TY  - GEN
CY  - London, UK
A1  - Kings Cross Conservation Area Advisory Committee (KXCAAC)
N2  - 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.
ID  - discovery10206612
PB  - Kings Cross Conservation Area Advisory Committee (KXCAAC)
UR  - https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10206612/
N1  - This version is the version of record. For information on re-use, please refer to the publisher?s terms and conditions.
TI  - Respecting the Railwaylands: KXCAAC reconsiders Kings Cross Central
AV  - public
Y1  - 2005/11//
EP  - 65
ER  -