Coming up in the States is the proposition concerning the compulsory purchase of Field No. 85, the majority of Field No. 84 and the majority of Field No. 80, La Rue Carrée, St. Brelade. The proposition gives something of the history:
“On 18th December 2015, Jersey Property Holdings wrote to the various parties’ landowners that it wished agree to purchase their relevant land by negotiation, in a timely and orderly manner, at a prevailing market value price. It has always been the preference when acquiring land by the Public to do so by agreement, rather than resort to compulsory purchase powers (where available). However, in that communication, Jersey Property Holdings was obliged to advise the recipients that the importance of the project meant that if a negotiated agreement was not possible the fall-back position, as a last resort, was compulsory purchase.”
“Jersey Property Holdings has therefore endeavoured to pursue a strategy of acquisition by negotiation. Following negotiations between the parties and their respective agents, consistent purchase considerations were agreed with all freehold interest owners based on a value of £15,000 per vergée.”
“It has been agreed with the owner of Fields 80, 84 and 85 that the value of the land is £194,100 (One Hundred and Ninety-Four Thousand, One Hundred Pounds). During the negotiations it became apparent that it would be necessary to agree further terms with the owner owing to the possible diminution in value, the owner’s retained land/buildings would suffer as a result of the newly-developed School; taking into account a number of factors (including the effect on value of the residential unit currently on the retained land, and also any future redevelopment potential of the retained land that would be impacted by the School development).”
In other words, said fields were part of a wider potential development with land owned that was not under consideration for compulsory purchase. The closeness of the site to Les Ormes may suggest what might be in the owner’s mind, although as the fields are part of the Green zone, there would be a presumption against development. The case of the school was a special circumstance in the provision for the public interest with no realistic alternatives.
A number of land transactions, such as the land at St Ouen with a bunker, and the sale of a green field business near to Red Houses, have taken place recently, and it is clear that at least some people think that as the Island Plan is due for review, there may be more potential for Green Zone land on the fringes of built up areas.
“A valuation was carried out by a third party on instruction from the owner, which was carried out in accordance with the RICS Valuation Professional Standards (the ‘Red Book’). The valuation ascertained the diminution in value to the retained property (comprising land and buildings) as being £58,900 (Fifty-Eight Thousand, Nine Hundred Pounds). This was accepted by Jersey Property Holdings.”
“Heads of Terms were signed with the owner, dated 7th December 2017. In accordance with Standing Order 168(1)(a), the Minister for Infrastructure agreed, as recommended by Jersey Property Holdings, for the Public to acquire Fields 85, 84 (part) and 80 (part) (MD-PH-2017-0055). The decision was made on 16th December 2017. A date was proposed by the Public to complete the acquisition before Court (namely 26th January 2018).”
“On 14th February 2018, communication on behalf of the Owner was received, the effect of which was to seek to renegotiate the major terms pertaining to the acquisition, including the consideration agreed, and to further seek to include a number of conditions on the future use of the land.”
“These new terms were a material departure from the signed Heads of Terms. In the opinion of Jersey Property Holdings, the agreed Heads of Terms are a fair and true reflection of the amount which the land might have been expected to realise if sold on the open market by a willing seller”
As the JEP reported:
“The owner of three of the eight fields where the school is to be built increased his sale price from £194,000 to £4 million.”
That is quite a hefty increase, especially as the “Red Book” valuation was carried out on instructions from the owner.
The JEP also ays that:
“Dave Carrel, who inherited the green-zone sites, later claimed in statement from his lawyers that he was being ‘bullied’ into selling off the land for less than it was worth – something the States denies.”
Reading between the lines, it seems that it was when his lawyers became involved that the price jumped up so significantly.
The case for bullying is that compulsory purchase was mentioned at the outset, so it was effectively like a loaded gun at the owners to negotiate a fair price, or else... That is probably the line which will be taken in the States by those opposing compulsory purchase: that the sale was forced for a price under duress.
On the other hand Mr Carrel’s own land was subject to an independent valuation, where the valuer was not instructed in any way to come up with a lower valuation based on that presumption, and indeed it is hard to see how they could be. So I don’t think the duress argument stands up well, precisely because further steps were taken to ensure an independent valuation. To suggest otherwise would surely be to impugn the integrity of the valuer acting in accord with RICS Valuation Professional Standards. If not such valuation had taken place, the argument for duress would be stronger, as it is, it falls away as irrelevant.
It is, I think, a very Jersey trait to hold onto land and to be quite stubborn and change your mind – even if you have already agreed and signed heads of terms. To my mind, but I’m old fashioned, if you sign something it is like giving your word, and to decide at the 11th hour that you’ve changed your mind may be possible.
I was involved in a land transaction with an old Jerseyman, who on the day land was to change hands in court, decided that if extra boundary stones were not inserted that morning, the transactions would not take place that afternoon. And he had already managed to squeeze more land for himself out of the transaction by moving some boundaries within the last week, although not as much as he first wanted. Masquerading as self-interest, there was certainly a strong element of greed.
