Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:38:35.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The battle for Bankside: electricity, politics and the plans for post-war London

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2017

STEPHEN MURRAY Open the ORCID record for STEPHEN MURRAY [Opens in a new window]
STEPHEN MURRAY*
Affiliation:
5 Balmoral Gardens, Hockley, Essex, SS5 4UN, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

In the mid-1940s a conflict arose – the battle for Bankside – between two plans for a contested space on London's South Bank. The electricity industry planned to rebuild Bankside power station to alleviate a critical shortage of electricity, whereas the County of London Plan envisaged redevelopment of the area as public gardens, flats and offices. This article examines these plans and their entanglement in the planning system as then constituted; it argues that the significance of the planning principles escalated the arguments from a local issue to the highest level of government. The roles of key actors who manoeuvred to influence the decision-making process are explored. The article demonstrates that the power station approval was crisis driven and imposed ill-considered conditions with long-term implications. Elements of the County of London Plan were realized through deindustrialization and the transformation of the long-derelict power station into Tate Modern in 2000.

Type
Research Article
Information
Urban History , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , November 2018 , pp. 616 - 634
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Recent examples include Clapson, M. and Larkham, P.J. (eds.), The Blitz and its Legacy: Wartime Destruction to Post-war Reconstruction (Farnham, 2013)Google Scholar; Pendlebury, J., Ertem, E. and Larkham, P.J. (eds.), Alternative Visions of Post-War Reconstruction: Creating the Modern Townscape (Abingdon, 2015)Google Scholar; Amati, M. and Freestone, R., ‘All of London's a stage: the 1943 County of London Plan Exhibition’, Urban History, 43 (2016), 539–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Collins, M.P., ‘The London County Council's approach to town planning: 1909–1945’, London Journal, 42 (2017), 172–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Forshaw, J.H. and Abercrombie, P., County of London Plan (London, 1943)Google Scholar. The ‘pervasive’ comment was by Herbert Morrison quoted in Young, K. and Garside, P.L., Metropolitan London: Politics and Urban Change 1837–1981 (London, 1982), 241Google Scholar; Gold, J.R., ‘In spite of planning’, Journal of Urban History, 26 (2000), 546CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cherry, G.E., Cities and Plans (London, 1988), 123Google Scholar.

3 County of London Plan, 126–35.

4 Guldi, J., Roads to Power: Britain Invents the Infrastructure State (Cambridge, MA, 2012), 212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Royal Commission on the Distribution of the Industrial Population, Report, Cmd 6153 (1940), 84.

6 Ibid., 201.

7 County of London Plan, 1.

8 Ibid., 3.

9 Ibid., 112.

10 Ibid., 126.

11 County of London Plan, 177; Corporation of London, Report of the Preliminary Draft Proposals for Post War Reconstruction in the City of London (1944).

12 The National Archives (TNA) HLG 79/916, Ministry of Town and Country Planning, Bankside power station development Southwark: application to minister, letter from the LCC to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, 3 Sep. 1945.

13 London Metropolitan Archives (LMA) LCC/PC/GEN/01/052, LCC, architect to the Council's report to the Town Planning Committee, 1 May 1947.

14 Cherry, Cities and Plans, 112–13 and 123.

15 Anon., ‘The Abercrombie Greater London Plan’, Public Administration, 23 (1945), 38, quoted in Young and Garside, Metropolitan London, 244.

16 Ibid., 243–5.

17 Sheail, J., Power in Trust: The Environmental History of the Central Electricity Generating Board (Oxford, 1991), 31.Google Scholar

18 Jowitt Committee report quoted in Chick, M., Electricity and Energy Policy in Britain, France and the United States since 1945 (Cheltenham, 2007), 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Kelf-Cohen, R., Twenty Years of Nationalisation (London, 1969), 105–6Google Scholar.

20 The CLELCo was established in 1891; it owned and operated Bankside power station until nationalization in April 1948. For an account of its history, see S. Murray, ‘Electrifying the City: power and profit at the City of London Electric Lighting Company Limited’, London Journal, published online 2 Aug. 2017.

21 Hannah, L., Electricity before Nationalisation (London, 1979), 307CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 TNA HLG 79/918, application for the extension of Bankside, public inquiry, proof of evidence of Mr J. Hacking, chief engineer of the CEB.

