At the meeting the Forum will discuss what is now known about:

• The desirability and feasibility of turning the Forum into an official neighbourhood forum under the planning framework of the Localism Act.
• The use of the Section 106 funds from the King’s Cross Central and King’s Cross Station developments (to provide the Maiden Lane Station study and the York Way improvements, for example).

The meeting will not need to discuss the application to build a hotel at 1-11 Euston Road (opposite King’s Cross Station). The Camden planning officers thought that it should be rejected for many reasons, so they exercised their delegated powers to reject it without referring it to the Development Control Committee.

However, the planning officers, and subsequently the Development Control Committee, accepted the planning applications about King’s Cross Square. In its response to the applications the Forum had requested that the Committee defer approval until the plans were complete and co-ordinated with others, for the rest of the Square (by different architects) and for pedestrians and cyclists. Hurrying to approve the plans appears odd, as work on the Square is not scheduled to start for another year. Nonetheless the Committee did so, having heard from the Forum for four minutes and from the planning officers (seeming to speak of the plans as partly their own) and the applicants for forty. The report of the planning officers is here. The web cast of the Development Control Committee meeting is here.

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.

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.

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.

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.