The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
STATES MINUTES 2 7 t h M arch, 1990 P r ic e : # 4 .0 0
THE STATES assembled on Tuesday, 27th March, 1990 at 9.30 a.m. under
the Presidency of the Deputy Bailiff ,
V e rnon Amy Tomes, Esquire
_ _ _ _________
All Members were present with the exception of -
L eonard René Hamel, Connétable of St. C lement - ill.
D avid John de la Haye, Deputy of St.
H elier - out of the Island.
J ack Roche, Deputy of St. Saviour -
i ll.
M argaret Sylvia Rose Beadle, Deputy of S t. Brelade - out of the Island.
M ichael Adam Wavell, Deputy of St.
H elier - ill.
T homas James Jordan, Deputy of St.
B relade - out of the Island.
_ _ _ _ _ _______
P r ayers
_ _ _ _ _ _______
Subordinate legislation tabled
The following enactment was laid before the States, namely -
D ata Protection (General Provisions) ( Jersey) Order 1990. R & O 8040.
Data Protection: report for 1989. R.C.7
The Finance and Economics
Committee by Act dated 5th March 1990, presented to the States a report on the operation of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 1987 and ancillary matters for 1989.
THE STATES ordered that the said report be printed and distributed.
Agricultural loans: report for 1989. R.C.8
The Agriculture and Fisheries
Committee by Act dated 8th March 1990, presented to the States a report on the Agricultural Loans and Guarantees Fund for the year ending 31st December, 1989 and commenting on the operation during 1989 of the Agriculture (Loans and Guarantees) (Jersey) Law 1974, as amended, and the Agricultural (Loans) (Jersey) Regulations 1974, as amended.
THE STATES ordered that the said report be printed and distributed.
Births, marriages and deaths in 1989. R.C.9
The Etat Civil Committee by Act
dated 8th March 1990, presented to the States a statement of births, marriages and deaths in 1989.
THE STATES ordered that the said statement be printed and distributed.
Prison Board: report for 1989. R.C.10
The Prison Board by Act dated 26th February 1990, presented to the States the report of the Board for 1989.
THE STATES ordered that the said report be printed and distributed.
Contingencies vote of credit - Public Services Committee
THE STATES noted an Act of the
Finance and Economics Committee dated 19th March 1990, informing the House that it had made available to the Public Services
Committee the sum of #700,000 from the contingencies vote of credit in order to carry out urgent repair work resulting from the recent severe storm damage to the coastal defences.
Social Security report and accounts 1988/89
The Social Security Committee by
Act dated 1st February 1990, presented to the States its report and statement of accounts for the year ended 30th September 1989.
THE STATES ordered that the said report and statement of accounts be printed and distributed.
Matters noted - land transactions
THE STATES noted an Act of the
Finance and Economics Committee dated 19th March 1990, showing that in pursuance of Standing Orders relating to certain transactions in land, the Committee had approved -
( a) as recommended by the Public
S e r vices Committee, the purchase
f ro m Mrs. Raymonde Lucienne de la H ay e, née Bouteloup, of the
p r o perty 19 Devonshire Place, St.
H el ier, required for road
w id ening, for a consideration of
# 7 0 ,000 with the Committee being
r e sp onsible for the payment of all
l e ga l costs and estate agents
f e es ;
( b) as recommended by the Public Works C o m mittee, the lease of Sub-
s ta t ion site No. 357 in Sand
S t re et Car Park to The Jersey
E l e ctricity Company Limited for a
p e r iod of 21 years commencing 25th
M a rch 1990 at an annual rent of #1
p a y able in one sum in advance;
( c) as recommended by the Public Works C o m mittee, the lease to Elizabeth
R e s taurants Limited of the Café at
E l iz abeth Castle for a period of
s ix years commencing on 1st
J a n uary 1990 at an annual rent of
# 8 , 000 or 12.5 per cent of gross s a le s, whichever was the higher, s u b ject to a rent review at the
e n d of the first and third years
o f t he lease.
Matter noted - financial transaction
THE STATES noted an Act of the
Finance and Economics Committee dated 19th March 1990, showing that in pursuance of Rule 5 of the Public Finances (General) (Jersey) Rules 1967, as amended, the Committee had noted that the Defence Committee had accepted the lowest of seven tenders, namely that submitted by K.R. Le Marquand and Son Limited in the sum of #99,780 in a contract period of 20 weeks
for the refurbishment of Crabbé Farm, St. Mary .
Matters lodged
The following subjects were lodged au Greffe'' -
1 . Day Care Centre, Gorey Village. P . 3 8/90.
P r e sented by the Public Health
C o m mittee.
2 . Maternity Hospital premises: c o n version. P.39/90.
P r e sented by the Public Health C o m mittee.
3 . Incinerator for hospital waste and a n im al carcasses. P.40/90.
P r e sented by the Public Services
C o m mittee.
4 . States' capital programme for 1 991. P.41/90.
P r e sented by the Policy and
R e s ources Committee.
5 . Draft Act with regard to the
p r o vision of a minimum income for e l ec ted members of the States.
P . 4 2/90.
P r e sented by the Legislation C o m mittee.
6 . Sodomy: amendment of legislation. P . 4 3/90.
P r e sented by Senator Betty Brooke.
7 . Green zone: agricultural storage b u i ldings. P.44/90.
P r e sented by the Island
D ev elopment Committee.
The following subject was lodged on 20th March 1990 -
D raft Correspondence Colleges and
I nstitutes (Licensing) (Jersey) Law
1 99 . P.39/90.
P resented by the Education Committee.
Draft Act with regard to the
provision of a minimum income for elected members of the States. P.29/90. Withdrawn
THE STATES noted that the
President of the Legislation Committee had withdrawn the draft Act with regard to the provision of a minimum income for elected members of the States (lodged on 13th March 1990), a revised draft Act having been lodged at the present Sitting (P.42/90).
Arrangement of Public Business for next Sitting on 3rd April 1990
THE STATES confirmed that the following subject lodged au Greffe should be considered at the next Sitting on 3rd April 1990 -
D raft Correspondence Colleges
a nd Institutes (Licensing) (Jersey) L aw 199 . P.37/90
L odged: 20th March, 1990.
E ducation Committee
Listed buildings and urban
commercial sites. Questions and answers.
Senator John Stephen Rothwell
asked the Connétable of St. John, President of the Island Development Committee, the following questions -
Would the President inform the House t he reason for the appointment of Mr.
J onathan Ratter as consultant to the
I sland Development Committee, the
p eriod of time he spent in the Island
a nd what he achieved?''
The President of the Island Development Committee replied as follows -
As the Senator and Members of the House will know, the Island
P lanning (Jersey) Law 1964, had, as
o ne of its defined purposes
( Article 2) -
(g ) t o protect buildings of sp e c i a l a rchitectural or h is to r i c i nterest'
T he Island Planning (Amendment No. 3) ( Jersey) Law 1983 altered the scope of
t he Island Planning Law to provide for
t he conservation of land and the
p rotection of sites of archaeological
a nd other special interest.
A rticle 9 of the 1964 Law made
p rovision for a list of buildings of
s pecial architectural or historic
i nterest. The 1983 Amendment
e ffectively extended the powers of p rotection to buildings and places of p ublic importance not only of
a rchitectural and historic interest,
b ut also of zoological, botanical,
a rchaeological, artistic, cultural,
g eological, scientific or traditional
i nterest. Since the 1983 Amendment t hese are now designated Sites of
S pecial Interest.
S ince the 1964 Law was put into e ffect, the Island Development
C ommittee has made three Orders d esignating specific sites -
1 9 7 2 - various buildings in St. H el ier and one in St.
