In terms of the points I would suggest you state the following:
1. You state that the wooden structures are a breach of the licence please kindly send me the full written terms and conditions associated with the licence including a reference to the clause that I am apparently perceived to have broken. Furthermore, as the shed and fencing has been in place for some time and indeed the property was sold to me with a shed in place, there is no a history of use which would indicate the right for me to have and use a shed. I note that a number of other persons on the park also have sheds and would be interested to note how many other people you have written too requesting they also remove their sheds. If as appears to be the case I am alone in being asked to remove my shed this is discrimination, as I have a disability, if I am alone in being asked to remove my shed and this breach of the licence is not applied equally with clear evidence of other owners being forced to remove their sheds also, I shall have to conclude you are asking me to remove my shed because you are targeting me as a result of my disability and will consider instructing a solicitor to bring legal action against you for compensation for disability discrimination as the only difference between them and me is I am disabled and they are not leaving discrimination as the only explanation.
2. The conifer trees were there when I bought the property. I am not responsible for the management of the park you are. This would of course include the management of trees. I note a number of other properties have such trees also. If as you say the trees represent a fire risk I am keen to understand why you have knowingly allowed a fire risk to persist with years and if you insist in pursuing this matter I will need to raise the issue with the local Fire Authority and point out that you as owner of the park who is ultimately responsible for fire safety are pursuing me related to fire safety but let unsafe conditions persist for years apparently in breach of your obligations under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 for which you can be fined for which you personally could receive an unlimited fine or up to 2 years in prison so you may wish to think carefully about whether you want to pursue this issue.
3. Similarly in relation to the paving this is not unique to my property and appears throughout the park and again I will require evidence that you are applying this rule equally or should be forced to conclude disability discrimination. In relation to the size of the patio however, I note you normally agree to 80 square feet of patio, please confirm therefore, that you accept I can have 80 square feet of patio without breaching the licence? If so you must also accept that a patio in and of itself is not a breach of the licence?
4. The pool was available for a limited period during the summer months and either has or will be removed shortly as we go into winter. This is necessary as an aid to disability namely osteoarthritis. Furthermore, as you admit there is no rule about the use of these presently so it is by implication allowed. In relation to the water, it does not need refilling. The division of water on an apportioned basis dos not prevent me from using such a device, it may be that I use less water in relation to the kitchen, toilet or shower, so it is not possible for you to say I use an "unfair" amount of water in relation to the inflatable pool. Indeed unless you have carried out a full study over say a 12 month period with an exact breakdown of the usage of each property and their apportioned payments it is impossible for you to say I am using more or less. In any event I pay for the water I use.
I trust all the above is satisfactory.