§ 2.35 p.m.
§ LORD BOSSOMMy 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, seeing the widespread concern expressed by a great many individuals both outside and inside Parliament regarding the considerable number of important both modern and historic ancient buildings which have recently been seriously overshadowed or worse by the placement of exceedingly big buildings, they will consider setting up an authoritative commis-mission of technical experts, not Government officials, to look into the entire problem of placing these new buildings in London or in other important cities and so give guidance to prospective developers as to where further great buildings can be erected without destroying the amenities of the already existing buildings.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE)My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government doubts whether the establishment of such a commission would serve a useful purpose. Whatever policy is adopted, some of these high buildings are bound to give rise to differences of opinion. Moreover, as I explained in the debate on February 22, all high building proposals in Central London are the subject of most careful scrutiny. Expert advice on these proposals is already available from the Royal Fine Art Commission. Responsibility for these decisions must remain a matter for the planning 90 authority and, in the last resort, the Minister and could not be delegated to a body of the kind suggested by my noble friend. As regards guidance to developers, the London County Council are already reviewing, in the light of experience and in consultation with the Royal Fine Art Commission, the criteria against which they examine high building proposals, I understand that that study is now nearing completion.
§ LORD BOSSOMMy Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether it is not a fact that if this system is permitted to continue we shall have a most unsatisfactory architectural chaos continuing in London?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I should hope, on the contrary, that we might see a considerable improvement.
§ LORD BOSSOMMy Lords, we should all hope that that is going to be the case, but the facts are that if this system continues it will be certain that the visitors who come to London to-day to see us will not do so; they will stay at home and see what they can find in their own country, which will probably be better than what we have here, and we shall make a considerable loss on our national annual income. Therefore I hope my noble friend will make a great effort to see that there is a body, not of officials but of private experts, who are given the opportunity to make recommendations on this subject.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I would remind my noble friend that the present arrangements allow far private individuals, and not only for officials, to review applications for high buildings. The Royal Fine Art Commission, for example, is not composed of officials.
§ LORD MOLSONMy Lords, while I welcome what the Parliamentary Secretary has said about the review which is taking place with regard to this policy, having regard to his hope that matters are going to improve, may we take it that the Government are dissatisfied with many of the decisions that have so far been given by the planning authority? Secondly, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is aware that at the present time a review by the London County Council is taking place 91 of the criteria by which they judge applications? Is that tied up with the inquiry which the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated is taking place at the moment? Lastly, will there be any opportunity for informed public opinion to express its views upon this matter before a final decision .is arrived at about the future?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I am not quite certain whether I have all my noble friend's questions quite clear in my mind. As regards his first supplementary, as to whether or not we are satisfied with the planning decisions which have taken place in this field hitherto, I would reply that of course there is room for improvement in this field. Even in the best of all possible worlds we might possibly have better high buildings.
In reply to his second supplementary, I think there is some confusion about this matter. The only inquiry to which my reply to my noble friend Lord Bossom referred was the re-examination by the London County Council of the criteria against which they judge high buildings. The Government, of course, have the general position constantly under review; but the only specific inquiry is that at present being undertaken by the London County Council in consultation with the Royal Fine Art Commission.
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHMy Lords, will the result of the inquiry by the London County Council and the Royal Fine Art Commission, to which the noble Earl referred, be published?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I think that is a matter for the London County Council. But, of course, full publicity has been given to the existing criteria against which applications for high buildings are judged.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, will the noble Earl draw to the attention of his right honourable friend the great thought that has been given by Members of the House to this matter? And when these inquiries are finished, will he then be in a position to publish a White Paper?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I am not sure about publishing a White 92 Paper; but I will certainly draw my right honourable friend's attention to the considerable interest which this House and, indeed, the other place have displayed and are displaying in this important matter.
§ LORD MOTTISTONEMy Lords, I should like to ask whether Her Majesty's Government will consider extending the scope of the National Buildings Record to embrace not only the buildings themselves but also the 'situation and the setting of the buildings and their approaches. Would not the provision of what would constitute a National Vistas Record be an essential step towards identifying, and thereafter preserving, these historic and architecturally important viewpoints about which the public are so naturally disturbed?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I think that that is a wider and rather different question from my noble friend's original Question. But in answer to the noble Lord, I would say, first of all, that the question of the scope of the National Buildings Record and its responsibilities is at present under examination by a committee under the chairmanship of my right honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I think it would be advisable to await the results of that committee's findings before committing myself to anything in that regard. I am not quite certain of the noble Lord's second point. Could he repeat his question?
§ LORD MOTTISTONEMy Lords, would not the provision of such a record, which I called a National Vistas Record, be the first essential step towards identifying, and thereafter preserving, the historic and architecturally important viewpoints about which there is increasing public concern?
EARL JELLICOEI think the question of the importance and preservation of historic viewpoints is precisely one of the matters at present engaging the attention of the London County Council.
§ LORD BOSSOMMy Lords, while thanking my noble friend for the consideration he has given to this subject, may I ask whether he is aware that we in England are very limited in the study 93 of planning? We are probably less informed about it than is any other first-class country, and it would be a good thing if my noble friend could take up that question with his Minister to see whether the Government could not do something about it.