authority or any other authority to negotiate an agreement. Nevertheless, it is important in view of the guidance by the Supreme Court that adequate temporary stopping sites are provided for the travelling community to that end. The first claimant is now investigating the implementation of a negotiated stopping policy. The investigations are at a very early stage and will be subject to a formal governance process and will require member approval: see the third witness statement of Chris Williams at paragraph 16. 32. The absence of a negotiated stopping policy is in some measure mitigated by the evidence that the first claimant tolerates encampments on a short-term basis when it is appropriate to do so by reference to welfare needs, including within the injunction area if required: see the second witness statement of Mr Williams at paragraphs 90 to 95. Mr Williams gave six examples of when an encampment was tolerated for a short period within the injunction area and a further example of one encampment relocating outside the injunction area, where it was tolerated for a period of over two weeks to enable a family to remain in the borough to attend a funeral. An advantage of tolerating stopping on a case-by-case basis is that the encampment can be more approximate to the facilities or amenities that those forming the encampment need to access, such as hospitals. 33. The considerations for the court as set out in Wolverhampton extend beyond transit provision and require the court to consider the local authority's provision for the traveller community more generally when exercising their function as a local planning authority, including in the local plan and in relation to permanent traveller pitches. In this regard, the evidence of Joanne Brombley referred to above as of assistance is informative. That witness statement confirms among other things that the latest needs assessment is that there remains no need for a transit pitch (paragraph 12), that the first claimant can demonstrate twelve deliverable pitches up until 2028 such that the assessed need of nine pitches is met (paragraph 23), and an updated gypsy and traveller and travelling-show people accommodation assessment has been commissioned as part of the local plan update that is currently underway (paragraphs 25 and 27). 34. As regards the second claimant, the third witness statement of Nicholas Waite explained that the second claimant is not subject to a statutory duty but rather has the power to provide permanent or transit sites for the gypsy and traveller community. To that end, the second claimant disposed of three of its permanent sites to a company belonging to a
Epiq Europe Ltd, Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/
250
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator