EAST Hampshire doesn't need a traveller site – that's the verdict of a report specially commissioned by councils across the county. The independent report studied the needs of gypsies and travellers over the next four years and concluded that while four short-stay sites would be needed in the county, none were required in East Hampshire. The report by David Couttie Associates concluded that 18 permanent pitches – each providing enough space for two caravans and two vehicles – were needed in the south of the county, but there was no immediate need for a site in the district. The report is due to be discussed by the cabinet on September 19. But Tory leader Ferris Cowper this week said: "I welcome the consultant's report and I am pleased that he recognises that no sites are needed in East Hampshire. "We do need sites in the south of the county so that we can take action when unauthorised camps appear. We will be working with our neighbouring councils to identify the best locations for these sites." The report will become part of the Hampshire councils' response to the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA), which is reviewing the South East Plan to take into account the needs of gypsies and travellers. SEERA will hold a consultation on the review of the plan later this year. On September 19, the cabinet will be asked to approve the report for consideration by SEERA and agree to continue to work with other councils on finding appropriate sites for gypsies and travellers in Hampshire. The findings of the report will bolster leading Tories on East Hampshire District Council who were criticised when they sensationally dropped plans to create short-stay traveller sites in the district less than 12 hours after a tense meeting with residents. They were accused of dropping the controversial issue because it could damage their prospects in the district council elections which were, at the time, just eight months away. District councillors had been talking about possible gypsy sites behind closed doors for more than a year and a shortlist of locations had been due to be unveiled last November. The plan had been to discuss the sites and come up with a shortlist with a view to deciding a final site in January this year, following public consultation. But after the second of two public consultations at community forum meetings in Grayshott last September, the plans were put on ice. At the time, Mr Cowper said there was concern that East Hampshire was ahead of other councils in the selection of sites and the danger was that travellers would be enticed from others areas to stay in East Hampshire if it was the first to set up a site. After The Herald applied under the Freedom of Information Act for the list of sites which had been discussed behind closed doors by EHDC, the names of 21 sites were released. These sites, according to head of communications Tom Horwood, had been ruled out of discussions because they did not meet the criteria set out by councillors. But EHDC refused to release the location of three further sites which were still on the drawing board last October on the grounds that "their disclosure would be likely to harm the commercial interests of the landowners and the council".
