Sark residency rules will leave locals without rights

Defining a Sark Resident.

Not only are Chief Pleas doing nothing to improve Sark's failing economy, be it by looking at ways to improve the tourist industry or by showing a willingness to work with Sure towards improving connectivity issues here in order to attract another type of industry to Sark, they are now seeking to penalise those locals who may have to leave this winter for work elsewhere by declaring them no longer a resident if they are off-island for more than 92 days.

Those who may wish to work on the Christmas trees would not be able to do so if they wish to retain local residency as that would entail them being away for more than 92 days. Those youngsters who have to take a season's work off island in order to earn an income, as has happened this summer with two 'born and bred' locals, would not be able to do so if they wished to retain local residency.

If this proposal is only to be used in future applications for residency, then this needs to be clarified. However, fixing residency at 273 days a year will also impede any plans Sark has to attract outside businesses on to the island as it is common practice for many businessmen to be flying in and out of mainland cities on a regular basis.

Being 'allowed' to be off-island for only 92 days a year is no incentive whatsoever, especially when they are expected to pay taxes after being resident for 90 days.

Using the same plan as Alderney, in that one has to be resident for 273 days a year, is fine when applied purely to the housing law and local market dwellings. When this amendment was passed by Chief Pleas, it was stated that this qualification would be used solely for housing and NOT for anything else. Yet here we find it is about to be applied across the board as the definition of a local resident. SAFE agrees that Sark needs a standard definition for ordinary residency, but to use 273 days in any given year as that definition is way too high a figure.

SAFE would also like to know how CP plans to qualify this definition, if accepted. We presume the onus would be placed on us residents to prove to you that we have been here for a minimum of 273 days a year? With no border checking, how do you envisage us proving that fact to you? Using what evidence exactly? Will we need to 'clock in' and 'clock out' with a specially created card? Then there is the codicil within that gives the douzaine the ability to give anyone qualification should they so choose, which in itself gives them an enormous amount of power.

Divisibility and charging.

When SAFE met with Conseiller Dunks, he very kindly gave us lots of information in connection to the 'land use plan' and to the basis by which Chief Pleas intends to define tracts of Sark land. We understand that this plan is 'currently being developed and will be brought to the public for their input', but SAFE has grave concerns regarding the possible misuse of such a plan.

It will enable the user to 'favour' certain land owners by defining tracts of their land as available for development, but it will also allow them to 'disfavour' other land owners by rendering their land agricultural, subsequently stopping any development plans that the land owner may have had in mind. We have already seen examples of certain committees trying to stop such development and this plan almost seems like a tool being put in place enabling Chief Pleas the future ability to do exactly what they have so far not managed to do.

The idea of granting planning permission in advance to certain tracts of land also seems wrong to SAFE, a much better idea being to delegate certain areas as open for possible development instead.

SAFE has always said that any division of land should not be forced onto land owners, so we are in full agreement there. A 'register of charges', however, has left SAFE speechless. This intimates that there will be a spreadsheet of sorts with the availability in place for residents' private financial information to be in a domain that is no longer private and confidential, whatever rules and regulations Chief Pleas say will be put in place.

SAFE would also like to know if Chief Pleas has actually approached either of our local banks and asked their managers if they would be prepared to extend a mortgage to a Sark local on the basis that, if they 'fail to make repayments', then the property in question will default to 'an independent person/receiver' for sale, as opposed to the bank in question in order to recoup losses? SAFE has.

We approached one bank and were told that this particular bank has NOT been approached by any member of Chief Pleas for advice on this issue. They also went on to say that this is such a convoluted, complicated subject that, even though they want to help, it would not be an easy issue to resolve and it would take some considerable time and effort on the part of the bank's own solicitors to get anywhere near a resolution – if any such resolution was even possible. SAFE would like to know why Chief Pleas itself has not asked this question before putting forward this proposal?

Again, SAFE agrees that divisibility in general is vitally important for the economic future of the island and we have been told by one of our conseillers that the ability to implement this is already in place, ready for Chief Pleas to use. Doing so immediately, and with the availability in place for a mortgage without the proposed 'receiver', would help kick-start the economic activity Sark is in such desperate need of.

To summarise, SAFE would just like to reiterate that although this proposal appears to show Chief Pleas engaging in the kind of activity Sark needs, the individual points of the proposal do nothing but reveal one flaw after another. We ask that you seriously consider the points we have made here, look again at what you are proposing and look also at the possible long-term effects any such action you take now may have on the future of this island.

SAFE STEERING COMMITTEE.