Planning, Politics and City-Making

A Case Study of King's Cross

Peter Bishop, Lesley Williams

• Publisher: RIBA Publishing
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781000701623
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Architecture General

Whilst there is extensive literature analysing the design and function of new buildings and places, the actual process through which development proposals are actually fashioned – through complex negotiation and deal making, involving many different stakeholders with different agendas – is largely undocumented. Conventional planning theory tends to assume a logical, rational and linear decision-making process, which bears little relationship to reality. This book aims to shed some light on that reality. The King's Cross scheme is one of the largest and most complex developments taking place in Britain today. The planning negotiations, which took six years, were probably some of the most exhaustive debates around a development ever. A report of over 600 pages of technical information was eventually presented to the committee, and after two evenings and ten hours of presentations and debate, the committee approved the scheme by just two votes.

1.
Introduction

Physicists have calculated that dark energy and dark matter constitute 95.1 per cent of the known Universe.¹ They cannot be observed, but their existence can be deduced through their effect on the 4.9 per cent of the Universe that we can see and measure.² There is a striking analogy here with the cities and places that we inhabit. They are physical and material; we can see them, use them, walk through and live in them. We can debate their qualities and theorise about them. We can deduce that they came into existence through, and are held in place by, other forces. However, these forces are usually invisible and are very difficult to measure. The dark energy that lies beneath the surface of our cities, creating, adapting, destroying and renewing them, is in the broadest sense, politics; the individuals, communities and organisations that work together (or against each other) to shape the places in which we live and work. This book aims to explore this world and to throw some light on the unseen forces that drive urban change, through a detailed analysis of the way in which one development – King’s Cross – was achieved.

The King’s Cross scheme is one of the largest and most complex developments taking place in Britain today. It covers 27 hectares of land to the rear of King’s Cross station at the northern edge of Central London (Figure 1.1), and is being developed by the King’s Cross Central Limited Partnership (KCCP). The planning negotiations, which started in 2000 and took six years, were probably some of the most exhaustive debates ever over a development. During this period, over 30,000 people were consulted by Camden council and Argent. A report of over 600 pages of technical information was eventually presented to a committee at Camden council. After two evenings and 10 hours of presentations and debate, the committee approved the scheme by just two votes.

There is extensive architectural and planning literature analysing the design and function of new buildings and places. However, the process through which development proposals are actually fashioned is largely undocumented and poorly understood outside a small professional and technical cohort. This complex negotiation and deal-making often involves many different stakeholders with different agendas. Conventional planning theory tends to assume a logical, rational and linear decision-making process. This bears little relationship to reality. This book aims to shed some light on that reality. It offers an insight into a little understood but much maligned process that shapes the cities in which we live. It is not a book on the dry process of planning procedures and policy. It focuses on how the city is contested, how commercial negotiations are carried out,

“The planning negotiations, which started in 2000 and took six years, were probably some of the most exhaustive debates ever over a development.”

Figure 1.1: King’s Cross location.

and how deals are made. King’s Cross is now attracting considerable attention both in the UK and internationally, and there is interest in how to replicate its successes.

Many individuals have contributed to this book and some of the key players have generously opened up their files and records so that different perspectives on the negotiations could be examined. The authors were given access to information on the negotiation strategies, financial calculations and bottom line assessments of the council and the developer. This allowed us to explore, in retrospect, what each side believed the opposing parties were doing and how they adjusted their strategies accordingly. It is very unusual for this to happen and we would like to record our thanks to all the individuals and organisations concerned (a full list of acknowledgements is given on p.v). The King’s Cross development was a colossal project, and a team effort undertaken by many individuals. Consequently, we only refer to individuals by name where they are quoted directly, or where their involvement was personal and distinct from that of their organisations.

Writing the book has presented a number of challenges. It is based on interviews with 40 individuals and they have approved their separate contributions. As far as possible we have also tried to verify these through paper records and personal diaries. Despite every attempt to check for accuracy, in view of the complexity of the process and the number of different perspectives represented, errors may remain, for which we take full responsibility and apologise. As is inevitable with events that took place over a decade ago, memories fade and there were also differences in the way in which the parties involved recalled and interpreted the events. Where this has occurred we have endeavoured to provide a perspective by setting out the different views.

The book was also written with the benefit of both hindsight and a wider perspective than was available at the time. Negotiations are, by their nature, complicated and often muddled. It is quite normal for parties to take different interpretations of events away from the same meeting. As in any set of events, it is common for relatively trivial events to dominate attention or derail a process. Consequently, the issues may appear clearer now than was apparent at the time. This book does not pretend to provide a comprehensive assessment of all the arguments put forward by all the stakeholders at different junctures. We have, however, sought to identify and analyse the key issues.

Development on this scale is always contentious. There was opposition to the scheme from some in the surrounding communities, which found focus through the King’s Cross Railway Lands Group (KXRLG). Theirs was an

“Negotiations are, by their nature, complicated and often muddled. It is quite normal for parties to take different interpretations of events away from the same meeting.”

important voice in the debate. Unfortunately, some of the prominent members of this group were not willing to be interviewed for this book, but we would like to thank Michael Edwards for providing us with background information on the campaign and its objectives.

