§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
7.35 pm§ Ms Oona King (Bethnal Green and Bow)I recognise that the subject of this debate strikes at the heart of this country's identity and values. The debate has been kept alive by the extraordinary commitment, perseverance and dedication of the Civilians Remembered campaign.
Let us remember those civilians: 60,595 died in this country during the second world war and half of those—29,890—died in London. With those people in mind, let us remember what the debate is about. It is no exaggeration or cliché to say that it is about honour and sacrifice on the one hand versus private interest and profit on the other. Heaven forfend that private interest and profit have no place in our society—they certainly do—but there are times when public interest and national dignity demand precedent, and this is one of them. Surely the matter is one of national significance, for if the second world war is not a matter of national significance, I do not know what is.
Within that national agenda, I should like to place on record the local circumstances. The House will be pleased to learn that, when the London Docklands development corporation withdrew from Wapping earlier this year, it left behind many new opportunities for Londoners. However, as well as those new opportunities, the LDDC left scars, especially in the minds of the original east enders—the residents of Wapping and the Isle of Dogs. The London docks were, and still are, a hard place in which to live and work—if one has work, that is—but they have always been renowned as a proud place, with a community that looked after its members. The ultimate test of that came during the blitz. As we are all aware, Hitler hoped to create panic and civil unrest to stop people going about their war-related jobs, thus knocking Britain out of the war. The strategy did not work, but many of my constituents remember how hard it was to live through those nights. Many lost civilian friends and relatives—for example, at Bethnal Green tube station, 167 civilians died in the panic to escape bombing.
It is those who made sacrifices and those who lost loved ones whom the Civilians Remembered campaign sought to commemorate when it applied for planning permission for a permanent memorial park in honour of civilians who had died in the war. The chosen location was the Hermitage site—the last open space on the riverside in my constituency. In addition, the wharf on the site was itself destroyed by a direct hit from a German land mine. Surely there could be no more fitting place.
My constituents had hoped that the LDDC—a body which had taken away so much of what was familiar, often replacing it with the unfamiliar and unwanted—would hand over the Hermitage site as a fitting location for a memorial park. Unfortunately, in the face of that heartfelt public demand, the LDDC sold the land to a property developer whose only aim was to profit by raising yet another block of luxury apartments on the river bank.
Hon. Members may be aware, having heard me speak in the House previously, that there is a desperate need for housing in my constituency, but we no longer need luxury 628 riverside apartments which local people will never have a hope of living in. As the local planning authority, Tower Hamlets council asked the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to take the decision on the competing planning applications for the site. It was advised that planning applications are called in only
if planning issues of much more than local importance are involved.I return to the point: could there be an issue of more significant national importance? I understand that, in deciding to allow the applications to be determined locally, the following factors were taken into account. First, the development proposals are in accordance with the soon-to-be-adopted unitary development plan; and secondly, they are in line with the conclusions and recommendations of the inspector on the previous application.Although I appreciate that the Minister has a quasi-judicial role in overseeing the enforcement of planning law, which may mean that he is unable to comment on the merits of the planning applications, I should be grateful for his response to my concern at the Government's decision not to decide on the planning application themselves. That decision was taken in the full knowledge that the planning regulations gave Tower Hamlets development sub-committee hardly any option but to pass planning consent to the Berkeley Homes proposals. In fact, councillors on that committee have said that they believed that they might face a surcharge if they did not consent to the Berkeley Homes scheme.
In those circumstances, I wonder whether the Minister would agree that a permanent and fitting—I reiterate, fitting—memorial site to the civilians who died during the war is an issue of national importance and should not be decided at local level. I also draw the Minister's attention to the fact, of which I am sure that he is aware, that on Friday 24 April, at an extraordinary meeting of the Tower Hamlets planning and environmental services committee, the draft unitary development plan was amended to include a designation of metropolitan open space for the Hermitage site.
