Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16980
- 16999)
16980. Mr Binley: Having read through
the Petition—I am grateful for that opportunity—may
I ask Mr Saunderson a specific question which seems to be the
nub of the Petition and can I say that I understand, as a businessman,
your frustrations and concerns. I do not want you to think that
there is not an understanding and there is not a great sympathy
in that respect. I hope that at least makes you feel that the
world is not against you because that might be helpful to you.
Can I refer to page four of your Petition and to clause 10?[8]
I just want to understand a particular point. You will go on and
present it. It says: "Due to direct intervention by Crossrail
in the planning process to require refusal by the City of London
Planning Committee . . . ", are we taking of 1989 and 1990
when you are referring to this because that is the period leading
up to the problems? I remember the difficulties of 1989 and 1990
from a business perspective myself and indeed suffered specifically.
Are you saying that was the period or are you referring to a later
period when you made that statement?
16981. Mr Saunderson: Yes, it has continued
since that time. We applied in 1992. I have included in here the
City Planning Officer's report accepting our scheme saying they
had no objections to our scheme but referring it to the Department
for Transport who directed refusal of the scheme for 80,000 square
feet of offices in the City of London.
16982. Mr Binley: What I do not understand
from that statement is the fact that if you are talking about
Crossrail, which at that time I understand did not exist, and
we are talking about two organisations which were not directly
related to Crossrail, I can understand your general feeling that
come on, London Underground and British Rail are government bodies,
but in legal terms it was not directly related to Crossrail as
such at that time, was it? I need to understand that from you.
16983. Mr Saunderson: My colleagues will
correct me if I am wrong but Crossrail was a consortium, as I
understand it, of London Underground, British Rail and the Department
for Transport.
16984. Mr Binley: It was a different
legal entity. I am trying to get your understanding of that.
16985. Mr Saunderson: Than today?
16986. Mr Binley: Yes.
16987. Mr Saunderson: I do not think
I can comment on that. The entity as far as we are all concerned
here is that it was Crossrail. How exactly the legal constitution
of it occurred I do not think is so relevant. It was actually
the Department for Transport that directed the City Corporation
to refuse the planning so, if you like, that was the government.
16988. Chairman: As we understand it,
in reply to Mr Binley's question, Crossrail as was was a private
entity promoted by London Underground although, yes, it did have
the necessary liaison with the statutory bodies at various times.
The difference being this time this is a hybrid bill and it is
under the Department for Transport that Crossrail is being done,
is that correct?
16989. Ms Lieven: That is right, sir.
The Bill that was promoted in the early 1990s was promoted by
London Underground and British Rail, so that is one point. There
was no consortium between London Underground, British Rail and
the Department for Transport. The Department for Transport was
not a partner in any legal sense in Crossrail, that is why it
was a private bill and this is a hybrid bill. It is right to say
that the safeguarding was placed by the Department for Transport
because safeguarding can only be placed by a government body,
it cannot be placed by private individuals. I do not think there
was a company called Crossrail or anything like that at that stage,
it was literally these two railway bodies and they applied to
the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State for Transport
exercised his statutory functions in imposing safeguarding, as
he would for any other private bill that he thought it appropriate
to do so. The Secretary of State for Transport only became directly
involved in Crossrail in the early 2000s.
16990. Mr Saunderson: I hope that is
helpful. I do not want to confuse this but the Department for
Transport has been intimately involved with Crossrail, as we all
know from the papers, since it began.
16991. Mr Binley: I understand that,
thank you.
