ST. JAMES'S THEATRE (Hansard, 23 July 1957)

§ LORD CONESFORD
My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT)
My Lords, the persons who applied for permission in 1954 to erect an office block on the site of the St. James's Theatre were Messrs. L. O. L. Hannen and J. H. Markham, architects acting as agents for undisclosed prospective purchasers. I have no information as to what interest these prospective purchasers had in the land then or subsequently. The person who has now received the permission of the London County Council is Mr. R. Seifert, an architect acting on behalf of Viarex Property Investment Company, Limited. If the permission to erect an office block were revoked, a claim for compensation could be lodged by any person with any interest in the land. I am afraid that I do not know who holds what interest in this land at present.
Compensation is governed by Section 22 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, as amended by Section 38 of the Act of 1954. Broadly, it is payable in respect of abortive expenditure or other loss or damage suffered by the 32 claimant including the depreciation in value of any interest in the land resulting from the revocation. When I spoke recently in your Lordships' House of a sum of something like £50,000 by way of possible compensation, I was deliberately naming a very cautious figure. Until a detailed claim was made, it would not be possible to give a close estimate. As I indicated, however, the sum I mentioned might well have to be doubled. Even if permission to erect an office block on the site of the St. James's Theatre were revoked, and compensation paid, that would provide no guarantee of the St. James's Theatre continuing in existence as a theatre. The owner could pull it down, or keep it empty, or turn it into a Turkish bath or cinema, without permission from anybody.

§ LORD CONESFORD
My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that Answer and ask him how he can make an estimate of what could be claimed under the section of the Statute which he has quoted when he is quite ignorant about who has any interest in the land? May I also ask him whether he can say what is the relationship between Viarex Property Investment Company, Limited, and Mr. Fenston, who has disclosed that he has an interest which the noble Lord did not mention? Are the company and Mr. Fenston two names for the same person, or what is the relation between them?

§ LORD MANCROFT
My Lords, as to the estimate of £50.000, which has been made with the guidance of the district valuer, I would emphasise to your Lordships' House that it is no more than a very rough guess. That is the valuation which I originally put upon it, and I repeat it. As to the connection of Mr. Felix Fenston with the firm of Viarex Property Investment Company, Limited, I know no more about that than does the noble Lord, Lord Conesford—namely, what we both read in the newspapers.

§ LORD CONESFORD
When my noble friend says that the figure might well be doubled, I suppose that it might equally well be halved.

§ LORD MANCROFT
Or quadrupled.

LORD BLACKFORD
My Lords, referring to the noble Lord's reply, may I ask whether, in view of the fact that 33 the outgoing owner describes this theatre as "archaic" and that the incoming owner has said it is not possible to run it is future as an economic proposition, the Government will guarantee that the taxpayer will not be saddled by sentiment with this costly burden?

§ LORD MANCROFT
My Lords, I can at this moment give no guarantees, but I can assume that there is some logic in what the noble Lord. Lord Blackford, says.

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many people have been comforted by some assurance given by the Ministry that this continued destruction of living theatres should be checked? Would the noble Lord be prepared, if I put down a Question, to give us the terms of any valid assurances by the Government which would tend to put an end to a destruction which many people regret?

§ LORD MANCROFT
If the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, would be kind enough to read the speech which I made in the recent debate upon this subject in your Lordships' House—

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
I have read it.

§ LORD MANCROFT
—he will see that I referred to a decision taken by Mr. Duncan Sandys. then Minister of Housing and Local Government, which, I think, if the noble Viscount checks chapter and verse, will set his mind at rest upon that point.

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
And it may be regarded as a binding declaration?

§ LORD MANCROFT
Yes.

§ LORD CONESFORD
When my noble friend expressed tentative agreement with what my noble friend Lord Blackford said about the views of the new owner, how can he explain his tentative agreement, since he does not know who the new owner is?

§ LORD MANCROFT
That question is complicated, even for the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. If he would do me the friendliness and courtesy of waiting until we debate the Motion which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I will try, having deciphered it, to answer his question.