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 19 t h N ovember 1991
THE STATES assembled on Tuesday, 19th November 1991 at 9.30 a.m. under t he Presidency of the Bailiff ,
S i r P eter Crill, C.B.E.
___ _______ __
All Members were present with the exception of -
S enator Anne Baal - ill
S enator John Stephen Rothwell - ill
J ack Roche, Deputy of St. Saviour -
i ll
C arlyle John Le Herissier Hinault,
D eputy of St. John - out of the Island G raeme Ernest Rabet, Deputy of St. H elier - ill
T erence Ahier Jehan , Deputy of St.
M artin - out of the Island
M argaret Anne Le Geyt, Deputy of St. S aviour - out of the Island
___ _______ __
P rayers read by the Greffier ___ _______ __
Subordinate legislation tabled
The following enactments were laid before the States, namely -
1 . Health Insurance (Pharmaceutical B enef it List) (Amendment No. 10) ( Je r sey) Order 1991 R & O 8297
2 . Pilotage (Dues and Fees)
( A m endment No. 3) (Jersey) Order 1991 R & O 8298.
Housing Strategy for the 90's (P.142/91): petition (P.172/91). R.C.29
The Housing Committee by Act dated
8th November 1991, presented to the States a report on the Petition of the Jersey
States Tenants Action Group and others asking that the Housing Committee reconsider the proposals contained in paragraphs 6.67, 6.68, 6.84 and 6.85 of the Housing Committee's report entitled
Housing Strategy for the 90's'' (P.142/91) in the light of their impact on individual tenants.
THE STATES ordered that the said report be printed and distributed.
Teachers' Centre - relocation: supplementary vote of credit (P.163/91). R.C.30
The Island Development Committee by Act dated 7th November 1991 presented to the States a report on the relocation of
the Teachers' Centre to temporary accommodation at Langford, Mont Millais, St. Saviour .
THE STATES ordered that the said report be printed and distributed.
Matters noted - land transactions
THE STATES noted an Act of the
Finance and Economics Committee dated 11th November 1991, showing that in pursuance of Standing Orders relating to certain transactions in land, the Committee had approved -
( a) as recommended by the Agriculture and F isheries Committee, the lease
f rom Mrs. Roselle Jelly, née
Mol let and Mrs. Kathleen Minty,
née Mollet, of Field No. 216, Le
C l os de Haut, Trinity , measuring
6.0.0 v ergées, for a period of
t hr ee years nine months commencing 4t h April 1991 until 25th December 1994 a t an annual rent of #120 a
ver gée;
( b) as recommended by the Public
S er vices Committee, the purchase
f rom Mr. Robert Collisson and Mrs.
K a t hleen Howard Compton Collisson, née Bean, of 445 square feet of
l and f rom Field No. 547, St. Peter
f or a c onsideration of #445 with
t ha t Committee being responsible
f or t he payment of all legal fees
and a greed accommodation works;
( c) as recommended by the Public S er vices Committee, the purchase f rom the St. Brelade 's Bay Hotel, S t . B relade, of 1,634 square feet of l and on the south side of the
r oa d in front of the Hotel for a cons ideration of #9,804, with the C om mittee being responsible for t he pr ovision of drainage and the cos t of the accommodation works i nv olved;
( d) as recommended by the Public
H e al th Committee, the renewal of t he l ease from F. Le Sueur and Son L i m ited of the one-bedroomed
f lat s, Nos. 2 and 8, Roseland
C our t, St. Aubin's Road, St.
H e l ier, for a further period of
s ix m onths from 1st October 1991 at a w eekly rent of #75 for each
uni t;
( e) as recommended by the Public
H e al th Committee, the renewal of t he l ease from Mr. Oscar Rive of t he f our-bedroomed property,
R ons ville, Maufant, St. Saviour ,
f or a pe riod of six months from
25t h December 1991, at a
pr op ortion of the annual rent of
#7,363 .
( f) as recommended by the Housing
C om mittee, a Contrat de Bornement bet w een the public of the Island
as t he owner of the property Les
N o nnet tes, St. Brelade and Mrs.
D a w n Elizabeth Troy , née De la
H a ye, t he owner of the adjoining
pr op erty Southdale, with each side
bei ng r esponsible for its own
l egal costs.
