WHITEHALL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN (Hansard, 3 December 1968)

§ LORD WINTERBOTTOM
My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will now repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works. It is as follows:
"Since the Statement about the Whitehall Redevelopment Plan by my right honourable friend the Minister for Leeds, West, on 3rd November, 1965, there have been a number of developments. Studies have been made of the requirements to be met in a new Parliamentary building on part of the Bridge Street/Richmond Terrace site, and the Select Committee on House of Commons Services have made proposals in their Fourth Report for the 1967–68 Session. It is necessary that this House should consider these proposals, and I hope that an opportunity 37 for this will be found soon. The preparation of detailed requirements and the completion of the architectural arrangements can then be undertaken.
"Studies have been carried out into requirements for Government offices on the remainder of the Bridge Street/ Richmond Terrace site, and a brief prepared providing also for shops, restaurants and other public facilities. The Minister is investigating further the advantages of open-plan offices, and meanwhile preparing plans which will be submitted in due course to the Royal Fine Art Commission and the planning authorities, and then displayed in this House. The programme envisages demolition work starting early in 1970 between Richmond Terrace and Derby Gate, and proceeding in stages with a view to completing the Government offices and associated development by 1975.
"As stated in the House on 16th July, 1968, all three of the former Metropolitan Police Headquarters buildings will be demolished in the course of this redevelopment. No plans or programme have yet been made for the future of the Foreign Office site. Following the public inquiry in May, 1966, into the future of the site between Broad Sanctuary and Great George Street, my Ministry is preparing in collaboration with other site owners and interested authorities a joint brief for a comprehensive redevelopment.
"A joint study is now in hand between my Ministry, the Ministry of Transport, the Greater London Council and the Westminster City Council, with the assistance of consultants, to investigate in more detail proposals for dealing with North-South traffic, including a riverside road tunnel, and the problem of East-West traffic, as the proposal for widening the Horseferry Road route would be too costly. I expect to have a report on these further studies next spring. The House will see, from what I have said, that the working out of detailed proposals is proceeding within the broad framework agreed following the Martin-Buchanan Reports."

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating 38 that Statement. It would seem that in the last three years, despite what is said in the last words of the Statement, extraordinarily little progress has been made in this matter. I noted what the noble Lord said about the development of the Parliamentary building on the Bridge Street site. Can he assure us that the views of this House will be take n into account in this matter, as well as the views of another place, because, greatly daring, I would venture to suggest that on these matters of æsthetic and architectural judgment our views are as valid as those of another place?
The Statement also said that these proposals fall within the broad framework of those put forward by Sir Leslie Martin and Professor Buchanan. I suggest that that is brought in rather as an afterthought. Indeed, I beg leave to doubt whether that is in fact the case, because I would remind your Lordships that Sir Leslie Martin had very definite ideas about the development of the Foreign Office site, and we now read that there are no plans and no programme for this. Is there anything more that the noble Lord can tell us about this particular and, to many of us, much-beloved building? Are we, in fact, "back to square one"? What is the position regarding the Foreign Office site?
In conclusion, may I just put this point to the noble Lord? Sir Leslie Martin produced a vast and comprehensive Report which had very considerable merit and was debated at some length in your Lordships' House about three years ago. Since then there have been new and sweeping proposals for the redevelopment of Piccadilly Circus and, indeed, of the Covent Garden area. I am not usually an advocate of delay, but on this occasion I should like to declare myself a Fabian. I would urge—and I put point seriously to the Government and to the planning authorities involved—that no really major change (though I except the Bridge Street site from this) in the development of this vastly important area of Central London should be given effect to until all these various major schemes have been properly brought together and considered together. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us some assurance along those lines.

LORD HENLEY
My Lords, we, too, welcome this Statement. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that three years is a very long time. On the other hand, it is so complex a problem that I am not surprised that even to get "back—and I hope we are not back—to square one" has taken us three years. I hope that the noble Lord on the Government Benches is going to say that we too are to have a debate, and that before we have that debate he will be able to put before us in good time those papers, plans and models without which we cannot make any useful contribution.

§ LORD ILFORD
My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether a final decision has been taken to destroy Richmond Terrace, with all its architectural merits and Parliamentary associations?

§ LORD SOMERS
My Lords, I speak rather in the fear that the new buildings are very likely, or more likely than not, to be in the current fashion of the concrete and glass box. May I ask the noble Lord whether there are any architects in the country who have other ideas than that, and whether he does not think that something a little more original would be suitable?

