HC Deb 26 April 1888 vol 325 cc587-8
MR. KELLY (Camberwell, N.)

asked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, Whether, as the Rules and Regulations of the Metropolitan Board of Works provide that— No application relative to any building, structure, or erection proposed to be erected beyond the general line of fronts of buildings under Section 75 of 'The Metropolitan Local Management Amendment Act, 1862,' or Section 26 of the Metropolitan Building Act, will be granted, unless a notice that such application is to be made shall have been given or left by an officer of the Board for the occupiers of the two adjoining buildings on each side of the proposed building, notice of the last amended application to that Board, made by those interested in the proposed new buildings near Albert Gate, was duly given, or whether, as stated in a letter in The Standard newspaper, of the 24th instant, the adjoining owners had no knowledge thereof until they were informed that the application had been granted; whether he will state the names of those members of the Board who voted on the three occasions on which the application was under consideration, and which way they then voted on each occasion; whether any members of the Board are directly or indirectly interested in the proposed new buildings near Albert Gate; whether he is aware that, on the occasion of the second hearing of the application, the surveyor for the promoters said, in the hearing of Mr. B. G. Lake and a client of that gentleman— I don't care a—for your opposition. I have influence enough at the Board to carry anything I please; and, whether that Board intend to call upon this surveyor to explain the nature of this influence, and to justify the statement which he then made, and, on his failure to do so, proposes to take any step to relieve itself of the very grave charge made against it by him?

MR. TATTON EGERTON (Cheshire, Knutsford)

In answer to the hon. Member, I have to inform him that notice with respect to the proposed new buildings near Albert Gate having twice been given to the occupiers of the adjoining buildings, and the Board having been made acquainted with their views, it was not deemed necessary to give notice of the last amended application, which the Board thought was one which might properly be acceded to. I am unable to give the names of the members of the Board who voted on the occasions referred to, as the voting was by show of hands, and the names were, consequently, not recorded. I have no reason to think that any member of the Board is directly or indirectly interested in the proposed new buildings near Albert Gate; and I am not aware, beyond the statement in The Standard, that the surveyor for the promoters made any such observation as that specified in the Question. It is not the custom of the Board to take notice of statements made in the street about its proceedings; and, consequently, it is not at all likely that the Board will call upon the surveyor, who is said to have made this particular statement outside the precincts of the Board, to explain or to justify it.