LONDON SQUARES PRESERVATION BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 4 March 1931)

§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY
My Lords, I beg to move, That Standing Order No. 91 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill.

§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY
My Lords, it is now my duty to move the Motion which stands in my name, That the Bill be now read a second time, on behalf of the London County Council, and I esteem it a great privilege that the London County Council should have asked me to do so. I do not think there will be any necessity for me to detain your Lordships at any undue length because I am under the impression that the general principle of the Bill is accepted, although there is a Motion for the rejection of the measure in the name of my noble friend Earl Howe.
236 I think that I should mention briefly the successive events which have preceded the presentation of this Bill to Parliament. Your Lordships will probably be aware that a few years ago there was considerable apprehension concerning the open spaces in London by reason of the fact that Endsleigh Gardens and Mornington Crescent were built over in connection with schemes for rebuilding. In view of this happening the London County Council were gravely concerned and they asked His Majesty's Government to set up an inquiry with regard to the enclosures in London, and a resolution was passed to this effect in April, 1927. That resolution ran in the following terms:— That the Council would welcome provision for the maintenance of existing amenities in relation to squares and enclosures in London; that, as a necessary preliminary to early legislation, His Majesty's Government be requested to institute an inquiry into the present position in regard to public and private rights and duties in relation to the squares and enclosures in London with a view to such complete information being obtained as will enable an equitable scheme for dealing with them to be formulated; and that the Government he urged to pass emergency legislation preventing the erection of buildings on such squares and enclosures pending the result of the inquiry. The direct result of that was that the late Government instituted a Commission over which I had the great honour of presiding.
That Commission recommended that early legislation should take place, and they certainly contemplated that there would be legislation. The Council also understood that the Government would initiate legislation. The late Government were unable to promote that legislation, but in November, 1929, after the present Government had come into power, notice was given by The Times that it was the Government's intention to introduce legislation, and it was not until July 24 of last year that the Council were informed by the Minister of Health that, owing to the many Government commitments, it would be impossible for him to bring in a measure dealing with this very urgent question of the open spaces in London; but the Government did suggest that the London County Council should undertake the duty themselves. Last July, therefore, the Council decided to seek powers—the powers which are em- 237 bodied in the Bill now under consideration. The scope of the Bill is necessarily somewhat limited. It was considered that the matter was a very urgent one, and that it was very desirable that legislation should be initiated. Therefore, in view of that urgency, the Council have limited their proposals to the main recommendations, and have not gone so far as to include in the Bill the other and minor recommendations which have been put forward by the Royal Commission.
The principal object of the Bill, as your Lordships are aware, is to preserve the squares, gardens and enclosures, which number 456, included in Appendix III of the Royal Commission's Report. It was not thought practicable, consistently with bringing forward an early Bill, to deal with certain less important recommendations covered by the Report of the Royal Commission. It is felt that if the Bill which is now submitted is enacted in the form suggested there would be time afterwards to bring in further legislation in the hope of enacting the further recommendations which appear in that Report. There is one point which I would venture to make, and that is that it is an interesting commentary on Royal Commissions that, whereas we think that Royal Commissions usually take a very long time to report, and are usually abortive at the end, here there is legislation being initiated after a Royal Commission, and we can hope that one Royal Commission, at all events, will have been responsible for the establishment of legislation in which everybody is interested and which we feel sure will be enacted for the benefit of all concerned.
The Royal Commission in their Report, on page 38, stated that for the purpose of considering whether or not a claim for compensation should be admitted on account of restrictions which it was recommended should be imposed on the enclosures in private ownership, it was proposed to divide them into three groups: (1), those in respect of which special Acts of Parliament had been passed relating to their maintenance and management; (2), those which are vested jointly in the freeholders of adjoining houses or in respect of which surrounding freeholds have been sold with rights of user or where there are other restricted covenants against building and (3), the remaining enclosures 238 set out in Appendix X of the Report of the Royal Commission. In the Bill it will accordingly be found that there are set out in Part I of the Schedule those squares which come under the two first-named heads and which it is proposed should not be subject to compensation. The squares in which the Royal Commission decided that there would be possible claims for compensation are set out in Part II of the Schedule. The matter of compensation is one which I need not deal with very fully now. It is dealt with in Clause 5, but, I think it would be of interest to your Lordships to know that we did receive on the Corn-mission very valuable information, and from a reliable source, that a definite opinion, or as definite an opinion as could be formed, was that the compensation would in all probability not exceed £600,000. This may seem to your Lordships a very modest sum, and I think that, when one has been able to consider this question, and to realise the number of the squares which are governed by Act of Parliament, and also those squares which have become vested in trustees, it will be found that if compensation is claimed, that sum would be a far smaller sum than perhaps at first sight one would be likely to think.
The scheme of the Bill is that ab initio building shall be restricted on all squares. As regards the squares set up in Part II of the Schedule, provisions appear in Clause 5 for dealing with the settlement of claims. It may well be, and from the Petitions which have been presented against the Bill I understand that it is the case, that the owners of some of the squares which are included at present in Part I of the Schedule should, having regard to the lines of demarcation laid down by the Commission between compensation and non-compensation squares, be included in Part II of the Schedule. We put in our Appendices, which correspond to Part I of the Bill, certain squares which, as we deem, were not entitled to compensation. Your Lordships will understand that the owners of those squares, in view of what may happen in the future, on consideration, for instance, of their duties as trustees, which they feel they must consider, may feel that their inclusion in Part II of the Bill justifies the cases which they are able to present. But I 239 think I am right in saying that all these matters are in process of being dealt with between the London County Council and those interested, and that those negotiations are of a completely friendly character. I have very little doubt that when the Committee stage is reached we shall find that those differences are very easily adjusted between the parties concerned.
The material clauses of the Bill are Clauses 3, 4 and 5. The Royal Commission recommended that the enclosures in our Appendix III should be reserved as ornamental gardens or pleasure grounds or as grounds for play, rest, and recreation, and that the erection of buildings other than those necessary or convenient for the enjoyment of the lands for those purposes should be prohibited. Effect is given to this recommendation in Clause 3 (1) of the Bill. This clause also contains provisions, as recommended by the Commission, for controlling the use of the subsoil of protected squares. in cases where such use would interfere with the surface or the amenities of the square. Provision is also made therein to empower the Council to enforce the restrictions which are proposed to be imposed upon protected squares, as recommended by the Royal Commission. Clause 4 gives effect to the recommendation of the Royal Commission that the owner for the time being of an estate of which any of the enclosures form part should not be prevented in connection with the redevelopment of his estate, from building on the enclosure, provided an alternative open space certified by the Council or, on appeal, by the Minister of Health to be equally advantageous to the public, having regard to its situation, its extent and amenities, is reserved to which the restrictions applicable to the original enclosure would apply.
Clause 5 contains provisions for dealing with the settlement of claims for compensation. The provisions are drawn on the lines of the recommendations of the Royal Commission and would enable the Council, in the event of compensation awarded being more than they were prepared to pay, to decline to pay compensation or to limit the area to which the restrictive provisions should apply. In such event, the Council would be required to pay the claimant's costs of any arbitration, and if the area of the 240 enclosure to be subject to the restrictive provisions were reduced, the owner would be entitled to make a further claim. If in either case—and this is important—the Council does not see its way to pay the compensation awarded, the square would cease to be protected under the Act. The remaining clauses of the Bill are mainly machinery or ancillary to the operative Clauses 3, 4 and 5. We made it clear in the Report of the Commission that we were of opinion that any legislation which might be introduced should leave unaltered the present inheritance or property in the squares affected. We further expressed the view, which is consistent with this principle, that no provision should be made for the compulsory user by the general public of the squares when protected. The Bill certainly carries out the views of the Commission in these very important respects.
I understand that seventeen Petitions have been deposited against the Bill and active negotiations have been proceeding between the promoters and many of the Petitioners with a view to seeing what measure of agreement can be reached as regards the objections which have been taken to the different provisions in the Bill. So far as regards the main object of the Bill—the preservation of the squares from buildings—I think it is not unfair to say that there is a very large measure of agreement and sympathy with the objects which the Council has in view. The objections relate essentially to what may be termed "clause questions, "and to the inclusion or non-inclusion of certain enclosures in the Bill. The whole of the squares covered by the Royal Commission in their recommendations numbered 461, and these are all included in Appendix III of the Commission's Report. There are five squares which are dealt with separately, to which I need not refer at this moment. The Commission suggested that the whole of these 461 squares, with those five exceptions, should be dealt with in any legislation which might be promoted. The Petitions relate to only 131 out of the 223 squares which are included in Part II of the Schedule. Taking account of certain squares in respect of which Petitions have not been presented, but as regards which negotiations are proceeding between the promoters and those 241 interested, I think it may be said that no objection is taken to the proposals contained in the Bill so far as respects 285 squares. I only mention these figures to emphasise that it is broadly true to say that this important Bill has met with opposition and criticism only on points of detail.
In view of the public attention which has been directed to the case of certain particular classes of enclosure covered by the Bill, and also certain specific provisions in the Bill which are general to all the squares covered by it, it may be of interest to the House if I make a few observations on some of the special cases. A number of enclosures included in the Schedules are in the possession of the Crown and of the Duchy of Cornwall. The County Council fully realises the difficulty of making these enclosures subject to the jurisdiction of the Council, as would be the case if they were included in this Bill without qualification. Negotiations are proceeding with the Government Departments concerned with a view to including provisions in the Bill which will overcome this difficulty and, at the same time, protect the situation in the possible event of the enclosures passing into other hands.
The Council has also been in negotiation with the representatives of the Inns of Court. This is a very important matter and I have no doubt your Lordships read the letter which appeared on February 10 and was signed anonymously dealing with all these enclosures in the hands of the Inns of Court. The promoters of the Bill have been endeavouring to meet the objections raised by the Inns of Court to the inclusion in the Bill of the enclosures which belong to them. Whilst it is felt by the Council to be desirable to retain these enclosures in the Bill as recommended by the Royal Commission, owing to the desirability of having regard to the contingency, however remote that may be, of the gardens belonging to the Inns passing into other hands (I think it is a very remote contingency), it has been suggested that provision should be made in the Bill that the measure shall not apply to the squares belonging to the four Inns so long as they are in the possession of the Inns and are used for their purposes. It is hoped that it may be possible to reach a settlement somewhat on these 242 lines. Your Lordships fully realise, I am sure, that there is no intention of interfering with these particular properties which have been in the hands of the Inns for hundreds of years, and there is no question that whatever is done with that property will be done in the interests of the community at large. So I hardly think there need be any apprehension that a very satisfactory settlement will not be reached between the County Council and the representatives of the Inns of Court.
In their Report the Royal Commission expressed the opinion that any legislation that might be promoted should give a certain freedom of action to the owners of garden squares to utilise the subsoil thereof, subject to such user not unduly interfering with the amenities of the enclosures. The promoters naturally have given very careful consideration to this question in connection with the objections which have been raised by certain Petitioners and by others with whom they have been in negotiation, on the ground that subsection (2) of Clause 3 of the Bill is unduly restrictive as at present framed. Amendments to the Bill are now under consideration which it is hoped will meet the objections which have been raised on this score and leave the owners in a position of reasonable liberty as regards their rights with respect to the utilisation of the subsoil of the protected squares.
I mention this question as I understand that the noble. Earl, Lord Howe, in whose name the Motion for the rejection of this Bill stands, has taken the step he has taken not because he is in any way opposed to the principle of the Bill but because he is anxious, and rightly anxious, that it should be modified on lines which will permit of the subsoil of some of the squares affected being utilised for the construction of underground garages, with a view thereby of mitigating some of the traffic congestion difficulties which are such a pressing problem in the central areas of London at present. If the Bill in this respect is altered on the lines which have been discussed between the Council and some of those who have raised the question, I think that my noble friend will find his point substantially met. It is felt that it would be somewhat invidious to refer in the Bill to any particular purpose for which the subsoil of the enclosures might 243 be used; but altered as now proposed, it seems clear that, in suitable, cases, it would be practicable within the four walls of the Bill to give effect to the objects he has at heart.
I have no intention of trespassing further upon your Lordships' attention. I have endeavoured to explain the genesis of the Bill and the objects with which it has been promoted. I hardly think there is any Londoner or any one interested in our great City who would not view with apprehension the possibility of any serious encroachment on the existing open spaces within its boundaries. Past events have shown clearly and beyond question the need of protective legislation and that is why I for one welcome the action of the County Council in bringing forward legislation in this connection. The Royal Commission was appointed specifically to enquire into the matter and to find out how this object could best be achieved. The Council has produced this Bill which is intended to carry out the primary object for which the Commission was appointed and to achieve which that Commission laid it down that early legislation was imperative.
The reception which the Bill has met with justifies, as I have said, the view that there is practical unanimity on all hands as to the desirability of passing early legislation to protect the squares of London from building. Objections have been raised to this point and that point in the Bill. Those objections, having regard to the magnitude of the subject, I think it is fair to say, are neither extensive nor fundamental. I venture therefore to ask the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill so that it may go to a Committee where it will be open to all who have objections to raise regarding any particular point in connection with the Bill to state their case fully and, if the Committee see fit, to obtain such consideration as the circumstances may justify after investigation. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

§ LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE
My Lords, I think the noble Marquess who moved the Second Reading of this Bill is doubly to be congratulated upon having produced the Report of the Royal Commission of 1928 and having so speedily taken the matter up by introducing a Bill into your Lordships' House. I think it is a matter about which there Is some urgency. Preservation of the squares of London, which are unique in their character, has become very much required, because, owing to modern development and the speed with which modern buildings are erected the danger to some of these squares is really of a pressing character. If we want to preserve them there is no doubt that special legislation of this kind is necessary. The sort of case to which I would draw your Lordships' attention is quoted on page 101 of the Report, in which the Commission say that for the past dozen years the square has been fighting for its life against the growing power of a certain commercial firm. I will not mention the name of the square or the name of the firm, in case, while this legislation is proceeding, they may take further steps to take over the square. But that is the danger.
The encroachment of commercial buildings over these squares has become a question which has to be dealt with at 245 once. The Government had intended to bring in a Bill, and had prepared one soon after coming into office, but, unfortunately, pressure of time prevented that Bill from being introduced. It was to have covered approximately the same lines as the Bill explained by the noble Marquess, although perhaps on the subject of compensation the Government Bill might not have gone as far as the County Council Bill goes. But as this Bill is one introduced by the authority who will have to pay the compensation, and the compensation provisions are an integral part of the Bill, the Government are certainly not disposed to object, but I may say that it is our opinion that there is no case for extending any further the right of the claim to compensation beyond the proposals that are now in the Bill. The noble Marquess did mention one point, which I should like to repeat, with regard to Crown property. I think there are three or four squares which are Crown property, and, as he rightly said, Crown property cannot be placed under the jurisdiction of a local authority, but I understand from what he said that negotiations are proceeding between the Government Departments concerned and the promoters of the Bill, and that the necessary Amendments to meet this point will be put into the Bill, in which case it will be quite satisfactory.
I was glad to hear the noble Marquess say that any opposition there had been to the Bill was really only on points of detail, and I very much hope that these will be overcome in the Committee stage. I should like to be allowed to say one word with regard to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. He has touched on a point which I feel very strongly about—namely, the defacement of these squares by their being made into parking grounds for cars. I feel certain myself that in future large underground parking places will become as much a necessity in London as the squares themselves, or the tube stations, or any other of the facilities which we enjoy, and on that account I think that the precaution he gave and the protest he made was quite well advised, if I may say so. At any rate I do not think that the suggestion which he makes in any way endangers the amenities of the squares themselves, and their preservation is a matter not of mere convenience 246 but of importance to this great City of ours, the beauty of which in this special way we want at all events to preserve as best we can. I congratulate the noble Marquess on his having introduced this Bill.

§ LORD DARLING
My Lords, I should not have said a word about this except that I know there. has been some apprehension with regard to the gardens and the buildings of the Inner and Middle Temples, which are mentioned in the Schedule to this Bill. I wonder that they were included in any shape or form in this Bill, because I cannot suppose that there is the slightest feeling anywhere in respect of that land in the middle of London, which has belonged to these two learned and honourable societies ever since the disestablishment of the Knights Hospitallers and Templars—I cannot suppose there is any real desire to interfere with the way in which those spaces are managed. They have existed as they are now without any complaint. The Benchers who manage them throw the land open as far as can possibly be done to the people, and especially to the children of the neighbourhood, and it is a pity that they should not be allowed to disport themselves there. I think everyone in London, and most of the people who are able to come to London from the uttermost parts of the earth, would regret that the County Council, or any body of that description, should be allowed to interfere with the ancient aspect of the Temples and of the land that they possess.
In the Inner Temple gardens began the Wars of the Roses. There were roses there then. They do not grow very well in London now, because smoke abatement has not reached the proper point, but they will grow there again if only those concerned with London will leave the Temple gardens alone and will devote themselves to purifying the atmosphere in other parts of London. In the Temple many eminent people, some of them ancestors of your Lordships—as those who grew roses in the Temple gardens were—have carried on their careers which have led them to the Woolsack. In the Temple also many men of literary eminence have carried on their practice. I need only mention Charles Lamb who, in one of his essays, said: "Who, if he had the 247 choice, would not have been born in such a place as the Temple? "It is celebrated in Gower, it is celebrated in the works of many other authors who are classic in our language, and it would to my mind be a great misfortune to England, and to places outside England, if people absolutely unconnected with the Temple and foreign to its traditions, were allowed to prescribe to the Benchers how they should manage a property which they have managed for now some eight or nine hundred years, I believe to the entire satisfaction of all the people who frequent that neighbourhood. I have some reason to believe that the Temples will be dropped out of this measure later on. I hope it may be so. I hope the noble Lord opposite will see that the susceptibilities of all people who care anything at all about the Temple are regarded when this Bill is passing through Committee.

§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY
My Lords, there is only one matter to which I should like to refer, and that is connected with the speech of my noble friend Lord Darling. While I have been in the House, I have received a message to say that an arrangement has been come to between the promoters of the Bill and the Inns, and that a clause will be inserted which I understand is completely satisfactory to both parties. I do not think I need say anything further.