In your Final Interim SA Report, the consultancy employed by the council defines sixteen objectives for each site which are then 'rated' according to their potential suitablility for each site. This process does not appear to have been executed with due diligence and my first question is therefore:

1. Why have some appraisal summaries in the report been carried out giving inaccurate information, and others been left incomplete or with a question mark, when the information is readily available and could have been used to give a more sensible and useful conclusion?
2. Item #16, Crime, in the Final Interim SA Report , is given a ? rating for each of the 20 sites. Why has this objective been itemised on both the report and the response forms on which local residents are invited to make their comments and what does it mean by 'crime'?
3. As I understand it, comments in opposition from local residents which mention fear of an increase in crime on any response forms would be indicative of racism and therefore unacceptable, despite the fact that this is a factor defined by the council as an 'area of concern'. Please could you clarify this issue.
4. Please could you identify which beautiful traveller site is featured in the photographs from your expensive brochure, paid for by local taxpayers?

I look forward to your urgent response to the above questions bearing in mind the imminent closing date of this consultation.