|
|
 |
| |
Some King’s Cross home truths
• SIR Terry Farrell is dead right and dead wrong in arguing that decisions like King’s Cross should be taken out of the hands of councillors to ensure that London-wide and national interests are paramount and that the scheme helps solve the London housing crisis (KX plans should have been left to Ken, says architect, March 16).
The Mayor of London already had powers to intervene at King’s Cross but chose to nod the Argent scheme through without modifications. The Secretary of State had powers to take the decision out of councillors’ 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 is doing much less to secure affordable housing than he 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 chairman, King’s Cross Railway Lands Group
• KINGS Cross Conservation Areas Advisory Committee (KXCAAC) entirely agrees with Sir Terry Farrell’s views about the inadequacy of the planning system to deal with a development of the size of the one at King’s Cross Railway Lands, the surface area of a moderate residential district, such as Somers Town or Canonbury. Indeed, we made this point repeatedly, even during the planning brief consultation in 2003.
However, Sir Terry has missed one most 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!
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. We, as Sir Terry, would wish to see homes throughout the site, particularly in the restored 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.
AMJL DELARUE, RIBA
KXCAAC member
|
 |
| |
|
|
|
