The Impressionist

Has anyone noticed how the Hopkins Masterplan has been subtly altered by Mr Izzat in his recent talks?

Rather than being all of one piece, the aim is now the development with underground car park on the old car park, and only later, if the demand and economic climate is right, will the sunken road go ahead.

"It would be funded by the private sector and development would be in phases and strictly in response to real demand." (1) (JEP report of speech)

"However, Mr Izatt yesterday revealed that a new vision of the so-called Hopkins masterplan was now taking shape, and that detailed planning applications should be ready for submission by the end of next year." (JEP)

What in heaven's name is a "new vision" of a "masterplan" that has been drawn up by architects? Answer - as the comedian said, "It's a fiddle", otherwise known as redrawing the plan without admitting as such. The Masterplan was a complete entity designed to do that ever so important piece of claptrap - "join the Waterfront to the rest of the Town".

Quite why that was a good thing is not clear, when the main problem of crossing was not the zebra crossings, but the main streets - to be retained - that one had to cross over by Sand Street to get to the car park and then the zebra crossings, but it was repeated diligently like some kind of Buddhist mantra, and was the reason for a sunken road in the first place.

Now it seems the "new vision" can develop the "masterplan" in phases, and somehow leave out the option of the sunken road (with its 1/2 million pound maintenance costs) until a sunnier economic climate.

Obviously Mr Izzat is keen to get on with providing some value for his extraordinary salary, and wants the development, any development really, to go ahead.

"There was, meanwhile, a danger that the general public - and some States Members - were taking the artist's impression of the masterplan too literally."

I am sure that Senator Cohen, nor Hopkins Architects, will be too pleased with this sort of thing. When we are shown a picture, done in wonderful detailed graphics, as is presented in the plan, now we are told it is simply "an impression". I think the real impressionist is Mr Izzat, who is doing a wonderful impression of a man trying desperately to get something built, as quickly as possible, no matter what.

"The 400 residential units, meanwhile, would not be of the sort that some expected. 'I don't believe that they will be apartments,' he said. 'They are likely to be town houses in traditional squares"

So all that glass and concrete flats that we saw in the original masterplan was clearly an illusion; the artist was just sticking blocks of flats there as an artists impression of some vague kind of dwellings for accommodation!

All you need is a "new vision". And the old plan, which involved a huge risk, such as a sunken road, and the dangers of flooding near Gloucester Street can be gently shelved.

I don't mind that - any scheme which does not involve half a million pound maintenance costs (for the sunken road), funded by the taxpayer in perpetuity, seems good to me.

The only secure basis on which that could realistically go ahead would be if the ground rent and common areas included payment for maintenance of the road below, so the taxpayer would not have to finance it.

But I do chuckle at the way in which the "new vision" is presented by Mr Izzat as if nothing has changed.

What can one say of Mr Izzat? He must have gone to Specsavers!

Links
(1) http://www.thisisjersey.com/2010/11/05/we-are-too-good-at-looking-back-and-not-forward/
(2) http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-12924151.html

A Tale of Two Quangoes

Last weekend was the cider festival at Hamptonne, which is now one of the few weekends when the museum is open. We went on a Saturday and it was lively with Morris men, the farm horse dragging the heavy wheel around the cider press, and we enjoyed some cider from last year, some warmly baked Jersey Wonders, and bag freshly roasted chestnuts. There was face painting, juggling, preserves for sale, and of course a pleasant walk down through the cider orchard and back up through the field. But the one thing which was missing from past years was the livestock. There were no roosters, chickens, chicks, no rabbits, the pigsty was empty of pigs, and there were no cows or heifers with the exception of one large artificial plastic cow -- an ominous reminder of what might happen to the Jersey breed.

The reason why Hamptonne is so seldom open is because Jersey Heritage is strapped for cash. And yet the Maritime Museum is an excellent site with nearby moorings and yacht marina, and would make money if it didn't have to pay Jersey harbour rent for the site. It is argued of course (by Senator Terry Le Sueur among others) that the rent is actually levied at below true market value - but nonetheless a most peculiar chain of transactions takes place.

