HL Deb 24 July 1962 vol 242 cc985-1002

5.5 p.m.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what basic principles they consider should sanction high-rise building silhouettes in urban landscapes. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I would ask the noble Earl who is to reply if he will answer another question, which is not printed but which is: Does he not think that certain amending legislation is needed? Exactly a year ago my noble friend Lord Bossom asked a similar Question to that which he asked yesterday. The Answer of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, did not please the noble Lord the questioner or myself; or the noble Lords, Lord Am well, Lord Taylor and Lord Shaekloton. I had previously drawn attention to the bulk of the Vickers building acting as a sort of long-stop behind the venerable gate towers of St. James's Palace, and to the intrusive peering battlements then rising over the treetops from the Stag Brewery site to look down into the privacy of Buckingham Palace gardens. In recent days tens of thousands attending the Royal Garden Party will have noted for themselves that object lesson in overlooking, as it is called.

My noble friend Lord Bossom quoted the rule about high buildings in Washington whereby it is sought to perpetuate the supremacy of what is, to United-Staters, beautiful or historical—a justified embargo and perhaps one to copy. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, questioned the wisdom of allowing a 22-storey building in Oxford Circus, that ganglion of traffic. For the same reason I doubt the wisdom of having reared the mammoth Hilton Hotel on the very edge of a rapid rushing torrent of traffic before a comprehensive redevelopment of the area, including a reshaping of the roads plan, had taken place. In 1920 I took great pride in the County Hall, then rising majestically on the South Bank, being then a County Councillor. To-day that same facade is dwarfed by the new Shell House. The noble Lord, Lord Amwell (he was here, but I am sorry to see that he has left) complained that the gigantic Vickers Tower, seen from Waterloo Bridge further down-river, had dwarfed this Palace in which we sit, making even the tower of Big Ben hide its head.

All those mistakes may be going to remain a thing of the past (let us cross our fingers) if the London County Council are as good as their word. For on Tuesday there was presented to the Council a report of their Planning Committee forswearing perpetration of similar misdemeanours or (shall I say?) acts of unwisdom. In this document our desire seems to have been met. Neither skyline nor riverscape is to be marred; palaces and parks are to be respected; and crude modern forms are not to be reared alongside that which is historic and well loved, to derogate from the dignity and respect in which we wish them to be held.

But, my Lords, we look to the Government to hold the fort for our treasures where threats by imperfectly instructed planning committees, maybe, arise; for the Minister is overlord of all planners. Planners, it is well understood, act under the compulsion of two main fears: first, that if they delay decision beyond two months they may render themselves liable to claims that they must either purchase sites and properties or face compensation payments. Yet I understand that they can buy time over an application by giving notice to the Housing Minister for the project to be treated under the comprehensive re-development method. In the latter case, the two months can well extend over two years in time. Ratepayers will have to disburse the cost of modernising road plans as a first step in the exercise. One hopes the Treasury will unbend and authorise the Ministry to make grants of interest due on loans, say for the first three years, until rents come in as income.

Does the noble Earl deny that some amending legislation is now due? Can he foreshadow his Minister's intention in that respect? One last word. The Minister has dropped a most encouraging remark that his Ministry is willing to lend technical assistance, seeing that surveyors, highly and fully trained in the new science of town planning and road plan reshaping, are a very scarce commodity at this moment throughout our towns and shires.

5.12 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, before the noble Earl answers this Question, I should like to intervene for a very short time. First, I would thank the noble Earl for having put this Question, which is of great interest to all Londoners particularly, and for trying to elicit a reply from Her Majesty's Government, if they will give one. I think it is particularly opportune to ask this Question, because there is no doubt that high buildings, particularly in London, are on the increase, and it is right that we should try to get some declaration of principle as to what kind of high buildings are in the public interest and what are not.

We are very much behind other countries in regard to high buildings. Noble Lords will know that in the United States, in South America, and in many other countries, they are prevalent and are growing much faster than they are here. In some of what I may call the twilight countries, countries that are emerging into modern civilisation, the number of high buildings is regarded as a symbol of their prosperity, civilisation, and so on. We are very much behind, but, as I have said, our numbers are increasing. The question about which we have to make up our minds is whether we should encourage this increase in high buildings or resist it. There is no doubt that high buildings offer a considerable number of advantages. It makes it possible, if the building is properly silted, to provide much better lighted accommodation than in buildings of traditional height, and there is no interference from these buildings with views of other buildings. There is less over-shadowing, and it adds interest—I stress that—in areas which are generally comprised of low-lying buildings.