S a v i o ur
1 9 7 4 - various buildings at Gorey P i e r in St. Martin
1 9 8 4 - Grouville Railway Station
T his is the sum total of buildings in
t he Island receiving any sort of
s tatutory protection. Successive
I sland Development Committees had
r ecognised the need to extend this
p rotection to all buildings and places
i n the Island worthy of it, and during
f ormer Deputy Norman Le Brocq's and my
o wn presidency, attention was focussed
o n the Island's architecturally and
h istorically important buildings in
t he Island Plan. Indeed the Town Map
i dentified, very much as a holding
m easure, Building frontages of
t ownscape importance' and in Volume 2
o f the Island Plan, at Policy BE5
declared the intention of designating
a nd publishing a list of sites of
s pecial interest. The Plan recognised
t hat a comprehensive list would take
t ime to prepare and accordingly stated
t he intention to have regard to
b uildings described in various
p ublications when considering
a pplications.
T hese publications were -
O ld Jersey Houses Volumes 1 and 2 - Joan Stevens
B u i ldings in the Town and Parish
o f S t. Helier - C.E.B. Brett
V ic torian Jersey - Marcus Binney a n d Calder Loth
T o w nscape Studies - Island
D ev elopment Committee
T h e Surveys of Parish Treasures
J onathan Ratter was thus appointed to
c onduct, on the Committee's behalf, a
s urvey of all those buildings in the
I sland which might merit designation
a s sites of special interest. He was
r ecommended to us by the Principal
I nspector at English Heritage (The
H istoric Buildings and Monuments Commission for England). He commenced w ork on the survey on 1st May 1987 and
s ubstantially concluded his work at
t he end of 1988.
W hat Mr. Ratter set out to do, and
w hat he achieved, was to identify
t hose buildings which might be
c onsidered suitable for designation as s ites of special interest for their
a rchitectural or historical
i mportance.
H e examined, photographed and
c ommented on some 2,500 structures and g raded them into three categories of
r elative importance, of which those in
G rade 1 are the most important and are
l ikely to be recommended for
d esignation as sites of special
i nterest.''
S upplementary question and a nswer
S enator Rothwell - Would the
P resident accept that Mr. Ratter was h ighly qualified to carry out the task t hat the Committee gave to him?''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - He came to us with a v ery high recommendation from the E nglish Heritage.''
Senator Rothwell Q uestion 2
Would the President explain the
p urpose and functions of the Historic
B uildings Advisory Panel and the Urban D esign Panel and the persons who serve
o n these panels?''
President, Island Development Committee
Article 9(4) of the Island Planning ( Jersey) Law, as amended, requires t hat -
b ef ore making an order under
p a r agraph (1) of this Article, the
C o m mittee shall consult with such p e r sons or bodies of persons as
a p p ear to it appropriate as having s p e cial knowledge of or interest
i n b uildings or places of public
i m p ortance .......'
T he Historic Buildings Advisory Panel
w as established by the Committee to -
( a) assist it in defining the criteria b y which buildings would be
c l as sified;
( b) fulfil the requirement of Article 9 ( 4 ) of the Law.
T he Panel considered the
r ecommendations made by Mr. Jonathan R atter and although for the most part
t hese were accepted, the
r ecommendations the Committee had been r eceiving over the last 12 months on a
p arish by parish basis were those of
t he Panel, rather than Mr. Ratter
h imself.
M embers of the Panel were either
s elected or nominated by bodies such a s the Société Jersiaise and National T rust for Jersey to provide the widest a vailable range of knowledge and
e xpertise on architectural merit and h istoric interest in buildings. It
c omprised -
M r . Maurice Boots - Architect M r . David Barlow - Architect M r . Fred Le Gresley - Chartered S u r veyor
M is s Jean Arthur - Historian
M r . Geoffrey Myers - Architect M r . Dick Le Sueur - Architect M r . Hilary Stuart-Williams -
H is torian
M r . Mike Day - Historian.
T he Urban Design Panel was established b y the Island Development Committee in 1 989 effectively to replace the
A rchitects' Panels which had existed
s ince the Committee came into being in 1 964, but which had had a diminished
r ôle in the 1980s since the Planning
D epartment had appointed an additional a rchitect to advise the Committee on
t he design of proposals made to it.
I ts rôle is therefore somewhat broader t han that of the former Panel and it
h as no specific remit for buildings of a rchitectural or historic interest.
I ts brief is to advise the Committee
o n selected matters of urban design -
w hich we define as the design of
b uildings and other structures as they r elate to surrounding buildings and
s pace. Its members comprise -
M r . Chris Scholefield - Chairman M r . Eric Baker
M r . Marcus Binney
M r . Maurice Boots
M r . Mike Day
M r . Tony Dessain
M r . André Ferrari
M r . A. Layzell
M r . Derek Mason
M r . Rod McLoughlin
M r s. Mary Phillips
M r . Fred Sands
M r . Robin Seymour
M r . Robert Tilling,
e ach of whom, through their
p rofessional or personal interests,
s hare a concern for the quality of the b uilt environment.''
Senator Rothwell Q uestion 3
Is it a fact that on 18th October
1 988, two months before the original
S tates debate on Government House, the H istoric Buildings Advisory Panel
a greed with Mr. Ratter's
r ecommendation that Government House s hould be included on the list of
G rade 1 buildings proposed as sites of
s pecial historical importance?''
President, Island Development Committee
Yes. In his report dated 22nd
N ovember 1988, Jonathan Ratter
c onfirmed that, at its meeting on 18th
O ctober 1988, the Historic Buildings
A dvisory Panel endorsed his
r ecommendations that Government House b e included in the list of Grade 1
b uildings proposed as sites of special
i nterest.''
Senator Rothwell
Q uestion 4
Is it also a fact that in Mr.
R atter's report of 22nd November 1988,
h e stated that members of the Historic
B uildings Advisory Panel, including
s everal architects and a chartered
s urveyor, found it surprising that
G overnment House was beyond economic r epair?''
President, Island Development Committee
The Island Development Committee, on
2 4th November 1988, were presented
w ith the views of Jonathan Ratter and
t he Historic Buildings Advisory Panel
w hich, among other things, included an
e xpression of surprise that the Public
W orks Committee should have
r ecommended demolition which was based
o n its consultant architect's argument
t hat the building had little or no
a rchitectural merit' and that the
b uilding may well have reached the
e nd of its useful life.'
T he Director of the Public Works
D epartment and the consultant
a rchitects Le Sueur and Baker
c onfirmed this view at the same
m eeting and further presented
i nformation from a structural survey w hich in their interpretation
highlighted major defects' in the
b uilding.
T he Committee, faced with this
s eemingly authoritative rebuttal of
t he opinions of Jonathan Ratter and
t he Historic Buildings Advisory Panel,
c hose to accept the advice of the
P ublic Works Department and its
c onsultant architects and to support
t he proposals for a new Government
H ouse. It was only subsequently that
t he Committee had access to further
i nformed and expert opinion from their
r ecently appointed conservation
a rchitect and from research undertaken
b y the Save Government House campaign. T his information confirmed the
h istorical and architectural value of
t he house and allowed a more
c onstructive interpretation of the
c ontents of the structural survey. The C ommittee acted decisively on the new i nformation and without delay
r escinded its earlier decision and
t ook the initiative in bringing a
r escindment motion before the House.''
Senator Rothwell Q uestion 5
Would the President inform the House i f this vital information concerning
t he protection of Government House,
a nd the proposed Grade 1 listing, was
p rovided to the Public Works Committee p rior to the lodging of that
C ommittee's proposition recommending d emolition of Government House?''
President, Island Development Committee
The information concerning the
p rotection of Government House and its
p roposed Grade 1 listing was prepared
b y Jonathan Ratter on 22nd November
1 988. It was presented to the Island
D evelopment Committee on 24th November 1 988. The Public Works Committee made
i ts decision to lodge the report and
p roposition on 18th November, four
d ays before the report was prepared.
I t was therefore not possible to
i nform the Public Works Committee
p rior to the meeting at which it
d ecided to lodge the report and
p roposition.