Moreover, I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that it is unrealistic to squeeze a public memorial into what will, effectively, be a private garden for wealthier residents, living in those luxury apartments. It is not only disingenuous, but an insult to the memory of those who lost their lives that no space can be set aside for quiet contemplation by those who lived through the blitz. We also need a place where younger people—my generation—can consider what happened and why we have some of the freedoms that we have today. They will not be able to do so by staring at a block of luxury apartments. In other words, this is a legacy that we need to bequeath to future generations. I should also add that it is impossible to express the disgust that my constituents feel at this site being given to property interests over and above the interests of the nation.
There are fairly obvious reasons to call in the planning application. There is the national significance, there is the fact that, in Tower Hamlets, we do not have enough green space and there is the fact that we have the greatest overcrowding in Britain. Self-evidently, we need no more luxury apartments. Putting all that to one side, I appreciate that Berkeley Homes is willing to offer 40 per cent. of the 629 land as a memorial park, but I would say that even 60 or 80 per cent. is not enough. British civilians did not give a 40, 60 or 80 per cent. effort; many gave their lives. We must take that into account.
I hope that, even at this late stage, Berkeley Homes will agree to donate the land, or, at the very least, to offer it at cost price. In the circumstances, it is not much to offer.
§ Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Canning Town)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on securing parliamentary time for the debate. In doing so, she represents the sentiments of many people, not only in London, but throughout the country.
I pay tribute to the tireless work of the Civilians Remembered campaign. Civilians Remembered has established itself as a vigorous and committed campaigning group, whose intention is to honour civilians who lost their lives in this country during the second world war. It is composed of ordinary east end people who have demonstrated extraordinary tenaciousness in their efforts. Although local people's thoughts have a special focus on the east London victims of Hitler's bombers, there is no getting away from the fact that people in other parts of the country—indeed, the rest of the country—who lived through the second world war, as well as those who were not alive at the time but who wish to pay their respects, would welcome a permanent and public memorial to represent the nation's collective honouring of the dead.
In picking up the thoughts of my hon. Friend on the Hermitage site, I feel sure that I echo the thoughts of many people in this country who experienced the war at first hand. They need a tangible expression—a physical presence—to demonstrate that we remember.
Those of us who have not had the experience can hardly begin to imagine what it must have been like to have to respond, night after night, to the sound of air-raid sirens; to vacate our homes for the protection of air-raid shelters; to emerge from those shelters to find our homes destroyed, our shops, factories or cinemas—indeed, whole streets—obliterated and, worst of all, to discover that family members, friends, neighbours and colleagues had been killed by the overnight attacks of the Luftwaffe on its latest bombing raid. In the face of Hitler's attempts to bomb the British people into submission, people stood together and made a remarkable contribution to the war effort and the defeat of the Nazis.
That spirit and resolution demand a public memorial, and it is incredible that such a memorial is not already a long-standing reality. The deaths of 60,000 civilians in Britain during the second world war, and the injuries inflicted on 1,000 more, surely deserve serious and enduring recognition.
In recent months, I have attended several memorials to members of the fire services who died in the war. I was a member of the London fire brigade for more than 23 years. Specifically, there have been two ceremonies to commemorate the single largest loss of life of fire brigade and auxiliary fire service members at Old Palace school on 10 May 1941. The memorial services at the school in my constituency and at Beckenham cemetery were very moving, and I should 630 mention the important role of Stephanie Maltman in researching the history of this event as well as the tragedy at Gainsborough school in Plaistow and many others. Indeed, more than 300 members of the London fire service and the AFS who died during the second world war were commemorated only with the unveiling of a statue near St. Paul's cathedral by the Queen Mother in the past decade, but at least their sacrifice now has a physical memorial, and I congratulate all those who were involved in ensuring that that fitting tribute became a reality.
I know also that colleagues in the London borough of Newham, especially Councillor Chris Rackley, are keen to establish a memorial to civilian casualties near the royal docks in the new barrier park. Despite the fact that the events of which we speak occurred more than half a century ago, the memories are still as fresh to the families and friends of those who died as they are to those who survived.
There was some controversy when the nation purchased the Churchill papers for £13 million. Many people questioned whether that was how the people's money should have been spent, and time will tell. I believe that there would be widespread support were a similar decision taken to purchase the Hermitage site for the nation.