The noble Earl has referred to a report of the London County Council on this question. In that report, the London County Council take the view that it is not desirable to have high buildings in areas which are generally of traditional height. There I absolutely disagree. Having lived in two of the areas that are referred to as areas of traditional low building, I would say that one of the disadvantages of those areas is that they are dull and uninteresting, and that a few high buildings would add considerable interest, certainly for the residents. At one time in Dulwich there was the Crystal Palace, which was a landmark and of great interest to us all. We deplored the day when that building came down. Another advantage is that it is accepted that by putting up a high building you do not increase the volume of the building. I think that would be undesirable. This is not a means of getting more accommodation; it is merely a means of using the space in rather a different way. By putting up a high building of the same cubic content as a traditional building, you have more land available around the building, which could be a very desirable thing, especially if the site is sufficiently large.

I have read and considered very carefully the report of the London County Council which sets out the policy they will adopt in the future. I am bound to say that I rather deplore it. The report seems to me, and is indeed, avowedly biased against high buildings, just as are the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, and, I gather, the noble Earl who has just spoken. The London County Council and the noble Lords say that unless there is an advantage in high building it should not be allowed—in other words, putting the onus of proof on those who want to put up high buildings. I think that is an unfair onus to impose upon a developer. We have to recognise that this question of the erection of high buildings, once you have introduced all the necessary safeguards—safeguards against overshadowing, blocking out desirable views, interference with views, particularly of public buildings, and so on—is largely a matter of taste. Some noble Lords may not like high buildings. I personally do, but I should not wish, therefore, to impose high buildings on the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, or on the noble Earl. And I hope they would not impose their views on me.

We are living in an age when individual developers carry out development on their land, and are permitted to do so, subject to their complying with the normal town planning requirements, which, of course, contain in design all the safeguards for the community which can be desired. But I think it is quite wrong that any one generation should wish to impose its particular taste upon the community as a whole; a taste which may be unsatisfactory, which may not even be the taste of the public as a whole and may be based on experience in the past.

Some of the most beautiful buildings in the world to-day are those which, at the time they were built, were regarded as ugly and undesirable; and fashions do change even in taste. I believe there are people to-day who regard the Albert Memorial as a very beautiful building. When I was a boy it was regarded as the last word in ugliness. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, who is going to follow me in addressing your Lordships, thinks about the Albert Memorial. I would say the same about the Central Hall, Westminster. I have heard that praised most highly in the last year or two. Nobody would nave dared to stand up in public and praise the Central Hall, Westminster, fifteen years ago, but to-day there are many people to be found who would regard such buildings as very delightful. I believe that the Houses of Parliament, when they were first built, were not regarded as the last word in beautiful architecture. Indeed, it would have been difficult to justify the design of the Houses of Parliament in that they are mock Gothic and represent no contemporary kind of architecture at all. But to-day we regard the Houses of Parliament as one of the most beautiful buildings in the world.

All these things are matters of taste; and I think it is wrong, therefore, solely on the grounds of æsthetics to impose one's ideas of these high buildings. By all means, let us satisfy ourselves on proper requirements of siting, views, ease of fire-fighting and overshadowing, and see that all the necessary protective bylaws, and all the rest of it, are complied with. But I think that when it becomes a matter of taste we must be very sure before we interfere.

Of course, I do not wish to go right to the extreme of my argument—I hope I never shall in any argument—but one has to have regard to the nature of the materials that are used. Obviously, in a building of that kind one has to use the right kind of material, which will harmonise with the area, but I take that for granted. I take it that the real objection, if there is one, regarding high buildings is to the fact that they are high and not in accordance with the tradition of building in this country; and one has to make out a case—as this report says, an extremely powerful case—to establish that a building of traditional height is less desirable than the high building one wants to put up. I think that is a wrong onus and a wrong emphasis, and my own view is that it would be far better to do what this report says has already been done: to let London grow and to develop in a natural way, perhaps somewhat fortuitously and casually, and so long as each building is right and good so will the total emerge.

I want to conclude by referring to a conception of Venice. Venice is a city which has grown over many centuries. Buildings of different generations and different styles, by different architects, have all helped to build up Venice; yet the total ensemble of Venice is one of the most beautiful in the world, and the reason is that each building is harmonised with every other. There has been no attempt to suppress any particular design. It has not been suggested that because many buildings are Gothic, therefore only Gothic buildings must be permitted. Every building is a gem of its own. I would submit that if we can put up attractive buildings which are of attractive materials, the right materials, not interfering with the views, prospects or with other buildings, we should allow a great deal of freedom in the erection of high buildings. I hope the Government will not seek to impose any kind of dead level or standard or create a difficult onus on people to make it impossible for them to provide these high buildings.

