Subterranean Development Bill [HL]

Lord Northbrook Excerpts

Friday 10th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Northbrook]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, in his introduction of this important Bill and compliment him on the thoroughness with which he has approached the issue with the support and expertise of the Pyramus & Thisbe Club. As the owner of a London flat above a row of shops and a restaurant, which I am not sure is covered by the Bill, I am thankfully not affected at the moment by the disturbance caused by basement developments, but see on many neighbouring streets the disruption they cause, with work sometimes being carried on even at night.

In preparing for Second Reading, I was interested to read the debate in the other place on 8 November, when the main speakers were Karen Black, the Labour MP for Westminster North, supported by the Conservative MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, Mark Field. I shall be interested to hear other noble Lords' London experiences and to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, and the Highgate Society.

Let me make it clear that, like other speakers, I am not opposed in principle to the provision of basements below existing houses, but I am concerned about aspects of design, construction and regulation. The two members of the other place who spoke in the debates were from London constituencies. As other speakers have said, the problem appears to be particularly bad in London, but it is extending to other cities. We are dealing primarily with terraced houses. In many parts of London, they are 19th-century houses built as terraces of varying widths and with a different number of storeys. They have proved remarkably adaptable over the past century to changing household needs as well as changing tenure and household size.

The scale and speed with which such developments are spreading over inner London is a major concern for neighbourhoods. The damage to neighbours’ houses and streets and pavements is uncompensated. It can become a burden on the local authority, which has responsibility for mending pavements, or it can fall on residents in the case of some adopted roads and mews. At present, the damage is not compensated in any way.

Last week's Evening Standard reported that, at last, local councils are starting to take action. On 1 February, it reported that residents seeking basement conversions in Kensington and Chelsea face tough new measures. Figures apparently reveal that there has been a fourfold increase in applications for underground building over the past few years. The Standard reports that the council is revising its rules to put an end to “basement wars”. That action comes after a spate of court cases from residents unhappy with neighbours being given the go-ahead for conversions. Several different judicial review applications were recently launched against the council.

In their response to the withdrawn amendments to the then Localism Bill, the Government essentially argued that it is not the place for government to legislate on the matter of subterranean development and that local planning authorities have the powers to cope. I do not believe that that is the case; nor do the experts in industries involved with the works. Jim Cook, director for ground engineering of Buro Happold, an international engineering consultancy, said:

“More control within the industry regarding the construction of basements is welcome”.

He added:

“There are a number of issues around construction of basements to dwellings, including disruption to neighbours, damage to properties, health and safety matters, and their effect on local utilities and services”.

Others raised concern about the impact on the water table. Michael Coombs, senior partner at Alan Baxter, a structural and civil engineering consultancy, said:

“There are varying groundwater conditions near the surface in London which are to do with perched water and the mainly lost rivers”,

mentioned by my noble friend Lord Selsdon, “which drained London's rainwater”. In many areas, these underground flows continue. My noble friend’s map, included in the Explanatory Notes, lists no fewer than 20 tributaries of the River Thames. They must be taken into account when new subterranean developments are being planned. Although a single basement extension may not have an effect on the local water flow, problems may be caused by the snowball effect of more landlords opting to build basement extensions. Coombs also said:

“Large basements or a continuous run of basements could cause problems by blocking the flow of underground perched water, leading to raised water levels and problems nearby”.

Surely this is an area where the expertise of the Environment Agency needs to be involved.

I turn to the Bill itself. The owner of a property who intends to excavate for or construct building or engineering works to form additional accommodation for any purpose below ground level is required to submit a subterranean development application to the local planning authority. As the Explanatory Notes say, prevailing legislation has been inadequate. An article from building.co.uk appears to confirm the need for legislation. Health and safety inspectors visited 109 London sites in November 2011 in a series of raids, issuing 76 enforcement notices at 40 of these sites. London has seen two deaths in the past 12 months resulting from basement construction projects.

