HC Deb 23 July 1958 vol 592 cc575-7

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 32, at end to insert: Provided that the Council shall not so exercise their powers under this subsection as to prevent vehicles and pedestrians passing between Park Lane and Hertford Street or between Park Lane and Pitt's Head Mews.

Mr. Nugent

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment arises from the Select Committee's consideration of a petition by New City Properties, and it was the only petition. This company is negotiating to build a large hotel facing Park Lane on the site bounded by Pitt's Head Mews and Hertford Street, and it was feared that the powers given to the L.C.C. by Clause 10, as originally drafted, for stopping up streets permanently in respect of Pitt's Head Mews and, possibly, also Hertford Street would restrict vehicular traffic access. It was considered reasonable to remove any element of doubt as to what the L.C.C. could do by way of stopping them up, and so this Amendment was included substantially to clear any doubt which existed.

Mr. Ernest Davies

You will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the Parliamentary Secretary has referred to the proceedings of a Select Committee. I have already spoken about that and pointed out that they are proceedings to which this House is not privy. Only if one goes to great trouble can this confidential proof be obtained, and I doubt if any hon. Member of this House except myself has obtained it.

Therefore, I should have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary would have given us more explanation as to why this Amendment is considered necessary. For my part, I am not happy about it. The object of this Bill is to facilitate the flow of traffic north and south, and vice versa, between Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch, and if we insert in the Bill qualifications about the action of the highway authority in closing streets we are also limiting action which would help to speed the flow of traffic.

Pitt's Head Mews is a very narrow street, and it surely is not necessary that this small street should be maintained so that traffic can turn left going down Park Lane. As soon as we have traffic turning right or left we encourage an impediment to the free flow of traffic, and it is only the possibility of the hotel being built that has caused this Amendment to be drafted. It seems to us that there has been some pressure and lobbying by the interests concerned in order to get this Amendment made.

Hertford Street is equally not by any means a main thoroughfare. It is used to a considerably smaller extent, and it seems undesirable that these exceptions should be made. I cannot understand why the L.C.C., which will be the authority in this connection, should not be left complete freedom to decide which streets shall be closed and which shall not be closed.

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us where this hotel is to be built. I understood that it had not yet been authorised. If it is to be built and it is necessary to have traffic facilities for the setting down and picking up of people arriving at and departing from the hotel, I should have thought it was incumbent on the hotel itself to provide those facilities and not for an exception to be made so that particular streets should be made available for that purpose.

It is highly desirable, where new buildings are constructed in the centre of London, that there should be adequate facilities for the setting down and picking up of persons using those buildings, and, equally, adequate garage facilities. In this case, a special privilege is being granted to a particular interest, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to give a better justification than he has yet given.

Mr. Nugent

By leave of the House, may I say that the Amendment will not do more than clarify what is the present intention of the development authority. The access of these two streets is not direct on to the new Park Lane carriageway, but to a sort of backwater which is shut off from the main carriageway itself. Certainly I have no doubt that, if and when the hotel is built, one of the requirements on which the planning authority will insist will be arrangements for picking up and setting down within the curtilage of the hotel itself, so the hon. Member need have little doubt about the L.C.C. taking care of that.

The provision does no more than is already contemplated by the L.C.C., and the hon. Member's fears can be set at rest, for it will not, in fact, interfere with the general flow of traffic on the new carriageway.

Question put and agreed to.