Scrutiny rejects fort deal review request
SCRUTINY has rejected a request to investigate a controversial property deal in which the States sold part of a family’s home without telling them.
It has decided against setting up a review or public hearing into why the States sold part of the home of the Allez family in the deal to sell Fort Richmond in 2019, after accepting for years that the rightful boundary between the two properties gave the family full ownership of their home.
Deputy Andrew Taylor wrote to the Scrutiny Management Committee last week asking it to use its extensive legal powers to assist his months-long campaign to uncover the events which led to the States including the family’s home in the £1m. sale of the fort, using a 1922 boundary map which it knew was incomplete and had previously agreed to redraw.
Scrutiny president Yvonne Burford said that her committee had discussed the request yesterday.
‘While the committee fully appreciates and understands that this is a matter of significant concern to the Allez family, it does not consider that it is of sufficiently wide public interest to justify undertaking a full public hearing, especially when there remain other avenues open to Deputy Taylor and the family, such as rule 11 and 14 questions to committee presidents, and freedom of information requests,’ said Deputy Burford.
‘The committee would also have concerns about conducting a hearing on a matter that is or may become the subject of legal action.’
Deputy Taylor said last week that he would consider taking a proposal to the States if Scrutiny refused to get involved.
Such a proposal could ask deputies to direct Scrutiny to carry out a review or a public hearing. Another option would be to propose establishing a tribunal of inquiry under the auspices of the Royal Court.
Deputy Taylor was last night considering his next steps and is expected to comment after this week’s States meeting.
The Policy & Resources Committee claimed last summer that the deal went ahead after the States received ‘formal assurances’ that neighbouring landowners could resolve boundary issues between themselves, but the Allezs say they were not involved in that.
