MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE

taken before the

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL BILL COMMITTEE

PETITIONS AGAINST THE BILL

Wednesday, 24 January 2024 (Morning)

In Committee Room 15

A video of the proceedings can be found here.

PRESENT:

John Stevenson (Chair)

Keir Mather

Lia Nici

Angela Richardson

Karl Turner

_____________

FOR THE PROMOTER:

Christopher Katkowski KC, Counsel, DLUHC

Richard Turney KC, Counsel, DLUHC

Robbie Owen, Parliamentary Agent

_____________

FOR THE PETITIONER: 

1. London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust

• Brian Doctor KC
• Sally Prothero
• Hal Moggridge
• David Lambert

Exhibits referred to by the petitioner during the hearing can be found here.

INDEX

Subject                                          Page

London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust

Submissions by Mr Doctor

Evidence of Ms Prothero

Evidence of Mr Moggridge

Evidence of Mr Lambert

Response by Mr Katkowski KC

(At 9.45 a.m.)

1.           THE CHAIR:  Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the sixth public meeting of the Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee.  As I have done previously, and I will do again today, I will read out, the Committee is bound by the instruction from the House, which is as follows: that the Committee treats the principle of the Bill, as determined by the House on the Bill’s Second Reading, as comprising the matters mentioned in paragraph 2 and those matters shall, accordingly, not be at issue during proceedings of the Committee.  The matters referred to in paragraph 1 are: (a) the Secretary of State may incur expenditure for or in connection with (i) a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust, and (ii) a centre for learning relating to the memorial; and (b) section 8(1) and 8 of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 are not to prevent, restrict or otherwise affect the construction, use, operation, maintenance or improvement of such a memorial and centre for learning at Victoria Tower Gardens in the City of Westminster. 
2.           As the Bill does not remove the need for planning permission and all other necessary consents being obtained in the usual way for the construction, use, operation, maintenance and improvement of the memorial and centre for learning, the Committee shall not hear any petition against the Bill to the extent that the petition relates to (a) the question of whether or not there should be a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust or a centre for learning relating to the memorial, whether at Victoria Tower Gardens or elsewhere; or (b) whether or not planning permission and all other necessary consents should be given for the memorial and centre for learning or the terms and conditions on which they should be given.
3.           We would also just on behalf of the Committee give a gentle request that we do not always need to repeat things.  We have heard quite a lot of evidence already so I would ask if we can avoid repetition where possible.  Over to you, Mr Doctor.

London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust

Submissions by Mr Doctor

4.           MR DOCTOR KC:  Thank you.  Good morning, members of the Committee.  This morning’s session – we have got another session this afternoon –is to be taken up by the petitioner known as the London Parks and Gardens, for short.  It has got a longer name but we can go into that at some other stage.  And the first witness is going to be Sally Prothero but, before I call her, I just want to give you a summary of the six points – I will not address them; I am just going to set them out – which this petitioner would like to advance before the Committee.
5.           So point number 1 is the loss of amenity and heritage value to a registered public park.  That is an interest that they wish you to take into account.  Secondly, the land was given to the state in trust for public enjoyment and recreation and to give free and unencumbered access to the riverside.  Parliament, whose MPs have also benefitted from that generous bequest for over 100 years, should not give it away on the basis of a ‘moment of genius’.  Victoria Tower Gardens’ existing memorials are not destinations but supplement and enhance the purposes of the park.  The learning centre is intended as a destination in itself, which will overpower all other aspects of the park.  Next, the consultation which has led to the current proposals has inaccurate measurements, including a significant loss of both green space and play space in an area lacking in accessible open green space.  And, lastly, future governance of the parkland, to guarantee appropriate public access and sufficient maintenance funding, needs to be provided for.
6.           So, with that introduction to the points that the witnesses will make, and they will make them in some more detail, I am going to call Ms Prothero as the first witness.  She has got some slides.  So, Ms Prothero, will you just explain first of all who you are and then move on to what you want to tell the Committee?

Evidence of Ms Prothero

7.           MS PROTHERO:  Thank you.  I am a landscape architect and director of my own practice and I specialise in new design within the historic landscape and public parks.  I am consultant to the National Lottery Heritage Fund, advising on numerous historic park projects, and I have carried out over 40 significant restorations and new-design park projects for various clients, including Kew Gardens, Royal Parks, private clients and local authorities and preservation trusts.
8.           Many of my projects have won national awards, such as the Victoria Park London, Brompton Cemetery, Derby Arboretum etc.  I have also won two RIBA design competitions.  Often my park projects contain new buildings, designs and structures which celebrate rather than compromise the heritage and significance of the landscape. I am a Churchill fellow.  Sorry, you have to excuse me a moment.  I need to sort my hearing aids out.  I have got a lot of feedback coming through from the loop system so I am going to turn it off.  Sorry about that.  Okay, so if I cannot hear you, I will just have to ask you to speak loudly.  Apologies.
9.           So I am giving evidence at this Committee as a trustee of the London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust and I am chair of their planning and conservation working group.  I gave evidence at the 2020 planning inquiry, bringing the 1900 Act to the attention of the inspector several times in my evidence, but it seems that somehow got ignored at the time.  I first referred to the 1900 Act in the statement of significance for Victoria Tower Gardens that I prepared in January 2019 as part of our response to Westminster City Council’s consultation when the proposals were first submitted for planning. 
10.       So the main three points that I will talk about are that the Holocaust memorial should be treated separately from the learning centre, as it is referred separately in the Act.  There is sufficient space in the park to accommodate a suitable memorial and place the learning centre elsewhere.  The promoter has considerably underestimated the amount of usable green space that will be left in the park, should the current Adjaye architects’ designs go ahead.  And if only a memorial were to be built in Victoria Tower Gardens, there would be no need to lift the 1900 Act and either clause 2 could be omitted or at least amended to allow a memorial of a suitable scale that the park can take.
11.       So on to my evidence.  My evidence will focus on just some aspects of the proposals that do not currently work and the limitations of the existing park that you can see on the presentation in front of you, to house both the memorial and the learning centre.  I will also talk about the misleading information that is being widely published by the promoter, regarding the area of Victoria Tower Gardens that will be occupied by the proposals.
12.       So it has been consistently said by the promoter that the proposals take up only 7.5% of Victoria Tower Gardens.  That is what Parliament has been told.  As a result, it may have been difficult for people to understand the likely impact of both the memorial and the learning centre on the gardens and the space to be taken up.  Different calculations were given at the inquiry with no real verified, by way of measured area, plans given, apart from our evidence which was submitted at that time. 
13.       There have been parliamentary questions subsequently to establish the space that will be occupied and to inform members of the impact.  It has been repeatedly said that the memorial and learning centre takes up only 7.85% of the park and this might sound acceptable on first hearing and, indeed, the aerial visualisation from the Houses of Parliament shows the lush green lawn, with the impact of the development mostly hidden by trees in that photo.  But there has not been a publicly available measured plan showing how the 7.5% has been arrived at and therefore what the real impact on the gardens is.
14.       My presentation will show the actual space occupied by the proposals.  Other witnesses will comment on how the usable park space will be affected.  And just to say, my plans have been measured in AutoCAD, which is what we use in the profession, and have been derived by placing the promoter’s plan on to a topographically measured survey of the gardens.  So they are accurate but very happy to go into AutoCAD, if anyone would like to, and interrogate any of them.
15.       So on to the presentation.  The first slide, which you can see in front of you, shows the existing layout of the park, just for context and so everyone knows where everything is.  You can see the green boundary which I have drawn to show the lawn and the open space of the park that people actually use and for a variety of uses.  So you can see the Buxton memorial that was talked about yesterday, the circle to the bottom of the plan, on axis with the street and Smith Square and the Spicer memorial wall to the left on this plan shows the south of the park, with the much-used play area further south from it.  So the gardens currently act as a big green stage, which is flexible enough to allow all kinds of events without any other props being required.
16.       Slide 2, if we can move on, shows the proposed plan, the architect’s plan.  So you can see the triangular shaped entrance building; you can see the memorial fins, which are sort of in the middle of the slide; the ramp that leads down between the entrance building and the fins into the learning centre steps; and then the mound, which is to the right, covering the underground learning centre box.  And you can see in this plan as well that – well, you cannot see – the tree canopy, as depicted, obscures much of what is proposed at the perimeter.  You cannot see the reduction in the lawn at the perimeter or the paths, for example.  So, again, that is really just by way of context so we all know what we are looking at.
17.       Slide 3 then, if we could move on.
18.       MR DOCTOR KC:  Can I just pause when we get to slide 3?
19.       MS PROTHERO:  Yes, sure. 
20.       MR DOCTOR KC:  I just want you to confirm, this is a Government prepared plan.
21.       MS PROTHERO:  That is right.  I am sure the architects drew the plan but it was the plan that was used in the parliamentary question.  It was referred to as – you can see the source I have written on that plan.
22.       MR DOCTOR KC:  Yes.  This was used by Baroness Scott of Bybrook in her answer to the parliamentary question.
23.       MS PROTHERO:  That is correct, yes, and it is deposited in the parliamentary library.  So that typo – so its title is ‘the area’ and ‘GIA’ stands for gross internal area.  So it is the inside of the walls that have been measured.  ‘&amp’, that is not my typo, honest.  The ‘building area breakdown’.  So that is deposited in the House of Lords or Parliament library.
24.       MR DOCTOR KC:  Can I just interrupt you just to mention to the Committee, this is the slide 3, what we called slide 3, that Mr Buxton referred to yesterday.  It is the same one.  This is the Government’s own plan.
25.       MS PROTHERO:  So, yes, this was the plan that was used in the response to that parliamentary question. 
26.       MR DOCTOR KC:  And it is on the basis of this they say that red part –
27.       MS PROTHERO:  The red part, yes.
28.       MR DOCTOR KC:  – that is meant to be 7.5% of the green part.
29.       MS PROTHERO:  Yes, yes, it is, 7.58% of the internal, and the internal room spaces are measured.  There is a table that goes with that that has also been deposited in the library.  So you can see how it has been measured.
30.       MR DOCTOR KC:  And do you agree with that calculation?
31.       MS PROTHERO:  I have not checked that but it concurs with my own measurements.  So I do not have that plan in AutoCAD but, yes, that looks to be correct.  I will move on and we will see that in the next slide.
32.       You can see the red area is the internal room spaces that have been measured but they do not reflect the space that the whole development occupies in the park and so that seems to be contrary to Baroness Scott of Bybrook’s response to the parliamentary question as to how much space of the park will be occupied.  The area given in that plan is 1,429 square metres and it was described in the answer as being ‘the area in square metres of Victoria Tower Gardens, as a whole, that will be occupied by the intended UK Holocaust memorial and learning centre, including (a) the entrance pavilion; (b) the courtyard and ramp into the learning centre; (c) the associated hardstanding; (d) the service access; (e) new access paths; and (f) the parts of the mound not accessible to the public; and (g) areas to be enclosed to ensure the security of the centre’.  So that is what is supposed to be included in that red line but, clearly, it is not.
33.       If we can move on to slide 4.  So I checked the 1,429 square metres.  I thought, ‘What will that look like if you overlay it on to the existing park plan to see all those things that are included?  What does it actually look like and how much space does that take up?’  So this is what it shows.  The blue area – you can see the blue area with this is 1,429 square metres – that is the area superimposed on to a plan but, clearly, it does not represent the whole of the proposed development.  It does not represent the area of the park that will be occupied by the proposals.  You can see the aerial visualisation on that slide as well.  Lots of the development hidden by the canopy of the trees that I mentioned earlier.
34.       So if we could move on to slide 5, please.
35.       MR DOCTOR KC:  Just before you move on to slide 5, you quoted a moment ago from the parliamentary answer as to what the area is supposed to have included, the 1,429 square metres.  It is set out at the bottom of both slides; it says, ‘Answer from Baroness Scott of Bybrook’.  That is taken from her answer.
36.       MS PROTHERO:  Yes, that is taken from the parliamentary website.  Let me just refer to these notes.  The questions for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities tabled – I think this was by Baroness Deech – on 28 March 2023.  So that is the question and the answer is the answer that is extracted and shown on that slide.
37.       MR DOCTOR KC:  So the answer was that this is the area in square metres as a whole that would be occupied by the intended Holocaust memorial and learning centre.
38.       MS PROTHERO:  Yes.
39.       MR DOCTOR KC:  They said it included (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g).
40.       MS PROTHERO:  Yes.  In the full question – you can refer to the full question here – there are many questions.  There are areas about the floor areas of the proposed underground construction, percentage of the underground area that will be used for exhibitions and public space.  So it is broken down as a table that shows the different areas for the different functions of the memorial and learning centre.  And then there is one at the end, the bit that I have quoted here, ‘the area in square metres of Victoria Gardens as a whole’.  I have just read it out.  I will not read it out again.
41.       MR DOCTOR KC:  Yes.
42.       MS PROTHERO:  You have got it in front of you as well.
43.       MR DOCTOR KC:  Yes.
44.       MS PROTHERO:  So that is the red line, if you like, on the previous slide.  That is the 1,429 square metres.  I have not said that.  That is Baroness Scott of Bybrook’s response.
45.       MR DOCTOR KC:  I just want to help you make this clear.  The red line, as you see on slide 3, on the map itself, says that it includes the fins, the courtyard, the security hedge and entrance pavilion and NHM equipment.
46.       MS PROTHERO:  Yes.
47.       MR DOCTOR KC:  That is the National Heritage Memorial equipment, alright.  But according to her answer, on which her calculation is based, the area of 1,429 is said to include, but it is not within the red area –
48.       MS PROTHERO:  Correct.
49.       MR DOCTOR KC:  – the service access, the new access paths – that is (e).  That is not in the red area.
50.       MS PROTHERO:  No, it is not.
51.       MR DOCTOR KC:  The parts of the mound not accessible to the public, that is not in the red area.
