Previous SectionIndexHome Page


7.52 pm

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on her success in securing the debate, and on her decision to take the opportunity to raise the important and serious matter of the proposed use of the Hermitage riverside site as a memorial for all the residents of London who died in the second world war. Although it is now more than 50 years since the end of the war, it is right that we should continue to remember the sacrifice of all those who gave their lives during the war. The point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick). I say that with considerable feeling, as my own father was killed in the war.

In addition to those killed in action, there were, as we all know, many civilian casualties, not least in the east end of London, as my hon. Friend rightly emphasised. The east end bore the brunt of countless air raids and V-bomb attacks. It is right that there should be an appropriate memorial to their sacrifice. I pay tribute to the work of the Civilians Remembered campaign, which has done a great deal to argue the case for a memorial in the east end of London.

As I am sure my hon. Friends realise, I cannot comment on the merits of the two current proposals for the redevelopment of the site which recently came before the Department, because the Secretary of State has a quasi-judicial role in the planning system. However, I can use this opportunity to explain the town and country planning background that affects the site, the two planning permissions that are now extant on it, and the factors that the Secretary of State took into account when he considered whether to call in the planning applications.

It may help the House if I first clarify that town and country planning is about the use of land, not its ownership. The planning system looks at the suitability of different uses of sites and the compatibility and harmony of those uses with others nearby.

In planning, individual developments are assessed for their suitability and appropriateness against criteria established in a development plan. When that plan is complete, it will have been subjected to thorough public scrutiny and will be a widely known basis on which planning applications can be brought forward. However, even before the plan is complete and formally adopted, it can be taken into account. Indeed the more advanced its state of preparation, the more weight can be given to it, as against its out-of-date predecessor.

A further general point that may make this case more understandable to the House is that the site is not unique in having two live planning permissions for slightly different uses at the same time. Although the majority of sites are shown in authorities' plans as having a single use, some--like the Hermitage site--are for mixed use, and there can therefore be opportunities for different configurations of use to be acceptable at the same time, and for both, or more than two, to be granted planning permission.

The Hermitage site has a long history of planning applications and public inquiries. In Tower Hamlets' adopted plan, which dates back to 1986, the site is designated for housing development. The draft plan that is being prepared to replace it originally showed the

5 May 1998 : Column 632

Hermitage site as being for a mix of residential and commercial uses. I shall touch later on how that has now been changed.

The site first came to our Department's attention in 1991, when the London Docklands development corporation was the local planning authority. An outline application for a mixed-use development of the site generated considerable local opposition. The weight of opinion was that the site should remain undeveloped to provide open space around the existing properties with public access to the river, although, as I understand it, there was no suggestion at that time of the site being used as a memorial park. Later that year, in any case, the development proposals were withdrawn.

In 1995, the year that the Civilians Remembered campaign was initiated, the corporation encouraged development of the area, including open space, and selected five different schemes for public exhibition. After consideration of the responses to the brief, a scheme by Berkeley Homes was chosen. In view of the prominent location of this significant waterfront site on the River Thames, the scheme was called in for the Secretary of State's decision.

A public inquiry was held in October 1996 into two proposals. The first of the two applications was for the erection of buildings for residential use. The second scheme also provided mainly residential accommodation in slightly higher blocks, but it also incorporated a new public garden. There continued a significant lobby for the entire site to be used as open space, with a view to that being an appropriate memorial to the civilian dead of the second world war.

Subsequently, after considering the inspector's report, the Minister at the time refused both applications on the ground that, while both applications broadly accorded with the use of the site set out in the current plan and the draft one, they did not meet the density and design standards applicable to such a significant site. However, he noted that the schemes showed that the site could accommodate a bold development at the eastern end and incorporate a waterfront park and memorial park at the western end, but emphasised that that did not fetter his consideration of future applications.

That brings me to the planning applications that are at the heart of this evening's debate. In May 1997, the corporation's decision to sell the riverside site to Berkeley Homes renewed local opposition to any development on it. At almost the same time, the Civilians Remembered campaign submitted an outline application to Tower Hamlets council for use of the land solely as a memorial park. Two months later, Berkeley Homes submitted a new application for full permission to the council, with a revised proposal that included provision for setting aside approximately 40 per cent. of the site for use as a memorial park, which I understand would be freely accessible and open to the public and maintained in perpetuity by the developer. I understand that Berkeley Homes also offered the council a substantial sum to finance the provision of local affordable housing.

After due consideration, Tower Hamlets--which was by then the corporation's successor as planning authority--proposed to approve both applications. However, although in line with the draft plan, the applications were departures from the adopted borough plan, so they were referred to the Secretary of State for his consideration.

5 May 1998 : Column 633

At that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow and other hon. Members wrote to express their concerns about the consequences if Tower Hamlets granted planning permission to Berkeley Homes. The Secretary of State took into account all relevant matters, including the representations on planning. As my hon. Friends know, the Government's policy on call-in of planning applications is to be very selective. In almost all cases, the initial decision on whether a development should proceed should be taken by the local planning authority. Applications are called in only if matters of more than local importance are involved, which need to be decided by the Secretary of State.

After careful consideration, the Secretary of State decided that both applications should be determined locally. The applications were in accordance with the shortly to be adopted unitary development plan for Tower Hamlets and were in line with the conclusions and recommendations of the inspector on the previous application by Berkeley Homes. Given that an earlier public inquiry into similar proposals had informed the nature of the Berkeley Homes application and the content of the Tower Hamlets plan, the Secretary of State considered that the proposal raised no more than local issues, which were appropriate for Tower Hamlets to decide--it is the democratically elected local authority, and it is only right that it should make planning decisions. Issues such as the appropriateness of the site for a memorial, the degree of overcrowding in the area and the shortage of local open space are important. However, they are essentially local issues, which the democratically elected local authority is best placed to consider.

5 May 1998 : Column 634

My hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning wrote to my hon. Friend to explain the Secretary of State's decision on 6 March 1998. I understand that Tower Hamlets subsequently granted planning permission for both schemes, and it is now considering some minor outstanding matters to do with the Berkeley Homes proposal that must be cleared up before building can begin.

I gather also that there is considerable on-going pressure from local residents against the use of the site for anything but open space. In recognition of that, the council changed the designation of the site in the draft plan from "mixed use" to "either mixed use or open space", to allow the use of the site as a park. More recently still, as my hon. Friend said, the council's planning committee decided to modify the draft plan at the adoption stage, to show the Hermitage site as statutorily protected open land. That modification of the plan will have to be advertised, so that proper public consideration can be given to the change. Such a change cannot affect planning permissions that have already been granted, including the ones granted to Berkeley Homes and the Civilians Remembered campaign.

That brings us to the current point in this long story. As I have already stressed--and as I am sure my hon. Friends will understand--I cannot say anything more this evening; nor can I comment on the merits of the case that my hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow and for Poplar and Canning Town have made, because of the quasi-judicial role of the Secretary of State in this and other planning matters.

Question put and agreed to.



 IndexHome Page