This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.
Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.
STATES OF JERSEY
r
ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN 2007: PROPERTY PLAN
Lodged au Greffe on 6th March 2007 by the Chief Minister
STATES GREFFE
PROPOSITION
THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion
to a p prove the Annual Property Plan for 2007, including the schedule of properties recommended for
disposal in 2007, as detailed in Appendix A.
CHIEF MINISTER
Introduction
This report has been slightly amended and updated since first published as part of the draft States Annual Business Plan 2007. The States decided to refer the Property Plan to the Public Accounts Committee for a report and defer debate of the Plan until after the presentation to the States of that report. The Public Accounts Committee presented its report, P.A.C.1/2007, to the States on 13th February 2007. The Committee –
recommends the 2007 Property Business Plan for approval by the States as a step towards the achievement of:
(1 ) ef f ective property management,
(2 ) ef f icient departmental management,
(3 ) m a ximisation of the value of the States property holdings.' The full text of the Committee's report is attached as Appendix B.
From 1st January 2006, the Property Holdings division took over responsibility for States land and property other than Social Housing and that managed by States Trading Operations. This portfolio has been conservatively valued at £1.6 billion, which represents an investment of some£18,000 for every person on the Island.
The Property Plan for the period to 2011, incorporated into the States Strategic Plan that was approved in June 2006, contained the following key objectives –
• Meet the current and future property requirements of States services in order to improve performance;
• Ensure that property is used, managed and maintained effectively;
• Acquire assets only when to do so makes a contribution toward achieving States strategic or business objectives; and
• Dispose of, or extract better value from, property that is not contributing satisfactorily toward service delivery or the achievement of States objectives.
The States Strategic Plan also identified a number of properties for disposal in 2006 and a further list, in principle, for 2007. A schedule of properties identified as surplus to requirements, and proposed for disposal in 2007, is included in the accompanying Appendix A. Future States Business Plans will update the position on an annual basis and seek the approval of the States to disposals and any proposed acquisition of land and buildings.
It is intended to publish a revised and more detailed Strategic Property Plan toward the end of 2007. Budget position and savings targets
The overall revenue base budget position for Property Holdings has yet to be finalised. For clarity, Property Holdings revenue budget as shown in the 2007 Business Plan includes funding transferred from those areas where agreement to transfer budgets to Property Holdings has been obtained. Other budget transfers from States departments into Property Holdings, representing relevant maintenance and other property related sums, will take place during 2007.
It is anticipated that, once the budget transfer position is completely resolved, the revenue budget for Property Holdings in 2007 will comprise expenditure of some £11.3 million and income of some£6.3 million, giving a net cash limit requirement of around £5 million.This is not new funding – it merely represents a reallocation of property-related budgets, which were previously allocated across States departments.
Property Holdings is charged with delivering a significant proportion of the States' overall savings targets to
2009. The savings comprise two distinct elements –
• Revenue efficiency savings targets rising to £1.5 million a year by 2008, when compared with the base 2005 budget position; and
• Annual net capital receipts targets rising to £4 million a year by 2009.
Revenue Savings
The build-up of revenue savings targets from Property Holdings is shown in Table A below – Table A – Property Holdings Revenue Savings Targets
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 6Year Total
£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000
Annual Additional
Savings Targets 400 500 600 – – –
Cumulative
Impact on 2005
Base Budget 400 900 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 7,300
The revenue savings represent a reduction, against the anticipated gross expenditure position of £11.3 million, of around 4.5% in 2007 and a further 5.5% in 2008.
At this early stage, particularly without having finalised the span and scope of Property Holdings operations, it is not possible to provide definitive proposals as to how the revenue savings targets will be achieved.
To provide a framework for achieving the necessary base budget reductions, the following areas identified in Table B below have been targeted for further analysis –
Table B – Targeted Allocation of Property Revenue Savings
2007 2008 £'000 £'000
Procurement 300 300 Staff Savings 70 130 Other Operational Savings 130 170 Total 500 600
In addition to the targeted areas, as Property Holdings becomes a mature organisation it will achieve performance benefits from improved strategic management, better utilisation of the estate, more effective management of capital projects, collaboration over service delivery, a single point of authority and expertise and broader opportunities for property people.
The proposed development of an asset rental system in 2007, to be fully implemented for 2008, will be initially budget neutral' as the income received into Property Holdings will be offset by corresponding adjustments to departments' expenditure allocations. However, identifying the true cost of occupying property will improve enormously statistical and management information on the cost of operating services, providing real incentives to shed surplus property.
The charge will form a significant proportion of the controllable base budget. It will promote the review of the use of assets as departments attempt to reduce costs to meet efficiency savings targets or employ financial resources to higher priorities. The review process will identify expensive sites and equipment, by providing a more realistic figure for the cost of holding and maintaining property.
The procurement and successful implementation of an integrated property management system in 2007 is a pre- requisite to achieving these objectives.
Net Capital Receipts
In pursuing its primary objectives of more efficient and effective use of States property assets, Property Holdings will identify properties that are not contributing optimally to the delivery of priority services. This may be through under occupation, high maintenance costs, inappropriate size or location, or a number of other factors.
Having identified such properties, Property Holdings will determine an appropriate future use, which may be alternative in-house use, short or long-term lease to a third party or disposal. The net capital receipts achieved from disposals will initially be received in the Acquisition of Land (Major Reserve) account from which annual allocations in accord with the targets below (Table C) will be made to the Consolidated Fund. The value of capital receipts in any one year will not necessarily match the annual allocation targets, which are incorporated in the States financial planning process – in the first 2 years receipts are expected to be greater than the annual allocation.
It is intended in 2007 to seek approval from the States for Property Holdings to be established as a States Trading Organisation. If this approval is gained, capital receipts will be credited to that organisation's Trading Fund and a corresponding adjustment will be made to reflect the reduced call on the Consolidated Fund to provide for capital maintenance and redevelopment.
The amount to be raised from the sale of surplus assets will be dependent on a number of factors, including availability, current market situation and legal or other impediments, in addition to approval at a strategic level in the States Business Plan and at a detailed level by the Minister for Treasury and Resources.
It is anticipated that net capital receipts of £15 million will be achieved in the period to 2011, on the basis shown in Table C below –
Table C – Targeted Property Net Capital Receipts
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000
Annual Net Receipts from Disposals 700 2,300 4,000 4,000 4,000 Running Total 700 3,000 7,000 11,000 15,000
Organisational Structure and Implementation Structure and Governance
The organisation is established as a division of the Treasury and Resources department, along with the Treasury and Income Tax divisions.
The Director of Property Holdings, who is the designated Accounting Officer, reports directly to the Treasurer of the States and, through him, to the Treasury and Resources Minister (who has delegated responsibility for property to the Assistant Minister).
A Property Board, representing the principal States departments receiving property services, will be established in 2007 to monitor the performance of Property Holdings.
If approval is gained to become a trading organisation, this will provide a more appropriate level of flexibility to deal with the management and allocation of income and expenditure, and an accounting vehicle which is more suitable for Property Holdings activities.
The organisational structure of Property Holdings has now been established and comprises three principal service
sections –
• Design and Maintenance: A ll s ervices associated with the design, construction and maintenance of buildings.
• Property Management: A l l p ro fessional property and estate management services.
• Finance and Strategy: A ll h ig h level financial services; all aspects of property strategy (including the asset management process), client' management of the
capital building programme and securing of development input to the work of the organisation.
Each section is headed by an Assistant Director, who, together with the Director, forms the internal Senior Management Team.
The service delivery sections are supported through a directly employed (contract or secondment) change manager and administration staff as well as finance, human resource and ICT services delivered through the relevant central bodies.
Implementation Timetable
A comprehensive implementation programme, containing several specific work streams, has been produced to transfer appropriate responsibilities for property from individual departments to Property Holdings and to develop experience, knowledge and efficient methods of working.
The main streams of work are –
• Implementation of Organisation Design
Im p l ementation will continue through 2007 but certain core areas are now established. The Health and
Social Services property functions are likely to be the last to be transferred in the second half of the year.