The Maritime Museum which is part of Jersey Heritage pays a goodly portion of its income in rent to Jersey harbour and that goes into the general coffers of the States, after the harbour running costs are taken into account. The State pays out money to subsidise Jersey Heritage because it hasn't got enough cash which it might well have if it didn't have to pay rent to the harbour department.

Now let's look at another quango -- that of the Waterfront Enterprise Board (WEB) and land which is managed by WEB is not rented by WEB from the States but on the contrary has been ceded by the States into the ownership of WEB - for a nominal sum of a few pounds. WEB's income comes from charging its tenants rents or selling leaseholds on the land; it is in WEB's interest to develop the land. Web has a huge wages bill and an extremely high managing director's salary. Money is reinvested in WEB and doesn't seem to go back into the States coffers at all.

One of the sites paying rent to WEB is Liberation Station, which is rented by Connex the bus company. Recently, in the last year, Web raised its rents considerably. Now Connex is paid to operate the buses are certain sum according to the service level agreement by the States of Jersey. The increase in rents including that on Liberation Station went to the States subsidy to Connex had to be increased to take account of that. So that unlike the cash-strapped Jersey heritage, WEB is doing very well nicely thank you, principally because its land does not suffer any rent payable to the States, and some of its rent is even indirectly coming from the taxpayer - with no control on the amount levied. Another bizarre chain of transactions.

It seems to be a manifestly unfair that Jersey Heritage should have such a punitive relationship with the States while WEB has such a generous one. At the very least, the States should cede the Maritime site to Jersey Heritage for the same kind of nominal sum for which WEB obtained its own land.

The Waterfront Gravy Train

The 2008 accounts are now available for the Waterfront Enterprise Board (see link below) and they make interesting reading. The principal activity, in case it is forgotten, of WEB is "property holdings, development and estate management".

The income comes largely from rental income which includes the Waterfront Car Park, the Waterfront Estate, new rentals on the Weighbridge, rent of the transportation centre. These are all "outside" the States, and I think it includes the new bus station as well. This means that if you wonder why the new bus station has had a rent hike, ask WEB.  Because WEB is separate as an entity (a Quango), if they raise rents on something like the bus station, the States subsidy for Connex has to be increased, so the States are financing WEB in a round about way!

The Managing Director, Steve Izatt started in May 2007, and received £95,321 for 2007. For 2008, as detailed in the accounts, he received a basic salary of £170,000, benefits of £11,291, a bonus of £30,000, making a grand total of £211,291 per annum 95,321 (7 May 2007). In addition, the accounts note an additional £30,000 accomodation allowance not included in the benefits figure, and an additional £25,500 pension contributions, making an even grander total of £266,791

If you think this seems excessive (and I do!),  by way of comparison look at 2007, for States Employees - including the Crown officers:
 
During 2007, 464 Public Sector Employees (7.73% of the total) earned in excess of £70,000. These earnings include overtime, standby and other allowances in addition to basic salary. They also include the employer's pension contribution of 15.6% that is applied to basic salary. The list also gives the top 5 earners in the States in the range £230,000 to £249,000 (they are non-traders, and almost certainly include at least one Crown officer). The top traders (i.e. employees including chief officers in a trading committee, in a way the equivalent of WEB) have their highest with 2 employees in the range £110,000-£129,999. None of these figures include WEB!

The employees pay, also listed in the WEB accounts (and increased because of managing the car park themselves in 2008) rose from £388,315 in 2008 to £471,046. It is not detailed how many employees there are.

When all other remuneration is factored in, including directors, the total salaries and emoluments in the accounts is £785,100 (up from £561,872 in 2007)

The board meets 17 times a year, and includes in addition to States members (unpaid)

Jurat Tibbo - who saw a rise in pay from £12,000 (2007) up to £21,785 (2008)

Mr PJ Crespel - who remained at £10,000 for both years, and is in charge of the remuneration board (that which sets pay for web members, including Mr Izatt and Mr Tibbo.


