Foreshore: An end to the saga.

Foreshore: An end to the saga.

“I believe totally this was conceived as a wonderful cash making scheme devised by a in post civil 
servant that could see a money generating method to prove that JPH was worthy of its being in existence.” (Alan Luce)

The JEP reported that “Both Mr Luce and Mr Mallinson spoke of their relief at receiving their payments yesterday morning and praised the past and present Infrastructure Ministers, Deputy Tom Binet and Constable Andy Jehan, for their help, as well as Deputies Labey and Philip Bailhache. ”

“However, the pair said they felt their experience still raised wider questions about the machinery of government and conduct of certain officials: ‘It is unacceptable that the directors of Property Holdings ignored the opinions and recommendations of the Jersey Law Society, the Complaints Board and the Scrutiny panel and acted in a wholly incompetent and unjust manner that has resulted in unnecessary expense to the taxpayer,’ Mr Mallinson added.”

“Upon assuming the role of Infrastructure Minister after the collapse of Deputy Moore’s government, Mr Jehan wrote a letter clearly instructing civil servants to make the payments without delay. After several weeks with no movement, despite follow-ups from Mr Luce and Mr Mallinson, Mr Jehan sent a second instruction towards the end of the month.”

It is clear that even at the 11th hour, the civil servants were still dragging their heels over compensation payments. But who were the civil servants involved in the original claims by Jersey Property Holdings?

The Jersey Complaints Board report which severely criticised JPH did name some surnames! I have however after some consideration to just put their initials here, although the linked report which can be read (bottom of blog) does name them. However, it is not subject to Google Indexing, so I have decided for their families sake to give them a consideration they didn't give Mr Luce or Mr Mallinson.

In the case of Mr Luce, a Mr F-t was involved:

“In September 2015, Mr. Luce placed Roche de la Mer for sale with Broadlands Estates. He was subsequently written to – as was Broadlands Estates – on 9th September 2015 by Mr. F-t, Estates Surveyor, JPH, to the effect that the construction of Roche de la Mer constituted a clear encroachment onto the seawall, which belonged to the Public of the Island. “

“Mr. Luce and Mr. F-t subsequently spoke on the telephone, and on 11th December 2015, the latter sent Mr. Luce an electronic mail message, which stated: “While one possible solution is to allow the encroachments to remain upon payment to the Public of a financial consideration and the passing of a contract before the Royal Court in which the terms upon which the encroachments could remain would be set out, the Public reserves the right in the alternative to seek the complete removal of all and any encroaching parts of your property. I cannot stress too strongly the seriousness of the encroachments and this should be brought to the attention of any prospective purchaser(s).”. This correspondence and others emanating from JPH were caveated “Subject to contract and Ministerial approval.”

In the case of Mr Mallinson, Mr F-r and Mr F- were involved:

“The advice of the prospective purchaser’s lawyers was forwarded by the former, without the advance knowledge of Mr. Mallinson, to the Minister for Infrastructure, asking if a deed of arrangement could be entered into. The Minister, in turn, redirected the enquiry to Mr. F-r Director of Estates, JPH, on the basis that it was not strictly a political matter”

“Mr. Mallinson subsequently met with Mr. F-t and Mr. F-r, who refused to entertain any suggestion that the seawall was not in the ownership of the Crown at that juncture, reiterated that Ksum Ltd. had encroached onto the sea defences, and sought compensation in order to ratify the boundary.”

Conclusion:

With presumably the tacit approval of the Minister, two civil servants were involved in engaging and putting a forceful case against the landowners. They may have been acting on legal advice, which subsequent events – namely the compensation paid - have shown to be mistaken. But their intransigence leaves much to be desired. Would it not be asking too much for an apology from JPH on behalf of all and any of its officials who pursued this aggressive policy? And can the public have assurance that lessons have been learnt?

https://statesassembly.gov.je/assemblyreports/2018/r.71-2018.pdf