%0 Generic
%A Kings Cross Conservation Area Advisory Committee (KXCAAC)
%C London, UK
%D 2005
%F discovery:10206612
%I Kings Cross Conservation Area Advisory Committee (KXCAAC)
%T Respecting the Railwaylands: KXCAAC reconsiders Kings Cross Central
%U https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10206612/
%X 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.
%Z This version is the version of record. For information on re-use, please refer to the publisher’s terms and conditions.