|
Response to the King’s Cross Central Revisions
of the Outline Planning Application
We welcome these revisions to the King’s
Cross Central Outline Planning Application. Although there have
been some improvements there are a number of serious concerns. We
should like the following points to be further addressed.
1. Housing
1.1 Balance between offices and housing
1.2 Reasons for more housing and larger units on
the main site
1.3 How Affordable is Affordable?
1.4 Size of Internal Communal Space
1.5 Housing Zones
1.6 The Triangle
1.7 Housing for wheelchair access and for
older people with limited mobility
2. Employment
and training
3. Community
Proposals
3.1 General Comments
3.2 Casinos
3.3 Schools
4. Conservation
and environment
4.1 Culross and Gasholder 8
4.2 The Triplets
4.3 The Introduction of the Park around the
Gasholders
4.4 Argent’s Model of the King’s Cross
Central Site
4.5 Open spaces and Parks
4.6 Development Zone E – The Southern Stanley
Buildings
5. Transport
5.1 Roads
5.2 Cycle Tracks and Pedestrian Walkways
5.3 Traffic flow
6. Sustainability
1. Housing
1.1 Balance Between Offices
and Housing
In Camden’s Publication King’s Cross Central –
Revisions to the Applications September 2005 it is
stated that there will be ‘A reduction in B1 business and
employment floorspace’ but also ‘a reduction in ‘residential
floor space’. This is worrying, most especially about the
residential floor space being reduced, and further explanation is
required.
We should like to point out that Michael Edwards,
Senior Lecturer in Architecture and Planning at University
College London, and a member of the Bartlett
School of Planning said (in an interview to be found on this
website entitled ‘King’s
Cross Central – A Development Challenge’
Need for Balance):
‘It’s pretty clear that Central London, and
especially the edges of Central London, places like King’s Cross
and Paddington and Spitalfields and Borough, are getting plenty of
office space. On the other side it looks as though we are
not getting nearly enough housing, not as much housing as the
Mayor’s plan wanted.’
1.2 Reasons for more Housing and larger
units on the Main Site
It is good that there will be 1,700 residential flats instead
of the minimum 1600 with an additional 650 units for students
(students always bring energy and life to an area), however 1,700
non-student residential flats is a drop in an ocean of urgent
need.
Out of these 1700 it is stated that:
37%- 42% will be studio/1 bed (1 person units)
30%-35% 2 bed (2 people/couple or 2 people and baby units
18 – 22% 3 bed (2 people/couple plus 2 to 3 children)
5%-11%. 4 bed (2 people/couple plus 3 to 6 children and/or elderly
relative)
We are told that of this housing 44% is to be
affordable instead of the 40% figure given in the last planning
application. This is an improvement.
However, the balance between 1 and 2 bedroom
flats/houses and 3 and 4 bedroom houses is completely wrong. (The
London Housing Strategy 2005 – 2016 published in
August 2005, 4.47): The percentages for family (3 and 4 bedroom
units) is far too low while the percentages for single person and
couples (1 and 2 bedroom) units are too high.
‘Census data indicates that around 60% of the
severely overcrowded households currently in social rented housing
require three or more bedrooms, and 2004 data from the
Sub-regional Strategy Support Studies suggests that this figure
may now be as high as 73%.......’
‘It has been estimated that between 2002 and
2012 19% of new social housing should have 1 bedroom; 39% should
have 2/3 bedrooms and 42% should have 4 or more bedrooms. However,
the average proportion of homes built in the social sector with 4
or more bedrooms over the last ten years has only been around 6%.
There is also a need for a larger proportion of intermediate
housing provision to be family homes; to tackle retention problems
in key public services and to meet the needs of those households
who are currently leaving London due to affordability problems.
The 2004 Housing Requirements Study suggests that at least one
third of intermediate homes should be 2 bedroom or larger.’
