IN reply to both Cllr Rogers and Cllr Whitcomb's comments about the recent planning application on Butcher Park Hill,  I would propose that the town council re-visits its constitution/terms of reference if it considers that three out of the much larger committee is sufficient to make a quorate. Even the local school PTA needs more attendees than that.   Defining a quorate is based on making sure that a true representation of views is provided and I find it rather difficult to believe that a band of three is sufficient, particularly when a ward councillor was not present. I do hope Clare Raeburn does not apologise as I have studied her letter again and Cllr Rogers' comments in response. My husband was at the planning meeting and planning committee members raised concerns about the pathway. I'm therefore confused as to why she should apologise. However, the response in the Times on July 3, 2014, made by Cllr Ewings, is the one which has baffled me the most and seemed at odds with the representation she made on the online planning portal.   This gave a very clear indication that she was supportive of the development and requesting that if the proposal was not supported that she would call for it to go to committee.  I will apologise in advance if this is my lack of understanding on council matters; however, I don't see how that translates to giving the public its say, in fact quite the opposite I would have thought. The public automatically has a say through the planning process.  I agree with Clare Raeburn that thankfully the planning committee seems to make decisions through the correct process, based on all comments and representations and with sufficient people to come to a sound decision. Perhaps its approach should be taken on board as an exemplar of how meetings should be chaired and decisions arrived at. Nicky Francis Tavistock