HC Deb 14 June 1976 vol 913 cc194-7
Mr. Rossi

I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 13, line 30, leave out 'for the purposes of centres'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we may take also Amendment No. 4, in line 31, leave out 'social' and insert passive recreational'.

Mr. Rossi

Clause 15 is one in which Camden Council has already made considerable concessions. They were made as a result of negotiations with the amenity bodies, and as far as they go they have been received gratefully and with appreciation. The original clause, when it came before the House, would have given Camden Council the power to use the cemetery for physical recreation purposes, for athletic clubs and for all kinds of activities unrelated to the use of a cemetery, or to use it as a nature reserve, which is the purpose for which most of the people concerned in the amenity bodies would like to see it used.

Certain offending words have been removed from the clause, but there still remain words which cause a certain amount of concern. I refer to subsection (2)(a)(iii), which would enable Camden Council to use the cemetery. for the purposes of centres for the use of clubs, societies or organisations having social or educational objects". I am advised that the word "centres" would enable the building of totally inappropriate structures within the cemetery. It is the concern of the amenity body to try to preserve the cemetery in very much the way it was conceived, constructed and landscaped. They wish to avoid giving a power which could enable ugly obstrusions to be built within the cemetery.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans)

Does the clause mean that the local authority could use the cemetery as a permanent centre for pop festivals, for example?

Mr. Rossi

The words "centers … having social … objects" could well be given that interpretation.

Mrs. Millie Miller

This is a matter of some importance to the people of Camden, the people of London and those who live around the cemetery, among whom I number myself. It is important that the area should remain the pleasant and quiet spot that it is. I cannot believe that any responsible local authority, be it the present council or any future Camden Council, or the Greater London Council, having decided to embark on the adventure of buying a redundant cemetery at public expense, would turn it into anything resembling a centre for pop festivals. Such a use would be entirely out of keeping with the whole of the district. It is right to say that we are talking about a privileged area. Those who live in the area have considerable areas of open space on which, if they so desired, they could hold pop festivals. There are ample facilities in the area.

Mr. Rossi

I welcome that assurance from someone who represents Camden. It would be unthinkable if this area were used for a pop festival. Camden would find itself in considerable difficulty were it to be so unwise as to seek to use High-gate Cemetery for that purpose. However, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) was seeking to make the point that the clause confers upon the authority the power to make such use of the cemetery were it so minded.

Mr. Norman Atkinson (Tottenham)

In no circumstances could planning permission be granted for that purpose.

Mr. Rossi

The planning authority would happen to be the Camden Council. That raises another problem and another difficulty. The authority would be judge and jury in the same matter. Whatever may be the present intention of the authority, we are legislating not only for today or next week but for the future. The prevailing circumstances today are not necessarily the prevailing circumstances of the future. The Bill, when passed, would give the authority power to build centres for social or educational purposes. We cannot imagine that the authority would be as extreme as to hold pop festivals, but it could build completely inappropriate centres.

I understand, for example, that Camden has in mind the use of the cemetery as a centre for elderly people. Perhaps that is not particularly appropriate, but I am assured that that is what it has in mind. That is what I have been told in all seriousness. It also wishes to use the cemetery as a centre for a youth club. If it were used for that purpose—although we have the assurance that this would not happen—it would be possible for totally inappropriate buildings and structures to be erected and for inappropriate activities to take place. The amendments seek to remove that possibility. They would remove the word "centre", so that no structure could be built. Therefore, the simple purpose would be for the use of clubs, societies or organisations.

I have been asked to remove the word "social" because of the wideness of the word, the many interpretations that can be put upon it and the wide powers that it could confer, and to replace it with the words passive recreation and educational purposes", so that the area would be used for strolling—using the area as an open space, as a nature reserve, as a place of beauty.

That is the intention of those who asked me to put down these amendments on their behalf. Again, I hope that the House will consider these requests from people living in the area who are deeply concerned with the cemetery and treat it with all the seriousness that it deserves.

12 midnight.

Mr. Ronald Brown

The promoters of the Bill have met the societies on many occasions and, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, they have made a large number of concessions, including the insertion of Clause 16, which impose an obligation in terms of consultation in order to ensure that nothing is done without consulting the appropriate groups within the area.

The Camden Council feels that it has moved as far as it can possibly go in terms of inserting into the Bill, at the request of those organisations, the safeguards which they require.

I hope that the House will reject the amendments.

Amendment negatived.

Forward to