Comments on planning app 2024/3019/P

Antony and Vicken Gormley:

We are writing to you as residents of Gasholders Building to express our concerns regarding the application for the proposed pavilion at Coal Drops Yard, and associated changes.

We understand that the shops are not doing particularly well, though the restaurants are usually fully booked.

It is our view that Argent has decided to go for an all-out change of style at CDY rather than carefully address the problems., i.e. completely change the feel of the place, going from thoughtfully chosen independents (some better than others), to much cheaper mass market shops and 'grab and go' food outlets. It feels as if they are happy to dump everything that has been done to make this a unique and special place up till now, in order to get maximum footfall and spend.

To us, it feels like now that Argent have sold almost all the residential units they can forget about the promises made to residents about what the area will feel like, and push ahead for maximum retail profit. A stunning historic architectural place has been sensitively restored and we think that this should be respected. We would suggest that there are many ways in which the Coal Drops Yard retailers could be helped to be more successful and the visitor and shopping experience could be improved with a light touch, without destroying the very beautiful yard, a unique space in London. For a start, many of the premises are in virtual darkness, set back under solid walkways. Improving signage and lighting or even moving some of the shopfronts forwards would help hugely. There are quite a few untenanted spaces already (and there will be more in the northern part of the estate soon), we suggest using these first, perhaps in a new way, couldn't they be divided and used by more and smaller retailers who would thereby be paying lower rents and be able to offer cheaper goods and catering to more people? There is ample opportunity for temporary setups, something between market and small shops. You could create a wonderful seating area, with planting (done so well across the estate) in the middle of the yard, for people to sit with a coffee, a book, a sandwich. The space, the feeling of space would be intact.

I (Vicken) went to the consultation meeting and it was clear that they are intending to bring in a lot of mass brands, fine and useful in their place but why replicate here what you have in every high street shopping centre these days? We are a short walk to the shopping centre at the Angel where there is already a Uniqlo and many mass market brands available. This seems to be a complete turn around on the part of Argent and represents a lack of imagination, a lazy solution in a place that deserves more. I presume the retail director has been brought in to do this job, he will move on afterwards but we will be left with something that feels sad and broken.

What the applicant has chosen to present as feedback from residents does not fit with what we have heard from local people we have spoken with, and is selective. Phrases such as 'many people think...' have been used a lot to say positive things, but they hardly touch on any of the concerns which have been voiced and dismiss them very quickly. For example it is a wonderful space for large scale dancing that happens, choral events, cycling events, the remaining yard is much smaller and tighter and not suitable for these things. They repeated say it is 'unused', or 'underused', this is not true, it's purpose is that it is space, the most precious thing in urban life, you can take it away and then it's gone forever.

We enjoy the many things the estate does to bring people in and provide fun and pleasure to so many. The fountains, for example are a wonderful thing for families, local and from far afield. In short, we object to the destruction of the beautiful, unusually shaped, historic space of the yard which would be brought about by situating something large, blocking and permanent in it. There are very few of these historic yards in London, thinking about Neal's Yard in it's heyday or perhaps Borough Market area now, where there is a special and historic atmosphere. We are so worried that this will be entirely lost if these plans go through, there seems to be a complete mis-match between the very special nature of the architecture of the yard and surrounding area and everything that has been achieved to make an outstanding development, where we are very happy and proud to live, - and the short sighted commercial intentions of the Argent team at the moment.


I wish to object to the pavilion proposed to be built within the existing central open area of Coal Drops Yard, King's Cross.

I believe that any permanent structure here, regardless of the design, would harm the setting of the historic coal drops and thus cause harm to designated heritage assets.

I see no public benefit whatsover that might be construed to offset such harm. The proposal is purely a commercial scheme to create more retail space. Indeed the filling in of the central space will deprive the the local community of a an existing flexible outdoor space, reducing the public benefit that was achieved in the original scheme.

This proposal should be refused, as a matter of principle.

