If you live in Islington, you can support this campaign by responding to the London Borough of Islington Core Strategy Consultation. It’s quite easy, just Download core_strategy_response_template.doc, then rejig it in your own words, delete anything you don’t agree with and then email it to LB Islington with your name and full address – by 3 November. Sorry for the lack of notice – it’s taken quite a bit to get my head around this one!
Emily Thornberry MP has written twice to the Department for Transport in support of the much needed bridge giving east/west access across the rear of King’s Cross Station. Unfortunately, the Government is not listening, see Lord_Adonis_reply.pdf
(We will be challenging the Government on their view that access to the country’s largest overland international transport hub is a local issue over which they should not intervene, so watch this space on that one.)
Emily has written a number of letters to Camden Council and Network Rail as well (see list below). Emily and Frank Dobson objected to the granting of planning permission for the station because of this issue. Emily met with Network rail on the 16th April 2007 to convey her concerns and those of her constituents about the access arrangements at King’s Cross.
• January 2007 Emily wrote to Camden and Network Rail raising concerns about the plans.
• March 2007 Emily wrote to the Development Control Committee at Camden Council to object to the access arrangements and drew the council’s attention to a petition signed by local residents.
• August 2007 Emily wrote to Camden Council to follow up the 106 agreement arrangements.
Emily wrote to Network Rail following her meeting to reiterate a number of concerns with the King’s Cross development including the access arrangements.
Copies of this correspondence are available to constituents from Emily’s office. Make sure you include your full postal address in your email as Emily can only respond to her own constitutents.
(We will be asking Emily to take further action over this vital cross-borough issue of strategic importance to London…)
The campaign to Open Up King’s Cross Station and Let Us Through! has had a makeover. At our first campaign organisers meeting this week, we named ourselves the Battlebridge Crossing Campaign. Hope you like the new moniker and banner heading for this site.
The Mayor’s Director of Transport Policy, Kulveer Ranger, has written to the King’s Cross Railway Lands Group on 8 October saying “…these changes are brought about as a result of measures implemented by Network Rail and I consider it appropriate that they should fund the proposed footbridge.
Both I, and Transport for London (TfL), will do all we can within our powers to make this happen.”
Michael Edwards, co-chair of KXRLG replied saying:
Dear Mr Ranger
I am glad for this reply and its positive tone. “All we can within our powers” is s substantial promise, coming from you!
As so often in transport planning, something comes about because of one agent’s actions, but the costs and benefits are spread more widely. Camden as local (parochial, really) planning authority made a major mistake in letting this scheme go through without the bridge as an integral part of it. And it thus does fall to TfL and GLA to ensure the right outcome.
Best wishes, Michael Edwards (co-chair KXRLG email@example.com)
The full letter from City Hall read: On 8 Oct 2008, at 15:04, Mayor of London wrote:
Dear Mr Edwards
Thank you for your email. I can confirm that I am not complacent regarding this matter. However, these changes are brought about as a result of measures implemented by Network Rail and I consider it appropriate that they should fund the proposed footbridge.
Both I, and Transport for London (TfL), will do all we can within our powers to make this happen.
Thank you again for writing.
Director for Transport Policy
In response to Ian Fry’s letter: Download ian_fry_letter.pdf, here is our reply:
Director, King’s Cross Redevelopment Programme
344-354 Grays Inn Road
7 October 2008
Many thanks for your letter of 20 August and apologies for my delay in replying. Whilst I very much appreciate your taking the time to write to me, I feel I need to raise some rather important points as a result.
Paragraph 2: I understand we agree that the Arup feasibility study doesn’t address the bridge the community is calling for; namely a bridge crossing the tracks at the north-eastern end of the station. The bridge would replace the road bridge built in 1872 and demolished during World War 1 with a pedestrian and cycle bridge. It would have no access to platforms; carrying station users externally from one side to the other creating a faster, safer and simpler walking and cycle route to the King’s Cross/St Pancras transport hub and the new King’s Cross Central Boulevard. I further understand that is LB Camden’s responsibility and not Network Rail’s that it fails in this. It is however extremely frustrating that in response to queries from politicians and the press about the pedestrian and cycle bridge the community is calling for, Network Rail continues to refer to the Arup study. This gives the impression that the bridge would not be feasible. I attach a recent answer given to a Parliamentary Question as an example. It would be very helpful if Network Rail would correct this impression and cease to refer to the Arup study in relation to the campaign for a bridge.