Matters lodged
The following subjects were lodged au Greffe'' -
1 . Les Landes Racecourse, St. Ouen . P .173/ 91
P r es ented by the Island
D e velopment Committee
2 . Draft Judgments (Reciprocal
E nf orcement) (Amendment No. 2) ( Je r sey) Act 199 . P.174/91
P r es ented by the Legislation
C om mittee
3 . Draft Affidavits (Advocates and S ol icitors) (Jersey) Law 199 .
P .175/ 91
P r es ented by the Legislation
C om mittee
4 . Draft Parish Rate (Jersey) Law
199 . P .176/91
P r es ented by the Connétable of St. H e l ier
5 . Haut de la Garenne, St. Martin : r ed evelopment. P.177/91
P r es ented by the Housing
C om mittee
6 . Draft Motor Traffic (No. 3) ( Je r sey) Regulations 199 .
P .178/ 91)
P r es ented by the Defence
C om mittee.
The following subject was lodged on 12th November 1991 -
T he Budget 1992
P resented by the Finance and Economics C ommittee
Arrangement of Public Business for
the next Sitting on 26th November 1991
THE STATES confirmed that the following subjects should be considered at the next Sitting on 26th November 1991 -
H ousing: strategy for the 90's. P .142/91.
L odged: 17th September 1991 H ousing Committee.
H ousing: strategy for the 90's: a mendment.
H ousing Committee.
H ousing: strategy for the 90's: a mendment.
S enator C. Stein.
H ousing: strategy for the 90's:
a mendment to amendment of Senator C. S tein.
D eputy M.C. Buesnel of St.
H e l ier.
H ousing: strategy for the 90's
( P.142/91): amendment. P.161/91. L odged: 22nd October 1991. S enator R.J. Shenton.
H ousing: strategy for the 90's
( P.142/91): amendment (P.161/91). C omments of the Finance and
E conom ics Committee.
H ousing: strategy for the 90's ( P.142/91): petition. P.172/91. L odged: 5th November 1991. S enator C. Stein.
H ousing: strategy for the 90's
( P.142/91): petition (P.172/91). R .C.29.
H ousing Committee.
B uilding Loans (Miscellaneous
P rovisions) (Amendment No. 21)
( Jersey) Regulations 199 . P.159/91. L odged: 22nd October 1991.
H ousing Committee.
Belle Vue Pleasure Park and Fields 91 and 91A, St. Brelade - Statement
The President of the Island
Development Committee made a statement in the following terms -
The House will be aware that on 8th
O ctober I asked for the debate to be
a djourned on Senator Shenton's
P roposition to rescind the authority
f or the compulsory purchase given to
m y Committee on the Belle Vue Pleasure P ark and Fields 91 and 91A, St.
B relade on 31st July 1990.
I wished to ensure that the House had
a vailable to it an authoritative
s tatement of the law covering all the
c oncerns expressed by its Members
b efore it resumed debate. This will
a ssist proper conduct of government in
d ealing with what is a complex issue.
M y officers have submitted questions
t o the Attorney General seeking
g uidance on the principles of land
a cquisition, compulsory purchase,
v aluation and the legal powers and
d uties of my Committee and we have had t he opportunity to discuss his answers
w ith the Attorney General and his
s taff. We have now obtained a clear
s tatement of the law in Jersey and I
h ave arranged for a full copy of his
o pinion to be provided to you today,
a n opinion which I, my Committee and
o fficers accept without hesitation.
A s Members may appreciate, it does c ontain a new perspective and is the f irst time that my Committee has
r eceived this advice.
I t is my Committee's view that this
o pinion should now be acted upon by t he valuer appointed by the Policy and R esources Committee, and the
a cquisition should proceed without
u nnecessary delay to compulsory
p urchase and arbitration proceedings.
M y Committee will be looking at the i ssues raised by the Attorney
G eneral's opinion, particularly the
a cquisition of agricultural land for
h ousing development, to see whether J ersey's current law as expressed by t he Attorney General is fully relevant t o our circumstances, and whether it r equires revision in the future.''