There is one more thing I want to say, and that is that this report says how many high buildings there are in London; and if the standards that the London County Council lay down today had been approved, I doubt whether any of these buildings would have been put up at all; I doubt whether any one of these high buildings satisfies the standards which the London County Council themselves lay down. And yet they have given planning permission for the erection of every one of them. I think it is time we cleared our minds over the subject, and I am very glad indeed that the noble Earl has put this Question so that we may have an opportunity of discussing it and hearing the views of the Government.

5.26 p.m.

LORD MOLSON

My Lords, I should have been surprised to hear the speech that we have just listened to coming from any Member of the Opposition Front Bench, but my surprise became astonishment when this speech fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, the father and drafter of the Town and Country Planning Bill, and the Minister who was responsible for commending that Bill to the House of Commons, and who successfully put it upon the Statute Book. The logic of his argument is that since taste varies so completely it is impossible to have any criterion, that anything which interferes with the free enterprise of even the most irresponsible developers should be eyed with the greatest distrust. He covered himself by saying that he did not want to push his argument to extremes, but I hardly know how the argument could have been more extreme than the form in which he put it forward.

It is, of course, true that tastes change. It is true that many buildings which were disapproved of at one time have become admired in a later age. But that is not a reason for abandoning all attempts at maintaining certain standards of taste. Even less is it a reason for not seeking, in a city like London, to control the erection of high buildings which could have the most serious effect upon traffic, as well as the most damaging effect upon the general appearance of the city as a whole. I hope that the London County Council will not be discouraged from reviewing again the rules they have laid down simply because one who in the past has been so distinguished a supporter of their general policy in this matter disapproves of what they are now doing.

I feel that the report is a conscientious and enlightened effort to provide a reasonable degree of freedom in building high buildings where it is appropriate to do so. But even if the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is beginning to doubt the wisdom of the Town and Country Planning Act, I feel that nearly everybody else has been convinced by the arguments that he has put forward in the past, and we are very glad indeed to think that the London County Council have these powers and were considering so carefully how to exercise them in a way which will, at the same time, maintain certain standards while enabling new ideas and new techniques to be developed.

5.30 p.m.

LORD BOSSOM

My Lords, I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, for asking the Government to give us some information on these lines. I must declare a certain interest in this situation. I believe that I am credited with being the first person ever to design a 20-storey building on skyscraper lines, which I did in 1908. Furthermore, I did the tallest building in the world in Washington for the Standard Oil Company of New York. I got a gold medal in New York in 1924. So I do know something about this subject.

I would go on to say that the Town and Country Planning Act, which is so important in the way we have operated it in the past, does not quite meet all the situation. What I think we must do to-day is to take the planning of London as a whole, and decide where tall buildings should go and where they would be inappropriate. Any of your Lordships who went to one of the Royal Garden Parties in the past ten days must have had a shock to see buildings in these positions on either side of this magnificent centre. I do not think that even the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would consider them appropriate.

Nevertheless, there are certain places where high buildings are appropriate, and that is where they must be placed. If you go anywhere out of London you will see building everywhere. We have got to house these people, and the only way we can do it, without occupying all the land, is by putting them in taller buildings. I would disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin; I am in favour of tall buildings in the right place, but I am not in favour of them in the wrong place. I am only sorry that we have been putting them in the wrong place.

The London County Council promoted a building Act; I happened to be on the committee when it was being worked out. We made certain regulations that buildings should not be more than 80 feet to the cornice and 100 feet high in total. Then some exceptions were made, and the Royal Fine Art Commission were invited to give their views, which they did. Than the County Council gave their advice, and in certain circumstances rather condemned certain tall buildings. But what happened? The Minister, who had the final "say-so" about it, overruled the objections of the London County Council and of the Royal Fine Art Commission, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, knows. I do not think it is proper that people who are not better informed than the Minister on that subject should have the power of overriding the Royal Fine Art Commission. They are put there as a guardian for London; yet they are overridden.