52.       MS PROTHERO:  It would not appear so by looking at this slide.  The red area clearly excludes those things.
53.       MR DOCTOR KC:  And the area is to be enclosed to ensure the security of the centre, whatever that may be.
54.       MS PROTHERO:  Well, if it is, it is within that red line but it is the access paths etc are not.
55.       MR DOCTOR KC:  Right.
56.       MS PROTHERO:  So, I mean, the red line, the criteria is correct for that diagram but the answer given does not match.  The words do not match the drawing.
57.       MR DOCTOR KC:  Right, so the point you are making is the answer, which contains the calculation, contains much more area than the red line contains.
58.       MS PROTHERO:  That is correct.  That is it.
59.       MR DOCTOR KC:  Right. Thank you.
60.       MS PROTHERO:  So if we could go to slide 5.  So just to demonstrate the same area of 1,429 square metres, I have just superimposed that same area on to the architect’s proposals plan, which is – as Brian has just made the point – many of the items identified in the 1,429 square metres or the 7.5%, have not been included.  So you can see on the architect’s proposed plan – it is very faint.  The plan is very faint.  The additional paths, hardstanding, mound, the generator, CAF and storage building, which is an oval – it is a little oval right to the left of the park plan – and the reduction in play area, are not included in that 7.5% of the 1,429 square metres.  The area is being misrepresented really in that answer and by the promoters of the project.  So it is possible that the impact in the park is being misunderstood by people to date.
61.       MR DOCTOR KC:  Have you tried to work out the actual size of all the items which are included in the description?
62.       MS PROTHERO:  Yes, we will come to that. 
63.       MR DOCTOR KC:  Right.
64.       MS PROTHERO:  So if we can move to the next slide.  This shows the same proposed plan but with the other items now measured.  So you can see them; I have highlighted those in different colours, just to help making the maths easier and to show what is being measured now and how they add up.  You can see that the total area occupied by the proposals is not 1,429 square metres but between 3,257 square metres and 4,565 square metres and this is really only the parts of the proposals that are within that green, central, open, usable grass space of the park.  It does not include the area that has been taken from the play area.
65.       So just to explain, the 3,257 square metres is a conservative measurement on the slide.  You can see in red letters, the actual total is 3,257, so a conservative calculation.  It does not include the additional planting, which is proposed to be adjacent to the sunken courtyard.  People obviously cannot walk up right to the edge of the courtyard. It does not include the majority of the mound.  So that is the mound above the zigzag purple path, if you can see that on the plan.  As a percentage of the open space used in the conservative calculation, it is 30% of that central green area that we had on the first plan but if you include the green mound that I have shown in a lighter green, and the planting, then that percentage of the usable space taken up is 42%.  And just remember that this still does not include the space which is shown there in pink, which is the area taken from the play area.
66.       So as a percentage of the whole park – I am sorry for all the percentages.  I know it is tricky to follow – that equals between 17%, on a very conservative calculation, to 24%, 23.9% using those calculations that are shown on that slide and, remember, that does not include the space taken from the play area, which are another 370 square metres.  So I have been as honest as possible really with these measurements to show what they actually are.
67.       If we move on then.  Slide 7, thanks.  This is exactly the same slide but all I have done here, and it is just for clarity in case people want to ask questions, is superimpose the existing survey plan, which is shown in the dark black lines, so people can see how the proposed plan relates to the existing park structures.  So, on this one, you can see the bits of the play area in dark black line.  It is just for interrogation purposes really.  And if we move to slide 8 –
68.       MR DOCTOR KC:  Before you do, do you want to just refer to the note you have at the bottom of the plan, the last bullet point? 
69.       MS PROTHERO:  This is just to make the point that some people will say, ‘Well, planting is part of the park.  What is your problem with having more planting?  That is a good thing.  That makes the park nicer, doesn’t it?’  But you cannot picnic in the planting beds adjacent to a path with lots of people walking through it.  If you have a national event like the Queen’s lying in state, where the queue covered these entire gardens, you cannot have people and all the infrastructure for a queue on a mound, certainly not on the very steep part of the mound.  But even a shallow mound makes this space very difficult for those kinds of national events and we need to remember, this park was used for the same purpose for Churchill’s lying in state as well.  So this is a place of national significance for many different things and this proposal would make those very, very difficult or curtailed in scale and function.
70.       If we move then to slide 8, this is exactly the same measurements as just shown over the coloured plan of the park.  So I will not dwell on that but it is just to show it in a different way.
71.       So moving to slide 9, slides 9 and 10 just show a couple of examples of the limitations of space and the limitations that will be created on the circulation within the park, with the proposed designs.
72.       Slide 9, which I think Richard Buxton used yesterday, shows the very limited space that will be created around the Buxton memorial, now proposed to be a seating area, the ‘Buxton seating area’, it is referred to.  So if you see the person in the slide, they are squeezed in – they are walking between the Buxton memorial and what is called the viewing area, the semi-circular space that looks over the ramp down into the memorial centre entrance.  So that is between one and a half and two metres, depending on whether you have the seating or not around the Buxton memorial.  And in a public space – just have a look next time you go to a park – two metres is incredibly narrow for trying to get round even a seating area, let alone a part of the public walkway.  Of course, there is the public walk to the south but it is a very tight space.
73.       MR DOCTOR KC:  Are you finished with slide 9, because I wanted to just ask you something before you leave it?
74.       MS PROTHERO:  Yes, please do.
75.       MR DOCTOR KC:  Right. Just before you leave slide 9, which I just want to get your description of, the area, the courtyard as it were from the entrance pavilion, which is the black building that is going to be constructed there, there is then a courtyard leading to the fins. 
76.       MS PROTHERO:  Yes.
77.       MR DOCTOR KC:  The purpose of the courtyard is to contain the crowds which are meant to walk through the fins into the underground learning centre.  Is that correct?
78.       MS PROTHERO:  Yes.
79.       MR DOCTOR KC:  Yes. So if you had no underground learning centre and you just had the memorial itself, the memorial itself, that is the fins, only take up the area where they are drawn on this plan.  Is that correct?
80.       MS PROTHERO:  That would appear to be correct, yes.
81.       MR DOCTOR KC:  If they were simply built there, you could walk around them or through them.
82.       MS PROTHERO: You could, yes.  I mean, yes, those memorial fins could be placed there or somewhere else within the gardens as they were not serving as the entrance to a major building.
83.       MR DOCTOR KC:  Yes.  So the courtyard is the entrance to the underground centre.
84.       MS PROTHERO:  Yes, that is correct.
85.       MR DOCTOR KC:  And it has to, of course, have a fence around it, which is security conscious, because –
86.       MS PROTHERO:  Well, it does, but it is also a ramp down.  So it is at a lower level.  Obviously, you enter at ground level and then the courtyard is actually a ramp down to the entrance to the building, to the learning centre building, I should say.
87.       MR DOCTOR KC:  And do you know what the promoters suggest are the numbers of people who will visit per annum?
88.       MS PROTHERO:  I cannot remember off the top of my head but I am sure someone will be able to help us with that.
89.       MR DOCTOR KC:  Well, someone is going to give the evidence.  It is at least 1 million extra visitors per year.
90.       MS PROTHERO:  I do remember a figure of 10,000 per day at peak times.
91.       MR DOCTOR KC:  Right, so 10,000 a day or 1 million a year are going to have to be corralled in this area, the ramp, in order to get into the learning centre.
92.       MS PROTHERO:  Well, I mean, obviously people will be filtered through the entrance building.  So that will be limited by the functions of the entrance building.  So that will be limited.  I guess there will be – I do not want to get into the issues of advance ticketing, because I am sure that will happen.  I would like to concentrate on all spatial aspects.
93.       MR DOCTOR KC:  Right, okay.
94.       MS PROTHERO:  But certainly, yes, there will be a lot of people and a lot of interest and the impact on the park will be considerable, just through people coming to the entrance building and seeing how they get in.
95.       So if we could move on to slide 10.
96.       MR DOCTOR KC:  Yes, please.
97.       MS PROTHERO:  This shows the gradient of the mound near the top of the fins, if you like, from the park side, not from the entrance into the learning centre side, and it really demonstrates the limitations of the park to accommodate the learning centre box.  We need the mound because it partially covers the learning centre box, which is underground.  So the red measurements are ours, are mine, and they have been just put on to the architect’s drawings to illustrate how steep the mound is here.  A lot of people have said, ‘Oh, but it’s fine.  You won’t see it because it’s underground’, and I think this slide demonstrates that you will see it and it is not as completely underground as people might like to have thought.
98.       So the steep area of the mound, which this is, is very impractical in park terms, both for use and access and maintenance.  It is really, really difficult to maintain such a steep grass slope as this.  I do not know if you have been to the café in St James’ Park where they fenced it off because it is too steep for people running up it or throwing things over the top of the viewing area there but, yes, have a look next time you are there.  It is very likely to become muddy and eroded in such a small space.  We are not told of the detail at the top of the mound, or how it will be kept out of bounds for people potentially wanting to throw things into the sunken courtyard below.  Will there be more fencing or CCTV?  I mean, this is a park.  The mound might be great for kids on mountain bikes and they will not mind a bit of mud, but is that how you want your national Holocaust memorial to look?  That is an open question really.
99.       So if we move on to slide 11, this is the play area in more detail.  This is quite a tricky set of plans to understand.  The top plan is the architect’s proposal, with a comparison of the existing play area shown in blue line and the proposed play area, as they have proposed, shown in the red dashed line.  So the proposals in the top plan show that most of the perimeter planting in the existing play area is to be removed, adjacent to the busy Millbank Road.  The bottom plan shows our measurements of the existing and proposed play areas, just for comparison of the space.  The survey plan again is the hard black lines and you can see the bits of play equipment, as they currently are, in red.  You can interrogate the plan. 
100.   And the pink, so on the bottom line, again, the proposed play area, which has been measured slightly differently as we do not include the cafés in them and we include the planting areas in both plans.  But you can see the pink shading is the areas that will be lost in the accessible or the play space that is currently there. 