23 Ibid., letter from the CEB to the CLELCo, 28 Jul. 1944.

24 Ibid., letter from the CLELCo to the LCC, 13 Feb. 1945.

25 The principal objection at Lincoln was to the cooling towers which would be as high as the hill on which the cathedral stands and would ruin the view from the south. Following a joint public inquiry, the developers, the Lincoln Corporation, agreed to reduce the height of towers and consent was granted in October 1944; see Sheail, Power in Trust, 32–3. The other proposal by the North-eastern Electricity Supply Company was for a new power station at Kepier on the River Wear north-east of Durham city centre. There were objections about spoiling views of the cathedral but the main issue was that the city was unsuited to such a large-scale industrial development. A three-day joint inquiry was held in December 1944. Following legal arguments the developer agreed to abandon the proposal on the conditions that it would receive compensation for abortive expenditure and there would be no objections to the extension of its power stations at Dunston and North Tees; see Sheail, Power in Trust, 33–7.

26 TNA HLG 79/916, letter from the LCC to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, 3 Sep. 1945.

27 Sir Giles had been recommended to the CLELCo by its consulting engineer Sir Leonard Pearce who had worked with him on designs for Battersea power station. His grandfather, George Gilbert Scott, had also been involved in a planning battle: the architectural ‘battle of styles’ over gothic revival or Italianate designs for the Foreign Office building in the 1860s; see Port, M.H., Imperial London: Civil Government Building in London, 1850–1915 (New Haven, 1995).Google Scholar

28 TNA HLG 79/916, file note on transmission arrangements and costs for alternative generating station sites at Bankside and Surrey Docks, 25 Mar. 1946.

29 Ibid., note of a meeting at the Ministry of Town and Country Planning on 23 Jul. 1946.

30 Luckin, B., Questions of Power: Electricity and the Environment in Inter-war Britain (Manchester, 1990), 4Google Scholar and 138–55.

31 Sheail, Power in Trust, 7–8.

32 Ibid., 8.

33 The signatories included the mayors of Chelsea and Westminster, the editor of the Lancet, the treasurer of St Thomas’ Hospital, a past president of the Royal Institute of British Architects and chair of the Coal Smoke Abatement Society.

34 Sheail, Power in Trust, 12.

35 Luckin, Questions, 142 and 148. The long-distance transmission of electricity from power stations adjacent to coal fields was established practice in Germany; see Hughes, T.P., Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880–1930 (Baltimore, 1983), 175–200Google Scholar.

36 Luckin, Questions, 139.

37 Sheail, Power in Trust, 18.

38 TNA POWE 12/798, Ministry of Fuel and Power, evidence given by Sir Leonard Pearce, public inquiry, day 1, fol. 36.

39 TNA POWE 12/798, public inquiry.

40 TNA HLG 79/918, inspector's report, paragraph 1.

41 TNA POWE 12/798, public inquiry, day 1, fol. 3, and day 2, fols. 3–4.

42 Thorne, R., ‘The setting of St Paul's cathedral in the twentieth century’, London Journal, 16 (1991), 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 TNA HLG 79/918, inspector's report, paragraphs 27–31.

44 TNA POWE 12/798, evidence of Sir Patrick Abercrombie at the public inquiry, day 3, fols. 33 and 44.

45 TNA HLG 79/918, inspector's report, paragraph 57.

46 Ibid., public inquiry, proof of evidence of Mr J. Hacking.

47 Anon., ‘City of London Electric Lighting Company's works’, Electrical Review, 44 (10 Mar. 1899), 232.

48 TNA POWE 12/798, public inquiry, day 4, fol. 19.

49 Ibid., letter from the electricity commissioners to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, 29 Jan. 1947, paragraphs 1 and 11.

50 TNA HLG 79/916, memorandum by the minister of town and country planning, 1 Mar. 1947, paragraph 8(ii).

51 Ibid., paragraphs 4 and 12.

52 Kynaston, D., Austerity Britain 1945–51 (London, 2008), 193–200Google Scholar; Hannah, Electricity before Nationalisation, 314–18.

53 See e.g. Robertson, A.J., The Bleak Midwinter 1947 (Manchester, 1987), 68–70Google Scholar; also Hugh Dalton's acerbic comments about ‘Shinbad’ in Pimlott, B. (ed.), The Political Diaries of Hugh Dalton 1918–40, 1945–60 (London, 1986), 390Google Scholar.

54 TNA PREM 8/591, Prime Minister's Office, memorandum by the minister of fuel and power, LP (47)48, 11 Mar. 1947. The commissioners’ letter was addressed to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning; Silkin had not circulated the letter but Shinwell ensured that it was available to the committee.

55 Ibid., memorandum by the chancellor of the exchequer CP (47)110, 26 Mar. 1947.

56 Ibid., personal note from prime minister to the minister of fuel and power, 15 Mar. 1947.

57 Another context for Attlee's question was the government's coal-to-oil conversion programme for industry in response to the national shortage of coal. See TNA POWE 14/494, conversion of power station boilers from coal to oil firing, letter from the CEB to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, 22 Jul. 1946.