T he urgency with which the Public
W orks Committee treated the lodging of t he report should be appreciated. The
B ailiff asked for the matter to be
t reated as one of the utmost urgency.
T he Bailiff advised the Public Works
C ommittee, which included that advice
i n its draft report and proposition
w hich my Committee was shown on 24th N ovember, that he must be in a
p osition no later than the end of the
y ear (1988) to tell Her Majesty's
G overnment if any changes are to be
m ade in the accommodation to be
p rovided for the next Lieutenant
G overnor'. Presidents of the Finance
a nd Economics, Public Works and the
I sland Development Committees were
r equested to expedite the process in
t he interests of the Lieutenant
G overnor to minimise inconvenience and d isruption to him.''
S upplementary questions and answers
S enator Rothwell - As the President
h ad previously stated in answer to
q uestion 3, in fact he did actually
a nswer it correctly but there was a
r eport dated 18th October 1988 two
m onths before the actual proposition
w as lodged before the House and a
m onth before the Public Works
C ommittee's report was lodged in the
H ouse recommending Mr. Ratter's
r ecommendation and this recommendation g iven by the Historic Buildings
A dvisory Panel. In view of the answer
g iven by the President to question 5
d id not he or the officers know
s ufficient information from the 18th
O ctober report to pass on to the
P ublic Works Department. Were they not i nformed of Mr. Ratter's report of
1 8th October?''
P resident, Island Development C ommittee - They were not.''
S enator B. Brooke - Would it not
h ave seemed more business like for the
I sland Development Committee knowing t hat the Public Works Committee were w orking on this project to have
i nformed the Public Works Committee of t his listing of this building or this
p roposed listing and not to have
a llowed members of the Public Works
C ommittee to have been left in this
p osition?''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - Hindsight is always a v ery welcome asset, at the time I did n ot.''
Senator Rothwell Q uestion 6
Could the President explain why
d uring the Government House debate of
D ecember 1988 he failed to notify
m embers of the House that Government H ouse had been recommended as a Grade 1 Building?''
President, Island Development Committee
The grading of Government House at t his time was only provisional and
t herefore was considered confidential, a s premature discussion could
p rejudice the proper process as
r equired in Article 9 of the Island
P lanning (Jersey) Law. However, in
v iew of the decision made by the
P ublic Works and Island Development C ommittees in support of the proposal, a s President of the Island Development C ommittee which made the decision, I r egistered the support of the
C ommittee based on the Public Works C ommittee's advice and
r ecommendations. As the Island
D evelopment Committee had neither
d iscussed nor decided its general
p olicy towards proposed Grade 1 listed b uildings and as the question of
l isting the existing building no
l onger formed part of the issue I made n o reference to it in the debate.''
S upplementary questions and answers
S enator Rothwell - Would not the
P resident agree that in taking the
i nitiative in bringing Mr. Ratter over
f or a specific purpose, that is to
r ecommend listed buildings, that the
I sland Development Committee and Mr. R atter must feel very despondent and
t he public generally, if two of the
b est known buildings, and we will come t o the other one later, the first one
G overnment House, one of the best
k nown buildings on the Island, you
a gree to demolish before you have an
o pportunity to recommend yay or nay, d o you think that's the best way to
p roceed for any Committee?''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - My Committee is
s atisfied that it conducted its
a ffairs in the proper manner as I have s aid in answer to question 6 any
l isting was only provisional and my C ommittee had not followed or had not d iscussed the listing of buildings per
s e.''
S enator Brooke - Subsequently now, p resumably the Island Development C ommittee has discussed listing, are a ll buildings currently listed subject
t o an embargo on development now?''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - They are not and they
w ill not be under any embargo. It's
n ot an embargo as the Senator has
e xplained, a listing does not stop any
d evelopment on that building but that
i s a matter for discussion on a future
o ccasion when the Island Development C ommittee will bring forward proposals f or the listing of buildings. Until
s uch time that this House agrees to
t he proposals of listing then there is
n o embargo on any buildings on the
I sland.''
S enator Rothwell - But does not the
P resident agree that for the purpose
o f ensuring the public are well served
b y its elected representatives that
t his vital piece of information should
n ot have been denied to this
l egislature in making a decision
w hether to demolish Government House
o r not?''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - Those proposals to list G overnment House were not before my C ommittee at the crucial time.''
S enator D.A. Carter - I understood t he President to say whether it was a w eek ago or a fortnight ago, or four w eeks ago that the owners of soon to b e listed or prospective listed
b uildings, each owner had been
c ontacted by the Island Development C ommittee by letter and had in effect b een given the information that their b uilding was a proposed list and that t herefore sympathetic schemes would h ave to be brought forward if those
p roperties were ever developed. Is it r ight that in fact without having an
o fficial list the Committee has been w riting to owners of buildings on the proposed list and telling them that t heir buildings are going to have to b e preserved?''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - The listing process was
t hat any property that was proposed as a possible listing the owner of that
p roperty would have been written to or s hould have been written to and
a dvised that it was proposed that the
p ossible listing of that property
w ould take place and they had a
s tatutory length of time to reply to
that letter before anything went
f orward. No way are we anywhere near t hat situation and it is most
u nfortunate that the media through
s urreptitious means got a list of
p roposed sites of special interest. It
i s unfortunate but we can't stop those
t hings happening, they have a way of
h appening and my Committee is not far e nough down that avenue where people w ill be told you cannot do this with
y our property.''
S enator Carter - Was such a letter s ent to the owner of this building, P ublic Works?''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - I would want notice of
t hat because I do not know, and I do
n ot want to mislead the House in any
w ay. If there was a letter sent to the
P ublic Works Department then I am not a ware but it might have been but I can
f ind that answer out for the Senator
i n due course.''
S enator Rothwell - Would the
P resident agree, this is for the
i nformation of the House, that Mr.
R atter was especially invited to a
m eeting of the Island Development
C ommittee to explain his views on
G overnment House prior to the debate
a nd furthermore in view of answers
a lready given by the President, is he
s aying then that the member of the
I sland Development Committee who also s erves on Public Works was sworn to
s ecrecy about this possible Grade 1
l isting?''
D eputy H.H. Baudains - Senator
R othwell is obviously referring to me
a s the special member on both. I was
n ot sworn to secrecy, we had not at
t he time (Public Works) discussed the b uilding, to my recollection been told
i t was a proposed Grade 1 listed
b uilding. We had not received a report f rom Mr. Ratter in Island Development C ommittee at the time Public Works
w ere discussing it, as far as my
k nowledge goes. It is very difficult
s erving on two Committees in the same C ommittee room without referring back t o Minutes to remember exactly what
h appened when. But my recollection is t hat we hadn't been told and I think
t hat the answers support that, that
J ohnathan Ratter's report hadn't been
s ubmitted to the Island Development
C ommittee until November and Public W orks were discussing it in October.''
S enator Rothwell - I appreciate what t he Vice-President is saying, would he a lso accept that the officers of the
I sland Development Committee would k now and would have advised the
C ommittee?''
D eputy Baudains - In November, but n ot in October".
Q uestion 7 - Withdrawn. Senator Rothwell
Q uestion 8
Could the President inform the House
o f the actual date his Committee
i ssued a planning permit to the owners
o f the Ritz Hotel site and what
b uildings were proposed in the
a pproved application?''
President, Island Development Committee
The first approach the Planning
D epartment received for development on t his site was in August 1985, when the
M odern Hotels Group was considering
t he acquisition of the freehold of the
R itz Hotel on which they had a
l easehold interest until 1997. The
c ompany sought to demolish the Ritz
H otel, to extend the Metropole Hotel
w hich adjoins it by approximately 65
r ooms and to construct offices on the
r esidue of the site. The meeting was
c onfirmed by a letter from the Group's
a rchitect which was considered by the
C ommittee on 30th September 1985
( nearly 10 months before Volume 2 of
t he Island Plan was published and over
t wo years before it was approved),
w hen it was decided that a scheme like
t hat proposed would not be acceptable
t o the Committee because it did not
f avour the office content. The
C ommittee would have preferred to have s een housing at the eastern end of the
s ite, but accepted that the commercial
r ealities would preclude its sole use
f or this purpose. It was suggested
t hat the company investigate the
v iability of a mixed development
c omprising shopping and offices with
r esidential accommodation above.
