MORE gypsy and traveller sites are likely to be needed in the Winchester area, although civic chiefs are yet to say where and how many.

The city council is drawing up its 20-year masterplan by April 2012, and says it does not have time now to publicly pinpoint the potentially controversial sites.

The issue returned to the spotlight at a public inquiry last week when Gypsy families denied city council claims that they are not travelling showmen.

The council is seeking to evict six families from Carousel Park near Micheldever because they are not showmen.

The authority granted planning permission in 2003 on condition that all residents were members of the Travelling Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain. Planners have issued an enforcement order for alleged breach of this condition.

But some residents claim they are both showmen and Gypsies. They are also appealing to have the site changed to a general Gypsy residence, rather than just travelling showmen.

Maurice Black, 60, said: “Initially I see myself as a Gypsy but I am a showman. You have to be born Gypsy but if you work or operate a funfair you can become a showman.”

Derek Birch, 56, added: “Gypsies and travelling showmen have mixed for generations. Showmen and Gypsies, to my mind, are one and the same.”

Carousel residents told the inquiry they had not been involved in many fairs in recent years because it was no longer profitable.

They told the inquiry they supplement their income by doing other jobs such as landscape gardening and house painting.

Tom Patchell, a council planning officer, said: “I do not think you can justify yourself as a travelling showman if you do one show per year and spend the rest of the year working as a painter and decorator.

“You are a painter or decorator who goes to an occasional show.”

Mr Patchell added that the council did not want to see Carousel Park become a designated Gypsy site because it would harm the need for space for travelling showman.

On Monday councillors debated a report at the overview and scrutiny committee, produced after the council spoke to gypsies and travellers this summer. It emerged that Gypsies preferred small sites, usually occupied by just one family.

One idea is to limit the number of sites in each area to ensure local services are not overstretched. It also says pitches should be screened and “at an appropriate distance” from existing residents.

Cllr Ian Tait said: “When I hear ‘an appropriate distance’ it comes across that we’re just trying to sweep these people underneath the carpet.”

Cllr Simon Cook said it would be difficult to persuade parish councils to welcome such sites.

However, Cllr Frank Pearson said once initial opposition passed, some sites were hardly noticed. “The people who have raised the initial objections have often found that their objections haven’t been realised,” he said.

The masterplan is likely to say applications for new sites should be decided on a case-by-case basis, the report said. But legal action will continue to be taken against unlawful pitches, it added.

The city council will also examine whether it can take over the Tynefield site in Whiteley Lane, Wickham.

It is currently run by Hampshire County Council and has 18 pitches for gypsies and travellers.

They are the district’s only public pitches, although there are 29 private ones, of which seven are not authorised.

The masterplan will not state how many pitches are needed and where they should go. However, it will commit the council to answering both questions in the future.

Until 1994 councils were legally obliged to provide sites for Gypsies. One potential site is at Dummer on the northern edge of the Winchester district.