CONTROVERSIAL plans to create a network of so-called "tolerated" gypsy and traveller sites in Southampton are to be considered by city chiefs.
The radical proposals will be examined by city bosses to deal with illegal traveller camps which have blighted the city over the past year.
At a meeting of the council's ruling Liberal Democrat Cabinet, city chiefs were told that gypsies and travellers camping illegally in Southampton last year cost £95,000.
The sum does not include the costs in time spent by senior council staff dealing with illegal camps spread across the city.
More than £50,000 alone was spent clearing-up fields owned by the Civil Service next to St Mark's Junior School in Shirley after travellers set up camp there in October 2003.
City chiefs were told that the scheme of allowing so called "tolerated sites" in Milton Keynes slashed the costs of travellers in the city from £250,000 a year to just £5,000 a year.
Under the plans put before Southampton's Cabinet, sites used by travellers could be graded according to how much impact they have on the local community.
Areas near homes and sensitive sites such as Southampton Common would be graded as "high priority" by the council which would initiate immediate eviction proceedings.
Less sensitive areas such as patches of wasteland not close to homes would be less of a priority for the council to take eviction action if the radical scheme is finally adopted by city chiefs.
Cabinet member for communities and regeneration Councillor Liz Mizon paid tribute to fellow councillors on the gypsy and traveller scrutiny committee who had prepared the report.
She said: "They looked at the issue which is extremely difficult and complex, both from the point of view of people in Southampton and the gypsies themselves.
"This is about people's lives and about people who have no legal place to stop. We have a moral obligation, not only to look after people in Southampton, but to look to our obligations to the people who live in this country."
Tory group leader Councillor Alec Samuels said: "There are potential dangers if it were known which sites should be tolerated."
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article