Meeting 7 – Thursday 25 September– Friends Meeting House (Chair – Satnam Gill)

Number of attendees: 31

Issue / Action

Terms of Reference

·  Reference to Islington groups in 7.6 should read at least one Islington organisation.
·  Agreed invitation to Councillors should be to local ward Councillors only and that Councillors would not be able vote.
·  Terms of Reference agreed
Feedback from Workgroups (around draft Planning Brief)
Training and jobs:
·  need to define the local area to measure benefits, so look at the innermost wards and then a second “ring”
·  note the current CTRL Construction Training Centre being opened at the end of the year – how many local jobs in the CTRL project?
·  15% local jobs is too low a target in the brief –needs to be higher
·  should be a wide range of jobs- not just construction. There needs to be career ladders and meet aspirations
·  add women to para 2.8.5 in the brief
·  German Gym and Stanley Buildings could be training, adult education and youth centres
·  Broaden aspirations and preparedness to schools – needs committed funding
Heritage – design and open spaces
·  There was approval for the gas holder proposals in terms of new site, priority given to them but concern that housing would not set them off well and that a less obvious use such as a biosphere would be preferable.
·  Concern expressed about the term viable reuse of heritage buildings. In general felt that there was not sufficient sense of how robust Camden would be in defending such buildings.
·  Some acceptance that some existing buildings would go, therefore it was felt that there needed to be some way of communicating the priorities, which would be fought hard for which were more open to compromise (above and beyond the obvious difference between grade I and II listings).
·  Felt that the heritage buildings should be used to enhance a sense of entry into the Capital, perhaps offering a taste of what's there, maybe a series of small display spaces for other institutions/museums. There should be a sense of event and of arrival, therefore by implication, a sense that this is very much a part of London.
·  Linked to this - although we recognise that local people would want a retail offer such as a supermarket - we did not want to see another bog standard high street full of chains but would like to see artists quarters and related displays.
·  Wanted to see open spaces making sense - in terms of their offer and location, with the open spaces that already exist in Camden and Islington, so that they compliment one another. A concern that the required hectare of open space may simply be satisfied by the boulevard which would not be acceptable. Finally it was felt that the public spaces that are shown in ASGs plans show much hard landscaping but insufficient planting.
·  Routes through the site appeared to be based on hope rather than likely desire of users - what would draw anyone beyond the granary to the NE of the site?
·  Last - we wanted to state that although these were the comments made in the time given, there was much more that members of the groups would want to take up in the course of the consultation process - i.e. these are far from the only constructive criticisms of the brief.
Transport:
·  No rat runs
·  Limit traffic on Copenhagen Street
·  Form north and western links
·  Open North London Line Station
·  The Tram should go through the site – with guided bus as a cheaper fallback option
Community facilities and housing:
·  Existing projects on the site need to be protected – e.g. the youth project currently using the arches. They need to be allowed to carry on using the same space or found a suitable alternative. This should be added to the Planning Brief
·  In 2.12.3 the wording for the list of facilities must be changed to include ‘should’ rather than ‘may’.
·  Community centre and places of worship should not necessarily be linked – the brief could make 2 separate points. Can the Planning Brief specifically mention the need for a Mosque?
·  Include secular places of worship/quiet places
·  Consider using the term cultural centre as opposed to community – it is more reflective of modern times.
·  Planning Brief should stipulate that community or cultural centres should specifically include office space/facilities for community groups/voluntary groups.
·  The community facilities should be accessible for the elderly and also provide for their needs specifically.
·  The Planning Brief should refer specifically to who will manage the facilities. Some facilities must be affordable. Suggest the idea that local communities take a part in the running of community/cultural facilities.
·  Health centres and community/cultural centres/ housing should all be linked
·  2.12.3 Enhanced facilities on the canal for everyone, rather than just canal users
·  Define the extra internal space needed in high density family housing – the current wording in the Planning Brief is too vague
·  Concern at the possibility of housing at 6 stories or more.
·  No tall buildings or housing on the Islington Triangle
·  Do not demolish Stanley and Culross buildings
·  Careful management of the elderly sheltered housing

Any other business

·  Bob West explained that people can respond to the draft Planning Brief as individuals, as part of community group or as the Forum. Deadline for responses in Monday November 10.
·  Bob West offered that the King’s Cross Team would be happy to visit group meetings to help with discussions about the Planning Brief
·  Some members of the Forum felt that the workshops were unorganised and unfacilitated and that they would like to try a forum where everyone discussed issues in an open session.
·  Note the following meetings
·  CCCU Community Safety Convention on 4th October
·  Railway Lands Group meeting on the Planning Brief from 1- 5pm on 11 October
·  Bob West mentioned that the King’s Cross Team could arrange for Argent St George to attend the King’s Cross Development Forum at an appropriate time
·  Voting for members of the KXDF co-ordinating group to be held at the next meeting on 16/10/03. It has been agreed that representatives from CCCU, KX Brunswick Neighbourhood Association, Islington community group, King’s Cross Community development Trust, King’s Cross Railway lands group and at least 2 representatives from minority ethnic organisations should sit on the Co-ordinating group. Nominations should be sent to either Satnam Gill (contact 0207 387 2037 ext 247 or ) or Sarah Crow (0207 974 6024 or ).
·  KX team to research the use of South Kilburn Community Consultants
·  The draft Planning Brief for the Islington Triangle will be out for public consultation shortly. Copies will be distributed to members of the Forum.
·  Angela Inglis will be conducting a survey of Forum members to ask their views on the future of the Gasholders. / KX Team
Alan Mace, KX team

Items for the agenda at the next meeting

·  Michael Parkes working on behalf of Railway Lands Group/CCCU to present a critique of the draft Planning Brief.
·  Railway Lands group to feedback from their consultation on the draft Planning Brief
·  Open discussion on the draft Planning Brief
·  Way forward – how the forum should respond to the draft Planning Brief.

Next meeting

·  Thursday 16 October – committee room 2, Camden Town Hall, Judd Street, 6.30 – 9pm (please note earlier start time due to a very full agenda)
Further meetings
·  Thursday 27 November

For more information contact the King’s Cross team on 020 7974 5009/2565 or email

Produced by Camden’s King’s Cross Team