HC Deb 22 May 1996 vol 278 cc376-84

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

8.54 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford)

Although we have a little more time than usual, I hope not to detain the House or my hon. Friend the Minister for longer than necessary or for longer than I had anticipated.

The subject of the debate is the improvements to the A406 north circular road from Silver street to Hall lane. It is not usual for hon. Members even to contemplate raising such matters in the House, but I do so because, as my hon. Friend will see, the roadworks in question have caused a great deal of frustration and highlight the apparent inability of anyone to take responsibility for the hardship that residents have suffered and for what I now regard as the destruction of their daily lives.

The work on the A406 has caused my constituents severe problems, not only because of traffic congestion and noise but because of dust, the constant coming and going and the digging of ditches in the general area. Additional problems were caused by the way in which my constituents have been dealt with. I ask my hon. Friend to remember the unusually hot summer of 1995 when all my constituents, except the residents of Hall lane, were able to enjoy their gardens and have their windows open when the heat was intense. For the past two summers, residents of Hall lane have been locked in their houses, unable to have their windows open because of the dust and noise. Their gardens have essentially become no-go areas, which has forced them to take their children elsewhere to play. That may at first appear a small matter, but after two years it takes on greater proportions.

We all accept that the roadworks are important as they will help to relieve traffic congestion, but I wish to raise some serious matters which I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider reasonable. I shall go quickly through parts of a diary compiled by the people involved, which shows exactly what kind of nightmare they have experienced and how they have been treated. The combined diary was compiled by four people: Mrs. Mansoor of 317 Hall lane, Mrs. Fenton of 323 Hall lane, Mrs. Biggadike of 325 Hall lane and Mrs. Cook of 327 Hall lane.

The diary starts on 12 April 1994, not long after the roadworks commenced, when residents were offered double glazing. After they had badgered the authorities, Enfield council, which I understand was responsible for providing the grant, offered double glazing only for the front of their houses. That was the beginning of the row, because the position of the houses means that double glazing was necessary on at least two sides. The roadworks in effect wrap themselves around the properties and the noise and dust affects both sides.

Compressor noise began on 17 April and often continued through the night. On 7 May, the noise started earlier than intended. The usual story is that the noise started at 7 am and continued for the rest of the day, making it impossible for residents to go into their gardens. On 9 May, the diary records that there was again noise all day. On 16 June, generators were left on through the night, as happened on many other occasions.

On 17 June—let us remember that this was the summer of 1994—the noise started first thing in the morning, disrupting the residents for the rest of the day.

The thudding of lorries and the various other noises from major roadworks went on all the way through 1994 and into 1995. My hon. Friend the Minister will also note that, on a variety of days, residents wrote to complain to a number of authorities. On 4, 11 and 22 July and 8 August, they wrote a series of complaints to the Highways Agency. None was answered.

On 23 September, they were exasperated when a hole was dug in the road. Instead of sorting it out, the company slung a metal sheet over the top. All through the following night, residents were unable to sleep because heavy lorries were thumping up and down the road and waking them up. I am told that the vibrations were phenomenal. The diary entries tell almost exactly the same story. The residents expected work to take place during reasonable hours, but—perhaps because the contractors were falling behind—the hours were stretched. The residents' lives were abused because no one contacted them. Instead, the people involved simply acted beyond their brief. They started earlier, finished later and quite often did not check whether machinery was left on. Holes that had been dug in the road were left unfilled, creating problems with lorries. The lives of residents were made absolute hell.

The times on which work could be carried out were restricted, but Nuttalls wrote to the London borough of Waltham Forest to apply to work continuously to destroy the Lea valley storm water channel. The council agreed on the basis that the work would not cause excessive noise, and allowed Nuttalls to work seven days a week from 1 July. The change meant that the residents did not have a moment's peace during the whole week. Their occasionally peaceful times on Sundays now seemed to have gone for ever. The new Sunday working started at 7 am and quite often went on until 10 pm, and I draw my hon. Friend's attention again to the fact that it was a hot summer at that time. The new schedule meant that the residents' gardens were locked off to them on Sundays, and they all found it quite impossible. Nuttalls, who were blamed for the Sunday working, in turn blamed the people laying gas pipes or water mains. Everyone blamed everyone else, but the outcome was that my constituents had to suffer a seven-days-a-week nightmare.

The residents were not consulted on the increase in the working week. When work started, they felt that the noise of the demolition of the old viaduct was excessive, despite the fact that the local authority said that that would not be the case. That was the basis on which the authority had allowed the extra work. In a letter of 27 June to the residents, who had by now formed themselves into the Hall Lane Residents Association, the London borough of Waltham Forest environmental protection department said that work that did not disturb neighbours was permitted outside these hours. But, as the residents pointed out endlessly, that was not the case, and the noise was excessive in the sense that it was almost the same as would have been the case during a normal working day. On 8 July, piling work was done and machines were left on while that work was taking place on the Saturday from 7.30 am to 11 am. On 31 July, the machines worked from 7.30 am around the clock.

Double glazing and secondary glazing grants were obtained for the front of the properties from Enfield council, acting as agents for the Highways Agency.

But the row continued about the requirement for double glazing for the rear of the houses. There was a flat refusal by the Highways Agency to allow the residents to put in double glazing. That struck me as a mean-minded and petty point; the authority should have understood the nature of the complaints from my constituents. The residents were told that the noise that was measured at certain times of the day did not reach the absolute maximum that would have allowed the Highways Agency to agree to provide double glazing. That struck me as a small way to behave towards a small number of residents, who were therefore unable to have any satisfaction or relief from the noise even inside their houses.

The problems continued endlessly, however. The residents became sealed into their homes, unable to leave. One 84-year-old constituent of mine who lived just up the road had to be carried over a ditch outside her house because she was unable to cross it: she was manhandled over it and back for two weeks. A situation that was supposedly temporary—it was meant to last for only a few days—lasted for a fortnight.

The bureaucratic excuses mounted. Attempts were constantly made to spread the blame; no one seemed to be responsible. If residents went to one side—be it the Highways Agency or Frederick Snow—they were told that the other side was responsible. Alternately, they were told that they should look to the insurers, or that Nuttalls was responsible. When they went to Nuttalls, they were told that the fault lay with someone laying pipes in conjunction with the firm, or with the gas or water company. When they raised the matter with those companies, they were told that Nuttalls was doing all the damage. They were chased from one concern to another.

I share that frustration. Having met my constituents in their homes and discussed their problems with them, and having visited the area a number of times to try to experience the noise and dust that they were experiencing, I took up the issue with the various parties. As my hon. Friend the Minister probably already knows—he will certainly know from what I have said tonight—I was given the runaround by exactly the same agencies. I might just as well have been a resident.

On 19 May I wrote to Lawrie Haynes, chief executive of the Highways Agency, after a meeting of the residents of Hall lane. I wrote: Apart from the fact that these road works have been going on since February 1994, they have been joined by British Gas and Thames Water relaying pipes. What is of the greatest concern to me is that throughout this period the residents have received very little assistance from the Highways Agency and have had to fight tooth and nail in order to get the agency to accept the fact that they have had to put up with appalling conditions. On a recent visit to these houses during the day it is perfectly obvious that the cracks in their walls and ceilings and the ever present dust are clearly as a result of all the work being carried out outside their front doors. They do not ask for much, but after having received grants for from insulation they have discovered that this was not enough to keep out the noise and dust from the road works, they have spent the past eight months trying to secure insulation for the rear of their properties. Each of the organisations they have contacted about the work being carried out outside their properties blame the other for the disruption. The residents are understandably feeling more and more frustrated. It did not seem much to ask, I said, that people who had been affected as badly as my constituents, whose environment had been so disrupted, should not have to fight so long even to have that acknowledged, let alone dealt with. A bit of common sense and understanding could have resolved the matter at an early stage, and avoided the unnecessary blighting of lives. I concluded: I should be grateful if you and an independent assessor could visit these homes. We seemed to be engaged in a Chingford version of the Scottish reel. All those responsible were running around my constituents; every now and then, one would dip his head and move on.

The Highways Agency eventually replied to my letter of 19 May on 23 August. Its chief executive, Lawrie Haynes, wrote: I am concerned that the residents feel their complaints have not been properly addressed. Under the contract the contractor is responsible for dealing with all claims for damage arising from the works, including valid claims for unavoidable damage. The contractor is also responsible for ensuring that the works are carried out without unreasonable noise, disturbance or damage and it is for the contractor to see that his work-people and sub-contractors behave carefully and avoid causing injury to other people. No one appears to have pressed the contractors to carry out their contractual obligations.

Residents were then told by the construction engineers, Frederick Snow, that they were fed up with Nuttalls— the contractors—who had failed to keep their promises to improve matters for residents. That was in a letter from my constituent Mrs. Biggadike. I wrote to the chief executive of Nuttalls on 5 October. I said in my letter: These people have been passed back and forward between all those involved with the building of this road and it is high time that this matter was resolved. I was graced with no reply from Nuttalls. To this day, I await a reply from the chief executive. On 3 May, I was forced to write again to Nuttalls. I said: What has become very clear is that both Sir Frederick Snow and the Highways Agency believe that the responsibility for much of the problem lies in your hands and that your company should rectify this. I do not intend to detain my hon. Friend the Minister much longer, but I must ask him a series of questions. In something as major as this set of roadworks, which clearly has to take place and is likely to bring great benefit to the area, as my hon. Friend knows, why are the contractors and those working in the area allowed simply to get away with behaving so intolerably to those who live there? All my constituents accepted that they would have to put up with difficulties and with a degraded quality of life for a period of time. What they did not accept and could not understand was why they were treated as though their lives were so insignificant to those carrying out the work. They have been ignored, shunted from pillar to post and left to hang—in the hope, I suspect, that if they were left long enough they would not bother the contractors or anyone else any more.

