A WEEK is a long time in politics – just ask Bournemouth council.

Seven days ago, land at Cambridge Road and Suffolk Road was being touted as “the least bad option” for a travellers’ site by council leader Cllr Stephen MacLoughlin.

But yesterday, following a hastily-organised residents’ protest and strong rumblings of discontent from within his own party, not even he could bring himself to support the proposal.

And so the Westbourne site became the latest to fall by the wayside in exactly the same way as three other sites.

Remember when Bournemouth council’s plan was to build a camp near the Millhams tip at Ringwood Road?

They ran into problems straight away and were forced to apologise after not consulting ward councillors. They were then forced to abandon the plans anyway after environmental tests revealed the site was contaminated.

Instead, the attention shifted to one of the sites that had previously been rejected as unsuitable – Vicarage Field, near the Cherry Tree Nursery in Northbourne.

But while they knew it wouldn’t be popular, councillors and officers hadn’t bargained on the huge level of opposition to this suggestion.

The Cherry Tree Nursery, which is run by adults with mental illness, was at the forefront of the protest, claiming they could have to shut if vulnerable volunteers felt uneasy working near travellers.

The third site was on private land off Riverside Avenue, where there were two possibilities for a temporary camp. One was on green belt land a reasonable distance away from a retired nurses’ home, the other was not in the green belt but was much closer to peoples’ homes.

The council opted to consult on the second site but were once again met with protests, petitions and the threat of a legal challenge. The site was later dropped because it was not cost-effective.

We also know of several other options that were looked at but considered unsuitable for a variety of reasons. These are: a strip of land at Queens Road, along the south side of the Wessex Way in Westbourne, land to the north of Yeoman’s Industrial Park and the Townsend estate and land at the “Trumpet junction” at the Lansdowne.

But there are many more options that have not been made public. The council has looked at and rejected 18 sites and was intending to share details of these with the Echo until cabinet members voted against the latest plans.

Government guidance to councils states that the sites should be in places where ordinary residents would be happy to live. That means away from rubbish tips, pylons and busy flyovers. Areas prone to flooding, industrial land and steep hills are also a no-no, while easy access to bus routes, community facilities and shops are plus points.

To meet government demands, the council will need to have a transit site in place by 2011. But some councillors are querying the need to do this. Cllr Jane Montrose resigned from the cabinet over it and it’s understood that others were prepared to defy council leaders if they had attempted to push the issue through.

There’s a growing swell of opinion that Bournemouth should stand firm ahead of next year’s general election. But they then run the risk of losing funding or the government stepping in and finding a site for them.

One thing’s for sure, after four failed attempts, they can’t afford another public mistake. Where now for a travellers’ site? It’s anybody’s guess.

NOTE: Comments on this story have been closed overnight as we do not have the facility to respond to legal complaints. If you'd like to put your point-of-view across you can send us a letter by clicking here or email newsdesk@bournemouthecho.co.uk