FoI request: Kings Cross development, LB Camden and 'Camden Highline'
Request ID: FOI-2734-2223 Date published: 16 February 2023
You asked
Kings Cross, LB Camden and 'Camden Highline'
Please be kind enough to supply the following details from your records.
(1) A schedule of all monies RECEIVED by or promised to TfL (from S106 contributions and perhaps other sources) from the 'Kings Cross developers'.
This should be taken to mean (or at least include) that arising from the
2006 Deed (Lovells, LIB03/CM1MG/1657485.2)
following the developer submitting (on behalf of LCR, Exel PLC [as parent company of NCL] and the developer)
- the Main Site Planning Application,
- the Listed Building Consent Applications and
- the Conservation Area Consent Applications
to LB Camden Council on 28 May 2004
and submitted amendments to the Main Site Planning Application on 27 September 2005.
The schedule you provide should describe dates, amounts, and for each amount, WHAT the money was intended to be spent on.
For instance, one of the subjects involved was apparently an increase in bus service(s) in LB Camden.
There may be OTHER TfL agreements or deeds, and therefore additional items for you to reasonably mention
(2) A schedule of monies PAID OUT by TfL to either (a) LB Camden or (b) 'Camden Highline' promoters or their agents, reasonably related to the
'CAMDEN HIGHLINE PROJECT'
in LB Camden, either from financial sources under query (1) above or from OTHER sources known to TfL.
(To help you identify the location of the Highline, there is a web site: https://www.camdenhighline.com )
(3) Details of any current UNSPENT funds still held by TfL from those sources (and so, for instance, hypothetically available for future further payments towards the 'Camden Highline')
(3) All correspondence involved between TfL and either (a) LB Camden or (b) 'Camden Highline' promoters or their agents, reasonably related to the subject of payments or simply non-monied support from TfL towards the Camden Highline, in the former case whether monies were actually paid out or not.
It is thought some payment(s) to the Camden Highline development process have already been made.
A crucial part of this FoI request is receive copies of all emails and/or reports, whether or not TfL ended up making payments or gave support on those particular occasions.
This request includes all material of TfL internal discussions. Note: The Camden Highline is a settled, approved planning application. There is no defence from the ICO that there must be (quite reasonably) a 'safe space' for internal TfL discussions when matters are settled
(4) Copies of all analysis by TfL of any transport functions or the benefits or the disbenefits of the 'Camden Highline', and as a result, whether TfL should contribute with monies or support.
I appreciate that you may find it necessary to supply material that meets more than one of the above queries simultaneously, so material may be mixed up.
Nevertheless, if it is possible to separate material, please keep separate as much as you can.
Thank you in advance for your kind assistance.
We answered
Our ref: FOI-2734-2223/GH
Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 24 January 2023 asking for information about the Kings Cross development, LB Camden and 'Camden Highline'.
Your request has been considered under the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and our information access policy. I can confirm that we do hold the information you require.
(1) A schedule of all monies RECEIVED by or promised to TfL(from S106 contributions and perhaps other sources) from the 'Kings Cross developers'. £1,195,599 was received by LB Camden for improvements to bus services. As detailed in the attached correspondence, £400k was reallocated to the Camden Highline.
(2) A schedule of monies PAID OUT by TfL to either (a) LB Camden or (b) 'Camden Highline' promoters or their agents, reasonably related to the 'CAMDEN HIGHLINE PROJECT' No monies have been paid out by TfL.
(3) Details of any current UNSPENT funds still held by TfL from those sources (and so, for instance, hypothetically available for future further payments towards the 'Camden Highline') All currently unspent funds from the Kings Cross developers from S106 contributions held either by TfL, or by Camden but originally allocated in the Kings Cross S106 agreement for spend by TfL on Buses, are available for future further payments towards the Camden Highline.
(3) All correspondence involved between TfL and either (a) LB Camden or (b) 'Camden Highline' promoters or their agents, reasonably related to the subject of payments or simply non-monied support from TfL towards the Camden Highline, in the former case whether monies were actually paid out or not.
Please see the attached correspondence. Please note that in accordance with TfL’s obligations under Data Protection legislation some personal data has been redacted, as required by section 40(2) of the FOI Act. This is because disclosure of this personal data would be a breach of the legislation, specifically the first principle which requires all processing of personal data to be fair and lawful. It would not be fair to disclose this personal information when the individuals have no expectation it would be disclosed and TfL has not satisfied one of the conditions which would make the processing ‘fair’.
In accordance with the FOI Act, we are not obliged to supply some of the correspondence held as it is subject to a statutory exemption to the right of access to information under section 42. In this instance the exemption has been applied as some of the information you have requested relates directly to the seeking, provision, and result of legal advice.
Section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act exempts legally privileged information, including legal advice, from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. There is a very strong element of public interest inbuilt into the concept of Legal Professional Privilege and this has long been recognised, by the Information Commissioner, the Information Tribunal and the courts, and it reflects the importance of legal advice being sought, and given, in confidence as a fundamental condition on which the administration of justice rests. There is an inherent public interest in TfL being able to obtain full and frank legal advice, and this is consistent with TfL’s responsibility to analyse and address legal risks and issues.
(4) Copies of all analysis by TfL of any transport functions or the benefits or the disbenefits of the 'Camden Highline', and as a result, whether TfL should contribute with monies or support. The Camden Highline (CHL) project is not a TfL project and as such we have no connection with it in regard to benefits or disbenefits. Safety of the operating railway issues would be dealt with by Network Rail as the land concerned is theirs and not TfL’s. London Overground’s operator Arriva Rail London works with Network Rail as the legal entity on any issues pertaining to safety of the line directly with Network Rail and were there to be any effects on the operating railway it would be for them to identify. This will be communicated back to the TfL London Overground management team as a matter of course as part of our normal operating communications. There have been no issues relating to this as a result of CHL proposals that we are aware of and we do not expect there to be so. Network Rail maintains ownership of its property and land for railway purposes and will retain the right to access and future development for railway needs if it needed it. CHL is aware of these issues. The potential benefits/disbenefits of the CHL in accordance with plans we have seen as a matter of public record are understood by London Overground and TfL for the area concerned. TfL has no objection to the project subject to planning applications and consultation with affected parties, but as this is not a TfL project and no monies or other support have been given by TfL. CHL requests for ticket gateline and potential station access/usage by CHL visitors is a matter for our operator as SFO for Camden Road station to negotiate. It is our understanding that no monies or support have been offered in this regard either by Arriva Rail London other than some informative correspondence between them.
We were in separate negotiations about transferring bus funding to the scheme at the time, which is accounted for in our response to your questions above.
If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable to access it for some reason, please do not hesitate to contact me.
If you are not satisfied with this response please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.
Yours sincerely
Graham Hurt FOI Case Officer FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
