Councils say transit sites for travellers are 'not needed' in Hampshire

Southampton is believed to be the only council in Hampshire able to offer a ‘public site’ to accommodate permanent travellers and plot holders, which also makes it easier to move on any illegal encampments set up in the area.

In recent weeks the presence of travellers in the county has increased, causing widespread anger from residents and local authorities, who insist that the responsibility lies with the county council to provide the sites which can accomodate travellers – something it disputes.

Who should provide transit sites?

Hampshire County Council insists that transit sites for travellers ‘is not the responsibility of Hampshire County Council, but the 11 district and borough councils in Hampshire, as well as the unitary authorities of Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils, are responsible for housing.’

This is because housing is not one of the responsibilities of county councils, according to Gov. UK. As a result the responsibility for providing enough Gypsy and Traveller sites to accommodate those who need them falls on local housing authorities, being this districts, boroughs, and city councils. Although they have the power to create these areas, they are not obligated to do so.

Local authorities should have authorised sites where travellers can stay. Therefore, the eleven districts and two unitary councils have been contacted to determine if such areas exist.

Based on the findings, there is only one short-term site in Southampton and currently no available transit sites for travellers in the rest of Hampshire. Of the thirteen local authorities asked by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, including the unitary councils, eight answered; the rest have not sent a reply.

In March 2022, the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities launched (DLUHC) £10 million of capital funding for 2022/23 to support local authorities in building new transit and permanent traveller sites, refurbishing existing permanent traveller and transit sites, and provide temporary stopping places and facilities for travellers. Only one of the eight who answered the inquiry has applied for the funding; this is Southampton, which indicates it was unsuccessful in its bid.

Why is it a problem?

Not having legal transit sites in the county often means that travellers camp illegally in public areas unsuitable for people due to the lack of health and safety reasons.

Distress on residents and business is also one consequence of not having a proper place for travellers, and recently three pubs in Gosport and a shop closed to the public due to disturbance with travellers.

Moving travellers along can be costly for taxpayers since once moving from one site, they may travel to another, meaning the process has to start again from the beginning.

A simple unopposed legal eviction of a small encampment will cost between £1,000 and £3,000, and a highly resisted removal costs roughly £30,000.

ALSO READ: What can be done to move on travellers who have set up an unauthorised encampment in Hampshire?

What do the councils say?

A spokesperson for the Havant Borough Council said there are no transit sites in the borough due to the lack of need. As a result, the council did not need to apply for the DLUHC funding.

‘However, we are currently working on the latest iteration of our Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment as part of our Local Plan, which may inform us of a future need for such provision.

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council and Winchester City Council both indicate that assessments concluded that there is no need for a transit site in their authority areas.

However, both are reviewing their local plans to determine whether there is a need or not.

Rushmoor, Fareham and Gosport borough councils also indicate that there are no transit sites their local authority area. Furthermore, Gosport council claims that ‘the provision of these is a county function. Gosport is a district.’

For its part, Portsmouth City Council said, ‘The last Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) for the City was produced in 2018.

‘This concluded that there is no current or future need for additional pitches or plots in Portsmouth over the GTAA period to 2036.

‘No significant changes have occurred since then to justify an update of the evidence.’

They did not apply to the DLUHC traveller site fund 2022/23.

Southampton City Council said, ‘We don’t have a public transit site. The reasons for that are outlined in this document.

“Due to historically low numbers of short-term unauthorised encampments and the opportunity for short-term ‘visitor requests’ on the public site at Kanes Hill, it is not recommended that there is a need for a formal public transit site in Southampton at this time.”

However, Kanes Hill can accommodate fourteen permanent travellers, and plot holders there are able to request visitors.

Southampton City Council indicate that it unsuccessfully bid for funding from the DLUHC traveller site fund 2022/23 to refurbish and improve the public site.

According to Friends Families and Travellers – a charity that works on behalf of all Gypsies, Travellers and Roma - inquiry to local authorities in 2020, there are only thirteen permanent sites and five transit sites with any available pitches for Gypsy and Traveller families in all of England.

There are only fifty-nine permanent pitches for Travellers in England and only forty-two available transit pitches.