Government of Jersey

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (18/05/2007) regarding: Field 40, St. Clement - Relinquishment of Right-of-Way.

Subject:	Field 40 St Clement – Relinquishment of Right of Way
Decision Reference:	MD-H-2007-0035	Exempt clause(s):
Type of Report: (oral or written)	Written	Person Giving Report (if oral):
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?		Report File ref:		Field 40 – Le Squez – Right of Way
Written Report – Title	Field 40 St Clement – Relinquishment of Right of Way	Written report - author		Carl B Mavity – Director of Estate Services
Decision(s): The Minister agreed to be party to a contract to relinquish the right of way whilst ratifying the boundary positions between Field 40, St Clement and Le Squez Estate.
Reason(s) for decision To ensure that the boundary positions are clear prior to the onward redevelopment of Le Squez.
Resource implications Financial: NIL Manpower: NIL Property: NIL ICT: NIL Law Drafting: NIL
Action required: Director of Estate Services to instruct Law Officers’ Department to prepare the necessary contracts and define boundary positions for inclusion in a future Report & Proposition for ratification.
Signature: (Minister/ Assistant Minister)			Date of Decision: 18 May 2007

Field 40, St. Clement - Relinquishment of Right-of-Way.

Date of Report: - 2nd May 2007

Report for Housing Minister

FIELD 40, ST CLEMENT

RELINQUISHMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY

Background

In the contract of purchase of a field called "Le Clos de la Blanche Pierre" dated 13th December 1963 by the Public from Mrs. Elsie May Gilbert who at the time also owned Field 40, St Clement, a clause therein provided that:-

"The Public of the Island will have right of way of eight feet in width at all times and for all purposes over the western side of a field called "La Trielle" (Field 40) retained by the Vendor and this in order to come and go between the public road and the field now sold as for time immemorial; it being understood that if the Public builds houses on the field now sold and wishes to exercise the right of way the Public must tarmac the road and maintain and upkeep it at its own expense; the Vendor not being obliged to contribute to the costs of the construction, maintenance and upkeep of the road, the whole in perpetuity."

The field called "Le Clos de la Blanche Pierre" now forms the eastern part of "Blanche Pierre Close", Le Squez, so it is only the residents of the houses in this part of the estate who have the benefit of the clause. However, a strict interpretation of the clause is that once houses were built on Blanche Pierre Close the right of way could only be exercised if the road was tarmaced. This has never been the case, indeed no road exists at all.

The present owners of Field 40, which is now proposed for the development of 23 first time buyer and social rented family homes, have suggested that the right of way should be extinguished.

Advice from the Law Officers’ Department has suggested that under Jersey Common Law any servitude not exercised for a period in excess of 40 years is lost. The Public can therefore no longer exercise its right of way over Field 40.

It is therefore arguable whether in fact it is necessary for there to be any formal agreement acknowledging the loss of the right of way, however, there can, in the opinion of the Law Officers’ Department be no harm in the Public being party to a contract to relinquish it. In fact there could be some benefit in entering into the contract as the Public would be able to create a new boundary between Field 40 and Le Squez at the same time, something which will almost certainly be necessary at some stage in order to progress the re-development of Le Squez.

If the Minister is minded to agree to be a party to a contract to relinquish the right of way whilst ratifying the boundary positions it will be necessary for a Report and Proposition to be presented to the States, as this type of transaction is not covered by standing order 168.

Recommendation

That the Minister agree to be party to a contract to relinquish the right of way whilst ratifying the boundary positions between Field 40, St Clement and Le Squez estate.

C B MAVITY

DIRECTOR OF ESTATE SERVICES

2-5-07