Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16940
- 16959)
The Petition of Mr David James Saunderson
The Petitioner appeared in person
16940. Ms Lieven: Thank you very much,
Sir. I am afraid I am going to have to tell the Committee in opening
something of the history of Mr Saunderson's involvement in Crossrail
because of the issues that he wishes to raise and which he raises
in his petition. I am going to call Mr Colin Smith who is going
to give you a detailed history and explanation of where we are
but I thought it would be helpful for me to give it in outline.
Mr Saunderson, through a company called SHL, bought a number of
companies in the Farringdon area in the mid to late 1980s, and
perhaps we could have up the first exhibit, intending to bring
forward, a property development company. Their properties which
are close to or affected by, and I will show you in detail in
a moment, the Farringdon Station at the eastern end, what the
Committee have come to know as the Lindsey Street ticket hall.
Just to orientate the Committee, this is Smithfield market here.[1]
This is Lindsey Street and you will remember the Committee has
heard a lot of evidence about that in the past and this is a street
called Long Lane. SHL bought a number of properties on Lindsey
Street, Long Lane and Hayne Street in the mid to late 1980s intending
to develop them for property purposes. In November 1990 a safeguarding
order was issued for Crossrail and that is what is shown on this
plan in the dark colour which safeguarded all of Mr Saunderson's
properties and it is correct to say that the effect of that, and
Mr Smith will go through it in detail, was to seriously limit
what planning permission, if any, could be gained on those sites
on his land.[2]
It is very important to stress at this stage that, of course,
Crossrail at that stage although still called "Crossrail"
was being promoted by London Underground and British Rail, as
it was then, and it came forward before this House as a private
bill not a hybrid bill. So, the Department for Transport, although
a supporter in the background, had no part in the promotion of
the scheme at that stage.
16941. Importantly, in October 1991, the limits
of the safeguarding were changed so that the properties that Mr
Saunderson, SHL, owned on Long Lane, these properties here were
no longer within the safeguarding.[3]
The reason for that is the Committee may remember that there is
a difficult issue at this end of Farringdon around the relationship
of Crossrail with Thameslink. When the original safeguarding was
undertaken, there was effectively no thought of Thameslink 2000.
In 1991 it was then assumed that Thameslink would go first before
Crossrail, it was possible to shift the site of the station north
because some of the Thameslink 2000 tracks would be closed and
that led to the change in the safeguarding and the release of
Mr Saunderson's land on Long Lane, so far, so clear.
16942. What happened next had nothing to do
with Crossrail which is that the Committee may well remember that
there was a very severe property slump, particularly in London
and even more particularly in the fringe areas of the City of
London in the early to mid 90s, very severe, prices fell enormously.
I think in 1995—although Mr Saunderson will give you a precise
date I am sure—SHL went into receivership and all the properties
owned by SHL except for 10 Hayne Street, which we will come to
in a moment, was sold by the receivers and there is no issue that
they were sold by the receivers both for a good deal less than
Mr Saunderson had paid for many of them at the height of the market
in the late 1980s but also for a great deal less than they were
valued at an open market value in the 1990s. So, there is no doubt
that the value of those sites fell very, very significantly. That,
in itself, was not out of line with what was happening in Farringdon
and across other parts of London. That outlines Mr Saunderson's
first issue which is that he should be compensated for what he
perceives to be the detrimental effect of the 1990 safeguards
and I will make submissions in full in closing but can I ask the
Committee, and Mr Smith who will give evidence on this, obviously
in detail, to note three markers at this stage.
16943. First of all, neither the 1990 or 1991
scheme was being promoted by the Department for Transport so,
in effect, this is all history and it is not really in my submission
a matter for this Committee.
16944. Secondly, and Mr Smith as always will
be very straight forward about this, we are not saying Crossrail
did not have an impact on SHL but a very large part of what happened
to SHL was a consequence of the property market and property speculation
and to coin a phrase property values go up and property values
go down and this was a speculation which went down but very simply
because of what was happening in the property market.
16945. Thirdly, and Mr Smith will give evidence
on this as well, what happened to SHL in terms of that slump in
property values was not by any means unique to SHL in its interaction
with Crossrail. A very similar argument could and would be put,
for example, by the Grosvenor Estates about values to many of
their sites in central London where they hoped and expected to
develop property and found that it was much more difficult, if
not impossible, to do so, because of Crossrail. Of course there
is a difference because SHL have bought the sites and is a smaller
developer than something like Grosvenor Estates, but the
fact that there are other sites which in those terms have been
difficult, if not impossible, to develop because of Crossrail
is reflected across sites in central London. That is the first
issue. The second issue specifically concerns 10 Hayne Street,
and perhaps we can put up the plan that shows 10 Hayne Street.[4]
This is the one part of Mr Saunderson's land which is still within
his or his partial ownership.
16946. Mr Binley: Sorry, can you show
us where that is?
16947. Ms Lieven: This is the photograph
of it.[5]
It is this site here. It is an empty space which could be used
for surface level car parking.
16948. Mr Binley: Can we then relate
that to the map?
16949. Ms Lieven: Certainly, if we can
go back to one of the maps and focus in on Hayne Street. Hayne
Street is here and it is that site there.
16950. Mr Binley: Can I ask how that
relates to the change in the order?
