|
|
 |
| |
Objectors pictured outside Culross Buildings in King’s Cross last year |
Round one to King’s Cross refuseniks
Special report: King’s Cross plans continue to haunt town hall
OBJECTORS fighting the King’s Cross redevelopment scored an important victory in the High Court on Friday when a judge ruled they should not be made liable for excessive legal fees for bringing a judicial review against Camden Council.
The King’s Cross Think Again (KXTA) campaign group has been told that it will not have to pay more than £10,000 in costs if they lose their case.
Members said it was a sign that their case was not being treated as a frivolous appeal.
The challenge, due to be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice at the start of May, could have been punctured if campaigners had faced the risk of a huge legal bill and needed the financial protection of the court order.
Michael Edwards, KXTA spokesman, said: “We are pleased and relieved that the court has made this order. It makes it possible for us to put our case that
“Camden’s decision should be looked at again. We’re very heartened that the court understands our case is not frivolous.”
The judicial review has been called to probe the way Camden handed permission to developers Argent Limited to start work on the redevelopment of land behind King’s Cross and St Pancras stations – a £2 billion project which amounts to Europe’s biggest construction scheme. KXTA argue that councillors who signed off the project in November were misinformed and given faulty advice that they were not entitled to vote against the scheme.
The Town Hall insists it has a “robust” defence against the appeal, but with the latest court action KXTA have crossed an important hurdle. Mr Edwards said: “We have never wanted to delay construction, which is why we urged Camden to think again before giving final consent last year. But there’s a lot at stake for the people who live and work in King’s Cross.
“We need more housing that ordinary people can afford, more small enterprises to help create real local jobs, more measures to reduce carbon emission, and more respect for the buildings which make the area what it is.”
His Honour Sir Andrew Collins said in his order: “The issues in this claim are relatively narrow and should not take up a great deal of court time. I appreciate that £10,000 is unlikely to be sufficient to cover the defendant’s costs (Camden Council) if they win but I would hope that the amount spent would not be hugely in excess of that sum.”
He added: “There are raised questions of the extent to which newly elected members of a council whose overall political control has changed can properly fail to follow previous decisions.
“In my view those may be of general public importance.”
|
 |
|
|
|