Alec Forshaw IHBC, MRTPI

Bloomsbury resident


Charles Covell:

I was quite open-minded about this idea when I first heard about it but unfortunately this proposal seems to me to be inappropriate because it encroaches on the existing excellent redevelopment of this historically important set of buildings, listed Grade II. The space it intends to fill is important to the existing design and should be left open. There is no need to create ‘streets’ either side of the pavilion to enhance the retail experience, rather it will detract from it and create a confusing congested look not in keeping with the existing buildings. It will also diminish the impact of the graceful and remarkable roof design.


Ellie:

Dear Council,

I am writing to formally object to the planning application for a single-storey mixed-use pavilion within Coal Drops Yard. As a local resident whose apartment is approximately 5 meters from the proposed site, and having lived in this mixed-use development for over five years, I am deeply familiar with the area and its dynamics.

The existing development of nearby universities, offices, and retail units already brings a significant influx of visitors to the area daily. Coal Drops Yard currently strikes a delicate balance between its commercial and residential elements. However, there is growing concern among residents that this balance is being threatened by further commercial expansion, which seems to prioritize tourism and business over the needs of the local community. The area already experiences near-overcrowding levels, particularly in the summer months, when the noise and activity from late-night bars and restaurants become disruptive. The addition of this pavilion will likely exacerbate the situation, drawing even more visitors and further diminishing the quality of life for those of us who live here.

Furthermore, the location in question, in the middle strip of Coal Drops Yard, already suffers from limited sunlight and daylight. Additional development will only worsen this, creating cramped, overshadowed pedestrian spaces that run counter to the original pedestrian-friendly design of the Kings Cross area. This could lead to unsafe and uninviting public spaces, undermining the area’s reputation as a well-planned urban environment.

Another concern is the nature of the proposed mixed-use space. Without clear regulation, there is a risk of constant tenant turnover, which could destabilize the community and diminish the area’s character. Kings Cross and Coal Drops Yard are already highly developed, and further expansion threatens to overload the area’s capacity.

In summary, I believe that adding more retail units in this already saturated area is unnecessary and potentially harmful. Instead of further developing Kings Cross, I urge the council to consider investing in areas like Camden, which would benefit more from regeneration efforts.

Thank you for considering my objections.

Sincerely,

Ellie


I wish to object to the proposed development of further retail in the courtyard of coal drops yards

This development will result in a marked deterioration of the environment and a further closing in of open space for the many and growing number residents in the area

It is difficult to understand the motivation as there are already s number of vacant units in the Coal Drops Yards development (CDY) CDY encompasses beautiful historic buildings and this development will spoil the environment but creating a street market with the attendant mess and overcrowding

There is already a thriving food market in the Waitrose Court. The proposal for more permanent food outlets will erode their business which comprises individual traders and provides excellent high quality fare.

This application is a crass attempt by the owners to fill all open leisure space without regard to local residents

There is a distinct danger that CDY will become simply another soho. The new Google building and the ongoing building of office and residential accommodation will add a large number of additional people to the area. In the light of this open spaces should be protected and valued rather than further densified

Kind regards

SA Muller

Gasholders resident


Julie Poole

I am a local resident who has lived in Gasholders for 6 years and I know the area well. I object to the pavilion planning application because:

Architecture

This development would spoil the spirit of the area and compromise its architectural integrity. I fully concur with the other objections in this respect.

Civic space

It’s simply not true that the space is currently underused. It is a place where people spontaneously do their own thing, wander around, sit and relax there and where their children can run around safely. It is used for organised events like the salsa dancing, which now attracts several hundred people for several hours on a Wednesday night. And other events run by external parties as well as the lovely Christmas centrepieces.

This small open piece of land is already a valued and well used public amenity.

Retail

One of the best things about Kings Cross is that families and local communities come here with their picnics and can enjoy the area for free. I think that the presence of yet more grab and go food and beverage outlets will put them under pressure to spend money that they don’t have. There are already ample and thriving grab and go food and drink options in Canopy Market and Stable Street Market. There are so many retail units still standing empty. Some of them have been empty for years. Why can’t these be creatively reimagined rather than creating more units? Is it because Argent can make more money out of them? Existing retailers in CDY could be supported with better signage and lighting. Many are in darkness under the canopy and can’t be seen at all. There are other things to try before installing more units.

Deliveries

This is a major problem and the management of deliveries proposal in this bundle of documents is insufficient.

