Author Topic: The States of Jersey Development Company Limited  (Read 31245 times)

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3493
Re: The States of Jersey Development Company Limited
« Reply #105 on: June 17, 2016, 01:50:40 AM »
To the JEP's credit they have got hold of an email trail sent by ministers,

The man who is the main disciple of building the IFC at the waterfront now gives two reasons why the Waterfront is not an option  for the Hospital,  the first understandable is the 58mt recent extension by SoJDC but the second is perverse, a flood risk. 

Therefore somewhere in the secret consultant reports the site is prone to possible flooding  ( as it has on the Esplanade before ) which will obviously affect the proposed and indeed promised underground car parking plus the integrity of the new office buildings being built.

Therfore it is perfectly OK to risk tax payers money and assets to build offices in a possible flood zone, but in Senator Ozoufs opinion too risky to build a hospital on the site.

This just gets more unbelievabe by the day.

See for yourself go to the end of the document and Senator Ozouf's opinion is about four up from the end if you are interested ?


Offline Chevalier Blanc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: The States of Jersey Development Company Limited
« Reply #106 on: June 18, 2016, 05:49:13 PM »
I said that ozoiuf would come up with any reason not to build the hospital on the waterfront and he certainly come up with a beauty!
Now lee henry said that there was going to be a car park that is above the water tide but a little while later he stated that another car park below the first one will be for people coming to town. He realised what he had said because in the first statement there was to be only one car park but when it was pointed put that there would not be enough spacers this is when he let the cat out of the bag with the second one. People laughed their heads off at him.
ozouf just wnats all the space for his pet project and we have found out that if it run in to trouble the states are the guarantees with our money.

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3493
Re: The States of Jersey Development Company Limited
« Reply #107 on: June 27, 2017, 04:46:52 PM »
Can anyone give any information as to which old offices Dandara have moved into paying £380,000 a year plus moving and refurbishment expenses in taking on ( expensive ) full repairing leases to encourage the old tenants to move out and lease floors in Dandara's  new development  ………….. Any one ?

How Amatuers work using taxpayers money and assets !

Good reporting from The Bailiwick Express to which all credit is due.


More than three quarters of a million has been spent on moving the Jersey Development Company (JDC) into UBS’ former offices – believed to be part of a package of incentives to get the Swiss bank into the International Finance Centre, which was a key part of the development going ahead.

UBS agreed to lease 16,500 square feet in Building Four in 2015. Construction of the IFC’s buildings, which are looked after by the States-owned JDC, were only able to begin after tenancies were announced.

States members pressed the Treasury Minister, Senator Alan Maclean, over what “incentives or inducements” were offered to UBS, but he declined to reveal what he dubbed “commercially sensitive information.”

 But now, more than two years later, it’s emerged that JDC have agreed to rent UBS’ former premises – effectively covering the money they would have spent on rent had they not moved to the IFC.

Then known as the BankAmerica Trust Company, UBS signed two 21-year leases in 1998 for floors one and two of 28 New Street and floor three of the same.

In Royal Court transactions obtained by Express, JDC agreed in May to take over the premises until June 2019 at a cost of £380,000 annually - £258,000 for the first and second floors, and £122,000 for the third – meaning that the States-owned company will have shelled out £760,000 in total for the move

Also thanks to Jersey Action Group:

Is this why Eddie Noel and ministers are inventing new waste and other charges to pay for these ridiculous States forays into business they have no right to undertake.

« Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 07:11:35 PM by boatyboy »

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3493
Re: The States of Jersey Development Company Limited
« Reply #108 on: June 27, 2017, 07:25:25 PM »
PUT UP HERE FOR SAFE KEEPING the facts as published by Jersey Action Group all credit to them.


Jersey Action Group added 4 new photos.
Yesterday at 6:00am ·



SoJDC have been assigned two leases that UBS previously held before moving to JIFC. They comprise of the 3rd floor and the 1st and 2nd floors, of 28 New Street, at rents of £122,000 pa and £258,000 pa respectively. Both leases run until 11th June 2019 and with two years left on the terms this is a rental take back of £244,000 and £258,000 – a total liability of £760,000, or three quarters of a million pounds. SoJDC did this as part of the deal to entice UBS to take space in Building 4.
These contract leases are on full repairing terms for 21 year from July 1998, and are passed entirely to SoJDC and the assignment makes it clear that SoJDC are taking on all liabilities including liability for dilapidations. It is virtually impossible to work out how much the dilapidation claim would be without seeing the offices but working on the fact they have 15,000 sq. ft., it could be up to £ 500,000 (max)


Taking on these leases means all in all another £1,000,000 needs to come off the bottom line “profit” for Building 4 (IFC1) which is clearly now running at a loss. We have heard no details of the later deal done with BNP Paribas Bank but it is likely that SoJDC have picked up a similar liability there.


