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 OF JERSEY
REVOCATION OF AVIEMORE SALE
Lodged au Greffe on 7thFebruary 2025 by Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement Earliest date for debate: 25th February 2025
STATES GREFFE
2025 P.9
PROPOSITION
THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion
- to request the Minister for Infrastructure not to proceed with the sale of the property known as Aviemore, La Rue de la Pouclée et des Quatre Chemins, St Martin, to the Jersey Development Company, as proposed in the Report presented to the States on 17th January 2025, by the Minister, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 168(3); and
- to request the Council of Ministers to consult the States Assembly and the public on the future use and ownership of Aviemore and the support of care- experienced Islanders, before 30th September 2025, and to include any funding considered appropriate pursuant to such consultation within the Government Plan (Budget) 2026-2029.
DEPUTY A.F. CURTIS OF ST. CLEMENT
REPORT Summary
This proposition has been lodged to oppose the implicit States Assembly agreement to the sale of Aviemore by the Jersey Property Holdings to the States of Jersey Development Company.
It seeks to do so as at some members have several concerns about the sale, in relation to the amount of money being proposed for the sale; the details (or lack thereof) and consequences of the overage payment referenced in the report, as well as whether our States owned development company SoJDC should be undertaking a development on this site.
Secondly, the proposition seeks Assembly support to consult on the future use of the Aviemore site with both the States Assembly and with the wider public and to ensure that the dialogue continues with regards the establishment of additional funding for care experienced Islanders.
The publicity surrounding the proposed Aviemore sale in the past few weeks has highlighted both specific aspirations for the site and the concern that we will lose wider opportunities as an island by releasing it to housing development, as well as reigniting the important debate on how the Government of Jersey acts as custodian of public assets.
Site Context and Recent History
Aviemore, the former Children's home, is sited directly east of the listed property Haut De Le Garenne. It has no immedicable (non-agricultural) neighbours and the land to the south and east is in public ownership, as shown by Government maps;
Map [1]showing publicly owned sites. Colours indicate which department is currently responsible. |
Indeed, the site on which Aviemore sits can be seen as integral to Haut De La Garenne in the 1935 Ordnance Survey map.
Excerpt from the 1935 Ordnance Survey Map of Jersey |
The wider site has a long history both in relation to historic uses and the findings of the Independent Care Inquiry.
Following the closure of the site as a home in 1986, conversion of elements of the site to residential or luxury hotel accommodation have been proposed, but ultimately the States Assembly, Parish Assembly or the public have opposed such schemes as they arose.
We are now fortunate to have a thriving and well-regarded activity and accommodation centre run from the site.
The specific site of Aviemore has often been referenced as a potential for residential housing, including in the Government Plans of 2023, 2024 and 2025, but the form, nature and value to be generated from such schemes was never included in this high- level proposal.
Recent Timelines
In January 2024, the site was listed for sale by tender via RICS regulated property consultants Quérée Property Consultants[2]. The site was listed with the following under opportunity';
The Freehold of Aviemore is offered for sale by way of informal tender. Expressions of interest are invited via the attached tender proforma by 12-noon, Friday 8th March 2024. Aviemore is offered with a guide price of offers in excess of £3.00M'. Preference will be given to unconditional bids received from cash purchasers with a strong track-record of completing and developing similar assets.
On the 17th January 2025, the Minister for Infrastructure tabled R11.2025 [3]–
LAND TRANSACTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER 168(3) – SALE – AVIEMORE. Members were not briefed in advance of the lodging of this land transaction.
Neither the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel (CSSP) responsible for independent scrutiny of SoJDC as defined in P73.2010[4], nor the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Panel (EHI) were briefed on the respective purchase and sale of Aviemore.
On 21st January I emailed the Chief Minister, Treasury Minister and Infrastructure Minister a series of questions about the proposed sale of Aviemore and R11.2025. I cc'd all elected States Members. In this email I asked the following;
Dear Lyndon, Elaine and Andy,
Following the publication of R.11/2025 under Standing Order 168 notifying the Assembly of the proposed sale of Aviemore to SoJDC, I was hoping we as members could understand further what is being proposed.
Any member can bring a proposition opposing the land transaction to the assembly, and so I hope if some more information is provided we can decide whether this is a proposition any of us wish to bring.
I would say a proposition, whilst titled opposing', may not confer unfettered opposition, but may be because the member believes the decision is of a magnitude or strategic importance it should be debated and approved by the assembly through this mechanism.
From my side, I would be keen to understand;
- Breakdown of Offers Received (for MINF)
Could we have a breakdown of offers received (not including person/business name unless it was another SOE), to include;
- Value of offer
- Proposed onward use (if provided)
- Any conditions attached to sale, or subject to's'
- Proposed Development by SoJDC (for CM and TRM)
I presume SoJDC and the RSG have an idea of what is being proposed? Is it open-market residential as per the Budget 2025-2028?
Has a development model been considered for what SoJDC would like to develop? I would presume that for them to embark on this they will already have drafted a development brief. Does their proposal involve demolition and rebuilding? Is there a target yield of housing or is this a single property development?
