the new development forming what the Council wish to see in an integrated community and could also facilitate the disbanding of illegal sites in the Borough.

L/O - Spencers Wood
03/03/2012 at 14:30

The council should enforce against illegal sites much more firmly to prevent back door approvals by apathy. More legal pitches should be available on small sites. Please don't waste another £26000 on information gathering - surely there is a cheaper alternative?

Snowdrop, Twyford
01/03/2012 at 14:38

CMA - those renting plots on Gypsy and traveller sites are required to pay council tax, yes. I can't tell you what proportion of these tenants are exempt/have the tax paid by benefits, though.

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
01/03/2012 at 14:09

4-4-2 and you win - I don't read tabloid newspapers. What I know (and don't know) about the travelling community is based on my career experience, having worked with them.

Who are you to define who is a 'real gipsie(sic)', or to say that most of these people aren't 'real'?

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
01/03/2012 at 14:07

I wonder whether travellers staying at legal sites have to pay any form of council tax?

CMA
01/03/2012 at 12:54

Most of these people are not "real gipsies" - so shouldn't qualify.

If you provide a site for traveller's they should only be allowed to stay there for say 3 months in any 24 month period. If they want a permanent home there are alternatives.

Most of these people to a discredit to the honourable name of true gipsies and travellers.

People like D_T Wokingham read tabloid newspapers and confuse reality with fairyland.

4-4-2 and you win
01/03/2012 at 12:45

Wher are they going to park once the station car park is reduced in size and most of the fields surrounding Wokingham. There will still be Langborough Rec and Elms Field I suppose.

PoneRana, Wokingham
01/03/2012 at 11:48

WBC has failed to meet its target for traveller-site-provision for many years, and this seems to me to be another attempt in a long line of attempts to avoid the issue and put it off until someone absolutely forces WBC to build more pitches.

Can we not waste another £26,000 on a 3rd-party survey, and just start approving pitches for travellers to meet targets and needs? Regardless of whether or not our local councillors don't want to see travellers opposite their golf club in Bearwood?