• I ENTIRELY share your concerns about Camden’s supine posture in the face of developers’ applications within the borough (Comment: Developers must not ride roughshod over the people, November 16).

Effectively the borough has become a goldmine for developers and a money fountain for section 106 fees to Camden.

We do understand that the wicked Tory government has severely limited Camden’s ability to fund its social programme. But:

• The “gift” of a school in Hawley Road from a billionaire developer when the school (in hideous yellow brick) can only be accessed across a dangerous one-way carriageway?

• The proposed march of soulless buy-to-leave glass boxes across the Morrisons site at Chalk Farm?

• Acquiescence to HS2 and a US developer eager to buy air rights above Euston station?

• The sacrifice of a heritage site in Hampstead Green, Rosslyn Hill, to a private patients’ hotel, not to speak of the clear danger from the new building to the foundations of historic listed buildings?

• The development of blocks of apparently unsaleable apartments in “partnership” with private finance in Gospel Oak?

These clever wheezes do not inspire confidence in Camden’s stewardship of the borough and its heritage.

The failures at the Chalcot estate do not suggest Camden planning officers are anything more than second-rate bean counters whose job it is to drag compliant planning committees through the complex business of extracting income from developers over and above the boringly “nimby” objections of self-funded residents.

I’m sure New Journal readers would be interested to hear from other voices on other examples of poor or inadequate planning decisions throughout the borough.

As certain key Camden councillors move smoothly on to well-paid jobs elsewhere council taxpayers are entitled to ask who’s minding the store?

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED, NW3