• Develop Asset Management Process
T h e S trategic Development team will undertake research, produce guidance and work with departments in
the production of departmental asset management plans and a States of Jersey asset management plan. Review of major sites identified in the Property Plan will commence. This work will form the basis of the revised Strategic Property Plan to be produced by the year-end.
• Procurement
T h e i mplementation of a procurement strategy to deliver identified efficiency savings across Departments,
followed by the development of procurement processes to meet both medium and longer term targets.
• Information Systems
T h e development of functional requirements and the selection and implementation of a solution for
integrated property management. Work to develop a records management solution and web-site presence will also be undertaken.
• Development of Financial and Asset Recharge Systems
In f o r mation gathering (including valuation surveys), research, development of options and an approach to
the development of an asset charging system. Implementation of pilot' followed by full implementation of system.
The implementation plan establishes key milestones and targets to create the new organisation over a period as its elements are brought together and are developed. A risk register has been developed that sets out the main risks to the implementation process.
The one-off' costs of implementing and developing the organisation over the next two to three years will be contained within funding previously allocated to the Change Programme for this purpose.
Financial/manpower implications
The financial and manpower implications of adopting this proposition are as outlined in the body of this report.
Properties proposed for disposal in 2007
- HueStreet/Dumaresq Street Site, St. Helier
- 2 and 4 Dumaresq Street and 19 and 20 Charing Cross St. Helier
- Seaton Youth Centre, Seaton Place, St. Helier
- Samarès SchoolHouses 1 and 2
- Headingley, La Route duFort, St. Helier
- 74 and76La Colomberie, St. Helier
- DruryLaneWorkshop,St. Helier
- Le Rondin Farm Fields, Trinity
- Fields 373, off LaRue des Champs,St. Brelade
- AcornLodge, Les QuennevaisSchool
- Development site at Belle Vue, Les Quennevais
- 1 OxfordRoad,St. Helier, offices and workshop
- La MabonnerieHouses 1 and 2, Trinity
- 12 Le Clos delaVille
Hue Street/Dumaresq Street Site, St. Helier (PBA 12/338/1-3) Description
A site which is used for car parking – car park "A" (18 spaces) being let to Deutsche Bank, car park "B" (18 spaces) being let to B.G. Romeril Ltd, and car-park "C" being operated by Transport and Technical Services for public use (27 spaces).
The site is split into two parts by an accessway which is in shared ownership between the public and B.G. Romeril Ltd.
The site area is approximately: car park A 353 sq.m.
car park B 313 sq.m. car park C 575 sq.m. accessway 151 sq.m. total: 1,392 sq.m.
Initially it is proposed to sell only part of the site, comprising all of car park B and part of car park C.
The remainder of the site will be subject to a feasibility exercise to determine the most appropriate form of development.
Location
The site fronts onto Hue Street and partly onto Dumaresq Street (see attached location plan). Current/previous use and any special features
As mentioned above, the site is used as car-parking, partly for private use and partly for public use. Reasons why the property is no longer required
This site has long been identified as being suitable for disposal/development, and negotiations have been taking place with B.G. Romeril Ltd. for a number of years to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome.
Redevelopment potential (if any)
The negotiations with B.G. Romeril Ltd. to date have been based on the principle of the company ceding its shared ownership of the accessway to the public, along with a capital payment, in exchange for part of the site to create a new unloading access and expansion of its retail area.
N W E S S q Car s e Park 7.4 ar Hue Street Du m PH Car Proposed Disposal Park Car Car Park B C Car Park Park and part of B Car Park C (hatched area) 7.3 t e tre S q s Car Park Thefeasibility of re Car developing/disposing of a Park this areais being Dum investigated 7.3 A B 90 7.7 t e e tr S tt i P | |
Hue Street?Dumaresq Street Car Parks | Drawing No: 338/1-3 D1 |
COPYRI GHT STATES OF JERSEY | |
Boundary Information Supplied by the States of Jersey Planning Office, but no responsibility can be accepted for error. | |
2 and 4 Dumaresq Street and 19 and 20 Charing Cross, St. Helier (PG 1463/1) Description
This now vacant site is made up of the former sites of 2 and 4 Dumaresq Street and 19 and 20 Charing Cross, St. Helier, all residential properties. They were acquired between 1973 and 1978 in 3 separate land transactions for a total consideration of £85,125. The approximate site footprint is 153 sq.m. (1,650 sq.ft.) with exposed party gable on two sides.
Location
The site is a corner plot in the Charing Cross Parade area of town surrounded by commercial property owned by the Channel Island Co Operative Society Limited.
Current/previous use and any special features
The site is currently unofficially used as public open space by the Parish of St. Helier as well as for the placement of euro bins. In the past it has been used for parking.
Reasons why the property is no longer required
The properties where acquired as part of the Dumaresq Street road-widening scheme which was abandoned in 1996. The site currently produces no income for the Public purse.
There are currently no known schemes by the Public with capital funding for which this land would be suitable. Redevelopment potential (if any)
The site could be redeveloped as a stand alone unit or as part of a larger scheme by the adjacent landowner.
A full planning brief was prepared in 2004 by the former Planning and Environment Committee, with possible uses for the site including ground floor retail and storage with first and second floor offices or other uses to be agreed. The former Committee has stated that the "regeneration and refurbishment of the group of buildings would be the final element in the wider urban renewal initiatives in the west of town from Union Street to York Street".
The States on 16th May 2006 decided to reject P.38/2006 which proposed that this site be designated as an Area of Important Open Space.
|
| ||||||||||||
N | PH | ||||||||||||
| E |
|
| ||||||||||
|
| S 7.3 |
|
| |||||||||
|
| 7.3 |
| ||||||||||
| e |
|
| ||||||||||
| 7.3 n a |
|
| ||||||||||
| L |
|
| ||||||||||
| q |
|
| ||||||||||
| s |
|
| ||||||||||
| e |
|
| ||||||||||
| r |
|
| ||||||||||
| a s m s u | Car Park |
| ||||||||||
| 7.3or C g | D | 7.3 |
| |||||||||
| n ir 4 Dumaresq a Street h |
|
| ||||||||||
| C |
|
| ||||||||||
|
| t e e tr S tt i P |
| ||||||||||
| PH 7.6 |
|
| ||||||||||
|
| 7.6 |
| ||||||||||
|
| 7.5 |
| ||||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
4 Dumaresq Street |
| Drawing No: 1463 D1 | |||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
|
| COPYRI GHT STATES OF JERSEY | |||||||||||
Boundary Information Supplied by the States of Jersey Planning Office, but no responsibility can be accepted for error. | |||||||||||||
Seaton Youth Centre, Seaton Place, St. Helier (PBA 5/137/1)
Description
A former church acquired by the States in 1959, which has been used as a youth centre.
The site area is approximately 394 sq.m. (4,240 sq.ft) and the gross floor area of the building is approximately 619 sq.m. (6,670 sq.ft.).
Location
The site fronts onto Seaton Place at its junction with Seale Street (see attached location plan). Current/previous use and any special features
As mentioned above, the property has been used as a youth centre.
Reasons why the property is no longer required
The property is considered to be unsuitable for continued use as a youth centre due to its internal layout and condition. The means of escape in the event of fire is sub-standard and the cost of repairing and modernising the property is considered to be excessive in relation to the quality of the building. There is no other identified use for the property by any States department.
Redevelopment potential (if any)
The building has been included on the Planning Department's historic buildings listing as a "Building of Local Interest" (BLI). If this status cannot be successfully challenged, the development potential of the site will be limited.