There has never been a service yard for Coal Drops Yard, and there is an ongoing and historical problem with deliveries to CDY that I have been complaining about since I moved here. Argent and Kings Cross Estates have promised a solution since 2018 but none has been forthcoming. Stable Street is closed to delivery vehicles after 10am, but the deliveries to and collections from the area continue day and night, and in particular vehicles servicing CDY and Stable Street Market do not stop. So those vehicles use Wollstonecraft Street, which is where the residential buildings and the school are. Many deliveries day and night 7 days a week already use that route, unloading/loading outside our building and going via LCS into CDY. For example, I’ve had articulated lorries parked outside my bedroom window at 1am loading and unloading for Samsung, we have market traders rattling past our flat with noisy trolleys for several hours into the night at weekends. I have politely asked that the market provide the traders with trolleys with soft quiet wheels, which Argent said they would action, but have not. Nothing has changed with regard to the delivery route because the estate seems unable to find a solution and adding further retail units to CDY will only exacerbate the problem.

There are also the dangers of delivery vehicles using the ramp to Granary Square. This already happens and is fraught with risk. We have seen drivers not driving with due care and attention in pedestrianised areas and not being guided by red caps at times when school children are walking nearby.

Isn’t it true also that Camden Council wants to restrict vehicular traffic to the area? The installation of the pavilion units will have the opposite effect.

Lewis Cubitt Square

If the space at the end of Coal Drops Yard were to be taken over by the pavilion, then many other events and spontaneous activities will be pushed into Lewis Cubitt Square, which is right in front of residents. This would make it unbearable for those residents next to the square. An example I shall give is the salsa dancing group.

It is now attended by several hundred people for several hours once a week. The music is loud and the crowd is loud. In the past it had some sessions in LCS, with far fewer participants, and the noise inside the flats was unbearable. I went to speak to the organisers and they ignored me and carried on. The estate has since insisted that the group use the space where the pavilion is to minimise the disturbance of residents. So where would the salsa group go? I am also concerned about fixtures like Club Curling that usually takes place for several months in CDY. The sound of the pucks ricocheting all day and night is just about bearable from CDY but if this were to be moved into LCS it would be intolerable. I wonder if Argent have given any thought to resolving this? If they have they haven’t told us, despite my having raised this with them.

The right of residents to enjoy their homes in peace and comfort In my experience this has been continuously overlooked by Argent. The estate has become rowdier as the years have gone on due to the consumption of alcohol. I think that the pavilion will attract more people who increasingly see the estate as a party destination and an extension of Camden high street. Argent seems to be preoccupied with creating vibrancy in the area. But not every experience in the estate needs to be turned into a party. It is already pretty vibrant. Visitors should be able to come here and enjoy the outside space in peace and comfort without the pressure to spend money and residents should be able to enjoy their homes without the intrusion of shouting and music.

I understand that the installation of extra music speakers is also being applied for. There is no need for extra speakers. Music already comes at visitors and residents from various sources, bars, shops, Argent PA system. The estate should have some areas that are free of piped music. There is value in nurturing quiet spaces, quiet is good for our well-being, especially in urban contexts when it is difficult for some communities to escape from noise.


Jennifer ellington:

Hi, I’m a resident of the area and it would be a shame to see beautiful open space get converted to permanent retail units. There is lots of retail space available in the area already. What we then don’t have is a space to host events and pop ups and concerts like we can today. The architectural design of Coal drops yard is also very unique and inviting. Lots of young families come on the weekends and appreciate that we have this little oasis in the middle of a busy city. I would hereby like to formally object to the new plans for a permanent retail outlet addition strip in the middle of CDY.

Thank you.


Jonathan Poole:

Although, there are other aspects of this planning application that I have concerns about, I am commenting on what I consider is the biggest single issue – deliveries and increased traffic to the estate.

As a resident on the estate for over six years I believe I am as well placed as Argent to have informed an opinion on how deliveries work currently on the estate, and how I anticipate them becoming worse as a consequence of having increased buildings to service.

