Kensington Old Town Hall (Hansard, 9 May 1984)

§ Baroness Ewart-Biggs
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, the manner of the disposal of the Old Town Hall owned by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is essentially a matter for that council. They are required to satisfy themselves that they are disposing of the site for the 920 best consideration that may reasonably be obtained. Where they propose to act differently they are required under Section 123(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 to seek the formal consent of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to the disposal. I can confirm that my right honourable friend has received no such request for consent to date.

§ Baroness Ewart-Biggs
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Nevertheless, is he aware that the section of the Act to which I referred categorically states that local authorities should not sell land for less than the best consideration that can be obtained? Would he not agree that the offer from Landmark Properties was not only higher in financial terms than that of Guinness Peat but also included 2,500 square feet of land at the rear of the building for community use? Would the noble Lord therefore not agree that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State should freeze the present transaction while his department carries out a thorough investigation of the whole sad episode, which is obviously culminating in a sale which is not in the interests of the residents of Kensington and Chelsea?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Baroness was quoting from Section 123(2) of the 1972 Act or whether she was paraphrasing it. However, what it actually says is: a council shall not dispose of land under this section, otherwise than by way of a short tenancy, for a consideration less than the best that can reasonably be obtained". It does not say, the best that can be obtained". Secondly, in view of the local concern over this proposed sale, the council took the somewhat unusual step of issuing a press notice which perhaps I might paraphrase. The notice states that the offer of £5.3 million from the Guinness Peat Property Services was recommended by the committee for acceptance by the full council. That offer was the highest of eight received by the closing date of 30th March. A second offer was received just before the committee meeting from one of the lower bidders. The Committee, after careful consideration, decided not to accept this offer, although, it was fractionally higher than that made by Guinness Peat". That was because of the content of the offer letter and the circumstances in which it was submitted. I understand that the recommendation to accept the offer of £5.3 million from Guinness Peat was approved by the full council on 2nd May. But I remain convinced that it is for the council to satisfy any critics that they might have.

§ Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, in view of yesterday's debate, wherein the Opposition constantly requested central Government not to interfere with local authority decisions, this is a strange example where they are asking for the reverse action to be taken?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
Yes, my Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend. In fact, I have said from this Box on several occasions, "What on earth is local government for?"

§ Lord Wells-Pestell
My Lords, is it not true that the local authority knew some four or five months before the town hall was demolished that the GLC intended to include the building in a conservation area? Secondly, does the noble Lord agree that their action was the action of vandals?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, what we are talking about is the disposal of a ruin. Whether or not the council's action at that time was the correct way to proceed does not relate to the Question on the Order Paper.

§ Baroness Lane-Fox
My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister agree that, when the procedure for making bids is clearly laid down, that procedure should be complied with, particularly where it refers to dates and a deadline? Would he further agree that surely the vendor should be entitled to reject a late bid?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, certainly where procedures are laid down I would expect them to be followed. But I should not like to go into any great detail in this case because it is quite possible that my right honourable friend may be asked to exercise his quasi-judicial powers, and, therefore, I think that the House would not expect me to comment on details.

§ Lord Broxbourne
My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that both the paraphrase of the statutory requirements by the noble Baroness and my noble friend's correction and supplementation thereof omitted the opening words: Except with the consent of the Secretary of State". Is it not clear, therefore, that there may be exceptions? As there is no statutory guidance as to the principles which motivate the Secretary of State in giving or withholding his consent, can my noble friend say whether there are any principles which Secretaries of State follow according to precedent? Can he further say whether the aesthetics of the matter come into the context thereof? If so, does he appreciate that the description in Professor Pevsner's work is not laudatory in respect of this building?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, with all due respect to my noble friend, I do not think I ought to become entangled in the merits of the building, either before or after. But I most certainly stand corrected. I should have added, as my noble friend so rightly said: Except with the consent of the Secretary of State". My noble friend asked me on what principles the Secretary of State would act. I am afraid that I can give him no satisfaction on that point.

§ Baroness Ewart-Biggs
My Lords, would the Minister not agree that the claim that the offer was late ignores the fact that the sale was by private treaty, and, moreover, that private treaty means that offers and counter-offers are allowed up to the very last moment?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
Again, my Lords, I am not the right person to answer that question. The noble Baroness should address that question to the council concerned.