Rose Theatre Remains: Preservation (Hansard, 12 June 1989)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh)
My Lords, I am glad to be able to tell the House that the developers have voluntarily redesigned their scheme at a cost of some £10 million so as to preserve the remains of the Rose Theatre, and to enable public display once the new office building is complete. It is now for the private sector to bring forward a workable scheme for ensuring that public display.

§ Lord Rea
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, which was very much what I had been expecting. Is the noble Lord aware that the proposed solution put forward by the developers, which involves driving six piles extremely close to the foundations of the theatre through unexcavated areas, gives rise to great concern among archaeologists working on the site and all those who have specialised knowledge of the site? Is he aware that there are other solutions which would involve less damage and which would not unduly delay development, such as the scheme suggested by Ove Arup, commissioned by the Theatres Trust?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, the developers are having archaeological investigation carried out into the adjacent areas which would be affected by the piling; and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, is well aware that the piling avoids the known theatre perimeter. English Heritage is supervising it.

§ Lord Bonham-Carter
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the piling will take place 18 inches away from the known area of the theatre in unexcavated areas, and that there is therefore a grave risk of damage of an irreparable variety?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, I find it difficult to go further. There will be archaeological investigation which the developers have requested. It is worth remembering that the site has actually managed to survive, having had a building completely cover it in the 1950s.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, in accepting what the noble Lord said, I should like to make the following point. He will agree that the discovery of an important source of the British theatre is not to be put lightly on one side. While the developers have, from their point of view, been reasonable in the matter, there are differences of view as to whether the proposal which has been put forward is satisfactory. In the circumstances, would it not be a good idea to refer the matter to the Theatres Trust? That is a body created by Parliament for such a purpose. Its president is the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the chairman is Sir David Crouch. It is a reputable body representing a wide range of opinion which I believe could come forward with a proposal which would be acceptable to both sides.

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, I think it is fair to say that the developers have gone a great deal of the way to answering the problems raised by the discovery of the site. I should have explained earlier that the proposal envisaged will completely cover the site giving a clear space above it of about 22 feet. It will have a separate entrance from the entrance to the office building. I do not think anyone can say that that is not a commitment to preserving this important site.

§ Baroness Birk
My Lords, is it not the case that in this country we deal with our archaeological remains, no matter how important they are, in a very haphazard and hand-to-mouth way? Does the Minister not agree that it would be a good idea for the planning process to be strengthened to the extent that it ensures that sites are evaluated? Does he not further agree that as regards those that have any archaeological interest at all, proposals should be made on the basis of those evaluations? The evaluation should also include a short survey before planning consent is given. Does the Minister not agree that such a procedure would entail greater ease of operation for the developer, and that the preservation and conservation of sites could be achieved without having to go through all the hassle that has taken place with the Rose Theatre? It does not appear that, whatever the decision regarding the Rose Theatre, it will be entirely satisfactory all round.

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, I believe I can be entirely truthful in saying that, whatever the result, it will not be entirely satisfactory to everyone involved in this affair.

The Earl of Halsbury
My Lords, God Almighty has decreed that we age, die, crumble away, ashes to ashes and dust to dust. Does the Minister not agree that we cannot preserve the whole of the past as a memorial thereof? What really matters is that we should get proper engineering drawings of what the Rose Theatre was, with samples of the materials of construction, and that they should be preserved in a museum.

§ Lord Rea
My Lords, I should like to clarify one point. Is the Minister aware that the piles that are to be driven very close to the theatre will go through 1124 areas that have not been excavated? Does he not agree that it will be a destructive form of archaeology that will be allowed for a very short period before the piles are driven? It is obvious that the structures that may well be there will not be there after the piles have been put into position. Does the Minister not agree that there are other ways of carrying out this work that would preserve the whole site?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, as I said earlier, the developers have gone a great way towards being as helpful as possible on the site. As I said in an earlier reply, preceding the piling the developers will have archaeologists, under the supervision of English Heritage, to investigate what is down there.