STATES OF JERSEY
REPORT TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
APPEAL by Mrs Veronica Ashbrooke under Article 108(2)(h) of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002, as amended, against inclusion of a building on the List of Sites of Special Interest under Article 51(2)(b)
Site address: La Grande Maison, Grande Route de St Jean, St John
Department of the Environment (DoE) ref no: JN0156
Accompanied site visit made on 13 October 2015
Inspector Roy Foster MA MRTPI
ARTICLE 51(3)(a)
1 Article 51(3)(a) requires that the List of Sites of Special Interest (LSSI), maintained under Article 51(1) shall in respect of each site of special interest ‘specify’ that ‘special interest’. The notice dated 26 June 2015 at Appendix 1(a) of the DoE’s Statement of Case (SoC) identifies the special interest of La Grande Maison as ‘Architectural’ and ‘Historical’. These are two of the 6 possible statutory reasons for the listing of a building established by Article 51(2)(b).
2 A schedule to the notice includes a ‘statement of significance’ and a ‘description’ of the building intended to support the Department’s view that the site is of special interest. The schedule also assigns the building a ‘listed status and non-statutory grade’ of ‘Listed Building Grade 4’. That grading took account of information submitted by the appellant after an earlier proposal to classify the building as grade 2 and recognised that any interior interest of the building had been lost. The current schedule to the notice is at Appendix 2 to the DOE’s SoC. A more recent heritage assessment report by Jersey Heritage, following submission of the appeal, is at Appendix 4 to the DoE’s SoC.
3 According to the Minister’s criteria for the listing and grading of heritage assets, adopted in April 2011, Grade 4 buildings are ‘Buildings and places of special public and heritage interest to Jersey, being good examples of a particular historical period, architectural style or building type; but defined particularly for the exterior characteristics and contribution to townscape, landscape or group value’.
IS THE BUILDING OF ‘SPECIAL INTEREST’?
Architectural and other physical features of the building
4 From my inspection the ‘description’ of the physical features of the exterior of the main (central) section of the house at Appendix 2 of the DoE’s SoC is broadly correct. Bearing a boldly stated date (1852) on its parapet, the central section of the main (southern) elevation has 5-bays and is of 2-storeys plus semi-basement. Other features of this part of the elevation are generally accurately set out in the ‘description’ (concerning its painted stucco walls, rendered chimneys, slate roof behind the parapet, 12-pane (6/6) sash windows, dentilled moulded cornice beneath the parapet, a string course between ground and first floor, a central porch with Ionic order columns and moulded cornice, 4-panel door with side lights and overlight, a basement level extension creating a form of terraced extension to the porch and the flight of steps to the door). This central section of the building appears to be accepted as the ‘original house’. However, the appellant states that Lady Cunliffe Owen (a previous occupier) told her that she had ‘put in the plaster decoration around the roof’.
5 The two 2-storey, 2-bay, broadly matching side wings are lower and set back from the main elevation. As may be seen from the photographs attached to the DoE’s SoC, their front elevations generally match each other and complement the architectural design of the central section.
6 The appellant points out that Stevens, J (1977) Old Jersey Houses Volume Two states that the ‘dower wing to the west may be a later addition’. Presumably ‘later’ in that context means a ‘post 1852’ addition. However, it is common ground that the west wing considerably predates the similar east wing which the appellant dates at 1957/58 (and says was also installed by Lady Cunliffe Owen): that wing has a flat roof behind the parapet while the west wing has a hipped pitched slate roof surrounded by valley gutters behind the parapet.
7 The west wall of the west wing has an external staircase leading to a first floor entrance with a modern door. The north-east elevation of the east wing is attached to a small single storey outbuilding. The south-east elevation has wide ‘patio’ doors on the ground floor.
8 The rear (north) elevation of the house is plainer than the front, as may be seen from the photograph in the DoE’s SoC. There are a number of doors on this elevation – a small staircase leads to a ground floor door in the west wing, there is a central door into the semi-basement (entered through a small porch), and a third entrance via a small greenhouse at the eastern end.
9 The carriage entrance from Grand Route de St Jean (between the house and the former farm buildings) is as summarised in the ‘description’, ie a curved stone wall either side of an eliptical arch in ashlar in a chequerboard pattern with black granite insets and with a keystone bearing the same date as that on the house – 1852.
10 North of the house the L-shaped former farm buildings (now converted to residential use) are appropriately summarised in the ‘description’ as slate- roofed with walls of irregularly sized granite blocks with dressed stone quoins and quoined window surrounds framing 2-pane (6/6) sash windows and round attic windows on the gable ends. Also north of the yard (opposite the east end of the house) is an apparently recently-built block of 3 garages.
11 Other features mentioned in the ‘description’ at Appendix 2 add to the sense of grandeur of the building’s setting, such as the ‘elaborate cast iron gates’ framing the ‘long driveway’ from the entrance from La Rue de Feugerel. However, the appellant gives details of her mother’s design and creation of these features with the assistance of a friend - ‘Mr Hillier’ of gardening fame. The DoE does not question that these features post-date 1956 and replaced a field and farm track. The current driveway is absent from the OS extract of 1935.
12 The appellant concludes that ‘the house now looks posh – but it is a fraud, very cleverly done to make it seem like a Georgian mansion, and it will give people the wrong impression of what a real cod house looks like’. In her view it is ‘not a notable example of a cod house’. It is necessary to disregard the drive, entrance gates, and the 1957/8 east wing. Even if one were to replace features destroyed during the war such as the original shutters (burnt for firewood) and the original conservatory (which stood where the east wing is now), there are ‘others like it all over the island’. She concludes that if the east wing did not exist no-one would be able to describe the original house as ‘in the grand classical style’. Nor is it in a ‘formal landscape setting’ or set in ‘extensive grounds’: the plot is 50ft wide and to the east of this is a field in different ownership.
Historical significance of the house
13 The ‘description’ states that the house was built for the Luce family on the proceeds of the cod fishing industry. Stevens J (1977) (op cit) says that there is a tradition that Mr Luce built the house in competition with Mr Carcaud of Melbourne House, both being constructed by Philippe de la Mare, responsible for much quality workmanship in Jersey. DoE’s SoC (at Appendix 4) refers to showpiece houses of this type having earned the nickname ‘cod houses’. It also cites Boots M (1986) Architecture in Jersey which refers to rural houses in the grand manner being the country equivalent of the large Regency town houses of Georgian character found on the outskirts of St Helier.
14 The appellant accepts that the house was probably built with money from the fishing of the Grand Banks, although in her view it is not a ‘notable example of a cod house’: it only catches the eye because of its setting and has much less quality than Melbourne House. In her view the builder (Mr Luce) must have run out of money before it was finished because the interior was quite plain – just 4 square rooms with no cornices, cupboards or plumbing.
15 Her view is that the only really historical thing about the house is the fact of its requisition and occupation during the war as an Officers’ Mess for the Luftwaffe.
Appellant’s other points
16 The appellant is concerned that when the east wing, which ‘has no proper foundations and moves from time to time upon the big stones from the (original) greenhouse’ her family will be forced at some future time to rebuild it even though it did not exist until 1957.
17 She also relates her experience of the consequences of listing. She was ‘forced to employ’ an architect to obtain permission to insulate the roof at ‘£29,000 extra’ and, having obtained grant aid, ‘talked into’ replacing the previously unleaded porch roof with lead which proved to be too heavy for the wooden pillars, causing leaks in the drawing room and requiring strengthening of the porch.
CONCLUSION
18 In my view the building displays fine exterior qualities of a mid-19th century ‘cod house’ built in a classical grand style on the proceeds of the Newfoundland fishing industry, which itself played a significant role in Jersey’s economic history and development. As summarised above, there have been incremental additions and alterations since the original structure was built but these changes generally reflect and augment the architectural style and character of the original building. Some other generally smaller-scale changes do not, but they do not detract from its overall special interest.
19 I conclude that the building has the necessary ‘special interest’ under Article 51(2)(b) and that the entry on the LSSI appropriately specifies that ‘special interest’ as required by Article 51(3).
20 My conclusion takes account of the views expressed by the appellant on the statutory factors bearing upon ‘special interest’. However, Article 52(4)(a) requires that in determining whether or not a building should be included on the list in the first place, representations should be taken into account only ‘to the extent that (they) relate to the special interest of the building’. The appellant’s ‘other points’ summarised above do not relate directly to ‘special interest’ as defined under Articles 50-51 and therefore cannot be afforded material weight under the terms of the Law.
RECOMMENDATION
21 I recommend that the appeal be dismissed and the building therefore retained on the List of Sites of Special Interest at non-statutory grade 4.
Roy Foster, Inspector
18 October 2015
gov.je