Examination of Witnesses (Questions 17080
- 17099)
17080. In 1998 I write again—
17081. Mr Binley: Could I stop you again
and ask you a quick question, and I apologise, but I need to understand.
Is the point here that the sites were sold to anybody specifically?
17082. Mr Saunderson: Yes, one person.
Michael Chambers & Partners bought four properties. That is
a law recruitment firm and he produced a book called Chambers
Directory which you might have heard of, a directory of lawyers.
17083. Mr Binley: Yes, I have, but this
is true, that it is normal practice that receivers sell well below
what most people consider is the market value.
17084. Mr Saunderson: Well, they endeavour
to get the maximum they can. They do not choose to sell below
price.
17085. Mr Binley: That is the theory.
17086. Mr Saunderson: I appreciate obviously
that they sell for what they can get. They did not sell them immediately,
but they held them for some time and indeed the fifth property
was held for a further three years and sold for £1.1 million,
so the total that I had paid of 4.3 got to 2.2 over the course
of four years, so they did not sell them overnight, as it were,
they did leave them.
17087. Mr Binley: What I am trying to
establish is that that was not the true market value at the time.
17088. Mr Saunderson: Correct.
17089. Mr Binley: That is the point I
am trying to establish.
17090. Mr Saunderson: No tenant would
take occupancy of the buildings who felt he wanted to be there
for 10 or 15 years because there was the Crossrail going to be
built on it, so it was very unlettable. Michael Chambers was a
local occupier across the road who needed more space and he thought
he would just buy the buildings for a song because nobody else
wanted them. No proper investor would buy these buildings, yes,
that is absolutely right.
17091. On page 44 I write again to Richard Asher
at Jones Lang, the Business Compensation Forum: "I will repeat
if I may the plight of CBCP Ltd in which I am the major shareholder.
I thus declare a personal interest. CBCP Ltd owned five adjoining
freehold buildings . . . These five properties had been acquired
over the period 1981 to 1989 and considerable time, effort and
financial resources were expended in the acquisition process.
The end objective had been the comprehensive redevelopment of
the site into a prestigious City office totalling some 100,000
square feet net. The freeholds were valued at c£9m in 1990
and London Transport funded half the expenses for a joint development
study to span the railway tracks over the Barbican station. In
1990, the Crossrail Safeguarding Order was issued and from that
time on the site has been frozen for redevelopment and applications
for planning which the City had approved at committee level were
ordered by London Transport", or the Department for Transport,
that should say, "to be refused. Receivers were appointed
in March 1996 and four buildings were sold for £1.2m in September
1996; the one remaining building is currently for sale at some
£1m. Approaches to Crossrail to purchase the block were encouraged
and then rejected. A claim for reimbursement of expenses incurred
in connection with LT-related work was lodged with London Transport
in 1996 and rejected by Peter Ford, the Chairman. In addition
to my interest in CBCP, I personally 50% of a car park site at
10 Hayne Street which had planning permission for a 6,000 square
foot office block. The planning permission renewal has been refused
on instruction from London Transport/Crossrail. Losses on CBCP
could be estimated at many millions. On the car park, I am being
prevented from developing a 6,000 sq ft office which would yield
site value and development profit amounting to a significant sum.
I will leave the calculation to others, but the essence of the
history is here."[40]
17092. Then there is a long gap when there is
nothing much and I have not included any papers and we move to
2002 when I get a letter from Derek Baxter who is the husband
of Mrs Kate Baxter who is a co-owner in 10 Hayne Street.[41]
He writes to me: "Dear David, Out of curiosity, I have recently
contacted Crossrail about their interest in 10 Hayne Street. A
very helpful lady confirmed that the property lies within their
`surface' interest and that they will in due course acquire the
property by compulsory purchase. She said that construction is
due for 2006 and that a CPO notice would be issued in 2005. Perhaps
we could discuss this matter on the telephone soon." Well,
we all live in hope.
17093. Then we move to 2005 at page 47 where
Bircham Dyson Bell, acting as our parliamentary agents, write
to Winckworth Sherwood acting for Crossrail and the Department
for Transport.[42]
"We write to you on behalf of our client, David James Saunderson
(representing the Saunderson family) whose position is as follows:
our client, through the vehicle of a company called Saunderson
Holdings (whose name was later changed to CBCP Limited) is the
former owner of 3-8 Hayne Street and 20-23 Long Lane . . . (`the
Main Site') and, in that capacity, also petitioned against the
original Crossrail Bill; our client also still owns 10 Hayne Street;
both these properties are subject to compulsory purchase under
the Bill; CBCP Limited was forced into receivership due to its
inability to advance the redevelopment of the Main Site; the Hayne
Street property continues also to be blighted by the Crossrail
proposals; as these brief particulars convey, our client has suffered
substantial financial loss due to the quite exceptional blight
caused by the Crossrail proposals. We should be grateful to hear
from you as soon as possible with proposals on behalf of the Promoter
to address the injury suffered by our client. In particular, we
would invite the Promoter to consider: (a) offering now to purchase
the Hayne Street property at full development value; (b) compensating
our client for the loss which he and his family have already suffered
due to the blight caused by the Crossrail proposals; and (c) providing
for our client to have an appropriate interest in the redevelopment
proposed of the full Lindsey Street site. We and our client appreciate
that the Bill and the application of the standard Compensation
Code under it do not provide for any such compensation. However,
for reasons which we think will be self-apparent, we invite the
Promoter to conclude that this is unjustifiable and contrary to
the protection which our client is entitled to expect in relation
to private property rights. We look forward to hearing from you."
17094. Then we lodged the Petition which you
have read and I do not propose to read that through, but it says
in detail what that letter said and we pray at the end of it that,
"the Bill may not be allowed to pass into law as it now stands
and that they may be heard by themselves, Counsel or Agents and
with witnesses in support of the allegations in this Petition
against so much of the Bill as it affects the property, rights
and interests of your Petitioners and in support of other such
clauses and provisions as may be necessary or expedient for their
protection or that such other relief may be given to your Petitioners
in the premises as your Honourable House shall deem meet."
17095. We have a reply to that letter and Petition
on 13 October 2005 from Winckworth Sherwood where they give their
point of view writing to our agents, Bircham Dyson Bell.[43]
17096. Mr Binley: Could I ask you a question
about that letter because it does seem to me that the information
you received this morning contradicts the contents of this letter
quite sizeably, does it not?
17097. Mr Saunderson: Contradicts the
13 October letter?
17098. Mr Binley: Yes, does it not?
17099. Mr Saunderson: I think it does.
40 Committee Ref: A192, Further correspondence from
David Saunderson to the Business Compensation Forum (SCN-20061012-045
and -046). Back
41
Committee Ref: A192, Correspondence from Mr Derek Baxter to David
Saunderson, 10 Hayne Street, 2 May 2002 (SCN-20061012-047). Back
42
Committee Ref: A192, Correspondence from Bircham Dyson Bell to
Winckworth Sherwood, David James Saunderson (and ORS)-10 Hayne
Street (SCN-20061012-048 and -049). Back
43
Committee Ref: A192, Correspondence from Winckworth Sherwood
to Bircham Dyson Bell, Crossrail Bill-David James Saunderson (and
others) 10 Hayne Street, 13 October 2005 (SCN-20061012-050). Back
| 
