MR D.W. CROSS (Observer, February 7) raises several issues about the district council budget and most of his concerns are justified.

However, it is worth making clear that many of the chickens that are now coming home to roost are the results of mistakes made four or five years ago. Many of the councillors responsible were dismissed by the voters in 1998 or 1999.

There are arguments for and against fixed price contracts of the type Mr Cross describes. But there is no argument, whether you have signed a fixed price contract or one which involves paying for work done, for failing to keep a close check on the costs of the project.

The Liberal Democrats who were running the council while the Verulamium Museum extension and conversion of Harpenden swimming pool did not ensure that this was done.

I was not a member of the council between May 1995 and May 1999 when the costs of the Verulamium Museum and Harpenden pool projects escalated out of control, but my Conservative colleagues who were on the council at the time became aware of the problem and called for an all-party review to establish what was going wrong. Labour councillors also supported this, but amazingly the former LibDem majority refused.

A group of four Conservative and Labour councillors carried out their own investigation, which found that these projects had gone half a million pounds over budget, and recommended a number of changes to the council's audit and contract monitoring procedures to prevent this happening again.

The LibDems took a head-in-the-sand attitude, exemplified by one of their senior councillors who said that major civil engineering projects always overspend.

Not until they lost control of the district council in 1999 was it possible for us to hold a full review of what had gone wrong and implement reforms to the council's audit and contract monitoring procedures.

The payment to Bickerton's last year was the final chapter in this long and sad story. Bickerton's were asked to do extra work on the museum so they were entitled to an extra payment: there was a disagreement about how much.

My colleague John Newman did some tough negotiating to keep this payment below £200,000.

The Napsbury situation also dates back to the former LibDem administration,compounded by an excessive costs claim by solicitors acting for the present national government.

I have to watch my words about Napsbury, because the legal argument about how much St Albans council will have to pay central government has not been settled.

I agree with Mr Cross that the amount claimed by the government is outrageous: the council is seeking to negotiate a reduction to a much lower and more reasonable level. In the meantime I do not wish to make any comments that could be quoted against the council by the other side's barrister.

It is a matter of public record that a planning inspector severely criticised the council for two decisions, and the conduct of a planning appeal, all between November 1995 and December 1998. The Liberal Democrats had majority control of the council throughout that period.

I will have more to say about their management of the Napsbury issue when the size of the costs award has been settled.

One comment in Mr Cross's letter is not correct: the ten most highly paid employees of the district are not paid anything like a million pounds in salary and benefits between them.

There was one much more recent decision that contributed to the likely large rise in this year's district council tax. That was the vote by every LibDem and Labour councillor present, opposed by the majority of Conservatives, to pay backbench councillors significantly more in expenses than the level recommended by an independent review panel.

I'd like to finish on an item of good news: if the budget proposals by the District Cabinet are supported by the Overview and Scrutiny process and the full council, we will be able to avoid the need to dispose of valuable properties at less than they are worth.

Chris Whiteside, District Councillor (Conservative), Sandridge Ward.