101.   If we can move on to the next slide, please, slide 12.  So this shows the areas in calculations of play space that will be lost.
102.   THE CHAIR:  Sorry to interrupt slightly but there seems to an awful lot about planning.  I am just wanting to know the direction of travel that we are going in and the thinking behind the arguments that are trying to be presented because an awful lot of this, I think, is outside the remit of this Committee at this stage.
103.   MS PROTHERO:  Shall I just repeat one of the earlier –
104.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Well, let me just answer; I think the question was directed to me.  Mr Chair, the purpose of this is to support our proposed amendment, which is that the Committee will –
105.   THE CHAIR:  I was guessing that was the direction of travel but we seem to be going an awful long way to get there.
106.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Well, yes. There is a lot of detail and I will ask the witness to go swiftly over it but the general drift, which is there in case anyone wants to challenge it –
107.   THE CHAIR:  I understand where you are trying to get to but –
108.   MR DOCTOR KC:  – is that much more of the park is going to be taken up by the learning centre and I think I can, if this is the factual basis of it, and you must make of it in the end what you will but –
109.   THE CHAIR:  No, I understand the argument that is trying to be presented.
110.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Yes.
111.   THE CHAIR:  But I just think that we are going an awful long way round, talking about things that are not within the remit of this Committee, and I think it is more important to get to the nub of the argument, rather than the peripherals.
112.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Right, okay.  Alright, well, if you can just briefly –
113.   MS PROTHERO:  Okay, yes, sorry about that.  So this slide shows that the actual area lost will be 31% of the playable space as opposed the promoter’s calculations of 6.5% of play space lost, in a nutshell.
114.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Right, well, your workings are there and if anyone wants to challenge them, they can do so.
115.   MS PROTHERO:  Yes, they can.
116.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Yes, right.
117.   MS PROTHERO:  I am very happy to explain them further.  So the next slide, the 1900 Act land shown orange and the proposals will take up at least the majority of that space really, just for clarity on where the 1900 Act land is.  And then if you move to the next slide, this is just summing up of the areas of reduction, which we have already been through.
118.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Right. That is a summary setting out the figures of what you have said.
119.   MS PROTHERO:  The figures, yes.
120.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Okay.
121.   MS PROTHERO:  So can I just make one last point?
122.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Yes.
123.   MS PROTHERO:  Because I know you want to move on.  So the proposals for the memorial and learning centre mean that the Grade II registered gardens will fulfil all the criteria to be put on Historic England’s heritage at risk register.  This is because, and to quote Historic England’s criteria for inclusion on that register, ‘the cohesiveness of its historic design will be lost’.  It will be subject to major change and it will be altered by development and I think you just need to ask whether the promoter would be proud to have its flagship project see a nationally recognised heritage asset and public park put on the heritage at risk register. 
124.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Thank you.
125.   THE CHAIR:  Mr Doctor, do you have any more questions?
126.   MR DOCTOR KC:  I have got no further questions and it is over to you, Mr Chair.
127.   THE CHAIR:  Thank you.  Mr Katkowski, over to you.
128.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Thank you, sir.  Good morning.  Good to see you again, this time in person rather than on a screen.  I remember you very well from the inquiry.  The Chair has said that much of this is planning.  All of the arguments that you have made were made at the planning inquiry.  If the Committee ever wishes to check that then I would simply refer them to pages 193 to 198 inclusive of the inspector’s report.  Those are his conclusions on all of these points.  I will not read any of it out aloud because I would break my own rule, which is I am not talking about planning in front of this Committee.
129.   So with all of that said, having got that off my chest so to speak, can I just ask you this.  Where is this all going?  What do you want the Committee to do on behalf of the petitioner?
130.   MS PROTHERO:  I think I mentioned that at the beginning.  We would like them to separate the learning centre from the memorial itself.
131.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Right, and what does that actually mean? We have had mentioned yesterday the suggestion that an amendment should be made to the Bill so that there could not be a learning centre within Victoria Tower Gardens.  Is that the same point that you are making today or is it some different point?  Obviously there are different petitioners, although the themes are, well, the same really.  Is it the same amendment as the one that we heard about yesterday or is it something different?
132.   MS PROTHERO:  That is pretty much the same amendment, yes. 
133.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Right, so no learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens.
134.   MS PROTHERO:  That is correct.
135.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Right, thank you.  I can address the Committee on that in due course when we get to the end of this petition.  Anything else by way of amendments that you seek on behalf of the petitioner?
136.   MS PROTHERO:  I do not seek any other amendments.
137.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Thank you.
138.   MS PROTHERO:  I seek that clause 2 should be removed.
139.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Sorry, I did not catch those last few words.  That clause 2 should be removed?
140.   MS PROTHERO:  Should be omitted.
141.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Well, now that is a different thing from what we were just talking about.  So I do not want, in any way, to be unfair to you.  An amendment to clause 2, which would retain clause 2 but in some way say that it does not apply to a learning centre, is one thing, and I have already addressed the Committee on that yesterday, and I will address them again on it later, but that is one thing.  Getting rid of clause 2 completely is wholly different because that would prevent a memorial.  It would certainly prevent the memorial and learning centre that the Secretary of State proposes from being built in the gardens.  So you are not asking for that, are you?
142.   MS PROTHERO:  It could be amended to allow a memorial of a suitable scale that would fit in the gardens.
143.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  No, no, that is yet a different point and I will ask you about it in a few moments time.  Can we just go back, please?  It would be helpful to have an answer to my question.  You are not asking the Committee, are you, to delete clause 2 of the Bill?
144.   MS PROTHERO:  I am going to leave that to the legal people. 
145.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Leave that to the legal people, alright.
146.   MS PROTHERO:  I am not going to get into – 
147.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Okay, well, fine.  You are the witness on behalf of the petitioner but I will wait and see whether my learned friend is –
148.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Well, I want to make a general observation that these debates about legal points with the witnesses is neither here nor there.  There is obviously, through me, going to be the official position put on behalf of the petitioners and that is that.  And the witnesses obviously all have – they are all lay people and they all have –
149.   THE CHAIR:  We all understand that.
150.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Yes, thank you.
151.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  I understand that too but the question is, I am not asking legal questions.  I am simply asking what the witness on behalf of the petitioner wants the Committee to do and, with respect, I think I am entitled to ask those questions and I have asked them every day so far of everyone.  So are you or are you not – or you are leaving that to my learned friend, Mr Doctor?
152.   MS PROTHERO:  Well, I have already said that we would like clause 2 to be omitted or at the very least amended to allow a memorial of a suitable scale.
153.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Right. Well, I have got the bit about no learning centre so what is this bit about a memorial of a suitable scale?  Because obviously that is all planning.  The argument about whether the memorial we propose is of a suitable scale, or whether it should be something else, is quintessentially a planning argument.  So I do not get it.  Can you help the Committee, please?
154.   MS PROTHERO:  Well, I can because I think the percentages that were given at the planning inquiry were incorrect.
155.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  No, no, no.
156.   MS PROTHERO:  So I have demonstrated by my plans.
157.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  We have dealt with all of that and the inspector agreed with us on some points and agreed with you on some points and came to an overall conclusion, which I will not break my self-imposed rule and read out to the Committee.  I have given them the page references.  The inspector rolled his sleeves up and dealt with all of this because the Committee has had 20 minutes of it, the inspector had about two days of it and he dealt with it.  Anyway, thank you very much.  That is all I wanted to ask you, thank you.
158.   MS PROTHERO:  I suppose now the question has been asked in Parliament about the space that will be occupied by the proposal –
159.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  No, forgive me.  It is actually –
160.   MS PROTHERO:  – and it is incorrect. 
161.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  There is a line that has been crossed here.
162.   MS PROTHERO:  Sorry.
163.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  And it is not for this Committee to start questioning what has been said to Parliament.  There have been three written answers on this subject.  Plans have been deposited with each of them and they set out the various different areas.  I am sorry but this is all not within the remit of this Committee.
164.   MS PROTHERO:  Apologies.
165.   THE CHAIR:  Mr Doctor, do you have any questions?
166.   MR DOCTOR KC:  No. I just want to point out that the question, the plan 3 that you saw a moment ago, slide 3, that was given by the Minister in answer to a question after the inquiry had been held.  It has got nothing to do with the inquiry.  That was given afterwards and the witness has based herself on that but I will make that point later. 
167.   THE CHAIR:  Okay, thank you.  Any members of the Committee have any questions?  I just have one.  Would you accept that, had it not been for the 1900 Act, this planning application would have been going ahead?
168.   MS PROTHERO:  I think if it had been dealt with by Westminster City Council, it most certainly would not have.
169.   THE CHAIR:  My point though, I am just asking the question though, if the 1900 Act had not emerged as a barrier, or an obstruction, you would accept that the planning would have been going ahead?
170.   MS PROTHERO:  It would, yes.  I think it –
171.   THE CHAIR:  At this scale, of the planning permission.
172.   MS PROTHERO:  Well, because it was called in, that is why it is going ahead.
173.   THE CHAIR:  Okay, thank you. Thank you very much for your time.
174.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Thank you. I take it the witness is excused.
175.   THE CHAIR:  Yes.
176.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Right, thank you. The next witness is going to be Mr Hal Moggridge.

