A backbench politician is seeking to halt the £1.3m sale of the former Aviemore care home, amid concerns around the transparency of the process and the valuation of the property.
St Clement representative Deputy Alex Curtis of St. Clement has put forward a proposition to revoke the planned sale of Aviemore to the public’s developer, the States of Jersey Development Company (JDC), arguing that States Members and the public have not been given clear answers about the deal.
Deputy Curtis is calling for consultation with States Members and the public before any sale proceeds, saying too many critical questions remain unanswered, including why the property is being sold for less than half of its originally listed guide price.
Aviemore was originally listed for sale by tender in January 2024, inviting “offers in excess of £3 million”. However, it is now set to be sold for just over £1.3 million with a clause allowing for additional payments depending on future development profits – though some States Members feel the details of this arrangement are too vague.
Deputy Karen Wilson recently pressed the Minister for Infrastructure on the circumstances of the sale, including whether a higher price could have been achieved. In a written response, the Minister confirmed that six bids were received, with JDC submitting the highest offer. However, no details have been provided about the competing bids or whether private developers were given a fair opportunity to purchase the site.
Deputy Curtis is now questioning why the property, whose sale is due to generate funds for care-experienced islanders, is being sold at such a reduced rate.
“If we are selling valuable public assets at a fraction of their expected value, we need to ask whether this is really the best use of taxpayer-owned land,” he said.
Aviemore: A brief history
Aviemore has stood empty since a phased closure that started in 2021, after it was linked to an allegation of child abuse.
It came after the the Jersey Care Inquiry heard in 2017 that staff had assaulted young islanders with disabilities.
An independent review that same year found that staff care more for their own safety than for residents’ needs.
In 2019, Express found out that Aviemore had received three orders by the Health and Safety Inspectorate relating to a substantial lack of written policy or procedure in protecting employees from “violent or aggressive incidents” from clients.
The 2021 Government Plan acknowledged that the facility itself was a barrier against providing “appropriate and safe care, as well as providing a safe working environment for the staff.”
John Le Fondré’s government said that the five-unit building “cannot be fully occupied”, which meant that individuals had to live in private-sector accommodation
As a result, the government decided to convert part of the over-65s mental health facility Rosewood House to replace Aviemore in 2021.
A £995,000 St Saviour bungalow was also purchased to house a single Aviemore patient with learning disabilities as part of a wider restructuring of its specialist care facilities.
In 2023, then-Chief Minister Kristina Moore said that proceeds from the sale of the site would form a fund “dedicated to improving outcomes for care-experienced islanders”.
The term generally refers to any person with experience of care, such as an individual who has spent time in foster care or in a children’s home, or someone privately fostered or looked after at home under a supervision order.
Another key concern is what JDC intends to build on the site and whether it aligns with public interest. The government has previously stated that the land will be used for open-market housing.
In a report explaining why he was seeking to halt the sale, Deputy Curtis suggested that there hadn’t been sufficient transparency, pointing out that States Members were not properly briefed before the sale was announced.
“What exactly is being proposed? Does it align with the public interest? We still don’t have clear answers,” he said.
Aviemore sits adjacent to the former Haut de la Garenne care home, which today acts as the Jersey Accommodation and Activity Centre (JAAC), a popular outdoor education and tourism facility. Noting that neighbours “objected to the noise and disturbance created by outdoor play” at the centre during a Planning Committee meeting three years ago, Deputy Curtis said there was a “real risk that the provision of open market housing would threaten the ongoing viability of JAAC”.
“Are there better uses for this site, such as tourism, economic opportunities, or step-down care facilities?” he asked.
Deputy Curtis is urging the States to pause the sale until a full consultation can be carried out, as well as supporting a public consultation on the future use of Aviemore, and a review of funding options for care-experienced islanders, ensuring the sale is delivering the best possible outcome.
“For £1.3 million (plus an opaque overage payment with no guarantee), is this really the best way to treat our strategic land assets?” Curtis asked.
The proposition is due to be debated on 25 February at the earliest.
Outstanding questions:
In the report accompanying his proposition, Deputy Curtis listed several “outstanding questions” he has.
“Whilst Members may have regrettably parted with this land (and accepted the comprised remaining land parcel) if the money generated was sufficiently high, I am left with a feeling of unease and too many outstanding questions such as:
- What is SoJDC proposing to develop on the site? Does it align with the ‘public interest’?
- Would more private developers have expressed an interest if the site was advertised differently or at a lower price?
- How was the original £3.00 Million valuation arrived at?
- Why is what is being offered so different to the professional and independent valuation?
- What does this mean for the wider valuations of the public estate?
- Does high-end housing sit well next to an accommodation and adventure centre.
- Will there be conflict in the future?
- Are there better uses for the site, such as economic, tourism, step-down care or similar, especially now that we are not realising as much cash as expected?
- Does a conflict arise with the overage payment, as it encourages the Council of Ministers to seek to push development density as far as possible on a sensitive site to return a greater payment?
- Why have States members questions faced silence and a continued lack of clarity?
- And ultimately, for £1.3 million (plus the opaque overage payment with no guarantee) – is this really the best way to treat our strategic land assets?”