Michael Edwards' comments on this in the programme
on the website cited above: www.angelainglis.org
King’s Cross Central – A Development Challenge/Balance middle
paragraph‘ the social housing which is being produced in
Central London isn’t big enough. Too much of it is studio flats,
one person flats when a lot of the need is for larger premises,
larger units.’
Surely it would be wise for Argent to act on these
findings.
1.3 How affordable is
affordable?
We are also told that of this housing 44% is to be
"affordable" instead of 40% figure given in the last
planning application. This sounds better, but does not deal with
the thorny issue of the working definition of affordable
especially in relation to families with children to support.
Salaries in London even for key workers can be
very low, while many essential workers live on average earnings
and below. Good housing must be affordable for both these vital
and productive groups traditional to King’s Cross. And Good
Housing must remain affordable when key/essential workers have
children and one parent who is not working. London needs key and
essential workers, and we need to make larger flats and houses and
make the residential units really affordable for the key and
essential workers with children.
We would like to suggest that this development
should follow the Mayor’s Target of 50% affordable housing,
making 70% of this social (for essential workers) and 30%
intermediate (i.e. key workers, shared ownership etc.)
1.4 Size of Internal
Communal Space
This is a key issue not brought up in any of the plans so far
as they are only outlines. but it needs to be highlighted as it
came up as a major issue in a Camden Central Umbrella Workshop,
November 12th, 2005.
Internal communal space means living rooms and
kitchens; both of these need to be larger than the normal
specifications as they are important for the functioning of the
family as a cohesive unit. In many of Camden’s present 3 to 4
bed roomed council flats the kitchens are far too small for the
family to interact and eat in. ARGENT should not copy Camden’s
design failure at a time when the government itself has been
stressing the need to return to the old fashioned family meal
rather than the anti social "grazing". The need for a
kitchen/diner to be large enough for the family to sit down
together and eat should be self-evident, and family living rooms
should be large enough for family members to carry out more
activities than mere TV watching. It is essential not only for the
family itself but society as a whole, for people to have homes and
not just housing.
1.5 Housing Zones
We were disappointed to find in the revisions to the
application, that except for Zone F, there is no other housing in
the southern part of the site and are very curious about why this
should be.
We feel strongly that residential, and therefore
community uses, are essential in the southern part of the site for
safety, to keep an eye on the street, and they will make the place
livelier in the day and evening. (Camden UDP 2003, Chapter 12, KC8
– Design; Camden UDP 2003, Chapter 13, KC1 Mixed Use
Development: "Avoid large areas of single use development.
We find it strange that some residential property
is along noisy York Way for example, J,Q, and part of R while M,
which could be a pleasant place to live, has nightclubs, drinking
and shopping. There are so many other places on the site which
would be more suitable for this type of provision. Surely it would
be better to put the nightclub or clubs on a roadway. P and S seem
to be the best places to live. It is important that wherever the
residential properties are built that they provide all the
different types of residential property, market housing, social
housing and intermediate housing. If the housing is mixed then a
viable community will emerge.
It is more sensible to give residential property
the best views rather than the offices. It seems to us that many
of the offices have better views than the residential quarters.
The Canal and Camley Park views and those looking onto the Granary
are the most interesting in the northern part of the site.
1.6 The Triangle
While we admire the ingenious way in which the Triangle has
been designed we are not at all sure that it is a good place to
live. While it might be an interesting place for those living in
the taller flats who will have a very good view, we can’t think
that it will be pleasant for the lower flats looking over the
railway and York Way, and what about pollution from the traffic
and noise from trains? The 246 flats proposed for this site is
over development. How many architects, council officers and
planners would agree to live on this site; and why the segregation
policy between market housing and affordable housing? Mixed
communities work better than segregated communities.
Of course, the Triangle site has the advantage of
being a site on its own, and as there is a desperate shortage of
housing in London it is a quick way of providing flats almost
immediately. It could be built first.
We like the idea of the green and brown roofs, of
the balconies and the wild life space and roof garden for
residents.
