§ BARONESS STOCKSMy 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 the Ministry of Transport or the Ministry of Public Building and Works has received an application for the construction of the car park under Kensington Gardens.]
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, revised outline plans of a proposed scheme have recently been submitted by the borough council. These are at present being examined by my right honourable friend. His concern will be to consider the need for the car park in relation to its effect on the amenities of Kensington Gardens and on the neighbourhood generally.
§ BARONESS STOCKSMy Lords, may I ask whether the two Ministries mentioned in my Question are the only Government Departments concerned? What part, if any, would the Crown Lands play, because I gather that Kensington Gardens are Crown property? Am I not right in thinking that?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONYes, my Lords, the Department have no power at all to grant leases. If we were to agree to this scheme, we should have to ask for legislation.
§ BARONESS STOCKSMy Lords, can the noble Lord give the House any details concerning the plans submitted by Kensington Borough Council? What form does the car park take; under what part of the Gardens is it proposed to 406 make this car park and where would the entrance be?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, the car park would be off Kensington Road, between Palace Avenue and Broad Walk. It is definitely not intended that this car park should be for commuters in general. The borough council are quite clear on this. It would be for the benefit of residents, the hotel trade and local people.
§ BARONESS STOCKSMy Lords, is my information correct, that the car park under the Royal Garden Hotel is not normally full? If that is the case, why provide another car park for surrounding hotels?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, I have no definite information as to whether what the noble Baroness has told us is correct or not. Obviously, my right honourable friend will be taking these points into consideration.
§ LORD KENNETMy Lords, will the noble Lord ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment whether there is not a policy against having car parks under London Squares in future and, if so, what is the difference between that and Kensington Gardens? Will he also ask his right honourable friend to consult the history of Cavendish Square, where permission was given, with some reluctance, upon assurances that the appearance of the Square would not be harmed by the construction of an underground car park and to consider whether in fact it has been harmed?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, whatever the noble Lord says will be studied with very great interest by my right honourable friend, because we know of his tremendous interest in this matter. We are not going to do anything without due consideration, and my right honourable friend is taking all these things into account.
§ LORD HURCOMBMy Lords, speaking as one who strongly supported the recent reorganisation by the present Government of the Ministries concerned with amenity, may I ask the noble Lord whether or not the Secretary of State will say at once to all concerned that he is not prepared to tolerate or consider any further encroachments on the Royal 407 Parks, whether in the general interests of traffic or to meet the local convenience of some particular authority or private interest, and particularly of the erectors of large hotels?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, I can only repeat what I have already said. We have not yet made any decision. My right honourable friend is considering the matter. May I point out that if this scheme were to be undertaken, the actual permanent loss of ground would be about 550 feet long by 12 feet wide. Obviously, there would be a temporary disfigurement, but in the long term that would be the amount of land lost. But I take the noble Lord's point.
§ LORD HURCOMBMy Lords, perhaps as a member of various committees of the Ministry of Works I may ask a further question. Is it not appreciated that any interference with Kensington Gardens, and particularly with the area which gives a magnificent view of the Palace, is entirely contrary to the public interest? The time of public officials ought not to be wasted in having to consider plans concerned with how many feet are to be taken out and how many put in.
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, as I have said, we are not yet wedded to any view, but I do not see how an underground car park can mar the view of the Palace.
§ LORD HURCOMBMy Lords, there are the road approaches; there are the trees and there will be the ventilating shafts. I should be very sorry to hear that the Minister concerned with the environment is ready to consider seriously any encroachment upon one of the most famous and beautiful surviving parts of London.
§ LORD POPPLEWELLMy Lords, if the Minister considers this scheme, will the noble Lord give an assurance that his right honourable friend will seek the authority of Parliament before he approves any scheme that would do anything at all to Kensington Gardens or interfere with any of the other Royal Parks?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONYes, my Lords. I have already indicated that legislation would be necessary before 408 we could make any alteration in a Royal Park. In this part of the Gardens there are twelve trees that would be interfered with, but no planning permission will be given without making sure that there is enough soil to replant these trees.
§ BARONESS STOCKSMy Lords, may I point out—
§ BARONESS STOCKSMy Lords, the sentence on which I was embarked when interrupted by noble Lords was in fact a question, a sentence which, if written, would conclude with a question mark and it is designed to elicit the answer, Yes or No. The question is: may I point out that this proposal would be widely opposed?
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE)My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness to say that that is not an interrogatory question in the sense in which it is understood in this House.