§ LORD WINTERBOTTOM
My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, have said. I was, of course, repeating a Statement made in another place, and the words used were that "this House should consider these proposals", and that information will be given before another place discusses it. Quite obviously, the plans must be available for this House as well, and I am certain that my right honourable friend will note the wish of this House to discuss the development on the far side of Bridge Street. This is obviously rational and desirable.
The noble Earl has expressed an affection for the Foreign Office. I know only too well that he is not alone here. Perhaps that is a reason why no decision has been reached, although that is a thought which has only just come to me. All I can say is that no plans or programme have yet been made for the future of the Foreign Office site; so it stays where it is for the moment. On the question of delay (and this is a point 40 which was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley), this redevelopment is not something we can rush. The only site of the three which is under discussion is the site between Richmond Terrace and Bridge Street. This scheme goes forward in stages and will be completed by 1975. No plans have been made for the Foreign Office site. Although the Broad Sanctuary site seems to be a blank space, it is a complicated development because there are other interests involved and, again, no plans have so far been made.
I would agree with those noble Lords who have suggested that we should hasten slowly and see what the overall picture is. I have substantial sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, although I am afraid we are both losers. I, too, should like to retain the Richmond Terrace site, but unfortunately this has to go. The noble Lord, Lord Somers. made a point about "concrete and glass boxes". The design for this particular site will be subject to open competition among Commonwealth architects. The site is of Commonwealth interest, and of great importance. Let us hope that within the Commonwealth we find an architect of sufficient vision to provide something better than a straightforward egg-box.

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, may I ask whether it follows from what the noble Lord has just said that all these buildings will be let out to distinguished architects, or will the architects be Ministry of Works architects? May I also ask him whether, now that it has been decided that nothing will be done with the Foreign Office, at any rate for some little time, consideration can be given to cleaning it?

§ LORD WINTERBOTTOM
My Lords, I find myself in a difficult position, which I hope the noble Lord will appreciate. In fact, I know the answer to this question, but I am not authorised to give it. Perhaps he would be so kind as to put down a Question. This is an entirely different matter, and I could have said that this was another question; but I have not done so. There is an answer to this.

§ LORD CARRINGTON
An answer to which question?

§ LORD WINTERBOTTOM
To the question about the architect. I would be grateful if the noble Lord would put down another Question, when I would be glad to answer it. On the question of cleaning, there has been pressure to clean that building as well. Perhaps the noble Lord would ask another Question on that point at the same time.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, there is one question that I should like to ask, arising from the last statement by the noble Lord. He said there was a Commonwealth interest in this site. Is it a Commonwealth Government interest? I ask that because when New Zealand House was built many people were opposed to the particular building which was adopted, thinking it unsuitable for the site, but we were told at that time that the authorities planning London had no control over it. It was said that if the site was for a Commonwealth Government the Commonwealth Government had an absolutely free hand as to what was put up. I hope that that will not be so in this case.

§ LORD WINTERBOTTOM
My Lords, I think the noble Marquess has misunderstood the point. What he said about New Zealand House, which I did not know myself, was interesting, but, as regards this site, it will not be for a Commonwealth Government but for a Commonwealth architect. The competition will be thrown open to the whole Commonwealth to provide schemes to be considered for a building on this site.

§ LORD ILFORD
My Lords, will the noble Lord consider whether it is possible to provide the additional accommodation that is required on the site of the Bridge Street building between Richmond Terrace and Bridge Street, so as to avoid the destruction of Richmond Terrace?

§ LORD WINTERBOTTOM
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that this loss is unfortunate, but a decision has been reached. The site between Richmond Terrace and Bridge Street is to he cleared, and a new open-planned office block built upon it. But the whole area must go. We cannot, unfortunately, save Richmond Terrace, much as I myself should like to see it saved.

§ LORD LINDGREN
My Lords, my noble friend has repeatedly said that there will be a competition open to Commonwealth architects. I take it that included in "Commonwealth architects" are British architects.

§ LORD WINTERBOTTOM
My noble friend is quite right.

§ LORD CONESFORD
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question on what he said about traffic? I think he referred to a tunnel. Do I understand that that takes the place of what I think was formerly proposed: that there should be a new physical separation or terrace between the Palace of Westminster and the river? Or does that terrace or new separation of the Palace of Westminster from the river still survive as a proposal, notwithstanding the proposal for a tunnel?

§ LORD WINTERBOTTOM
My Lords. I am afraid that I cannot answer that question. If we had plans we would see what is intended. We shall all agree, I think, that the Palace of Westminster is the greatest obstacle to a free traffic flow along the Thames, but we should not wish to alter that, I am certain.

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, may I put two further supplementary questions to the noble Lord—the first a narrow one? The noble Lord told my noble Leader just now that if he were to put down a Question about the cleaning of the Foreign Office doubtless an Answer would be given. By the same taken, if I were to put down a Question about the cleaning of the Great George street building should I also receive a satisfactory Answer? That is the narrower question. The wider question—and I attach some importance to this—is that the noble Lord said that he, too, believed in hastening slowly. Am I right in taking that answer to mean that the Minister will use his influence—and he has quite definite authority here, if he chooses to exercise it—to see that the major plans for the redevelopment of Whitehall are considered in conjunction with those for Piccadilly and the Covent Garden area?

§ LORD WINTERBOTTOM
My Lords, as regards cleaning I can certain13 get the noble Earl an Answer, although I am no longer in a position to say whether 43 it will be satisfactory. But London is being cleaned, and let us hope that the good work goes on. I should be most grateful if the noble Earl would ask me another Question on another day about the relationship between the Piccadilly development and this development. I cannot give him a satisfactory answer to-day.