We would prefer to see The Triangle used solely
for commercial and community use.
1.7 Housing for wheelchair
access and for older people with limited mobility
Some provision has been promised, i.e. 10% wheelchair access.
But would it not be a good idea to build some homes on the ground
floor with an outlook onto an inner courtyard?
2. Employment and
Training
We know that the aims of the London Planning Policy are:
i Promote and protect commerce
ii Identify capacity to accommodate new jobs
iii Promote and intensify retailing, services and employment
iv Improve the variety, quality and access to available employment
sites especially within Strategic Employment Locations.
The key words in the above policy are identify,
promote and improve quality and access.
So far Argent have stated that the strategy for
promoting jobs is a construction training centre, a skills and
recruitment centre, a floating classroom for school and business
connections. ‘Business connections’ is a rather loose phrase.
This strategy is part of the story but much more is needed.
In Planning Aid’s handout on Training we read:
‘In the first planning application Argent suggests the
possibility of establishing a Local Employment Strategy such as
that established by the Paddington Regeneration Partnership in
2001, which created a recruitment agency to fill vacancies within
the Paddington Regeneration Area.’
An Employment and Training Strategy should be
developed and delivered by a Partnership that includes Argent, the
Camden and Islington Councils and broadly based forums such as the
King’s Cross Development Forum, King’s Cross Community
Development Trust, the Camden Community Umbrella and other
appropriate agencies. This should be built into the application
and monitored.
The estimated number of jobs on this new site of
22,288 – 25,105 reflects a 12% decrease in office floors pace
being applied for. The revisions state that out of this number
8383 jobs are likely to be taken by local residents in the central
and wider impact zones. It should be stated that central and wider
impact zones can mean from a wide area in London, not just this
local area.
Michael Edwards has some important things to say on employment
(SEE King’s Cross Central
– A Development Challenge/Employment ):
There certainly are things that the development on the
railway lands [King's Cross Central] could do. One is I
think if it could be made to provide space for small and medium
enterprises as well as just large corporations that would make it
much more probable that more fairly local people would find
employment, not necessarily people from within walking distance
but citizens of Inner London, if you like, who need jobs, rather
more likely on the whole to find them in smaller enterprises,
particularly if that includes a lot of this non profit charitable
and other services of that kind. So that’s one thing. And I am
not very optimistic that that’s what Argent have in mind; they
seem to be aiming at a rather high rent paying corporate group; we’ll
see about that.
In answer to this Argent are offering affordable
business premises for start up units and this is good. In one of
the responses from the Development Forum on this topic we read:
‘Local people should be given priority to own
businesses and shops in the development, at a reasonable price
with the help of financial planning. Consideration should be given
to ensure that these opportunities are offered to a mix of people
from different backgrounds.’
Michael Edwards continues:
The second very important thing of course is to do with training
and education, because to some extent, although you can exaggerate
this a lot, but to some extent, people round here who are
unemployed would have a better chance of employment with more
training and education. A lot of people have missed out on
schooling or come from other countries, or one way or another have
not fully exploited their capacities, and education and training
could help, and it does; and we know from other research that if
training and education projects are really targeted well enough
with enough resources, they can really help change people’s
position in the society, and provisions to do all that could form
part of this new development, certainly.
[Marian Larragy] That would need to be built into the planning
application?
Well you can’t quite put it into a planning application or
permission, but it could be built into this thing called the
Section 106 Agreement which is a kind of side contract between
developers and the local authorities in which developers agree to
finance certain operations, and certainly it’s the sort of thing
they could do.
According to Planning Aid in the Index of Multiple
Deprivation it is suggested that the ward of King’s Cross has an
unemployment rate of around 10% which is double the London
average. This indicates a very strong need for an Employment and
Training Strategy built into Section 106.
In one of the previous responses on this subject
from the Development Forum it should be noted that one group had
written that there was ‘little confidence that the CTRL project
had actually been successful in employing local people’ that ‘The
obligation to train must come first, then the jobs.’
