§ 2.40 p.m.
§ Lord SUDELEYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the recent interest in the famous neo-classical sculptor John Flaxman, the Secretary of State for the Environment would be willing to issue a direction under Section 149 of the Housing Act 1957 requiring Westminster City Council to consider the possibility of saving Flaxman's former house at No. 7 Greenwell Street.
§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONNo, my Lords. No. 7 Greenwell Street is in an area in respect of which the then Secretary of State confirmed a slum clearance compulsory purchase order, made by the Westminster City Council, in July 1978. At the same time, he gave consent for the demolition of No. 7 and the other listed buildings in the clearance area. A direction under Section 149 of the Housing Act 1957 would conflict with the council's duty to secure the clearance of the area.
§ Lord SUDELEYMy Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but may I ask him whether he would not consider it particularly appropriate for a direction to be issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment in this instance, having regard to the fact that at the public inquiry of 1977 the Historic Buildings Division of the Greater London Council withdrew at the last minute the evidence which it had prepared, and the inspector declared that it was outside his competence to judge Flaxman's significance? Furthermore, is the Minister aware that, according to the report of the Community Housing Association, which I have in my hand, the cost of new building in this instance would be one-third more than the cost of rehabilitation?
Lod MOWBRAY and STOURTONMy Lords, I am not briefed to comment on the figures that the noble Lord gave in the last part of his supplementary question, 838 but I can tell him that the application for consent to demolish was, as he said, the subject of a public local inquiry. The inspector found that the listed buildings in the clearance area made little contribution to the locality. He found no indication that No. 7, where Flaxman lived for 30 years, was held in regard by those who could be expected to show an interest. His conclusion that consent for demolition should be given was accepted by the Secretary of State.
§ Lord COTTESLOEMy Lords, is the Minister aware that there is intense and bitter opposition among those who live in the terraces of listed Georgian houses known as the Carburton Triangle to the proposals for demolition and redevelopment? Is he aware that the full rehabilitation of these houses is feasible, while redevelopment would cost rather more than the figures quoted by my noble friend? Indeed, it is estimated by the local tenants' association that it will cost more than twice as much and will provide little additional living accommodation. Is the Minister further aware that, even if the proposals for redevelopment go forward, it would be perfectly feasible for the house in which Flaxman (who was the outstanding neo-classical designer and sculptor in this country) lived for 30 years to be preserved together with the adjoining houses on either side of it; and, in those circumstances, will he encourage his right honourable friend to prevent this destruction?
§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONMy Lords, it always gives me great pain to have to say, No, to my noble friend, but I do not think I can give him any such encouragement because, however much there may be a revival of interest, I do not think it could justify the retaining of a house which is not of any great merit, however distinguished the gentleman who lived there. As I have said, consent for this demolition was given as recently as July 1978. In this case the city council have a statutory duty to demolish the building and have this listed consent to do so. It really does not make sense to issue directions requiring the council to consider preservation.
The Earl of GOSFORDMy Lords, is the Minister aware that Flaxman had, and has, an international reputation; 839 that he was at the time considered by the whole of Europe to be one of the greatest sculptors since Michelangelo; and that he was a great influence on William Blake? I would suggest that keeping this house would certainly attract to this country a large number of people who are interested in this man.
§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONMy Lords, the noble Earl might be interested to know that the Westminster City Council have indicated that they would be prepared to incorporate the present plaque on the new building. But I should like to say that the purpose of listing a building is to ensure that a building of special architectural or historical interest is not demolished without every aspect being examined. There was a full inquiry into this matter, and all the parties concerned came to the conclusion that it was sensible to go ahead. Of the 21 houses, 20 were in a state of total disrepair, and it was only No. 7 which was habitable. The only reason why there has been the delay is the moving of the people concerned who want to be rehoused in that area.
§ Lord SUDELEYMy Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that there was a report in The Times on 23rd November that the historic buildings division of the Greater London Council have asked Westminster City Council if they consider that a case could be made for saving Flaxman's house? If Westminster City Council do come to a favourable decision on this, regardless of any direction coming from the Government, would the Minister not agree that this would help to discourage any further attempts in other directions to demolish what is left of Georgian London?
§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONMy Lords, the Secretary of State is always willing to consider matters when councils approach him, but it is highly unusual, I repeat, for Secretaries of State to be expected to overturn the decisions of previous Secretaries of State after public inquiries. At the moment, so far as I know, the position is that we have not had any request from the Greater London Council or the Westminster City Council to reconsider.
§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLSMy Lords, may I just say, apropos the last answer, that one of the reasons for getting a new Secretary of State and a new Government is that they might reconsider previous decisions.
§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONMy Lords, one of the happier facts of life in this country is that on matters of artistic taste both parties have very similar views.