Links:
http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/reports/29186-44167-1832009.pdf
http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/reports/38432-21897-1762008.htm

Recent votes on the Waterfront

Waterfront Rescindment

Gerard Baudin's recent motion on the Waterfront - Esplanade Quarter, St. Helier - Masterplan - rescindment, was soundly defeated.

POUR: 9 CONTRE: 31 NOT PRESENT: 10 DECLARED AN INTEREST: 2
EXCUSED ATTENDANCE: 1

Below were the people supporting it. As at least one is an Chartered Accountant (in bold), we can be sure the matter will not just slip by next time with all the selective reporting that was given during the debate from the PwC and from WEB being sufficient.

Senator Stuart Syvret
Connétable Derek Frederick Gray
Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains
Deputy Judith Ann Martin
Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern
Deputy James Gordon Reed
Deputy John Alexander Nicholas Le Fondré
Deputy Shona Pitman
Deputy Ian Joseph Gorst

Amazing that more did not support this, especially as the whole matter is held up anyway until the Nevada court action is decided, and a lot more investigation is done. Assurances will not be taken at face value in future! That trundles on with the next hearing due on the 21 July 2008. Watch this space. Harcourt are trying for a dismissal.

WEB Removals Part 1

Waterfront Enterprise Board Ltd - removal of States Directors and Chairman from office (a) in accordance with the provisions of Article 30(b) of the Articles of Association of the company, and having noted the resignation of Senator James Leslie Perchard as a Director on 11th June 2008, to remove all the remaining States Directors from office;

POUR: 8 CONTRE: 29 ABSTAINED: 2 NOT PRESENT: 10 DECLARED AN
INTEREST: 3 EXCUSED ATTENDANCE: 1

This was to remove sitting States members on WEB, who had clearly done a brilliantly poor job in sifting and validating any information they had, rather than just taking it at face value. Credit to Paul Routier for abstaining from a vote which could lose him his seat, shame on Jacqui Huet who did not do the same. Why James Perchard had resigned as a matter of principle and did not want other members to do so remains a mystery to me.

Senator Paul Francis Routier ABSTAINED
Deputy Jacqueline Jeannette Huet CONTRE
Senator James Leslie Perchard CONTRE

These were the only few voting to in favour of removing the States directors of WEB:

POUR
Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel
Deputy Alan Breckon
Deputy Frederick John Hill, B.E.M.
Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains
Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern
Deputy Deidre Wendy Mezbourian
Deputy Sean Power
Deputy Andrew David Lewis

WEB Removals Part 2

Waterfront Enterprise Board Ltd - removal of States Directors and Chairman from office (b) to remove Mr. Francis Gerald Voisin as a non-States Director and Chairman of the company;

This presumably related more to the potential conflict of interest than badly briefing and misleading the States, because Tibbo and Crespel (the invisible other directors) remained (with their £10,000 per annum payments to do what? - provide rubber stamps?) and Steven Stephen Izzat (on his around £180,000 per annum payments).

POUR: 22 CONTRE: 15 ABSTAINED: 2 NOT PRESENT: 10 DECLARED AN
INTEREST: 3 EXCUSED ATTENDANCE: 1

These were the people who wanted to keep Mr Voisin (on his £30,000 per annum Chairman's job)

Senator Frank Harrison Walker
Senator Wendy Kinnard
Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur
Senator Paul Francis Routier
Senator Michael Edward Vibert
Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf
Senator Terence John Le Main
Senator Frederick Ellyer Cohen
Connétable Alan Simon Crowcroft
Connétable Michael Keith Jackson
Deputy John Benjamin Fox
Deputy Sarah Craig Ferguson
Deputy Guy William John de Faye
Deputy Anne Enid Pryke
Deputy Alan John Henry Maclean



(Note - all figures are in the public domain, in the WEB accounts.)