In my view, the Bill makes an excellent start to the problem but I venture to suggest that it does not go far enough. I should like to suggest additional issues that should be taken into account, as brought up by the Ladbroke Association survey report in 2009. The first is to provide for appropriate compensation to be paid by developers on a compulsory basis in mitigation for nuisance. Secondly, councils should be allowed to refuse planning permission where approved noise standards cannot be met. Thirdly, councils should be allowed to take into account the balance between the nuisance caused by construction in residential areas and the desirability of the development. Fourthly, legislation should allow councils to withhold or delay planning permission to ensure a decent interval between noisy developments in the same area. Fifthly, the Government should implement existing legislation on fees to allow councils to set their own planning fees to take account of the costs of, for example, the employment of independent experts where the local council does not have the expertise. Finally, as several speakers have mentioned, and almost most importantly, sufficient insurance bonds should be in place for the projects.

I welcome the legislation and the plans to strengthen the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Lord Northbrook Excerpts

Friday 21st October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lady Saltoun of Abernethy]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is concerned that the general public find various aspects of our arrangements ludicrous, which brings the House into disrepute. The general public give very little thought to what this House does. Because the media think that Parliament consists entirely of another place, they do not hear very much about what we do and therefore do not think about us.

Much is continually being said about the ludicrousness of the hereditary Peers’ elections. It is said that they bring us into disrepute. I do not deny that. However, the principal thing that is ludicrous about the elections is that the electorate is only the hereditary Peers. In the case of Labour and Liberal Democrat elections, two or three Peers vote for many more candidates. That could be simply remedied by making the electorate all the Peers in the party. With hindsight, I believe that is how it should have been.

When stage 2 of the reform of this House has been enacted and comes into force, the 92 should be prepared to go. If any or all of them are offered life baronetcies by the Government, it should be up to them whether they accept them. As I have said before, for us hereditary Peers to be party to abolishing the elections would stick in my gullet. It is tantamount to saying to our erstwhile colleagues, who were so meanly and cavalierly sacked in 1999, and whose only hope of either getting back themselves or ensuring that their heirs did was to be elected: “I’m all right, Jack, and as far as you're concerned, hard cheese”. That is not on.

[Lord Northbrook]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway in his recollection of events. The deal with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the Lord Chancellor was done in 1999 on Privy Council terms and was not to be overturned unless substantial reform of the House was to be done. Like the noble Lord, I remember the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, confirming this from the Front Bench only three or four years ago.

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, the agreement was made by the Front Benches in the Chamber: it is all in Hansard. What was said in secret in the Privy Council was preparatory to that. The records are clear in Hansard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Northbrook]

My Lords, will I also be able to move Amendment 73, which refers to Section 10, in the same way?

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, the House decided earlier today to take amendments in a certain order: that is, Clauses 10 to 19 and then Clauses 1 to 9. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, said that certain amendments were not to be moved. It seems difficult to move an amendment if it is not there in the first place, but that is the way it will be done. We are proceeding now with Clauses 10 to 19 and they will be followed by Clauses 1 to 9. Matters will be dealt with in order at that time.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I certainly bow to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, who has much greater experience of this than I have. There is no doubt that, as a result of the reforms in another place, there is less scrutiny there than there used to be and we have to do more. However, there are other committees that have grown since I was first here. It is a bit of both. The noble Lord is absolutely right that the complexity of legislation, particularly European legislation as it has come in, has needed committees. However, my figure of 300 is merely taken from the Government’s proposals. We will come back to that but we must get on.

[Lord Northbrook]

May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Steel, a question? As far as I am aware, only two Members have taken advantage of the proposal of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. Initially it does not seem to have been that effective.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I can answer that. In fact, what has been done internally in the House is not at all what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, recommended. He recommended a statutory provision and a payment. The answer to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is that the Hunt committee said that this should be done without adding to the budget of the House of Lords, so that it would save public expenditure. The committee argued it very carefully. What has been implemented in the mean time is simply voluntary resignation, of which only two Members have taken advantage. The recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has not been implemented and it ought to be implemented, or at least considered now in some depth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trefgarne]

I do not disagree in principle that in certain circumstances noble Lords convicted of an offence should be excluded from your Lordships' House—in serious cases, perhaps even permanently. However, there was a case quite recently when a noble Lord was convicted and sentenced to a rather long sentence which was rapidly reduced on appeal to a much shorter sentence. That noble Lord quickly returned to your Lordships' House. Where sentences change rapidly on appeal, that should act in the favour of the noble Lord concerned. What does my noble friend think about that?