Glouceste W Car Park 7.3 | N El Sub Sta E S ST. HELIER Ce 7.4 7.5 Tow 7.3 7.9 7.8 Car Park 7.5 7.9 t e tre S Multi-storey yn Car Park Pa 7.8 UNDER 7. CONSTRUCTION t ee t tr ee S tr y S nle stle A a C 7.9 PH 6.7 et tre 8.0 S astle C 6.6 | ||
Seaton Youth Centre | Drawing No: 137 D1 | ||
COPYRIGHT PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE | |||
Boundary Information Supplied by the States of Jersey Planning Office, but no responsibility can be accepted for error. | |||
Samarès School Houses 1 and 2 (PBA 97/2&3) Description
A pair of detached two-storey houses built circa 1990. Each house has a floor area of approximately 98 sq.m. (1,060 sq.ft.) and the accommodation includes 3 bedrooms.
Externally there is a garden and a parking area with each house, but no garages. Vehicular access to House No. 1 is via the front driveway of House No. 2.
Location
The houses are located on the south boundary of Samarès Primary School in St. Clement. They are accessed via Le Haugie Close (see attached location plan).
Current/previous use and any special features
The houses were built to accommodate teachers at the peak period when contract staff were being brought into the Island. The need for that use has now declined and there are no teachers wishing to occupy the houses – they have therefore been unoccupied for some time.
The houses are not designated for social housing. Reasons why the property is no longer required
As mentioned above, there is no longer a need for the houses to be used to accommodate contract teachers, and the properties are unoccupied with no prospective tenants anticipated.
Subject to there being no requirement for staff accommodation it is proposed to sell the houses on the open market.
Redevelopment potential (if any)
The houses are relatively new and adjacent to the Le Squez Phase 1b Housing development.
W E 8.9 School Road 8.9 Car Park El HOUSE No 1 Sub Sta 9.1 HOUSE No 2 PO 9.6 |
| lo S 8.5 Car Park Squez Primary 8.0 School Path 7.9 8.1 Le Haugie Close 7.6 7.1 | ||
Samares School Houses 1 & 2 | Drawing No: 97 D1 | |||
COPYRIGHT PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE | ||||
Boundary Information Supplied by the States of Jersey Planning Office, but no responsibility can be accepted for error. | ||||
Headingley, La Route du Fort, St. Helier (PBA 16/38/1) Description
A substantial 9-bedroom dwelling acquired by the States in 1990 to provide accommodation for nursing staff employed by Health and Social Services.
The site is roughly rectangular in shape having an average width of approximately 26'0" and a total depth of some 165'0". The building is centrally located on the site and comprises some 349 sq.m. (3,760 sq.ft.) of accommodation.
Location
The property is located on the north side of La Route du Fort between its junctions with Hastings Lane and Cleveland Road (see attached location plan).
Current/previous use and any special features
As mentioned above, the property was acquired to provide accommodation for nursing staff employed by Health and Social Services but will be wholly vacated by mid 2007.
Reasons why the property is no longer required
The accommodation offered by the property is now sub-standard for use by nursing staff. The demand for nursing accommodation has also reduced, and Headingley is therefore considered to be surplus to requirement. At least £100,000 would have to be spent refurbishing the accommodation to bring it up to acceptable standards.
It is therefore recommended that the property be offered for sale on the open market. Redevelopment potential (if any)
There is no known development potential for the property to meet specific needs of the States.
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12.0 N 12.1 12.0 metery | Hastings Road | B 81 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| E e n a L 11.7 | Garage |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ki | ngdom s g S Hall in t s a |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| H |
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 0 8 |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| t e e r t | y |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| S |
| l |
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ille v e s e o n R a a L e s g H in t s a | g n i d |
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| H |
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9.7 L9.6a Ro ut e d u F or t |
| 9.7 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| Car Park |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
| El Sub Sta |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pool |
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| 7.6 |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| 7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7.5 |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| 7. | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| 7.3 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7.1 Croydon Road |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7.1 |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6.9 |
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Headingley, La Route du Fort |
| Drawing No: 38 D1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| COPYRIGHT PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Boundary Information Supplied by the States of Jersey Planning Office, but no responsibility can be accepted for error. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
74 and 76 La Colomberie, St. Helier (NS 2008 & 2009) Description
A pair of ground floor lock-up shop units.
Location
The shops front onto La Colomberie in what is regarded as a secondary retailing location, directly adjacent to Keith Baal Gardens housing development.
Current/previous use and any special features
The shops are established commercial units that were acquired by the public in 1991. In the case of both shops, 9- year leases have been granted which expire in 2013/2014.
Reasons why the property is no longer required
The shops were acquired with the prospect of incorporation into the Keith Baal Gardens housing development, but were ultimately omitted from the scheme. Though generating a combined return of £17,650 per annum, the properties are not required for any strategic public purpose. Due to their age and condition, the public has had to retain the external repairing structural liability as detailed in the leases for both units.
Redevelopment potential (if any)
The site itself has limited redevelopment potential due to it relatively small area – 1,679 sq.ft./156 sq.m. It may have greater redevelopment potential if included within a possible redevelopment of the neighbouring property in private ownership.
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| W | E |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| t e e r t S S is 15.2 c n a r F |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| 16.7 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14.6 t r u o |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| y le ke Pool 16.6 r e |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B |
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15.2 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PO El Sub Sta | P | H | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| t e e r t |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| S |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ille v e s o |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| R |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| 16.9 |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14.1 |
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| 16.4 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| El Sub Sta |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| 14.9 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pools 0 8 |
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B |
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
| 5 1 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| A |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
74 & 76 La Colomberie, St Helier | Drawing No: | 2008 and 2009 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| COPYRIGHT PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Boundary Information Supplied by the States of Jersey Planning Office, but no responsibility can be accepted for error. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drury Lane Workshop, St. Helier (PBA 12/1180/1) Description
A workshop acquired by the States in 1995, which has been let to the voluntary group "Tools for Self-Reliance". The property was acquired to remove a "bad neighbour" from a residential area.
The site area is approximately 114 sq.m. (1,230 sq.ft.) and the gross floor area of the building is approximately 87 sq.m. (936 sq.ft.).
Location
The site fronts onto Drury Lane (see attached location plan). Current/previous use and any special features
As mentioned above, the property is let to the voluntary group "Tools for Self-Reliance". Only a nominal rent of £12 per annum is charged.
Reasons why the property is no longer required
The property was acquired by the States primarily to remove a bad neighbour from a residential area, and as such, it was not purchased with a use in mind. However, it was suggested at the time of purchase that the most likely use of the site would be for redevelopment to create a single dwelling unit. It is now considered an appropriate time to advance the proposal to sell the site to create a residential unit.
Redevelopment potential (if any)
The site would appear to be suitable for redevelopment as a single residential unit.
a V N 19.0 14.0 eau B W E S 17.6 26.3 Pool 16.0 5 THE SITE 14.6 e n a L y r u r D t n e c s 21.2 re C ld ie f g in r p S 14.4 14.4 d a o R y it in r T | ||||
Drury Lane Workshop | Drawing No: 1180 D1 | |||
COPYRIGHT PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE | ||||
| Boundary Information Supplied by the States of Jersey Planning Office, but no responsibility can be accepted for error. |
| ||
Le Rondin Farm Fields, Trinity (SRS 845/21, 23, 24, 25, 26 & 27)
Description
Field 823 is an isolated field known as "Le Clos de la Verte Rue", and measures about 3 vergées 20 perch. Field 849 is known as "Le Clos Marett", and measures about 5 vergées 16 perch.
Field 851 is known as "Le Clos des Setteaux", and measures about 3 vergées 31 perch.
Field 853 is at two levels, side by side, known as "Le Long Jardin" and "Les Alleurs", and measures about 2 vergées 37 perch.
Field 864 is known as "Le Pre" and is at the lowest part of the meadow, between Fields 853 and 865, and measures about 1 vergée 38 perch.
Field 865 is in two parts side by side, known as "Le Jardin a Potage" and "Le Clos de Bas et le Pendant", and measures about 1 vergée 34 perch.
None of the six fields are subject to the Howard Davis Farm restrictive covenant.
Location
Field 823 is to the East of Le Rondin Farm, across the lane known as La Rue du Mont Pellier. Fields 849 and 851 are to the south-east of the RJA&HS Headquarters.