Election Year

1. Remember how they voted when it is your turn to vote!
2. Check to make sure you are registered (even if you sent in a form, it is as well to check)

O What A Tangled Web

How much information is there available about Web, the Jersey Waterfront Enterprise Board? You'd be surprised as to how hard it is to locate some of it. Here are my researches with comments:

The site:

http://www.jerseywaterfront.je/

has lots of colourful graphic renderings and maps, but I looked in vain for any sign of who was on Web, and precisely what its responsibilities or powers were. It is basically a PR job site. Perhaps some of the employees of Web are internet Web designers?

Searching around, I found that the following are directors of web and not States Members:

Mr. Francis Gerald Voisin (Chairman)
Jurat John Claude Tibbo
Mr. Peter Joseph Crespel

Their term of office expires on 20th August 2009

And I was wondering: do they get paid? How much? And how many hours do they have to put in (remembering Gerald Voisin is also Chairman of the local branch of Allied Irish Bank)

Looking on the States website, there is (if you dig down) a ministerial decision which gives some details on States Members.

The current States' Directors are Senator P.F. Routier, Deputy J.J. Huet, and Senator J.L. Perchard, who were appointed on 28th March 2006 for a three-year period expiring on 31st March 2009

http://www.gov.je/StatesGreffe/MinisterialDecision/ChiefMinister/2006/web+appointment+of+chairman+and+directors.htm?printfriendly=true

Where are the accounts available from?

First of all I found this - really not informative to the public!

http://www.gov.je/StatesGreffe/MinisterialDecision/ChiefMinister/2006/Watrfront+Enterprise+Board+Annual+and+Quarterly+Accounts.htm

In accordance with the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company 'Waterfront Enterprise Board Limited' (WEB), the company is required to prepare annual accounts, together with interim quarterly accounts, and to
forward these to the Chief Minister.

And finally, to the accounts. The last annual accounts are for 2006, and as we are now in 2008, that seems rather slack, especially when one considers the problems Web is facing. Do we know when the 2007 accounts will be available? 2009 perhaps?

http://www.gov.je/NR/rdonlyres/53AC82BF-ADF2-4046-82C3-AF4D470B1CBF/0/WEBReportAccounts2006nosignatures.pdf

Executive Director - Mr D Margason (Managing Director)

Non Executive Directors
Mr P F Horsfall C.B.E.
Mr F G Voisin (Chairman)
Jurat J C Tibbo
Mr P J Crespel
Senator P Routier
Deputy J Huet
Senator J Perchard

Mr D Margason resigned as Managing Director with effect from 3 August 2006.

Mr P F Horsfall CBE retired as Chairman on 20 August 2006. Mr F G Voisin retired as a Director on 31 March 2006 and
was re-appointed as a Director and as Chairman on 20 August 2006. Senator J Perchard was appointed as a Director
on 1 April 2006. Senator P Routier and Deputy J Huet were reappointed as Directors for a three year term of office
on 1 April 2006. Jurat JC Tibbo and Mr P J Crespel were reappointed as Directors for a three year term of office
on 20 August 2006. The Company Secretary, who held office during the year was Mr R Woolf.

Note that the Managing Director is now Stephen Izzat - I got that from the JEP story on the Waterfront, as I was unable to find any single States page on www.gov.je giving details!

The Remuneration Committee comprises the States Non-Executive Directors. The Remuneration Committee
makes recommendations to the Board regarding the remuneration of both Executive and Non-Executive
Directors and senior management and considers the ongoing appropriateness and relevance of the remuneration policy.

Now the fun stuff. Remember that Stephen Izzat is now Managing Director, and David Margason was only paid for part of 2006 (until he resigned in August). Also Gerald Voisin took over from Pierre Horsfall in 2006, so his payment is only partial. The States members don't get anything - until they leave the States and come back as non-executive directors like Mr Voisin! Jobs for the boys!

