Annexe proposal ignores needs of our community

• CAMDEN Council’s plan to relocate the Argyle offices to a place opposite the entrance to St Pancras International on the new King’s Cross Central site shows no understanding of the needs of the local community, or indeed of the people who work for the council on the Argyle site.
The present building, although rather hideous on the outside, has ample space inside for office workers with views from the windows which are hard to improve on anywhere in London. The area that surrounds the Argyle office on the southern side has been restored, much of it by the council and on the northern side of the Argyle building the offices look out onto St Pancras Chambers and onto King’s Cross Station.
A skyscraper here, which would inevitably happen if the site is sold off, would be completely out of place in this conservation area.
The present building does not interfere with the wonderfully designed buildings around it and has, indeed, become part of the King’s Cross townscape, and certainly it should be kept as an example of 20th-century architecture. The cleaning of it for the opening of St Pancras has restored its character and its contribution to the urban context.
The suggested new site is not convenient for the public it serves. The library in the present building is much loved and used and is very accessible. In the new building would be quite a walk from the southern side of Euston Road, and people from Somers Town would have to cross underneath the huge railway bridge to get to it. Secondly there will be no housing close to this new building, so no community to use it where it is. At the moment people from Somers Town can catch the 46 and 214 buses which stop almost opposite the Argyle Street site. The lure of a swimming pool is a poor one as there is to be a swimming pool anyway on the King’s Cross Central site and it does not have to be in the council offices.
During this credit crunch it is particularly insane to sell off the Argyle building. The council should keep what it has “in the house” and improve the facilities in the old building.
It has ample room for its workers whereas the new building would not. It is also makes no sense whatever to decentralise services by separating these offices from the town hall, this can only lead to increased staffing and be to the detriment of the way in which the council communicates between its own offices and with the public at large. It is time for the council to think of the community rather than prestige and financial gain.
There has been no local consultation about these plans. It has been presented as a ‘fait accompli’.
ANGELA INGLIS & ANTHONY DELARUE
King’s Cross Conservation Area Advisory Committee

Let’s debate this sale

• I WOULD like to support Jonathan Simpson’s comments (Forum, December 10).
Having followed the Town Hall Annexe saga for quite a while now, I have been surprised by how the only dissenting voices in the council have been the King’s Cross ward councillors, who really have been representing the views of the local community.
Even if one ignores the feedback from local consultation, the commercial wisdom of selling the annexe site now is at best very debatable, but there has simply been no discussion, at least in public. Commercial property has fallen 45 per cent on average over the last few years, and the few sellers around are forced ones.
Even they would do their utmost to avoid disposing of a strategic site without either planning brief or consent. For some reason the executive think they can outsmart developers and simultaneously defy the laws of occupation. They boast that they are “selling high and buying low”, and think they can swap the unloved annexe for “modern, sustainable energy efficient green accommodation” with cashback too (£1.34million revenue over 25 years).
Furthermore they can avoid “substantial capital liabilities and increased revenue costs”, so it’s not surprising they sound so smug as they all press the “sell” button. The reality is somewhat different: buildings are not like mobile phones on a contract where you simply discard your old handset for a shiny new one with more features for no apparent cost.
Our built environment is not an extension of disposable consumerism, and the belief that it is makes the executive look naive. The existing annexe was custom-built for the council just 30 or so years ago and, like every building, it needs maintenance. It is simply not possible to occupy anything without dilapidations and depreciation, and the idea that we just throw away a perfectly good (although not the most beautiful) building because it needs some attention is hardly the sustainable/green approach the council usually advocates.
Public facilities need to be kept under review and adapted to meet the demands placed upon them. However, the annexe is next to the civic town hall and infrastructure, where it should be, and it deserves better consideration than it has been given. So do those who live and work in its shadow.
BILL REED
Chairman, Friends of Argyle Square, WC1

Soulless!

