Minister made ‘serious errors’ over luxury planning site
Friday 13th January 2012, 2:59PM GMT.
The site in St Brelade's Bay
FORMER Environment Minister Freddie Cohen and senior planning officers have been criticised in a damning Royal Court judgment that will cost taxpayers thousands of pounds.
The Royal Court found that there were ‘serious irregularities and procedural errors’ over their handling of plans to redevelop the Zanzibar restaurant site in St Brelade’s Bay.
Dandara were told that they could not build a luxury seven-bedroom seaside home with a swimming pool on the site. However, the court has quashed that decision and the new Environment Minister, Rob Duhamel, will have to consider the plans afresh.
The court also ruled that the States should pay Dandara’s legal costs, which are expected to run in many thousands of pounds.
The judgment stated that Mr Cohen should not have met the developers privately on four occasions before the hearing at which the application was decided. And it said that he was wrong to refuse the plans for political, and not planning, reasons.
Mr Cohen said today that he had only ever met the developers in the presence of planning officers.
Saturday 26 May
- Senator charged with grave assault
- J2: Your guide to what's on, including Jubilee Diary
- Queen's Jubilee: Win one of 60 diamonds
- Free cup of coffee for every reader
- More medals at Jeux des Iles
- Win tickets to family teddy concert
The Queen's Diamond Jubilee
JEP Jubilee Editions
Saturday 2 June: Guide to Celebrations
Wednesday 6 June: Souvenir of Events
View The Queen in Jersey supplement
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
I’m going to give Freddie Cohen the benefit of the doubt, and state he done everything with good intentions
Sadly, in 20 years time when people remember the political career of Freddie, you’ll have to search high and low for anybody that remembers him with any fondness
Report abuse
more of the same old tale.
lets flog the taxpayers wallet to death.
more blunders , more serious irregularities.
sound familiar ? it does to me .
the island cannot afford this kind of thing anymore imo.
Report abuse
Cohen the Barbarian strikes again…gone yet still costing us what a legacy this one man Tsunami has left…..there is no way Dandara should be given permission for another faux Las Vegas pad there after all the awful things they have built….wanting to put innapropriate buildings in sensitive locations for mere profit should be stopped…the Govt are way off message here ..the message needs to go out that the party is over….the island is fed up of being gang banged.
Report abuse
If another monstrosity was prevented from being built, then the many thousands will be worth it.
It’s a pity ‘serious errors’ were not made when planning was given at Portlet and along the North Coast.
Report abuse
we go on about keeping it local and all that rubbish but yet we have companies build properties on our island and the revenue from these properties don’t even stay in the island we must be mental. take the charge for the court fees out the 6 figure salaries that these clowns were getting. I sick of paying my tax for it to be absolutely peed up the wall, its scandalous
Report abuse
So I imagine another grotesque eyesore will arise in St Brelade. And tax payers will have to fork out. Cohen the Barbarian indeed!
Report abuse
Its a shame Cohens decisions weren’t more looked into before they started Portlet.
That would certainly have been a decision well worth overturning.
Report abuse
Amazing,the ordinary joe public cannot afford to go to court to get a planning decision overturned,yet dandara’s millions BUY /BULLY thier way to get the “ok”. This house is totally out of place in St. Brelades Bay.Mr. Duhamel,listen to the people ,not the highly paid lawyers.
Report abuse
How is it bullying when the Court made the decision. Courts are there as independent eyes on unfairness. What Cohen did was unfair – end of.
They own the proprty, and such a development is easily seen as acceptable, only those who have a vendetta against Dandara complain, though I do notice that there apartments still sell…
Report abuse
I am sure that it entirely normal for Ministers to have private meeting (ie with States officers but not the public) but Cohen was unwise to refuse on ‘political grounds’. What he should have done is to refuse it on the grounds raised by the local policitians (Tadier, Power, Jeune (now Young) and I think Ferguson lives nearby) unless they were silly reasons for objection.
If there were sensible grounds for refusal from these local politicians then presumably they will still stand when it is reviewed?
Report abuse
This Royal Court case has highlighted the relationship that Cohen had with Dandara, the fact that they were able to have four private meetings with the minister for one simple dwelling (with Planner’s present?) and he felt the need to write to them explaining himself shows that he was ‘cosy’ with Dandara.
This is one simple small development, a full investigation of Cohen’s diary may reveal how many ‘cosy chats’ he had with Dandara.
One more example of the holder of this post holding way to much power….decisions that should be taken by a panel…not one man/woman alone
Report abuse
Nothing new then taxpayers always pay for states members mistakes.
Report abuse
who runs jersey …. jersey finance, dandara and friends.
Report abuse
This brings up one question for me, when are States members going to held accountable for their actions? In the private sector (which one assumes most of the muppets have fled from) the long list of failures and gaffs costing taxpayers money would not be tolerated without some sort of investigation. It would appear to me, the simple working “Joe” that error upon error can be made and these people just wobble off to oversee the next costly disaster without question. I thought democracy meant the elected members when in office can be held accountable by the people who elected them, let’s see some of this happening. It’s our hard earned and hard to come by money we are ploughing into their coffers!!!!!!