Like my hon. Friend, I believe that it would be wrong to penalise the developers, Berkeley Homes, financially. I hope that the company would be prepared to sell the site to the nation. I therefore challenge the idea that the best use for the Hermitage site is the proposed development of luxury apartments for sale, and retail and commercial units, with a memorial park for use only as an amenity space for that development.
A memorial park created under those circumstances will not constitute an acceptable substitute for the creation of a national memorial park to honour civilians nationally. Such a national memorial can never compensate families for the loss of loved ones, but it can at least show a national will and determination to remember them always. That much we can do.
I appeal to the Minister not to close off that prospect. I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister was wrong when he declined to call in the planning application for further review. As my hon. Friend said, we believe this to be a matter of more than local significance. It is still not too late. If we had a London mayor, he or she would find it impossible to resist the pressure to establish such a memorial.
Every November at remembrance services across the country, we conclude with the pledge, "We will remember them." For the civilian casualties of the last war in the United Kingdom in general and in London in particular, but especially for the east end, those words ring hollow and will continue to ring hollow until we have a suitable memorial where people can pay their respects. For many families, there are no graves. This is a matter not of jingoism, but of acknowledging our heritage, paying tribute and learning the lessons of war.
Europe, I believe, has learnt from its past. Our future lies in co-operation. We in the United Kingdom owe a debt to those who are not here. I hope that our Government will accept the strength of our feelings and our arguments. We need a memorial, and only this Government have the power to create one at the Hermitage site.
§ The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on her success in securing the debate, and on her decision to take the opportunity to raise the important and serious matter of the proposed use of the Hermitage riverside site as a memorial for all the residents of London who died in the second world war. Although it is now more than 50 years since the end of the war, it is right that we should continue to remember the sacrifice of all those who gave their lives during the war. The point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick). I say that with considerable feeling, as my own father was killed in the war.
In addition to those killed in action, there were, as we all know, many civilian casualties, not least in the east end of London, as my hon. Friend rightly emphasised. The east end bore the brunt of countless air raids and V-bomb attacks. It is right that there should be an appropriate memorial to their sacrifice. I pay tribute to the work of the Civilians Remembered campaign, which has done a great deal to argue the case for a memorial in the east end of London.
As I am sure my hon. Friends realise, I cannot comment on the merits of the two current proposals for the redevelopment of the site which recently came before the Department, because the Secretary of State has a quasi-judicial role in the planning system. However, I can use this opportunity to explain the town and country planning background that affects the site, the two planning permissions that are now extant on it, and the factors that the Secretary of State took into account when he considered whether to call in the planning applications.
It may help the House if I first clarify that town and country planning is about the use of land, not its ownership. The planning system looks at the suitability of different uses of sites and the compatibility and harmony of those uses with others nearby.
In planning, individual developments are assessed for their suitability and appropriateness against criteria established in a development plan. When that plan is complete, it will have been subjected to thorough public scrutiny and will be a widely known basis on which planning applications can be brought forward. However, even before the plan is complete and formally adopted, it can be taken into account. Indeed the more advanced its state of preparation, the more weight can be given to it, as against its out-of-date predecessor.
A further general point that may make this case more understandable to the House is that the site is not unique in having two live planning permissions for slightly different uses at the same time. Although the majority of sites are shown in authorities' plans as having a single use, some—like the Hermitage site—are for mixed use, and there can therefore be opportunities for different configurations of use to be acceptable at the same time, and for both, or more than two, to be granted planning permission.
The Hermitage site has a long history of planning applications and public inquiries. In Tower Hamlets' adopted plan, which dates back to 1986, the site is designated for housing development. The draft plan that is being prepared to replace it originally showed the 632 Hermitage site as being for a mix of residential and commercial uses. I shall touch later on how that has now been changed.
The site first came to our Department's attention in 1991, when the London Docklands development corporation was the local planning authority. An outline application for a mixed-use development of the site generated considerable local opposition. The weight of opinion was that the site should remain undeveloped to provide open space around the existing properties with public access to the river, although, as I understand it, there was no suggestion at that time of the site being used as a memorial park. Later that year, in any case, the development proposals were withdrawn.