O n the strength of this advice, the
c ompany decided to acquire the
f reehold (probably at some time in
1 986). Subsequent meetings between the
o wners and the Planning Department
c onfirmed that a development wholly
f or offices at the eastern end of the
s ite would be unacceptable.
A n application for planning permission w as registered on 20th October 1987
f or the -
d em olition of existing hotel and s ta f f quarters and construction of n e w bedrooms with kitchens and p u b lic bar adjoining Hotel
M e tropole. Construction of four f lo o rs of office accommodation w it h car parking at the Ritz
H o tel.'
T his application was refused
p ermission on 19th January 1988 for t he following reasons -
1 . The proposal would involve the i n tr o d uction of an office use
o n la n d not identified for
t h a t p urpose and would
t h e re f ore be contrary to
P o l ic y CM12 of the Island
P l a n .
2 . The proposals do not contain
a d e q u ate parking provision to
m e et t he standards of the
I s la n d Development Committee.'
D iscussions followed with the
a rchitects and the applicants on what t he Committee might be prepared to a llow on the Ritz Hotel site bearing
i n mind that the company wished to f inance extensions and upgrading of t he Metropole Hotel which adjoins it, a nd other hotel properties owned by t he Group. A sketch scheme was
p roduced which indicated a mixed
d evelopment comprising -
2 0 , 000 square feet of retail
f lo o rspace
3 0 , 000 square feet of residential f lo o rspace
5 0 , 000 square feet of office
f lo o rspace.
T his scheme was put to the Island
D evelopment Committee on 15th December 1 988 for its preliminary consideration
p rior to a new application being
s ubmitted. The Committee accepted the
m ix of development in principle
a lthough expressing concern about some
o f the design aspects of the sketch
p roposals, which became the subject of
f urther discussion between the
a rchitects and the Planning Department
p rior to the submission of a second
p lanning application, registered on
2 2nd March 1989 for -
a m ixed development of self- c a te ring, retail and offices with u n d erground parking .........'
S pecifically, the proposals c omprised -
se l f-catering tourist
ac c o mmodation 17,886 square
fe e t ( 1 5 % )
re s idential accommodation 17,190 sq u ar e feet ( 1 3 %)
o ff ices 5 6 , 1 57 square
fe e t ( 5 0 % )
re t ail and associated
u se s 2 4 ,6 8 2 square fe e t ( 2 2 % )
T he Committee decided to grant
p lanning permission on 11th May 1989, a nd a permit was issued on 23rd June
o nce certain technical matters had
b een cleared.
I have answered the question in this
w ay to demonstrate to the Senator and t o members of the House that
d iscussions on development proposals e merge over a period of time (what the F inance and Economics Committee call t heir pipeline' sites) and in that
e volution my Committee, in the
i nterests of good government, seeks to t ake a fair and consistent line. It is
n ot appropriate for the Committee to
c hange its mind every time the
p olitical mood changes.
I n 1985 and 1986 when the first
d iscussions took place and the
C ommittee gave advice, there was no
a pproved Island Plan, there was no
m oratorium on office development and
t here was no evidence of a willingness
o n the part of the Finance and
E conomics Committee or the States to
p ay exorbitant sums to acquire
c ommercial sites for housing. Indeed,
i n 1987 my Committee had to persuade
t he Finance and Economics Committee to a ccept that Policy CM12 should be
i ncluded in the Island Plan. That
C ommittee at the time felt that it was
t oo restrictive, and fettered the
d evelopment of the Island's financial
s ector.
S ince the Island Plan was approved by t he States, the Committee has applied i t fairly and consistently. Policy
C M12 of the Island Plan reads as
f ollows -
T h e location of new office
d e v elopment will generally be
r e st ricted to the defined areas of
t h e town of St. Helier where
p r o posals will be considered on
t h ei r merits. Development outside t h e defined areas will normally be r e si sted.'
T he use of the words generally and
n ormally and the phrase proposals will b e considered on their merits are most s ignificant. They reflect the fact
t hat the Committee has a duty under
t he law to exercise discretion on each
a nd every application. This was
c onfirmed in a letter from H.M.
A ttorney General to the Planning
D epartment last July in which he cites W ade, Administrative Law, 5th Edition w here at page 330 it says -
A n authority can fail to give its
m in d to a case, and thus fail to
e x e rcise its discretion lawfully,
b y blindly following a policy laid d o w n in advance.'
O n 22nd August 1989, I made a
s tatement to this House, under the
h eading Office Development', in which I attended to the above points, and
a lso described the way in which the
C ommittee has exercised the discretion i nferred in Policy CM12 since it was
a pproved by the States at the end of
1 987. In addition to the requirement
t o consider the merits of each case, I
l isted five circumstances in which my C ommittee might be minded to grant
p ermission for office development
o utside the defined area. They
i ncluded, among others -
(d ) w here opportunities exist fo r p l an n ing gain' by
al l o w i n g new office use
as p a rt o f a mixed
d ev e l o p m ent on the site
w h i ch i n cludes the
p ro v i s io n of new housing u n it s a n d environmental
im p ro v e m ents.'
I do not recall any objection from
m embers of the House when I made that s tatement. The facts of the Ritz Hotel
c ase are that -
1 . The Committee indicated to the a p p licant as far back as 1985 that t h er e was a case to allow office
d e v elopment as part of a mixed d e v elopment.
2 . The approved plans reflect the f o ll owing benefits -
( a ) a substantial improvement to t h e M etropole Hotel in the
i n te r e sts of the tourist
i n d u st ry;
( b ) a more attractive development a t t h is gateway to the town;
( c ) the provision of 28
r e si d e ntial units on a
c o m m ercial site where none
p r e v io usly existed (other than a s h o t el staff accommodation);
( d ) underground car parking for 71 c a r s.
M embers should recall that this House a pproved the purchase of commercial s ites for housing, almost regardless
o f cost, as recently as four weeks
a go. The permission pre-dates the
o ffice moratorium' of the Finance and E conomics Committee; it accords with t he policy that my Committee had
f ollowed since the Island Plan was
a pproved; and pre-dates my statement t o the House indicating what that
P olicy was.
T he permission was the culmination of n early four years of negotiations with
t he owners of the site and their
a rchitects, and was thus, in the
p arlance of the Finance and Economics C ommittee, in the pipeline'.
T o have withheld permission as a
d evice to reduce the value of a site
w hich the States might, some nine
m onths later, decide to acquire would, i n view of the negotiations that had
t aken place over four years, have been a gross and iniquitous abuse of the
I sland Planning Law.
I should like to make two additional p oints in concluding this answer.
F irst, it was said in the debate on
2 7th February quite pointedly, that
t he States were being asked to pay out
c onsiderable sums to buy back the
p ieces of paper that the Island
D evelopment Committee had issued'. Do n ot forget that the proposals for the
R itz Hotel allow for the construction
o f 28 units of residential
a ccommodation. The estimated yield of t he site wholly for housing is 34
u nits (albeit two-bedroom as distinct
f rom one-bedroom). The States have
e ffectively agreed to pay over #5
m illion for an increase of six housing
u nits plus the cost of building them.
P erhaps the House will appreciate my c oncern at the Policy and Resources C ommittee's proposition.
S econd, even had my Committee not
i ssued a planning permit, the first
t hing that the valuers of both sides
w ould have done (in the absence of
s uch a permit) is to write to the
I sland Development Committee asking
w hat development it would have
a pproved on this site had the States
n ot wished to purchase it. In the
l ight of its decisions of 30th
S eptember 1985 and 15th December 1988, i t would be bound to say that it would
b e minded to approve a development
a lmost identical to that which has
s ince been formally permitted.''