Fields 853, 864 and 865 are all together in the meadow directly in front of Le Rondin Farmhouse. Current/previous use and any special features
Field 823 is currently used as an orchard for The Jersey Cider Apple Collection'.
Fields 849 and 851 are currently used under licence by the RJA&HS.
The upper part of Field 853 is currently used by the RJA&HS under licence.
Field 864 is currently used for horse grazing under licence.
Field 865 is planted as an orchard, like Field 823.
Reasons why the property is no longer required
The fields were purchased at a time when the use of Howard Davis Farm for crop trials was expanding. This situation has reversed and the fields are no longer needed. Field 823,"The Jersey Cider Apple Collection" field should stay established as an orchard and it is suggested that the field is offered to either the National Trust for Jersey or La Société Jersiaise in the first instance, due to their involvement in setting up the orchard.
The RJA&HS has previously shown interest in acquiring Fields 849 and 851 which it currently uses under licence.
Redevelopment potential (if any)
None. Field 864 is in the Green Zone. The other 5 fields are in the Countryside Zone.
N 567 109.1 570 Rectory 110.4 W 530 E Tanks 577 Pool 573 111.2 Cemetery 120 S B51 rC 576 102.4 AuSelie PHa(orCliyshoTfCrEinh)iutyrch 105.7 Rue 578 La LaFontaine 1&2LaMarbonnerie, HowardDavisFarm 104.9 103.8 6 Mabon 106.6 100.2 560 561 102.9 States 109.4 560 ExperimentalF5ar6m1 A8 566 578 Tank Cemetery 112.1 PH 112.0 LaRueèsPicots 559 562 105.1 100.1 558 821 818 824 556 Reservoir té 825 CarPark delaTrini 827 LaRoute 822 828 827 97.9 101.2 823 872 849 The851 FSlopingMasonry i95.2 85e3 lds96.5 101.7 99.5 829 865 831 849 830 848 SM 864 Pond 842 843 850 850 Issues 88.8 866 Issues Sinks 90.1 Sinks 850A Primary 867 School PlayingField LesRueles 85.2 Pond 82.2 844 857 T 846 856 Issues 78.8 Issues CarPark 845 Pond 86.3 LeMontPelier 1071 1077 1078 Sinks 1080 Pond Issues 75.0 108 96.8 93.9 1080A 91.1 88.8 1075 1068 1079 1076 72.5 | |
Le Rondin Farm Fields, Trinity | Drawing No: 845/21 D1 |
COPYRI GHT STATES OF JERSEY | |
Boundary Information Supplied by the States of Jersey Planning Office, but no responsibility can be accepted for error. | |
Fields 373, off La Rue des Champs, St. Brelade (PBA 2/1683/1) Description
An agricultural field, which the States purchased in 1994 to add to a land bank for the creation of a municipal golf course in the "Les Creux" area.
The field area measures about 2.5 vergées. Location
The field is located to the north of La Rue des Champs, St. Brelade, and is accessed via a track on its east side (see attached location plan).
Current/previous use and any special features
The field is presently let on an annual rolling licence to a sheep farmer, the licence fee being £50/annum. Reasons why the property is no longer required
In October 1986 the States rezoned 262 vergées of land at Les Creux as a site for a municipal golf course.
However, the States was not successful in acquiring all of the land necessary to create the golf course. It was therefore decided that the golf course project be replaced with the "Les Creux" Country Park.
Field 373 does not form part of the Country Park, nor will it do so in the future. The States has no planned use for the field.
The present licence fee is modest at £50 per annum, and the land offers no scope for earning a significantly higher rent in its current form.
Redevelopment potential (if any)
There is no known development potential for the land.
332 332 | 196 | ||||||||||||||||
| 4 4 335 331 B La Moye |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| 59.0 Pool NPond Port etit P u d ute o R W E 370 La 62.0 330 Pool 337 S | 328 329 |
| ||||||||||||||
| 44 B |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| 61.1 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| 60.2 510 3 8 B |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| 61.3 371 | 511 |
| ||||||||||||||
| LA MOYE |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| 367 368 372 369 |
|
|
| |||||||||||||
| 369 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| FIEL37D3 373 | 509 |
| ||||||||||||||
| 59.6 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| 63.9 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
|
| 508 |
| ||||||||||||||
| 65.0 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| 59.0 376 376 | 64.8 |
| ||||||||||||||
| 366 |
| Pool |
| |||||||||||||
| 375 377 377 |
|
|
| |||||||||||||
| Ppg Sta | U/C | 66.1 |
| |||||||||||||
|
|
| 68.1 |
| |||||||||||||
| 65.8 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| 58.7 | 67. | 5 | ||||||||||||||
|
| 62.8 |
|
| |||||||||||||
| 59.3 379 67.4 | 68.5 |
| ||||||||||||||
| Sud La Place du Bisson te u o R a L |
| 69.3 El Sub Sta 67.9 |
| |||||||||||||
| 500 | 65.5 |
|
|
| ||||||||||||
| 499 65.7 La Pla |
| x |
| |||||||||||||
Field 373, Les Creux, St Brelade | Drawing No: | 1683 D1 | |||||||||||||||
| COPYRIGHT PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE | ||||||||||||||||
Boundary Information Supplied by the States of Jersey Planning Office, but no responsibility can be accepted for error. | |||||||||||||||||
Acorn Lodge (PBA 5/112/5) Description
Acorn Lodge is a detached three-bedroom dwelling constructed circa 1990. It is one of a pair of houses, its neighbour being known as Oak Lodge.
Location
Acorn Lodge, along with its neighbour Oak Lodge, are located adjacent to the Les Quennevais School boundary – see attached location plan.
Current/previous use and any special features
The two houses were previously used as staff accommodation for teachers but this is no longer required. An additional special needs facility is urgently needed by the school and a proposal was submitted to convert one house to meet this need, with the other house to be used for the Youth Action Team as part of the Kathy Bull initiative.
As the houses are only 12 years old, there were concerns about converting both these houses when they have a higher value as residential accommodation, and would only be providing a partial answer to the school's needs.
A survey of the houses has confirmed –
• One of the houses (Oak Lodge) would be very difficult to sell or lease – it is effectively part of the school playground.
• The other house (Acorn Lodge) can be separated and, with Planning agreement to increase wall heights, could be sold.
The school has developed plans for a purpose built extension to the existing SEN facility at an estimated cost of some £500,000. This extension would offer a significantly better facility than a converted house which is separated from the main building by the playground.
In Property Holdings' view, Acorn Lodge is best used for residential purposes and should be sold. Subject to the necessary approvals, and identification of the additional funding requirement, sale proceeds could be earmarked to deliver the purpose built extension for SEN use.
The remaining house, Oak Lodge, would be utilised by the Youth Action team. Reasons why the property is no longer required
Acorn Lodge and Oak Lodge were previously used to house teachers but are no longer required for that purpose and have both been empty for some time.
Redevelopment potential (if any)
There is no feasible redevelopment potential for the States, and it seems unlikely that a private party would seek to acquire one or both houses with a view to redeveloping the site.
|
| ||||||||||
N |
| ||||||||||
|
| E Car Park |
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
| Les Quennevais School (Secondary) and Community Centre |
| 7 | ||||||||
| Car Park |
|
| ||||||||
| Car Park Oak Lodge Acorn Lodge |
|
| ||||||||
| ta | 70.5 |
|
| |||||||
| 70.3 |
|
| ||||||||
|
| Car Park 71.5 |
| ||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
Acorn Lodge, Les quennevais School | Drawing No: | 115/5 D1 | |||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
| COPYRI GHT STATES OF JERSEY | ||||||||||
Boundary Information Supplied by the States of Jersey Planning Office, but no responsibility can be accepted for error. | |||||||||||
Development site at Belle Vue, Les Quennevais (PBA 12/1091/15) Description
The remaining parcel of development land at Belle Vue Estate – the major part of the site was developed for first- time-buyer and social rental housing in the late 1990s.
