Councillor Pete West, the environment spokesperson for the Green Party on Brighton and Hove City Council, seems to use his Soapbox column (The Argus, October 19) to accuse people campaigning against the enlargement of the Horsdean traveller site in Brighton (pictured right) of not wanting it because it is in the South Downs National Park.

This site is not fit for purpose on a number of issues – mainly our water. The plan for 12 more permanent pitches is next to an existing transit site immediately above a main water abstraction adit, putting our water at great risk. This is acknowledged by Southern Water and the Environment Agency.

The site only has four toilets and two showers. All waste should go to a cesspool, which is currently too small as it is only fit for two people and, on occasions when the site is at full capacity, there can be 150 people using this facility.

Coun West acknowledges the cesspool is being emptied on a more regular basis, with double the amount taken every week for just a few vans. What will the ongoing cost be to empty the cesspool on a daily basis?

The site also floods and allows water to bypass the drain and go directly into the adit within 24 hours, with any bacteria from the surface. The council said this site does not flood but Coun West has now acknowledged that it does.

How can his party pontificate about fracking when it wants to enlarge a traveller site immediately over our main water supply, risking its loss at any time if pollutants get into the adit?

The South Downs National Park Authority has the plans for the enlargement of this 12-pitch permanent site. I would suggest anyone worried about the cost or the loss of our water goes online to voice their objections.

Mrs ME Bailey, Woodingdean, Brighton

We would like to make it clear that, contrary to Coun West’s belief, we have no objection whatsoever to a well-managed traveller site being provided somewhere in Brighton and Hove, and we firmly believe it is right to do so.

We also accept that a National Park location is likely to be the only solution.

However, we, as a group, are opposed to any development north of the A27 bypass on land protected by the 1924 Brighton Corporation Water Act in order to preserve our water supply in perpetuity.

This act gave the Corporation extensive powers, both of compulsory purchase and over sanitation, with a two-mile zone of protection centred on the waterworks. This ensured the removal of a small shanty town established on Sweet Hill, housing disadvantaged civilians following the war.

This act is also the only reason the council can be deemed the landowners. The Bridie’s Tan traveller site near Lewes, which we are well aware of, therefore does not fall within our remit.

Despite much correspondence between us and the council over the past year, we find it amazing that Coun West and his advisors appear not to understand the issue as it affects the residents of Brighton and Hove.

Allison Packham, Patcham and Hollingbury Conservation Association

Coun West’s revelation that there is already a traveller site in the South Downs National Park will only increase people’s worries about further encroachment – it suggests one permanent site in Brighton will not be enough and that others may follow.

Instead of taking over car parks and playing fields, those travellers who do want to put down roots here should be made to go on to the housing waiting list, like everyone else has to.

Ms E Dean, Mount Pleasant, Brighton