|
|
 |
| |
Resist another
Canary Wharf
FOR more than 15 years the scheme to reinvigorate
King’s Cross has been the subject of endless debates –
among councillors, conservationists and tenants’ organisations.
Over the years different sets of proposals have bitten the dust,
different developers have left the battlefield defeated.
Finally, a detailed planning proposal – 600-pages thick
– has been drawn up by Town Hall officials for approval
by councillors – usually the last and vital step before
a dream becomes a reality.
Much of the report deals with extremely complex matters which
the decision makers would normally expect to be given a lengthy
amount of time to chew over.
And how many days have councillors got to take such a momentous
set of decisions? Sixteen. Because D-Day is March 9. That’s
when the planning committee have to say Yes or No to a project
that will cost around £2 billion.
And 16 days, as critics this week have pointed out, is obviously
far too short a timespan.
Broadly speaking, we would hope the planners will insist that
the project will provide much needed leisure facilities, open
space including a football pitch, a great deal of low-rented
properties, perhaps even a site for a secondary school .
At a cursory glance, however, it looks as if the plan is lopsidedly
pointing in the wrong direction – too many office blocks,
too many expensive flats and the demolition of much loved old
buildings.
In short another Canary Wharf lacking human scale!
And are not the critics right to warn that in view of the fact
that the supply of office space in London today is already far
in excess of demand, it would be folly to create more office
blocks that will simply lie empty?
The giant Centrepoint block lay empty for years. Do we want
the same to happen in King’s Cross?
However, let debate now reign over the planning brief published
this week. But it should not be confined to the planning committee.
It should be on a much wider scale.
After all, what is being proposed is the creation of a new city
in central London.
And as that is the case why should such a momentous decision
be left to one local authority? Shouldn’t other local authorities
be involved as well? Certainly, it would be ridiculous if this
were to be rushed through a single committee in a matter of
days.
If that were to occur, would there not be grounds for objection?
And could it not be argued that due process had been brushed
aside? |
|
|
|
