Examination of Witnesses (Questions 17280
- 17299)
17280. Chairman: Ms Lieven, do you want
to sum up?
17281. Ms Lieven: Can I make a very short
summing up, sir. So far as the large site is concerned, we do
not dispute that Mr Saunderson's property interests have been
detrimentally affected by Crossrail and it would be silly to do
so, but a large element of his problems, and we will never get
to the bottom precisely of how one splits causation here, but
a large element stems from the collapse in the property market.
This was a City fringe site and it was always going to be precarious
and you have literally just this moment heard Mr Smith's evidence
of that. It is important to remember that part of the site, the
most valuable part in commercial terms, the Long Lane/Lindsey
Street site, could have been developed at any date on from 1991
because it was not safeguarded and perhaps that slightly shows
that a significant element of the problem here was the collapse
in the property market because that bit of the site had nothing
to do with Crossrail from then on.
17282. There has been a lot of evidence and
a lot of cross-examination about who initiated what in 1991 and,
sir, we are quite happy that it was mutual interest, but I do
ask the Committee to put themselves back into the position of
LUL. Leading up to the 1994 Bill, we had a Petitioner or, rather,
London Underground had a Petitioner who was saying, "Don't
go ahead with this Bill unless you allow me to develop this site",
so we absolutely had to negotiate out with them as far as we could
possibly go in terms of allowing the development to go ahead,
otherwise the Committee in 1994, if it ever got to that stage
which of course it did not, would have been deeply critical of
the way the Promoters had acted.
17283. Ultimately, sir, I rely entirely on what
you have said repeatedly today, that all this is a matter of history
rather than a matter for this Committee. We have different Promoters.
The site was sold 10 years ago now or at least one large part
of it. If there was maladministration, and I do not accept that
there was for a moment, but if there was, then the complaint to
the Ombudsman should have been pursued. Why the Ombudsman did
not reply if he did not reply, I do not know, but that was the
remedy back in the mid-1990s to what Mr Saunderson is complaining
about now, an unfairness within the blight scheme.
17284. I do say gently, but very importantly,
that if compensation for this kind of loss had to be paid for
by Crossrail, then it would make major infrastructure development
in central London almost impossible, if not impossible, because
the costs that would be added on would become overwhelming, but
all of that really is history.
17285. If we focus on 10 Hayne Street, which
is what this Petition ought really to be about and is really about,
the simple solution which meets the lawful part of Mr Saunderson's
requirement A is to serve a blight notice and he will then get
open market value, disregarding any impact of Crossrail for that
site. He could have done so at any date from when the bulk of
the site was sold, but has not done so for whatever reason which
is entirely a matter for him, but he continues to be able to do
so now.
17286. As far as the over-station development
point is concerned, we will deal with him like any other owner
of land in a site where they are only a partial owner rather than
a complete owner. There is obviously a difference when we are
dealing with somebody who owns the entirety of an over-station
development site.
17287. Sir, I kept that short, but, in my submission,
that deals with the points in the Petition.
17288. Chairman: If I can just comment
on one thing, the fact about if compensation is awarded, it may
preclude investment by Crossrail in infrastructure projects, that
is a matter which we have to consider, but also a matter which
we have to consider is justice and fairness and where it applies
in the areas of our responsibility, we will do that. Thank you
very much.
17289. Mr Saunderson, can I just make one suggestion.
In your humble request, you have suggested a number of things
and one of the things you have not included in there and what
we may, with your permission, list is also your application for
blight in relation to your present property, so we could include
that in the humble request which you make. Is that acceptable
to you?
17290. Mr Saunderson: I personally have
a difficulty with the blight thing. The way it was discussed this
morning was very disturbing, in my mind, and, in my view, if they
feel they have a duty to purchase the site, they should make an
undertaking to purchase the site at open market value. This business
of parking cars and things, I do not really want to get involved
in something that is slightly—I do not know what you would
call it—but I found it quite disturbing and I would prefer
that a straightforward undertaking was given. Blight is terribly
complicated and, as we heard this morning, there were various
statements made to and fro. I found it very difficult to accept
that there was not—
17291. Chairman: One thing which I think
is important is that I think the suggestion which was being made
by the Promoters this morning was not in some way underhand and
designed to get around the law. What they were saying was that
there is a statutory requirement for things to occur for you actually
to be able to apply and I think that is where Ms Lieven helped
this morning with the clarity. I must say, I was only suggesting
that it was a thing which was being offered and if you wanted
to include it, we could agree to include it in your request which
you have listed. If you do not wish to do that, then the Committee
can consider its own course in a whole variety of ways, including
that, but it was just whether or not you wished to request that.
17292. Mr Saunderson: I think it would
have been helpful actually if I had asked Mr Smith, or perhaps
we can ask him now, whether they have actually paid out as yet
on any blight notices. I have also been advised, which I forgot
to say, that a blight notice did not apply on a Safeguarding Order.
17293. Chairman: Let me repeat this again
because I did give an indication of how the Committee would view
this. If the application was made now, it would have been handled
and sorted out or dealt with by the time this Committee concluded
and reported to the House. That is the general point we were making
this morning. Then we would be the judge of that. If it had not
been handled, then we could make our own views on that. As I say,
if it had been, then of course that might be a different area
of satisfaction in relation to the decision that we actually make.
Is that helpful?
17294. Mr Saunderson: It is really helpful.
I just wondered if you could ask the Promoters if they would give
an undertaking to advance purchase the site at open market value,
simple as that.
17295. Chairman: Ms Lieven, if you could
state what you have already said this morning, it might give some
clarity.
17296. Ms Lieven: Let me state three
things. Firstly, and I repeat what I said this morning, if Mr
Saunderson serves a blight notice and meets the criteria in the
terms I have described this morning, and I described them very
carefully and I do not want to describe them again because they
may be slightly different and then there would be confusion, but
then there would be no ground for us to contest a blight notice
and we would not do so. That gives him purchase now or within
six months at open market value, and I am struggling to see what
the problem is.
17297. Secondly, as far as we know, and we have
just pooled our joint knowledge, only one blight notice has been
served so far and that is on Crossrail 2, a joy for this Committee
to look forward to, but perhaps not for a year or two, and that
has been accepted.
17298. Mr Binley: Not this Committee!
17299. Ms Lieven: Nor me! This is a process
which has been accepted by the Department.
|