Report abuse
Power to the people,not in Jersey it’s power to Dandara or should i say Dumpdara.money talks.
Report abuse
Well DO something about it! Protest. Make a fuss. Direct action. Vote for something better. Etc.
It seems on here that Jersey people are great at complaining, but not very good at getting up and being proactive. It’s your island.
Report abuse
Before Freddie gave up his coveted position of Environment Minister it was becoming obvious to anyone with a single functioning brain cell that absolutely anything Dandara wanted, they got.
Consider this scenario …..
With all the adverse publicity that Freddie was receiving re the above, (it must have been tiresome for him, not to mention too near the truth) and his new found enjoyment of jollies at the expense of the taxpayer as Jersey’s first Foreign Minister, he decided to give up his role as Environment Minster, and as a parting shot, considering the upcoming elections, he decided that it would be good show to reject one of Dandara’s projects – just to prove he was not biased in their favour!
He therefore officially rejects their plans for this 7 bedroomed, ugly monstrosity but cites a reason (a political one rather than a planning one) that he just knew (as would have Dandara) that it would be easily overturned at a later date with a little effort on Dandara’s side, but with a nice little kickback for them in the shape of compensation from the States of Jersey (for States of Jersey read taxpayers!)
The fact that Freddie is being blamed for “serious irregularities and procedural errors” is not going to bother him in the slightest – he has been proven to have wide shoulders and a thick skin.
Outcome – Dandara get what they wanted having only suffered a short delay. Financially they will be square, if not better off, because of the generosity of the Jersey taxpayer’s compensation.
Report abuse
Couldn’t have put it better myself.
Will it be proven? No it wont – because no one cares enough to do anything about it.
Report abuse
Neat move by Freddie (Dandara) Cohen. He purports to acceding to public opinion, (expecing to be re-elected), by refusing to pass the plans but subtly leaves an opening for Dandara to get the plans passed by telling them that he was pressured by public opinion, thus implying that the plans should have been passed. They, therefore, can claim that the refusal was not legitimate as they would normally have been approved.
Report abuse
This is utterly bizarre. Certainly, “political pressure” is no reason to refuse, or indeed approve, a planning application. But the gross over-development of a restricted site was an ENTIRELY LEGITIMATE reason for rejecting it. Why on earth did Mr Cohen need to cite “political” reasons for refusing it?
Equally strange was Dandara’s use of one of the most famous architectural names in America for the design of a house in a very limited setting (albeit one with sea views)? In the application, the architects used images of other ‘similar’ projects as illustrations of what they were attempting to build. These pictures showed stark, geometric buildings contrasting against lush, green backdrops. Which isn’t the Zanzibar site at all. The Zanzibar site is narrow and limited, set in a background of suburban clutter. Why on earth import one of the biggest U.S. architectural practises to design for so limited a site? Was there some sort of understanding with the applicants, that the bigger the architectural name involved, the more likely approval would be given? Mr Cohen was famous for his penchant for stars of the world’s architecture to be commissioned for Jersey projects. Unfortunately whilst such architects may indeed produce excellent bits of design, the issues of scale, density and suitability for a particular location are of equal importance, and cannot be ignored simply because a famous name is involved. The infamous Portelet scheme proved that once and for all.
The Zanzibar application was for far too much building on a limited site, with almost no room left for compensatory landscaping. As such, it should have been a very simple planning issue of over-development, and refusal should have been on those grounds alone. When the plans are now re-submitted, everyone who opposes this scheme should send an objection stating as such.
The final mystery is why a planning officer should have been recommending approval for the plans. What exactly is the calibre of the people we pay for in the planning Department?
Report abuse
What a suprise, took long enough to work it out.
Report abuse
Tell me why are we the tax payer paying for Cohens blatent disregard for the law, he knew exactly what he was doing, charge him and make him pay for it.
Report abuse
Minister mad mistakes…ha ha the real mistake was making him a minister in the first place then giving him planning was the next..he will surely go down in history as the man who wrecked Portelet and the worst one we’ve had.
Report abuse
The full Royal Court judgement is here:
http://www.jerseylaw.je/judgments/unreportedjudgments/documents/display.aspx?url=2012/12-01-06_Ruette_Farm-v-Minister_for_Planning_008.htm
Yet another example of the dreadful decisions made by Calamity Cohen. Deary, deary me.
It’s actually a fascinating insight into his behaviour during his six years in the role. Thank goodness he got booted out. It’s not just Portelet that saw the end of him, it is disasters like this and others. Good riddance to bad news.
Report abuse
Cohen and senior planning officers were right to reject this overbearing wall to wall site encompassing application,following various normal preliminary meetings with the developers.It would be tragic if there is now an excuse to pass this, simply because of a mis interpretation of the political opposition of the Constable and deputies of St.Brelade, whom were merely acting on behalf of their local parishioners.It’s crystal clear that a large overbearing private development in the middle of St Brelades Bay benefits no one except the applicant and rides rough shod against planning policy,which has now been further undermined by a Royal Court judgment, which opens the way for those developers, whom have the financial muscle to absolve themselves from any adherence to the leaky Island Plan.
Report abuse