Paragraph 5: As a regular user of train services from King’s Cross to Yorkshire and Scotland, I understand the importance of Platform Y to our rail system and welcome the foresight being shown in constructing it. However, Network Rail is removing a centuries old east/west route of growing importance to the King’s Cross and Somers Town communities in order to build the revenue generating Platform Y. Network Rail should therefore be obliged to provide us with a replacement. This should be by Network Rail either alone or in a partnership led by Network Rail comprising statutory bodies and property developers. The community is not asking for a new facility in pressing for this bridge; we are calling for an amenity we have enjoyed for a very long time to be maintained.
Paragraph 6: The new square and improvements to York Way are very welcome and are improvements of the type to be expected under S106 resulting from a major development. These improvements are separate from the preservation of east/west access. Again, it is frustrating that Network Rail continues to quote these improvements as alternatives to east/west access and it would be helpful if Network Rail would be more precise when mentioning them rather than giving what could be a misleading impression.
Paragraph 7: I find it very difficult to understand why, when Network Rail states it aims to take into account the needs of the community, it refuses to fund the bridge the community desperately needs – particularly when the cost of the bridge is estimated at less than 2% of station redevelopment cost. I can see why Network Rail might want to create and lead a partnership to fund and deliver the bridge as St Pancras International and Transport for London would also benefit from its construction. But total refusal to positively engage with the project appears perverse. The tours for local residents are great and were suggested by Will Perrin; they are a good example of how Network Rail can work positively with our community. Network Rail’s corporate community investment is also very welcome and we would ask that you work with experts in this field such as the Charities Aid Foundation and National Council for Voluntary Organisations, as well as local experts such as Camden and Islington Councils for Voluntary Service to get the best out of it.
Paragraph 8: Community engagement is a vital element of the change process in major developments such as King’s Cross. The change management and community development professions are generally overlooked by developers. The tendency is to take a minimalist approach, putting a limited amount of information out, undertaking only those consultation processes required by statute and pacifying rather than engaging with differences of opinion. My recent experience seems to point to Network Rail being rather inexperienced in the field of change management in the context of community development. I remain hopeful that past mistakes such as meetings promised and never taking place, minimal information provided and only in the station, engagement being seen as a one-way street with debate being viewed as a negative rather than a potentially highly positive input to station redevelopment will decrease in the coming months. I am also keen to work with Network Rail to ensure the outcomes achieved as a result of the station redevelopment are as far-reaching as possible. It would be a terrible shame if a narrow, solely economically driven agenda were to continue to drive this construction programme. Taking a sustainable development approach in line with the aims of Network Rail’s Corporate Social Responsibility Committee would achieve so much more not only for King’s Cross, but for all of the redevelopment projects Network Rail is now undertaking across the country.
I look forward to your comments on the above points.
What makes St Pancras International great? Find out at this free week long drawing festival.
The success of St Pancras station continues with its next event for all station users whether they be passengers or not. Leaflets publicising the Big Draw have been distributed throughout the community on both sides of the station. It’s lovely to be included, to have a sense of being invited into what is both one of our local stations and an international transport hub. Network Rail please take note – redevelopment of King’s Cross Station is much needed and the plan for the new Western Concourse looks stunning, but please don’t shut the local community out.
Meanwhile, it’s sad to see the Handyside Bridge inside King’s Cross covered in scaffolding whilst being dismantled. This famous bridge appeared in the Harry Potter films and was until a couple of weeks ago a big tourist destination with cameras snapping fans standing on and under it. Removal of the bridge results in the last vestige of the centuries old east/west route at the mid point of what is now the station being lost.
The entrance to King’s Cross at the junction of Wharfdale Road and York Way remains open for the time being. It is the entrance the community desperately wants to keep. It’s really come into its own this week with the opening of King’s Place as it is the most convenient for anyone visiting the fantastic new music venue, gallery, restaurant, bar and canalside terrace.
Network Rail have moved into King’s Place, The Guardian is in the process of moving in. The north eastern entrance to King’s Cross at Wharfdale Road is becoming ever more important. It has brought a wry smile to my face seeing Network Rail staff are now using the Wharfdale Road entrance to get to their workplace.
Please do sign the petition and if possible, ask your friends, family and colleagues to do the same.
If you have news about the campaign for access to King’s Cross Station do contact us and we’ll post it up on this blog. If you have an hour to spare and can help by handing out leaflets at the Wharfdale Road entrance or outside King’s Place contact us and will get you a stock of leaflets.