Forum response to Camden about the hotel opposite King’s Cross Station

The time period for responding to the planning application for a new hotel building opposite King’s Cross Station ended on 30 November. However, the “Justification for Demolition and Replacement” of the existing houses was put on the Camden Council web site later than that.

Because of this, the Planning Response Team of the Forum had an extra day in which to read all the documents and respond to the application.; The response, which is here, mentions again the need for co-ordinated planning of the area near King’s Cross Station and points particularly to the need for consistent requirements on building heights, building set backs, footways and cycle lanes. It also questions the firmness of the business case for demolishing the existing houses and the adequacy of the proposed replacement.

Comments on the plans for a hotel opposite King’s Cross Station

In a recent planning application to Camden Council, a developer proposed a new hotel building for Euston Road opposite King’s Cross Station. Some problems with the application are outlined here, on the King’s Cross Local Environment site.

Evidently the plans have been discussed with Camden Council and other bodies over many years. However, they have not been shown to the public since 2006, and they are not mentioned in the “Shaping the Future of the King’s Cross Area” papers by Camden Council or the planning applications for King’s Cross Square by Network Rail. There has been a lack of co-ordination, at the very least, again.

The Forum did not respond to the planning application initially, as it had too little time for developing a collective opinion. However, several members did respond, opposing the application, as individuals or in organisations. The response from the King’s Cross Railway Lands Group, making general points briefly and strongly,  is currently the first item here.

Forum response to Camden about King’s Cross Square

Members of the Forum resolved to respond to the planning applications for King’s Cross Square when they heard from  Network Rail and Transport for London. They had several concerns. In particular, they  thought that the approach to design in and around the Square looked piecemeal. Separate organisations (both Network Rail and different parts of Transport for London) appeared to take separate design decisions.

For instance, the planning applications say nothing about:

• Direction signs in the Square.
• Structures by other architects in the Square.
• Road crossings, despite the high pedestrian traffic expected.
• Bicycle stands, despite the growing recognition of the role of cycling in London.

In addition, the designs leave the canopy over the main Underground exit some distance from the bus stops and do not integrate the taxi rank canopy with the Egg (though they find space to expand the Egg with kiosks). They also still use rather cheerless dark granite cladding and paving in their attempt to make the Underground protuberances, such as the Egg, look less intrusive.

The Forum response to the planning applications notes especially the apparent lack of co-ordination between the organisations making decisions in and around the Square. These organisations should be working according to the policies in the London Plan. The Forum therefore wrote  a letter to the Mayor of London to request co-ordinated planning by the organisations before the approval of any planning applications for the Square.

The discussion about the plans for King’s Cross Square is covered in the minutes of the meeting of 4 November. The meeting was also the annual review meeting; the annual review report is here.

Co-ordinating the plans for King’s Cross Square

At its meeting on 4 November the Forum heard from architects in the Stanton Williams practice, and experts from Network Rail and Transport for London, about the detailed plans for King’s Cross Square. These plans now form the subject of several planning applications. The discussion is written up fully in the minutes of the meeting.

The plans had changed since the consultation on them in the summer, in which several members of the Forum had participated. Members of the Forum felt that generally the changes were improvements. However, they had several concerns, many of which relate to the piecemeal approach to design in and around the Square: explanations for design decisions often just pass responsibility to someone else. The Forum is responding formally to the planning applications to express these concerns and request co-ordination between the design authorities.

The minutes of the meeting also:

• Summarise the discussion of the role of the Forum in the proposed new planning system that would place responsibilities on an official Neighbourhood Forum.
• Mention the investigation of the allocation of the Section 106 money (which is paid to Camden Council in stages by the developers of King’s Cross Central and King’s Cross Station).

The meeting was also the annual review meeting; the annual review report is here.

Forum response to Camden about Camden Council office block

The Forum submitted some comments to the Camden Development Control Committee meeting that was considering the planning application for Building B3, the new Council office block. That building also houses a library and swimming baths, so safe access to it by local residents as as important as safe access to it by office workers. The comments submitted by the Forum concentrate on pedestrian and cyclist access from across Euston Road and along Pancras Road, Goods Way and Camley Street, and the appropriate use of Section 106 funds.

When the planning application was first made, the Forum was still hoping to arrange a public meeting with Council representatives at which matters like transport and access to the building would be discussed. Though the representatives agreed to attend that meeting, they were ultimately unable to say when they would do so. The Forum could not then respond to the planning application by the due date.

However, the concern with transport and access remained, so the Forum submitted some comments to the Development Control Committee meeting. Its comments, and similar ones by the King’s Cross Living Streets Group and the King’s Cross Railways Lands Group, were disregarded in the meeting, as the planning officers took the view that the meeting was dealing with details of the building, not with access to it. As Camden Council is both the intended occupier of the building and the body responsible for access to it, this view seems rather blinkered.

The report of the planning officers is here. The web cast of the planning meeting is here.