3. Community Proposals
3.1 General Comments
The Revised proposal for a primary health walk in centre, a
primary health care centre and a children’s centre incorporating
a nursery, drop in crèche, medical and other facilities is good.
Also it is good to read that there will be a cinema, the
possibility of library facilities, day care facilities, additional
day nursery facilities, industrial heritage and other museums, art
galleries/visual arts centre/exhibition space and enhanced
facilities for boat users, a swimming pool public indoor sports
hall, concert hall, dance halls etc.
With regard to the designated D1 community usage
we agree with the Forum that the application should be explicit
about which community uses are for private and public use.
3.2 Casinos
We understand if D 2 Planning permission is granted Argent may
well have the option of developing a casino (complex). We must
make clear our objections to a casino on the King’s Cross Site:
-
Locational problems, transport capacity, and
noise nuisance. Casinos operate late at night and into the
early hours of the morning and self-evidently a residential
area, (where the people who live there work and go to school
in normal daytime hours) is not a suitable place to site a
casino. If to meet this objection, housing was deliberately
curtailed or not even built in the area around the casino,
then this would be a loss of valuable housing space. And
housing must be the priority
-
A casino would not be welcome by the high
proportion of Moslem Ethnic minorities who represent a
significant part of the community here. The area also has
flourishing Christian and Humanist/Ethical communities all of
which would have serious objections to a casino, which (even
if it is very "up market" would by its very nature
attract prostitution, drug use/dealing, alcohol abuse and
opportunistic thieves/muggers. It is also arguable that a
casino in an area where there are children encourages the idea
that "material success" depends on "Luck"
and "Blind Chance" rather than "Work" and
Commitment". A bad, even dangerous message to be giving
to the young
As prostitution, drug use, dealing, and alcohol
abuse would increase (with attendant risk of violence) there are
issues of community safety, policing and social services to
consider
3.3 Schools
We welcome the primary school, but there is a need in South
Camden for another secondary school, (at present Holborn is being
mooted) but with its good transport links King’s Cross is a much
better location. Perhaps even at this stage a secondary school
could be considered, and, to be imaginative, housing could be
built on the upper floors above the school, (and the schools
facilities Theatre/Lecture Hall, Sports areas could be used for
other community activities
4. Conservation and
Environment
4.1 Culross and Gasholder 8
The Revisions state that Culross will be demolished. We are
against this. Culross seems to us to be an integral part of the
Railway Buildings. It could easily be adapted for some social and
intermediate housing taking off some of the housing pressure in
the northern part of the site. It also has a hall which would
adapt easily to community use. The Development Forum has already
suggested that Culross should be used for social housing with a
nursery on the ground floor. Culross could look extremely handsome
and an archway could be made at any necessary point for the
Boulevard. Archways are always attractive and it could echo the
arches of the coal drops now removed from that area. The metal
work on Culross is a feature of the past that should be retained.
The development should retain as many gates, cast iron structures
and walls from the old buildings.
We read, ‘Successful design and development can
incorporate significant buildings to the development’s advantage
(Camden UDP 2003, Chapter 13, KC11).
Zone B is too dense. Why not keep Gasholder
8 replacing what is proposed for this zone? It is a feature of
the area and denotes King’s Cross. Use part of it for offices.
Use the top for a restaurant and the bottom for community,
passenger and cultural facilities. It could house a heritage
museum, an art gallery, a concert hall, a cinema, a health centre,
gymnasium etc. Or it could be a place where people came to find
out about everything going on in London. Offices could be of
different sizes to accommodate small and medium businesses.
When Marian Larragy asked Michael Edwards about
what was needed for small businesses to flourish his answer was as
follows: (see King’s Cross
Central – A Development Challenge. Businesses)
It is probably better to listen to him than read below.
