HC Deb 04 June 1883 vol 279 cc1622-4
MR. STORY-MASKELYNE

asked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether, in reply to a communication from a Committee of the Board to the Institute of British Architects regarding the design for the elevation of the Hôtel Métropole, the Council of the Institute stated that— In the opinion of the Council, the design of that building, more especially as regards the portion above the ground storey, is unworthy of its intended position; and that the said design should be considerably modified before approval be given to it by the Metropolitan Board of Works; and, whether his answer relating to this subject, on the 10th of May, to the effect that the Board had sanctioned the erec- tion of the said building without having submitted any altered elevation to the Council of the Institute, still represents the attitude of the Board of Works in regard to this question; and, if it does so, if he would explain to the House how the Board deems itself justified in evading the conditions embodied in an Act of Parliament (of 1873) which indicates the Institute of British Architects as the authority to judge of the designs of any buildings to be erected on the site of Northumberland House, in order especially to prevent the erection of structures calculated to deface one of the most important sites of the Metropolis?

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

I beg to inform the hon. Member that his quotation from the letter of the Council of the Institute is perfectly correct, and that my answer of the 10th of May still represents the attitude of the Board in this matter. I cannot, however, for one moment admit that the Board has evaded conditions imposed by Parliament, and I must express my surprise that the hon. Member cast such an imputation on the Board. The wording of the Act was intended to convey no more than the suggestion of friendly consultation between the Board and the Council of the Institute, without binding the Board to carry out the suggestions of the Council. If the hon. Member will look at the Minutes of Evidence taken by the Select Committee, he will find that the clause, as originally introduced, provided not only that the elevation should be submitted for consideration, but also that no building should be erected, or contract entered into for its erection, until such elevation should have received the approval of the Council. This was strongly opposed on behalf of the Board; and after a long discussion the Select Committee modified the clause into its present form by substituting the word "consideration" for "approval." In conclusion, I think the House may be satisfied that, after having expended about £700,000 on this improvement, the Board is not likely to allow the value of the land to be deteriorated by the erection of unsightly structures. At the same time, the Board has a duty to discharge to the ratepayers and to its lessees, and must be careful not to prevent the letting of plots, or the erection of buildings, by imposing unnecessarily onerous restrictions.

MR. STORY-MASKELYNE

said, that to-morrow he would put a number of Questions on the same subject to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with a view to extract further information. One of these would be, Whether one of the architects concerned in the erection of this and other buildings on the Northumberland Avenue was not a member of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and had a share in the property?

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

replied, that he would not be in the House to-morrow; but he might say that it was quite true that a member of the Metropolitan Board of Works had a share in the property.