HC Deb 23 April 1888 vol 325 c178
MR. KELLY (Camberwell, N.)

asked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, Whether the Metropolitan Board. of Works has any power of restricting the height of the building now being erected near Albert Gate; and, if so, whether, in the interests of public safety, that Board will take steps to prevent that building being carried to a height of 185 feet, including the mansard roof finial?

MR. TATTON EGERTON (Cheshire, Knutsford)

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state the Board has no power to restrict the height of the largo building in course of construction near Albert Gate. The Schedule of the Building Act, 1855, provides for the thickness of the walls up to 100 feet in height. The thickness of walls exceeding that height requires a special sanction of the Board. That has been granted in this case. The Act of 1862 gives the Board power over building on new roads where they do not exceed 50 feet in width, and restricts the height to the width of the road except by special sanction. Comparing this building with Walsingham Chambers, at the corner of the Green Park and Piccadilly, the height of the Albert Gate building to main parapet is 113 feet, against 70 feet, of the principal feature to base of finial 160 feet at Albert Gate, against 100 feet 9 inches. The height of the projecting bows to parapet at Albert Gate is 124 feet 6 inches.