I think that we have to preserve certain areas of London; for example the square mile—we will call it the Whitehall square mile. There are certain parts of London which are precious, and we shall certainly lose that quality if we stick up all sorts of buildings all over the place. Lot us say that certain places can have them and that certain other places cannot. We should start, as they have done in other countries, by putting them in groups (that is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was suggesting), and not have them isolated all over the place. That has been done in other places, and it has worked out very well indeed. That was originally done in New York. They indicated certain places where high buildings should be put up. I was in New York at the time, and we left gaps intentionally. That principle has worked very well, and has proved to be correct.

Then they started putting up tall buildings in Washington. The matter was taken up by the architects of America, and we decided (I was an architect in practice in America in those days) that it would be better to limit the height to about 100 feet anywhere in that city; and that has worked perfectly well. If you were to go to Washington to-day you would make charming remarks, as is done about Venice. If you go to Paris, you find that the same thing has been done by perfectly simple planning. We must do the planning carefully and decide beforehand, and not do it in a rush because somebody decides that he wants to put up a building in a particular place, in order to make some more money. That is not the way to plan a great city. It should be looked at carefully, as a whole, and should be divided up. Then the authority should say, "There you can put what you like, so long as it complies with the regulations; but not here". I am sure that if it were put to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, he, with his own knowledge of and pride in town planning, would be the first to agree. I think that, when he looks at what he has said, he will agree that he spoke a little more out of turn than he appreciated.

My Lords, we have entered into a new era, and the size of buildings has grown. We nave put up very big buildings. I have designed 50 of them; I know all about that. I know that in certain towns, like Buffalo, for instance, they said, "No more tall buildings"; and they stopped. They did that in a great many other cities, and it was of great benefit. Why cannot we do that in London and other cities: decide the whole picture; make the picture as a whole? We can secure all the variety we want, and let them all have their full chance of building upwards, but only in certain limited areas, while preserving the beauty that we undoubtedly have in this city. This city is to my mind—and I know most of the big cities of the world—one of the most beautiful and attractive cities there is. Let us keep it so. When we look back through history we think of the type of people who lived in any time by the type of buildings they left behind them. How will future generations think of the people of this generation if we allow the beauty of London to be lost because a few speculators desire to make a dot of money? I think we have an opportunity now. If we Jet it go too far we shall have lost the opportunity. If we take advantage of the opportunity now, we shall be doing something worth while for ourselves and future generations. I think we owe a great debt to the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, for bringing this matter up this afternoon.

5.38 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I apologise for, in the words of my noble friend, Lord Albemarle, rearing my crude modern form yet again at this Box. If high buildings were human, I feel that some of them, including perhaps a few fairly close to your Lordships' House, would have been pained at some of the things said about them in our short discussion this afternoon. But nothing, I suppose, is worse in life than being ignored, and high buildings, at least in London, cannot complain that your Lordships have shown indifference to their varied charms. You debated their merits at considerable length last February on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and since then few weeks have gone by without my noble friend Lord Bossom giving them, and sometimes the Government into the bargain, a pretty sharp dig in the ribs. May I say straight away that I, for one, welcome the solicitude which your Lordships have shown and are showing in this matter. That is why I, too, very much welcome the opportunity which my noble friend Lord Albemarle has given us of having a further look at this difficult and lofty problem.

I suppose that one of the greatest tasks facing this nation, and one of the most exciting and challenging, is that of urban renewal. As the Civic Trust, for example, have pointed out in their interesting report, in the preparation of which my noble friend Lord Mancroft has played a very prominent part, too many of our towns and cities are tired and drab and very few of their centres are really adapted to the requirements of the 20th century. That being so, I welcome all the signs which confirm that we are embarking, have embarked, upon a great era of rebuilding our towns and cities. At no time in our history, I suppose, have our townscapes been Changing so fast, and there are signs which we see all around us that this process is indeed accelerating. I, personally, am sure that this problem Of high building must be treated as an integral part, indeed a vastly important part, of this whole process.

However, that said, I should be the first to agree that it is vitally important to get the answers here as right as possible; that we get the right sort of high buildings in the right places, designed in the right way by the right people. That is what we have to aim at. But since the skyline of Britain is changing so fast, I, for one, welcome the fact that this House should so often show itself a watchdog of amenity in this matter. I do not think it unfair to claim that, to some extent at least, the growing national awareness of the importance of this problem owes something to the constant attention which this House has focused on it. Accordingly, I hope that my noble friends will continue to bark whenever they see a high building which displeases them, even though a Government spokesman may get bitten in the process.

LORD SILKIN

Would they purr if they see one that they like?