Whether that is the case here is for others to decide, but to sign and change your mind is at the very least dishonourable, and if Mr Carrel gets the odd brickbat thrown at him by the general public, it is perhaps not altogether unsurprising.
“On 18th December 2015, Jersey Property Holdings wrote to the various parties’ landowners that it wished agree to purchase their relevant land by negotiation, in a timely and orderly manner, at a prevailing market value price. It has always been the preference when acquiring land by the Public to do so by agreement, rather than resort to compulsory purchase powers (where available). However, in that communication, Jersey Property Holdings was obliged to advise the recipients that the importance of the project meant that if a negotiated agreement was not possible the fall-back position, as a last resort, was compulsory purchase.”
“Jersey Property Holdings has therefore endeavoured to pursue a strategy of acquisition by negotiation. Following negotiations between the parties and their respective agents, consistent purchase considerations were agreed with all freehold interest owners based on a value of £15,000 per vergée.”
“It has been agreed with the owner of Fields 80, 84 and 85 that the value of the land is £194,100 (One Hundred and Ninety-Four Thousand, One Hundred Pounds). During the negotiations it became apparent that it would be necessary to agree further terms with the owner owing to the possible diminution in value, the owner’s retained land/buildings would suffer as a result of the newly-developed School; taking into account a number of factors (including the effect on value of the residential unit currently on the retained land, and also any future redevelopment potential of the retained land that would be impacted by the School development).”
In other words, said fields were part of a wider potential development with land owned that was not under consideration for compulsory purchase. The closeness of the site to Les Ormes may suggest what might be in the owner’s mind, although as the fields are part of the Green zone, there would be a presumption against development. The case of the school was a special circumstance in the provision for the public interest with no realistic alternatives.
A number of land transactions, such as the land at St Ouen with a bunker, and the sale of a green field business near to Red Houses, have taken place recently, and it is clear that at least some people think that as the Island Plan is due for review, there may be more potential for Green Zone land on the fringes of built up areas.
“A valuation was carried out by a third party on instruction from the owner, which was carried out in accordance with the RICS Valuation Professional Standards (the ‘Red Book’). The valuation ascertained the diminution in value to the retained property (comprising land and buildings) as being £58,900 (Fifty-Eight Thousand, Nine Hundred Pounds). This was accepted by Jersey Property Holdings.”
“Heads of Terms were signed with the owner, dated 7th December 2017. In accordance with Standing Order 168(1)(a), the Minister for Infrastructure agreed, as recommended by Jersey Property Holdings, for the Public to acquire Fields 85, 84 (part) and 80 (part) (MD-PH-2017-0055). The decision was made on 16th December 2017. A date was proposed by the Public to complete the acquisition before Court (namely 26th January 2018).”
“On 14th February 2018, communication on behalf of the Owner was received, the effect of which was to seek to renegotiate the major terms pertaining to the acquisition, including the consideration agreed, and to further seek to include a number of conditions on the future use of the land.”
“These new terms were a material departure from the signed Heads of Terms. In the opinion of Jersey Property Holdings, the agreed Heads of Terms are a fair and true reflection of the amount which the land might have been expected to realise if sold on the open market by a willing seller”
As the JEP reported:
“The owner of three of the eight fields where the school is to be built increased his sale price from £194,000 to £4 million.”
That is quite a hefty increase, especially as the “Red Book” valuation was carried out on instructions from the owner.
The JEP also ays that:
“Dave Carrel, who inherited the green-zone sites, later claimed in statement from his lawyers that he was being ‘bullied’ into selling off the land for less than it was worth – something the States denies.”
Reading between the lines, it seems that it was when his lawyers became involved that the price jumped up so significantly.
The case for bullying is that compulsory purchase was mentioned at the outset, so it was effectively like a loaded gun at the owners to negotiate a fair price, or else... That is probably the line which will be taken in the States by those opposing compulsory purchase: that the sale was forced for a price under duress.
On the other hand Mr Carrel’s own land was subject to an independent valuation, where the valuer was not instructed in any way to come up with a lower valuation based on that presumption, and indeed it is hard to see how they could be. So I don’t think the duress argument stands up well, precisely because further steps were taken to ensure an independent valuation. To suggest otherwise would surely be to impugn the integrity of the valuer acting in accord with RICS Valuation Professional Standards. If not such valuation had taken place, the argument for duress would be stronger, as it is, it falls away as irrelevant.
It is, I think, a very Jersey trait to hold onto land and to be quite stubborn and change your mind – even if you have already agreed and signed heads of terms. To my mind, but I’m old fashioned, if you sign something it is like giving your word, and to decide at the 11th hour that you’ve changed your mind may be possible.
I was involved in a land transaction with an old Jerseyman, who on the day land was to change hands in court, decided that if extra boundary stones were not inserted that morning, the transactions would not take place that afternoon. And he had already managed to squeeze more land for himself out of the transaction by moving some boundaries within the last week, although not as much as he first wanted. Masquerading as self-interest, there was certainly a strong element of greed.
Whether that is the case here is for others to decide, but to sign and change your mind is at the very least dishonourable, and if Mr Carrel gets the odd brickbat thrown at him by the general public, it is perhaps not altogether unsurprising.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment