§ 2.39 p.m.
§ LORD AILWYNMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the disfigurement now proceeding along the pavements of Chelsea Square and its environs through the removal of the old Victorian lamp-posts—dignified and unobtrusive—and their replacement by gaunt, naked, unsightly poles which grossly offend any but the most undiscriminating eye; what useful purpose is served by such vandalism; and what action can be taken to discourage any further such despoiling of London residential neighbourhoods.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE)My Lords, the Town and Country Planning Development Order, 1950, exempts local authorities from planning control in regard to 144 street furniture of various kinds, including lamp-posts. I understand that the Chelsea Borough Council came to the conclusion that the old gas lamps in Chelsea gave inadequate light, were irregularly spaced, and fell below current lighting standards. I understand further that they consulted the Royal Fine Art Commission before deciding on the designs to be used, and that they tried aluminium posts as suggested by the Commission, but found them unsatisfactory as being too easily damaged. The steel posts now being adopted are of a standard design which has received the approval of the Council for Industrial Design. The Royal Fine Art Commission are said to have preferred a round column, but the Borough Council decided on an octagonal section.
As to the last part of the Question, local authorities are responsible, democratic bodies, and it is, of course, open to those with views to make them known to the council, both directly and through their elected representatives. May I add this? I am sure your Lordships will think it entirely appropriate that the noble Lord, who so recently raised a debate of great interest to your Lordships about dogs, should now turn his attention to lamp-posts.
§ LORD AILWYNMy Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his careful, courteous and entirely unconvincing reply—and, of course, the connection of dogs with lamp-posts was inevitable—is he aware that, quite unbeknownst to me, when I put my Question on the Order Paper, strongly-supported petitions were organised by local residents praying that the existing old lamps be retained and converted, if necessary, to electric lighting, rather than that the Council should uproot them and plant these detestable objects in their place? In any case, if that request could not be met, why these devastatingly unsuitable lamps—for Chelsea of all places? Why these starkly ugly spectres—and they are nothing else? Will Her Majesty's Government please take steps towards urging local authorities to pay some attention towards appearances and to æsthetic value?
EARL WALDEGRAVEMy Lords, that is a very large number of supplementary questions in one. I cannot 145 accept on behalf of Her Majesty's Government the statements that have been made, namely, that these lamp-posts are good, bad or indifferent. The properly constituted authority for lamp-posts is the borough council, and they have had long discussions, I believe since 1956, with their ratepayers and various societies—for example, the Chelsea Society—about the design of these lampposts. It is hardly a matter for Parliament at this stage.
§ LORD AILWYNMy Lords, will your Lordships grant me the indulgence of one more supplementary? Is my noble friend aware that the borough council appear to have treated with discourtesy—and that is, I may say, an understatement—the legitimate representations made to them by the various ratepayers in the borough who are faced with a bill of approximately £85 per lamp-post, and to have shown flagrant disregard for the strongly adverse criticism of these lamps expressed by all and sundry? Finally, is he further aware of the particular distress caused to residents in the oldest parts of the borough by the crudity of these lamps against the eighteenth and early nineteenth century buildings in that neighbourhood?
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord will show his disapproval of the Chelsea Borough Council at the appropriate time?
EARL WALDEGRAVEMy Lords, we have very wide latitude, but I must again say that this is not a matter for Parliament, but one for local government. I think it would be better not to attempt to describe what may or may not be the views of Her Majesty's Government in this domestic matter.