The opinion of the Attorney General provided to Members was made in the following terms -
8t h N o vem ber 1991 P resident,
I sland Development Committee, S tates Greffe,
J ersey.
S ir,
I have the honour to refer to the
c orrespondence from your Department
s eeking my opinion of the valuation fo
l and at St. Brelade owned by Lesquende L imited. This company owns 13.68 acres
o f land of which 5.93 acres are
c overed by Belle Vue Pleasure Park and 7 .75 acres are scrub or agricultural
l and.
T he brief history of his is that on
t he 31st July 1990, the States
a pproved a proposition of your
C ommittee which set out a scheme
( the scheme'') for rezoning Belle
V ue Pleasure Park and Fields 91 and
9 1A ( the site'') for Category A
h ousing and authorising the Committee t o acquire the site by negotation if
p ossible and if not by compulsory
p urchase. Negotiations have been
p roceeding between valuers appointed b y the Committee and by the Company.
O n the 10th September 1991, Senator S henton lodged au Greffe a proposition c alling for the rescission of the Act
o f the States of the 31st July 1990.
O n the 14th October 1991, your Chief E xecutive Officer wrote to me asking
f or legal advice for the guidance of
t he members of the States on the
q uestion of the appropriate method of v aluation of the site. He attached to
h is letter a series of nine questions.
O n the 28th October 1991, the Director
o f Planning and Building Control
w rote to me posing a further three
q uestions on the same subject.
T here are no legal principles
g overning the assessment of a purchase p rice where parties are negotiating.
N egotiation, including the basis
s elected for assessing the price, is,
b y definition, a matter for agreement
b etween the parties. If the price
c annot be agreed by negotiation, and
t he Committee were to proceed to
c ompulsory purchase, the assessment of c ompensation by a Board of Arbitrators i s however a matter governed by legal
r ules. The rules for the assessment of
c ompensation where land is purchased c ompulsorily are set out in Articles
9 (1) of the Compulsory Purchase of
L and (Procedure) (Jersey) Law 1961,
t he relevant sub-paragraph of which in i ts amended form reads as follows -
(b) the value of the land shall,
s ub jec t as hereinafter
pr ovi d ed, be taken to be the
am ount which the land might hav e bee n expected to realise i f s o ld on the open market by a w il l ing seller on the date
on w hi ch the Inferior Number of t he Royal Court made the
or der ves ting the land in
publ ic' '.
I t is axiomatic, not a a matter of law
b ut as a matter of fact, that the
p rice which a property would realise
o n the open market depends upon the
u se to which the land can be put,
i ncluding any future development which c ould take place upon it. In order to
d ecide what price land would realise
i f sold on the open market, it is
n ecessary to have regard not only to i ts actual size, but also to its
p otential for development.
A rticle 5(1) of the Island Planning
( Jersey) law, 1964 provides that the
p ermission of the Committee shall be
r equired in respect of the development
o f any land. Development'' is
d efined by Article 5(2) to include the
m aking of a material change in the use
o f the land. Potential for
d evelopment' thus means the
d evelopment for which it appears that
d evelopment permission would have been g ranted, and it is this which must be
t aken into account when assessing
v alue. There are two possible methods
o f estimating the development
p otential of land in respect of which
t he States have approved a scheme
s imilar to that which has been
a pproved in the present case. The
f irst method is to disregard the
s cheme, and to estimate the
d evelopment potential as if the States
h ad never approved the proposition.
T he second is to estimate the
d evelopment potential in the light of
t he scheme.
T here is no legal authority directly
i n point as to which of these methods
s hould be employed under Compulsory
P urchase legislation in Jersey.