‘I think you need two things: partly, you
need some regulatory mechanisms to try and make sure that rental
levels remain truly affordable for some of those businesses, and
you can do this through mechanisms like handing over some of the
space to a community development trust or something rather like
they do at Coin Street for the Oxo Tower and so on, so it can be
administered on principles, agreed principles, rather than simply
profit maximising on every square foot. A perfectly good example
of how to do that.
’The other thing I think is about the kind of buildings you
build, you know... If you just build huge great buildings with
huge floor space with a great entrance hall and an atrium and
thousands of square metres then this is almost inevitably going to
end up with large corporations in. You need to build space of
great variety of kinds and sizes available on different kinds of
leases for different lengths of time, you know so that some of
those are really plausible places for smaller firms, start ups and
so on, it’s to do with the physical design.’
It seems to me that the gasholder could be adapted
in any way required to accommodate all types of businesses and act
also as a multiple community centre under one roof. It could be
another Oxo Tower.
It could be less costly to leave the gasholder
where it is. It is a link to our past and can be a link to the
future.
If, however, Gasholder 8 is to go up by the
canal then the proposed idea for community activities is
acceptable. But of course we prefer the first option cited above.
4.2 The Triplets
We applaud the decision to keep the triplets. However,
having spent some time at Camley Street Natural Park recently we
have had plenty of time to observe St. Pancras Lock, the canal and
the tow path directly beneath the place where the gasholders would
be re-erected. The illustrations produced by Argent of the
proposed housing inside the gasholders looks too rigid. Despite
the fact that this echoes the tanks that used to be inside the
gasholders we think that the walls of the flats inside need to be
broken up so that the eye can glance through the gasholders at
different places and see some of the metal work in the distance.
This would give them charm. At the moment they look too dense.
Provided a broken line became part of the interior design we would
agree with housing inside the triplets.
However we do not agree with the height of each
one being different. One of the most exciting views of the
triplets was created by them all being of the same height and all
being together. Recently, in the late nineties and in 2001, we
benefited from the absence of the tanks inside. We discovered the
beauty of circles within circles. In order for these triplets to
be startling we need to keep this aspect of them. (See poem
The Gasholders, King’s Cross)
One of the charms of St. Pancras Lock is its size.
We can all relate to it and feel secure in its vicinity. The
gasholders going up and up by the lock with no seeming break will
dominate this part of the tow path. If the design of the houses
within the gasholders is broken up then it will work in with the
lock. We need a sense of broken perspectives inside the
gasholders, rather than one rigid circular wall.
4.3 The Introduction of the Park
around the Gasholders
This is an excellent idea but it should be bigger. In fact the
balance of open spaces with the amount of residential property
proposed for this site is unequal.
We propose that the park around the gasholders is
made much larger. We would get rid of Cubitt Park altogether, as
it is still a wind tunnel, use the Cubitt Park space for more
housing and make the park round the gasholders a big one. It would
benefit the school, the community, passengers and residents. It
would give light to the canal and be something that people could
walk to from the southern, eastern and western parts of the site
and from the canal. They could also hear the gushing waters of the
lock and look at the beauty of Camley Street and the Regents
Canal. The proposed water features around the gasholders are a
good idea. However, the flats inside the gasholders should not all
be for the wealthy. The housing should be mixed including some of
the intermediate and social housing.
4.4 Argent’s Model of the
King’s Cross Central Site
What the model tells us is that the King’s Cross Central
site is like a fortress in the middle of the Regent’s Quarter at
King’s Cross, Somers Town, Islington and the Euston Road. The
new development needs to work in with the surrounding areas. The
heights should be halved to 7 storeys, approximately 21 metres.
