Occasionally Travellers settle on a small common near where I live. There is a playground on the common, but the caravans that were previously here weren’t near it, and didn’t take up much space. I have never noticed any problems when Travellers settle here, but the rest of my community are vehemently against it. They insist that stealing and litter-dropping rise when Travellers arrive. They have signed petitions and asked the council to prevent them from settling. This anti-Traveller sentiment seems to unite all parts of the community. Recently I noticed that large rocks and raised plant beds had been placed around the common, which someone informed me was a council initiative to stop Travellers driving on to the land. How do I know if this is true? Why is it that being anti-Traveller is still acceptable and why is the council supporting the community in this regard? Surely, the Travellers are legally allowed to settle on this land as it is held in common.

Your assumption that institutionalised prejudice is not only prevalent, but accepted around Traveller communities, is backed up by evidence. In 2014, the Office for National Statistics revealed that Gypsy and Irish Travellers had the highest number of people with no qualifications (60%) of any ethnic group in the UK and the highest rate of economic inactivity (53%). Emma Nuttall from the charity Friends, Families and Travellers says: “It’s shameful. But many people – including politicians – remain uneducated about the cultural needs and barriers to Traveller communities.”

Additionally, Nuttall says, it’s common for local authorities to limit opportunities for Travellers to stop over, even when it is their right to do so: “Local authorities spend hundreds of thousands every year creating ditches and earth mounds, and putting up metal barriers and gates, that prevent Travellers from settling when it may actually be cheaper to house them.” Such restrictions not only stop the council earning money through rents and council tax from the Traveller community, they also create health, education and housing inequalities.

So there could be a battle ahead. I have looked into the detail of the common that you mention. It came under local authority ownership a long time ago, meaning your local council is responsible for it. You should scour your council website to see whether any development plans for the common have been included in recent planning or policy papers, giving the reason why. It’s unlikely you will find an outright mention of wanting to disturb a specific community, but you can check whether the council has considered the needs of Travellers through an equality and impact assessment, and write in to raise your concerns if not. But be wary of trying to be a saviour: your intentions may be good, but without consultation with the Traveller community, you could end up accidentally causing more harm. You can take Gypsy and Traveller cultural awareness training online.

I have also found a user group that maintains the common. The members have planted trees, hedges and bulbs, so may have been involved in installing the rocks and plants. You should join this group. You won’t know whether they were involved in the decision – and whether their aims were sinister or careless – until you do. Their mission statement is to protect and enhance the common and to improve its use and enjoyment by locals. They may benefit from hearing from you if they truly want to achieve this goal. You may be the only person in the group thinking about the impact of recent changes; or you may provide useful scrutiny and accountability if their aims are more sinister.

You are in a difficult position. If prejudice is the driving force at play here, you may find yourself confronted with resistance and denial. But it sounds like you have the compassion and sensitivity to take on the task. Good luck.

• What do you think? Or have you got a question for Poppy and readers to consider? Post your responses below or email them to in.it.together@guardian.co.uk