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.
2.1 Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour of the Minister for Planning and Environment regarding the demolition of unsightly derelict buildings:
Will the Minister authorise or instruct the demolition of unsightly derelict buildings, such as Pontins and the Fort Regent Pool, without prejudice to any planning application that may or may not be subsequently approved, and if not, why not?
Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):
The technical aspects of this part of the Planning and Building Law are covered in my written answer to Deputy Le Hérissier's question this morning. In determining whether to serve notice - and any notice can range from requiring redecoration through to demolition - each case must be dealt with on its merits and must not be seen to be unreasonable in the eyes of the court. All material considerations and solutions must be taken into account before considering such notices. The court would expect the Minister to act in a proportionate manner and so is not likely to consider it unreasonable for the Minister to show that other solutions had been considered. The Plémont site is currently subject to a development application and the entire Fort Regent area will be the subject of further consideration by the new political steering group. For the above reasons I do not, at this stage, consider that I could demonstrate that all other reasonable steps had been taken, and it would not be appropriate for me to issue a notice requiring demolition on either site. Thank you.
- Deputy K.C. Lewis :
Is the Minister aware of the dilapidated state of Fort Regent, for instance, which has been let go for many many years and is the subject of much graffiti and vandalism and with very high wind I believe the roof to be unstable. I do not see a problem that without prejudice the building should be demolished immediately. Does the Minister not agree?
Senator F.E. Cohen:
While the building may be in a pretty poor state, particularly in terms of graffiti, et cetera, I do not think that all reasonable steps could be demonstrated to have been taken and therefore, I do not think it appropriate to issue a demolition notice at this stage.
- Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :
Would the Minister agree that this site is in fact going to be a very expensive proposition, because I understand that it is full of asbestos and from a demolition contractor friend of mine who priced the job, he was talking about £1.5 million to £2 million to flatten it.
Senator F.E. Cohen:
I am afraid I am unaware of the asbestos content of the particular building.
- Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour :
Would the Minister not agree that there are many glasshouse sites which, similar to these 2 buildings, are in a very dangerous condition, broken glass into the ground and so forth? Would he not agree that he has been very reluctant to move on these very obvious sites?
Senator F.E. Cohen:
I have, in relation to 2 of these particular sites, made it clear that I intended to issue an order and in view of that the dangerous glass was removed, but I am perfectly happy to look at further sites.
- Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary :
I wanted the Minister to clarify this phrase that the Minister uses: "All other reasonable steps have been taken." I am not clear who is taking the steps and what they might have been, if one did not simply move and tidy-up, for instance, Plémont. What are these reasonable steps that are the alternatives to tidying-up the site and making it safe?
Senator F.E. Cohen:
A reasonable step may be, for example, to consider a current planning application as is the case with Plémont currently. Until the planning application is determined, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to issue a demolition order.
- The Deputy of St. Mary :
Is it the case that at Plémont there have been continuous planning applications and then when one is turned down the next one is in absolutely immediate, or are there not quite long gaps where it simply sits there as a possible danger to the public?
Senator F.E. Cohen:
There have been quite longs gaps but there is a current planning application and I think the applicant has a right to have that application determined.