More integration and balance in design is needed between King’s
Cross Central and the outlying areas. Certainly the Triangle is a
place where there can be a tall building. But Zone B at 42 to 50
metres is far too high. It will block light from the canal. It
should be stepped back to allow light on the vegetation below in
Camley Street Natural Park. And what about the Maiden Lane Estate
north of King’s Cross? They already have their sight blocked by
the Concrete Works; surely they should be allowed to see something
inspiring on the new site. Some integration for the people living
on the northern edge should be considered, despite the fact that
the railway divides them from the new buildings. They need to feel
some sense of belonging.
We agree with the King’s Cross Railway Lands
Group that: ‘Although there has been some reduction in building
heights in the revision they are still in excess of 7 storeys or
21 metres. For example S = 48 – 59 metres, zone N=29.5 -31
metres, zone L=24 metres, and Block B in the Triangle = 11-17
storeys. Where wind turbines are proposed this gives an additional
height of up to 15 metres.
‘In particular the buildings along the Canal and
Camley Street should not reach the proposed 12 storeys height.
They should respect the recent decision by Camden to reject the
proposed development at Star Wharf and Pratt Wharf because they
were higher than 4 floors. These buildings should be stepped back
from the canal floor to avoid overshadowing and domination of an
extremely sensitive environment.’
We are worried about blocked site lines from the
north to the south. We should be able to glimpse the tower of St.
Pancras Chambers between some of the buildings, and certainly from
the streets. And the granary should be seen from a distance. At
the moment it can be seen from Somers Town from certain angles and
is a delight to the eye. We will lose this if all the heights
depicted on the model are agreed for the new development. More
regulation on heights of buildings needs to be agreed before the
plans are accepted.
If there are very tall buildings they should be
strategically placed so that they do not block the site lines to
the St. Pancras Tower and Chambers in the southern part of the
site. There should breaks for the eye throughout the development
4.5 Open spaces and Parks
We read ‘Both Islington and Camden will seek the provision
of a range of public and open spaces and publicly accessible open
spaces (including green spaces)"
Islington and Camden also write about ‘a green
space…designed and landscaped to allow for passive and active
recreation."
There are no parks to speak of outside this
development until one arrives at Regent’s Park or at Russell
Square. There are three open spaces in Somers Town for active
recreation but they are for specific people. There are many people
in Camden who do not have enough space for recreation.
We have already suggested above, page 5, paragraph
2, that the park around the gasholders, zone N, should be enlarged
and that Cubitt Park should go. This park could be made extremely
accessible to all residents, to visitors, and to workers.
Enlargement of the park in the revisions is no good if the
buildings next to it are to be towering blocks. It will not be a
place in Camden and Islington’s words for ‘passive recreation.’
The revisions are good in the sense that they have
made another park, Handyside Park and have introduced the idea of
planting trees along the canal and in Zone N. However, the
vegetation by the canal will die if it does not have enough light,
and at the proposed buildings near the trees are too tall. Camley
Street Natural Park and The Wildlife Trust have looked at the
changing degrees of available light throughout the year and have
stated that there will not be enough light along the canal on the
southern side or over Camley Street Park during large parts of the
year. Camden state:
‘Camden expects new development to be sensitive
and avoid any adverse visual, shading, microclimate, noise or
lighting effects of the area.’ More thought needs to be given on
this subject.
If it is decided that Camley Street Natural Park
is to lose some of its land because of the cycle/pedestrian walk
illustrated on a number of maps then it should be given some land
in compensation for this. Is it absolutely necessary to put the
gas governor along the canal? Why not put it somewhere else and
give that land to the park.
The improvements for Pancras Square are good.
However, in the light of our comment below under Roads where
we have stated that a road should not cut the German Gym and
Stanley Buildings from the station, there would be another lovely
space in front of the Gym. The more spaces there are the better
for the movement and comfort of people.
4.6 Development Zone E – The Southern Stanley
Buildings
The amendments state that the Northern Stanley buildings,
together with Culross, will be demolished. The Southern Stanley
Buildings are to be retained and embedded within a new development
(Zone E)
We certainly believe that it is an excellent idea
to retain the Southern Stanley Buildings. However, we find the
scheme to embed it unnecessary and think it is rather cavalier to
demolish the Northern Stanley Buildings. Stand on St. Pancras
Station platform and look north east to the Southern and Northern
Stanley Buildings. The view is timeless; chimney pots and brick
fit well with the station. Embedding the Southern Stanley Building
denies its original character.