The site area is approximately 2.2 acres or 4.9 vergées. Location
The site is located on the east side of Belle Vue and borders La Route des Quennevais (see attached location plan).
Current/previous use and any special features
The Belle Vue master plan identified this remaining parcel of land for community use and the options that were considered included a branch library, crèche, care home and medical centre.
The former Health and Social Services Committee progressed the design of a scheme for a 60 bed residential home and day care centre, and a doctors' surgery. Planning consent was obtained for the residential home and day care centre, but that Committee decided to withdraw the project from the capital programme.
Reasons why the property is no longer required
On the grounds that the States will not be proceeding with a project to develop a residential home and day care centre, or any other project, it is recommended that this potentially valuable development site be considered for disposal. However, the recently published Planning For Homes document (R.94/2006) confirms a strong demand for sheltered housing and this site is well positioned in this respect.
Redevelopment potential (if any)
Although the site could be used for other purposes, including the provision of houses for first time buyers, the strong demand for sheltered housing and non-specialised accommodation for the over 50 age group sways the argument in favour of this type of development. It is therefore recommended that the site is put out to tender with a development brief to deliver 55% dwellings designated for sale, for occupation by those aged over 50 and 45% sheltered housing for lease (social rented housing).
| ||
| ||
Belle Vue Development Site | Drawing No: 1091 D1 | |
COPYRIGHT PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE | ||
Boundary Information Supplied by the States of Jersey Planning Office, but no responsibility can be accepted for error. | ||
1 Oxford Road, St. Helier, offices and workshop (ER 1515/1) Site
1 Oxford Road is a two storey property with yard, occupying a total site area of about 460 sq.m. (4,955 sq.ft.). I is classified as a Site of Special Interest (SSI). A site plan is attached.
Current and previous use
The property is now in a dilapidated state but was previously used as offices and workshops. The property cannot be brought back into use without extensive works. There is no specific need for the States to retain ownership of the site.
Ownership by States
The property is one of several left to the States for the benefit of the aged, infirm and needy residents of the Island' by Mr. Harold Le Seelleur, who died in 1996. If the property is sold the proceeds will be put toward the upkeep of the remaining properties and any balance spent in accord with Mr. Le Seelleur's wishes. In May 2003 a proposition to sell the property for £356,000 was rejected by the States. Unfortunately, since being left to the States this property has generated no benefit and has incurred only costs.
Potential for development
As an SSI there are significant Planning requirements which constrain the development potential. The existing form and structure must be retained or rebuilt in like manner. The effect of the SSI is to reduce the potential value of the site, given the poor condition of the existing structure. An appeal by Property Holdings against the designation of this property as an SSI was rejected in December 2006.
Marketing
The property was previously marketed on an open tender basis and a similar approach is recommended.
|
| |||||||||||
N | Car Park | |||||||||||
|
| E |
|
| ||||||||
|
| 12.6 13S.5 |
|
| ||||||||
| Oxford Road Workshop |
|
| |||||||||
|
| 10.3 |
| |||||||||
| n |
|
| |||||||||
| 10.2 10.9 Gas Place | 9.7 ST. Car Par | k | |||||||||
| Car Park |
|
| |||||||||
|
| 9.0 |
| |||||||||
| 9.3 Robin Place |
|
| |||||||||
|
|
|
| |||||||||
Oxford Road Workshop |
| Drawing No: 1515 D1 | ||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| COPYRI GHT STATES OF JERSEY | |||||||||||
Boundary Information Supplied by the States of Jersey Planning Office, but no responsibility can be accepted for error. |
|
| ||||||||||
H
La Mabonnerie Houses 1 and 2, Trinity (SRS 845/10&11) Description
1 and 2 La Mabonnerie are a pair of semi-detached houses, built in the late 1920s or early 1930s. The Public acquired Fields 560 and 561, upon which the houses sit, on the 30 April 1929 from Mr. Adolphus Le Sueur. Each two-storey house has a floor area of approximately 108 sq.m. (1,160 sq.ft.) and the accommodation include 3 bedrooms.
Both houses have detached garages, although the garage at No. 2 is in poor condition and possibly needs to be demolished and rebuilt. No. 2 also has parking for 2 cars at the front. Both houses have small front gardens, and reasonably sized rear gardens.
Location
The houses are located at the north-west corner of the Howard Davis Farm site, adjacent to the Philip Mourant Training Centre. The houses face West onto La Rue d'Asplet.
Current/previous use and any special features
No. 1 is currently vacant. Previously the lounge was being used temporarily as an office by the Jersey Potato Marketing Board. Ideally, the house requires a new kitchen and bathroom, and internal decoration, prior to any proposed sale.
No. 2 is in fair decorative order inside with a recently installed kitchen and bathroom suite. Both houses would benefit from external decoration prior to any proposed sale.
Reasons why the property is no longer required
The houses are on the boundary of the Howard Davis Farm site, and therefore their sale would not impinge on any plans for the main site, to the rear (East) of the houses. The houses are outside the area of the Howard Davis Farm Restrictive Covenant. While there is no requirement for the States to retain ownership, the houses have been identified as suitable for conversion into a group home for occupation by persons with learning disabilities. The Health and Social Services Department is supportive of this use, under the management of Les Amis, and it is proposed to offer the houses for sale to a housing trust for this specific purpose. See also 12 Le Clos de la Ville.
Redevelopment potential (if any)
The houses are better suited to individual sale or conversion to a group home.
526 113.4 N528 W E uerd in a G S Rue 527 La 567 109.1 530 Tanks 51 B 102.4 105.7 1 &2 La Marbonnerie, Howard Davis Far m La Fontaine Mabon 100.2 560 561 States 560 Experimental F5ar6m 1 Tank 559 562 Reservoir | |
1 & 2 La Mabonnerie, Howard Davis Fa | Drawing No: 845/10 D1 rm |
COPYRI GHT STATES OF JERSEY | |
Boundary Information Supplied by the States of Jersey Planning Office, but no responsibility can be accepted for error. | |
12 Le Clos de la Ville, Clarke Avenue, St. Helier (PBA 1385/1) Description
Le Clos de la Ville estate was developed by the then Housing Committee in the early 1990s. The houses were sold to first time buyers, apart from No. 12, which was given over to Les Amis Incorporated to house adults with learning difficulties. The subject house is detached, with a garden, and has 6 bedrooms.
Location
Le Clos de la Ville estate is accessed from La Grande Route de St. Jean and Clarke Avenue. La Grande Route du Mont à L'Abbé borders to the west. The estate is in close proximity to Haute Vallée secondary school in St. Helier. No. 12 Le Clos de la Ville is located in the south-west corner of the estate.
Current/previous use and any special features
As mentioned above, the property is used by Les Amis Incorporated to house adults with learning difficulties. Reasons why the property is no longer required
From the outset it was intended that 12 Le Clos de la Ville would be either sold, leased or gifted to Les Amis Incorporated, although a preferred option was not agreed between the former Housing and Planning and Environment Committees.
It has now been agreed in principle, with the support of the Health and Social Services Department, that the property be sold to Les Vaux Housing Trust, which would lease to Les Amis Incorporated on the basis that use as a group home would continue. The Les Vaux Trust already has property leased to Les Amis and is proposing to also purchase from the Public 1 and 2 La Mabonnerie (see separate report).
Redevelopment potential (if any)
The site is fully developed with a building only 10 years old.
65.5 N |
| ||||||||||
|
| E |
|
| |||||||
| |||||||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
| 63.9 63.4 |
| ||||||||
| 64.1 Clark 64.5 | e Avenue |
| ||||||||
| 64.7 |
|
| ||||||||
| 12 Le Clos dela Ville |
|
| ||||||||
| 63.6 |
|
| ||||||||
|
| 61.9 |
| ||||||||
| Car Park |
|
| ||||||||
|
| 60. | 2 | ||||||||
| 63.4 | BM 1 | 9 | ||||||||
| ark |
|
| ||||||||
|
| 0 6 |
| ||||||||
|
| B |
| ||||||||
|
| Chestnut Farm 0 |
| ||||||||
|
| 6 |
| ||||||||
| Car Park | B |
| ||||||||
|
| 60.4 |
| ||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
12 Le Clos de la Ville, Clarke Avenue, St | Drawing No: 1385/D1 Helier | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
COPYRI GHT STATES OF JERSEY | |||||||||||
Boundary Information Supplied by the States of Jersey Planning Office, but no responsibility can be accepted for error. |
| ||||||||||
Public Accounts Committee
Report on the States' Property Plan
Presented to the States on 13th February 2007.
