HL Deb 19 October 1972 vol 335 cc2004-6

3.9 p.m.

LORD KENNET

My 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 the Oxford City Council consulted the Ancient Monuments Society and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, as they are required to do by statutory regulation, before permitting the partial demolition of 126 Oxford High Street, a Grade 1 listed building; and if not, whether the Secretary of State for the Environment will refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD)

My Lords, as this proposal was dealt with as an alteration of a listed building, the direction requiring notification of national amenity societies did not apply.

LORD KENNET

But, my Lords, since in fact the greater part of the building was demolished, was it not an indefensible way of dealing with it on the part of the Oxford City Council that they should have called it an alteration?

LORD SANDFORD

That is a matter of opinion, my Lords. The question of whether an operation is an "alteration" or a "demolition" is a matter in the first case for the judgment of the local planning authority and, in the last resort, of the courts. It is not for me to pass judgment on it.

LORD BURNTWOOD

My Lords, is there not a point where destruction or partial destruction of a building ends and irreparable damage is started, so that the building can no longer be restored to its previous condition? Are there any rules on this subject?

LORD SANDFORD

Indeed, my Lords, whether it is an alteration or a demolition my Department has to be informed, and they were in this case. The proposal has to be advertised, and it was in this case. A site notice has to be placed on the building, and it was in this case.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, is it not the case that the whole building was demolished except the facade? If the Church authorities were to put in for permission to alter St. Paul's and were to demolish the whole thing except for the West front, would the Government act in that case?

LORD SANDFORD

My Lords, in a case like that the issue would be clear enough. In this particular case it is certainly not true that the whole of the building behind the facade was altered. The back portion of it has been altered.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

My Lords, did the City Council have authority to demolish any of the building?

LORD SANDFORD

No, my Lords. As I explained in answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Burntwood, just now, no authority can demolish a listed building—and this is a Grade I building—without due authority, without notifying my Department, without adveristing their proposal in the Press, and without putting a site notice on the building. All those three things were done.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, would the noble Lord describe the advertising in the Press? Would one small paragraph in very small print on one day be sufficient?

LORD SANDFORD

My Lords, I should need notice to be able to answer that question accurately. I do not have the full information on the precise size of the advertisement as it appeared, but I can look into that and let the noble Baroness know.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I apologise if I missed it during the ensuing discussion, but did the noble Lord answer the last part of my Question: will the Government refer this matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions?

LORD SANDFORD

No, my Lords. Furthermore, even if the point that I made in my original Answer did not apply, I am advised that a failure to comply with a direction under this legislation does not constitute a criminal offence.

LORD DAVIES OF LEEK

My Lords, is the Society for Ancient Monuments and, to give its full title, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, keeping its eye on the Houses of Parliament and the bumping and thumping that is now shaking the foundations here?