David Margason £131,927 (2006)/ £189,702 (2005)

Non Executive Directors
Pierre Horsfall £19,032 (2006)/£30,000(2005)
F Gerald Voisin £10,904 (2006)
John C Tibbo £12,000 (2006)/£12,000 (2005)
Peter J Crespel £10,000 (2006)/£10,000 (2005)
Paul Routier - - - - -
Jacqui Huet - - - - -
James Perchard - - - - -

Total £183,863 (2006)/ 241,702 (2005)

Curiously however, the accounts show elsewhere:

Directors remuneration £217,986 (2006)/ £298,112 (2005).

The difference is in supplementary amounts, such as pension, benefits in kind, paid mainly to the Managing Director. So he leaves with a nice final salary pension too.

Employees
£423,234 (2006) / £345,901 (2005)

That's quite striking - one wonders how many there are, and what precisely they do? Unfortunately, that is not available in the accounts, and would need a question in the States.

http://www.gov.je/StatesGreffe/MinisterialDecision/TreasuryResources/2007/waterfront+enterprise+board+tax+status.htm

But this is interesting too:

Subsidiary

On 14 July 2006 La Haie du Puits Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company sold a freehold residential property

On 14 July 2006 La Haie du Puits Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Waterfront Enterprise Board Limited, sold a freehold residential property for a consideration of £730,000 following refurbishment paid for by the former Managing Director. Under the terms of the then Managing Director's contract of employment, Mr David Margason was entitled to retain the balance of the consideration offered by the purchaser in excess of £600,000 after taking account of costs of £3,040 and accordingly La Haie du Puits Limited received £600,000 and Mr Margason received the balance.

That means that Mr Margason left with £126,960 - quite a golden handshake!

Lastly this note is of interest.

Tax Free Status

The Minister decided to exempt the Waterfront Enterprise Board (WEB) and its associated enterprise under Article 115 of Income Tax (Jersey) Law 1961 to extend to the profits generated insofar as the profits are expended wholly and exclusively to improve and extend public infrastructure and works for the good of the public of the Island.

Who sees Minutes of the Waterfront Enterprise Board? The States Members, obviously, but how well do they communicate this to the other States members to keep them informed about what is going on. How many staff do they employ? What exactly do these staff do? How many hours do the non-executive directors put in? What exactly are their responsibilities? Does the new managing director, Mr Stephen Izzat also have severance deals as part of his contract? If you find out, post a comment!

O what a tangled WEB they weave!

The Developers of Jersey

I read the piece from the JEP article "Gerald Voisin, chairman of the Waterfront Enterprise Board - which is charged with overseeing the site's development - said that the Waterfront was being developed for the people of Jersey." The developers of Jersey would be nearer the mark than the people of Jersey!

A park, or massive overdevelopment of square and rectangular boxes of steel and concrete (sorry, iconic buildings that are world class!). I know which I'd sooner have. It is so maddening that a deaf ear is turned to this offer which, even if it is motivated by self-interest, would provide a much needed "green lung" for St Helier.

---

Jersey Evening Post

Bigger offer for land on Waterfront
By Andy Sibcy


A BUSINESSMAN says he is prepared to increase his £1 million offer to buy land on the Waterfront to save Jardins de la Mer as a public park and give it to the Island.

Stuart Weaving, whose penthouse home overlooks the Waterfront, says he and his friends could raise a significant sum if someone would only name a price. In 2005, he offered £1 million for a strip of land next to the park, but says his offer has all but been ignored.

The multi-millionaire, who made his fortune in publishing, textile mills, exhibition halls and other interests, is concerned that not enough space has been set aside for free public use on the Waterfront. He therefore wants to buy a strip of land next to the existing park to increase its size and make sure developers do not build on it.

Gerald Voisin, chairman of the Waterfront Enterprise Board - which is charged with overseeing the site's development - said that the Waterfront was being developed for the people of Jersey.



Published 19/6/07