High value housing is right for South Hill site

From Peter French.

IN the letters to the Editor (JEP, 25 Jun), Rosemary O’Connor advocates allocating the South Hill site presently occupied by Planning to social rather than high value housing.

This is on the basis of: ‘Why should people in social housing not have a wonderful sea view?’ and ‘This could be seen as discrimination’.

This is the sort of muddle headed thinking that lead to the appalling decision, taken several years ago, to put social housing and first time buyer housing on the Albert Pier, on the Waterfront, with its brutal architecture, and the 70s style tower blocks at Le Squez, recently refurbished at the taxpayers’ expense, which are the sort you can see in a Birmingham council estate and will ruin the St Clement’s Bay coastline for the foreseeable future.

The Albert Pier decision alone, which incidentally led to tenants complaining about the noise of rattling masts and rigging on the yachts, has cost the Jersey taxpayer millions.

The designation of a site for social housing generally renders the site concerned as worthless, because the only thing you can value is the rental stream and this will normally account for only the building costs.

Moreover, the designation of part of a site for first time buyer housing devalues the overall site, as the units can only be sold to a limited market with a very restricted budget. In fact, several of the Albert Pier units remained unsold for some time.

Had the Albert Pier site been sold for high value housing, the income to the Treasury would have been very significant and, of course, could have been used to construct more social housing elsewhere.

The same applies to the South Hill site and Senator Freddie Cohen is, therefore, absolutely right.

For example, if a density of say 100 units were permitted this could, depending on the size and type of units, produce say £20-£25 million towards the budget deficit in respect of which we all face tax increases. Some of this income could be used to construct social housing elsewhere.

Apart from the points I have just made, bearing in mind that social housing tenants are subsidised by the taxpayer, why would they expect to live in superior locations to taxpaying people who have saved hard for a deposit and are paying mortgages to live in their own homes?

During its review of States owned property in the island, it is absolutely right to get the highest value from any part of the portfolio which can be sold.