1. Currently, deliveries for Coal Drops Yard go up and down stable street until 11am in the morning. Not all deliveries servicing coal drops yard are done during that time. Deliveries continue throughout the day and into the evening. As Stable Street is closed to vehicles, ALL traffic is directed to Wollstonecraft Street which, has two residential buildings and a school building facing onto it. Vehicles stop and park across two loading bays, either side of the loading bays by Gasholders and in front of the school entrance. For those living in one of the lower floor flats in Gasholders you could step onto the roof of the vehicles from your balcony.

As this is also where taxis come to pick up and drop off residents and customers of the local restaurants/bars, where deliveries are made to the residential buildings and where vehicles also come to the service area of Meta and Mare Street Market, this residential street is already overflowing with vehicles.

2. In this area, outside of school opening and closing hours, Kings Cross Estate tend not to take notice of vehicles, engines are left running and vehicles belonging to shops in Coal Drops Yard are often left parked in the loading bay all day, for example, most weeks, Botanical Boys will have a van parked there. Due to the numerous events Kings Cross put on, Granary Square can be full of parked vehicles as can the bays outside Gasholders for significant amounts of time. Furthermore events that have external 24 hour security tend to park their vehicles outside Gasholders all through the night while on duty, returning to their vehicles at unsociable hours, I assume for refreshment and rest.

3. Back to Coal Drops Yard and vehicles entering there during the morning. Interestingly every vehicle owned by the Kings Cross estate is accompanied by a walking guard when moving across the estate and amongst pedestrians. Presumably for health and safety reasons. The morning is a busy time, when pedestrians are coming in and out of the estate for work and children (some of them deaf) are going to school.

However, any commercial vehicle such as cars, vans and articulated lorries, are not accompanied and are free to drive in whatever manner they wish without supervision. At this time, the guards are situated at the foot of the bridge to welcome pedestrians into the estate. As an area that most people assume to be pedestrianized at all times, it’s already dangerous to have unsupervised vehicles driving through these areas.

This risk will only increase if the Pavilion plans were to go ahead.

4. Weekends sees the addition of Stable Street Market, a food market in the main, with temporary stall holders. Most of these stalls start operating after access via Stable Street is closed in the morning; and so throughout the day, vehicles that are parked in Wollstonecraft Street next to Gasholders for hours at a time, drop off and pick up products, and add to the noise and disruption in the residential area. This disruption is further enhanced by the noisy trolleys conveying stall holders’ goods being pulled back and forth across the front of residential buildings.

5. Outside of working hours, deliveries to Coal Drops Yard are not unusual and in the case of some, arrive after 11pm and can leave at 1am. These antisocial hours deliveries are unsupervised and unnoticed by the Kings Cross Estate. Engines are left running and vehicles often have lights continuously flashing (a safety requirement), and delivery drivers communicating loudly. This activity disrupts and impacts residents’ everyday living and sleeping.

The reality is, that the Kings Cross Estate is not fit for delivery purposes already, considering the number of vehicles that are entering and servicing the estate. They already overwhelm the access and parking routes and they disturb residents who should be recognized as an important aspect of this mixed used estate. It is highly likely that this disruption is going to increase further when the numerous empty retail units across the estate are eventually filled. And the idea that ‘grab and go’ retail units in the pavilion will have no impact on the estate is incomprehensible.


Anthony Sykes:

I am a resident of Gasholders and am writing to object to the application for a Pavilion in Coal Drops Yard.

My objection is in 6 parts.

1. The application is for flexible use which, if granted, will permit a wide range of activities to be conducted from the Pavilion, which can be changed in future without further planning consent from, for example, retail to restaurants and cafes. The application describes an intention to provide an “all-day offer, including in the early morning period, from 8am.”

The application is not clear on the precise mix of tenants but does envisage some restaurants/cafes as well as retail outlets. There are already several restaurants and cafes in Coal Drops Yard and the immediate vicinity (indeed the council recently granted a licence to Mare Street Market, a very large mixed-use operation).

These outlets, particularly those on the West side of CDY, already emit strong cooking smells into the passageway between the external walls of CDY and Gasholders. The addition of more restaurants/cafes in this vicinity is likely to result in a cumulatively harmful impact in an area which is close to where people live, including noise nuisance and cooking fumes.

