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.
1240/5(2280)
WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE BY THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 14th DECEMBER 2004
Question
Would the President inform members whether the management of the States property portfolio is undertaken to ensure that Committees' property needs are assessed across the range of properties held within this portfolio, irrespective of Committees having particular administrative responsibility for specific properties within this range, so that possible land or property exchanges can deliver best value for money and benefit to the community, such as in the provision of a new Police Headquarters? If not, would the President explain the reasons why?
Answer
The Environment and Public Services Committee, through its Department of Property Services, seeks to monitor and advise on the efficiency in use of land and property occupied by the States. One of the key aims is to place property in the context of the States' strategic policies and provide a framework in which individual property needs can be assessed and decisions taken as to the most efficient and financially beneficial use of land in the Public ownership. Without a central corporate property management function, the Committee can only seek the support of the States, the Finance and Economics Committee and the eight other property-administering Committees of the States in achieving effective property exchanges which provide value for money and benefit to the community.
In the case of the proposed Police Headquarters, Property Services reviewed 28 different options for a suitable site, some of which involved land exchange across Committees and one which involved the purchase of an adjacent property in private ownership. The owners of that particular property were prepared to exchange it for another site with development potential in the public ownership. Whilst this had some benefits, the true cost' of the land exchange added to the cost of construction of the new Headquarters exceeded the budget limit and did not receive the approval of the Finance and Economics Committee.