Rebuild goes ‘well beyond’ the original, say Planning
Wednesday 27th July 2011, 3:47PM BST.
Sous L'Eglise
PLANS to rebuild a house ‘stone-by-stone’ in a different location are not going to be supported by the Planning department when the matter is discussed at a meeting tomorrow.
The department is recommending the scheme for refusal because the owner’s revised plans go ‘well beyond’ what was agreed. Advocate Mark Renouf and his family had been given permission to move listed building Sous L’Eglise from its site next to the Airport runway to a new plot a mile down the road. This was seen as an ‘exceptional’ case because the building needed to be removed to improve safety at the Airport.
Mr Renouf’s plans were approved to reconstruct the house in the garden of his parents’ home at Boscobel Farm, Rue des Vignes, St Peter.
Full story in today’s JEP
Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
JOIN US ON...
Facebook and Twitter
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Got a story? Get in touch
KIT 4 CLUBS
Win a share of £10,000
2012 is the year of the London Olympics and to celebrate this great event the Jersey Evening Post, in association with sponsors Ogier is giving all sporting clubs a chance to win a share of £10,000.
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
the last time i drove past boscobel farm , i only had sight of the sign at the entrance , do not recollect seeing anything.
the fact that this man is willing to rebuild a good example of a jersey houe, should be commened.
what would happen if he was a chap like myself, who could not afford to, take on , such a mamoth task, the cost of such a job must be large .
and after all he is making the airport approach safer, no?
Report abuse
For goodness sake let the man do it! Or do you want another Route Du Noirmont situation? Sheep, Shepherd and the stupidity of the flock springs to mind!!!
Report abuse
No-one is saying the applicant can’t do it. He had permission but now wants to do something else.
No doubt the applicant could revert to “plan A” if he wanted him but it clearly suits him to try and push for something else.
If an applicant wants to go back on an agreement then one can hardly blame a department for looking at what the new plans might be and coming to a proper adminstrative decision based upon an applicant’s volte face. Indeed, for the department to do otherwise would be a breach of its statutory duty and a cause of possible action from third parties or those wishing to judicially review the matter.
Report abuse
a) have you seen the housing development that has gone up in the place of the farmhouse that ‘had’ to be moved?!
b) when it comes to ‘like for like’ – what about a SEVEN storey monster about to replace a lower building at Fort d’Auvergne, Havre des Pas?
Report abuse
The clue is in the term, “revised plans”. That means that what is being pushed for now is not what was agreed by planning.
Planning had already made a concession by deeming this case to be “exceptional”. They probably wish that they had rejected it to start with now!
Report abuse
(5) token , i bet he wishes he was still living in his house .
Report abuse
This is a listed building and should be re-built as it currently stands.
A similar condition was placed on the granite facade of the old Newgate Street prison, all parts were duly marked and listed for its reconstruction. And what happened to the Granite archway of St Pauls ????
Without any compromise, this ‘listed’ building will simply get demolished.
Report abuse
What’s with this idea that something old must stay the same forever? Requirements alter.
In French Lane the ‘new’ building on the corner of Halkett Street has been knocked down but the two decrepit buildings next door, which form part of the new development, have compulsorily been preserved. Why keep two units that will be inefficient thermally and hermetically in the middle of a whole row of more modern buildings?
Sympathetically designed new buildings need not be jarring to the eye.
If the revision is in keeping with the original then that would be OK by me.
Report abuse
8; the reasons for the decision to which you refer are well documented in the report relating to the Royal Court appeal in 2004 and the subsequent report relating to the Court of Appeal hearing, which upheld the Royal Court’s endorsement of planning’s requirement that the buildings be preserved.
The built environment necessitates the retention of some old buildings. The reality of the situation is that the now demolished building to which you refer (the “video centre”) should not have been built in the first place because it was part of a large scale demolition of historic buildings in the late 1970s. The thought process now is that past mistakes should not be perpetuated. Developers will, of course, try to argue otherwise.
As an aside, there is a planning “sustainabilty” policy. That policy sets out that a building should only be demolished where it is derelict beyond repair. On that basis, the video centre should not have been allowed to have been demolished. The policy is, however, always breached.
Demolition waste is of a particularly noxious composition and frequently contains lead, asbestos, gypsum and other unpleasant things. The waste is just dumped locally, no doubt building up a legacy of health and other problems for our successors. A developer will again try to argue otherwise or will pretend that the problem does not exist.
Finally, an old building can of course be made “thermally and hermetically” effective by the insertion of an inner skin or by other methods. As you say, requirements vary. Indeed, it may be seen that the real skill of building is to adapt to those cahnged requirements rather than just throwing historic and other buildings to waste to the detriment of those who are not in the line for the ensuing profit.
Report abuse
warren j (7) st pauls arch, someone must of dug a hole and buried it, and what a nice arch it was , never to be seen again, even the gate went, nice set if you have the room and the cash.
(9) 12-14, the old shop fronts on french lane , are rotten , and just a collection of odd bits of plywood , and look nothing like their finer days, to loose them would be no great loss, imho
we have lost so much, think of union street pre hue court days , and still people in ordinary houses , have to pay twice as much for wooden ( yes you will have to up keep them) windows , because you have to keep them.
shame the painter does not come free with them.
Report abuse
@9
I really meant ‘why’ not ‘what’.
An example of a really nice replacement is in Windsor Road where old houses were demolished and replaced with modern efficient similer houses. The replacements are much more attractive than the old houses still remaining and as I pass almost daily, I delight in looking at them. (I believe our Housing Dept. were responsible, well done).
Report abuse