P.A.C.1/2007
The Public Accounts Committee
[1]
The primary function of the Public Accounts Committee is defined in Standing Orders as the review of reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General regarding –
• The audit of the Annual Accounts of the States of Jersey and to report to the States upon any significant issues arising from those reports;
• Investigations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness achieved in the use of resources by the States, States funded bodies, independently audited States bodies (apart from those that are
companies owned and controlled by the States), and States aided independent bodies;
• The adequacy of corporate governance arrangements within the States, States funded bodies, independently audited States bodies, and States aided independent bodies,
• and to assess whether public funds have been applied for the purpose intended and whether extravagance and waste are being eradicated and sound financial practices applied throughout the
administration of the States.
The Public Accounts Committee may also examine issues, other than those arising from the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General, from time to time.
The Public Accounts Committee represents a specialised area of scrutiny. Scrutiny examines policy whereas the Public Accounts Committee examines the use of States' resources in the furtherance of those policies. Consequently initial enquiries are made of Chief Officers rather than Ministers. This is not to say that enquiries may not be made of Ministers should the reports and recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee be ignored.
The work of the Public Accounts Committee is ongoing rather than on a one-off basis and the Committee will return to topics previously examined in order to evaluate whether recommendations have been followed or procedures improved. If such a follow-up is unsatisfactory then the Committee may decide to hold further public hearings in order to identify the reasons for the lack of progress.
The current membership of the Public Accounts Committee consists of –
States Members | Independent Members |
Deputy Sarah Ferguson (Chairman) |
|
Deputy of St. Ouen (Vice Chairman) | Mr. Tony Grimes |
Deputy Alan Breckon | Advocate Alex Ohlsson |
Connétable of St. Peter | Mr. Chris Evans |
Connétable of Grouville | Mr. Roger Bignell |
Senator Jimmy Perchard | Mr. Martin Magee |
Introduction
- I n 2005, the States approved a proposition concerningthemanagementofproperty held by the States, "States of Jersey Property Holdings: establishment, P.93/2005of the Policy and ResourcesCommittee, attached as anAppendix. This proposition envisaged that –
- a new unit, States ofJersey Property Holdings(JPH), would be established,
- responsibility for ownership,managementandmaintenanceof all of the States' property assets
would be transferred from departments to JPH,
- JPH would be responsible forimproving the efficiency of the States' property management and maximising, identifying properties that areno longer requiredfor the States' use,
- maximisingand,where appropriate, realising the value to the States representedbythe property assets, and
- reporting to the States Assemblyon the wayinwhichit intends to discharge its responsibilities and on its performance.
- A s presagedby the originalproposition,Statesof Jersey Property Holdings prepared a Strategic Plan which was includedasanAppendixto the Strategic Plan issued by the Council ofMinisters early in 2006. SubsequentlyanAnnual Business Plan wasproducedandincluded as a part of the States' Business Plan for 2007.That part oftheStates' Business Plan wasnot approved by the States Assembly but, ineffect, referred to the Public Accounts Committee.
- T h i s Reportsetsout the Committee's view on the Property Business Plan for 2007 after takingaccount of
a report on the Plan which was published by the Comptroller & Auditor General in November 2006.[2] Following publication of that report, on 11th December 2006, the Committee held a public Hearing at
which evidence was taken from Mr. Bill Ogley, Chief Executive to the States, and Mr. Eric Le Ruez, Chief Officer of Jersey Property Holdings.
The Committee continues to support the objectives and approaches set out in the proposition which led to the creation of States of Jersey Property Holdings.
- T h e principal objective of the proposition was to achieve proper and effective managementof properties held by the States ofJerseythrough the centralisation ofmanagement responsibility, staff and budgetsin the handsof JPH.
- I t w as intended that this wouldimprovemanagementofproperty holdings by –
- centralising staffresponsible for managementand maintenance thereby eliminating wasteful duplication between departments,
- through JPH charging annual rentals for property occupation which would more accurately reflect the true cost ofproperty occupation, therebyensuring that all departments recognise the full cost of their activities andseekto improve the efficiency of their use ofaccommodation,and
- through identifying and realising the value ofsurplusproperties.
- I n t heCommittee'sview,thesesteps were long overdue –
- The ineffectiveness oftheStates'management of its property assets had, over many years, been the subjectofvarious investigations andreports.[3]
- Accommodating departments in manybuildingsof differing ages and differing conditions is unlikely to lead to efficient useofspaceand a minimisation ofcost.
- Disseminating responsibility for maintaining theStates' properties between manysmallunitsis not likely tobean efficient use ofresourcesor to ensure that properties are properly maintained.
- Finally, creating a central record for all property and the costs of its management is in itself an important stepsincean organisation which does notrecord and measure the use of its assetsis unlikely to take their efficient use seriously.
- T h us the creation of Jersey Property Holdings is a welcome, if belated, step towards improving the efficiency of the States.
2007 Property Business Plan
- T h erewas little time available to JPHbetweenthe approval ofP93/2005, its creation andthe need to publish the 2007 Business Plan.As a result, this Business Plan is limited restatementof a series of aspirations and intentions together with the publication of a list of properties intended for disposal. Inevitably, mostofthese properties were long ago identified as surplus to the requirements of the States and thus as suitable for disposal. AsMr. Le Ruez said inthepublic hearing–
" . .. w e h a v e concentrated on, shall we say, relatively easy targets, property that can be identified today as being surplus to the States requirements and which would be best sold rather than kept and perhaps being a liability to the States in future years."[4]
- In e vitably, there had been no time to prepare a detailed long term plan for departments' property requirements when the 2007 Property Business Plan was published. AsMr.LeRuez told the Committee –
" In p r e p a r in g that first Property Plan, we did carry out a, I have to say, quite a hurried exercise in trying to establish departmental need for the next few years, where possible matching those
either to existing property or to capital bids where new property or new land was required."[5]
- Given the limited time available for its preparation, in the Committee's view, a sensible approach was adopted to preparation of the 2007 Property Business Plan. It must be recognised, however, that the Plan represents no more than a first step towards achievement of the policy objectives set out in P.93/2005 and that consistent management attention will be required if those objectives are to be achieved.
- B e causeof its concern that the practical implementation ofP.93/2005should not beundulydelayed, the Committee reviewed what in its view are the principal stages by which the proposition should be implemented.
Transfers of responsibility
- I t isimportant that all propertymanagement responsibilities shouldbe transferred to States of Jersey Property Holdings without unreasonable delay. It was evident when the Committee interviewed Bill Ogley and Eric Le Ruez on 11th December 2006 not all departments had transferred property management responsibilities to States of Jersey Property Holdings –
" T h e b i g o n e that is left is Health and Social Services ... the actual buildings themselves effectively are under the administration of Property Holdings, but for Health and Social Services we do not
have the budget or responsibility for maintaining those buildings yet."[6]
- In answertosubsequentquestionsitalsobecameclear that responsibility for –
- the property assets of the EducationSports and Culture department would notbetransferred until 31stDecember 2006,
- the property assets of the Homes Affairs department (i.e. principally, the Police Service,and the Fire Service)would not be transferred until the first half of2007.
- N o date was given for transfer ofthePrison's property.[7]
- T h e related budgetswerealso being transferred to JPH.Ofcourse,these transfers were not reflected in
the States published Budget for 2007 as the work for that had been completed before the transfers had been
agreed. They will be reflected in the formal budget for 2008.[8]
- B y the end of 2006, about sixty staff would have transferred to JPH whereas in 2000, the Audit Commission estimated that thenumberof staff whoshouldbe transferred wouldbeabout135.
