HC Deb 22 April 1947 vol 436 cc780-3
4. Mr. Keeling

asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether his attention has been drawn to the threat to the dominance of St. Paul's presented by the proposal to erect a large power station on Bankside facing the cathedral; and whether he will arrange for the Royal Fine Art Commission to be consulted about the proposal to use this site.

Mr. Silkin

Yes, Sir. The Government have, however, decided that this proposal must be allowed, provided that the electricity is generated by oil and that the building is set back from the river to allow the proposed road and promenade along the front. In the circumstances, the site must be regarded as settled; but the Royal Fine Art Commission will be consulted on the design of the building. I should add that despite the very urgent need of additional generating facilities, the Government, before agreeing to the use of the site, gave long and careful thought to the effect of the proposed building not only on St. Paul's, but also—a matter of major importance—its effect on the proposals in the County of London Plan for the redevelopment of the South Bank. We are satisfied, however, that, with the safeguards proposed, the future of the South Bank will not be prejudiced by the power station nor, having regard to the distance across the river, can we accept the view that the historic dominance of St. Paul's will be threatened.

Mr. Keeling

Is the Minister aware that this proposal to put up immediately opposite St. Paul's a power station as big as St. Paul's, with two enormous flanking chimneys, will do irreparable injury to London, will be resented all over the British Empire, and will be hotly opposed by many Members of this House?

Mr. Silkin

This is not a new power station. There is one in existence already —

Mr. Keeling

A small one.

Mr. Silkin

—and this is a proposal to replace it.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a large body of opinion on this side of the House which is seriously disturbed about this development, and that it would indeed be an act of sheer vandalism if the panorama of St. Paul's dominating the City and the river were interfered with by this power station?

Mr. Silkin

It was because I was aware of the very strong feeling on the subject that the matter received very long and careful consideration, but I do not accept the implications which the hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. Eden

In view of the concern which, very naturally, the House feels— and which the country will feel—may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether some method cannot be found of further informing the House on this matter? For instance, could not a model be made available so that hon. Members of this House could judge for themselves in this matter, as we are really dealing with the future of the finest monument in the City of London?

Mr. Silkin

That is a very valuable suggestion and one which I will certainly consider. I did say that the design of the building would be submitted for the approval of the Royal Fine Art Commission and a very eminent architect— probably the most eminent in the country —responsible, but, as I say, I will consider the suggestion.

Mr. Henry Strauss

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is not a question so much of the design of this building, because nobody doubts the possibility of good design, but a question of its site and scale, which will be disastrous from the point of view both of the amenities of the City and of Southwark; and will not the Minister realise that in those circumstances it really would be an act of the grossest vandalism to proceed with this proposal when there are alternative sites available lower down the river?

Mr. Silkin

That is the point. There is no satisfactory alternative, and that was one of the matters which was investigated.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

In his original answer the right hon. Gentleman referred to proposed safeguards; is the only safeguard that the Royal Fine Art Commission shall consider and approve the design, or are there other safeguards and. if so, what are they?

Mr. Silkin

I mentioned two. One was that the electricity should be generated by oil, and the other that the station would be set back from the river to allow the proposed road and promenade along the front.

Mrs. Leah Manning

Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether there is another site available, and does he not think that, in view of the fact that the bombing of the centre of London has given to some Londoners a view of the full beauty of St. Paul's for the first time, it seems such a pity that we should discount that by building another power station?

Mr. Silkin

There is no satisfactory alternative which would provide the electricity within a reasonable time.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what alternative sites were in fact considered and what were the objections which weighed against the adoption of one of them?

Mr. Silkin

I could give the answer, but it would be inappropriate within the compass of Question and answer. There was a site at Rotherhithe which was submitted by the London County Council but it was rejected because it would take at least two winters longer than the other before electricity could be provided.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment.