Multi-Occupied Properties (Regulation) (Hansard, 24 January 1984)

§ Mr. Michael Meadowcroft (Leeds, West)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the regulation of multi-occupied properties by preventing statutory undertakers from installing multiple outlets without having established that there is valid planning permission for multiple occupation.

The Bill seeks to deal with a small but important nuisance which often causes severe dissatisfaction and problems for neighbours, especially in the cities. Fortunately, most landlords and developers follow the law. They apply for planning permission and obey the requirements of the law in respect of conversions to properties. However, a few landlords and developers do not do so. When they convert properties into multi-occupation, they do not seek for planning permission. In those circumstances, if the property is such that it cannot be conveniently converted, severe problems can arise for the owners or tenants of adjoining properties.

In Yorkshire and other areas in the north there are many terraced properties, including back-to-back properties. If a bedroom in one house adjoins a living room in the house next door or the house to the rear, and people quite legitimately play music in that living room until a late hour of the night, a nuisance can occur, and the question then arises whether the planning laws have been or could have been applied.

I do not seek to inhibit appropriate conversion of dwellings into bedsitters or flatlets. There is a need, and a demand, for more accommodation for single people. However, there are a few unscrupulous people who go ahead with conversions in the belief that they will be able to get away with it. That causes a severe problem for those who have to enforce the law on multi-occupation.

Many local outhorities are reluctant to enter into enforcement procedures, not only because they are excessively long drawn out, but because there is the great problem of proving that the alleged action has taken place. The companies tend to be off-the-shelf companies which regularly change their directors. It has to be proved that the dwellings are intended for multi-occupation and will not have a central core of facilities serving the rooms to be let.

The authorities have not been able to apply the law properly because the legislation has tended to consider the problem from the wrong end of a telescope. The procedure has been to try to enforce the law after the conversion has taken place rather than in advance.

If a landlord is to be able to let units in a property intended for multi-occupation, gas, water and electricity must be available in the units. Neighbours facing the difficulties of noise and nuisance are always puzzled by the fact that the statutory undertakers appear to connive at an illegality. In fact, the statutory undertakers have no choice in the matter. As the law stands, if a demand is 780 made for services, they must be supplied. To those who complain to their elected representatives, it appears that one part of the state is conniving at undermining the power of another part.

The Bill would prevent developers from demanding a supply of gas or electricity unless they can show to the statutory undertakers that they have valid planning permission or a letter from the planning authority stating that planning permission is not required.

There would be no problem with new-build properties. Anyone building a new house has to have planning permission for the site and to go through the proper procedures well in advance. The Bill would not apply, either, to a simple change of user. It would apply only where someone was asking for a new supply of services to parts of a house. Those are the only circumstances in which the Bill would be needed.

The problem is not widespread. The Leeds manager of the Yorkshire electricity board estimates, roughly, that there are only about 300 demands for such a service in a year. No doubt a number of those 300 already conform to the law. I am anxious that those applying for services in such cases should be on the same footing as anyone applying for a motor vehicle licence. When I apply for a new disc for my vehicle, I have to show that I have the relevant legal papers that entitle me to drive, an insurance certificate and a test certificate. Someone applying for services in such a case should have to go through similar procedures. All that is required is a simple amendment to the Gas and Electricity Acts, and that is what my Bill would provide.

This is not a partisan issue in my own local authority. When a landlord or developer has clearly sought to abuse the law and the local authority has decided to embark on enforcement proceedings — and in some cases it has taken two years to abate the nuisance — the local authority's action has been supported by all three parties on the council.

I am suggesting an easy way of solving a problem which is a nuisance to a handful of people. It will bring some relief to those who have suffered because some landlords of terraced and back-to-back properties seek to abuse the law.