• YOUR editorial on the decision by the Lib Dems who run Camden to flog the Town Hall to the highest bidder hits the nail on the head (December 10).
What is currently a residential area with brown stone mansion blocks is now ever more likely to be dominated by soulless skyscrapers.
Their refusal to curtail the inevitable excesses of a private developer will now give the green light to even bigger buildings. Our community will become dominated by ugly buildings similar central Croydon. Our Labour councillor expresses the concerns of the area well. At least some people are speaking sense on this issue.
DAVID BURSTON
Judd Street, WC1

Cutting waste, improving efficiency, is administration’s priority

• JONATHAN Simpson’s piece on Camden Council’s office buildings (Forum, December 10) asks why the council wants to spend millions “kitting out new swanky new offices”?
The simple answer is: we don’t. In these tough times Camden residents rightly want to see scarce funds spent on front-line services. Cutting waste and making the council more efficient is top priority for this administration – we’ve already saved Camden taxpayers tens of millions of pounds and frozen council tax three years out of four.
Our decision to sell the Town Hall Annexe office building on Argyle Street is driven by the same logic. The building is home to the council’s bureaucracy and “back of house” staff.
It faces an urgent £15million repair bill, plus the cost of temporary offices. Over the next 25 years the total bill rises to £77million. So doing nothing was never an option.
From the outset we have been committed that the whole project would be delivered at no additional cost to Camden’s taxpayers. This is exactly what we are doing.
We are selling a worn-out office building that’s expensive to run and buying a modern office building less than 500 metres away by St Pancras Station in the King’s Cross development site.
The new building will include a swimming pool and fitness centre at the ground floor, along with improved customer services and a new and improved St Pancras library.
The Grade II-listed Old Town Hall on Judd Street will remain Camden’s civic centre, a vital public space that will continue to play host to council meetings, weddings and so forth as it has done for years.
The Camden Centre next door – one of the borough’s few big affordable community spaces – will also see investment.
King’s Cross residents will rightly want to know what will replace the Annexe building. Right now it would be too early to say – talk of a huge tower block is speculation that has, disappointingly, been stoked by Cllr Simpson.
The reality is that there are clear and independent planning rules that will determine what is appropriate and Camden’s planning committee – which has councillors from all political parties – will have the final say.   
The interests of the local community and particularly Argyle School remain a central concern for me. With modern methods of construction there is absolutely no reason that nearby structures, including the town hall and the school, should be affected – certainly neither would need to close.
The council’s plans for a new centre in King’s Cross make financial sense, will deliver even better services to local taxpayers and provide excellent library and sporting facilities.
This is a unique opportunity to make huge improvement in services we offer and the buildings we deliver them from and certainly not one that we can afford to miss.
CLLR RALPH SCOTT
Executive Member for Resources

Mammon monument

• SIR John Betjeman will be spinning in his grave at Camden Council’s plans to sell off the Town Hall extension and put a tower block in its place.
The secret deal will see the station the poet saved, currently the pride of London, overshadowed by an inappropriate monument to mammon, sticking a finger up at the great heritage over the road.
What is troubling about this deal done in secret is not just its likely architectural grossness, nor simply the fact that the council has persuaded itself that it has somehow outwitted the property market.
No, the real issue is the threat to the community, to Argyle Primary School and the library that will have to close as a result.
Scant consultation, sweetheart deals with developers and all the folly of a pet project have characterised the episode to date.
Not for much longer. The community will stand and fight this one, just like Betjeman.
JON McLEOD
Judd Street, WC1

Noisy mess

• THE prospect of a monstrously tall building fills me with dread as I just want to enjoy what little piece and quiet I can have in my home.
With such a large building being proposed by the council it does seem a terrible shame that the children who attend Argyle School will have to be educated next to what will be a noisy and toxic mess for so long. I hope for their sakes that the council does everything it can to keep the school open and supports the school through what will inevitably be a very difficult period.
ANN MARIE COWAN
Address supplied