Rose Theatre (Hansard, 24 July 1989)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh)
My Lords, the matter at present rests with the London Borough of Southwark, which is due to decide the developers' planning application for the revised design of their proposed office building.

§ Baroness Strange
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his fairly rosy reply. However, is he aware that by way of their first plan the developers of the Rose Theatre site, Imry Merchant, had 176,000 square feet of office space and that in the current plan they have 201,000 square feet of office space? Is he further aware that in the plan put forward by Ove Arup, the architects for the Theatres Trust, not only would the piles be 6 feet to 11 feet further away from the perimeter of the Rose Theatre, but also the roof space would be 38 feet above and there would be 202,000 square feet of office space?
Is my noble friend also aware—

Noble Lords
Order!

§ Baroness Strange
My Lords, this is my second point; I am allowed two points.

§ Lord Denham
My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would be kind enough to recall the words of my noble friend the Leader of the House and those of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition: Question Time should not be made the occasion for a speech.

§ Baroness Strange
My Lords, I very much thank my noble friend. I just wish to say—

Noble Lords
Question!

§ Baroness Strange
My Lords, I just wish to ask whether my noble friend the Minister is aware that the first company registered in 1592, in which Shakespeare was a player, was that of my noble kinsman, Lord Strange, whose name I am supporting by proxy, so to speak.

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, I fear that it will come as no surprise to the noble Baroness when I tell her that I cannot prejudge the outcome of the planning application which is before Southwark Council.

§ Lord Strabolgi
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this site was designated in 1984 as a site of archaeological importance? Further, why did the Government do nothing about this, and why do they always leave such matters to the local authorities? Can they not take some interest when it is a matter of national importance?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, I am sure that there would be an uproar if we started to interfere with the process, especially with regard to local authorities. Indeed, I am sure that I would be the first one to feel the wrath of your Lordships' House if I so suggested. At present we cannot prejudge the outcome of the inquiry. I should remind the House that the £10 million scheme proposed by Imry Merchant is the largest contribution we have ever seen to a site such as that of the Rose Theatre.

§ Baroness Birk
My Lords, if the local authorities have the power to ask for information about the archaeology of a proposed building site—

Noble Lords
Order!

§ Lord Mellish
It should be a Conservative speaker!

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, as it is perfectly clear that there is a broad consensus and, in effect, an agreement in principle that this site should be preserved, would it not be best for us to leave the details to the planning authorities?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, I can do no more than heartily agree with my noble friend.

§ Baroness Birk
My Lords, I think that it is our turn now. Since local authorities have the power to ask for information about the archaeology of a proposed building site, will the Minister therefore agree that where there is any archaeological interest known to be involved, the local authority should be required—not just be responsible—to ensure that a full archaeological search of a site takes place before planning permission is granted, so as to prevent, in the future, an occurrence of the unhappy situation we have seen arise on this occasion?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness will not expect me to change government policy on my feet. However, perhaps I may point out to your Lordships' House that in fact the site is at present fully protected. A great deal of work has already been done in this respect and an impermeable membrane now covers the whole of the site in order to provide adequate protection.

§ Lord Marley
My Lords, will my noble friend consider that one way of preserving the Rose Theatre would be to dedicate it as a national permanent memorial to our great actor the late Lord Olivier?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, that is a most interesting suggestion. However, we are still some distance from being able to prepare the next stage, as it were, of the future of the Rose Theatre.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, the Minister said that Southwark Council now has the planning application. When did the council receive it, and when can we expect to receive an answer?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, I believe that the application is to be heard at the next planning meeting.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, when will that be?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord on that point.

§ Lord Sudeley
My Lords, can the Minister say whether the present plans for the Rose Theatre site should be called in for a public inquiry as the proposed new plan of the Rose Theatre Trust has already been preferred by two archaeologists, Mr. 1130 Sheldon of the London Museum, and Professor Biddle as well as Dr. Walter Hodges and Professor Andrew Gurr of Reading University on the grounds that five four-and-a-half feet piles have already damaged the north corner of the site where the stage and tiring house would be?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, as I have said, I cannot prejudge the decision that will be taken by the Southwark planners.

The Earl of Bessborough
My Lords, am I not right in thinking that the Rose has been saved, and that there is now a possibility that there might be an amalgamation between the Shakespeare Globe Centre and the Rose through the existing Shakespeare Globe Museum, thus unifying—this is important—the fund-raising effort? Does not my noble friend consider that having the backing of the existing Globe Trust is a more rational way of looking to the future? I declare an interest as a trustee, as indeed would my noble kinsman Lord Ponsonby on the other Benches. Would not that be the most sensible solution?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, as always, my noble friend Lord Bessborough has made a most interesting suggestion, but I have to give him the answer that I gave earlier, which is that it is probably a little too early to be able to act upon his idea; but I shall draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, before we leave Question Time, I should like to refer to the element of disorderliness that has crept into our Question Time. We have now taken 35 minutes on questions. If 11 minutes are taken on the first Question, that means that the rest of the questioners will be disadvantaged. I suggest that perhaps the matter should be considered over the Recess. It might go back to the Procedure Committee for consideration. Otherwise, Question Time (which I think is one of the most splendid features of the House) may be damaged.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)
My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is right to draw the attention of the House to the length of time that is spent on questions. People who spend too much time on one question do so at the expense of others. Perhaps we can put that down to the heat or the end of the summer term. However, no doubt by the time we return, your Lordships will be more accustomed to the disciplines to which we normally accede, and will try to keep to the normal length of questions at Question Time.