|
|
 |
| |
The battle for King’s Cross
THE time has come for those in authority who possess a deep sense of civic pride to take another look at the new world planned for King’s Cross.
It could be argued that three years have been spent at the basic planning stage, and that now is the time to fill in the blank spots in the present outline planning application, and then get down to business.
Few can deny that in many ways the parties closely involved with the early stages of the application played the game according to the rules.
As a newspaper we were aware of the mixed reaction of both conservationists and residents to a scheme which will clear away the dirt and rubble of long neglected King’s Cross and build a new Jerusalem.
However, the red light lit up recently when, amazingly enough, we discovered Town Hall officials expected councillors to read, digest and form judgments on just part of the planning application which itself was more than 1,000 pages thick – and that all this had to be executed by councillors, most of whom, remember, are part-timers, within a week. It defied common sense! Why the rush, we asked? From those in authority came silence.
As if this was not enough to arouse concern, there then came the Brian Woodrow affair. Here was an elected Camden councillor who appeared to be hounded for basically no other reason than that he dared to question aspects of the outlined scheme.
Who except blinkered prejudiced officials and politicians would question that that was his civic responsibility?
Nonetheless, Woodrow fell under suspicion as a perpetrator of dark deeds.
Then we came to what we thought was the endgame – the decision of the Adjudication Panel that effectively cleared Woodrow of seven alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct, finding him guilty of only a minor one. Woodrow’s wounded opponents, however, refuse to bend. Still, annoyed, officials issued a statement last Wednesday showing that they have learned little from this embarrassing contest. (See page 4).
Paradoxically, the Woodrow affair, in our opinion, has acted as a catalyst – throwing light onto dark corners that may never have been seen.
According to Councillor Julian Fulbrook, a lawyer, the officials are acting churlishly. Possibly. It is equally possible that those who simply want to get on with the scheme, come what may, have begun to realise that, for the first time, they have a battle on their hands.
If there is such a thing as people’s power, let us hope it will begin to be used. There is a big prize at stake.
|
 |
|
|
|
