AN OPEN letter has been sent to the council following a fiery meeting in which members selected a controversial site for potential use as gypsy and traveller accommodation.

Copeland Council met on July 6, voting to move forward with land at Sneckyeat Industrial Estate as the preferred site allocation for gypsy and traveller accommodation in the borough.

The decision meant dropping Greenbank from consideration and launching a new consultation on the Sneckyeat site.

READ MORE: Clashes and outbursts as councillors select gypsy and traveller site

Councillor Gemma Dinsdale and Whitehaven Town Councillor Edwin Dinsdale have raised concerns about the suitability of the former landfill site.

Mr Dinsdale submitted a question to Mayor of Copeland Mike Starkie asking how much the proposed gypsy and traveller site for Sneckyeat will cost.

Mr Starkie said that the council do not know the cost, Copeland is simply acting as the planning authority, marking out a site for potential development.

Now, in an open letter Mr Dinsdale said: “When Mike was running for office he gave the electorate a commitment that he would run the council like a business.

"What business would enter into a deal when you didn’t know how much the project is going to cost the taxpayers?

“For Mike to claim Copeland are the planning authority and the cost is nothing to do with us is misleading and irresponsible!"

He claimed the site “could get access to millions of pounds worth of funding at a time when the squeeze on local authorities, businesses and families has never been as tight.”

READ MORE: Copeland Borough Council ask residents to have say on sites

Responding in a letter, Mr Starkie said: “As part of the Local Plan process the council does not have to provide a business case or set out how the site will be managed; it only has to provide evidence to demonstrate the site is deliverable/developable.”

He added that for a site to be considered deliverable it should be available “with a realistic prospect that development will be delivered on the site within 5 years.”

But Mr Dinsdale asked: “How much will it cost for improved access and egress to the site? How much will it cost for security fencing and cameras? toilet and shower blocks? and pitches for the proposed 12 permanent caravans and 12 traveller pitches? 

Mr Starkie said: “Any costs associated with delivering the site will need to be met by the developer, although they may wish to seek appropriate Government funding where this is available.”

READ MORE: Council seeks views on gypsy and traveller sites in Hensingham