(all info is in Royal Court documents in the Public domain):

The lease is based on a rent of £34.50psf and is a total (including stores, car spaces etc.) of £612,952 pa but this is reduced by £25,000 pa for the first three years to £ 587,856 pa but on top of this is a 15 month rent free period. It is a 25 year lease with break clauses at the 15th and 20th years.


JDC are liable for any inherent contamination costs on site during the lease term.


The office space taken (5th floor and approx. half of 4th) is 16,891 sq. ft. so there will be a cost to subdivide (walls/ split services etc.) this to allow letting and this needs to come off the profit.

In addition to the Cat A fit out UBS get "enhanced Cat A works", these are

£15psf for carpets which equates to £253,365
An amount for extra floor boxes (for power)
£ 25,000 for a UBS battery backup
Emergency 630kva generator - Circe £50,000+
Metal ceiling upgrade, window blinds
All this could easily be a total of half a million plus and which is over the market norm of for any rent free perid or rent reduction.


We have been given information that Building 4 has over run on cost by some £3,500,000. A lot of that must do with the extra contamination found when excavating but also the extremely high fit out costs promised to the new tenants including expensive these UPS systems and backup generators.


SoJDC have now moved offices to these 28 New Street having previously rented offices from BNP Pari-bas at Anley Street (their 2nd tenant)
They could have stayed, rent free at their offices at Harbour Reach, Castle Quay but rented these out to Blue Crest (Hedge Fund) to entice them away from Guernsey hoping they would then move to the Fi-nance Centre. They are clearly quite happy at Castle Quay with its stunning views of the Marina and St Aubin’s Bay and likely a lot cheaper rental than the JIFC.

Every time SoJDC move offices they incur further costs of fit out when they move in and then repairs when they move out. The cost of these office moves must be high horror and it is not surprising they could not pay any dividend back to the States last year.
We cannot see anywhere in P73/2010 that SoJDC, given they are mandated by the States to undertake development in the most risk averse manner, have the ability to take back leases (including dilapidations liabilities which are un-costed ) and certainly it’s a sign of how desperate they are to get the JIFC devel-opment going at any cost (to the taxpayer).

Commercial developers would not take back leases, for a pre-let of 15,000 sq ft. in addition to the 15 months’ rent free and £ 300,000 + of add-ons they already have given to UBS. We don’t think States Members envisaged this in P73/2010.

COMPETITION (along the Esplanade):

Dandara are building a new office block at 5 – 6 Esplanade of @ 50,000 sq. ft. and SoJDC will be stuck seeking to let their vacant floors in 4 and 5 and this could be the death knell for building 6.


Lee Henry £167,500 +£37,800 bonus, total £207,185 and pension of £ 25,125.
Simon Neal £117,500+ £19,800 bonus, total £ 137,300 and pension of £ 17,625.
Directors received £ 472,508 in 2016 comprising salary, emoluments, pension, bonus and benefits. The total SoJDC salaries and bonuses have shown a significant increase of some 11% from the previous year. The Company has not made any profit on the Finance Centre, yet is still paying performance related bo-nuses? WHY?


Over 70% of their 2016 profit has been created by massaging the value of their assets. How do they do this?
They call this "Net gain from Fair Value adjustment on investment property":
The Company has an RICS qualified employee who performs valuations on the investment properties based on the latest independent valuations and taking into account recent market evidence, rental agree-ments, quality of covenant, yield comparisons and location of the asset. No independent external valua-tions, which the accounts say should be every 5 years and which have not been done.


The Company receives £759,000 from the States of Jersey in respect of a licence to operate the Esplanade Car Park and Les Jardins de La Mer Car Park. This was supposed to be stopped under P73/2010. They also receive over £1million by way of receipts (cash and rental payments) from the Waterfront under-ground car park. These monies are basically their main source of income to pay their salaries bonuses and pensions so they cannot afford to give this back to the Public.


SoJDC effectively just about broke even on their events in 2016 Income was £65,688. Expenditure: £64,083. The disastrous Roller Disco at the weighbridge in March and the much-maligned December Ar-tic Village were no doubt responsible for wiping out any potential profit for the year.


As JDC, on behalf of the public, have borrowed £ 74 million against assets of £42M surely the Treasury Minister should be making a statement to confirm what profit is being produced by Building 4 for the public benefit and how and where will the Minister be using that money to regenerate St Helier? Given that’s one of 4 Strategic Objectives of the Council of Ministers?


