|
|
 |
| |
Homes should be the priority in KX
• IN response to the article about my august colleague Terry Farrell’s views upon the Kings Cross Railway Lands development (KX plans too big to be left to Town Hall, March 15), we, as the King Cross Conservation Areas Advisory Committee (KXCAAC) entirely agree with his views about the inadequacy of the borough planning system to deal with a development of this size, the surface area of a moderate residential district, such as Somers Town or Canonbury, and indeed we made this point repeatedly even during the Planning Brief consultation in 2003.
However, Sir Terry has missed one critical point of the proposals.
He is quoted as saying, in relation to the proposed demolition of Stanley Buildings, “there are many people who want to live in central London, but cannot. This could provide homes for so many people and that means getting on with the job.” NO Sir!
The whole point, and one made by KXCAAC and many of the local groups, is that saving Stanley will provide homes – Argent’s proposal is to demolish it and build only offices: there are to be no homes south of the Canal at all!
We, like Sir Terry, would wish to see homes throughout the site, particularly in the restored existing residential buildings of Stanley and Culross.
The loose nature of Argent’s planning consent means there is no certainty about the housing provision, nor its timing.
While it is helpful to have the support of luminaries and public figures, it is decidedly unhelpful when they get things wrong, and unwittingly put their weight behind the wrong party.
A M J L DELARUE, RIBA
KXCAAC member
• I WAS staggered to read last week’s CNJ and your report on the Executive decision concerning the sale of Stanley Buildings. (£3-million stitch-up in smoky back room March 15). This article paints a picture of the council I do not recognise.
We took this decision in public in the Council Chamber, which is not some smoky back room, but the very open decision making space of Camden Council. Indeed residents could even watch the meeting on the internet if they wished and see for themselves just how public the meeting was.
We always try to allow for as much discussion as possible and I now have a policy to listen to comments from all parties at the Executive meeting while still allowing time to make the important decisions for the future of Camden.
The closed part of the meeting noted the contents of the confidential part of the report and provided members of the Executive with the necessary information to ensure we got the maximum value for our council tax payers from the sale of the building.
I hope that residents can see for themselves that decision-making in Camden remains an open and transparent process.
CLLR KEITH MOFFITT
Council Leader
Town Hall, WC1
• SIR Terry Farrell (KX plans too big to be left to Town Hall, March 15) is dead right and dead wrong in arguing that decisions like King's Cross should be taken out of the hands of local councillors to ensure that London-wide and national interests are paramount and that the scheme helps solve the London housing crisis.
The Mayor of London already had powers to intervene at King’s Cross but chose to wave the Argent scheme through without modifications. The Secretary of State had powers to take the decision out of Camden’s hands but she too chose not to intervene.
The Think Again Campaign is objecting to Argent’s permission not because it was taken at the wrong level but because all three levels of government were favouring the wrong kind of development.
The Mayor of London, like the former leadership of Camden council, seems to have been mesmerised by the bright lights of the London office development boom and are doing much less to secure affordable housing than they should have done.
More housing in central London is what we need, as Sir Terry says, to meet local, London and national needs. And every time the urgency of global warming is stepped up, the more that need increases to get more homes closer to the jobs.
The London office market is a volatile one. Its collapse 15 years ago brought down Norman Foster’s earlier scheme for King’s Cross and we make no apology for continuing our campaign for a genuine ‘regeneration’ scheme with more affordable housing and more diverse employment. If Camden Council and the Mayor of London had paid more attention to citizens’ views and needs they would have secured a better scheme, and they still could. The conflict is not between local and wider needs but between more democracy at all levels and the blinkered pursuit of investors’ interests.
MICHAEL EDWARDS
joint chair of King’s Cross
Railway Lands Group
• IN your reporting of the debate around King’s Cross some people bent on attacking the development should take some time to consider what they are risking for local people.
While everyone agrees that historic buildings should be protected, this should be properly balanced with other concerns to ensure that the regeneration delivers for future generations as well as respecting those in the past.
The huge King’s Cross site will bring major benefits for local people over the next generation. Forty Three per cent of the homes built (over 900) will be affordable housing. There will be 600 student flats, also relieving local housing pressure on many housing estates in the area.
In development terms this is by far the highest proportion of any major brownfield development in London and the envy of regeneration projects across the country.
Thousands of local jobs will be created, as will a much-needed new swimming pool, health and child care centres, a primary school and three major open spaces. Historic buildings, including the iconic gas-holders, have been preserved to the satisfaction of English Heritage and there are places for independent shops and businesses.
The streets will be run by Camden and not ‘gated’ or privatised like in the 1980s Docklands development – thereby creating barriers between existing and ‘new’ communities.
The growth of commercial business on the site will stimulate business providing services of all kinds, creating more opportunity through procurement – a truly exciting chance for local firms.
By all accounts we are now at endgame with the King’s Cross development after almost 20 years of discussion.
Delays will jeopardise strategic transport improvements needed to ease congestion around King’s Crossin preparation for the 2012 Olympics. Slowing down a strict timetable invariably means higher costs – and it is the taxpayer who ultimately foots the bill.
While no development is perfect, the clear danger is that what is on the table now will be lost forever. There is no better Plan B around the corner as some might contend.
If this happened those left smiling presumably would be the developers, and not local people.
CLLR THEO BLACKWELL
(Lab) Town Hall
WC1
|
 |
|
|
|
