Examination of Witnesses (Questions 17020
- 17039)
17020. Mr Binley: Could I ask a question
about the Order because on page 20 to that, it says, "Since
planning permission was granted by the London Borough of Islington,
the Secretary of State has issued Crossrail's Safeguarding Directions
and 10 Hayne Street is one of the properties identified as being
likely to be required . . . ", so there is no doubt about
that with regard to 10 Hayne Street and your rights have been
made clear to you. I would have thought that would give you some
comfort. How does that statement impact upon the other properties?
Does it have any impact on the other properties at all?
17021. Mr Saunderson: First my question
to you would be: if you had a property—
17022. Mr Binley: Forgive me, but I am
asking you the questions.
17023. Mr Saunderson: Well, number one,
the impact is that we had a little property, 10 Hayne Street,
which has then been frozen effectively for 16 years and we have
been unable—
17024. Mr Binley: Yes, I understand that
about 10 Hayne Street certainly and I understand the difference
between 10 Hayne Street, but that Planning Order also encompassed
the other properties, did it not, laid by the Secretary of State
and that is not in any doubt at all, is it, at that time?
17025. Mr Saunderson: No, we never received
permission for the bigger scheme.
17026. Mr Binley: My mind is slightly
confused. At which stage was the plan was altered and pushed back,
remind me of that date.
17027. Mr Saunderson: We have had the
little scheme approval since 1984. The big scheme, the City Corporation
raised no objection in 1992 to our final scheme and the Department
for Transport ordered them to refuse it, so that was 1992 after
the safeguarding directions had come in in 1990.
17028. Mr Binley: Thank you, I have the
chronology.
17029. Mr Saunderson: So it was obviously
clear before 1990, but we only ever put the large application
in after the safeguarding directions because we were in detailed
discussions with London Underground, London Regional Transport,
the Department for Transport, Crossrail, all the different bodies
that were involved and we worked with them, as you will see in
the details, with the engineers, and we had Ove Arup's working
on the engineering with London Underground and so on. I use the
terms because they start to intermingle, London Underground Limited,
London Regional Transport, the Department for Transport, Crossrail,
but you can see a slight merger of those and you will forgive
me if I ever get one particular thing wrong, but they were working
together and in my mind it was the Government because it was all
Government-owned.
17030. Mr Binley: The machinery of State,
you could say.
17031. Mr Saunderson: Yes. So the final
recommendation on page 21.[21]
" . . . we recommend that planning permission be REFUSED
. . . " and a refusal notice was issued which I showed you
on page 19.
17032. On page 23 you will see that I wrote
to the Rt Hon Dr Brian Mawhinney, now Lord Mawhinney, who was
Secretary of State for Transport: "Dear Brian, I was delighted
for you to hear how the Party finances have recovered—a
sterling achievement in so short a time.[22]
As you kindly expressed interest over the last year in my Crossrail
problem, I thought I should let you know the end result of my
17-year business effort. Four out of the five buildings on my
blighted site were sold by the Receivers this month for £1.3
million—I paid £4.3 million for them between 1981 and
1989. In order to more accurately reflect what my company is reduced
to by order of the Government, I have changed the name of Saunderson
Holdings Ltd to CBCP Ltd", and you can probably imagine what
those initials stand for. "I am now available for up to four
days per week consultancy work since my business has all but ceased."
17033. Mrs James: That has gone over
my head, "CBCP"?
17034. Mr Saunderson: Well, it could
be called `Crossrail Blight Compensation Programme' or something
like that. It was just a name out of Companies House. It just
changed its name, the company. It was the same company, but changed
its name at Companies House.
17035. Chairman: When this occurred and
you had that subsequent loss, did you then take any legal action
to recover because of the loss against the partners in the previous
Crossrail project?
17036. Mr Saunderson: We did not take
legal action because we were in pretty reduced circumstances,
so we were not able to fight a legal case.
17037. Chairman: The reason I am asking,
you have gone through the reference, but I am just trying to find
if there were avenues explored which then reached a dead end.
That is all I am trying to get it, but you did not take legal
action?
17038. Mr Saunderson: No, I did not take
legal action.
17039. Chairman: And you did not appeal
to the Secretary of State?
21 Committee Ref: A192, City Planning Officer Report,
10 Hayne Street, EC1-Redevelopment (SCN-20061012-020). Back
22
Committee Ref: A192, Correspondence from David Saunderson to
Secretary of State for Transport, 30 September 1996 (SCN-20061012-021). Back
| 