- T h e length of time taken forthese transfers tobeeffected and the numbersofstaff identified fortransfer cause concern over the degree ofco-operation being shown by departments –
" M r . L e R u ez:"I mean, we have had full co-operation from the departments to date and the transfers have taken time because it is quite complex, actually, extracting the budgets relating purely to property and not to the services. But I can say that wit Transport and Technical Services that has been successfully achieved; Education we are just about there now; and with the Home Affairs budget we still have some negotiation to do but that is not a very large budget.
The big one is certainly Health and Social Services and that is taking some time, I agree."[9]
- T heCommitteenotedthe progress that had been madeineffectingthetransfersof responsibility but wasconcerned that –
- the transfers of the Home Affairs Department's responsibilities together with relevant staff and budgets were taking so long; and
- Mr. Ogley and Mr. Le Ruez had been unable to give a date on which the propert responsibilities, relevantstaffandbudgetsoftheHealthandSocialServicesdepartment, a department with an extensive portfolio ofpropertieswouldbetransferredtoJPH.
- The Corporate Management Board should be alert to and should act to prevent any department delaying the transferof responsibility relevantstaffand responsibility.
JPH's resources
- I t is important that JPH should have the professional skills necessary to discharge its responsibilities. Inevitably, in view of the earlystage at which the 2007 Property Business Plan was prepared, thestaffof States of Jersey Property Holdings consisted largely of the previous staff of property services and property managementstaff transferred from departments.
- T h e Committee recognises that muchhas been achieved in the monthssince the creation ofJPH –
" .. . a lo t o f t he last twelve months or so has been spent in getting together a new structure called Property Holdings, setting ourselves up with a design and maintenance division, finance and strategy division, and a property management division. With that now in place and directors in
place ... we are moving forward."[10]
- Y e t it is acknowledged that JPHneeds the following further skills atleast –
- JPH needstoappoint an asset managertoberesponsiblefor establishing departmentalproperty requirements.[11]
- JPH will need either tohavecommercialproperty expertise within its ownteamor to have ready access to such expertise to ensure that when surplus property is realised the States' interests are properly safeguarded.
- T im ely recruitmentwillbenecessaryiftheJPH is to be able to meet expectations. Forexample, although at the public hearing,Mr. Le Ruezwas not able toindicatewho would be appointed to act as asse manager, heindicated that the more strategic assessmentof the States' property needswhichheenvisages
as this manager's responsibility would be brought to the States probably in 8 to 9 months' time'.[12]
- T h e Committeenoted the progress that had been made in creating the JPHteam, but is concerned that delays in recruitment mayimpedeJPH's ability tomeettheexpectations that P.93/2005 created.
Financial environment
- C reation of the appropriate financial environment for JPH will be a critical step in encouraging departments tomanage their needsforproperty more effectively –
" M r. O g l e y : ... it is a significant piece of work and we need to, as every organisation has gone through this transition, find the most cost-effective way of doing it that will change behaviours because that is what we are about."
" M r. L e R u ez: If you have departments using property but not actually paying for it in the sens that whether they have got 20,000 square feet or 10,000 square feet ... makes no difference whatsoever to their budget, they will happily sit with 20,000 square feet because it makes no difference to them. If you can introduce a system whereby it is advantageous for departments to
use their property effectively, then we will have succeeded."[13]
- T h e Committeewas told that Chief Officershad not decided how this would be done –
" M r. O g l e y :"... we do not know exactly how we will do it yet. There is a lot of work to go into it and I think that is what most organisations find, is it would be very easy to introduce a method of charging. You have to have a method which is realistic in terms of ... reflecting real value. So what you are not doing is entering into a system where you are giving people money ... to release property and the money they have got is worth more than the property... then all you end up with is everybody saying: Thank you very much, I will have my £100,000' and you walk away and you have got something worth half of it ... I think we have got a lot of work to do... I think it is important because in the long term it is what will change and make management of this much
better and change behaviour."[14]
- W hilst Mr. Le Ruezsuggested that this process would leadtothe introduction of a fairer approachto charging in2008[15],theCommitteenoted that Mr. Ogleyappearedtobe more cautious.
- It h as to be admitted that oneof the consequencesof the introduction ofMinisterialgovernmenthas been a lengthening oftheprocessbywhichannual budgets are preparedandreviewed.Forexample,thedraft budget for 2008 will be published in the early months of 2007. The effect, when considering the implementation ofnew infrastructure within the States is that leadtimes are very long indeed. This is a subject that maymerit the Committee's closer attention in due course.
- The Committee accepted that the introduction of a fair and equitable method of charging' was a major and difficult piece of work not least to ensure that its desired effect to increase pressure to improve efficiency is achieved, but considered that –
- the manyyearsthathadpassed in reflecting on the proposal that such a system shouldbe introduced, and
- the potentialofsuch a system to encouragebeneficialdepartmentalbehaviours,
- the CorporateManagement Board would have failed in its duty to realise theexpectations created byP.93/2005 if such a system werenotintroduced with effect from 2009.
Governance of JPH
- P ro position P.93/2005 envisaged that JPHwouldbe a –
" . .. d e p a r tm ent of the States, reporting to the Finance and Resource Minister under the new Ministerial structure. The Chief Officer of States of Jersey Property Holdings will be accountable to the Chief Executive of the States and to the Treasury and Resources Minister for the
management of assets including the delivery of any agreed financial return to the States."[16]
- P ro position 93/2005 also envisaged the creation of –
" T h e P ro p e r ty Board, reporting to the Corporate Management Board, will initially be responsible for ensuring all necessary structures are in place to promote good corporate governance through transparency of action and clear lines of accountability.
T h e P r o p e r ty Board will work with States of Jersey Property Holdings to produce the initial States Property Plan and thereafter provide an interface between departments and States of Jersey
Property Holdings to review States property policy and its implementation through States of
Jersey Property Holdings."[17]
- A l thoughP.93/2005 gave the clearimpression that the Property Board would becreated at an early stage in the life ofJPH, in fact this has not happened –
" M r . L e R u ez: The property board, as I understand it, would be set up by the departments to loo at the services being provided by Property Holdings, and that has not been set up yet."[18]
- F u rthermore, the purpose of the Property Board appears to have changed. Whereas the original Proposition envisaged that the Board would be responsiblefor ensuring that allnecessary structures are in place to promote good governance',Mr. Ogleysuggested that –
" T h e i n te n t to create a property board is actually more of a customer service board than a governance board. It is for the people who are the occupants of the property to have a group to gauge their satisfaction with the way the property is maintained for their use."[19]
- It i s clear that the preparation ofbusinessplans for examination bythe States assembly wasintended to be an importantelementof the oversight of JPHandof plans for property disposals in particular. This oversight couldbecircumvented if JPHwere to make extensive useof the powers in theStates' Standing Orders to make disposalswithout prior reference in a business plan agreed bytheStatesAssembly.The Committee therefore welcomesthefollowingexplanationgivenbyMr. Le Ruezand expects that itwil be followed in respect of all property disposals proposed by the States irrespective of whether the properties concerned fall within the remitofJPH –
" M r . L e R u ez: ... under Standing Orders the Treasury and Resources Minister could take a decision and it would simply be reported to the States, but it is I think expected that for property disposals, certainly significant property disposals, the States would have the opportunity to
consider the proposal before the Treasury and Resources Minister actually takes a decision."[20]
- O n e of the steps necessary topromote good governance would be the identification of proper waysof measuringtheperformanceof JPH –
" P e r fo r m a n ce will be measured against public and private sector benchmarks and may be subject to review by the Public Accounts Committee."[21]
- S u chbenchmarks are not set outin the 2007 Property Business Plan.
- G o ing beyond the plans set out in P.93/2005, the 2007 Business Plan envisages that JPHshouldbecome a trading organisation in2008 –
" T h e D e p u ty of St. Ouen: Bearing in mind ... that there is a huge volume of work to do to achieve all the objectives laid out in P.93, do you see [2008] as being achievable or even required?
