§ 2.46 p.m.
§ LORD WALSTONMy 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 satisfied that the setting of St. Paul's Cathedral is in no way jeopardised by the proposed new buildings in the neighbourhood.]
§ LORD HASTINGSYes, my Lords. I assume that the noble Lord has in mind the building now being erected on the North side of Ludgate Hill. This is in accordance with the proposals of Sir William Holford, the consultant for the St. Paul's Cathedral Precinct Scheme, and the amendment of the development plan formally approved following public inquiries by my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government on January 12, 1959.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he not aware of the very strong feeling which has been aroused among very many people of widely different kinds about this proposed building and is he not also aware that only a very small alteration in the existing plans (albeit costing a considerable amount of money) would go a very long way towards meeting the major objections? Therefore, would he not consider looking into this whole matter again with the greatest possible urgency, in order to ensure that the view of one of the finest buildings left in the City of London is in no way, even minimally, impeded, so that people can enjoy to the full the façade of Sir Christopher Wren's St. Paul's?
§ LORD HASTINGSMy Lords, I am well aware of the strong feelings of a number, possibly quite a small minority, of people who have been expressing their feelings upon this matter and writing to the Press, but I am sure that the noble Lord himself must be fully aware that this is probably the most carefully considered, the most carefully planned and the most thoroughly discussed redevelopment plan in the whole of Great Britain since the war, over a 1254 period of six years, starting in 1955. Everybody was fully aware at that time of what was going to happen. The scheme was fully considered, and everybody had the opportunity to express his opinions. I would draw the noble Lord's attention to the letter by Sir William Holford in The Times of yesterday explaining the scheme in great detail, and to the leading article in The Times today.
In view of all this, I must state categorically that my right honourable friend has no intention of altering the decisions already taken or of reconsidering the matter. We believe that it has been fully considered and in the great majority of cases that it is fully approved as a very fine development scheme. I would just add that the view of the West Front of St. Paul's is to be limited to only a very small extent by the building to which the noble Lord has referred. It is a question of a difference of about 35 yards between the view obtained when the demolition of the old building was completed and the view after the erection of the new building. The new building will obstruct the view to an extent of only 35 yards on Ludgate Hill.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that it is unfortunate that even 35 yards—which on a façade of the size of St. Paul's, cannot be considered as entirely minimal—should be restricted in a new plan? And would he not once more undertake to reconsider some of the objections put forward by many people, including the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's, and other less eminent but no less worthy people?
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, does my noble friend recall that this House debated Sir William Holford's plan for St. Paul's on April 18, 1956, and that every one of us who took part, including the late Lord Esher and the late Lord Mottistone, welcomed and praised it? Is he aware that one lover of London and of the work of Wren remains of the same opinion still, welcomes the Government's reply and greatly prefers the plan of Sir William Holford to the views of his latest critics?
§ LORD RATHCAVANMy Lords, my interest in this matter is that the very next building to the building under dis- 1255 cussion belongs to a business of which I am the chairman, and my board and I are naturally very much concerned with the amenities around St. Paul's. I quite realise, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said, that this matter was decided a long time ago by, I think the London County Council or the City of London and various high-up people.
§ LORD RATHCAVANIs it not the case that this is the first occasion since this building has been started that the ordinary citizen has been able to see what is happening? It is the ordinary citizen who did not realise the position. And is it not time, in view of the correspondence in the Press and the meeting to-day outside St. Paul's Cathedral, that some notice was taken of what the ordinary citizen thinks?
§ LORD HASTINGSMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Conesford for reminding us of the full debate some years ago; and in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and to my noble friend Lord Rathcavan, I would say that this is really not a case where the public have not been fully informed of what has been happening and have not had an opportunity to express their opinion: the public have had that opportunity. Ultimately, as in all matters of æthetics, it is question of personal opinion. The majority opinion after careful consideration, seems to be that the precinct of St. Paul's—which is to become a precinct free from traffic—is better in a setting of enclosure or semi-enclosure, rather than having a wide open front whereby the West Front could be viewed at a rather greater distance. It is a matter of opinion, and I think we must say that this matter has been most carefully considered and finally closed.
§ THE EARL OF SANDWICHMy Lords, it is not clear from Sir William Holford's letter, but it is the case that, after this building, to which so much objection has been taken, has been put up, there will be a better view of St. Paul's from Ludgate Hill than there has been at any time since the nearby nineteenth century buildings were put 1256 up, except for the period after the bombing.
§ LORD HASTINGSThat is one of the intentions of Sir William Holford's plan, my Lords. The public will have access to the tower of this new block, which is 90 feet high, and they will be able to look in both directions, on to the West Front of St. Paul's and down Ludgate Hill itself.
§ LORD BOSSOMMy Lords, is my noble friend not aware that St. Paul's is internationally considered to be the finest example of the work of England's greatest architect, Sir Christopher Wren? Yet here we are attempting to obliterate its view—and if the noble Lord will go to St. Paul's he will see it for himself—by an ordinary commercial building? Can my noble friend state a single example in the world where such vandalism has been carried out before?
§ LORD HASTINGSMy Lords, I would remind my noble friend that the view of St. Paul's has been far more greatly obliterated by buildings which were there soon after St. Paul's was put up than it is now or will be when redevelopment is carried out. The range of views will be much wider and there will be many more varied and wider views of St. Pauls within the precinct than were ever seen before.
§ LORD BOSSOMMy Lords, would my noble friend go down to St. Paul's and see for himself? If he were to do so he would not make that comment.