Howard Davis Farm (Arrangements for Further Abrogation of Covenant) (Jersey) Law 201- Amendment to amendment

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made on 4 December 2017:

Decision Reference:

Decision Summary Title :

Howard Davis Farm, Trinity – “Howard Davis Farm (Arrangements for Further Abrogation of Covenant) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.105/2017): Amendment (P.105/2017 Amd.) – AMENDMENT”

Date of Decision Summary:

1 December 2017

Decision Summary Author:

Director

Decision Summary:

Public or Exempt?

Public

Type of Report:

Oral or Written?

Written

Person Giving

Oral Report:

N/A

Written Report

Title :

Howard Davis Farm, Trinity – “Howard Davis Farm (Arrangements for Further Abrogation of Covenant) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.105/2017): Amendment (P.105/2017 Amd.) – AMENDMENT”

Date of Written Report:

1 December 2017

Written Report Author:

Director

Written Report :

Public or Exempt?

Public

SD - Public

Subject: Howard Davis Farm, Trinity – “Howard Davis Farm (Arrangements for Further Abrogation of Covenant) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.105/2017): Amendment (P.105/2017 Amd.) – AMENDMENT”

(RFo 0840/0841/0845-01-001)

Decision(s):

The Minister decided, as recommended by Jersey Property Holdings, to lodge ‘au Greffe’ the accompanying amendment to the amendment of the draft Law – ʺHoward Davis Farm (Arrangements for Further Abrogation of Covenant) (Jersey) Law 201-ʺ (P.105/2017): Amendment (P.105/2017 Amd.)

Reason(s) for Decision:

To seek approval of the amendments to the Howard Davis Farm Abrogation of Covenant Law to address ‘non-conforming’ land uses, and the omission from the law of two fields.

Resource Implications:

There is no manpower and/or financial implication to the States in connection with this decision.

Action required:

The Greffier of the States to be requested to arrange for the amendment to the amendment of the draft law – ʺHoward Davis Farm (Arrangements for Further Abrogation of Covenant) (Jersey) Law 201-ʺ (P.105/2017) to be lodged ‘au Greffe’ and taken into consideration by the States on 12 December 2017.

Signature:

Position:

Deputy E J Noel

Minister for Infrastructure

Date Signed:

Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Howard David Farm (Arrangements for Further Abrogation of Covenant) (Jersey) Law 201- Amendment to amendment

REPORT

The Proposition reflects the circumstances that have required a new Law. The proposal is both necessary, to address current uses that are not in accordance with the existing Law, and pragmatic, to avoid burdening the Assembly with decisions on land use that have been agreed with the duly appointed Trustees.

The updated Law also addresses two parcels of land that were omitted from the existing Law and remain subject to the Covenant, when this was not the intended situation.

I remain of the view that the Law, as drafted, properly addresses these issues and that the amendment is unnecessary.

However, rather than seek to defeat the amendment, I have taken the view that it can be accommodated subject to two further amendments that are wholly in line with Deputy Le Fondre’s position, as set out in the report to his amendment.

Firstly, that reference to the States is limited to changes of use that exceed £50,000 a year. The Deputy recognises that ‘It is very difficult to define (under Law) what is a ‘significant’ item…’. In this we are in agreement. This further amendment sets a single, clear and unambiguous threshold to create the clarity he seeks. Both the Trustees and Deputy le Fondré are in agreement with this amendment.

Secondly, the period for the lodging of a proposition by States Members following notification of a change of use that exceeds £50,000 is to be amended to 15 working days.

This period is consistent with the requirements of States Standing Order 168, which has operated for a number of years without disenfranchising any members from raising concerns or lodging a proposition.

The proposed period of ‘…no later than the third meeting of the States following the presentation of the report…’ is an indeterminate period that could be many months, particularly if it fell over the summer recess. It is simply not practical for the Trustees and the Public to engage with third party organisation and reach an agreement in principle, but then wait months before it can be actioned.

It is worth noting that any leases (or disposals for that matter), irrespective of value, would be required to be reported to the States in accordance with the terms of Standing Order 168.

In making these further amendments, I have endeavoured to comply fully with the penultimate paragraph of the Deputy’s report and I hope Members will consider it both proportionate and appropriate.

Financial and Manpower Implications

The financial and manpower implications are minimal and can be absorbed within existing budgets.