News

The Gypsy and Traveller community say Wokingham borough has failed to provide enough pitches
advertisement

Battle to cope with Gypsy site demand

By Victoria Smith
July 03, 2012

Wokingham is facing a big fat Gypsy planning conundrum as it struggles to contain unauthorised Traveller sites in the borough and meet demands for living space.

More than 24 unauthorised pitches occupied by gypsies were uncovered in a recent study by Wokingham Borough Council.

The Gypsy and Traveller community say the borough has failed to provide enough pitches and as a result the council has lost several battles over permanent gypsy site plans at appeal, landing the borough legal bills worth thousands of pounds.

Planning inspectors have allowed 21 pitches to go ahead in the borough since 2006, against councillors and planning officers’ initial judgement.

Councillors at Wednesday's planning committee meeting deferred a decision to approve plans for two static Gypsy sites in Finchampstead and Arborfield.

Applicant Edward Doherty wants to provide eight pitches on his land at Highfield Park in Eversley Road, Arborfield Cross, to “meet a recognised need for such facilities in the area to facilitate a Gypsy lifestyle”.

The applicant adds: “The plan-led approach currently adopted by the council has failed to deliver sufficient sites.”

The site has a planning history dating back to the 1980s, including an injunction order issued in September last year to prevent part of the land being used for caravans or mobile homes.

Despite this and 11 objections from residents citing fear of crime and impact on the countryside, the council has earmarked the plan for approval, provided the applicant pays more than £50,000 towards improving the area, including schools and playgrounds.

Meanwhile, Samuel Price wants to provide one Gypsy pitch on land where a caravan and mobile have already been sited for three years, on land in Commonfield Lane, Finchampstead.

This proposal has also been earmarked for approval by planning officers. A report on the planning applications notes: “The council’s own Gypsy and Traveller sites are full, there is a waiting list for pitches and there are a number of unauthorised pitches in the borough.

“In recent appeals, the council’s evidence base to identify need has been challenged and therefore the council has appointed consultants to revise the GTAA (Gypsy
and Traveller Accommodation Assessment), which will provide robust evidence on the need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches in the borough.”

The council has 31 Traveller pitches at its two sites in Twyford and Arborfield, although at the Twyford site overcrowding means there are actually 30 mobile structures on site rather than the permitted 16. Work is being carried out to expand it.

The original South East Plan stated the council would need 21 pitches by 2016, however the council now admits this figure falls short and more will be needed.

| Submit Comments | View Comments (8)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 8 of 8

Mavdo - for what is worth I totally agree with you about any community having preferential treatment over any other in any matter. Unfortunately, far too often, these things are enshrined in law which forces you to do things that you really do not want to.

Cllr Keith Baker
06/07/2012 at 13:03

A small part of it, potentially, but without intent. It was mainly about well publicised poor relations between the travelling and non-travelling communities in both directions. They think they are poorly treated, many posters on here believe they can show a lack of respect in turn. Sadly it only takes a few members of any group to let that group down.

The so-called Golden Rule of "do unto others as you would have do unto yourself" appears in many religions in various forms (the closest such quotes in Christianity are Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31). It is all about earning respect to get what you deserve. Likewise the mothers' favourite of "'I wants', don't get" applies. I don't always think that certain groups of society, not at all limited to those in this article, are doing enough to earn the things that they are demanding, yet provide them we must, we are told.

Anyway, I'm not completely convinced as much by the "ethnic" arguement of travellers as I am over the gypsy one. I believe it to be an ongoing debate as shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Travellers

Trouble is, we don't really know how many travellers there are in the UK. How can we sufficiently provide for a community unless we know how many to provide for?

Either way, I don't believe that *any* ethnic group should receive favourable treatement over *any* other. That is also discrimination. Positive or otherwise, I am against it.

mavdo, Wokingham
06/07/2012 at 11:31

Mavdo, maybe it was because Travellers are a defined ethnic group under the Race Relations Act. If you look again at what you wrote and inset "black" instead of "traveller" does that explain the censorship?

JC, Woodley
06/07/2012 at 10:48

Hmm, that's my first post to be censored in quite a while. It was a touch venomous I admit, but I did try and keep to known facts rather than just portray opinion. The edited post still contains the main points though. Perhaps I should provide links to newspaper articles in the future so that it appears to be even less of my opinion and more quotation. Perhaps even from getreading itself.

I think the edit just shows the fears that public bodies have over the marginal groups in our society.

mavdo, Wokingham
06/07/2012 at 10:27

@Cllr Baker - not really. My comments were not around the increase in the size so called traveller sites which I think is reasonable, aside from any specific local concern that I no not of, nor was it about the council in any negative sense. This is more that certain elements of society, and it isn't limited to those discussed in this article, expect a free ride from the state, and for the state to provide them with everything they need.

Respect has to be earned.

The elderly community, however, do not expect something for nothing as they have grown up in the struggles and wars of the 20s, 30s and 40s. They mostly stuggle on, without much public complaining, no matter how badly treated they are. This group have my utmost respect.

When you get a story about what the council are being forced to do for these communities, compared to the stories on what old people's homes are closing and what services are being withdrawn for the elderly, no matter what the reasons are and no matter how "forced" the council's arms are in these matters... perhaps you can see the disharmony.

mavdo, Wokingham
06/07/2012 at 09:33

Mavdo & Bingley. Due to breach of fire regulations we have to improve a council owned travellers site (Twyford Orchard). That is what you are talking about.

We have obtained a grant for nearly 50% of this cost from the government.We are also working to reduce the overall costs when we go out to tender for the job.

Cllr Keith Baker
05/07/2012 at 15:09

@Bingley - that's because some people have grown up in the belief that the state owes them something without them lifting a finger (and when they get it, it can often be abused too), while other people have grown up in the belief that nobody owes them anything and they have to work hard, make the best of what they can get for their efforts and treasure it when they get it. Sadly it seems that councils will pander to those beliefs too because of who is shouting loudest.

mavdo, Wokingham
03/07/2012 at 17:10

Wasn't there an article recently on how the Council will provide some £1.5m to finance additional site works. It was about the time the Council said they had no money to keep Fosters Lane old people home open. Seems travellers sites is a Council promoted growth area whereas OAP Council homes are in total decline.