EVIDENTLY my letter (Times, May 31) lacked clarity to the extent that my central point eluded both Cllrs Sherrell (June 7) and Sanders (June 14). I must try to do better.

Anent Cllr Sherrell, notwithstanding the fact that some of those present voted against the substantive motion that they had debated in Part II, none had opposed the procedural motion to hold the debate in Part II.

Had anyone done so, the ensuing debate as to process would have stripped away the legalistic double-talk that apparently had the entire council believing that legal proceedings by a councillor on behalf of the council against a decision of the council could possibly be prejudiced by anything revealed in an open debate. Who but the council itself would have locus to oppose the application before the court?

Anent Cllr Sanders, I refer the councillor to my previous sentence. The rest is but smoke and mirrors and fails entirely to address the fact that, as powers exist under s97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to revoke a consent, judicial review seems a convoluted and wasteful substitute.

I will, however, concede that the alliterative attraction of 'Ruritania Rules' seduced me into error: the apt metaphor would have been Titipu. I stand corrected.

Roger W Mathew

Down Road

Tavistock