M r. L e R u e z: Yes. Well, I think it is desirable and I hope it is achievable. It would require th approval of the States ... probably by no later than September [2007]. But I think it is desirable if
Property Holdings is, as well as being able to increase income or increase effectiveness of property, but also be able to invest in property which will be required if we are really going to pursue the effectiveness of the use of office accommodation in the future. There will be a need for
some capital investment, though, I have no doubt."[22]
- In a subsequentanswer,itbecameapparent that 2008represented the earliestpointatwhichJPHcould become a trading fund.
- I n passing it becameapparentthat, as a trading fund,JPHwouldbe distinct from the development organisation to be established on the foundation of Waterfront Enterprise Board (WEB) which is intended to be a state-owned vehicle, 100% as a separate company, that would have the ability to
develop sites'.[23]
- W hilst trading fund status may eventually beappropriateforJPH, completing the formation of JPH and implementing the detailed proposals in P.93/2005 will require consistent effort and there is a risk that this work will be delayed by distractions such asthe consideration of trading fund status.
- In the Committee's view, it is important that –
- the governancearrangementssurrounding JPH shouldbeput in placeas soon aspossible, and
- irrespective ofwhether trading fundstatus is attractive forJPH,considerationof that status shouldnotbeallowed to delay the completion of the establishmentof JPH and the implementation of the detailedproposalsinP93/2005fortheoversightofJPH.
- The Committee will return to this subject after the end of 2007 to check that –
- the governancearrangementsproposed in P93/2005 have been established,and
- in particular, that appropriateperformancemeasures for JPH have been agreed.
Savings: efficiency and disposals
- T h e 2007 Property Business Plan envisages that JPH will –
" .. . d e li v e r r evenue savings of £1.5 m from 2008 and annual net capital receipts rising from £1m in 2007 to £4m from 2009 onward."
- It i s recognised that actual receipts will vary significantly from year to year.
- T h e Committeereviewedthe projected efficiency savings (£1.5 million annually from 2008) which were described byMr. Le Ruez inthefollowing way–
" I e x p e c t to see some savings being made on property maintenance contributing to that £1.5 million and potentially some staff savings as well as increased income... some of it has already been achieved with the leases at Axminster House and Bond Street being terminated this
year."[24]
- A s such,theprojected efficiency savings are not a saving on the true cost ofproperty to the States. The current plan does not include the effect of any suchsavings,notleast because JPHis not yetin a position to forecast what savings in the cost of propertymaybe possible –
" A d v o c a te A Ohlsson: .when you get to 2009 you will have a clearer idea of what the true cost of property is to the States?
M r . L e R u e z: Absolutely, yes.
A d v o c a te A . Ohlsson: At which point you will see presumably more ambitious targets?
M r . L e R u e z: Well, we hope so, yes. Yes, I think there is more potential there, certainly, yes".
- In otherwords, the current projected efficiency savings are a cautious forecast ofwhatshould be possible.
- T h e Committeealsoreviewed the current property disposals programme andnoted that, on a conservative view, the realisable value of the properties identified for disposal represents a significant proportion of the total projected receipts for the years2007-2009.Itshouldberememberedthat, in view of the limited time available for preparing the plan, the properties to be sold are largely thosewhichhad been identified as surplus beforethecreationof JPH whichsuggests that these projections are alsocautious.
- T h e proceedsofthe proposed disposalsare,asexplainedbyMr. Le RuezandMr. Ogleytobe credited t the Land Acquisition Vote and thence to the Consolidated Fund and will represent a part of the fundingof the States' planned capital expenditure.The Committee welcomed this confirmation, supportingthe view that it is inherently unattractive and imprudent to use the proceedsof sales of capital assets to finance revenue expenditure. This general principle wasendorsedbyMr.Ogley,the Chief Executive –
" M r . T . G r imes: As a principle then, is it the view of the Chief Officer that you do not utilis capital sales to fund the revenue cost of the States budgets?
M r . O g le y : N o."
" M r . T . G r imes: So a department that sells property would not be able to redirect those funds into the main annual expenditure budget?
M r . O g l e y: This was the point of transferring all of the property into one pot, creating a Property
Holdings, because the experience as was recounted to me was that that tended to be what happened. If somebody had a lot of asset value and could release it easily they could use it for investment, whereas ... these are States assets. That is right, is it not?
M r . L e R u e z: Yes."[25]
- A s Mr. Ogley suggested to the Committee,itwouldbewrong to under-estimate the scaleof the change in practice that has already been achieved –
" .. . i f y o u th ink back to the point at which we took the proposition to the States, until that point there had been virtually no property disposals. Everything was held in the back pocket to be used one day for whatever purpose, and there had been tremendous opposition to any form of centralised management and administration and transfer. Now, 18 months on it is a different world and what we are actually now talking about is accelerating the value of the property and I
think departments are seeing the benefit that can come through."[26]
- T h e Committee agrees that thechange that has been effectedis significant. However, the Committee's review of the 2007 Property Business Plan suggests that the full financialbenefits that oughtto flow from the changesand that ought to bematerial lie beyond the immediate period covered by the plan. Moreover,
the Committee notes with concern that the States 2007 Business Plan suggests that it would be unreasonable to
expect that further material efficiency savings might be achieved beyond the period covered by the plan. The Committee welcomes the following comment by Mr. Ogley during the public hearing –
" .. . w e a re n ow in the business ... of saying: Well, those were the promises at the outset. Now you can do better. Let us get on with it."[27]
- The Committee recommends the 2007 Property Business Plan for approval by the States as a step towards the achievement of –
- effective property management,
- efficient departmentalmanagement,and
- maximisation ofthe value of the States property holdings.
- The Committee agrees with Mr. Ogley and Mr. Le Ruez that, as a matter of principle, the proceed of the sale of capital assets should not be used to meet revenue expenditure and expects that this principle will be followed in all of the States' dealings with property irrespective of whether they fall within the remit of JPH.
- The Committee will return to this subject after the end of 2007, to –
- examinetheoutcomeof the 2007 Property Plan,
- in particular,toexamineJPH'smanagementoftheprogrammeofdisposals to ensure that JPH has takenappropriatesteps to maximise the proceeds ofanysale,
- to check that the proceeds of disposals have been applied in accordance with the arrangementsdescribedbyMr. Le RuezandMr. Ogley,and
- to checkthattherehas been nodelay in thestepsnecessaryto achieve greater efficiency in the States' use ofproperty.
[1]
Standing Orders of the States of Jersey 1 January 2006, No. 132.
[2]
R .C .8 8 /2006.
[3]
S u ch a s: Review by Environment Resources Management in 1999, the States of Jersey Audit Commission in 2000
and a Report of the Future of Property Services in 2001.
[4]
Tr a n s c ript page 2.
[5]
Tr a n s c ript page 16.
[6]
Tr a n s c ript page 4.
[7]
S ee a n swers given by Mr. Le Ruez, transcript page 5. [8]
S ee a n swer given by Mr. Le Ruez, transcript page 7. [9]
Tr a n s c ript page 8.
[10]
M r . Le Ruez's answer, transcript page 16.
[11]
M r . Le Ruez's answer, transcript page 16.
[12]
Tr a n s cript page 16.
[13]
Tr a n s cript pages 11 and 12.
[14]
Tr a n s cript page 13.
[15]
Tr a n s cript page 10.
[16]
P .9 3 /2 005, page 6.
[17]
P .9 3 /2 005, page 9.
[18]
Tr a n s cript page 3.
[19]
Tr a n s cript page 18.
[20]
Tr a n s cript pages 27 and 28.
[21]
P .9 3 /2 005, page 5.
[22]
Tr a n s cript page 21.
[23]
M r . O gley's answer, transcript page 22. [24]
Tr a n s cript page 36.
[25]
Tr a n s cript pages 30 and 31.
[26]
Tr a n s cript page 14.
[27]
Tr a n s cript page 15.