• I READ the recent coverage of the Talacre situation with considerable interest having first become aware of it in 2007, following which I was part of a delegation to an executive (environment) sub-group meeting in the town hall.

Even in those early days it seemed to me that there was something odd and suspect about the development.

It wasn’t just that Camden Council had a duty to fulfil planning regulations, it was that whenever there was a conflict between the developer and his obligations, Camden made an exception in favour of the developer.

Nick Harding referred to two truly astonishing examples in his Forum article, (It’s time for a public inquiry, August 21).

Your diarist John Gulliver has drawn attention to the absurd valuation of the site which resulted in Camden only receiving £325,500 for it so far, (Lawyers tell Town Hall: Forget £3million debt – it can’t be collected, August 6).

That was based upon a valuation prepared by someone who represented the developer at that sub-group meeting.

He was described by the chair as someone “who needed no introduction”. We had no idea what he was talking about.

Six years after the building was occupied we now learn from recent freedom of information responses that more may be owed; that it is “complicated”; and that “the matter is still subject to internal review service”, whatever that means.

We are told that the document requiring more than the £325,000 to be paid if the private flats were sold for more than the pitiful valuation used to justify the low price for the land, was drafted to “professional standards”.

None of this seems to make very much sense.

A briefing document is apparently being prepared for senior councillors. But how will the author(s) reconcile the apparent contradictions? Will they say millions of pounds are owed but can’t be collected?

Will they say that the document requiring the additional sums to be paid was perfect? And that allowing the flats to be occupied before the amount of overage was even established, let alone paid, was in the public’s interest?

What is needed is an independent view of this entire issue. We need someone without baggage to hear and assess all the evidence coming from outside as well as inside the council.

And to make public what can be done to recover the sums we are owed and put right the current situation.

MARTIN PLAUT,
NW5