2. The service and delivery plans are superficial. So far as I can see, there is no data provided on the volume and size of vehicles required to service the existing and proposed outlets.

The application asserts that "Deliveries and servicing will be carried out in line with the existing arrangements for the rest of the Yard (between 6am-10am) and this is considered to be in accordance with Policy A4 which seeks to protect the amenity of residents in relation to noise, as the proposals will not significantly alter this baseline level of servicing."

This implies that deliveries and servicing are currently realised during this time frame. That is not the case.

The restrictions on Stable Street’s opening hours mean that deliveries and services are already delivered via Wollstonecraft Street and from there across the front of Gasholders at all times of day and night causing significant disruption and noise nuisance to residents.

The extra retail/food outlets proposed in this application would increase the volume of traffic using this route to the detriment of residents. The application should be rejected pending a much more comprehensive analysis of the delivery and service plan which addresses this issue. As part of this analysis, the applicant should be required to provide full details of existing actual delivery and service schedules together with an estimate of the additional delivery and service requirements which will be generated by the extra units.

3. The applicant has not submitted a Noise Assessment. The applicant dismisses the possibility that the proposed development might have a harmful impact on the basis that “any sensitive receptors are at a significant distance from the proposals, such that there would be no impact, particularly given that any changes to baseline noise conditions of the Yard will be negligible as a result of the proposals”. It is not possible to make this assertion given that the application is for flexible use and the cursory nature of the delivery and servicing assessment. It is also not accurate to state that "any receptors are at a significant distance", given the proximity of the Gasholders. As a result, the risks of cumulatively harmful impact on nearby residents have not been given due consideration and the application should be rejected until a Noise Assessment has been submitted which takes into account all the possible uses to which this space might be put under the terms of the application submitted. Alternatively, the applicant should be required to apply for more limited uses where the potential for a cumulatively harmful impact can be assessed more readily.

4. Part 1 of the Design & Access Statement indicates new audio speakers along the external walls of the Eastern side of CDY, facing Granary Square. It is unclear why new audio speakers are required or how they relate to this application, although it is commonplace for retailers to deploy piped music to increase footfall and spending. However, if music was played through these speakers continuously through the day, it would result in a cumulatively harmful noise impact on residents and would be detrimental to the ambience of the area more generally. This feature of the proposed application should be rejected in all circumstances.

5. The council recently granted a licence to Mare Street Market, a very large multi-purpose operation located within a few meters of the entrance to Gasholders. The addition of more cafes and restaurants in CDY will have a cumulatively adverse impact on residents of Gasholders in terms of noise, cooking fumes and disturbance due to the additional delivery and servicing requirements which do not appear to have been given any serious consideration in the application.

6. The application asserts that: "The introduction of the Pavilion within the Yard is considered to significantlyimprove pedestrian routes and navigability through the Yard, creating an improved public realm and user experience." The Yard is easily navigable currently. The introduction of the Pavilion introduces complexity and detracts from a widely used and highly valued open space.

Anthony Sykes


joe McNulty:

we object to this proposal on the grounds of its impact on the grade 2 listed coal drops yard building . The proposed development will detract from the open nature of the main courtyard and spoil the views of and the setting of the amazing kissing roof structure


Freda and Zhan:

As residents of the close neighbourhood where the proposed development is set to take place, we wish to express our sincere and deep concerns regarding this proposal. We believe that this project will negatively impact our livability and quality of life in the area, and we respectfully urge you to reconsider the decision based on the following points:

1. Disruption of Essential Pathways

The proposed construction in the CDY central yard will irreversibly disrupt the primary pathway connecting Granary Square and Lewis Cubitt Square. This route is vital for accessibility and serves as the most efficient connection between these interlinked public spaces, allowing smooth movement without detours or unnecessary turns. This seamless flow is what currently makes the site unique and valuable, supporting large-scale events that enhance community life. Blocking this pathway would strip the site of its ability to host such events, diminishing its core character, which is highly valued by both residents and visitors.

