Tuesday 27 September 2022
Select a region

Overseas investors banned from buying Waterfront properties

Overseas investors banned from buying Waterfront properties

Wednesday 10 February 2021

Overseas investors banned from buying Waterfront properties

Wednesday 10 February 2021

States Members have agreed to bar non-locals from buying any of the 1,000 homes due to be built at the Waterfront.

The proposition put forward by Senator Sam Mézec was adopted this afternoon following an amendment from the Government pledging that the number of affordable homes will be “maximised” in the development.

Introducing his proposition, Senator Mézec acknowledged it originally requested half of the homes to be made available for social housing or affordable purchase.

He however said there was “no use fighting over the specific 50/50 when the optimum could be something else."


Pictured: Senator Sam Mézec's proposition was adopted with 40 votes 'pour'.

He said his proposition would mean the Assembly could ensure the States of Jersey Development Company's plans would “play a direct part in addressing the housing needs of the island rather than a less tangible indirect part by supposedly raising profits to channel elsewhere, which is a dubious strategy in my view."

“No properties should be sold to foreign investors who would take advantage of a government-backed scheme to profiteer, funnel money out of our economy and risk damaging our local housing market by contribution to rental inflation and I am pleased the Government has accepted this,” he added.

The former Housing Minister said the proposal’s strength was its economic literacy, as it seeks to provide a “targeted supply of housing to people who need it so that they are able to establish their lives around the stability that provides, to be happier and more productive and be able to spend more in the local economy because they’re not sending half of their hard-earned wages to a faceless investor somewhere else in the world."


Pictured: Senator Mézec said "no properties should be sold to foreign investors who would take advantage of a government-backed scheme to profiteer".

Senator Mézec said it didn’t make sense, at a time where interest rates are low, to try and profiteer then “cross-subsidise a scheme on land we have to buy elsewhere when this scheme will pay itself off anyway with the rent income over a planned period."

He added that simply building more homes was not the solution to the housing crisis.

“We need the right type of homes to go to the right people and we need a more targeted approach,” he argued.

He also welcomed the fact that the “nasty suggestion that a nice view is something that poorer people should never be entitled to” had been rejected. 

Following queries from Deputies John Young and David Johnson, the Attorney General, Mark Temple, confirmed the Control of Housing and Work Law gave Ministers the powers “to impose conditions in advance on ownership."

He however said they hadn’t been tested before and that more work would be needed on how to use that authority. 


Pictured: Deputy Lindsay Ash supported the proposition.

Few States Members spoke during the relatively short debate, including Deputy Lindsay Ash who said he had found common ground on many issues with Senator Mézec. “We both felt people should have houses,” he said.

He went on to say that, even if the Government decided to freeze immigration, the island would still be “very short” of housing.

He added that, whenever plans are put forward, islanders often contact States Members in opposition and “we end up with gridlock, the States get cold feet."

“If the housing problem is to be solved, it will need more things such as these that are brought by Senator Mézec, it will need this Assembly to show true leadership, the sort that can make you unpopular, that can make the Assembly unpopular, the sort of leadership we saw in the past when we flooded Queen’s Valley… 22,000 signatures against it.”

He urged the Assembly to support the proposition, saying that, if it was done properly, it could be “a truly mixed project” and even become an “iconic development for Jersey."


Pictured: St. Helier Constable Simon Crowcroft called for more "open space, community and leisure facilities" in town.

St. Helier Constable Simon Crowcroft said it was “inescapable” and made “perfect sense” for St. Helier to be asked to take on the majority of the housing needs of the island but asked for public amenities and parking in return.

“It is only right that St. Helier is asked to take on… I won’t say the burden because I think people are good for town, they add to the vibrancy and the life of the town, 24/7, but if St. Helier is taking on all these thousands of units but there must be that compensatory provision of open space, community and leisure facilities - all the things that these St. Helier residents are going to need to enjoy their new homes.”

St. Helier Deputy Mike Higgins also spoke in support of the proposition, but added that it “didn’t go far enough” in his view.

St. Peter Deputy Rowland Huelin said the Government should “maximise returns from cherished assets”, noting that the Waterfront land had the highest value in Jersey. 

He suggested it was better to ensure “significant amount of the profits are used to carve out social and affordable housing elsewhere”. 

Deputy Montfort Tadier asked, “What’s wrong with giving poor people, poor families sea views?”, adding that any “potential ghettoisation” would be very divisive and that the Waterfront should be “vibrant”. 

Concluding the debate, Senator Mézec said that there was no legal definition of ‘foreign’ and that his proposition was about “applying whatever definition meets our aim”, which he said was “any off-island investor”.

He said that a population cap was nonsense and would help the housing market “magically find its equilibrium”. “We could go to net zero today and we would still have an increase in housing needs in the next 10 years,” he said.  

He also said Constable Crowcroft and Deputy Huelin missed the point when suggesting the Government should make money on this site to build houses elsewhere, as building homes purely for investors could end up contributing to an increase in rent prices.

He also said the suggestion misunderstood how social and affordable housing is funded, adding that, while housing providers can find finances for such development, they were “begging for land”. 

The proposition was adopted with 40 votes in favour and only one against.  

Sign up to newsletter



Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.

Once your comment has been submitted, it won’t appear immediately. There is no need to submit it more than once. Comments are published at the discretion of Bailiwick Publishing, and will include your username.

Posted by SimonBevens28 on
Will be interesting to see how they will stop a local shell company being set up to buy apartments.
There are still a number of premium apartments unsold on the existing JDC development but the market is so pressured I imagine they will sell the lot with no problems.
Local landlords will enjoy having a clearer field and there will always be plenty of people who need or prefer to rent.
Posted by Private Individual on
No wonder the housing market is so skewered if outside investors have been allowed to buy property in Jersey. They are pushing the price out of reach of normal working people and have been doing so for years.

No wonder we have seen such an increase in prices since the pandemic started, it has made no sense that the prices kept increasing whilst unemployment was increasing with jobs losses across the whole economy.

No interest on money in the bank has meant that these people have bought property instead, thus being able to charge extortionate rents, this has caused an unstable unsustainable situation.

What on earth has the government and previous housing ministers been doing to allow this situation to develop? Why have they not stopped this years ago?

How many other high rise developments have been bought from outside the island with the result that local people are now paying through the nose to rent these properties.

This must be stopped across ALL developments, not just this one.
Posted by Scott Mills on
this ruling will be ripped to shreads by the clever people being trusts, estate and other agents. Companies will still be able to purchase them. It'll have more loopholes in it than edam.
Posted by John Smith on
Struggling to understand how this will stop the local investors buying to let, who surely outweigh overseas investors.
Posted by john garner on
If they are flying freehold then a company cannot buy them
Posted by Lesley Ricketts on
These flats can still be bought by companies owned by foreign investors with the shareholding being held in nominee names by declaration of trust. Will the due diligence on these buyers drill down to the ultimate owner or stop at the nominee I wonder.
To place a comment please login

You have landed on the Bailiwick Express website, however it appears you are based in . Would you like to stay on the site, or visit the site?