News

Cllr Keith Baker and senior strategy officer Carol Lovell look over plans to expand Twyford Orchards in London Road
advertisement

Travellers welcome £1.2m plans to expand Twyford site

By Jon Nurse
May 28, 2012

Residents of a static travellers site in Twyford are welcoming £1.2 million expansion plans that will give more space to growing families.

Plans to add 0.65 hectares of land to the Twyford Orchards travellers site in London Road went on display to the public, with a planning application expected in the next couple of months.

Pitch holder Frank Stevens said: “We’ve been here since the site first opened more than 30 years ago.

“The trouble now is some of the families have doubled up here.

“When I first came we had no kids so it was fine to have a small plot.

“It’s good to change with the times and it’ll be nice to have a decent sized plot. At the moment it’s a fire hazard as everything is too close together.”

Mr Stevens lives on his pitch with wife Fiona, 55, as well as his son David, 25, his fiancée Jade and their two-year-old girl Taylor-Lee.

The 58-year-old said: “I’m happy with the plans because my son would get his own pitch.

“The council have shown us all the plans.

“I know that some people are for it and others are against because they don’t want to have to move.”

The site opened in 1977 with 15 pitches accommodating one large mobile home, a tourer, washing facilities and a shed.

Today the site has 16 pitches, but four of the families are now trying to accommodate a new generation.

The plans, that went on display at Twyford Youth Centre on Tuesday, May 15, would increase the size of the pitches to have 10 on the existing site and 10 on neighbouring land, which the council is planning to purchase.

Carol Lovell, borough council senior strategy officer, said: “The site needs to come in line with modern standards to give them the relevant space.

“A pitch is defined by law and there are requirements for the distances between the structures.

“We have found that 80 to 90 per cent of the residents have been content with the proposals.”

Councillor Keith Baker, executive member for Gypsy Roma Traveller liaison, said: “It’s essential to manage the site in the future better than we have in the past.

“With this proposal we can wipe the slate clean.

“This expansion is only to accommodate families already on the site, with extended family receiving a new pitch. We are adamant no more people will move in.

“If we don’t do anything we would have to move families causing overcrowding off the site.

“We don’t want to have to do this and rather than destroy the family unit, the solution is to expand.”

The expansion could cost up to £1.2 million, with £575,000 coming from the Housing and Communities Agency.

Cllr Baker said: “We will try to strip the budget significantly so the cost to our taxpayers would be a lot smaller.

“Our aim is to do the work causing minimum disruption and we are taking a very robust case forward.

“It will be up to the planning committee to make a decision.”

The neighbouring land is owned by a group of trustees and may have to be seized in a compulsory purchase order if a sale cannot be agreed.

Through the planning process local residents will have the opportunity to comment on the plans further.

| View Comments (21)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Most recent user comments 15 of 21

1 | 2 | Next Page Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

"Static travellers" LOL!

John, Caversham
30/05/2012 at 15:30

C8H10N4032 - the key here is the planning approval. If that is not forthcoming then we will have to find alternative sites for them [a legal requirement]. If approval is given then that would underpin the CPO process. However, it is not in anyones interest to go down that route as it simply costs all of us (including land owners) extra money as we pay lawyers etc.

Bingley - like the way you bring Fosters into every one of these blogs, very creative. To bring Fosters up to speed would actually need all residents to move out for a minimum of 6 months because it would not be safe to have them in the middle of a building site. Your solution would need them to move twice in a year, first out of the home and then back into it. As you and others have often mentioned that moving them is not desirable how can tyou say this is preferable?

Cllr Keith Baker
29/05/2012 at 13:36

Please don't go DT ! Don't let the Moderation Taleban win & cost us one of the more interesting posters to this site.

For what it's worth, I agree with I Ron & Hugh J on this one. I remember all the council bragging that the ridiculous blue bags would bring swings of £1 million - and now they go and blow it on a dozen or so families that can't bear to live 50 yards apart!

Tru Blue NoMore, WOKINGHAM
29/05/2012 at 10:22

FYI - my last comment was heavily modified and had half the content removed. No idea why. Might give up on this website in future.