Evidence of Mr Moggridge

177.   THE CHAIR:  Good afternoon, Mr Moggridge.  Good morning, should I say.  Thank you, Mr Doctor.
178.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Thank you, Mr Chair. Mr Moggridge does have some slides, which the Committee will have.  Would you just introduce yourself, say who you are and what you do and then move on to giving your evidence?
179.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  I think I need to find my glasses.  Sorry, thank you.  Yes, I am Hal Moggridge.  I am a patron of the London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust and a landscape architect and I am a past president of the Landscape Institute.  I am now a consultant of my practice, Colvin and Moggridge, which is the oldest landscape architecture practice in the UK, having celebrated its centenary in 2022.
180.   I am a member of ICOMOS-UK, Cultural Landscapes and Historic Gardens Committee and a life member of the ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Cultural Landscapes.  I have served on the Royal Fine Art Commission and on the National Trust’s architectural panel, and perhaps most important from this subject, from 1992 to 2005 I was landscape consultant to the inner London Royal Parks.
181.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Thank you.
182.   THE CHAIR:  Mr Doctor, are you asking questions or are you just allowing the witness to proceed?
183.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Yes, yes.  Sorry, just continue with what you want to say to the Committee.
184.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  If I perhaps read out my summary first.  I have developed a design, not the one that you have been shown, to show the potential for a suitable memorial, in keeping with the gardens and existing monuments, which could be achieved quickly, which is the desire of both promoters and Parliament.  I am placing the learning centre elsewhere and developing the new design for the memorial, which responds to UNESCO’s expressed concerns.  And if Parliament is resolved that the underground learning centre, with the associated mounding, really is needed in Victoria Tower Gardens, then it will be important to confine its overground physical extent to the 1,429 square metres.  So I will address that.
185.   Now I will illustrate my design with a tentative proposal to show the wisdom of the statement that London Parks and Gardens would not object to a new memorial for the Holocaust in the gardens on the scale and in keeping with existing monuments such as the Buxton memorial.  This approach would mitigate the unfortunate impacts of the proposal which has been tabled, the proposal excessively damaging because it includes a partially underground learning centre. 
186.   First, I will consider where a new freestanding memorial could be placed in Victoria Tower Gardens so as to protect the interests of the existing users of Victoria Tower Gardens and the heritage significance of the park.  A fitting Holocaust memorial must clearly be present as a memorial.  The promoter’s memorial proposal significantly fails in this respect because it would appear to be just a large entrance portal to an underground learning space.  If possible, there should be a nearby place for quiet contemplation where it is possible to weep internally and quietly for the horrors of the Holocaust.  Crowds entering a learning centre provide exactly the opposite atmosphere, as a visualisation supplied by the promoter illustrates, an atmosphere even more merry by the presence of the children’s playground.
187.   Could I have my first slide, please?  Slide number 1.  Thank you.  Siting the memorial to protect the existing users of Victoria Tower Gardens.  A calm and simple space, a lawn framed by trees, uninterrupted by paths or significant level changes, is the core of this small public park intended for recreation and enjoyment, whether by local residents, workers or tourists.  Local workers include staff in the Houses of Parliament and nearby Government departments.  Most local residents do not have access to gardens and Victoria Tower Gardens provide access to nature and open space, which offers considerable health benefits.  That was a quote from the City of Westminster’s planning application. 
188.   The present playground for little children was designed with local children, giving it an inherent value for the local community which should be conserved by keeping the playground to its present layout until the local community wants a change.  The playground is also served by the nearby public toilet and a refreshment kiosk, cleverly located to serve children from one window and other people separately from another, an arrangement made totally impossible and incongruous by a UKHMLC. 
189.   Any Holocaust memorial, in my opinion, should be kept well away from the happiness of playing children.  Little children also play all over the level green lawn in the centre of the park and you can see that bottom right image.  That is a nursery group which can be seen quite frequently near the Buxton memorial many mornings.  The new Holocaust memorial should not be placed anywhere in the middle of this invaluable public space which it is important to retain for the wellbeing of the local population and workers.  Like other memorials in Victoria Tower Gardens, such as the Buxton memorial, the new memorial should be located somewhere to the side of the open lawn and the Buxton memorial deserves an undisrupted, open semi-circle, at least the width of the gardens, for full appreciation of its beauty.
190.   Could I have my second slide, please?  On a summer’s day, the level lawn is dotted all over with seated and recumbent people, enjoying the cool of the grass in the magic setting of the dreamy towers of the Palace of Westminster.  In spring, autumn or winter, people would be more spread out, exercising their dogs or simply walking to and fro to enjoy a natural setting, away from the hurly burly of central London.  And I am going to just quote a few things from the inspector’s report, which cited some of the harms which would be inflicted, starting now.  ‘A much-loved park.  UKHMLC would alter the ambience and mood of the park.  Appear dense and congested and so at variance with the greater open simple character of the park.  Victoria Tower Gardens is of considerable value to the health and wellbeing of many local residents, some amongst the most deprived in the UK, which is perhaps surprising in Westminster.  Victoria Tower Gardens is their own accessible open space.  The perception of the park would change.  Local residents would be discouraged from using the park for informal recreation purposes’.
191.   Now I am unable, unlike an inquiry inspector, to think how to achieve the purposes of the Bill without these harms.  An inspector, of course, can only deal with the plans that are put in front of him. 
192.   Could I please have my next slide, HM3?  Special events take place across the middle, open lawns, such as dog of the year or Luna open cinema on summer evenings.  Frequently, the centre of the gardens is used to hold television interviews of politicians so that they can put across their special ideas about current affairs, which I would say is an invaluable function of our democracy.  And many tourists, whether British or from overseas, come to the green space of the gardens for a break from the crowded urbanity of city streets and museums and here they can capture a photograph of the south side of the Palace of Westminster with its towers, which you can see bottom right.
193.   Sometimes large groups fill up Victoria Tower Gardens for purposes of great civic importance and the British way of life.  Occasionally, the park becomes crowded with people preparing to demonstrate about some cause outside Parliament.  Could I have my next slide, please?
194.   Rarely, but constitutionally very importantly, the gardens are host to a crowd attending a great civic event.  Recently, they served this vital purpose for both the lying in state in Westminster Hall of Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and then for the coronation of King Charles III, which is bottom right picture, a big tent was put up.  The whole of Victoria Gardens open space is needed for these purposes, as you can see from the image top left. 
195.   Now, the ideal way of conserving the park for these many uses is for the learning centre to be outside the park but the memorial, it would be possible for a memorial of reasonable scale to be in the park and the wording of the Bill appears to make this ideal option a possibility, if I have understood it correctly.
196.   So if the scheme is to go ahead, if Parliament decides the scheme should go ahead, then I feel it should confine itself to the 1,249 metres squared which has been quoted as being required.  So if Parliament resolves the promoter’s underground learning centre really is needed in Victoria Tower Gardens, then Government has said that only 7.5% of the gardens will be required.  This is the combined – well, you have heard what it is.
197.   Possible practical future built elements such as toilets for visitors at the entrance pavilion – which is planned without toilets at present – or protection of the staircase down from windblown rain – it is open at present – should also be contained within this area. 
198.   The current plan tabled by the promoter is to convert virtually the whole of Victoria Tower Gardens as a setting for the new learning centre.  Under this plan, the gardens would become unsuitable for most of its current activities.  The remaining north lawn, reduced in size, would be criss-crossed by paths approaching the learning centre, new paths, with undulating ground between the paths.  Yes, you can see this.  The bottom plan there – it is my own drawing – it shows what is proposed and the top plan shows if you just stick with the 1,429 square metres.  And I will give another quote from what the inspector recorded in his report.  ‘In addition, security operatives, alongside meet and greet staff, will be necessary to manage the influx of visitors, with an identifiable uniform’. 
199.   And also, the current proposal reduces the size of the playground and separates it from the remaining green space.  Well, the separation is impossible to avoid but it is unclear why it is necessary to take away any of this existing playground.  You can see on the top image the actual measured area does not impinge upon the existing playground.  North is to the right of the plans so usually they are looked at upwards. 
200.   The numerous proposed paths and new planting areas in the northern half of the gardens are not a necessary part of the learning centre proposal.  It would function equally well if they were omitted.  Access to the learning centre and appreciation of the fins would act as a memorial, and they depend only upon entry being available from Millbank, opposite Dean Stanley Street and a little further south, as you can see from the top plan where there are two entrances existing. 
201.   And there is a profound difference between the proposals tabled by the promoter, which seeks to modify the whole of Victoria Tower Gardens as a setting, and the statement that only 7.5% is to be affected.  And the correct policy would surely be to keep the memorial and learning centre as a new distinct element, separately accessed from Millbank, leaving some of the gardens at least for public use, as shown on the top plan.  And if Parliament is resolved that an underground learning centre really is needed in Victoria Tower Gardens, then it will be important to confine its overground, physical extent to 1,429 square metres, including all paths, as per Baroness Bybrook’s answer.  And a clause requiring this above ground size limitation should be added to the Bill.  It should be noted also that it should be wholly separated from the existing children’s playground, designed by the children, remember, who live there. 
202.   Do you think we could go back to slide HM2?  Is that rather difficult?  Thank you very much.  So I am going to give a few points about protecting the heritage significance and how this affects where you put a new memorial.  The heritage significance of Victoria Tower Gardens is one of the reasons why they are so loved by those who use them and so admired by tourists who visit.
203.   THE CHAIR:  I am sorry to interrupt again but planning issues and things like that are not really within the remit of the Committee.  Your comments about the size, I think, is potentially within the remit of the Committee.
204.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  Right.
205.   THE CHAIR:  But I do not think planning issues and heritage issues are particularly –
206.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  So do you think I should not talk about heritage?
207.   THE CHAIR:  Well, we are aware of that.  It has already been submitted.  I am just concerned that we are going back over ground that we have already had evidence of and come to the point.
208.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  Well, thank you, sir. Then perhaps I should skip forward, leaving out the heritage things, which would influence where you put a memorial, but I am sure that has been covered.  I would just like –
209.   THE CHAIR:  Yes. I am just making the point also, planning is not within the remit of this Committee.
210.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  Yes, I could – can I put forward –
211.   THE CHAIR:  The issues about the size, we can understand that is something that we could look at but certainly not planning.
212.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  Well, I hope I am permitted to put forward my proposal.
213.   THE CHAIR:  Carry on.
214.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  But I think I should read what UNESCO World Heritage Committee said about it, echoing the concern in its session in September 2023, they reiterate, and I quote now, ‘reiterates its serious concerns that the proposed location of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens would have a significant adverse impact on the outstanding universal value of the property and therefore request the state party to refrain from any action which would allow the current proposal to proceed and to seek alternative locations and designs’.  But I think we accept that a memorial is clearly going to be needed in the gardens and the question is whether the learning centre could be separate.
215.   I wonder if I could just go back –
216.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Mr Moggridge, could I just ask you to go forward and –
217.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  My scheme?
218.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Well, I would like you to go to the last slide. 
219.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  Right.
220.   MR DOCTOR KC:  And just speak to that.
221.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  Yes.
222.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Mr Moggridge has proposed an alternative scheme.  I think the Committee will accept, without him going into the detail, that it would obviously be possible to design a different memorial if that were required, but the details of that need not concern you, but he has taken the trouble to design some alternative memorial. I do not think it is necessary to go into the detail but I would like him to speak to the last slide.
223.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  Do you think we can go to HM8 first, because that shows the location?
224.   THE CHAIR:  Yes.
225.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Yes, please, please do.
226.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  This shows the proposed location.  The most suitable place for a freestanding memorial is towards the north east corner of Victoria Tower Gardens, not too close to The Burghers of Calais, and it should be accessible from the path system round the edge of the open lawns and it is notable that the present system is long enough to allow a 10-minute walk.  I think we can go on to number 9 now.  It just shows where it is and it proposes also a little garden in the dead end which exists there.
227.   So direct access for lawmakers from the Houses of Parliament is a desirable and practical possibility arising from this location.  The advantage of the location can be taken by converting the riverside dead end near Parliament into a small, enclosed garden, which is shown on the right picture here.  There would be access both from Victoria Tower Gardens, that is on the south lower side, for the public, and by private gate for the Houses of Parliament to the north, and at times when MPs wish to gain private access, it would be possible to shut the south gate from public access.  And though the drawing shows this garden detached from the memorial, it would be possible to realign the south fence so that the memorial and garden were contiguous.
228.   And I will seek to explore, for illustrative purposes, this tentative proposal for such a Holocaust memorial.  The Buxton memorial is the largest present memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens.  It is 4.2 metres in diameter and some 12 metres high to the top of its spire and these are the dimensions that have governed the size of this tentative proposal, which is shown on the left.  This memorial would have no other function and its size as a discrete sculptural structure gives it a striking impact of a sort which a larger, more architectural construction lacks.  Its precise position – I mean very precise position – would need consideration in detail, particularly as the nearby parliamentary education centre, which is the building where it says ‘planned memorial’ on the right picture, has only a temporary planning consent and so is likely soon to be removed.  And then nearby paths could be gently realigned to suit an ideal position for it in the same general location.  The memorial would ideally be somewhat further from the canopy of the plane trees than is shown on my plan. 
229.   This proposal has a contemporary feel, just as the Buxton memorial –
230.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Mr Moggridge, can I just ask you – I am sure the Committee will accept that you have an alternative plan.
231.   THE CHAIR:  We have the general drift.  Can we just go to questions now, please?
232.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Right.  Can you bring it to an end soon? Then there will be an opportunity for questions and the Committee will let you know what they found interesting.
233.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  Yes, indeed.  Well, I think the building shown in elevation on the left is proposed to be made of stainless steel with a small, enclosed area inside, which could have things written up and that is the proposed memorial.  The garden itself, which is in the shade of the trees, could be enriched by evergreen shrubs with nice little flowers.
234.   THE CHAIR:  Mr Moggridge, we have got your suggestion.
235.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  Yes, you have got – yes.
236.   THE CHAIR:  But it is not within the remit of this Committee.
237.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  Right.
238.   THE CHAIR:  So I think we need to move on to questions that are directly relevant to the Committee’s proceedings.  Mr Doctor?
239.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Mr Moggridge, I take it that is what you have to say.
240.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  Yes, I have one other thing to say, actually, because under the heritage, I think it has not been enough emphasised that the planned underground part has sloping earth mounds on either side, which are going to be over the roots of the existing trees, which is a sure way of spoiling their health. 
241.   THE CHAIR:  Alright, yes, thank you.  Mr Doctor?
242.   MR DOCTOR KC:  That concludes Mr Moggridge’s evidence.
243.   THE CHAIR:  Yes.
244.   MR DOCTOR KC:  And I have no further questions for him.
245.   THE CHAIR:  Okay. Mr Katkowski?
246.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Thank you very much indeed, sir.  Mr Moggridge, I will just try and deal with additional points that you have brought along to the Committee, if you like, to the extent that they are potentially within scope.  I am not going to talk about trees, for example, because funnily enough, there were literally days of evidence about trees with expert tree witnesses, witnesses who were expert about tree health, heard at the inquiry and the inspector reached conclusions on all of that.  So we are not going to go there again because we have heard all of that.
247.   Can I just ask about your additional point which the Chair has indicated is potentially in scope?  As I understand it, your point is this.  If there is to be the memorial and learning centre which the Secretary of State proposes, if that is to happen in Victoria Tower Gardens, we all know that for that to happen, the 1900 Act has to be lifted to allow that to happen and I think you are saying that there should be an amendment to the Bill so that the extent of that lifting of the obstruction should be limited in some way, should be limited in geographical, territorial extent.
248.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  That is what seems sensible, if the memorial goes ahead.  But I have said that a memorial of another sort –
249.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  No, I know and I have said I am not going to go over that ground again because I have covered that with the previous witness and I do not want to try the patience of the Committee by going over the same things, all of which are irrelevant, over and over again.  So if we just stick with this point which is potentially within scope.  So you would have that limitation imposed, the extent of the lifting of the statutory obstruction; you would have that done either by a quoted area – and I think you had the 1,492 square metres, was that right?
250.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  I wonder if we ought to go back to picture HM5 while talking about this. 
251.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Absolutely fine.  You can have whatever picture you like on the screen. 
252.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  HM5 is two plans.
253.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Maybe it is the next slide.  I think you might be one out.
254.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  That is the one, yes. Thank you very much.
255.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Yes.  You did mention the 1,492 square metres.  You also mentioned the 7.5%.  So my understanding is that what you are saying to the Committee is that if there is to be the proposed memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, there should be a limitation on the extent to which the statutory obstruction is lifted, either by square meterage or by percentage.  Have I got that right so far?
256.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  Yes. I think –
257.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Right.
258.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  – it needs perhaps a little enlargement because, as drawn, the underground part –
259.   THE CHAIR:  Yes. I think the principle of the size rather than the actual –
260.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  But you do need access from the road as well.
261.   THE CHAIR:  Certainly.
262.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  So there would have to be an arrangement for the public path round to be sometimes closed off when they needed access.
263.   THE CHAIR:  We need to concentrate on the principles rather than –
264.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  Right.
265.   MR KATKOWSKI KC: Exactly.  So concentrating on the principle, the difficulty that I want to put to you about either quoting a square meterage and/or quoting a percentage is that they are both controversial because those, including your good self – because I remember you from the inquiry – and including the previous witness as well, Ms Prothero, do not accept the square meterage and the percentage that, for example, the promoter has put forward.  Now, it would be much more sensible, would it not, if you are to limit the extent of the lifting of the obstruction, the statutory obstruction, to do that by reference to a plan?
266.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  Yes.
267.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Good.  Those are my questions.
268.   THE CHAIR:  Thank you. Mr Doctor?
269.   MR DOCTOR KC:  I have no further questions.
270.   THE CHAIR:  Okay. Does any member of the Committee have a question?  Thank you very much, Mr Moggridge.
271.   MR MOGGRIDGE:  Thank you.
272.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Thank you, Mr Moggridge, and I now am going to call Mr David Lambert and that will be the last witness for this morning.
273.   THE CHAIR:  Thank you.
274.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Right. Mr Lambert, would you just introduce yourself and tell the Committee what you do and then move on to what you want to say to them about the topic in hand?