16951. Ms Lieven: Ten Hayne Street would
always have been safeguarded.[6]
Here is 10 Hayne Street. The change in the order affected this
block on the corner of Lindsey Street and Long Lane, so 10 Hayne
Street was safeguarded in 1990 and 1999.
16952. Mr Binley: That is fine, thank
you.
16953. Ms Lieven: The position on 10
Hayne Street is that it is the one part of the SHL land ownership
that was not sold by the receivers. It is now owned, we believe,
by Mr Saunderson, who appears this morning, Mr Saunderson's cousin,
who, slightly confusingly, but through no fault of his own, has
exactly the same name, including the same second name, and Mrs
Katherine Baxter, who I understand is a member of the family but
Mr Saunderson can explain who she is. We understand, although
Mr Saunderson may confirm the precise land ownership, that Mr
Saunderson himself retains a part ownership of the site. As I
said a moment ago, the site is an empty plot and could be used
for surface level car parking.[7]
As the Committee can see, it is not a particularly large plot.
It is a site that is definitely needed for the scheme, there is
no issue about that, and our simple solution, which is very straightforward,
to this part of Mr Saunderson's concerns is that if he put in
a blight notice, made an application under the blight notice scheme,
the site falls within the rateable value limits for blight notices.
The Committee will remember, there is a relatively low cut-off
but this site falls within it. As long as Mr Saunderson, on behalf
of all the owners, serves a blight notice and then is in some
way in occupation and control of the site, he will satisfy the
blight notice criteria and we will have no choice but to accept
the notice. Have we got the photo that shows the site side on?
16954. The occupation qualification is not a
difficult one to meet on this site because all that needs to be
done is for the owners to ensure that one or two cars are parked
on the site, we are not asking him to move in and take up residential
occupation, that is a not necessary. Occupation is a relatively
low test here. We may be unreasonable but we are not that unreasonable.
If a blight notice was served and that relatively low test was
met, we would have no choice but to buy this site as it would
fall within the statutory criteria, but we cannot do it until
he applies. We have no statutory power to do so. We are waiting
for Mr Saunderson, who I would assume has taken his own advice,
to take that course and then this part of his concern simply goes
away.
16955. I should say at this point, Mr Saunderson
is very aggrieved because his perception is that we encouraged
him to apply under the Hardship Policy in respect of 10 Hayne
Street and then rejected his application. Whys and wherefores
of whether he really was encouraged perhaps do not matter very
much. If he was then perhaps it was not the best course because
it would have always been difficult for him to satisfy the policy.
In any event, perhaps the Committee does not need to be too bothered
about that and perhaps does not need to get too much into the
rights and wrongs of the past history on it because if he serves
a blight notice he gets exactly the same effect, which is that
we buy the property. I should say, we buy it at open market value,
not in any sense as blighted by Crossrail. I understand this site
did have a planning permission on it originally and that will
be taken into account in assessing the compensation under that
blight notice proposal. Mr Smith can explain that to you in much
greater detail. On that part of his issues, we say there is a
simple solution. The third issue he raises is in respect of the
land disposal policy which is the policy to do with owners whose
land is compulsory acquired and the share that they get in over-station
development profits, our simple answer to that is we have a policy
and we will apply it to Mr Saunderson in exactly the same way
as anybody else. When I hear what Mr Saunderson has to say about
that I will ask Mr Smith to deal with that. I am sorry to have
gone into more detail and perhaps put more of my case than I would
do normally in opening, but it is a slightly different issue from
many of those the Committee has come across. I hope that is helpful.
That is all I was going to say at this stage.
16956. Chairman: Mr Saunderson, can I
say before we set off, we are limited in what this Committee can
do in respect of this. Firstly, we are not entitled to go back
and alter a court decision which has previously been taken. We
cannot do that. We cannot take a decision to award retrospectively
things like compensation. I do not think that is within the remit
of our powers at all. As long as you realise that. You are here
to put your case so please make it as best you can.
16957. Mr Saunderson: Thank you very
much indeed. I propose to take us through the Petition which you
will find on page 49 first of all, so that you have set in writing
the facts, some of which differ from the position that has been
laid out to you.
16958. Ms Lieven: I am sorry, Sir, we
only got this morning. If Mr Saunderson had a set that we could
give to Mr Grocott, and I can put it on the screen.
16959. Mr Saunderson: I have given out
12 sets this morning.
1 Crossrail Ref: P120, Crossrail Safeguarding Directions
Sheet No. 10 (LONDLB-8204-006). Back
2
Crossrail Ref: P120, Crossrail Safeguarding Directions Sheet
No. 18 (LONDLB-8204-004). Back
3
Crossrail Ref: P120, Crossrail Safeguarding Directions Sheet
No. 18 (LONDLB-8204-005). Back
4
Crossrail Ref: P120, Hardship Claim-Location of 10 Hayne Street(SCN-20061012-001) Back
5
Crossrail Ref: P120, View of 10 Hayne Street (LONDLB-8204-001). Back
6
Crossrail Ref: P120, Crossrail Safeguarding Directions Sheet
No. 18 (LONDLB-8204-005). Back
7
Crossrail Ref: P120, Alternative view of 10 Hayne Street (LONDLB-8204-002). Back
|