The Northern Stanley Buildings should remain. The
Southern and Northern buildings standing together hint at their
former use much better than one standing on its own. And they
provide the viewer with some idea as to how close the buildings
were. The proximity of the German Gym gives this same close
perspective. The alley ways between these buildings are the old
streets. Surely we should keep these ‘suggestions’ of the
past. The Northern Hotel further south complements them. We
understand it is to be kept; we hope this is a true promise.
In the October 7th Hampstead and
Highgate Express in an article reporting on one of the King’s
Cross Development Forum Consultation Meetings on the subject of
conservation, Jeannie Burnett from the local conservation advisory
committee is quoted as saying of Culross, the Stanley Buildings
and the old canal walls, "We wanted them to develop around
these landmarks – not knock them down. Once these buildings are
gone there is no getting them back."
5. Transport
5.1 Roads
The reason for getting rid of the Northern Stanley Buildings
in order to straighten Pancras Road and allow it to run by the
side of St. Pancras Station lacks imagination from a safety aspect
it is not a good idea for pedestrians; the space in front of the
Gymnasium running directly into St. Pancras Station is a very
pleasant one. A road here would be extremely intrusive. The space
here provides a sense of openness, safety and order, and the
wonderful architecture of the Barlow Shed and St. Pancras Chambers
gives the visitor, the passenger, the worker and the local
resident a sense of grandeur. If a road breaks up this square from
the station it will escalate walking pace and invite unnecessary
attention to traffic and maybe accidents.
Pancras Road, as said in Angela Inglis’s
previous response to the 2004 Planning
Application, should remain curved. It suggests the flow of a
river which was once part of this landscape. It will also slow
traffic. Without a main road by the station the German Gymnasium
is more accessible to visitors and locals alike. The same applies
to the Stanley Buildings.
We see that the revisions propose that the
Southern Stanley Buildings are used for a Primary health walk-in
centre. This is feasible, but why not a heritage site to give
visitors an immediate input to the area? A health centre can go in
any of the adjoining buildings.
And if the two Stanley Buildings are kept then
perhaps the possibility that they should be residential should be
considered. Some people like living right next to a station.
5.2 Cycle Tracks and
Pedestrian Walkways
The accommodation for bicycles proposed on this site is
excellent. However, there needs to be much more thought as to
where the cycle tracks go. They need to be separate from the
pedestrian walkways and there need to be more of them. The
pedestrian/cycle track over Camley Street Natural Park, where it
is sited at the moment, should be out of the question. It should
be put either by the Water Tower, thus leaving Camley Park intact
as it is only two acres large, or put further up the tow path at
the Camley Street Exit. This is much more viable as a link to
Camden. We are sure that Camley Street can be improved at the
northern end and used as a link into Camden itself. This would be
work for Camden Council. The northern end of Camley Street at the
moment is a disgrace.
5.3 Traffic flow
Much thought needs to be given about the way in which traffic
in the new development will affect the outlying areas. Regulation
needs to be built into Section 106 for this purpose. Where is the
outlet for traffic at the top of York Way which is already an
overcrowded road? How does the traffic go east, west or north from
the top of York Way? Cars are not needed on this site except for
retail. People should be prepared to be non car owners, with the
ability to hire a car when needed, preferably electric. And why
does the car park have to be on the western side of the site? It
would be much better on the eastern side where the traffic would
enter from York Way. And why multi storey? Why can’t the car
park be in a basement?