Evidence of Mr Lambert

275.   MR LAMBERT:  Yes, thank you. Good morning, everyone.
276.   THE CHAIR:  Morning.
277.   MR LAMBERT:  My name is David Lambert and I am a director of a consultancy called the Parks Agency, which since 2000 has specialised in the history and also the management and use of public parks.  I was formerly conservation officer for the Garden History Society, which is a statutory consultee on planning applications, so in my time there I saw thousands of planning applications affecting parks and gardens like Victoria Tower Gardens.  So I am experienced in the planning side. 
278.   In 1993, I was the author of one of the first reports to draw attention to the state of our public parks in this country, which led directly to the decision by the John Major Government to set up the lottery and to – no, to be fair, it led to the decision in 1996, which was down to John Major, to allocate funds from the lottery to spend on public parks, which is by far and away the most popular of the lottery programmes, and I was very much involved with that and included directly being involved in over 100 park restoration projects. 
279.   I have served an expert adviser to three House of Commons Select Committees on public parks, cemeteries and on open space and I have been a member of advisory committees for the National Trust, Historic England, Historic Royal Palaces and in 2020 I gave evidence to the public inquiry for the memorial and learning centre.
280.   I understand that the evidence to this Select Committee should be restricted to the wording of the Bill so I will not rehearse objections to the proposed development but instead restrict my evidence to three points: with regard to the Bill, section 1(1)(a)(i), the difference between the memorial and the learning centre in the context of the function of public parks generally and Victoria Tower Gardens in particular; with regard to the Bill, section 1(1)(c), the need for clarification over the long term management and maintenance of the learning centre, if it is located in Victoria Tower Gardens, which is currently managed by the Royal Parks; and with regard to the Bill, section 2 – I will be very careful over this particular subject – the importance of legislation in protecting these vital parts of our urban infrastructure, and the need to respect such legislation and the risks of undoing it.

I preface these comments by stating I wholly recognise the importance of Jewish heritage in the UK and of memorialising and learning about the Holocaust.  On that first point, although treated as a single entity throughout the planning process, the Holocaust memorial and the Holocaust learning centre are correctly and helpfully treated separately in the Bill, which refers in section 1(1) to expenditure on the construction of: (i) a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust; and (ii) a centre for learning relating to the memorial.

