§ 11.6 a.m.
§ LORD KENNETMy 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 a fly-by-night firm which vacates its office, leaving no forwarding address, and thereby evades service of a building preservation notice, is immune from prosecution under Section 40(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968, which lays down the fines and terms of imprisonment for illegally demolishing buildings of special architectural or historic interest.]
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, if I am permitted an aside, it seems only a few hours since I opened the batting yesterday in our marathon match. I can only hope that our second day's play will be shorter. My Lords, Section 214 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 sets out the provisions which apply to service of building preservation notices on companies, including provision for serving notice on a company at its registered office. I am advised that when a company moves from its registered office without notifying the change of address to the Registrar of Companies, the notice is validly served if left at the registered office which appears in the companies' register. Whether a notice has been adequately served in any particular case is in the last resort a matter which only the courts can determine.
§ LORD KENNETMy Lords, would it not be very odd indeed if it were held that the notice had not been validly left in the case of Maltglades, of Town Farm, 1524 High Street, Wheathampstead, given that the circumstances fall exactly in line with what the noble Lord has said about service on firms which have left their offices, given that the chairman of the rural district council had shown the notice to the man on the bulldozer who was knocking down the historic house, given that the police asked him to stop and given that the Member of Parliament for that part of the world also came along and asked him to stop?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, I would rather not comment in detail on these matters. I cannot absolutely guarantee those facts. It may be that the courts will have to decide. If all of those facts were true, it would appear a very relevant factor.
§ BARONESS BIRKMy Lords, can the Minister say whether, in view of what has happened, it is possible to stop the firm concerned from using the land for building, or from using it for its own purposes?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, there is a point here. If a notice has been legally served on a company and the building has been pulled down, there is a power under Section 44 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 by which the local authority, with the Secretary of State's permission, can order the restoration of the building. I do not know whether that would be a possibility in this case.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, would it be possible in this case, to fine the firm a sum sufficient to put the building up again, and possibly to remove the land from its ownership?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, at the moment we do not know that the firm is in breach of the law.
§ LORD KENNETMy Lords, may we take it that if a conviction is not obtained in this case the Government will recognise that there is a loophole in the law and will legislate to stop it?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONYes, my Lords. I cannot comment until we know whether proceedings are to be taken in the case to which noble Lords have referred. If there is a loophole, I 1525 can assure the noble Lord that if a clear case for action is shown it will be taken.