Why is this process happening?

The government wants to significantly increase the number of traveller sites with planning permission and to address the shortage of such sites. It’s a requirement of the 2004 Housing Act.

Who is involved?

All six borough and districts in Dorset along with Bournemouth and Poole are looking for sites in their own areas and will be consulting their residents.

How many pitches (one pitch per gypsy/traveller household) are required for each area?

There are no specific targets for each area but recent estimates of gypsy and traveller need in Dorset are: Bournemouth 25, Christchurch 28, East Dorset 33, North Dorset 40, Poole 28, Purbeck 41, West Dorset 42, Weymouth and Portland 25.

What’s the legal advantage of having sites?

Having an authorised transit site available in each borough would mean the police could use powers to evict illegal encampments more quickly. Illegal traveller sites have been a headache for most local authorities.

What about green belt land such as the sites in Throop?

Some observers fear it will be the thin end of the wedge and that allowing such development could open the floodgates, breaching tough green belt policies.

What if Bournemouth – or any council – says no and all the others say yes?

Travellers evicted from illegal encampments in the areas with legal camps would probably head straight to a borough or district that doesn’t and that couldn’t move them on so quickly.

Why hasn’t the government legislated?

It’s not clear. Ministers say they are still consulting but probably have bigger fish to fry with the economy. Nevertheless it’s unusual for a government to break a pre-election pledge.

Where does this leave the idea of localism?

Who knows? The government says it wants local councils to make more of their own decisions. But not necessarily in this case.

What’s the problem about councillors saying too much now, ahead of the public consultation?

Council leaders are anxious not to be seen to predetermine the issue before they have consulted their residents. This could cause legal problems further down line. And local planning policy could be ruled ‘unsound’.