2. Loss of Cultural Vitality

Contrary to the description of the CDY central yard as 'underused' in the planning proposal, this space is a vibrant hub of activity throughout the year. At present, for example, the site is hosting the "Summer Sounds" event, which has been enthusiastically embraced by both the community and visitors. These events foster cultural diversity and significantly enrich the area, contributing to its distinctive character. The proposed development would permanently remove a cherished venue for such activities, resulting in a profound loss to the cultural life of the community.

3. Loss of natural lighting

The proposed location for the new pavilion benefits from ample natural light, which is essential to the overall ambiance and livability of the estate. Constructing a large, roofed structure in this space would significantly reduce the natural light, casting shadows and potentially diminishing the quality of life for residents and users of the area.

We are proud of the current coal drops yard development as a historically, architecturally, and culturally valued site. We trust and continue to believe that the well-being of the community remains the top priority in your decision-making process.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.


Sarah:

I am a resident of Gasholders and formally object to this application.

The application is contrary to the existing space and design and should be left as is. Any addition will congest the area, increasing foot traffic to the detriment of residents and detract from the existing buildings.

The application calls for new audio speakers along the external walls of the Eastern side of CDY, facing Granary Square. If music was played through these speakers continuously through the day, this would be would be detrimental to the ambience of the area and on nearby residents.


John and Francoise Thornton:

We object to this application on the basis of loss of amenity, overdevelopment and out of character architecture.

The space in question which the developer seeks to fill is much used by the residents of the Kings Cross

Development as a whole together with employees of the very substantial office developments and a huge amount of daily and weekend visitors to the site. Filling it in this way will remove that amenity from all and thus be a very retrograde step.

It also represents overdevelopment encroaching as it does on the existing shop and restaurant buildings.

The architecture proposed is totally out of character with the existing buildings which were build in a manner that retain as much as possible the heritage and character of the area.

In short this is just an ill thought out and opportunistic attempt to increase revenue by the developer


Dear Edward Hodgson:

Although I am writing two days after the consultation period ended, I hope my comments will be taken into consideration.

I am a long-term permanent resident of Judd Street, south of the Euston Road; I was involved in the extensive public consultation about the former Railway lands, and have seen the “new” Kings Cross develop in so many positive ways over recent decades.

One of the key aspects of the KX masterplan was the focus on open space, which has been such a great success, is admired by millions, and makes Kings Cross Central (as it used to be called) “special” - not just another boring, mediocre, mixed use development. The density of residential blocks is offset by the sense of space which complements the wonderfully restored heritage assets.

It is completely inappropriate and incongruous to plop a Pavilion into the Coal Drops Yard open space. It was never part of the original Masterplan. I therefore object to this application on the grounds of poor urban design and harm to heritage.

It will be a shame that the benefits of masterplanning the extensive Railway Lands site will be completely undermined by such an unnecessary and intrusive structure.

Best Wishes

Debbie Radcliffe

Member of Bloomsbury CAAC


Please note my objection to the planning application for the following reasons:

* There are is already enough retail offer in the Yard and the local area generally. The existing units should be better utilised rather than making new ones.

* This is a well used and popular public space. The reduction in public open space in this popular and busy area would be detrimental to the amenity of the locality. The area is already very busy and needs some spaces of openness and solace rather than cramming in new retail units to make everywhere uncomfortably crowded.

* The space would be better used for increased greening and/ or trees. If the proposal is progressed then it should be altered to incorporate more innovative greening and trees.

Yours sincerely,

Rikki Weir


Dear Council,

As residents of the borough, we would like to add our voices to those strongly opposing the re-development of Coal Drops Yard. As the recent nomination for the Stirling Prize suggests, and as per re ent comments from Historic England substantiate, the Heatherwick development is a remarkable and unique achievement that has honored the historical site, demonstrated that architectural design can foster and create community spaces, and provided opportunities for economic and commercial activities. It is an achievement to be protected and celebrated rather than erased or disfigured.

The new plans are an affront to the values of design, community, and heritage. They seem to be premised on the pursuit of a short term commercial gain above any other consideration. It is an approach which treats the fabric of a city and a community with disdain. The Coal Drops yard we know today is only six years old, surely it does need need to be disposed of in the interest of building more anonymous and aesthetically impoverished food courts - of which we have plenty in Camden (not least by the docks) and in the capital more broadly and which also obstruct and disrupt the many other community uses to which this space currently serves.