S upplementary questions and answers
S enator Rothwell - Would not the
P resident agree that although he gives v arious dates and four years before
n egotiations were completed, etc. that
i n the Island Plan Volume 2 plans and p olicies approved by this House he
s tates that for its part the Island
D evelopment Committee is limiting the p hysical opportunities for office
d evelopment and by process of
e xclusion removing the hope value of
s ites outside the defined office
a reas. That's in 1987. Would he not
a gree that that would convey the
i mpression to States' members and the g eneral public that we were taking a
t ough line and not giving hope value
t o sites outside the office areas and,
f urthermore, would the President not
a lso further agree that in planning
t erms under Article 2 the purpose of
t he Law is to ensure that land is used
i n a manner serving the best interests
o f the community. Now can that be said t o be true if you agree to the
c reation of banking halls and retail
s hops, therefore creating more
o pportunities for employment at a time c learly when the whole Island and the S tates in particular agree they must
b e going completely in the opposite
d irection?''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - I am sad to note that
t he Senator has failed to grasp the
r eading of the answer to his question. B ecause I think that what he is
q uerying now is adequately explained i n my answer and perhaps if he has got f urther questions on that he might
c ome to me perhaps at a future meeting
o f this House once he has been able to r esearch and assimilate what I have
s aid and be able to research and come b ack to me and I would be happy to
e xplain any points but I am absolutely c onfident that my Committee acted
a bsolutely correctly at all times.''
S enator Rothwell - Are we to take
i t that in strict planning terms we
a re to expect from the Island
D evelopment Committee the continuation
o f allowing office sites to be
a ccepted by that Committee
i rrespective of the moratorium, and
r etail shops irrespective of the fact
t hat we are all trying to curb
i mmigration, and at a time when we are
a ctually in desperate need of housing
s ites and, furthermore, why did he not
a s the President of the Island
D evelopment Committee along with his C ommittee take the initiative knowing
f ull well what the climate of opinion
w as to acquire those sites long before
i ssuing those permits on behalf of the
p ublic?''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - That last statement is b ecause it wasn't the flavour of the m onth, wasn't acquisition of
c ommercial sites in the town of that
v alue to acquire for house building.
T hat was why we did not consider it
a nd perhaps in the longterm the policy
o f my Committee not to acquire them
w asn't a policy not to acquire them
t he fact that we did not acquire them
m ight show that we were allowing some c ommercial sizeable property to remain i n St. Helier as opposed to coming
c ompletely all residential.''
S enator Rothwell - Can we expect t hen because of the strict association w ith planning laws as he sees it we c an expect more office development p roposals to be accepted by that
C ommittee and more retail shops,
e tc.?''
P resident, Island Committee
C ommittee - My Committee is not
e ntertaining applications for office
d evelopment outside any area and
c onsidering that policy where Finance
a nd Economics have got a moratorium on t he building of office development we
h ave close co-operation with the two
c ommittees and there is no fear that
u nrealistic office development will
t ake place.''
S enator Rothwell - Is he then
s aying that he is abandoning the pure
p lanning law as he sees it and
a ccepting the views of the Policy and R esources Committee and this House?''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - I'm not saying that at a ll. The planning law will apply and w e will receive and deliberate on all a pplications that come before us.''
S enator Carter - I am interested in t his pipeline defence. It seems to me, a nd I would like the President to
c onfirm, that what he effectively
s eems to be saying is that the
d ecision of his Committee to actually f inally grant the planning permission i n 1989 might by that time possibly h ave been a little inconsistent with
o ther States' decisions at the time
b ut that in fact the real decision was t aken back in 1985 and is the
P resident really then saying that once h is Committee has suggested that a
c ertain type of commercial scheme is a cceptable then that is then binding
o n the Committee subsequently and it c an't then in fact give due
c onsideration to each plan it has to
i n effect be bound by its previous
i ndication that a certain use was
a cceptable. Is that what he is telling u s?''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - I would be delighted for t he Attorney General to confirm what I h ave been saying in statements to the H ouse and in this answer.''
H .M. Attorney General - The duty of t he Island Development Committee as t he Royal Court has found on a number
o f occasions is to consider the
a pplication which is made to it, to
a pply the application to its terms of
r eference under the law and to reach a r easoned and consistent decision. If
t he Committee makes an in principle
d ecision with regard to a particular
s ite or to a particular application
t hat is clearly a very important
f actor when it comes to reconsider the m atter in two or three years time, and
i f the Committee reaches one decision i n 1985 and a different decision in
1 988 it is not unlikely that in
r elation to that matter the Royal
C ourt would find that the Committee
h as been acting inconsistently and
u nreasonably. Now clearly there are
m atters of degree to be taken into
a ccount in every such factor and the
l onger the period of time which has
e lapsed since an indication was given
t he greater the possibility there is
t hat the Committee can properly having r egard perhaps to debates which have
t aken place in the House, take a
d ifferent view in relation to a
p articular area, but it really is not
p ossible to be specific to any greater
e xtent than that because every case
o bviously depends on its own
p articular circumstances.''
S enator Carter - I have got a
f urther question for the Attorney
G eneral. I notice the Committee in its
r eply to question 6 when it said why
d id it keep the listing of Government
H ouse confidential or secret, said the
p remature discussion could prejudice
t he proper process as required in the
I sland Planning Law. Now what the
P resident has been telling us is that
i n 1985 the Committee, without
r eceiving an official application but
i n exchange of letters, indicated that
t here might be a viable mixed
d evelopment, it goes on later in the
d ay to say that an exchange of letters
i n 1987 this will come later, the
C ommittee prepared a planning brief
f or the Channel Television site and so what it seems to me the Committee has b een doing for the last ten years or
w hatever is exchanging letters with
p otential developers which it and
p resumably the Attorney General then f inds are virtually binding upon the
C ommittee at a subsequent decision but w ithout publishing, which they are
r equired to do by law, any plan which g ives the opportunity for neighbours
o r indeed anyone else affected to
o bject to the proposed development.
N ow this seems to me to be far more
p rejudicial to the proper process of
t he Island Planning Law than anything t o do with releasing listings of
G overnment House. I would like the
A ttorney General to tell me - is it
o pen now to a potential developer,
r ather than submitting an official
p lanning application which requires
p ublication in the Jersey Evening Post a nd thus alerts his neighbours to the
p otential development, to merely
e xchange letters with the Committee or a sk the Committee to prepare a
p lanning brief and if he receives that
p lanning brief saying that he can
q uadruple the size of his pig farm for
e xample, that that's likely to be
a lright by the Committee, then
s ubsequently no matter what the
n eighbour says the Committee would
c onsider itself bound by that previous
i ndication?'
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - My Committee does not h ave a statutory need or requirement t o publish all the applications that
c ome before it. We have some 4,000 a pplications a year and out
o f due deference to the community we p ublish some of them that we feel
m ight be of interest, but we are not
b ound by the law in publishing any
a pplications that come before it.
T here is no need by law, we do it as a m atter of courtesy.''
S enator R.R. Jeune - Is it a fact t hat it is a matter of courtesy, I
t hought it had been agreed by this H ouse?''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - It is a matter of
c ourtesy and I would be happy to
d iscuss it at length with the Senator.
I made a statement that we would no
l onger be publishing the small sort of c hange of window or putting a
d ownstairs toilet, etc. we would not
b e publishing those in future but
s tatutorily we are not obliged to and
p erhaps former Presidents of the
I sland Development Committee would c onfirm that situation?''
S enator P.F. Horsfall - I think it
w as the situation until we had a
d ebate, I think, when Deputy de la
H aye brought an amendment asking that e ven amendments to applications be
p ublished and the House then decided
t hat everything would be published
i ncluding amendments, so I'm not sure w here that leaves the earlier policy
b ut certainly one time it was not
b inding on the Committee to publish,
s o I suspect now it probably is.
