§ 73. Mr. SOAMESasked whether the building adjoining the Piccadilly Hotel, on the east side, which has been set back, is on Crown land; and, if so, whether the Secretary to the Treasury is aware that a front is now being erected which, instead of completing the design of an eminent architect for the elevation to Piccadilly, is of a totally different character, completely discordant with the remainder of the block; whether drawings of this front were submitted to any Government Department and approved by them; whether it was the original intention of the Government that, in the rebuilding of Regent. Street Quadrant and the block of Piccadilly east of the hotel, there should be a similarity of treatment of the whole façade; and, if so, why that intention has been abandoned; and whether the Government in future will exercise sufficient control over the buildings erected on Crown land to prevent the recurrence of such an unhappy result?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe building referred to stands on Crown Land held under a lease granted before the hotel was commenced. The Commissioners of Woods have had prolonged negotiations with the various parties concerned, but they are advised that they have no power to prevent the re-erection of the old front. It was the intention that in rebuilding the Quadrant there should be similarity of treatment throughout, but objections have been raised to the original design by tending interests and the question is now under consideration. No definite design was even settled for the buildings in Piccadilly east of Nos. 19 and 20. In normal cases the Commissioners have full 1853 power to control buildings erected on Crown Lands. In this instance there is no new building, but only the re-erection of an old façade removed when part of the former premises were thrown into the street.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI do not think that conclusion must be drawn from the reply.