INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS PRESERVATION TRUST From: Judith Martin Date: Thu, Mar 23, 2006, 8:12 pm To: planning.general@odpm.gsi.gov.uk Cc: enquiryodpm@odpm.gsi.gov.uk Subject: Kings Cross Central Dear Deputy Prime Minister, re. Argent's Planning Applications to LB Camden, with particular relation to: 2004/2313/L (Stanley Buildings North) and 2004/2317/C (Culross Buildings) The Industrial Buildings Preservation Trust, having been advising various community groups on the heritage aspects of the Kings Cross redevelopment proposals, would like to ask that you call in the above applications. Other groups and organisations are requesting a call-in for numerous reasons; I should like to concentrate on these two applications. The decision-making process at the Development Control meeting of 9th March was widely perceived by those observing to be flawed, with stifled debate, partial advice and frankly bizarre behaviour on the part of the Chair. The recommendations to the Development Control Committee ran in several instances counter to national and local policy on heritage and environmental issues. Advice given in the vast committee document was inconsistent or misleading. The description of Stanley Buildings omits their unique feature, the columns, implying instead that other examples by the same Victorian philanthropic housing society are similar. They are said to be a 'relatively' early example of low-rent philanthropic dwellings; they were in fact one of the earliest, and absolutely pioneering in their layout. The 'embedment' (Argent's term) of Stanley Buildings South is not yet subject to a specific application and is merely part of the general application. This proposal is presented as a way of saving a listed building, and yet is about as far from the requirement to 'preserve and enhance' as it is possible to get. There is also a suggestion that at least one of the statutory consultees was improperly advised, not realising that Stanley Buildings was listed. Affordable housing is probably the major concern for the community. There is no housing south of the canal between the stations, begging the question of what constitutes mixed development. Camden's report on the Principles of Large Scale Mixed Development acknowledges that a high proportion of affordable housing reduces the ability of the development to fund infrastructure and heritage restoration, and yet housing, of larger room and unit size than that proposed, and probably more sound-proof construction, already exists on the site, in Culross and Stanley Buildings, in a way that would include heritage restoration. None of this was seriously debated at committee. Despite the plethora of targets for energy-saving, no mention was made of the embodied energy in these existing buildings. While the CHP schemes proposed are excellent, a few green and brown roofs, with no mention of how they will be designed or maintained, are no substitute for the drying grounds and recreation spaces on the roof of Culross Buildings. Meanwhile the ecology of Camley Street Natural Park and the canal is compromised by the shadow of the eleven-storey blocks that replace Culross Buildings - and the Regents Canal CAAC was disallowed as a deputation. Similarly, the destruction of the historic texture of the site - with Culross Buildings running east-west along the line of the old Goods Yard - is in order to facilitate the construction of a six-land boulevard teeming, in Argent's illustrations, with private cars, and yet this is an area of optimum public transport accessibility. It is hard to talk about 'a very high standard of design', as Camden does in its report to committee, when the application is an outline one (despite the conservation area and listed building status) and no design of new buildings has yet been seen. It is noticeable that, apart from a notional block plan, all the illustrations in the publicity material focus on those heritage buildings that are to be retained and restored. It was abundantly clear that this application was too complex to be decided in this way, with committee members given a file of papers about three inches thick less than two weeks before the meeting. As the document said, 'the industrial landscape [of Kings Cross] is a major heritage resource both nationally and internationally'. Camden and, particularly, English Heritage, have sought to disguise this in their recommendations. The area and its people - and its heritage - deserve better treatment than they have had so far. I hope you will agree that this application should be decided by Public Inquiry. Yours faithfully, Judith Martin Industrial Buildings Preservation Trust p.s. There seems to be some uncertainty over the deadline for requests for a call-in. This email is by way of urgency; a hard copy will be in the post.