I appreciate what has been said about t he pipeline business in 1985, what I d on't understand is that on 19th
J anuary 1988 according to the reply, t he application was refused for the
f ollowing reasons -
1. the proposals would involve the
i n tr oduction of an office use on l a nd not identified for that
p u r pose and would therefore be c o n trary to Policy CM2 of the
I s la nd Plan.'
T hat was in 1988 and I assume
t herefore that the slate had been kept
c lean until that point in time. If the
C ommittee was able to refuse the
a pplication in 1988 because of the
i ntroduction of office accommodation w hy are we now saying that they had a c ommitment right back to 1985?''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - As far as my Committee i s concerned there had been valid
n egotiations between the officers of
t he Department and the applicants. We s o carried on discussing and saying
t his is not right, as the Senator will
k now, these negotiations go on for a
v ery long time and what was there
f ormerly is changed and it's a degree
o f negotiation that answers and
a chieves a final application. I can
o nly say that what eventually came
b efore my Committee was acceptable to m y Committee and to my officers.''
S enator Carter - Again reading that
p articular history, will the President
c onfirm that the application for
p lanning permission on 20th October
1 987 was published, and it was an
o fficial application and considered by
t he Committee, and it was published
b efore being refused in January, but
h owever, the scheme put to the Island
D evelopment Committee on 15th December 1 988 was one of these discussion
s chemes, it was not published and that
t he Committee at that time it says
h ere accepted the mix of development
i n principle and then will have come a
s econd planning application which
p resumably did go through official
c hannels and was published on 22nd
M arch 1989. So yet again we have a
s ituation where you have two published
s chemes but in the meantime the actual
a pproval has been given to one which
p resumably was not published?''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - I would want notice of
t hat because I can't remember whether
t hat application was advertised or
n ot. If it was a formal application
t hat came before my Committee it would h ave been advertised in the Jersey E vening Post.''
S enator Carter - To assist the
P resident it says this scheme was put
t o the Island Development Committee on 1 5th December 1988 for its preliminary c onsideration prior to a new
a pplication being submitted. The
C ommittee accepted the mix of
d evelopment in principle.''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - I would like to have a
l ook at this. To give a factual reply
t o the Senator it is not fair to
t hrow that at me without me having the
o pportunity of researching because I
d o not want to give misleading
i nformation.''
S enator Brooke - The statement here
a n authority can fail to give its mind
t o a case and thus fail to exercise
i ts discretion lawfully by blindly
f ollowing a policy laid down in
a dvance. Now could I ask the
P resident, the policy that was set out
a nd which was accepted by this House for the containment of office
d evelopment is one which I assumed was g oing to be rigorously applied, do I
a ssume that any discussion with those
a bout to apply for planning permits
p rior to the Island Development
C ommittee's policy being accepted will n egate that, that they can go on
b ecause the slate was not in fact
w iped clean at all?''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - I would refer the
S enator to CM12 - the location of new
o ffice development will generally be
r estricted to defined areas of St.
H elier where proposals will be
c onsidered on their merit. Development
o utside the defined areas will
n ormally be resisted. That is quite
c orrect they would be normally
r esisted, but if there was a planning
g ain and we were going to have 28 one- b edroomed flats in this development
t hen it's all weighed up in the
i nterests of the community and there
w ere not 28 flats before that
application came to my Committee.''
S enator Brooke - In other words a 7 0 per cent retail and office
d evelopment would be considered a cceptable because of the minute
r esidential gain?''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - It was considered
a cceptable at the time that we made
o ur decision''.
S enator Rothwell - I think it's
v ery important, this question of
p ublication in the Jersey Evening Post b ecause the public are certainly led
t o believe it is a requirement. In
v iew of what the President has said,
u nless it can be substantiated that it
i s not a legal requirement, would the P resident come back to this House and e nsure that it is made a legal
r equirement and furthermore until that t ime and perhaps even so, would he
p lease ensure that he is more careful
a bout the way in which letters are
w ritten to would be developers?''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - My Committee will
c onsider the Senator's comments and if i t so feels that it is right for the
c ommunity will come back to this
H ouse.''
S enator C. Stein - Would not the P resident of the Island Development C ommittee agree that a decision was m ade in this House that if
a pplications were renewed that they w ould be published again because I a sked for that proposition and I won t hat debate?''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - If the plans are changed i n any way on a major application they a re again published in the Evening
P ost by courtesy of my Committee.''
D eputy M.C. Buesnel - Is the
P resident satisfied that he has enough d iscretion in using the planning law
t o use it in the best interests of the p ublic and if he is not satisfied that h e has that discretion, will he come t o the House to change the law?''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - I thank Deputy Buesnel f or his comments and I am satisfied
t hat the planning law gives us all the p owers that are needed to develop or n ot develop the Island for the best
i nterest of the community.''
Senator Rothwell Q uestion 9
Could the President give the actual d ate a planning permit was issued to t he owners of the Channel Television s ite, Rouge Bouillon?''
President, Island Development Committee
Again, it is inappropriate to give a s imple answer to this superficially s imple question without explaining s ome of the background to this site.
I n June 1987, I received a letter from
t he (then) Managing Director of
C hannel Television Limited asking what u ses the Committee would allow the
CTV site' to be put, as the company
n eeded to sell the site to part-
f inance its move to La Pouquelaye.
T he Committee considered the matter at i ts meeting on 15th June 1987, and
r ecognised that in terms of the Use
C lasses (Jersey) Regulations the use
w as unique - there being no use class
t o describe television studios. The
C ommittee thus turned to the way in
w hich the site was used and concluded t hat the use was predominantly an
o ffice use and effectively the site
h ad an established use for this
p urpose. Accordingly, the Committee
a pproved a brief at that meeting
p repared in the Planning Department
o utlining the development potential
f or offices (at a plot ratio of
1 .5:1 - gross floorspace to site area w hich is much lower than we would a llow in the town centre).
T he brief was forwarded to Channel
T elevision Limited, and as far as I am a ware, became part of the sale
p articulars when the company sought to d ispose of the site. That was three
y ears ago.
O ur files show a copy of a letter from t he Chairman of CTV to the (then)
P resident of the Public Works
C ommittee, dated 3rd August 1987,
o ffering a first option to the States
t o acquire the site, and a file note
i ndicating that the Planning
D epartment considered that the site w ould be appropriate either for
h ousing or for a new Magistrates'
C ourt. I do not know why the offer
f rom CTV was not taken up by the
P ublic Works Committee of the day.
A n application to demolish the
b uildings and construct an office
b uilding broadly in accordance with my C ommittee's brief was made on 20th May 1 988 on behalf of the new owners of
t he site, but was refused permission
o n 31st August 1988 primarily on
d esign grounds and the adverse effect
i t would have on adjoining properties,
b ut not on the principle of its use
f or offices.
A further application for planning
p ermission was made by prospective
p urchasers of the site on 1st March
1 989 - again for office development,
b ut this time wholly within the
p arameters of the Committee's brief. A p lanning permit was issued on 2nd June 1 989 following the Committee's
c onsideration of the application on
1 st June 1989.
I will remind members that commitment t o office use on this site was made by
t he Committee on 15th June 1987.''
S upplementary questions and answers
S enator Rothwell - There would be no d oubt that separate discussions as to
w hether or not the primary purpose of
C hannel Television site was office
u se. On the contrary it was
p redominantly to provide television
p rogrammes and transmit those
p rogrammes. Why did not the Island
D evelopment Committee really show the i nitiative in pure planning terms to
r estore this site to residential use
i n a predominantly residential area?''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - It is not for me, or it
i s not for my Committee to decide that w e would acquire the property for
h ousing. It is either for the Public Works Committee that looks after the I sland's property or the Housing
C ommittee and at the time that that
p roperty was offered to us we could
h ave bought it but it was turned down a s not being suitable for the
I sland.''