6. Sustainability
More than anything else this is the key issue for the world,
let alone the King’s Cross development. According to Planning
Aid the ‘Mayor of London considers that London should maximise
its contribution to meeting the national target for reducing
carbon dioxide emissions by at least doubling its 2000 combined
heat and power capacity by 2010.’ In the light of this
statement:
We applaud:
1) the use of up to 14 wind turbines in selected
positions across the site accommodated at roof level, with
horizontal and/or vertical separation between these and any
green/brown roofs. These to be located in development zones J,Q,R
and T
2) the provision that at least 15% of the roof
area of new buildings constructed within the development to be ‘green’/
‘brown’ roofs (or equivalent systems) as effective
accompaniments to the ‘green’ corridor along the Channel
Tunnel Rail Link embankment.
3)The installation of piping for ground source
heat pumps beneath Cubitt Square and potentially under other
public realm areas making use of district heating/Combined Heat
and Power CHP systems, including at least one fuel cell to
show-case that technology; and that this would apply to
development zones A, B, J, K L, N, P. Q, R,S and T including the
necessary piping to connect the CHP systems with the idea that
this would support the future application of biomass (renewable)
energy provision.
4) installing show-case solar panels (PHOTOVOLTAICS)
in locations that would receive long periods of direct sunlight.
Potential locations include development zone B (in particular
development plot B2), development zone K (in particular the
Handyside canopy) and development zone M (the Coal Drops). Also
any buildings that are predominantly student housing which would
incorporate solar water heating to meet part of that housing’s
domestic hot water needs.
5) that in the Revised Application Argent has
stated that ‘all new buildings would be designed to achieve
BREEAM and EcoHomes ‘very good’ ratings a minimum, with an
aspiration for ‘excellent’) or equivalent assessment method
and ratings.
Although we applaud all of these excellent
decisions we feel that this is only playing with sustainability.
We would refer the reader to an article in the The Guardian,
Wednesday October 19th, 2005 entitled The pressure
mounts by John Vidal and Ian Sample. In it Michael Meacher,
the former environment minister, warns that the scale of the
change required in the world economy is ‘nothing short of
apocalyptical. Our whole civilisation is dependent on oil.
‘Oil will start to run out, but not abruptly.
The price, however, will rise rapidly. It is bound to go over $100
(£57) (a barrel), rising much further. The majority of countries
do not have oil and will be forced into a tailspin of decline. It
is likely that there will be violent disruptions, and mass refugee
movements on a scale we have never seen’.
Meacher recommends ‘a massive global energy
conservation drive’. He points out that ‘The climate crisis
and the energy crisis are coming together’.
When asked about sustainability Michael Edwards
said: (King’s Cross Central
– A Development Challenge/ Sustainability);
‘Developers are sort of inching
forwards on this - first they put a windmill on top of something
and then put a green roof, and gradually little incremental
improvements are made, and clearly something like Bed-Zed is more
dramatic because it’s trying to really build a zero energy
development from scratch in all respects and it would be really
good to see something like that.’
In the light of this knowledge, and understanding
that the building of the King’s Cross Site will not be completed
until 2020, sustainability should not be tokenism, it should be
all.
Finally, the longstanding high profile problems of
King’s Cross have obscured much of the good about the area. It
is an area which has nurtured Wollstonecraft, Shelley and Dickens,
and now hosts the British Library, and its history, its
architecture, its wonderful corners of tranquillity, and the sheer
vitality of its multi-cultural population is unique among capital
cities.
Moreover, King’s Cross has welcomed generations
of refugees with an unequalled generosity of spirit, and as an
example of active citizenship has much to offer London and the
world. We strongly believe that the King’s Cross development
should reflect the cultural values of its residents and be a
showcase of all that is excellent.
Signed Angela Inglis, November 2005, Goldington
Street, NW1 1UE Resident
Other residents from Goldington Street:
Mary Donohue
Richard Donohue
Professor Kay Stables
Tony Lawler
Katriana Hazell
Deborah Berns, Chair, Goldington Street Estate
Robert McMahon, Chair Coopers Lane
|
