§ 30. Sir W. DAVISONasked the Minister of Agriculture what were the terms of reference to the Royal Fine Art Commission with regard to the proposed new building to be erected on the site of No. 4, Carlton Gardens; whether the Commission considered the question as to whether a building standing some 50 feet above the adjoining property, and visible from nearly the whole of the new processional road, known as the Mall, will or will not be detrimental to the appearance of the facade of Carlton House Terrace and Carlton Gardens, abutting on the Mall; and what was the date of the meeting of the Commission when this matter was considered?
§ Major ELLIOTDrawings of the new building proposed to be erected on the 16 site of No. 4, Carlton Gardens, were submitted for the consideration of the Royal Fine Art Commission on 28th July last by the building lessees' architect in accordance with a stipulation made by the Commissioners of Crown Lands. I understand that the architect laid before the Royal Commisison a full description of the proposed building, but there were no formal terms of reference. The height of the old building was 61 feet 10 inches to the coping and the height of the adjacent house, No. 1, Carlton House Terrace, is 71 feet 10 inches to the coping. The height of the new building is 80 feet to the coping. The maximum height of the roof will be 101 feet, but the effect of the increased height will be discounted by the setting back of the top two storeys. The Royal Commission were not asked to advise on the question of height, which was settled, subject to their approval of the design, by the Commissioners of Crown Lands, after full consideration and discussion with their professional advisers.
§ Sir W. DAVISONIs my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that when his attention was drawn to this matter some months ago the House was informed that plans would be submitted to the Fine Arts Commission; and does not he think that it is rather misleading the House that only plans of the building should be submitted without drawing attention to the fact that it would tower 50 feet above the adjacent buildings?
§ Major ELLIOTThe Fine Arts Commission must be taken as understanding the possibilities of this very fine site, and the difficulties of any departure from the sky line of the buildings to be erected later on would no doubt be considered.
§ Sir W. DAVISONCan nothing be done to protect this site and its amenities? In view of the advertisement which appears in the "Times" on Thursday last giving notice of this additional height, surely the Commission can take some action in the matter?
§ Major ELLIOTNo, Sir. The matter is decided.
§ 31. Sir W. DAVISONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the late tenants of No. 4, Carlton Gardens, and other houses in the vicinity, have applied to the Commissioners of 17 Crown Lands for leave to alter the character of their premises as a single private dwelling-house in accordance with the terms of their lease, and- have been refused; whether the clause in the leases of houses in Carlton House Terrace and Carlton Gardens requiring the houses to be used as private dwelling-houses only will now be waived; and whether, as is usually the case in large estates, any steps were taken to ascertain the feelings of the leaseholders of the properties in question before consent was given to the letting of a house for business purposes in this property?
§ Major ELLIOTNo application appears to have been received by the Commissioners of Crown Lands from the late lessees of No. 4, Carlton Gardens for permission to use the premises otherwise than as a private dwelling house, but the Commissioners themselves suggested to the lessees that any such proposal would be favourably considered. Within the last nine years applications for waiver of the covenant to which my hon. Friend refers have been received and granted in respect of eight out of the 31 houses in Carlton House Terrace and Carlton Gardens. Having regard to the changes which have already taken place and to representations made to them by several of the lessees, the Commissioners did not consider it necessary to consult the other lessees before consenting to the proposed new building on the site of No. 4, Carlton Gardens.
§ Sir W. DAVISONAm I to understand that, if the other lessees desired to let their premises for business purposes, no objection would he raised on the part of the Commission?
§ Major ELLIOTI could not go so far as that now, but I can certainly say that such applications would be considered.