Only 50% or Building 5 which is now raising above the hoarding has been let.
40% of Building 4 (IFC1) is still UNLET
Building 5’s tenant is Sanne trust and guess who is a non-exec director of Sanne? Non other than the Chairman of SoJDC, Nicola Palios.
Other SoJDC board directors connected with the two Building 4 tenants are Richard Barnes ex Managing Director of BNP Paribas Estates but still an advisor for them and Tom Quigley who is an advisor for UBS Bank.


SoJDC’s financial position is in a word: PRECARIOUS.


It is time that our Treasury Minister, Senator Alan MacLean had the Treasury look in to the state of the finances of this Government QUANGO before the banks realise what a mess they are in and call their loans in.

Link to SoJDC 2016 accounts is here:…/2016-financial-statements…

Blue Crest moves:…/Hedge-fund-BlueCrest-moving-to…



Offline Fritz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2693
  • Gender: Male
Re: The States of Jersey Development Company Limited
« Reply #109 on: June 28, 2017, 01:41:19 AM »
The SOJDC is a self serving Quango. Its that simple!!
The folk in charge demand, (And get), salaries and bonuses normally paid to real risk takers in the private sector.
Only difference is if things go ,"Belly up", they havent actually risked any of their own money and will still be paid inflated salaries.
These folk dont give a damn how things pan out over the next few years. They will still all, "Personally", benefit financially.
They will all be able to retire comfortably despite the mess they leave in their wake.

Offline shortport

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
Re: The States of Jersey Development Company Limited
« Reply #110 on: June 28, 2017, 03:57:13 AM »
I don't think this island has ever been so corrupt as it is currently.

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3493
Re: The States of Jersey Development Company Limited
« Reply #111 on: January 30, 2018, 05:43:41 AM »

Constable: Don't sell off the Weighbridge!

Monday 29 January 2018

Constable Taylor told Express: "This is part of public space, it shouldn't be sold. I am upset it was approved. If the JDC don't want it, they should give it back to the States but don't go on and sell it."

The Constable also wants States Members to support amendments to Standing Order 168, which relates to the manner in which property transactions can be approved and reported to the States. The amendment would provide that "...any land transactions recommended by a body established by the States to manage land and buildings owned by the public of Jersey must be presented to the States at least 15 working days before any binding arrangement is made."

Posted by   Charles Dix   on   Jan 29th, 2018

I heartedly applaud the Connetable of St John.
Quangos should not be permitted to sell off the family silver. No land should be sold without open discussion in the States, and thus the knowledge of th public.
Posted by   Peter Huntingdon Bewers   on   Jan 29th, 2018

I also agree with correspondent Charles Dix, there was a certain U.K. Prime Minister , who when he saw this happening in the U.K. called it selling the Family Silver, and I think he is right, Jersey is not so broke that we have to start looking round for Property to sell and Cash in on ? You can only sell something once , and with property , what ever you sell if for , in Ten Years or so it would look as if you gave it away ! Hang on to assets. its only common sense.

Posted by   David gibaut   on   Jan 29th, 2018

The JDC have a lease from the S of J, so they don't own the land so how can they sell something they don't own?.

Posted by   Martyn Anderson   on   Jan 29th, 2018

This seems some form of unregulated conversion of assets; of course the JDC should not have the right to sell off leased property for its own balance sheet gain without full conditional agreement from the States, and why would the States grant such permission when the proceeds should accrue to the States.
Already we have seen that the JDC has raised a mortgage risk on land it manages on behalf of the public to finance its own expenses and activities.

The whole concept of the JDC is wrong. We have a States sanctioned and financed ‘quango’ speculating on the private sector property development market, and it seems not clearly sticking to the rules that were set to avoid it taking risks that are normally of the type taken up by shareholders in the private sector.
It should not be for the States to speculate on land development. A specialised States Lands Department should manage land and publically auction development land to the private sector, under strict development conditions in accordance with long-term island plans, and with a timing that will allow the maximum return to the public coffers, at no risk.

Allowing a corporation to speculate with State assets is both inefficient and imprudent risk taking that are not the appropriate functions of Government.
Abandon the JDC and leave the risks where they should lie, with private investors

All credit Bailiwick Express, another decent article.

« Last Edit: January 30, 2018, 05:47:48 AM by boatyboy »

Offline Chevalier Blanc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: The States of Jersey Development Company Limited
« Reply #112 on: January 30, 2018, 06:56:41 PM »
I believe they have never given any money back to the states ( our money ).. and yet the salary and then the bonus that henry and other are given is scandalous!
As fpr selling our land they should be shot along with the CoM for letting them do it!