News

Fears traveller site expansion could set nationwide precedent

By Laura Herbert
January 24, 2013

A Traveller and Gypsy site in Twyford will be expanded on to Green Belt land, despite fears that the decision will set a nationwide precedent.

Opposition and parish councillors fear Green Belt land across the country could be at risk after permission was granted to expand Wokingham Borough Council-owned Twyford Orchards.

Government guidelines state using Green Belt land for a Gypsy and Traveller site is not appropriate development, unless there are special circumstances.

The council argues this case demonstrates special circumstances as the site is overcrowded and breaches health and safety regulations, leaving the council open to the risk of a corporate manslaughter charge.

Speaking at the council’s planning committee last Wednesday, Councillor Jeremy Hardman, of Ruscombe Parish Council, said: “We suggest there is only one planning issue and that is, has the applicant presented a sufficiently robust case to justify, what even they acknowledge would be unsuitable development on the Green Belt?” He added: “Any development might be thought to set a precedent.”

Liberal Democrat Councillor Lindsay Ferris, added: “I have been in Twyford 20 years and I have no issues with people living on the site. I have grave concerns about not setting a precedent. It is outside Wokingham and other parts of the country that could be affected as well.”

The site will be expanded by 0.58 hectares to spread out the current 16 pitches and add a further four, which will only accommodate families already living on the land.

The project will cost £1.4 million made up of a £575,000 grant from the Homes and Communities Agency and £825,000 from council capital.

Applicant Simon Price, head of tenant services at Wokingham Borough Council, said: “Officers are conscious this is a lot of money in these times of austerity but it is an opportunity to regularise the site and make it to an acceptable standard.”

Cllr Bob Pitts, ward member said: “The council has put its hands up to the problem in the past. The problem in my mind is we have two options.

“We go for enforcement and eviction in which case where do they go?

“We would probably lose the court case because families have been there for 30 years, and we would go back to where we are now and lose the grant. The other option is to approve.

“It is a difficult one but I have to support the application.”

Cllr Chris Bowing added: “We don’t want to evict these people but we need to do something quickly.”

The plans were approved by six votes for and two councillors abstained.

| Submit Comments | View Comments (7)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 7 of 7

Why are the council paying for this. If the travelling community want somewhere to live then use some of their money to buy the land themselves.

parlovero, Earley
26/01/2013 at 12:28

DT - I fully agree that this is an unacceptable set of circumstances and can understand why it would leave many locals feeling somewaht agrieved, especially those who end up paying the cost i.e. all of us. That is why it is imperative for WBC to make proper and adequate provision locally for travelling families. The lack of adequate sites locally will always put WBC on the back foot when dealing with situations such as this.

As for being tested through the planning system, well, clearly it was although it would be interesting to know why this situation was allowed to happen in the first place given that it is a council managed site.

LarryS
25/01/2013 at 14:13

We should however expect the children of people who live in static caravans that are in effect permanent fixed homes to join the queue for houses in which the rest of us find our children.

PoneRana, Wokingham
25/01/2013 at 00:08

LarryS, was this case tested through the planning system? I'm trying to figure out what legislation, checks, limitations or whatever are in place to prevent this happening again. As I understand it, the people living there simply took some extra land, and now it falls to the borough's taxpayers to pay for that green belt land (and more) to be converted for use as traveller accommodation. if the travellers were to do the same again on this site - or any other - what reason do we have to believe that the outcome wouldn't be the same again next time?

Absolutely agree that this needs handling properly, though - at a national level. We can't expect people in the travelling community not to have children (particularly as many of them are Catholic!) and we can't expect a growing population to live in a fixed space.

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
24/01/2013 at 16:55

No, it doesn't set a precedent. Every case will be decided on it's own merits and tested through the planning control system. Just because permission has been granted here doesn't mean a site in Birmingham is any more likely to get permission.

As much as some people like to put their heads in the sand and pretend this problem does not exist, it is a situation that is becoming more and more pressing. Planning authorities need to have the courage to wrestle back control of traveller sites and make proper provision in their local plans rather than have them dealt with by Government appointed inspectors.

LarryS
24/01/2013 at 16:00

I think others have raised this in comments on previous article.

It surely does set a precedent, locally and nationally. A traveller on a site in Birmingham, for example, might say 'you did this in Wokingham, you must do it here'. And (again, mentioned before) if in ten years time these families do exactly the same thing - simply adding more caravans and putting their children in them - it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to expect the same treatment again. Which is for the public purse to buy land, pay for amenity blocks, allow more travellers to live on this land, and support them for perpetuity,

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
24/01/2013 at 13:27

a distinction needs to be made between providing sites for travellers who stay for a few months and then move on and providing sites for static caravans. The argument that this site expansion was needed to accomodate expanding families shows that the people involved are unlikely to be true travellers. Extra pitches to be used in these cicumstances should not be provided.