In 1995, the year that the Civilians Remembered campaign was initiated, the corporation encouraged development of the area, including open space, and selected five different schemes for public exhibition. After consideration of the responses to the brief, a scheme by Berkeley Homes was chosen. In view of the prominent location of this significant waterfront site on the River Thames, the scheme was called in for the Secretary of State's decision.
A public inquiry was held in October 1996 into two proposals. The first of the two applications was for the erection of buildings for residential use. The second scheme also provided mainly residential accommodation in slightly higher blocks, but it also incorporated a new public garden. There continued a significant lobby for the entire site to be used as open space, with a view to that being an appropriate memorial to the civilian dead of the second world war.
Subsequently, after considering the inspector's report, the Minister at the time refused both applications on the ground that, while both applications broadly accorded with the use of the site set out in the current plan and the draft one, they did not meet the density and design standards applicable to such a significant site. However, he noted that the schemes showed that the site could accommodate a bold development at the eastern end and incorporate a waterfront park and memorial park at the western end, but emphasised that that did not fetter his consideration of future applications.
That brings me to the planning applications that are at the heart of this evening's debate. In May 1997, the corporation's decision to sell the riverside site to Berkeley Homes renewed local opposition to any development on it. At almost the same time, the Civilians Remembered campaign submitted an outline application to Tower Hamlets council for use of the land solely as a memorial park. Two months later, Berkeley Homes submitted a new application for full permission to the council, with a revised proposal that included provision for setting aside approximately 40 per cent. of the site for use as a memorial park, which I understand would be freely accessible and open to the public and maintained in perpetuity by the developer. I understand that Berkeley Homes also offered the council a substantial sum to finance the provision of local affordable housing.
After due consideration, Tower Hamlets—which was by then the corporation's successor as planning authority—proposed to approve both applications. However, although in line with the draft plan, the applications were departures from the adopted borough plan, so they were referred to the Secretary of State for his consideration.
633 At that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow and other hon. Members wrote to express their concerns about the consequences if Tower Hamlets granted planning permission to Berkeley Homes. The Secretary of State took into account all relevant matters, including the representations on planning. As my hon. Friends know, the Government's policy on call-in of planning applications is to be very selective. In almost all cases, the initial decision on whether a development should proceed should be taken by the local planning authority. Applications are called in only if matters of more than local importance are involved, which need to be decided by the Secretary of State.
After careful consideration, the Secretary of State decided that both applications should be determined locally. The applications were in accordance with the shortly to be adopted unitary development plan for Tower Hamlets and were in line with the conclusions and recommendations of the inspector on the previous application by Berkeley Homes. Given that an earlier public inquiry into similar proposals had informed the nature of the Berkeley Homes application and the content of the Tower Hamlets plan, the Secretary of State considered that the proposal raised no more than local issues, which were appropriate for Tower Hamlets to decide—it is the democratically elected local authority, and it is only right that it should make planning decisions. Issues such as the appropriateness of the site for a memorial, the degree of overcrowding in the area and the shortage of local open space are important. However, they are essentially local issues, which the democratically elected local authority is best placed to consider.
634 My hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning wrote to my hon. Friend to explain the Secretary of State's decision on 6 March 1998. I understand that Tower Hamlets subsequently granted planning permission for both schemes, and it is now considering some minor outstanding matters to do with the Berkeley Homes proposal that must be cleared up before building can begin.
I gather also that there is considerable on-going pressure from local residents against the use of the site for anything but open space. In recognition of that, the council changed the designation of the site in the draft plan from "mixed use" to "either mixed use or open space", to allow the use of the site as a park. More recently still, as my hon. Friend said, the council's planning committee decided to modify the draft plan at the adoption stage, to show the Hermitage site as statutorily protected open land. That modification of the plan will have to be advertised, so that proper public consideration can be given to the change. Such a change cannot affect planning permissions that have already been granted, including the ones granted to Berkeley Homes and the Civilians Remembered campaign.
That brings us to the current point in this long story. As I have already stressed—and as I am sure my hon. Friends will understand—I cannot say anything more this evening; nor can I comment on the merits of the case that my hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow and for Poplar and Canning Town have made, because of the quasi-judicial role of the Secretary of State in this and other planning matters.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Eight o'clock.