16992. Mr Saunderson: Just to take you
briefly through the documents. Page three is the planning permission
granted on 10 Hayne Street in 1984 for a 714 square metre gross,
that is about 6,000 square feet net roughly, office building on
10 Hayne Street, which I still own with my cousin.[9]
That gained planning permission. It was in Islington Council at
that stage but the boundary was moved and it is now within the
City Corporation. This is an Islington planning notice. On page
four you will see a valuation of that from a firm of surveyors
in the area at £200,000 in 1986 for that 10 Hayne Street
property, just to show that for interest.[10]
In 1990, on page five, there was a renewal of the planning permission,
that same planning permission for an approximately 6,000 square
feet office block.[11]
That was February 1990, again from Islington. Then we move to
the City of London, the letter on page six in 1991, where we now
see the larger site, which I had acquired mostly in the early
1980s.[12]
1981, 1982 and 1985 were when three buildings were acquired and
two were acquired in 1988 and 1989, so they were not all acquired
in the late 1980s as the other barrister said.
16993. In 1991, in conjunction with discussions
with London Underground which had been going on—because
I have not gone through the petition I have not explained there
were detailed discussions going on with London Underground, Crossrail,
whatever you call it, regarding a joint development of this site
and, indeed, they had been paying half of the professional fees—we
had run an architectural competition for this site run by Jones
Lang Wootton and we had six firms of architects and TP Bennett,
a big firm, was selected. That firm developed a planning application
and it was then agreed that it should be changed because Crossrail
had given us new sizes for the ticket hall. In 1991 we withdrew
that application and this is a letter from the City Corporation
to our architectural associates, Noel Isherwood, withdrawing the
planning application we had made and we were going to resubmit
one, which we then did shortly thereafter.
16994. You will see on the next pages, starting
at page seven, a report of the City Planning Officer—this
is now the Corporation of London—to the planning committee
of the City of London dated 9 June 1992.[13]
You will see the address, "bounded by Hayne Street, Long
Lane and Lindsey Street", which you are very familiar with,
close to the Barbican Station, next to Farringdon. You will see
in 1.2 the recommendation of the City Planning Officer: "It
is recommended that in view of the representations received from
Cross Rail, the application be referred to the Department of Transport
in accordance with the safeguarding directions. Furthermore, the
Department be advised that the Corporation of London is minded
to raise no objections to the outline application for the demolition
and redevelopment of the site to provide a five storey building,
with plant room areas and two lower ground floor levels; for use
as A1, A2, A3, B1, hotel and provision for Cross Rail/LRT, including
associated car parking and servicing, subject to the conditions
as set out in the attached schedule." That was the City Planning
Officer's report on our scheme to develop some 80,000 square feet
of offices and other uses on that Barbican/Farringdon site.
16995. "1.3 That I be instructed to inform
the London Borough of Islington on your views on that matter .
. . ."
16996. Mr Binley: My apologies, Mr Saunderson.
The phrase "Cross Rail" here interests me and I just
want to get an understanding of it. That is not an official company
name as it is used here, is it, it is simply a description of
a project which is a Crossrail project. Is there a difference
there?
16997. Mr Saunderson: I am a chartered
accountant, as it happens.
16998. Mr Binley: I am a salesman!
16999. Mr Saunderson: I see what you
are saying. Crossrail, as the barrister has said, was a scheme
promoted by London Underground Limited. I believe on the bottom
of the notepaper it states the exact status. I do not have that
in my mind.
8 The Petition of David James Saunderson and David
James Saunderson and Kathryn Jean Baxter against the Crossrail
Bill, www.publications.parliament.uk (SCN-20061012-003). Back
9
Committee Ref: A192, London Borough of Islington Planning Permission
for 10 Hayne Street, 20 November 1984 (SCN-20061012-004). Back
10
Committee Ref: A192, Valuation for 10 Hayne Street, 14 August
1986 (SCN-20061012-005). Back
11
Committee Ref: A192, London Borough of Islington Renewal of Planning
Permission for 10 Hayne Street, 12 February 1990 (SCN-20061012-006). Back
12
Committee Ref: A192, Correspondence between the City of London
and Noel Isherwood Associates, 28 February 1991 (SCN-20061012-007). Back
13
Committee Ref: A192, City Planning Officer Report to the Planning
Committee of the City of London, 9 June 1992 (SCN-20061012-008
and -009). Back
|
