|
|
 |
| |
Cllr Flick Rea |
High Court to test King’s Cross plan
Objectors launch challenge to way £2bn scheme was green-lighted
LEGAL papers which pave the way for a judicial review into the way Camden Council handed control of the King’s Cross railway lands to developers have been served at the High Court.
The challenge, engineered by the King’s Cross Think Again campaign group, is the most dynamic move so far by opponents to the redevelopment and could have major ramifications for the way planning applications are dealt with across the country.
If successful, developers Argent Limited could face the prospect of having to go through the planning process at the Town Hall all over again.
Opponents argue that councillors who finally signed off Argent’s permission to tackle the £2 billion site, the massive expanse of land behind King’s Cross and St Pancras, were misled and given the wrong advice by planning officials that they had no legal grounds to reject the plans.
In short, lawyers will argue that elected members were ultimately told they could not vote against Argent’s designs, a blueprint which amounts to Europe’s biggest construction project.
The papers – seen by the New Journal – quote councillors who clearly stated that they felt unable to refuse the applications due to the advice they had been given by unelected civil servants.
The overall project has also been criticised for being geared towards office development rather than new affordable family homes – and the definition of what amounts to an affordable place to live is also under scrutiny.
Objectors also want greater debate on the heritage buildings on the site – such as the Culross Buildings – currently facing demolition and whether the project meets environmental standards.
One of the underlying elements of the challenge is the fact that control of the council changed hands halfway through the decision-making process.
A planning committee made up of a majority of Labour councillors voted through provisional approval last March, outflanking dissenting Conservative and Lib Dem members.
But by the time the plans came back to the Town Hall for a final sign-off last November, the make-up of the committee had changed to reflect last May’s council elections at which Labour was drummed from power.
The committee is now dominated by Lib Dems and Conservatives but members said they felt they were legally bound by the earlier decision and unable to halt the project.
Officers had told them that their could be “no change in approach”.
For example, Lib Dem deputy leader Councillor Flick Rea voted against the scheme in March but approved the sign-off in November.
She said at the second meeting: “This is a really tight corset we are going to be squeezed into.
“There’s no way out. Our legal advice says so. We will have to vote for it.” Other councillors made similar comments. The legal papers show that KXTA’s lawyers will argue that, in fact, councillors had “full and unfettered discretion to reconsider all or any of the matters of the old committee”.
Richard Stein, of Leigh Day and Co, said: “This case raises extremely important questions, not just about the proper development of one of Europe’s biggest regeneration projects, but also the democratic operation of planning authorities, as well as the ability of public interest groups to access environmental justice in the courts.”
A Camden Council spokesman said yesterday (Wednesday): “Camden Council has worked extremely hard to ensure the planning process has been carried out correctly.
“We have set the highest standards during this process for its technical accuracy, professional assessment and carried out an extensive consultation. Our lawyers are currently drafting a response to the claim and their view remains that the decisions taken by Development Control are legally sound and that the claim will not succeed.”
• A PLANNED 200 unit housing scheme – on the Islington side of the King’s Cross redevelopment – stalled this week because half of it does not provide affordable homes.
Islington councillors refused the application by Argent for the development, on a former railway site known as the Islington Triangle.
They called for new independent advice to establish whether more social and cheaper homes can be included. |
 |
|
|
|
