|
|
 |
| |
King’s Cross plan a lost opportunity
• WHAT a shame the massive King’s Cross development has been allowed through with such a weak Section 106 agreement (Two-hour savaging fails to halt £2bn King’s Cross plan, Nov 23).
We in the Holborn and St Pancras Secondary School campaign have been scouring our area for a site for a secondary school: the King’s Cross development could have been that site.
However, although it will now house a two-form entry primary school to serve its new population, the secondary education of these new residents is to be paid for by a £1.5 million payment to Camden Council. Clearly, this won’t buy much.
This decision makes us even more determined to ensure that the same thing won’t happen at Mount Pleasant.
Although the site is much smaller, it will still be a major development. The current suggestion is that 1,500 units of housing are built there. If this happens, the shortage of secondary school places in our area, already desperate, can only get worse.
And of course there’s also the Eastman Dental Hospital site just around the corner on Gray’s Inn Road. There’s no planning brief yet on this site. But the borough’s Unitary Development Plan (June 2006) seems to come to our rescue: “There will be times when an alternative use is appropriate for a medical or health building or site. The council will not grant planning permission for a development that results in the loss of community use unless it is demonstrated that there is no demand for another suitable community use for the site.
The council has recognised the demand and the need for a secondary school in this area: what better community use could be made of this site?
We will not be fobbed off by the argument that sites in our area are simply too costly. Any development which goes ahead on either of these sites must include a robust Section 106 agreement to secure us the secondary school we so urgently need.
POLLY SHIELDS
Millman Street, WC1
• WHILE I do not disagree with last week’s editorial about ‘the new King’s Cross city’ on the former railway lands (Future looks bleak for new £2bn city), we should also sometimes look on the bright side. In particular I welcome the £1.7 billion renewal of the old Tonbridge Club on the corner of Cromer and Judd Streets, just south of King’s Cross and actually in King’s Cross ward, which has hitherto been one of the most deprived areas of London.
When fully opened next spring the transformed building, now administered by the Central YMCA health and fitness charity, will provide not only a much needed youth and activity centre. but also courses and classes for local people, child-caring facilities, a theatre, a community gym and a cafe. The former Tonbridge Club had been there since 1931 but closed down in 2000 because it was no longer able to meet health and safety requirements and fire regulations.
Some of the troubles in King’s Cross ward doubtless derived from the aching hole that closure left in community facilities locally.
The One KX Youth Club and YMCA Tonbridge Project are going to be a huge asset to King’s Cross, so I hope everyone will make fullest possible use of it.
I am glad to see Camden’s new Lib Dem-led council is duly credited among the backers who have made this scheme possible.
HUW PRIOR
Princess Road, NW1
• THE decision to go ahead with the King’s Cross plan was a sad one.
Myself, and other councillors on the committee, were unhappy about this proposal for a number of reasons including how far short it falls of the 50 per cent affordable housing target; a mere 10 per cent renewable energy provisionwhen Camden’s policy sets this as a minimum; a large number of car parking spaces encouraging road travel; demolition of historic buildings; little green public space; and poor integration into the surrounding area which falls in part into Islington.
Members of the committee were, however, given a strong legal steer that the issue was simply whether the section 106 agreement was consistent with the heads of terms agreed by the last committee in March 2006, and that we should only make a different decision if there had been a material change in circumstances since then.
I could not support the plan but considering the advice given to us, I felt it necessary only to abstain. The manner in which this decision was made is also a cause for concern. A legal view, requested months in advance as to the pending legal challenge, was faxed through only the night before.
Councillors were swamped at the last minute with bundles of paper and then were left with two hours to consider the application. Though Roger Madelin of Argent had addressed many councillors on the committee on the sustainability aspects of his plans, we were warned about steering clear of lobbyists and thus we did not have the opportunity to hear all the other arguments in detail and put proper questions to opponents.
This is unsatisfactory – to date my request to the councillors in charge to review procedures have simply been dismissed but I will continue to seek a review of procedures to ensure that members of the Committee are properly prepared to make such big decisions.
CLLR MAYA DE SOUZA
(Green)
Town Hall, WC1
|
 |
|
|
|