H owever our statue follows very
c losely some of the provisions of
e quivalent statutes of the United
K ingdom and it is likely, in my
o pinion, that the Royal Court would
r egard decisions of English Courts
i nterpreting identical statutory
p rovisions as being of persuasive
a uthority. In the case of the Pointe
G ourde Quarrying and Transport Company L imited v. Sub-Intendent of Crown
L ands (1947) AC 565 PC ( the Pointe
G ourde case') it was held that
c ompensation for the compulsory
a cquisition of land cannot include an
i ncrease in value which is entirely
d ue to the scheme underlying the
a cquisition. This is consistent with
t he first method of assessment. if
t his method is followed, the valuers
s hould ask themselves what development w ould have been permitted on the site
i f the States had not approved the
s cheme. In the case of Le Gros v. H ousing Committee (1974) JJ 77 ( The L e Gros Case'), the appellant was the
o wner of the land which the Housing
C ommittee wished to acquire by
c ompulsory purchase for the purpose of c onstructing States loan housing. The B oard of Arbitrators who assessed the p rice did so on the basis that the
d evelopment potential of the land was f or high density housing. The
a ppellant argued that the land had
d evelopment potential for low density h ousing (i.e. that which would today
b e called Category B housing'). At
p age 89 of the Le Gros case the Court s aid -
T he ke rnel of the plaintiff's
cas e is that the Board found that
t he r e was evidence to support two s ubm issions made by his counsel.
T hi s is to say (1) that the land
w a s suitable for development of a
l ow er density even than that of
t he Clifton'' site and (2) that
t he I sland Development Committee coul d reasonably have been
expe cted to approve plans for such a de velopment and that the Board
t he r eafter proceeded to ignore
t ha t evidence.
I n o ur view it is on that narrow poi nt that this appeal succeeds.
T her e is, we think, an error on
t he f ace of the record. Once the B oar d found that there was
evi denc e to support those two
s ubm issions it had a duty to
eval uate the evidence and to put a val ue on the probability or the pos sibility, as the case might be, of l ow density development being al l ow ed.
A l t hough there was no reason why w e s hould be, we were told what
t ha t evidence was. We make no com ment on the quality of the
evi denc e but is was that had the
S t a tes not acquired the land
com pulsorily the land would have even tually become land for the deve lopment of which permission w o ul d have been given at a density l ow er than the Housing Committee r eq uirements demanded.''
A pplying the passage which I have q uoted to the present case, it means t hat if the compensation were to be
a ssessed by a Board of Arbitrators,
t he Board would have to ask itself
w hether there was any evidence to
s uggest that, if the States had not
d ecided to acquire the land,
p ermission would have been given for a ny, and if so what, development. If
t he Board found that there was a
p robability or possibility that
p ermission would have been given to d evelop the site, it would then have
t o put a value on that probability or
p ossibility.
A s stated above the site comprises
s ome 13.68 acres. Of this, 5.93 acres a re Belle Vue Pleasure Park ( the
p leasure park'), and 7.75 acres are
f ields 91 and 91A ( the fields'). The p leasure park has an existing use for c ommercial purposes (i.e. as a
p leasure park), and the fields are
s crub/agricultural land. The site was, u ntil the decision of the States of
3 1st July, 1990, situated in the
s ensitive landscape area of the
a gricultural priority zone. The
p olicies of the Committee in respect
o f the sensitive landscape area of the a gricultural priority zone are set out i n sections 2.15, 2.16, 2.17 and 2.18 a nd policies C06, C07 and C08 of
t he Island Plan.
A s a matter of law, the fact that a
s ite has an existing use does not
c onfer a right to develop permission
f or the site see Western Fish Products
v . Penwith DC (1981) 2 ALL ER 204. As w as said in that case at 226 -
T he right' is to use an
exi s ting building for a particular pur pose, not to have another
bui lding for that use.''
O n the basis of the above, the
e xisting use of the pleasure park
w ould not give the owners a right to
p ermission to carry out other
d evelopments on that part of the site, w hether for the purposes of the
p leasure park of for any other
p urpose. On the other hand, as was
s aid in the same case, an existing use
i s relevant consideration which must
b e taken into account when considering a n application for permission to
d evelop the site. In his letter of 2 8th October 1991, the Director of P lanning and Building Control said -
B o th the valuers acting in the
L es quende case ... approached the P l a nning Department to establish t he bas is on which to value the
pl eas ure park land. The
D e par tment advised them that,
s et t ing aside the States decision
t o z one and acquire it for
C at egory A housing, it would, it
an a pplication had been made to
t he ow ner, have recommended the f ur t her development of the site
f or l eisure purposes or in the
al t er native, have recommended
hous ing. That housing would be
cat egor y B housing as, in the
abs ence of Category A zoning, the deve loper would have been able to s el l the houses for their market
val ue (i.e. not being constrained
by a c eiling sales price as he
w o ul d have been for States loan
hous ing).''