The residents' demands amount to about four or five action points. They still want grants for the cost of double glazing to the rear of their properties. They want the damage from piling—the massive vibrations that cause cracks—resolved by an independent surveyor. Dust, noise and exhaust fumes have taken their toll and they want a full examination of those problems. As they have said, they want compensation for the general state of their houses and the filth that they have had to put up with.

Most of all, they want someone to tell them at some stage, "Mea culpa: I will resolve this—it is my problem and I will sort it out for you; let us resolve the matter." Why can we not force someone to say, "The buck stops here"?

9.11 pm
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) on bringing these matters to the attention of the House. It is one of the huge virtues of our parliamentary system that he is able to draw to the attention of the House his concerns on behalf of the residents of Hall lane. If he is in any doubt as to where the buck stops, I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be prepared to remind him that it has stopped here and now at this Dispatch Box tonight. I shall endeavour to do what I can to answer his concerns and set his mind at rest. He will know that I have one advantage, in that he and I are neighbours in that part of London and I know Hall lane extremely well.

I am sorry to hear about the problems that the residents of Hall lane have been experiencing. Obviously, they have had to contend with a lot of activity in the vicinity while the improvements have been carried out. I very much regret that the inconvenience that has been caused by the roadworks is to some degree inevitable. I am grateful to him for acknowledging the fact that it is impossible to construct a scheme of that sort without some disruption.

The contractor is instructed, however, to ensure that the works are carried out without unreasonable noise, damage or disturbance, and we try to make every effort to ensure that that disruption is kept to a minimum. We try to eliminate some of the noise problems before construction begins, and all the properties in Hall lane that were eligible under the use criteria were insulated against noise.

I suspect that my hon. Friend will know that there are two bases on which we consider the adverse effect on properties. One is the adverse effect during construction and the other is the effect on properties once the road scheme is in use. We project forward noise levels some six years from the date of opening to allow for traffic growth. With those use criteria, we insulated those properties against noise, had secondary glazing installed or offered to make a grant towards double glazing.

Traffic noise calculations for properties in the vicinity of a road improvement scheme are all made on the same basis. Only properties that are predicted to receive noise above the minimum qualifying level receive an offer of secondary glazing. I know that some residents were very disappointed that they did not receive an offer of insulation for the rear facades of their properties, but I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that we are restricted in what we can do, because we have to comply with the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975, which apply to traffic noise.

On construction noise, we have to consider matters carefully, given the limited time scale between the nuisance and making offers to residents. It would need to be shown that such insulation would be of positive and long-term benefit and that it gave value for money. We offered noise insulation to 19 eligible properties in Hall lane, and 11 residents accepted our offer. About half of those were because of anticipated construction noise.

My hon. Friend pointed out that there has been some confusion about relevant contact points when problems and queries arise. I sympathise about that, but I hope that he accepts that the brochure that we issued at the beginning of the works, explaining the improvements to the local residents, stated clearly the names and telephone numbers of the representatives on site. Whenever verbal complaints have been received from members of the public, they have been advised that the consultant's representative, the resident engineer, is the first point of contact and that the consultant's representative is there for any complaints that arise during the course of the works.

The resident engineer has clear instructions on the action to take once he is aware of a problem. If the complaint is about work being carried out on site, perhaps about the position of machinery or noise levels, and the contractor is working outside the conditions of his contract, he will take action and follow it up with the contractor. However, it is not always simple to put matters right when, for example, special equipment is not available, or lane closures are required for access to enable remedial work to be carried out. Traffic management, safety measures and so on, all have to be taken into consideration. The resident engineer operates specifically within the contract and statutory regulations framework.

If the complaint is a potential third-party claim for damages, the resident engineer has to decide who should deal with it. The contractor's insurers are usually the first port of call, but it may be necessary to involve the district valuer or a statutory undertaker who is not working on the scheme. Again, under the contract, the complaint may need to be referred directly to the Highways Agency. Complaints are passed on to the relevant person for follow-up action, and every member of the public concerned should receive a written reply advising them what has happened to their complaint or claim.