281.   I note that the current Minister – perhaps current, I should not say that – the Minister, Ms Buchan, said in the debate on the instruction of this Committee on 23 June that the Committee’s remit included the question of whether or not there should be a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust or a centre for learning relating to the memorial, whether at Victoria Tower Gardens or elsewhere.  The Minister’s words seemed quite clear to me, but I gather there has been some debate over the precise meaning of those words.  It seems to me that it is asking to separate consideration for the memorial and the learning centre, but I am not qualified to offer an expert opinion on that wording.
282.   While Victoria Tower Gardens, for reasons rehearsed elsewhere and in the public inquiry at length, is not an appropriate location for the learning centre, there is no reason why a Holocaust memorial, subject to an appropriate design and siting, could not be accommodated within the gardens.  And I say that drawing on my understanding of history of public parks.  Public parks have always been appropriate locations for monuments and memorials; most of them accrete them gradually over time.  These will generally commemorate royalty, benefactors or other local dignitaries and worthies or local and national historic events.  Some may be sculptural; others may be objects of interest, such as geological curiosities or retrieved objects such as cannons from the Crimean War.  Some may have been specifically intended for a particular park, but many were located in the park from other locations.  For example, a donor’s private estate or from a street or square subject to highway improvements or road-widening.
283.   Whatever their origin, the basic test for a monument in a park, apart from design, has always been subsidiarity to the park as a whole.  Thus, for example, the three memorials already in Victoria Tower Gardens, the Burghers of Calais, the Buxton memorial fountain and the Pankhurst memorial, are appropriate in this setting, not only for their architectural sculptural quality, but because of the care taken over their siting and their scale.  Sculptural or monumental memorials in a wide range of contemporary designs have continued to be built in London parks, large and small, without compromising their basic function of providing a safe and beautiful place for recreation.  Indeed, good quality memorials add to the public enjoyment and the cultural richness of those places.
284.   Can I have the next illustration?  Thank you.  I would cite, for example, the Barbara Hepworth memorial to Dag Hammarskjöld, the UN Secretary-General killed in an air crash in 1961, which is top-left there, located by the lake in Battersea Park.  Others might be, in my opinion, the New Zealand war memorial at Hyde Park Corner, the Canadian war memorial in Green Park, or the 7/7 memorial in Hyde Park.  Each of these is a powerful monumental object in its own right and a focus for collective memory, but each is also subsidiary to the open space as a whole.  In each of these cases the monument is subsidiary to the landscape.  It is permeable; it is walked past or through; it does not dominate the place.
285.   Crucially, except on specific occasions such as an anniversary, it is not a destination or an endpoint, but an incident within a recreational space and context.  Each of these examples constitutes a spot to pause, reflect and then move on as part of the overall experience of the park.  These memorials are incidents or punctuation marks within the overall experience of the landscape.
286.   In 2014, I wrote Historic England’s guidance on war memorials, parks and gardens.  It is a subject I have lectured on widely.  In my advice to Historic England, I set out three forms for the relationship between a park and a memorial.  There are parks which are designed as the memorial themselves, or which were subsequently renamed to give them that memorial function; there are parks, or more often smaller public gardens, which were specifically designed as a setting for a memorial; and much more commonly there are parks which pre-existed and which were then subsequently chosen as the location for a memorial.
287.   In some cases, a park or garden is created as a memorial in itself, a recognition that open space and fresh air were a fitting legacy of, and a tribute to, those who died to protect their families and their country.  There are many memorial parks around the country, the biggest and most well-known is the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire which was opened in 2001.
288.   Some war memorials took the form of substantial buildings, such as hospitals, libraries or public baths in our towns and cities.  However, where memorial buildings were put up inside parks, they were restricted to structures such as sports or other pavilions and shelters for seating.  They were modest in design and, as with the monuments described above, they were subsidiary in scale for the park into which they were inserted, and the primary function of that park was to provide for informal outdoor recreation.
289.   The Holocaust memorial, as proposed, is not simply a memorial; it doubles up as the entrance to a building.  That building is so substantial that it contravenes the purposes of the 1900 Act to provide a public garden.  Its central siting is such as to dominate visually but also functionally the open lawn which is the key feature of Victoria Tower Gardens.  It is one thing to build a monument or a memorial in a garden or a park; it is quite another to treat the park as a convenient space for a major new building.  If this Committee’s remit, and I hesitate to venture onto this subject, does include the question of whether or not there should be a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust, or a centre for learning relating to the memorial – whether Victoria Tower Gardens or elsewhere, as the Minister said – I respectfully suggest that were the learning centre to be located elsewhere there would be no need for section 2 of this Bill which is designed to remove the provisions of the 1900 Act.
290.   Can I just go on to management and maintenance now?
291.   THE CHAIR:  Can I interrupt?  Can we concentrate on the relevance to this Committee rather than drifting into planning issues?
292.   MR LAMBERT:  Yes.  I tried to stick to my brief.  This second is with regard – that first was with regard to the Bill, section 1(1)(a)(i) to (ii) – and this on maintenance and management is with regard to the Bill, section 1(1)(c).  Just to clarify that, 1(1)(c) is the use, operation, maintenance or improvement of the memorial and the centre for learning.  So that is about management and maintenance, how this memorial will be managed.   
293.   THE CHAIR:  I am not strictly sure that is in the remit of this Committee because that sounds more like planning and after construction.  We are concentrating on the actual relevance of the Bill.
294.   MR LAMBERT:  If this Bill is addressing maintenance of the memorial and learning centre, which it is, then presumably it is reasonable to suggest that the Bill’s reference to management and maintenance needs to be clarified.
295.   THE CHAIR:  Please be succinct.
296.   MR LAMBERT:  Thank you.  Victoria Tower Gardens is managed by the Royal Parks for the benefit of its users.  It is proposed that the memorial and learning centre will be run by Holocaust Memorial Ltd.  This new body will lease the area outlined as the footprint of the memorial and learning centre from DCMS or the Royal Parks.  This area will, therefore, be excluded from the area directly managed by the Royal Parks.  There are good reasons to be concerned about this divorce of the core from the rest of the park, especially in so small a site as Victoria Tower Gardens.
297.   The objections of the Royal Parks Agency have been rehearsed and I will not go into those.  Let me move forward through those.  They have made very clear their objections.  Let me move on.  So fragmentation of management responsibilities, in my experience in working in public parks for over 30 years, is likely to cause long term problems, with the brunt of them likely to fall on existing users of the park.  There is a danger that the learning centre will prove a cuckoo in the nest which will elbow out those existing users.  This point was made by the inquiry inspector when he wrote, ‘The perception of the park as being a space primarily offering quiet relaxation would change, with its role as the setting for the new centre inevitably becoming the more substantial element of its identity.  There is a fair probability that local residents would be discouraged from using the park’.
298.   I am not an expert in legal drafting so I cannot suggest the particular wording, but I ask the Committee to consider introducing an amendment to clarify the future management structure and maintenance regime and to include a reference to safeguarding provisions for those members of the public who visit the gardens without wishing to visit the learning centre.  I hope that is acceptable.  I will move on.
299.   THE CHAIR:  Yes.
300.   MR LAMBERT:  I want to talk about the importance of legislation and the protection of public parks now.  I will try to be brief.  The point I make is that there is very little in the way of protection for parks and gardens in our planning system.  There is no equivalent to listed buildings.  They are a material consideration but there is no teeth to any recognition of them in the 1984 Heritage Act, but legislation has been fundamental to the development of our heritage of largely 19th century public parks.  Parliament has had an important role in passing enabling legislation and also legislation which provides for the long-term protection of public parks and gardens.
301.   Let me see if I can skim some of this.  Can I ask, do you have copies –
302.   MR DOCTOR KC:  No.  I think skim the detail of the various Acts.
303.   MR LAMBERT:  I will skim the detail of the various Acts.
304.   THE CHAIR:  That would be very helpful.
305.   MR LAMBERT:  Throughout the 19th century, whether it is in terms of being able to raise loans – local authorities being able to raise loans, buy land – there is enabling primary legislation from Parliament.  Let me come to the 1875 Public Health Act which for the first time provides central Government loans for laying out parks.  It was a Health Act; it was seen as a health provision.  The 1875 Act also established the principle that, ‘Land acquired for the express purpose of a park, garden or recreational ground could not be used for other and inconsistent purposes’.  This was confirmed in law in the following year in The Attorney General v Sunderland Corporation, when the local authority wished to use part of a public garden to build town buildings, civic buildings.  The Vice Chancellor rejected the corporation’s submission that they were entitled to use the land for any public purpose.  He said, ‘It is plain that these lands were vested in this corporation for a public purpose.  It has been argued that a discretion was given to the corporation, but this land was granted to be used only as and for public walks or pleasure grounds for the use of the inhabitants of the borough, and that trust has been executed by the corporation ever since’.
306.   That principle is reinforced in the 1906 Open Spaces Act, whereby, ‘A local authority which has acquired any estate or interest in or control over open space or burial ground shall hold and administer the open space or burial ground in trust to allow and with a view to the enjoyment thereof by the public as an open space’, and so on.  This point about trust is an important one I want to raise.  Some parks, like Victoria Tower Gardens, were enabled by specific parliamentary legislation; Brockwell Park in Lambeth as well; Waterlow Park and Royal Victoria Gardens in Newham created under an LCC Act.
307.   That Act, the London County Council Act 1890, allowed the LCC to acquire land –
308.   THE CHAIR:  We are talking about the 1900 Act.
309.   MR LAMBERT:  No, this is the 1906 –
310.   THE CHAIR:  Yes, I know that, but what is relevant to this Committee is the 1900 Act.
311.   MR LAMBERT:  I suppose what I am doing is reinforcing the point that was made in the High Court and the Court of Appeal about the implication of 1900 Act, which was that it did set a responsibility for the maintenance in the future of an open space.
312.   THE CHAIR:  I understand that.
313.   MR LAMBERT:  I will skip on.  Primary legislation in the form of Acts of Parliament has been and remains vital to safeguarding these urban open spaces.  As Mrs Justice Thornton found in the High Court, the 1900 Act imposed an enduring obligation to retain Victoria Tower Gardens for use as a public garden.  Seeking to overturn the 1900 Act is a drastic step in response to an adverse legal judgment on the proposed building and should not be undertaken except as a matter of last resort.  That is my point.
314.   You have received evidence from others demonstrating that the question of alternative sites for the learning centre remains a point of debate.  I am not going to go back into that.  In the absence of exhausting all other possible options, removing the provisions of the 1900 Act to safeguard this park should be viewed at the very least as a breach of trust with the past.
315.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Do you want to just mention the donors of the land?
316.   MR LAMBERT:  Only that provision of public parks depends to some extent on the goodwill of donors, who give their land in good faith that it will be protected.  The implication of undoing, whether it is a covenant or an Act or a legal agreement, to change the purpose of a park, to build in it, takes you way back to that case in Sunderland.  It is a drastic step, and it is a breach of trust.  Thank you.
317.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Do you want to discuss the topic of riverside access?
318.   MR LAMBERT:  No.
319.   MR DOCTOR KC:  No, okay. 
320.   MR LAMBERT:  Sorry.
321.   MR DOCTOR KC:  That concludes Mr Lambert’s evidence and I have nothing further to ask. 
322.   THE CHAIR:  Mr Katkowski?
323.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Thank you, sir.  Mr Lambert – sorry, is it still morning – good morning.  I wonder if I can, in my usual way, understand where this is all going.  Your point made to the Committee just now that removing section 8 of the 1900 Act from the gardens is a drastic step, that it should be a matter of last resort, what are you saying the Committee should do in response to that point, if anything?  Or is it just a point made into the ether, so to speak?
324.   MR LAMBERT:  I am not entirely clear of the remit of the Committee.
325.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Right.
326.   MR LAMBERT:  I do understand that this question of section 2 is contentious and there is no point in going into that again. 
327.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  I just wondered whether you were asking the Committee to do anything in response to that point.  The very reason that we are here, obviously, is because the Bill seeks to remove the obstruction to building in the gardens, and the hybrid element which has led to this Committee is that local people are more affected than the general public.  That is why we are here; that is the hybrid element.  I wondered whether your point that this should be a last resort goes anywhere.  I personally do not think it does, but I want to give you the opportunity to say to the Chair and the Committee, ‘Here’s my point’.
328.   MR LAMBERT:  My point is that it seems to me you are being invited to consider the memorial and the learning centre separately.
329.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Right. 
330.   MR LAMBERT:  If you consider the memorial centre needs to go elsewhere, there would be no need for section 2.  I am not saying it has got to be written out.  I am just observing that that means that section 2 would be otiose. 
331.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Let us come onto that then because that is a similar theme to the point that we heard with the first of the three witnesses for this petitioner, and I think that the structure is, first of all, that somehow the Committee should say that there should not be a learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens.  Am I right so far; is that the first point?
332.   MR LAMBERT:  It looked to me as though that fell within their remit.
333.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Fine, I can address the Committee on that, so that is the first point.  Is that it?  Is that the top and bottom of it because you have just said that, if that is right, you do not think there is a need for clause 2, but you are not asking the Committee to strike it out; is that right?
334.   MR LAMBERT:  If you have already told the Committee that they do not have the right, or it is not within their remit to strike out a clause, then I am just saying that, ‘Fine, you can leave it in’, but it would be otiose if the learning centre was not in the park.
335.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  We can quarrel about that, but I am just trying to understand your position.  Thank you very much indeed.  The other thing that I think is new with your evidence, so to speak, as opposed to the others who have spoken on behalf of the petitioner, is this point about maintenance and clarifying future maintenance.  Can we just understand how the Bill works and then I can ask you exactly what it is that you want the Committee to do?  Clause 1 is not hybrid at all; clause 1 is simply that the Secretary of State should have the ability to spend money on a memorial and learning centre anywhere in England and Wales.  There is nothing hybrid about that, nothing to do with the Committee at all.
336.   Clause 2 is to lift the section 8 restrictions to allow a memorial and learning centre, which I say includes the memorial and learning centre, to allow those to be built in Victoria Tower Gardens and in the future maintained, so the section 8 restriction should not stop us being able to maintain the Holocaust memorial if we have built the Holocaust memorial and learning centre in the gardens in the first place.  What on earth is wrong with any of that?  What are you asking the Committee to do about that?  It seems extremely sensible to be honest that if there is a memorial and learning centre in the gardens, we should be allowed to maintain them without some bit of legislation getting in our way.
337.   MR LAMBERT:  All I am pointing out is that you are going to split the management of the site as a whole between two different bodies.
338.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  That is nothing to do with the Bill; the Bill does not do any of that.  We might or might not do that.  Who knows what is going to happen by way of management and maintenance?  And in any event, depending on the longevity of the memorial and learning centre – let us hope it is there for centuries rather than decades – all sorts of different management regimes will come and go.  That is nothing to do with the Bill; the Bill does not say how it is going to be maintained and managed.  It is nothing to do with the Bill.  Do you see?
339.   MR LAMBERT:  You might be right.  I am just raising with the Committee the fact that management and maintenance of the building alongside the park for ordinary users who are not visiting the centre is a potentially serious issue and problem, and there is a reference to the Secretary of State incurring expenditure for maintenance of the memorial and learning centre.  That spend needs to be contained and guided and I would have thought the Bill was the place to do that.  I might be wrong.
340.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  No, no, no.  Forgive me, clause 1, which authorises expenditure, is not hybrid; it is nothing to do with the Committee.  Clause 2 refers to clause 1 simply in relation to the lifting of the statutory obstruction to building and thereafter maintaining the memorial and learning centre.
341.   MR LAMBERT:  I do find this really difficult.  Clause 1 is not hybrid.  Therefore, it does not fall within the remit of this Committee.
342.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Yes. 
343.   MR LAMBERT:  Clause 2 is also not within the remit of the Committee because we cannot talk about removing clause 2.
344.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  We certainly cannot talk about removing clause 2 because, forgive me, the Committee does not have the ability to strike out a clause in the Bill because clause 2 contains the public policy which underpins the Bill, and that is to say that the 1900 Act should not stand in the way of building a memorial and learning centre in relation to the Holocaust in the gardens.  The Committee knows all of this.  Thank you for your help.
345.   MR LAMBERT:  Thank you. 
346.   THE CHAIR:  Mr Doctor, do you want to –
347.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Nothing further.
348.   THE CHAIR:  Does any member of the Committee have any questions?  That concludes this part of the evidence.  I will now go back to the promoter.  Mr Katkowski, do you have any –

