Judgment Approved by the court for handing down.
Double-click to enter the short title
62.Currently, therefore the need of Gypsy and Travellers is not being met by the Borough. In addition, no need has been identified by the First Claimant for a transit pitch. 63.The Council is updating its local plan, and this includes a call for sites for Gypsies and Travellers. Historically, these calls have not been successful. At the hearing, the Council were not able to provide the court with any update. However, they pointed to these sites relating to permanent or semi-permanent pitches rather than transit pitches. Further, there was the same assessment at the time of the granting of the Injunction that there was no assessed need for a transit pitch. 64.In his fourth witness statement, Nicolas Waite the Second Claimant’s Gypsy liaison officer states that currently there is no statutory duty for Hampshire County Council to provide any form of permanent or transit site for the Gypsy and Traveller community. It was on this basis that Hampshire County Council has been able to dispose of three of its stock of permanent residential sites by transferring them into the ownership of a company belonging to a member of the Travelling community.
65.There is one permanent site under the management of the Second Claimant, with 19 pitches. It is full, with five names on a waiting list.
66.In considering all the evidence of the Claimants actions to properly address where Travellers and Gypsies could stop when passing through the Borough, I take into account Mr. Williams emphasis that there remains 90% of the Borough. Also, I am helped by Mr. Williams’ local informed knowledge, and he states: “Historically, encampments were not forming in the injunction area because there was nowhere else for them to go, or because they would not be tolerated in appropriate circumstances on appropriate sites, but because the
Draft 31 March 2025 12:22
Page 19
59
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator