Kings Cross Environment

Residents and businesses live packed in cheek by jowl in Kings Cross and we all need to stay good neighbours.  The Cross Kings on York way is right next to some high density housing and is annoying the neighbours again – waking people up in the early hours on weekdays.  The bar is by no means the Backpackers, its truly awful predecessor, but as it becomes more popular it is making noise late at night and causing a mess in the nearby gardens.  The smoking ban means more people are now out on the forecourt at night.  This has driven two residents to distraction.

"I was awoken from a deep sleep after midnight [on Wednesday night], caused by anti-social noise emitted from the Cross kings Public House…in the form of customers standing in the street pub forecourt, shouting jeering and screaming loudly over a long period of time after 2300hrs.  This continued for the next hour or more.  I tried calling the Cross kings Public House on their phone number, but received their answerphone instead."

"Only last Thursday night 12th July we had loud music that could be heard from 300 yards away and the forecourt was in use after 23.00hrs. As a result we had shouting and jeering.  A number of local residents have been to the premises to complain about the above but we have seen no change."

What worries me the most is that they are not getting what they regard as a satisfactory response from the Cross Kings management.  The premises supervisor should be present at all times and respond appropriately.

The Licensing Act makes it clear that residents can trigger a formal review of the licence of a premises that causes nuisance (such as noise) to look again at whether the licence should continue. Or whether new conditions should be imposed, such as security outside the bar in order to keep customers under control, or curtailing music performances.  The ghastly Backpackers had licence conditions that required a peak of 14 security guards.  If there are not best endeavours by the Cross Kings management to rectify these problems (such as bringing in a security guard voluntarily) perhaps it’s time to have a formal review.  The Council licensing department has been contacted let’s see what happens.  The Cross Kings Management are welcome to comment in reply here of course, as they have done in the past, so keep an eye on the comments.

In what some would see as a surprise development Islington Councillors stood up to developers and their own planning officials this evening to demand more affordable housing in the controversial Islington Triangle development.  A brilliant technically argued campaign on a very complex issue by the Cally Rail Group swayed Councillors into a clear five to one vote on the main issue. 

Cllr. Paul Convery in the chair showed an excellent grasp of detail and argument to cut through some hideously complex issues and get to the heart of the matter – there is not enough social housing in this development and the initial subsidies will eventually revert to the developer, not to a wider social housing organisation.  Argent the developers will have to come back with a better offer.  Paul Convery has posted a comment at this link which gives a technical read out on the result. I assume that this has a big knock on effect on the whole Kings Cross Railway Lands development.   Phil Jeffries of the Cally Rail Group summed it up nicely in the video below (email readers click here)

There will be a huge development near Randell’s Road where the railway people currently store building materials near the channel tunnel bridge over the east cost mainline.  A 17 storey building is planned.  A big proportion of the railway lands housing will be on the site. There has been a big barney in the past about the amount of affordable housing in the development.  It is going to a Committee as above at the Barnsbury centre on Offord Road – more info here . Diana Shelley has sent the following on behalf of the Cally Rail Group:

‘When Argent came back earlier this year with a revised proposal, we were pleased to see they had kept the same number of social rented units and increased their size,’ explained Phil Jeffries, co-convenor of the Cally Rail’s technical working group. ‘But they had changed the mix of so-called ‘intermediate’ housing and we believe 44 of these units don’t qualify as affordable housing under current government policy. Instead of having 40% affordable housing in the development, there would in fact be just 18%.’

The dispute hinges on whether Argent’s subsidy should go back to them as profit or be recycled for affordable housing.

‘Argent’s proposals are for short-term loans on these homes. If they are sold, that loan would be recycled for up to 15 years. After that, Argent simply pocket the profit. PPS3 says such subsidies should be recycled permanently into new affordable homes,’ added Phil Jeffries. ‘At a time of increasing housing need in Islington, it is vital that affordable housing stays affordable. Forty percent affordable homes on this development already falls short of what is needed—18% would be disastrous.’