|
|
 |
| |
Protesters at the Town Hall last week.
 |
Critics savage £2bn King's Cross deal
Opponents vow to fight on against
a development they say has too many offices and not enough cheap
homes
THE final deal struck over the massive redevelopment
of the King’s Cross railway lands represents a “pathetic
return” for thousands of families in need of a place to
live, planning chiefs have been warned.
Councillors voted 9-6 in favour of the £2 billion plans
– drawn up over several years by developer Argent Limited
– after sitting through a marathon, five-hour session at
the Town Hall on Thursday night.
Work could begin as early as next year but the arguments over
whether Camden Council has achieved a good deal for the 67-acre
site behind King’s Cross and St Pancras stations is still
rumbling on.
While Labour Party chiefs were this week trumpeting the approved
scheme as “the best deal in London”, objectors maintain
the plans for the last large open space left to be developed
in central London represent a wasted opportunity.
What deputations
wanted on rail land
TWENTY-three deputations passed through the Town Hall
during the King’s Cross planning hearings, creating
a growing wish-list for the site. Not everybody got what
they wanted.
The deputations asked for:
• More housing. Many residents were dissatisfied
with the 42 per cent affordable housing quota Argent is
bound by. That figure signifies a departure from Camden
Council’s own planning guidance, which recommends
a 50 per cent minimum for all new developments.
• Historic buildings. The Culross Building
and the Stanley Building North face the bulldozer. King’s
Cross Conservation Area Advisory Committee said they should
be saved and adapted.
• Madrassa or an Islamic community centre.
Mamota Khatun, of Bengali Women’s Forum, said King’s
Cross needs an upgrade but that the Muslim community was
being “neglected” by the plans.
• Irish Museum. Kathleen Dermody, representing
the Irish community, called for a memorial to the Irish
workers who toiled long hours to build King’s Cross,
served in two world wars and as mayors and councillors
in the 1960s and 1970s. She said: “There’s a
lack of any reference to the cultural history of this
area in any of the plans. The contribution of the Irish
to Camden should be acknowledged.”
• Olympic-sized swimming pool. Leigh Austin
was unhappy with the current plan for a 25-metre pool.
• Park. Angela Inglis, of Somers Town, said
the site was big enough to create a massive green space
“comparable with Regent’s Park”.
• Secondary school. The desperate demand for
school places in the south of the borough could be eased,
campaigners suggested.
What is in plans
• 1,946 new homes – 42 per cent (817)
affordable, with 650 units of student accommodation.
• 25-metre swimming pool.
• Indoor sports hall.
• Community centre.
• 25,000 jobs.
• Possibility of casino.
• New primary school.
• Architectural heritage. Refurbishment of
the Granary building, Stanley Building South and relocation
and reconstruction of gas-holders. Culross and Stanley
North will be flattened.
• Business space – up to 455,510 square
metres.
• 120 new shops.
• Feasibility study for new station at Maiden
Lane. |
Campaigners who fought the scheme say Argent’s plans for
what will be Europe’s biggest construction project contain
too many offices and not enough cheap homes to meet the area’s
critical housing demands.
On top of that, historic industrial buildings will be bulldozed
to make way for Argent’s blueprint.
Protesters have already set the wheels in motion for an appeal
and are hoping Mayor of London Ken Livingstone or Deputy Prime
Minister John Prescott could still intervene and ask for the
plans to be scrutinised again. Holborn and St Pancras Labour
MP Frank Dobson is among critics of the final blueprint.
He said on Monday: “I’m not happy with the deal they
have got in Camden. What I wanted was the best for people in
Camden and Islington. People who come to see me in my advice
surgery often want somewhere to live, they often want somewhere
for their children to play, somewhere for teenagers to go. I
don’t remember anybody saying they needed a new office
block.”
Mr Dobson had hoped 3,000 homes would be built on the site,
half of them owned by the council.
He added: “Camden had a dilemma. They had negotiated with
the developers but they risked everything falling apart if they
asked for something above what the developers were willing to
concede. The important thing to do is to make sure that the
social housing is built as soon as possible – not right
at the end of project.”
At Thursday’s meeting – the second of two extended
hearings – Labour councillor Roger Robinson, who represents
nearby Somers Town, warned that planners would have the deal
on their “conscience” for the rest of the lives if
they did not broker arrangements for more inexpensive housing
on the site.
He said: “This is the last piece of land we have open to
us in Camden to build municipal housing, corporation housing,
whatever you want to call it. We are going to completely lose
that.
“We need a far greater look at the need for elderly people’s
accommodation, sheltered accommodation and accessible homes
for people with disabilities.”
Argent will build nearly 2,000 homes but a large chunk of the
properties will be aimed at single professionals.
Cllr Robinson said: “We need large family accommodation
as well. There is not enough of it in Camden. I can tell you
that from the housing cases I have dealt with in the last few
years. If we do not do this properly then we will have it on
our conscience for the rest of our lives. I don’t want
to be a part of that.”
Cllr Robinson said that the final decision was too momentous
for the Town Hall’s planning committee and argued that
there should have been more consultation and a full public planning
inquiry – an opinion that has split Labour in Camden.
Earlier in the proceedings, 23 deputations passed through the
main chamber urging councillors to send Argent back to the drawing
board. Many of them appealed for more housing.
Liberal Democrat councillor Flick Rea, who voted against the
application, said: “We have been constantly told this is
about balance. When I worked out that we are only going to get
338 new families housed I began to worry that the balance wasn’t
right. I think this is such a pathetic return”
Among those who voted in favour of the proposals were four Labour
cabinet members and former leader Dame Jane Roberts, fuelling
suggestions that high-ranking Labour councillors were intent
on passing the proposals.
The party’s top brass have denied that the meeting was
‘whipped’ or that members were briefed on how to cast
their vote.
Councillor John Thane, the council’s environment chief,
took a sideswipe at coverage of the hearings in the New Journal
– open to both sides of the debate – as he announced
his backing for the scheme.
He criticised last week’s “Save our King’s Cross”
headline, adding: “Our job is not just to save King’s
Cross – that’s a pretty pathetic aim – it is
to see that we seize the opportunity at King’s Cross for
the benefit of future generations.”
After the meeting, Camden Labour leader Councillor Raj Chada
announced his support for the deal.
He said: “There is hardly anything on the site at the moment
that benefits residents in the area. This deal will ensure that
will change. We have negotiated hard to get a higher percentage
of homes than anywhere else in London.”
But objectors are pressing hard for a last-gasp intervention
from a higher authority.
Una Sapietis, from King’s Cross Railway Lands Group, said
afterwards: “This is just an opportunity for large profits
and property speculators. It could have had a lot more social
housing and community facilities. We are planning to appeal.” |
|
|
|