EARL JELLICOE

I do not think we shall hear a great many purrs from my noble friends immediately behind me—at least, if these buildings go up in the immediate vicinity of where my noble friend is sitting at the present time. In our discussion last February I tried, at perhaps undue length, to explain the general approach of the Government to this problem, at least so far as London was concerned. I do not wish to drag your Lordships over the same old ground again, but perhaps I could remind you of the basic principles, to borrow my noble friend's phrase, which underlie our approach. The first is our feeling that, for a whole variety of reasons, high buildings have come to stay, and that any Government in this post-Canute era would be wise to recognise that fact. The second principle is our belief, reached after considerable thought, that in essence each high building has to be judged on its own merits, in its own context. That means, parenthetically, that we see, as indeed I think the L.C.C. see, great difficulties over any rather rigid type of zoning of heights as has been suggested by my noble friend Lord Bossom in his most interesting intervention.

LORD BOSSOM

My Lords, if I gave the impression that I want to limit height I must say I did not give the right impression, because I do not want to limit height at all What I want to do is to put the building in the right place. It is the place that counts, not the height.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I think I understood what my noble friend had in mind. Whilst I fully appreciate his point, I myself am inclined also to appreciate the difficulties to which the L.C.C. have alluded in their most recent report in this particular respect. Thirdly, however, this does not mean that we are prepared to let high buildings sprout promiscuously from the soil of our towns and cities, wherever a developer sees fit to plant them.

I pointed out, taking London as an example, that any proposal for any high building has to run a number of gauntlets. It has to satisfy the requirements of the London building Acts to which my noble friend Lord Bossom alluded. If it is near a Royal Park or Palace consultation with my right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works is required. In almost all important cases the Royal Fine Art Commission is also consulted. Finally, and perhaps most important, each individual application is assessed by the planning authority, the London County Council, against eight specific criteria—or has been up till now.

I then went on to make it clear that the London County Council were having a fresh look at their eight points in order to see whether they could not graft some more flesh on them; and I added that I was certain that they, in considering this subject, would wish to consult with the Royal Fine Art Commission. As your Lordships have learned, the London County Council have lately re-examined their whole policy on this matter, and they approved, I think on July 17 last, a report from their Town Planning Committee. I hope that all Members of your Lordships' House who are interested in this matter will read that report with care. I think, whether or not one agrees with its conclusions, there is a great deal of value in that report.

It would take much too long to go over the report in any detail, but I should like to touch on those points in it which I consider most relevant to your Lordships' brief discussion this evening. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has mentioned, it starts with the general proposition that the Council do not recognise any inherent right to build high, and that it is up to the developers themselves to make their case, with the support of written and visual evidence, for any building susbtantially above the average height of buildings in the surrounding neighbourhood. The Council, again most wisely, urged developers to consult the Council officers at an early stage, to discuss in a preliminary way the effect any proposed high building is likely to have, not only on its immediate environment but also on the general skyline of London as well. I think this question of early preliminary consultation is one of great importance. The statement then goes on to make it crystal clear that the Council will give permission to build high only if they are satisfied on five points. Since those are important, and since each one consists only of one sentence, I hope that your Lordships will not mind if I spell them out in full. In each case I quote the words of the report.

The first point is that a development conforming with the general high level of surrounding buildings will have serious disadvantages and that substantial advantages to the public interest will be gained by a high building. The second is that the building, from wherever it is seen, will not seriously mar the skyline nor spoil traditionally pleasing and well loved views, such as those of the Palace of Westminster and of London squares or views from the Royal Parks and the River Thames. The third is that the proposed high building would look well with its immediate surroundings, both existing and proposed. The fourth is that amenities of surrounding sites will not be harmed, nor their development possibility unreasonably affected. And the fifth is that in view of the prominence of high buildings developers have been successful in securing a high quality of architectural and external finishes for their high building. As the report explains, it was the intention of the London County Council to restate their existing policy in more definite and more forceful terms. I would suggest to your Lordships that, whether or not you agree with their revised policy, they have been successful in so doing. For example, the first of the new principles makes it clear that the potential developer will not be able to put up a high building "just for the heck of it." He must satisfy the planning authority that substantial advantages will flow from the building in question being a tall one. Parenthetically, I would entirely agree with what the noble Lord said about the great practical advantages which can flow from a high building, and, indeed, I would also add, in some cases, æsthetic advantages as well.

