HL Deb 12 July 1961 vol 233 cc150-2

2.45 p.m.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

My 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, since nothing can deter plans to yield private gain, they will indicate what action they will take to safeguard public enjoyment in cases where the Fine Art Commission might adjudicate, if empowered to do so, such as impairment of amenity which has occurred to the vista down St. James's Street, closed by the Gate Way of St. James's Palace and now altered by the relative bulk and height of the Shell Building; or as would occur if huge advertisements appeared over the screen of trees lining the garden of Buckingham Palace, on the roof of buildings under contruction on the site of the Stag Brewery.]

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE)

My Lords, the visual effect is one of the factors which local planning authorities take into account when considering proposals for new buildings or for display of advertisements. In the case of high buildings this factor is of special importance; in the case of advertisements on high buildings it is usually the decisive factor. My right honourable friend is satisfied that local planning authorities have adequate powers of control and use them intelligently. There is always room for differences of opinion over æsthetic questions, and there have been several over the high buildings now springing up in London as in other great cities. But it has to be accepted that high buildings are part of the pattern of the future.

LORD AMWELL

My Lords, is there room for differences of opinion, if one looks from the middle of Waterloo Bridge on to this building and sees what difference has been made by the structure that has been put up behind it? If there is the power, why is it not exercised in some intelligent manner?

EARL JELLICOE

Yes, my Lords, there is the possibility of a difference of opinion over that, I would say.

LORD AMWELL

My Lords, there cannot be any difference of opinion about that. Have a look at it.

LORD FARINGDON

My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that in modern urban conditions high buildings are inevitable and presumably this constitutes the only method in which we can obtain open spaces in such areas?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's first supplementary question, I would say, Yes; and in answer to his second, I would say, broadly speaking, Yes.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his answer, may I put a supplementary question? May I ask him to represent to his right honourable friend what I believe is the principle in this matter? It is to forestall an unsympathetic siting of buildings and advertisements by bringing in some concurrent opinion at an earlier stage.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I shall, of course, be very glad to represent that view to my right honourable friend, but perhaps I might just mention, in passing, that I think the building which my noble friend is worried about is not the Shell building but the Vickers building which he sees from St. James's Street.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

I apologise for that, my Lords, and may I ask a last question? Will the noble Earl consider whether it is not in the public interest to keep giant buildings free of advertisements or flashing signs at night? That is the first part of my second question. Is he not aware that for a similar reason sky-writing has been deemed odious? As to putting the public interest before private ownership, is he not aware of the 20-year ban on tree felling which can be imposed by county councils on a woodland owner? I think that is an analogy as between public and private gains.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I think that my noble friend's questions go a little wide of the Vickers building, but I shall be very glad to look at the points which he has made.