|
|
 |
| |
Ernest James |
‘Hold public inquiry into KX plan now’
Ex-councillor blasts English heritage over buildings
THE battle for the King’s Cross Railway Lands took a new twist yesterday (Wednesday) when the government was warned that it must hold a public inquiry.
Developer Argent Limited is hoping to get its £2 billion proposals for the expanse of land behind King’s Cross and St Pancras stations finally signed-off at a meeting of councillors tonight (Thursday).
It has provisional planning permission – granted by the Town Hall in March – but needs final approval for a so-called Section 106 agreement, the document which explains how community benefits such as a new leisure centre will be provided in the revamp.
But, with the final loose ends close to being tied-up, protesters are staging a defiant challenge.
Former Camden councillor Ernest James (pictured) – representing the King’s Cross Conservation Advisory Area Committee – yesterday (Wednesday) wrote to Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott’s office demanding a full review of the planning application. He said that the Government Office for London should be scrutinising the development and throwing open a public inquiry.
Central to the protest is the fact that Argent’s blueprint is so far only an ‘outline application’ – it explains what land use will be but does not say exactly where buildings will be placed.
Mr James argues that an outline application for King’s Cross should not have even been considered by Camden.
He is using examples of Cory’s Wharf in Essex and Catford Dog Track in Lewisham where outline applications for major redevelopments have been rejected.
The aim of the protest is to force Argent into discussions over how to protect several industrial buildings on the site.
Mr James – a lawyer – has also raised question marks over the role of English Heritage, which he claims has failed to raise concerns about the demolition of several buildings considered of historic interest.
He is concerned that English Heritage sought legal advice from Camden Council’s own legal advisers before deciding that the community benefits of the scheme justified the demolitions.
He said: “English Heritage has gone beyond its remit. It is not empowered to make decisions based on possible community benefits. Whether the benefits will arise is far from certain but it is not good reason for the English Heritage dog not to bark. On the face if it, Camden has misdirected itself as English Heritage. In all the circumstances, it is submitted that the application should be determined by a public inquiry.”
Although there was no public suggestion that the original planning vote in March had been whipped, Labour councillors all voted in favour while Lib Dems and Conservatives – bar one – voted against.
The make-up of the committee has now changed with Labour representation decimated by the party’s election rout in May.
Mr James is due to speak at tonight’s meeting – but he will not be alone. Protesters from several groups – including the King’s Cross Think Again (KXTA) campaign group which has warned that Camden’s consent could yet end up being reviewed by a judicial review – are also expected to urge the new panel to ditch Argent’s plans.
Michael Edwards, principal spokesman, for KXTA, said: “The decision Camden took in March was a provisional one and councillors still have the power to look again at the scheme.” |
 |
|
|
|
