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.
ST. HELIER WATERFRONT LEISURE COMPLEX LEASE: SECOND AMENDMENTS TO LEGAL DOCUMENTATION
_______________
Presented to the States by Senator P.V.F. Le Claire and lodged au Greffe on 18th July 2000
by Deputy T.J. Le Main of St. Helier
______________________________
STATES OF JERSEY
STATES GREFFE
180 2 0 0 0 P . 1 3 3
Price code: A
PROPOSITION
THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion -
to re f e r to their Act dated 27th July 1999, in which they approved the lease by the public to CTP Ltd. of
approximately eight vergées of land west of the Albert Pier, St. Helier (as shown on Drawings Nos. 1704/1 and 1704/2) for a period of 150 years at a nominal rent and in return for a capital premium of £620,000, and also approved the payment of a grant of £10.9 million to CTP Ltd., for the construction and management of a leisure complex, as amended by an Act of the States dated 4th July 2000; and to charge the Policy and Resources Committee to instruct the Waterfront Enterprise Board Limited to seek to re-open negotiations with a view to incorporating in the draft legal documentation the following amendments -
(a ) in clause 3.6.4.1 (b) X of the Lease of Whole Development Site for the words in the formula "in the All Items
index figure of the Retail Price Index published by the Department of Employment or any successor Ministry or Department", substitute the words "in the Jersey Retail Price Index";
(b ) in Schedule 1 of the Leaseback of the Leisure Pool delete the words at the end of clause 1 from the word
"BUT EXCLUDING" and delete clause 2.
SENATOR P.V.F. LE CLAIRE
Report
I would like the opportunity to debate the merits of the suggested amendments to the lease arrangements for the waterfront leisure complex. I have been trying, in my attempt to be vigilant on behalf of the electorate, to safeguard what is in some people's view a rather contentious issue after all. I realise that coming this late, due to my amendments not being accepted in the manner tabled prior to the debate, that members may not wish to consider them. This is for the Assembly to decide; however I feel that most members will be aware of the difficulties I was having in the previous meeting when this was debated. I do not personally feel that 150 years is the responsible time frame to set on such a lease, but you, my colleagues, have decided that it is, and so be it. I would, however, consider there to be a fundamental flaw in our way of governing this Island if individual members' concerns through amendments aren't even allowed to be debated. I remind you all once again, it may very well be that the Assembly does not want these amendments, that is fine. What the Assembly may wish to consider is, could the denial of the right to raise concerns because of procedural difficulties involving such a monumental decision and accompanying documentation be good for the future of our Island and our claim and demonstration of its "Good Governance".