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
29/05/2012 at 09:58

There are many things going on here:

- travellers do travel, for work, but tend to live on site. They're not permanently on the move - as evidenced by the resident of thirty years in the article.

- all of the sites in Wokingham borough have residents, who are charged rent, and the government had insisted that WBC create more pitches for travellers to live on (as they asked most/every council, I think?) to accommodate the increasing population. This is the first progress I'm aware of for the last three years in this respect.

- more pitches = fewer unauthorised encampments - that thing where travellers pop-up in the middle of town, a car park, a trading estate, and end up costing us £60k to get a court order and move them on.

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
29/05/2012 at 09:40

LMAO all the way to the nearest caravan site!

Nimrod Maximus, in another Galaxy far far away....
29/05/2012 at 00:18

@ Others : I do see your point regarding "not a traveller if static for x amount of time", but choosing to live "in a caravan" is not an easy decision, and many (not just travellers) are obliged to do so when faced with the gravitas of owning / renting bricks & mortar properties.

In what respect, may I ask, is this scenario any different to expanding council estates, or building more "low-cost" accommodations?

It's also worth remembering / bearing in mind, that in England & Wales (lesser so in Scotland), one cannot just set up camp anywhere, only licensed sites can be occupied in tentage, caravan, or mobile home.

Take care that your next response does not centre on "go somewhere else, then"...Right Of Abode means just that !

C8H10N4O2
28/05/2012 at 14:52

Thanks for the response Cllr Baker, much appreciated.

May I ask what criteria would support the CPO in this instance?

I'm all for testing Laws "thrown down" in knee-jerk response, and consequent amendment for the benefit of all, but I'm struggling to see any premise for contention at the moment.

(I'm not asking for details; that is of course for High Court presentation and consideration on-the-day...but an indication beyond "we believe" would be helpful towards applying informed thinking)

C8H10N4O2
28/05/2012 at 14:40

This council seriously need to get their priorities right. This is disgusting.

Hugh J, Reading
28/05/2012 at 14:29

Amaziing what the Council can find money for when THEY want to, but the same order of cost could not be found to make Foster's Home suitable for modern standards of occupation so the elderly residents will be evicted. Think you need to think nearer home Councillor Baker.

Bingley, Woodley
28/05/2012 at 13:17

How can someone who has lived on the site for thirty years be traveller. It seems he is expecting his son to have one of the new pitches. The evidence however seems to point to the fact that his son has lived there all his life. Surely under those circumstances his son is not a traveller and so should not be entitled to one of these new pitches.

Yes sites should be provided for travallers but that should not include people who do not travel and are just looking for a place to set up a permanent home. Pitches should be granted for a maximum of two years after which the travellers should resume their travelling to another site.

PoneRana, Wokingham
28/05/2012 at 13:02

Smiffy - the local authority has a statutory duty to provide housing for the travellers who are causing the overcrowding. So the choice is either doing what is proposed or finding alternative travellers accommodation elsewhere. Christian 99 - the travellers pay rent and maintenance charge as well as council tax etc. C8H10N402 - the new act in April does not prohibit the purchase of this land. You can if there are exceptional circumstances which we believe is the case here. However, the planning process will test this principle.

Cllr Keith Baker
28/05/2012 at 12:47

I'm largely in agreement, it's not as if a "Dale Farm" is being created, and existing residents clearly wish to avoid any new influx.

I am, however, troubled by "The neighbouring land is owned by a group of trustees and may have to be seized in a compulsory purchase order if a sale cannot be agreed.", when new regulations came into force in April which specifically forbid such action.

C8H10N4O2
28/05/2012 at 12:24

I wish the council would pay for half of my house considering the amount of tax I pay.

Fanny Saltaire, Saltaire
28/05/2012 at 12:11

It would be interesting to get some more background on whether the local authority is obligated to extend this site or if it is a nice to do thing. I echo Christian99 in being confused as to why the local authority should be paying for any expansion, unless they will be recovering the money.