Site 1 is a more suitable site than the recently discounted sites ( Sites 2, 3 and 4) as it is within the village boundary and is less likely to impact the village's unique identity than the 'urban spread' effect that the other (discounted) sites would have.
Being the more 'contained' site, it also offers more protection from further major development of the village in the longer term than other sites. Potential future developments of the other sites could significantly enlarge the village beyond the 100 or so houses proposed in this Local Plan and thus completely change the appearance and historic characteristics of the village in future years.
Also, it must be remembered that this development offers an opportunity for local people (young people, young families, and disabled or elderly people) to have their own homes in the village. Site 1 offers the most suitable location for these people, and may well be the site they would prefer, and a site that villagers would prefer their own children to live in, in the future. It is close to the local amenities - local shops, park, school and social areas -, really close to the bus stops, and set back a bit from the main road, which would be convenient, safer and healthier for the people who these houses are intended for.
Site 1 also has the least detrimental impact when reviewed against the criteria that WDC has used for the site assessments, as detailed in WDC's 'Site selection process and methodology' document (Table 3). Compared to other sites, it has less impact than other sites , particularly with regard to loss of landscape 'openness', access, and flooding, which would be major problems with the discounted sites.
Overall I would have been more in support of a smaller development, say similar to Lay Gardens, which is smaller and nicely integrated into the village, but if a development of the scale required is necessary, then Site 1 is the site best suited for this.