FOLLOWING on from Alex Mettler's excellent letter (June 17) about the West Devon Borough Council's representation of the views of the electorate, I am concerned about the 'mayor effect' whereby, though she was a member of the future planning and housing committee, Cllr Mandy Govier abstained from voting on the core strategy while she was mayor of Tavistock (Times, June 3). 

For the whole of the past year, the views of her electorate on this hugely important issue have not been represented in her voting. 

Was this a personal choice or does this convention apply to all town and West Devon mayors? How has it affected the possible outcome of previous votes? It certainly doesn't square with the statement on the West Devon Borough Council website that:  'Your Borough Councillor is elected by you to make decisions on your behalf in various areas of Local Government activity.'

Surely proper representation must remain compulsory for ceremonial office-holders!

Alison Wright

Tavistock

IN his letter (June 10) on the West Devon Borough Council core strategy Cllr McInnes stated 'I have not commented on the issue of substitutions at the future planning and housing meeting of April 19 because they were carried out by me entirely in good faith, following the council's lawful constitution'.

I happily accept Cllr McInnes assurance that he, personally, acted in good faith but that the council's lawful constitution was followed is the open question.

West Devon Borough Council procedure rule on substitution that states that 'a substitute may only be appointed when an appointment member is not able to attend.'

Cllr Mrs Marsh has repeatedly said that she did not ask to be substituted, did not wish to be substituted and had not sent any apology for absence prior to the meeting.

It would seem that Cllr Marsh was not only able but also wanted to attend the meeting as an appointment member. Why then was she substituted contrary to the procedure rule? That is the question that neither Cllr McInnes or the committee chairman, Cllr Mrs Moyse, have yet answered.

Charles Letchford

Vicarage Road

Okehampton

ANN Keelan's letter published in last week's edition suggests that my comments were 'self-serving' and a 'petulant defence of the Core Strategy'. I'm struggling to understand why my comments should attract such a reaction but I will move on to her solution of addressing the 'paucity of population' in our villages.

It is worth noting that the option of locating new developments in all settlements of the borough was discounted in the Issues and Options consultation that was held in June 2005.

This was based on feedback from the consultation exercise, the Sustainability Appraisal as well as the relevant policies that were identified in both the regional and national guidelines. Given the rural nature and sparsely populated area that we live in, the prospect of providing services including both health and education as well as highways and transport services to all of these rural locations is clearly unrealistic.

I would also suggest that those of us that live in West Devon's villages do not recognise this 'paucity' view of our villages! Please also do remember that the Core Strategy does in fact include plans for nearly 30% of new housing to be built in our West Devon's villages.

As for reference to the Archers and associated market forces, I am aware of the various entrepreneurial activities ranging from Tom Archer's sausages to 'Tiger' Matt's money laundering endeavours but I'm unaware of any major residential or industrial developments in Ambridge that have made these possible. On this issue I'm happy to be enlightened!

Robin Musgrave, Bere Peninsula West Devon Borough Council ward member