While we have sought to present a balanced and objective view on the King’s Cross development, it must be stated clearly that Peter Bishop, one of the authors, was director of environment at Camden council and a key protagonist in negotiations from 2000 to 2006. Some bias is therefore unavoidable. Where possible, his co-author sought to challenge his account of events, but as she had no involvement in the project, assessing objectivity was not always straightforward. Peter Bishop’s involvement in the project ceased when he left Camden council at the end of 2006, and Chapter 8, on events since the granting of planning approval, is based entirely on interviews.

The scope and structure of the book also presented challenges. The development of King’s Cross was dependent upon a number of key rail infrastructure projects. While we wanted to avoid excessive detail on these, it was necessary to provide sufficient background to place the development of the railway lands in context, particularly where these projects impacted on the scheme. Similarly, it has been necessary to provide sufficient background on the UK planning system to enable those unfamiliar with it to follow the narrative, but without disturbing the flow or inducing sleep. Where possible, such background is provided as boxed text, which the informed reader can avoid. The majority of events in the book took place between 2000, when Argent was appointed as the King’s Cross developer, and the end of 2006 when planning permission was granted for the scheme. However, the negotiations are more easily understood with some knowledge of the history of the site, the area and Camden council, the local authority. We cover those aspects of history that had a significant bearing on development proposals, those which set the context for Camden council’s planning and social inclusion policies at the time, and those which influenced the attitudes and beliefs of the key councillors who would make the decision on the planning application.

As far as possible, we have structured the book chronologically, but there are exceptions to this. Although the evolution of the physical masterplan and the consultation processes with local communities took place throughout the period of negotiation, both justified separate treatment in order to provide clear analysis and evaluation. To clarify this complex process, we have provided timelines at the beginning of this book.

It is too early to judge the success of the King’s Cross development, which is still under construction at the time of writing. Future generations will do this in due course.

Peter Bishop and Lesley Williams, January 2016

2.
The Planning and Development Process

Planning may proclaim to be a technical process, but in practice this is rarely the case. The British planning system is based on a set of broad policy frameworks within which development consents are negotiated. It involves people and powerful interest groups with different agendas and tends in reality to be subjective, unstructured and intuitive. But sometimes it can find bespoke solutions that are considerably better than rigidly applied zoning codes or land use allocation plans.

Figure 2.1: The complex stakeholder networks involved in the design of one open space in London.

It is a common misconception that new urban areas owe their existence to individual agents, whether the planner, the architect or the developer. In a democracy, power is diffused between multiple stakeholders – landowners, government bodies, politicians, technical experts, community and interest groups, individuals and development companies. Planners, architects and their clients have to be able to navigate this complexity, and if possible, broker agreements. Figure 2.1 was produced by Design for London¹ to illustrate the number of different stakeholders that might be involved in the design and construction of one piece of new open space in London. It is not meant to be easy to understand. It is complex, but occasionally if one can find a path through this complexity, put the right people together and understand how different agendas can be reconciled, change can happen. And sometimes this can be beneficial. Planning is not just about control and regulation; it is about brokering agreements and making deals.

The UK Planning System

The criteria for deciding whether or not to give consent to a development proposal are pretty clear. Broadly, there are two questions that need to be addressed. First, does it comply with the policies set out in the approved local plan (the Local Development Framework) and second, would it harm the character and amenity of its immediate neighbourhood or the wider area? Subject to these two basic questions, there is a presumption in planning law that planning consent should be granted unless there are clear grounds to the contrary. Although economic viability will almost certainly be raised in the course of negotiations, the question of whether the developer is going to make a large profit should not come into the question.

While the criteria for determining a planning application may seem straightforward, their interpretation and application are not. The British planning system is long established, much reformed and, because consent can bestow a huge increase to the value of the land, is highly contested (for a brief summary of the English planning system, see textbox on pp.10–11). The system dates from the 1940s² as a response to the economic conditions in the immediate aftermath of the war. It was designed to manage competing social and economic needs within a small, congested, but essentially pluralistic island. Effectively, the Planning Act removed – basically nationalised – many of the rights of the landowner concerning how they might use and develop their land. The process of consenting development, and therefore restoring development rights back to the landowner, was vested in elected politicians and planning professionals. These decision-making powers are constrained by the law. Decisions have to be reasonable and based on an agreed plan that itself has been subject to public scrutiny.

The system’s fundamental purpose is to manage competing social, economic and environmental interests. This puts planning into an inherently political arena. Under the British planning system, notwithstanding what is said in a statutory plan, each application has to be considered on its own merits, in other words, negotiated. This is different from many other planning systems in the world where planning and land use zoning can be quite specific. It can produce very good bespoke developments when it works, and delays and frustrations when it does not. The safeguard in the...