Kind regards

Federica Bonacasa and Ivan Knapp


Please note the feelings of this occupant of Tapestry since 2016, my husband and many of my neighbours, as quoted towards the end of this article in The Observer last weekend.

Please preserve the current, much-loved space in the middle of Coal Drops Yard.

Many thanks in advance,

Jancis Robinson


Hello,

We write as frequent visitors to the Kings Cross Development of which Coal Drops yard is an important element. Long term North London residents, we like nothing better than to drop into Kings Cross by bicycle soaking up the varied and rich landscaping en route experiencing the restoration that this safe and beautiful open space provides. Argent award winning development has to be taken as a whole. To insert this dominant small building into the entrance/centre of Coal Drops Yard will destroy events which a rounded space encourages - now becoming something of a community and music hub. To insert an inappropriate large pavilion in this space this would be part of destroying the unique environment that Argent has been actively creating. Building this proposal would cause significant harm to the listed building setting and damage a beautifully designed open space. Surely the solution to inviting more traders lies elsewhere on the site, better designed and possibly temporary could be considered.

Helen


As long time residents of the KX development (Tapestry, Luma and now Capella) we are writing to object to the proposals to over-develop Coal Drops Yard.

I agree with the position outlined in the attached article. CDY has not been a commercial success because of a) the small size of many of the units and b) the choice of retail with its focus on extremely expensive offers. Instead of fixing these things, the developer has decided to wreck the Heatherwick design by cramming in cheaper offers.

Andrea and Robin Dahlberg


Dear Camden Council Planning Department,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing as a resident of the new King’s Cross development to share my views regarding the recent planning application for Coal Drops Yard.

While I truly appreciate Argent’s efforts to make the area economically viable and self- sustaining—particularly given the significant ground rent costs that residents are now facing due to the high number of vacant retail units—I have concerns about the current proposal.

In its current form, I believe the proposed development is architecturally sterile and out of context with the existing character of King’s Cross. The area’s charm and heritage should be better reflected in any new project.

Instead, I would recommend that Argent Limited reconsiders their holistic retail strategy. A shift towards more mid-tier shops, rather than the high-end, niche boutiques currently dominating the space, could make the area more attractive and accessible to both residents and visitors. The inclusion of Uniqlo is a positive step forward in this regard, and I believe further steps in this direction would benefit the area significantly.

Focusing on filling the current vacant locations should also be a priority.

Regarding the public consultation process, I would also like to suggest that these consultations be held over a longer period of time, with better advertising and more comprehensive information provided. For instance, this time, no details were included about the retail strategy for the development, which is a key concern for many of us.

Additionally, I feel it is important that consultations are scheduled during times when more people are likely to be available to participate. Greater transparency regarding the results of these consultations would also be highly appreciated by the local community.

Thank you for considering my feedback. I hope it will be taken into account as the planning process progresses.

Kind regards,

Nicola Bortignon


Hello, I am a resident at Luma House, 6 Lewis Cubitt Walk, N1C 4DT and am reading with frustration the news about the plans to destroy Coal Drops Yard to create a new accessible retail centre.

I vehemently oppose the proposal and urge you not to see it through.

Even if CDY is not a commercial success, I believe there are ways to bring some more accessible retail into the structure, rather than destroy it altogether. I also understand the need for affordable grab-and-go food for office workers in the area; again, there are ways to bring such merchants into CDY without taking it apart.

If the council is worried about "dead space" in CDY, I will add that it has been a bustling spot for community events and concerts, which my friends and family travel in from other boroughs to attend (and, as a result, eat/drink/shop in the area).

What has turned King's Cross into such a wonderful and bustling area in recent years - throughout the year, not just the summer - is the amount of open space and community events.

The reason my family bought a flat at Luma House was also the proximity to Heatherwick's Coal Drops Yard. If this proposal and plan go through, it will affect our decision - and, from conversations with other King's Cross residents - to keep this flat and stay in this area. I have also long suggested to my friends that they buy property/ visit here; that will change if this plan goes through.

Thank you for your time,

Alex