[Lord Northbrook]

I have two problems with the clause. First, the definition of a serious criminal offence could cause a lot of problems. Secondly, if a noble Lord was locked up in Zimbabwe for a trumped up offence, it seems unsatisfactory that he would be excluded from the House for that reason.

[Lord Swinfen]

My noble friend has just brought up the point I was going to raise. Unfortunately, one or two regimes in the world unjustly lock up their people and, occasionally, visitors, after they have gone through a sham of a trial. That would be covered under the clause. How would my noble friend deal with that? Some very worthy Members of this House may be on business abroad who happen to have said things in this House that their hosts do not like and who take the opportunity to incarcerate them as a result.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, I have often thought about this. It is an anomaly that dates back to when the Lords had the same sort of power as the other place. We can no longer vote on money Bills. This is my point. I seem to remember that they had a tea party in Boston on this very issue, which is that there should be no taxation without representation, or at least the right to vote. We are the only ones excluded, apart from various others. We are not allowed to vote on money Bills here, and nor are we allowed to vote for the very people who are putting them through and deciding upon them in another place. Logically, I think we should. We should either be given some powers over money Bills, which would be one answer or, alternatively, we should be given the right to vote.

[Lord Northbrook]

I support the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, on this point. First, we should have more powers on money Bills and, secondly, it seems quite ridiculous while we can vote in local elections and European elections. Why on earth should that right not be extended to voting in general elections?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Selsdon]

My Lords, I was very flattered by that.

[Lord Northbrook]

My Lords, I supported my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway’s referendum amendment to the House of Lords Bill in 1999. I thought that that was a major constitutional change and deserved to be put to the House. Sadly, that was not carried. I agree with my noble friend Lord Astor that this is not an appropriate measure for this particular Bill. I am glad to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that her party plans to have a referendum on this, which I would support.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I merely note in respect of manifestos at the last election that the three main party manifestos said different things about the House of Lords. They were not all in agreement. My main point is in response to my noble friend Lord Caithness’s argument that this is a major constitutional change so should be subject to a referendum. If the Bill constitutes major constitutional change which should be subject to a referendum then we are perfectly entitled to regard it as stage 2 of Lords reform and his objection to getting rid of the by-election option completely falls.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, while people mull over the various possibilities of what might happen, and without wishing to prolong proceedings at all, may I simply ask the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, one question? If he gets a fair wind today and we finish the Committee stage, will he give a categorical assurance that when we come back on Report we will not be faced again by the prospect of large chunks of the Bill being jettisoned at the last minute?

[Lord Northbrook]

My Lords, I am disappointed that we will not be discussing the appointments commission today, particularly, as was said earlier, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said on the Constitutional Reform Act. My concern is that if the Government’s reform Bill runs into the sand, we would be left in limbo and no statutory appointments commission would be appointed at all.

[The Earl of Erroll]

I rise to speak to the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, was here at the start when I made a statement about one of the dangers of this. I have heard it said that these are just transitional provisions many times before. It is exactly what was said in 1998 about the 1999 Act, in 1911 and so on. This may not end up being transitional. This could in the end be a long-term Act that stays in place for a long time. The end result of this, over the next decade or two, would be a fully appointed House, which is not the wish expressed by a democratic vote of the other place. Therefore, through the backdoor, we have not done what was expected. The hereditary Peers, who were left here to ensure that further democratic reform took place—as was decided in the debates back in 1998—will be got rid of without getting what was desired, which is democratic reform. The problem with that is, if there is no further movement, we will end up with an appointments commission which is not fit for purpose for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack]

Perhaps I may respond to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. The fact of the matter is that at any stage he and a number of his friends can, if they wish, bring proceedings to a halt at Report or Third Reading if they are totally unsatisfied. All I am asking is that we move through Committee this afternoon, we move to Report and that the noble Earl takes part in those debates in a constructive spirit, as we should all try to do. Then we are reflecting credit on this House, rather than ending in a very unsatisfactory, untidy way today.

[Lord Northbrook]

The reason why the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, changed his thoughts is that I think the goal posts seem to have moved. I do not understand why we are not going to recommit Clauses 1 to 9.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, the procedure we are currently following is indeed filibustering by another name. We are bringing this House into disrepute. We have an excellent Bill before us. The majority will of this House is that we move on. I suggest that we should move on as expeditiously as possible.