Then, I should have thought that, by emphasising in forceful language the importance of fine and famous views, the London County Council have gone a considerable way on one of the issues about which at least many of your Lordships have been much exercised. I think your Lordships may also welcome, as I do, the general preference which the London County Council have shown for the high tower block as opposed to the high slab block; although I hope I may also be able to express the personal view that all slabs are not necessarily bad.

Finally, and most important of all, is the great emphasis which the London County Council have laid on the quality of the individual design. Again, I wish to quote, if I may, a passage from their report: The Council wishes to emphasise that even if a high building were to be satisfactory on all previous points, such approval is likely to be provided only if the design and quality of the building is considered to be of exceptionally high standard. Of course, a lot depends on the individual interpretation of what constitutes a high standard, but, that admitted, I trust your Lordships will welcome, as I do, this fierce emphasis on quality and design.

This new statement of London County Council policy was worked out in close consultation with the Royal Fine Art Commission. I find it very encouraging to see the Council sitting down side by side, as it were, with them and addressing themselves in this way to what is indeed a very difficult problem. I could perhaps mention that while the Commission have stated that they generally approve of the Council's new policy, they have noted their reservations on certain points in regard to it. Whilst, for example, they share the London County Council's penchant for blocks or towers as opposed to slabs, they have expressed the fear that the present daylighting code may work in favour of slabs. They ask that this should be looked into, and the Council are, I am glad to say, arranging to do so as far as they can.

The Council are also proposing to give more general and detailed guidance in a brochure they hope to get out later this year—a guide for potential developers. I know that in preparing this they will be very walling to consider any observations which have been made on their policy statement, and, indeed, to modify the statement if that seems to be called for. I am sure that they will also wish to take close account of what has been said, and doubtless will be said, in your Lordships' House on this general question.

My noble friend Lord Albemarle asked me two specific questions. I am not certain that I have them correctly, but I will try to answer them. As I understood it, the first concerned planning grant. I think the position here is that there is now no planning grant for areas of comprehensive development unless these areas are defined for the purpose of dealing with war damage. I cannot, I fear, promise my noble friend amending legislation here. The mere fact that a high building is being erected in a particular area is not necessarily justification for the comprehensive development of the area as a whole, although it may be. The second question he asked concerned the buying of time by applicants. I think the brief answer is that time cannot be bought unless the applicant himself agrees.

My Lords, at the end of the London County Council statement I find the words: The problem of high buildings is one of the most difficult in the whole field of London planning and we consider that a satisfactory policy can be evolved gradually, in the light of experience and of the views of all who share with us the desire to see that London's high buildings make a worthy contribution to its beauty and character. On behalf of the Government I should like to echo those words. This is certainly a very intricate problem indeed. Clearly, as we see, the increasingly restless skyline of our provincial towns and cities is not a problem which concerns London alone, although I think it is true to say that the problem is most acute in London. In any event, it is clear that the importance of high-rise building in London in relation to London's landscape is increasingly appreciated, and I am sure that much of the experience which is being gained here in dealing with this problem will have its application in what must, of course, be different circumstances in towns and cities outside London.

My Lords, in conclusion, of one thing I am quite certain; that is that we should be wise to avoid a too doctrinaire approach to this matter. Our policy in this field should be free to evolve in the light of experience since, in this high-rise game, we are all to some extent beginners. I am convinced also that, While both public opinion and the Government must be increasingly vigilant on this point, we should at the same time be at least reasonably flexible. For example, I should not wish to suggest that London County Council's new criteria are necessarily the last word in wisdom; but I would suggest that the new rules for high building in London have been evolved by the London County Council after a great deal of careful thought and study, in the light of much experience. They have the backing of the Royal Fine Art Commission, and they may well strike many people, including many Members of your Lordships' House, as being roughly along the right lines—not as rigid as some people would like, but not as loose and laissez faire as others would like. In any event, my Lords, the Government note this new departure with keen interest, and will watch the further operation of these principles with very close attention.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

My Lords, I have no right of reply, but, before the noble Earl sits down, might I ask him a question about Sir Keith Joseph's welcome offer of the technical assistance of his best planners to help those cities which are not perhaps suitably provided with highly-trained staff?

EARL JELLICOE

I am afraid I am rather imperfectly informed here. An offer on those lines was made by Sir Keith Joseph's predecessor to certain of the Northern towns and cities to help them in their slum clearance programme. It may be that my noble friend has possibly confused that with Sir Keith Joseph's alleged statement. If I may, I will look into the question and write to my noble friend about it.