Property: Compulsory Acquisition and Retention (Hansard, 17 June 1981)

§ Lord Sudeley
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of The Environment (Lord Bellwin)
No, my Lords. Local authorities should not use compulsory powers to acquire for clearance without having given full consideration to other courses of action and to the likelihood of future changes of circumstances or policy. The proposed power to retain properties would discredit the process of public inquiry and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's confirmation of the order which in such a serious matter should constitute the last word.

§ Lord Sudeley
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. May I ask him whether he is aware that under the Housing Act 1974 rehabilitation orders are permitted only if compulsory purchase was made before 1974? Given the recently imposed moratorium on local authority spending and the greatly increased emphasis recently on retention and repair, would the Minister not consider that it would be much more satisfactory if rehabilitation orders were permitted on acquisitions made post-1974 as well?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, this raises a very complex and difficult subject. I am sure my noble friend would agree that it is only in unusual circumstances that consideration should be given to changing something which has gone through the procedure of inquiry and where a decision has been taken. While there are 628 circumstances in which one could envisage that there would be equity in that taking place, nevertheless I think the principle should be guarded very carefully.

§ Lord Strabolgi
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the case of Flaxman's house in Greenwell Street, London, there has been a change of heart, but nothing could be done to save it under the present law? If I may support what the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, has said, will the Government give an undertaking to look into this matter so that local authorities are not obliged to carry on with a demolition when they do not wish to?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, I have looked into this particular case very carefully because my noble friend very kindly intimated that it was a cause of concern to him. The information I have is that in this case the local authority have not in fact had a change of heart. Therefore to some extent the point is academic. If that is not the information which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has, I can only tell him that this is what I have been told.

The Earl of Gosford
My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the case of Flaxman's house the country is going to suffer a great loss and will do so in the future unless this kind of situation is remedied? Is the Minister also aware that at the International Confederation of Architectural Museums held in Stockholm in December 1979, at the time of the Flaxman Exhibition at the Royal Academy here in London, representatives from all over the world expressed horror and amazement that the United Kingdom should be contemplating the destruction of Flaxman's house? Would not the Minister press his right honourable friend in another place that a museum in Flaxman's house would be a tribute and an example to others of an artist who, through his work with Wedgwood, has provided income for this country and jobs for workers until the present day?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, the fact is that Flaxman's house was listed before the inquiry into the compulsory purchase order. The inquiry was therefore a joint inquiry in which both the merits of the slum clearance compulsory purchase order and the case for giving consent to demolish this listed building were considered. Therefore, it is surely fair to say that the merits of this building which justified its listing were taken into account in the inquiry and it was in the knowledge of these that the decision to demolish was taken.

§ Lord Mowbray and Stourton
My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that this problem has been going on for many years and, despite the normal sympathy one would accord to wanting to help in a case such as that of Flaxman's house, particular regard was had to all the points at issue? At this late stage I would suggest that there is not much reason left for the Government to change their minds on what has been decided for so long.

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. On checking the record I saw that my noble 629 friend had been answering questions on this very point as long ago as January 1980. Therefore, I assure your Lordships that we have looked very carefully not only into the Government's position in this matter but into the local scene as well, and my answers are given with the knowledge of what the local authority itself feels in this case.

§ Lord Cottesloe
My Lords, is the Minister aware that at the public inquiry the inspector declared that it was outside his competence to judge of Flaxman's significance in regard to the preservation of the house in which Flaxman had lived and worked for 30 years, and that my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton, who was replying for the Government when the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, raised this question in January of last year, said that the fact that an artist of great distinction had lived and worked in the house for 30 years was irrelevant to the question of its preservation? Does the Minister accept that view? It seems to me to be absolute nonsense. One might as well apply it to another Georgian house of no special architectural distinction in which a succession of Prime Ministers have lived for most of this century.

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, although of course I do not know, I think it is probably right to say that the inspector at the time was referring solely to the question of fitness or unfitness of the dwelling for human habitation. But obviously there are other factors as well which presumably are taken into account at the time of an inquiry. I cannot comment upon what the individual inspector said at the time because I do not know of that. I would reiterate what my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton said, that the Government are very sympathetic to cases like this and are willing to look at long-term possibilities to see whether there are any areas within the law which require any change. But in the case of this particular dwelling the local authority itself is seemingly quite clear as to what it wishes to do, and that is why I am answering in this way.

§ Lord Annan
My Lords, is this not a case where bureaucracy, as always and despite the good intentions of the Minister, manages to defeat those who care about the heritage?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, I am not sure that I can helpfully comment on that, other than to say that I think the noble Lord will appreciate that we really are sympathetic in these cases and want to see retained every building which ought to be retained.

§ Lord Sudeley
My Lords, if I may, I should like to put in another supplementary question about houses like Flaxman's house, which are fit houses but included for demolition under the heading of "added land". Does the Minister not think that the authorities should be able to reconsider the demolition of fit houses which at some time in the past it has been judged necessary under the Housing Acts to demolish for the sake of the redevelopment of an area, if now the authorities reach the conclusion that their earlier decision was wrong and the demolition of fit houses is quite unnecessary?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, my right honourable friend has said that this is a matter which is certainly worthy of consideration and we will give it consideration. I am not myself aware at the present time of any immediate prospect of the matter being dealt with, but nevertheless I know that the question of a fit property within an area of general unfitness being brought in within a total CPO for the purposes of making it a proper demolition matter is being considered. However, I think that that is slightly different from the specific Question that I was asked.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers)
My Lords, with the greatest of respect I think that we have had a fair old run at this Question and I suggest that we should move on to the next one.

§ Lord Mowbray and Stourton
My Lords, may I just ask—

Several noble Lords
No.