Responding to the latest developments in a saga which dates back almost five years, Sir Philip Bailhache said that the government had ‘betrayed the purpose of Her Majesty’s gift of the foreshore’ by pursuing individual property owners for compensation when the intention of the Queen’s gift was to allow the Island to explore offshore renewable energy projects.
In 2015 the Crown gave the foreshore and the seabed to the people of Jersey but the gift rapidly became the subject of controversy when two Islanders tried to sell properties bordering on the land newly owned and administered by the government. They faced demands from the government’s property department for compensation for alleged encroachments.
Sir Philip, who, as Assistant Chief Minister, was responsible for negotiating with the Crown to acquire the land, said that it was important to understand the spirit in which the transfer of ownership had been made.
‘There are two key words there. The first is “give”. This was not a commercial transaction – this was a gift by Her Majesty, and the second is “public”. The land was given to the people of Jersey by the Crown.
‘The Government of Jersey has a particular responsibility to respect the nature of this gift and to act in a sensitive and pragmatic way,’ Sir Philip said.
Although the contract giving effect to the Crown’s gift referred to maintaining the historic rights of access to, and exploitation of, the foreshore by individual members of the public, Jersey Property Holdings wrote to two property owners within months of the government taking ownership. They demanded compensation for what they regarded as encroachments made years before in the form of steps or doorways leading to the beach.
When the individuals later challenged the fairness of the policy before a States Complaints Board, the panel upheld their complaints and subsequently took the unusual step of publishing a highly critical reply to the Infrastructure Minister’s response, describing one of his arguments – that all States-owned property should be treated in the same way – as ‘nonsense’.
As Attorney General, Sir Philip also held the post of Receiver General [the Crown appointee responsible for its estate] from 1986 to 1994. He said that both before and after his involvement as Receiver General, the Crown had adopted a sensitive and pragmatic approach to minor infringements of the foreshore made over the years.
‘The proper course for the government and its agencies is to continue that policy. I cannot conceive that any Receiver General would have used the position of the Crown to extort money – and I don’t think that’s too strong a word – from individual members of the public whose properties may have infringed technically upon the rights of the Crown.’
Sir Philip said that while government had a duty to act in the case of encroachments which were a blight upon the landscape, those which were harmless and historic should be tolerated, and government should instead concentrate on the potential environmental benefits of the gift.
‘It was never the intention to enable a harsh approach to landowners whose property bordered the foreshore. I think the conduct of the government has, quite frankly, been a disgrace. My broad view is that the government should continue the tolerant and generous spirit of the Crown, and should not abuse any legal rights that it now has,’ Sir Philip said.
Last week Deputy Carolyn Labey said she would consider retabling a proposition to the States – withdrawn during the Covid-19 crisis – which seeks to reverse the compensation policy until the States Assembly has the opportunity to agree the way forward.
Last year the government announced a review of the historic foreshore in a bid to determine its exact boundaries with adjoining land in private ownership. The date for publication of the review has been pushed back several times. When the JEP asked the government press office for an update, it received no response.