S enator Rothwell - Could the
P resident not explain what the #11
m illion that he is given for site
a cquisition is, if he is not in a
p osition to buy sites or come to this H ouse to get extra money to buy sites, a fter all Policy and Resources did
a cquire that site?''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - Yes. Because they were t he flavour of the month and that was j ust a few months ago that
n egotiations took place but at the
t ime we could have bought property in 1 987 that was not the case.''
S enator Carter - Could the President
e xplain the last sentence where he
s ays that he reminds members that
c ommitment to office use on this site
w as made by the Committee on 15th June 1 987, would he confirm that by reading
t he body of the reply again this so
c alled commitment is not in fact the
c onsideration by the Committee of
e ither a planning application or a
d evelopment application but again is
a n exchange of confidential letters
a nd that no one would have had the
o pportunity to know anything about
i t?''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - The Senator is not aware t hat owners of property, developers of p roperty, acquirers of property come
t o the Planning Department day in and d ay out and discuss various properties w ith our officers, this is an on going
t hing and you can't stop it because it
i s reasonable for an owner, acquirer,
o r developer to have an indication
f rom the planning authority of the
I sland as to what could be developed
o n that site. At that time, my
C ommittee made the decision that it
w ould be prepared to allow a development of offices which was
p redominantly the office use of that
s ite. Senator Rothwell said that we
h ad the #11 million, why didn't we go
o ut and buy, we didn't have #11
m illion to go and buy it, we've done
i t now but at the time in 1987 my
C ommittee did not have #11 million to g o and buy property for housing.''
S enator Horsfall - On this question
o f use classes, could I ask the
P resident and I'm not in any way on
t his occasion criticising him because I blame myself as much as anybody
e lse, this use classes business has
c ome up as being too restrictive by
c ommittee after committee in Senator S henton's time, in my time, and every t ime we say we will revise the use
c lasses but none of us ever do for
s ome reason or other. Could he in fact t ell us whether he is intending to
r evise the use classes?''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - On the third presidency, I 'm pleased to tell the Senator that
w e are indeed studying a complete
r evision of the use classes and that
w ill come into force I trust in the
n ot too far distance.''
Senator Rothwell Q uestion 10
As the President is also a member of t he Policy and Resources Committee a nd, therefore, completely aware of
t hat Committee's intentions to
r ecommend the acquisition of urban
c ommercial sites for States' housing, c ould he explain to the House whether t his information was imparted to
m embers of his Island Development C ommittee?''
President, Island Development Committee
Of course it was, but remember that
t he commitments on the Ritz Hotel and C hannel Television sites were made
b efore Policy and Resources Committee f irst discussed the acquisition of
c ommercial sites.
T he policy emanates from the Island
P lan, although it has to be said that
a t no time did the Island Plan
c onsultants, or the Committee or
S tates of the day, envisage the
a cquisition of such expensive pieces
o f real estate to achieve this end.
T he Committee and the Department has w orked closely with the Policy and
R esources Committee and its officers
i n providing information and
d etermining the uses to which it
w ould be likely to agree' for
v aluation purposes on the various
s ites that were being considered for
a cquisition.''
S upplementary question and answer
S enator Rothwell - Would the
P resident agree though that by giving p lanning permission he increased
a stronomically the value of the
s ites?''
P resident, Island Development
C ommittee - I would not agree.''
Senator Rothwell Q uestion 11
In issuing these permits is the
P resident satisfied that his Committee a cted in a manner serving the best
i nterests of the community?''
President, Island Development Committee Without a doubt, yes.''
Cable television. Questions and answers
Senator Richard Joseph Shenton asked Senator John William Ellis, President of
the Telecommunications Board, the following questions -
Q uestion 1
Will the President inform the House a s to when his Committee will be
m aking a decision with regard to the c ontract for cable television?''
President, Telecommunications Board
The involvement of the
T elecommunications Board with cable t elevision arises from Article (2) of
t he Telecommunications Jersey Law. T his article ensures that the running
o f a television system using cables
r equires a licence from the Board. The s ame Law, in Article 4 exempts
b roadcasting authorities, both
t elevision and sound, from the need
f or a licence if, as they do, they
b roadcast by means of wireless
t elegraphy or radio waves as it is
c ommonly called.
W hen full scale, i.e. 30 or more
c hannels, cable television was
p roposed for the island, the Board
t ook the view that it was not the
a ppropriate body to licence or control s uch a service. Clearly, when the law h ad been drafted, cable television had n ot been considered, and would have b een given the same exemption as
t elevision if it had. It was seen by
t he Board from the outset, that its
r ôle as a potential provider of duct
s pace or cables, would be inconsistent w ith the rôle of controlling body and l icensing authority.
F urthermore, the Board believes that b ecause of the fundamental effect of f ull scale cable television on the
i sland a regulatory body with
s upporting legislation should be
a ppointed by the States. Accordingly, t he Board prepared a draft on which s uch legislation might be based and
s ent it to the Greffier of the States
o n 20th January 1986.
S ubsequently, it became clear that any l icensee running a cable television
s ystem might wish to become a
c ompetitor of the Board in the
p rovision of selected
t elecommunications services, and the B oard's rôle as regulator became even m ore inappropriate.
T he Board is still of the firm opinion t hat it should be taken out of the
s phere of the cable television, and
t hat a regulatory body should be
e stablished together with supporting l egislation.
T he House should note that the
e xisting regulations in the United
K ingdom will shortly be replaced by a n ew Broadcasting Bill, which in part c ould be used as a model for a Jersey l aw.
T he Board has already sought the a dvice of Her Majesty's Attorney G eneral on the issue of cable
t elevision, and will consider this a dvice at its next meeting on 30th M arch.
I will report to the House at the f irst Sitting after that meeting.''
Senator Shenton Q uestion 2
Is the President aware that the
d elay by the States in coming to a
d ecision is denying the consumer the r ight of free choice and an improved s ervice?''
President, Telecommunications Board
The delay is not of the Board's c hoosing.''
Wholesale newsagency business and monopolies legislation. Questions and answers
Senator Richard Joseph Shenton asked Senator Reginald Robert Jeune , President of the Policy and Resources Committee, the following questions -
Q uestion 1
Will the President inform the House w hether his Committee views with
c oncern the recent move by the
J ersey Evening Post to enter the
w holesale newsagency business?''
President, Policy and Resources Committee
It is not exactly clear from the
S enator's question why he believes my
C ommittee should view with concern the r ecent move by the Jersey Evening
P ost to enter the wholesale newsagency
b usiness. I assume the concern is that
t he change from the current situation,
w here it is understood one company is
t he sole distributor of national
n ewspapers in the Island, will be
d etrimental to the best interests of
I sland residents as purchasers of
t hose newspapers. To date my Committee h as had no representations made to it
i n this respect, but should such
r epresentations be made I can assure
t he Senator they will be fully
c onsidered.''
S upplementary question and answer
S enator Shenton - I'm sure the
P resident will accept my view as a
r epresentation of the concern and I stress the concern in the matter of
f ree speech. For some time now I am
s ure that the President must be aware
t hat the Jersey Evening Post has been
b uying up independent retail outlets
a nd restricting the delivery of its
o wn newspapers at the same time buying u p other journals in the Island and
m agazines and would it not be
s omething that this government should v iew with concern bearing in mind that i n matters regarding broadcasting or
j ournalism there are certain criteria
e stablished to ensure that the public
i s not put in a position where they
a re presented with news from a sole
s ource and indeed the effect on
a dvertising and the competition that
w ould ensue is also affected somewhat b y this position?''