58 TNA CAB/128/9, cabinet office, conclusions of a meeting of the cabinet held on 1 Apr. 1947, CM (47)34, fol. 237.

59 TNA CAB/195/5, cabinet secretary's minutes CM 34(47), fol. 189, on 1 Apr. 1947.

60 House of Commons Debates (HC Debates), vol. 436, cols. 780–3, 22 Apr. 1947. Although apparently with little thought to the implications of oil-firing.

61 Times, ‘The Bankside power station’, 30 Apr. 1947, 5.

62 H.J. Randall, the managing director of the CLELCo, Times, 1 May, 5; Sir Giles Gilbert Scott, Times, 13 May, 5; and Leonard Pearce, the consulting engineer for the CLELCo, Times, 5 May, 5.

63 Letters of protest include those from the City of Westminster; the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings; the Royal Society of Arts; the London Society; the Corporation of London; and the dean of St Paul's cathedral. See TNA HLG 79/916, HLG 79/917 and HLG 79/324.

64 TNA HLG 79/917, letter from RIBA to Lewis Silkin, 6 May 1947.

65 ‘On-the-spot arguments for Bankside power station’, Manchester Guardian, 7 May 1947, 3.

66 TNA CAB 124/432, proposed construction of electricity generating station at Bankside, 1946–48, cabinet office note to lord president, 30 Apr. 1947.

67 Ibid., letter from Lord Latham to Herbert Morrison, 2 May 1947.

68 Ibid., letter from Lewis Silkin to Herbert Morrison, 6 May 1947.

69 TNA CAB 128/9, cabinet meeting on 15 May 1947, CM 47(47), fol. 35.

70 House of Lords Debates, vol. 147, cols. 846–7, 19 May 1947.

71 TNA HLG 79/917, letter from J. Hacking to Sir John Kennedy, 15 May 1947.

72 TNA CAB 129/19, lord president's memorandum, CP (47)160, 21 May 1947.

73 George Isaacs was the minister of labour and national service and MP for Southwark North where Bankside was located.

74 TNA CAB 128/9, cabinet minutes, 22 May 1947, CM (47)49, fol. 49.

75 HC Debates, vol. 437, cols. 2688–725, 23 May 1947; Silkin's comments are at col. 2717.

76 Heathorn, S., ‘Aesthetic politics and heritage nostalgia: electrical generating superstations in the London cityscape since 1927’, London Journal, 38 (2013), 126CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 Gold, ‘In spite of planning’, 549. Charles Holden and William Holford's 1944 City of London Plan was also not adopted ‘in the face of market freedoms and a new fashion in architecture’, White, J., London in the Twentieth Century: A City and its People (London, 2008), 42Google Scholar.

78 Sheail, Power in Trust, 45.

79 Ibid., 93–4.

80 The CLELCo, the CEB and the Electricity Commission were abolished, ownership of power stations, including the incomplete Bankside B, was vested in the BEA.

81 TNA POWE 14/1116, Ministry of Power, siting of new power stations: extension to Bankside Borough of Southwark, letter from the CEGB to the Ministry of Power, 18 Apr. 1958. The Ministry of Fuel and Power was renamed the Ministry of Power in 1957. The BEA was reformed as the Central Electricity Authority in 1955 then as the CEGB in 1958.

82 Ibid., letter from the CEGB to the architect to the LCC, 27 Jun. 1958.

83 Ibid., Ministry of Power, form of consent, 7 Aug. 1958.

84 E.g. Times, C.E. Wallis letter to the editor, 5 Oct. 1959, 11.

85 Murray, S., ‘Bankside power station: planning, politics and pollution’, Local Historian, 33 (2003), 108–9Google Scholar.

86 LMA LCC/PC/GEN/01/052, LCC Town Planning Committee, report on Bankside generating station – replanning of surrounding area, dated 20 Nov. 1947 (TP 939), fol. 1.

87 E.V. Marmaras, ‘Central London under reconstruction policy and planning, 1940–59’, University of Leicester Ph.D. thesis, 1992, 221. The largest building, St Christopher's House, was demolished in 2003. The office building boom was brought to an end by the incoming Labour administration in 1964; see Hall, P., Urban and Regional Planning (Newton Abbot, 1975), 144.Google Scholar

88 Hebbert, M., London: More by Fortune than Design (Chichester, 1998).Google Scholar

89 Southwark Local History Library, Bankside file, ‘The Bankside battle’, Through the Roof; The Bulletin of the Campaign for Housing in Central London, 2 (1985).

90 Heathorn, ‘Aesthetic politics’, 134–42.

91 Teedon, P., ‘Designing a place called Bankside: on defining an unknown space in London’, European Planning Studies, 9 (2001), 459–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dean, C., Donnellan, C. and A. Pratt, ‘Tate Modern: pushing the limits of regeneration’, City, Culture and Society, 1 (2010), 79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

92 Guldi, Roads to Power, 4.