Sunday 01 October 2023
Select a region

Coastal homeowner accuses States of £30k "extortion"

Coastal homeowner accuses States of £30k

Wednesday 26 July 2017

Coastal homeowner accuses States of £30k "extortion"

Wednesday 26 July 2017

A Jersey man was slapped with an unexpected bill of nearly £30,000 when he tried to sell his house following months of what he describes as "bullying" from the States - sparking fears that other coastal homeowners could be faced with the same fate.

Alan Luce (60), who lived at Roche de la Mer along the St Clement's coast was forced to pay up the five-figure sum – and the States’ legal costs – after months battling over a “vague” land law.

After 10 years of living along the seaside strip, Mr Luce was “shocked” to receive a letter from the States just as he was on the verge of selling his property, which claimed that it had encroached on land belonging to the Public.

In it, they said that he would not only have to pay compensation for the encroachments, but would have to agree to pay the price of a valuation and all fees of the public “regardless of outcome.”

But Mr Luce wasn’t responsible for the offending breaches – a balcony and extensions abutting the sea wall. They had, in fact, been placed there by the previous owner, who had done so with full Planning approval before the land fell into States ownership at all.


Pictured: Then and now - the encroachments were already there before Mr Luce moved to Roche de la Mer in 2005 (inset).

The foreshore – ambiguously defined as the area between the “low water mark and high water mark of the full spring tide” – was gifted from her Majesty to the Public of Jersey in 2015. It was only from then that the States were able to start "clawing back" money from those in encroaching coastal accommodation. The sea wall against which Mr Luce’s property was built, therefore, was not a clear marker of where the Public land ended and where his began – the States claimed that more than 8ft behind the wall was theirs.

“I don’t believe for a minute the Queen gave the land to the people of Jersey for [the States] to start screwing around with the people... What they’re doing is going around and monetising encroachments… I bought that problem 10 years ago, and this manifested months after the Queen had gifted the land. They clearly scoured the land, and my property was nestling on the sea wall, and that’s what caught their eye. It’s completely unfair,” Mr Luce told Express

He said that he was offered no option to use a surveyor of his own choosing or to settle at a “reasonable” sum. Moreover, the whole “prolonged” process saw potential buyers fall through, without sympathy from the States.

“It was completely bullying. Without question, they took the stance: you had to tread their path, that was it. There was no negotiation there was no discussions… The whole leverage was, ‘You won’t be able to sell your house’,” Mr Luce added.

alan luce roche de la mer foreshore

Pictured: Mr Luce says that the tone adopted in the States' letters put much strain on him, even though selling his house was "stressful enough." He hopes that the States won't do the same to other beach homeowners.

Unable to take the “extreme stress” any more, he paid up after more than a year after the original letter was sent in December 2016 - £29,662.50 in ‘compensation’ to the Public and £4,725 in legal fees.

But while Mr Luce reached a settlement, and was finally able to sell his property for just over a million, he has now expressed concerns for other homeowners, and says that he’s already aware of one elderly woman in the area who was left “befuddled” and “terrified” after being told that her conservatory encroaches on the controversial land space.

A spokesperson for the Department for Infrastructure (DfI), who has responsibility for the matter, defended their decision to review encroachments on the recently-acquired land, stating: “There is a need to protect the Public’s interest as a landowner, and other encroachments are regularly dealt with on a case by case basis.”

While no policy currently exists regarding encroachments, they said that this was being developed, and that “the Public” would review new developments close to sea defences in the interim.

So far, they said that three contracts had been passed before the Royal Court since the Public acquired the land, “…with a number currently under negotiation”, but added that they were not the first to address the issue:

“During the Crown’s tenure of the Foreshore, a number of encroachments were in fact dealt with and settlements negotiated with the relevant landowners.”

havre des pas to fauvic sea wall jersey

Pictured: Properties along the sea wall from Havre des Pas to Fauvic, like Mr Luce's, could be affected pending the DfI's review. (Google Maps)

However, they assured islanders that each situation would be treated “on its merits” and form part of a “negotiated settlement with landowners.”

“Where an encroachment has been in existence for a number of years without any action having been taken on the part of the Crown and/or the Public, this may mitigate the settlement figure sought. 

“Where there is a material sum involved the Public will engage an independent surveyor to provide a commercial value as the basis for negotiation,” they explained.


In-depth: The man who paid £30k to the States just to sell his house

Q&A: Everything you need to know about the Foreshore issue

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 L Brindle on
What will they use the money for ? How come the Crown never grabbed it whilst they had the chance? Just like the councils in the UK, you'll never win, good chance you'll go bankrupt trying to fight them. Shameful, got to feel for this guy.
Posted by david forde on
This is utterly outrageous!The previous owner should have suffered those fees! And as the government were more than just lackadaisical and irresponsible to say the least. He should not have to suffer them.Shame on you!
Posted by Alan Luce on
Thank you for your comments. it is kinda ironic that the purchase was in front of the Royal Court on pain of perjury. And sold by the same body.
Hey ho, over it all now, but these rogue actions need to be unilateral to all encroachments, not manifesting solely to those that are selling.

The fact that had I leased the property, the issue would have been deferred until a sale. As a point of record the Royal Court stamp had also been paid, the compensation, legal fees for both parties plus GST was also paid.

I strongly urge all property owners on the foreshore and Railway Walk to not ignore this issue, land is a set value in terms of compensation, develop or improve the compensation claimed will be greater.

The lack of transparency, restrictive practise and bullying is undefendable.

I am happy to present my file to anybody that may doubt the facts in this article.

Bailiwick Express have conducted due diligence and published accordingly, with the emotion of a person feeling a little beaten up.
Posted by Alan Luce on
Previous owners for the record include my friends the Lapidus Family whom had enjoyed the property as currently presented since the early 70's. I am simply at the end of the chain.
Posted by The old git Git on
The Spanish authorities tried that in Empuriabrava. When the man made canals were created and opened to the sea they had a law dating back many years that no properties should not be closer than six metres, any such buildings or swimming pools would have to be demolished. Ten years after many legal battles by the property owners with Madrid the law has been rescinded.
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?