P resident, Policy and Resources
C ommittee - The question of news
b eing presented from a sole source
d oes not arise in this Island. This is
t he distribution of it. I think what
the Senator is asking is contained in
t he other answers relating to
m onopolies legislation which is a
c omplicated business but at the end of
t he day is a matter of deciding
a s I understand it what is in the
i nterests of the public as a whole,
n ot an easy matter, but is something
w ith which this House and the Senator a s a member of the Policy and
R esources Committee as I say we could w ell address but perhaps it would be
a s well if we went on with the other
q uestions and answers and then he
m ight wish to return to
s upplementaries at the end.''
Senator Shenton Q uestion 2
Will the President confirm that the m onopolies legislation should be
u pdated to safeguard small local
b usinesses from being taken over by l arge corporate companies?''
President, Policy and Resources Committee
The Senator asks that the monopolies l egislation should be updated.
H owever, at the present time the
I sland has no such legislation. In
1 987 the Policy Advisory Committee
p resented a report and proposition to
t he States on property speculation and
m onopolies. On the subject of
m onopolies the Committee obtained the v iews of Sir Godfray Le Quesne Q.C.
w ho at that time was Chairman of the M onopolies and Mergers Commission in t he United Kingdom and, as such, spoke w ith vast experience of these matters.
T he Policy Advisory Committee
r ecommended that legislation should be p repared which would enable a
C ommittee to refer a possible monopoly s ituation to a panel of persons
n ominated by the States to investigate
a nd, if such a situation was found to
e xist to the detriment of the public
i nterest, for the appropriate remedies
t o be recommended and enforced. That p roposition was adopted by the States
o n 5th May 1987 and the Policy
A dvisory Committee at its meeting on
1 st June 1987 requested the Law
D raftsman to prepare the necessary
d raft legislation to give effect to
t he recommendation.
W hether monopolies legislation would s afeguard small local businesses from b eing taken over by larger local
b usinesses would of course depend on h ow the public interest is
i nterpreted. The wider public interest a nd the interests of small local
b usinesses would not necessarily be
o ne and the same.
A s a member of the Policy and
R esources Committee the Senator will k now of the current backlog of
l egislation. The drafting of
m onopolies legislation has been
d elayed because of a shortage of law
d rafting resources and pressure for
o ther legislation which has been
c onsidered to have a higher priority.
T he capacity of the law drafting
s ection has now been enhanced, and as t he Senator knows the relative
p riorities of the legislation that is
i n the pipeline is something that the
P olicy and Resources Committee is in
t he process of reviewing in
c onsultation with the presidents of
t hose committees concerned. There will t herefore be an early opportunity for
t he Senator to indicate what priority
h e would attach to monopolies
l egislation in relation to other
l egislation in which he may have an
i nterest.''
Senator Shenton Q uestion 3
Is the President aware of the
p ressure being placed upon small i ndependent newsagents by the
J ersey Evening Post?''
President, Policy and Resources Committee
I am not aware of pressure being
p laced upon small independent
n ewsagents by the Jersey Evening Post H owever, if the Jersey branch of the
N ational Federation of Retail
N ewsagents has evidence of such
p ressure being applied to its members, p erhaps they would care to document
t his. The substance of the concern of
s mall independent newsagents could
t hen be properly assessed, a response
s ought from the JEP, and open
d iscussion initiated on the extent to
w hich any action by the latter so
i dentified could be said to be against
t he public interest.''
French nuclear installations. Statement.
Deputy Robin Ernest Richard
Rumboll of St. Helier , on behalf of the Defence Committee, made a statement in the following terms -
Members will be aware that concern h ad been expressed in the local press a nd media arising from isolated
e xtracts obtained from a report
p repared by the Chief Inspector for
N uclear Safety at Electricité de
F rance.
I mmediately following the publication
o f the press reports, on behalf of the
D efence Committee I was able to
c ontact the appropriate French
a uthorities as a result of which I and
t he Connétable of St. Helier
r epresenting the Defence Committee,
t ogether with the President of the
G uernsey Civil Defence Committee and h is Civil Defence Officer visited the
n uclear power station at Flamanville
o n Friday, 23rd March 1990, where we w ere given copies and explanations of t he full report prepared by M. P.
T anguy entitled Nuclear Safety at EDF a t the end of 1989'. Contrary to
s uggestions, this report is not
c onfidential and comprises the last of
a series of annual reports prepared by
t he Chief Inspector for Nuclear Safety f or internal consumption by experts
a nd technicians in the French nuclear
p ower generation field.
T he report prepared by M. Tanguy f ollows regular and routine annual s afety inspections at all the EDF
n uclear installations and contains a n umber of highly technical
r ecommendations for future
i mprovements. The report does not s uggest that the plants are faulty,
b ut merely emphasises that safety c ontinues to be of paramount
i mportance to all EDF and other
n uclear installations. Accordingly, t he safety of the installations is a
c ontinuing and constantly changing r esponsibility.
T he safety and integrity of French
n uclear installations are subject to
r egular and intense scrutiny of both
d esign and operating functions not
o nly by safety experts from the
o perating companies, but also by
n ational and international supervisory a nd regulatory bodies.
I am grateful to the French
a uthorities for their continued
c o-operation in answering the concerns t hat are from time to time expressed.
I am pleased to report that as a
d irect result of our recent visit, the
D irector of the EDF centre at
F lamanville has agreed to include the
I slands in the list of recipients of
r esults of their monthly measurements
o f levels of radioactivity in the
e nvironment, and this will enable us
t o make direct comparisons with the
r egular information already available
t o us. The Director also repeated his
w illingness to continue the excellent
c ooperation with the relevant Channel I slands authorities.''
Police Headquarters - garage extension, offices and lift: approval of drawings
THE STATES, adopting a proposition of the Defence Committee -
( a) approved drawings Nos. 2736/27, / 2 8 , /30, /31, /32, /33, /34, /35,
/ 3 7 and /38 showing the
c o n struction of a garage extension a n d offices with lift at Police
H ea dquarters, Rouge Bouillon, St. H el ier;
( b) authorised the Greffier of the S tates to sign the said drawings
o n behalf of the States.
Housing Committee: vote of no confidence. P.34/90
THE STATES rejected a proposition
of Senator Corrie Stein that they have no confidence in the Housing Committee.
Members present voted as follows - P o u r' ' (5)
Senators
L e Main, Stein
Deputies
R . Rumboll(H), Bailhache (H), B audains(H).
C o n t re'' (40)
Senators
J eune, Binnington, Horsfall, Ellis,
B aal, Rothwell, Brooke, Le Maistre, C arter.
Connétable s
S t. John, St. Peter , St. Helier, St. L awrence, St. Mary, St. Ouen, St. B relade, Trinity , St. Martin,
G rouville.
Deputies
M orel(S), Le Gallais(S), Trinity V andervliet(L), Blampied(H),
B illot(S), Norman(C), St. John, St. P eter, St. Martin , Baudains(C),
B uesnel(H), C. Rumboll(H), Le
S ueur(H), St. Ouen , Coutanche(L), H uelin(B), St. Mary, Rabet(H),
G rouville, Clarke-Halifax(S).
Victoria Pier surfacing: transfer of funds. P.30/90
THE STATES, adopting a Proposition
of the Harbours and Airport Committee, authorised the transfer of the sum of #70,000 from the vote of credit CO241 to a new vote of credit CO250 Surfacing La Collette', thereby providing funds for the surfacing of an area of Victoria Pier.
Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services, etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 1990. P.31/90
THE STATES, in pursuance of
Articles 29 and 40 of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 1987, made Regulations
entitled the Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services, etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 1990.
Milk Marketing Scheme (Amendment No. 8) (Jersey) Act 1990. P.33/90
THE STATES, in pursuance of
paragraph (6) of Article 2 of the
Agricultural Marketing (Jersey) Law 1953,
as amended, made an Act entitled the Milk Marketing Scheme (Amendment No. 8) (Jersey) Act 1990.
THE STATES then adjourned, having agreed that the outstanding items of Public
Business should stand over until the next Meeting.
THE STATES rose at 5.30 p.m.
E . J .M . P O T T E R G re f fier of the States.