Response by Mr Katkowski KC

349.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Thank you very much indeed.  Sir, you will know by now – forgive me to use an old-fashioned phrase, I must sound like a broken record – you will very well know my position on behalf of the promoter.  Pretty much everything we have heard really is planning and not for this Committee.  To the extent that amendments have been asked for, none of them are within scope apart from one, and that is the point which we previously touched on which is the idea of restricting the lifting of the statutory obstruction in some or other way.  Rather than just repeat what I have said about the out-of-scope points yet again, rather than try your patience with that, I wonder if I can just say a few words about that one point which potentially is in scope.
350.   I will just say this briefly.  It is obvious that if there is to be anything in relation to that point, whatever it is needs to refer to a plan rather than a percentage of the gardens or a square meterage.  I say that because, although you might find this hard to credit, a large amount of time was spent at the planning inquiry arguing about the accuracy of percentages and square meterage.  One would have thought it should not be beyond the wit of man and woman to be able to agree square meterage and percentages but, unfortunately, we never got to that position, and so any percentage and square meterage would prove to be controversial.
351.   The sensible way, if there is to be anything along these lines, is to have a plan.  And you will remember – well you might not remember – but in my opening presentation there was a plan of the entire project, and it is at slide 536.  If there is to be anything, then please let it refer to a plan because that way you can just see what we are talking about rather than –
352.   THE CHAIR:  We all accepted that if a plan was required, a professionally drawn up one would be required.
353.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Thank you, sir.  I will say no more about that then.  If I can then just come back to the broader point about this, this obviously is to control the extent of the lifting of the 1900 Act in relation to the completed project and what I said in opening plainly still stands today; it is potentially in scope for the Committee.  The Committee has our position, that we do not regard any such restriction as necessary.  I am going to come back to why the word ‘necessary’ is important, because the extent of the project is fundamentally controlled by the planning process.  We cannot build anything beyond that which we get planning permission for, assuming that we do get planning permission in due course for the project, or for some other project.
354.   I also mentioned earlier on matters of process.  In the event the Committee considers that something is necessary on this point – and I will again come back to that word ‘necessary’ in a few moments – if you do consider something is necessary then, as you will understand, there is a sequence of potential ways in which the matter could be dealt with.  There’s the giving of an assurance; there’s the giving of an undertaking; and then a final option on the list would be to actually amend the Bill in some way.
355.   On the first two of those, an assurance or an undertaking, I would simply need to have instructions on the matter, and we would simply need to draft some words and put them before you.  Were there to be any thought of an amendment, then that is a matter for parliamentary counsel to draft.  As much as I would love to be parliamentary counsel, I am not, so that would be a matter for parliamentary counsel to draft.  In relation to instructions, it is not simply a matter of the Secretary of State giving me instructions; it would be a matter of Government instructions at Cabinet Office level, as I understand it.  There would be a process that would need to be gone through is all I am trying to say.
356.   Now I will come back to that word ‘necessary’, which I have used twice.  Anything, whether it is by way of assurance, undertaking or amendment, needs to be something which is considered by you, the Committee, to be necessary.  I am going to put it in colloquial terms, not just a nice thing to have; it needs to be necessary.  Fundamentally, as you will well know but I will just say it for the record, it is for the petitioners to make good their case that one or other of these things – an assurance, an undertaking or an amendment – is necessary.  The onus is on them, and entirely and only on them, to persuade you that one or other of those things is necessary, in the sense that without it the Bill would not be satisfactory to you.
357.   The flip side of that is that it does not fall to the promoter, to us, to prove the opposite, to prove that an assurance, an undertaking or an amendment, is unnecessary.  The burden is entirely on the petitioners.  You have our case, and I will just say it again very briefly in closing on this point, and finishing on this point, the planning process completely controls the extent of the project.  We will not be able to do anything that steps outside any planning permission we obtain and so, in those circumstances, it is my submission that the petitioners have not made good a case that it is necessary for there to be an assurance, an undertaking or an amendment.
358.   Those are my submissions.
359.   THE CHAIR:  Thank you.  Any members of the Committee?  Just a couple of things from myself.
360.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Of course. 
361.   THE CHAIR:  Clearly, if section 2 were to go through, for all we know – and nobody can make a judgment of the future – there could be a completely different planning application.
362.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Indeed, yes. 
363.   THE CHAIR:  It could be lifted to allow to whatever planning proposal came forward and was accepted at some point in the future.
364.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  That is right on that approach because you have our position that the merits of whether there should be something – whatever it is – in the gardens is entirely a planning matter.  That is the process that weighs the pros and cons.  And if it is something different – for example, as I said in my opening, we might very well not get permission – in which case we would have to think again.
365.   THE CHAIR:  Or somebody could bring forward a completely different planning application. 
366.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Or somebody could bring forward a completely different planning application.
367.   THE CHAIR:  That’s fine.  Secondly, is it the promoter’s position that no amendments of any kind could be brought forward by this Committee?
368.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  No, no, no, no.  No, that is not my position at all.  I have just said that my submission to you is that, logically, the Committee would need to think through, would an assurance be satisfactory?  If not, would an undertaking be satisfactory?  If not, and only then, is there a need for an amendment.  If you get to that stage, of course –
369.   THE CHAIR:  That was my understanding.  I just wanted to make sure it was also your understanding. 
370.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Yes. 
371.   THE CHAIR:  That’s fine.  And just out of interest, are there any conversations presently going on between the promoters and the petitioners?
372.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Again, I said – it was the last slide in my opening at the first session – we have in correspondence invited discussions about various matters but I think I said something along the lines of there has not been any great enthusiasm on the part of the petitioners to discuss any such matters with us.  Patently, that is where we are.  If anyone wants to discuss with us whatever they would like to discuss with us, of course we would be very happy to do that.
373.   THE CHAIR:  Slightly left field, has any thought ever been given to moving the Buxton memorial?
374.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Yes.  It is not left field at all.  Personally, it was one of the first thoughts I had about this when I got involved many years ago on the planning side.  There was evidence at the planning inquiry about this very point and it was decided, rightly or wrongly, that the position that should be adopted is to leave the Buxton memorial in situ, not to move it.  It has already been moved from Parliament Square in the 1950s into the gardens, but not to move it again.  No, if I might say, on the planning side, it is a perfectly fair point to ask.  I am sorry to sound again like a broken record.  It is a point that did come up at the inquiry, but the decision made by the promoter of the project was to leave the Buxton memorial in situ in its existing location.  In another world, one might very well have thought, ‘Why not move the memorial?’, the Buxton memorial itself, to give it more breathing space.
375.   THE CHAIR:  Thank you very much.  Can I thank all the witnesses for – Mr Doctor, do you just want to –
376.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Yes, in case you were going to adjourn, I would like to just say something in response to this exchange between you and Mr Katkowski.  If I may something in response to what Mr Katkowski has said and in response to the exchange that has just occurred between you. 
377.   THE CHAIR:  Yes.
378.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Mr Chair, I want to comment on two points.  First of all, we do not accept that we have been reluctant to respond to any overtures from the promoter but that is something that obviously can take place outside of the Committee.
379.   THE CHAIR:  Right, we will leave to your respective people to have those conversations.
380.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Yes, and certainly as these proceedings progress and one begins to get a feel for what is or is not possible, the discussions might be more focused in the light of the general atmosphere.
381.   THE CHAIR:  You should leave it outside of the remit of this Committee for those conversations to be had.
382.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Yes.  We have got another two weeks before the next resumption, and that is a good time in which to make use of that time, to see if there can be further progress.  That is point number one.  Point number two is this constant referral to the planning application with the understanding that this will be a planning application in the normal way and that these points would be gone over again, and that all these objections which people have raised, and these references they have made – and this is without prejudice to my argument – but the fact that they may be the subject of planning does not mean they cannot be discussed here, but I am not making that point.  I am just saying the reference to a planning application, the Committee should not be under any misapprehension that it is not open to the Government, through the Minister who is going to decide this, to simply say, ‘We’ve had a planning application; nothing has changed; you can go ahead with your existing application’.  That is not something you can discount.  You have no assurances that any of these points would be looked again, even if they are new points.
383.   The Minister has called in the application with the result that – I am no planning expert – but I understand there is a distinct possibility that the application will be left as it is, and the approach would be taken, ‘Well the only thing that stood in its way last time was the 1900 Act’, end of story.  That is a possibility, so the Committee should proceed on the basis that there may be concerning things here, there may be things that are of legitimate public and, in this case, petitioner interest.
384.   THE CHAIR:  I hear the point you are making.
385.   MR DOCTOR KC:  That’s the second point.
386.   THE CHAIR:  You only had two.
387.   MR DOCTOR KC:  I beg your pardon.
388.   THE CHAIR:  You only had two.
389.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Oh, I see.  Can I make an additional point in that case?  It is really tied in with what I have already said.  Mr Katkowski has debated with the witnesses what they personally want.  I do not think anything is to be gained by that.  I think what he is really doing is reiterating his points to you.
390.   THE CHAIR:  To be fair, both sides are reiterating an awful lot of points to us.
391.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Thank you.  I take the criticism.  Having said that, the question of undertakings or assurances or amendments, as I understand it, we will use the next two weeks to explore that further.  And then as I understand it, there is going to be the last session with the witnesses, which is the Thorney Island Society, and I just want to ask you at this stage if you envisage that after all the evidence has finished, and after we have had this two-week period of discussion, there is going to be an opportunity to address you on the summing up of the evidence.  I do not know if that is in the timetable, but I just want to make sure at this stage that something like that will be –
392.   THE CHAIR:  No final decision has been made on that point.  Do I take it that is something you would request?
393.   MR DOCTOR KC:  I would very much request.  Indeed I understood Mr Katkowski to say he will in due course make his submissions, so I assume he is also going to agree to that.
394.   THE CHAIR:  I have heard your request so thank you for that.
395.   MR DOCTOR KC:  Yes. 
396.   THE CHAIR:  Does that conclude your three points?
397.   MR DOCTOR KC:  It does.
398.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Just very, very briefly, sorry.  In relation to that last point, obviously it is entirely for the Committee, and if there are to be any closings, and obviously the promoter has the final word in relation to that, but we will come to that in due course.  I have been making my submissions as we have been going along, so I am not requesting any special – if we are to hear again from my learned friend on a separate occasion – then I would wish to reply to whatever he says.
399.   THE CHAIR:  If we have one, we would have both.
400.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Exactly.  Otherwise, please do not get me wrong, I have been making my submissions as we have been going along.  You have got them all and you have probably had more than enough of them.
401.   THE CHAIR:  We understand.
402.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  Just in relation to the planning application point, obviously I am here for the Secretary of State, who is not a decision maker on the planning application; that is behind an ethical wall being determined by the relevant Minister.  The process in relation to that would be the Minister has already written to the parties asking for answers in writing to particular questions, as I said on the first day, and once that has all been gone through, obviously before the Minister makes his decision, anyone who wishes to write to the Minister, including us, would be perfectly entitled to write to him and say whatever they want to say to him about the planning merits or demerits of the proposal.
403.   THE CHAIR:  We are well aware that that procedure had been commenced.
404.   MR KATKOWSKI KC:  I will say no more.
405.   THE CHAIR:  Can I thank all the witnesses for this morning’s session?

51