London Zoo: Proposed Extension (Hansard, 25 July 1989)

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, the Government announced last year that, subject to agreement on detailed terms, we proposed to grant the Zoological Society of London a new 60-year lease for its Regents Park site including an extra 10 acres of land from the park as provided under the Crown Estate Act 1300 1961. The lease will restrict the use of such land to activities which further the objectives of the society—a learned institution whose many distinguished members include Members of this House. The society has not yet sent us detailed proposals, but I know that it is currently discussing its ideas with interested parties. Any development proposals will, of course, be subject to the normal planning procedures.

§ Lord Kilmarnock
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. However, is this not an excellent time, with a change at the top in his department, for us to pause and to take stock of a project which London may live to regret? Does not the noble Lord agree that the whole concept of a Victorian zoo with bored and under-exercised animals on view in cages is outmoded? If the larger animals are moved to Whipsnade there will be plenty of room for the excellent project of a children's zoo.
If the project is a theme park, which I believe has been talked about, is that not a crazy proposal for the centre of the capital, with all the congestion and parking problems that it will produce? Have the Metropolitan Police been consulted about that?
Finally, will the Government say that they will not proceed with the project until the new Secretary of State has had a proper opportunity to assess all these factors, to say nothing of the determined opposition of all the local amenity groups and the thousands of clubs and groups who use the park for sporting purposes—

Noble Lords
Too long!

§ Lord Kilmarnock
My Lords, will the noble Lord take those factors into account?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, planning proposals are, of course, a matter for Westminster City Council in the first place.

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
Oh dear!

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's suggestion that there will be a theme park, I remind the House that the society has many distinguished members. Its council has no fewer than seven Fellows of the Royal Society. I doubt very much that they would be engaged in a theme park when, as I pointed out earlier, this is a learned and greatly loved institution.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am the treasurer of the society and also chairman of the operating company. Is my noble friend aware that the society, which is a learned one, has had a presence in Regent's Park for 160 years, that it desires nothing so much as to live at peace with its neighbours and that it asks that its proposals should be judged when they are known and not in the light of rumour?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton. I am well aware of his important and cherished position with the society. 1301 He is absolutely correct to say that the society has not yet sent us detailed proposals. Of course, we should wait to see them.

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, I appreciate very much the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. Will the Minister bear in mind that unless changes to the perimeter of London Zoo are achieved by consensus they will not be worth having? Important as the zoo undoubtedly is, the price for improvement should not be a diminishing of the open space of Regent's Park—an open space for the people of London.

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, it is important that I should remind the noble Lord that the extra land was provided under the Crown Estate Act 1961.

§ Lord Zuckerman
My Lords, may I remind the Minister that when the Crown Estate Bill was going through Parliament in 1961 I was secretary of the society? The then Minister of Works, the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who was our main landlord and a Member of your Lordships' House—I do not know whether he is in his place—agreed to insert a provision for 10 additional acres on the understanding that those acres would help beautify the whole park. There was no intention, and I do not suspect my successors on the council of having any intention, to do other than ensure that the amenities of Regent's Park would be improved if the Government or the planning authorities decided to go ahead with the 10-acre extension.

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention. The noble Lord has pointed out entirely correctly the understanding that we in the department also have with regard to the maintenance of the sensitive landscape of the park.

§ Lord Grimond
My Lords, as I understand it, no one is proposing to move the zoo from Regent's Park. While it is presided over with great distinction by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, would not the Government agree that in principle at least the more animals that can be kept in the country and out of London the better? Although Regent's Park is greatly enjoyed by human beings, it is not so clear that all animals greatly enjoy it. Therefore, should not caution be taken in extending the zoo, though no one is suggesting that it should be abolished?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, as I understand it Whipsnade and Regent's Park Zoo are intended today to complement each other. However, I am sure the noble Lord will understand that, though I represent the Department of the Environment, I am no zoologist and am not entirely qualified to answer the second part of his question.

§ Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, is it not the case that if the distinguished work of the Zoological Society of London is to be allowed to continue to have the resources to be able to achieve its objectives, it is essential that the zoo should be brought into the modern world and so attract the larger number of 1302 visitors whose revenues would provide the resources which the society needs? Unless there is a process of modernisation the zoo will continue to be in considerable difficulties.

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, the present facilities are cramped. The report commissioned by the Government and the society recommended a new programme of development at Regent's Park to maintain the zoo's pre-eminent role in the promotion of the understanding of animals and in the conservation of animal species. Extra acres will help the zoo to plan changes sensibly.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, we understand that the noble Lord is no zoologist and therefore could not answer the second part of the important question of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. However, his duty is to ensure that he takes advice on this matter and is therefore able to answer a question put by the noble Lord. Will he be good enough to look into this and find out precisely what is the answer to the noble Lord's question?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, in my answer which preceded the noble Lord's question, I pointed out that the report commissioned by the Government and the society recommended the new programme of development at Regent's Park to maintain the zoo's pre-eminent position in the promotion of the understanding of animals and conservation of animal species. In answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, I was not proposing to go beyond that recommendation.

§ Lord Kilmarnock
My Lords, is it not clear, following the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, which one respects, that we are in a state of considerable confusion? Some people think that there will be a theme park; others think there will not. May we ask for wider consultation? After all, this is not any old planning permission. This is a major development in a Royal park. May we have the whole thing out in the open?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, the society intends to take part in full consultation. Any development proposals will be subject to the normal planning procedures.

§ Lord Nugent of Guildford
My Lords, we have already taken 10 minutes on this Question and are about to breach the very principle which we decided yesterday to adopt.