T he position therefore with regard to
t he pleasure park is that if
c ompensation were to be assessed by a B oard of Arbitrators it would,
f ollowing the Le Gros case, have to
a ssess compensation on the basis that t he land had a potential for
d evelopment for Category B housing.
S o far as the fields are concerned it
a ppears to have been agreed that they
s hould be valued on the basis that
t heir development potential is for
C ategory A housing. This is not
h owever supported by the Le Gros case a nd is in conflict with the Pointe
G ourde case. The proper test for the
v aluers in relation to the fields is
t o determine what, if any, development w ould have been permitted if the
s cheme had not been approved. The
f ields are scrub/agricultural land
s ituated in the sensitive landscape
a rea of the agricultural priority
z one. No approach has apparently been m ade by the valuers to the Planning
D epartment to find out whether any,
a nd if so what, development permission w ould have been likely to have been
g ranted in the absence of the scheme
a pproved by the States. However, in my v iew, it appears clear from the
r elevant part of the Island Plan that
t he likelihood of the Committee's
g iving permission for any development
o f the fields if the scheme had not
b een passed would have been so slight t hat a Board of Arbitrators would have b een neither obliged nor entitled to
t ake it into account.
I stated above that there were two
p ossible ways of estimating the
d evelopment potential of land in
r espect of which the States have
a pproved a scheme similar to that
w hich has been approved in the present c ase. The first was to disregard the
s cheme and to estimate the development p otential as if the States had never
a pproved the proposition. The second w as to estimate the development
p otential in the light of the scheme.
A pplying the first basis of
a ssessment, therefore, compensation
s hould be assessed on the basis that
t he pleasure park had a development
p otential for the construction of
C ategory B houses and should be valued a ccordingly, and that the fields
h ad not development potential at all
a nd should be valued as
s crub/agricultural land. In my
o pinion this is, as a matter of law,
t he better course and is consistent
w ith the Pointe Gourde principle, in
t hat it disregards the scheme in
p ursuance of which the purchase is to
t ake place.
T he alternative method is to take the
s cheme into account. On that basis
b oth the pleasure park and the fields
s hould be valued as having development p otential for Category A housing
b ecause that is the scheme approved by t he States.
I t appears from the papers that what h as been done is to apply hybrid of
t he two alternative methods of
v aluation. The pleasure park has been v alued on the basis that it has a
d evelopment potential for Category B h ousing (i.e. disregarding the
s cheme), and the fields have been
v alued on the basis that they have
d evelopment potential for Category A h ousing (i.e. taking the scheme into
a ccount).
I n my opinion this approach is legally i nvalid. The valuers should opt for
o ne basis or the other. What they have d one is to apply one basis to one half
o f the site and a difference basis to
t he other, in each case choosing the
b asis which is most beneficial to the
c ompany. In my opinion this is the
w rong approach; putting it in more
h omely language, it is to allow the
o wners to have their cake and eat it.
I have the honour to be, S ir,
Y our obedient servant,
S igned P.M. Bailhache A t t or n ey General''
St. Ives, Green Street/Regent Road, St. Helier : contract of rectification.
THE STATES, adopting a proposition of the Public Services Committee -
( a) agreed to enter into a contract of r ec t ification with Mrs. Gladys
E t he l Ricketts, née Furse in
r es pec t of a Contract of Exchange r eg istered in the Royal Court on
25t h April 1969, in order to
conf irm Mrs. Gladys Ethel
R i ck etts, née Furse as the owner of a n area of land measuring 205 s qua re feet at Regent Road;
( b) to authorise the Attorney General and t he Greffier of the States to
pas s the necessary contract.