I know that the Highways Agency has recently been alerted to correspondence between Nuttalls, the contractors, and my hon. Friend. I am distressed to learn of the discourteous way in which my hon. Friend's correspondence appears to have been treated, although I note from a copy of a letter from the chief executive that he claims that my hon. Friend's earlier letter was not received. I am sure that he accepts that assurance. I know that the contractor is concerned that the residents of Hall lane believe that they have been badly treated by the contractor and he will, at the earliest opportunity, take the necessary steps to resolve those issues.

I shall ask the Highways Agency to ensure that the contractor's working methods comply fully with the terms of the contract because I am distressed to learn of the details that my hon. Friend has given, which suggest that standards have fallen below those that residents adjacent to such schemes are entitled to expect. I understand that certain residents were especially inconvenienced by maintenance works carried out by Thames Water. Although they were carried out concurrently with the contract, they were not connected with the scheme or with the Highways Agency work.

We try to ensure that all claims made by the public, especially those who live and work close to the improvement scheme, are dealt with promptly and that they are passed to the contractor and his insurers by the resident engineer.

I shall set out the framework, because it is important that my hon. Friend understands the framework in which contracts always operate. Under this contract, the contractor is required to indemnify the Secretary of State against all third-party claims arising from the works, including valid claims for unavoidable damage or loss. On that basis, we cannot interfere directly with the contractor's responsibilities, but we do monitor progress on third-party claims and we ask our consultants to remind the contractor of his responsibilities for resolving and settling claims for damage and disruption.

For the record, there have been seven third-party claims from residents in the vicinity, of which two have been settled, four have not been followed up by the claimants and one is being assessed. In the context of a scheme of that type, that is not an especially large number of claims, but equally, there is no excuse for the intolerable behaviour described by my hon. Friend, and I shall ensure that the Highways Agency takes that point very seriously.

The contractor is responsible for the work methods of his work force and of subcontractors employed by him, and he must ensure that they conduct themselves responsibly, paying close attention to the safety interests of local people and the travelling public. We and the Highways Agency are not in the best position to do so, and I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that. If we did become involved, we would dilute the responsibility of the contractor for his staff, and I am keen that we should not enter such a situation.

I appreciate that some residents have been worried about the reduction in value of their properties, because my hon. Friend mentioned that issue to me when he was fortunate enough to secure the debate. In certain circumstances, they may claim compensation under the provisions of part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973. To qualify for that compensation, the reduction in value must be directly attributable to the use of the new road and must be caused by factors such as noise, vibration or smoke.

A booklet is available from the agency, entitled "Your Home and Nuisance from Public Development", which explains the basis of compensation and eligibility. I am happy to let my hon. Friend have as many copies as he likes or to send them directly to anyone who he would like to receive them.

The district valuer, who is entirely independent of the Department, as my hon. Friend knows, is responsible for assessing, negotiating and recommending the amount of compensation payable. The claim period begins a year after the road is open to public traffic, and lasts for six years. Notices will be published in local newspapers nearer the time, advising people of their rights under the Act and explaining how to make a claim.

In essence, that is the protection that people are given by Parliament in terms of any substantial difference in the noise levels once the scheme, having been completed, is in operation. It is important to bear it in mind that that means, not that a specific, absolute level of noise is attained a year after the scheme is open, but more especially that there has been a significant difference in the noise level as the basis on which compensation is payable.

I hope to end, if my hon. Friend will allow me, on a slightly more optimistic note, because he and I know, and I am pleased to be able to report, that the improvements on the north circular at the Hall lane site are almost complete.

The south end of Hall lane has been identified for planting in our outline landscape proposals, and it is our intention to approach residents there shortly, with a view to carrying out some off-site screen planting in their gardens by agreement as soon as practicable. As my hon. Friend knows, Hall lane runs effectively at right angles to the north circular, and the planting in the front gardens of those properties will provide screening against the sight of the scheme and, one hopes, some amelioration, but that will be done in co-operation with the residents.

Major civil engineering works of the type that we have carried out on that site—the north circular road being one of the largest civil engineering works of its kind in the country, and certainly a very long-standing scheme in the area that my hon. Friend and I represent—inevitably cause some inconvenience and disruption. For that, I offer my condolences to people locally. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being so generous as to accept that, in such circumstances, sadly, there will be an element of disruption. It was the type of summer that probably aggravated the dust and the general effect of such a scheme.

We shall try to minimise problems on the site. I assure my hon. Friend that, if he has any further concerns, he has only to raise the subject with me and I shall personally deal with the matter and with Mr. Haynes at the Highways Agency, who, in my experience, has always been extraordinarily co-operative and helpful.

At the end of a day not long from now, local people in that area will begin to enjoy the benefits of the improvements instead of the rather more unfortunate short-term side effects.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock till Tuesday 4 June, pursuant to Order [13 May].