- Proposed future profit for the development (for MINF and TRM)
R11 references an overpayment on the contract price following planning permission. What is the agreed rate at how this will be calculated. Will it be on percentage of project value, market value etc? I presume development will be undertaken in a discrete corporate entity owned by SoJDC as per previous developments. What is the plan for profits arising from the development. Have they agreed purpose?
- Strategic Fit
Could the rationale for SoJDC developing the site be further explained. SoJDC have typically focussed development to sites within regeneration zones' or large residential schemes, such as the Waterfront, College Gardens, IFC, South Hill. Given that SoJDC will not be developing the site themselves and will be utilising the private sector (as stated in Schedule 4 Part 1.5 of their MoU) for everything from design, engineering to construction, what inherent financial advantage does SoJDC have in developing this site for open market over a private developer or contractor. If we had no or limited interest from such parties, what assurances do we have, given SoJDC will use the same builders, that there is a viable and profitable scheme to be had. If the scheme isn't aiming to be profitable, what public policy priority is it aiming to deliver against. Kind Regards, Alex
I and members received no direct response to this email.
I did receive an invite to discuss the sale with the Chief Officer of Infrastructure and Environment (I&E). Whilst this meeting was helpful, as it explained some of this history to this site and the sale, the Chief Officer was not able to speak to the political aspects of the sale, nor the respective purchase. I suggested that whilst the meeting was helpful, members may still wish to receive answers to my questions.
On 24th January I sent a polite chaser to the Ministers noting my meeting, however reiterating that members were still awaiting answers to my questions.
On 27th January, Deputy Wilson tabled Written Question 9/2025[5] to the Minister for Infrastructure requesting further information on the proposed sale of Aviemore to SoJDC.
On 29th January I received an email (without States Members in cc) from the private secretary of the Minister for Infrastructure informing me a briefing would be provided to members. No date was proposed.
On 3rd February Deputy Wilson received an answer to WQ 9/2025 which did not include further clarity on the overage payment or the details of the offers received for Aviemore.
On 6th February I received an email from an officer in I&E suggesting a briefing on the 18th February. This date is beyond the notification period under Standing Order 168, and as such members would have no ability to oppose the land transaction following this briefing.
Conclusion
This proposition has not been lodged due to the poor communication experienced with regards to the sale and purchase of Aviemore.
Indeed, in lodging at the end of the notification period I have aimed to work with the Council of Ministers in giving them every opportunity to allay members' concerns, and at least for me, assure me that this transaction is the right thing to do for the public, both in respect of JPH and SoJDC.
I have lodged this as I remain seriously concerned that selling Aviemore for residential development in the current housing market and at the far lower expected return, is not the best use of our valuable public estate.
I am also concerned that the case for the States of Jersey Development Company to develop this site has not been explained and given this is a departure from their typical developments, what makes it a viable opportunity in the current market?
Aviemore is adjacent to the Jersey Accommodation and Adventure Centre, a well- regarded and essential provision of visitor and local outdoor services. The regularisation of the fields to the east of the centre for camping were subject to two planning applications in 2022 (determined by Planning Committee in 2023). At the Planning Committee, neighbours objected to the noise and disturbance created by outdoor play. There is a real risk that the provision of open market housing would threaten the ongoing viability of JAAC.
As shown in the maps earlier, Aviemore is integral to an existing public land holding. It is intertwined with Haut De La Garenne, and future uses could align with our strategic
needs as an island, such as expanding visitor economy uses, or sympathetically providing later life care facilities such as for dementia.
Whilst Members may have regrettably parted with this land (and accepted the comprised remaining land parcel) if the money generated was sufficiently high, I am left with a feeling of unease and too many outstanding questions such as;
What is SoJDC proposing to develop on the site? Does it align with the public interest'?
Would more private developers have expressed an interest if the site was advertised differently or at a lower price?
How was the original £3.00 Million valuation arrived at?
Why is what is being offered so different to the professional and independent valuation?
What does this mean for the wider valuations of the public estate?
Does high-end housing sit well next to an accommodation and adventure centre. Will there be conflict in the future?
Are there better uses for the site, such as economic, tourism, step-down care or similar, especially now that we are not realising as much cash as expected?
Does a conflict arise with the overage payment, as it encourages the Council of Ministers to seek to push development density as far as possible on a sensitive site to return a greater payment?
Why have States members questions faced silence and a continued lack of clarity?
And ultimately;
For £1.3 million (plus the opaque overage payment with no guarantee) – is this really the best way to treat our strategic land assets?
Could we achieve something better?
I ask the Assembly to consider this, and for Ministers to provide detailed and transparent answers.
Financial and staffing implications
If part (a) is adopted, the Government will not immediately receive the receipt of £1.3million. The Government will still hold the asset and so retain the value.
If part (b) is adopted, minimal costs of money and time will be incurred in consultation. This should be achievable within existing staffing and may require hosting workshops or online surveys. Potentially the Government would need to allocate additional funding, but the total amount would be a matter for Government and the Assembly at a later date.
Children's Rights Impact Assessment
A Children's Rights Impact Assessment (CRIA) has not been prepared in relation to this proposition as a CRIA is not required, in accordance with Schedule 2 to the Children (Convention Rights) (Jersey) Law 2022.
[4] States Assembly | P-73-2010 Page 8 Part 5