St. Saviour 's School, St. Saviour : extension
THE STATES, adopting a proposition of the Education Committee -
( a) approved Drawings Nos. 2877/14, 2877/ 15, 2877/16 and 2877/17
s how ing the construction of the
new nursery unit and infants block at S t. Saviour's School';
( b) authorised the Greffier of the
S t a tes to sign the said Drawings on be half of the States. Airport Terminal Building, St. Peter : lease of accommodation
THE STATES, adopting a proposition of the Harbours and Airport Committee -
( a) approved the renewal of the lease t o B ritish Airways Plc of 3,978
s qua re feet of accommodation at
t he A irport, at an annual rent of
#45,20 2 for a period of three
year s with effect from 1st April
1991, w ith annual cost of living
r ev iews based on the Jersey Retail P r ice I ndex;
( b) authorised the Greffier of the
S t a tes to sign the necessary
agr eement with the company; and
( c) authorised the Treasurer of the S t a tes to receive the payments as t he y bec ome due.
Belle Vue Pleasure Park and Fields 91 and 91A, St. Brelade , rezoning - rescission. P.140/91
THE STATES, acceded to the request
of Senator Richard Joseph Shenton that his proposition to rescind paragraph (d) of the States Act dated 31st July 1990 regarding the rezoning and purchase of land at Belle Vue Pleasure Park and Fields 91 and 91A, St. Brelade be withdrawn.
Field 77, Grouville : transfer of administration. P.164/91
THE STATES, adopting a proposition
of the Housing Committee approved the transfer of administration from the Housing Committee to the Public Health Committee of an area of land measuring about 5000 square feet at Field 77, Grouville , for the construction of a day care centre.
Grouville Hospital Site: transfer of administration. P.165/91
THE STATES, adopting a proposition
of the Public Health Committee approved the transfer of administration from the Public Health Committee to the Housing Committee of land at the Grouville Hospital site as outlined in the Public Health Committee's report dated 2nd October 1991.
Compulsory Purchase of Land
(Procedure) (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law 1991 (Appointed Day) Act 1991. P.166/91
THE STATES, in pursuance of Article
3 of the Compulsory Purchase of land (Procedure) (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law 1991 made an Act entitled the Compulsory Purchase of Land (Procedure) (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law 1991 (Appointed Day) Act 1991.
Housing (Amendment No. 6) (Jersey) Law 1991 (Appointed Day) Act 1991. P.167/91
THE STATES, in pursuance of Article
3 of the Housing (Amendment No. 6) (Jersey) Law 1991 made an Act entitled the Housing (Amendment No. 6) (Jersey) Law 1991 (Appointed Day) Act 1991.
Island Planning (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law 1991 (Appointed Day) Act 1991. P.168/91
THE STATES, in pursuance of Article
2 of the Island Planning (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law 1991 made an Act entitled the Island Planning (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law 1991 (Appointed Day) Act 1991.
Motor vehicles: display of insurance discs. P.169/91
THE STATES, adopting a proposition
of the Defence Committee agreed that legislation should be prepared on the basis of the proposals contained in the report, dated 27th August 1991, of the Defence Committee, to provide that all Jersey registered motor vehicles (except as outlined in paragraph 3.1.1. of that report), should display insurance discs with effect from 1st January 1994.
Kensington Chambers, St. Helier : lease. P.170/91
THE STATES, adopting a proposition of the Public Health Committee -
( a) approved the lease from Judolia
L i m ited of 6,465 square feet of
of fi ce space at Kensington
C ham bers, 46-50 Kensington Place, S t . H elier for use as the
D e par tment of Health offices, for
a pe riod of two years and six
m o nths from 1st January 1992, with an op tion to renew on an annual
bas is, at an initial annual rent
of # 81,600 until 24th December
1992 w hen the annual rent will be
as ses sed in the line with fair
m ar ket rents;
( b) authorised the Attorney General and t he Greffier of the States to
s ign t he necessary contracts;
( c) authorised the Treasurer of the S t a tes to pay the rent as it
beco mes due.
St. Helier Waterfront Plan. P.86/91
THE STATES, commenced consideration
of paragraph (a) of a proposition of the Island Development Committee regarding the St. Helier Waterfront Plan and the St.
Helier Waterfront Plan - Master
Plan.
The States having acceded to the request of the President of the Island Development Committee to defer consideration of paragraph (b) to a later date, the debate
on paragraph (a) was adjourned with no question thereon being proposed to the States by the Bailiff .
THE STATES rose at 4.55 p.m.
R .S . G R A Y G r e f fi er of the States.