Respecting the Railwaylands: KXCAAC reconsiders Kings Cross Central

From our earliest comments, KCAAC has demonstrated its enthusiasm for the principle of the regeneration of this site made possible by the Argent development. KXCAAC is however disappointed that following the initial consultation exercise ending in October 2004, in which we and so many other bodies expressed concern about the glorious industrial heritage of the Railways Lands, so little note had been taken in the revised proposals. Indeed, much practical and informed advice has been wholly ignored. KXCAAC is concerned that the unique heritage of this site, which despite the ravages of time and the recent CTRL works, is still so much intact, stands to be severely compromised and damaged by the Argent proposals. KXCAAC is convinced that without affecting the commercial viability of the site, the heritage buildings can be preserved and enhanced, as called for in the Planning Brief. Indeed we believe that, as has been demonstrated in P& O’s Regent Quarter site at Kings Cross, the heritage can make a major positive contribution to the economic viability of the scheme. In our submission we seek to demonstrate, by citing historical and recent precedent, and by practical sketch ideas, how this synthesis of new development with the heritage might be achieved in thoroughly modern and contemporary conservation approach. Argent have sought to make a success of this scheme by proposing a greatly over-scaled and mediocre environment, indistinguishable from large developments elsewhere. We argue that as much, indeed much more, may be gained by less development of a higher quality. In particular we demonstrate that, contrary to Argent’s insistence, the Culross and Stanley Buildings can be retained without any reduction in the social or commercial appeal or viability of the northern part of the site. KXCAAC calls for a much more rigorous interpretation of the Planning Brief in the treatment of the Canal, which risks having both its industrial heritage, and its secluded and unique character seriously damaged by Argent’s proposals to open it up as peripheral public space to their development, and to greatly overshadow it with large buildings to the south. Its role as a valuable natural habitat would be unsustainable. We also call for a more learned and sympathetic approach to the conservation of the Granary and other buildings to the north of the site, a unique record of the industrial and transport heritage, where Argent’s insensitive planning and excessive scale constitute a tragically missed opportunity to create a really high-quality urban environment, a community truly integrated into the surrounding districts. We also demonstrate an innovative and truly sensitive conservation approach to the reinstatement of the gasholders, citing an example from Dublin. Argent’s submission, comprising many bulky documents, purports to be thorough and methodical in its approach; sadly we believe that much of it is little more than empty presentation, and misleading and irrelevant evidence. KXCAAC is most certainly not against development of the Railway Lands, but does not believe it should be achieved at any cost. The right scheme needs the right approach, and we would encourage the Planning Committee to reject these proposals to allow more sensitive consideration, which will serve the local community past and future, and for generations to come.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.