PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
Register as a Building of Local Interest
12 Halkett Street, St Helier
Purpose of the Report
To provide the Assistant Minister with an opportunity to decide whether to add 12 Halkett Street, St Helier to the Register of Buildings and Sites of Architectural, Archaeological and Historical Importance in Jersey as a Building of Local Interest (BLI).
Background
12 Halkett Street, St Helier is effectively an unregistered building presently. It has featured on the Register previously, having been first designated in 1992. In decisions of the Royal Court and the Court of Appeal, handed down in 2004, it is recorded that the building was removed from the Register on 23 June 1997. The only minute in relation to that date is that of the Jersey Building Heritage Sub-Committee of the Planning and Environment Committee, whereby the Sub-Committee agreed that it would not resist the demolition of this building were an application made for its redevelopment (it is relevant to note, at this point, that delegated powers to add or remove buildings to the Register were not delegated to JBH Sub-Cttee until 18 March 1999).
There is thus no clear formal record of the building being removed from the Register on the grounds that its inherent value does not warrant inclusion on it. Notwithstanding, the building has been treated as if it were not a Registered Building since 1997.
In 2004, as a result of an appeal to the Royal Court in relation to the refusal of planning permission for the demolition of a number of registered buildings in the town centre, including 12, 14 and 16-18 Hilgrove Street and 8-10 and 12 Halkett Street, St Helier (Trump Holdings Ltd v. Planning and Environment Committee [2004 JLR 16]), the inherent heritage value of 12 Halkett Street was closely scrutinised and tested by the Royal Court. The Court was of the view that the Committee was wrong to remove the building from the Register and to concede its loss through demolition.
In our judgment, when taken in the round, having regard both to its historic and architectural interest as well as its contribution to the street scene, it was a mistake for the Committee to remove 12 Halkett Street from the Register and give permission for its demolition.
(Trump Holdings Ltd v. Planning and Environment Committee [2004 JLR 16])
As a result of the Court’s deliberations, handed down in January 2004, the then Environment and Public Services Department began the process to consider the re-registration of 12 Halkett Street onto the Register as a Building of Local Interest. Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Panel make clear that this was considered as part of a site visit on 03 September 2004:
4.8 The Panel also visited No.12 Halkett Street and were asked to consider whether it should be returned to the Register as a BLI. S Fell explained that the building was removed from the Register by the JBH Sub-Committee in 1997 but that this decision was criticised by recent court judgements concerning the protection of 12-14 Hilgrove Street, and the Committee is therefore obliged to reassess the building in light of this.
4.9 The Panel inspected the exterior of No.12 and discussed the historical and architectural interest of the building at length. A vote was taken twice and both times it resulted in 4 votes in favour of registration as a BLI, and 3 against. It was agreed that this split decision will be conveyed to the Committee. RH and SF to action.
[Heritage Advisory Panel: Meeting no.6, 03 September 2004]
Unfortunately, the matter would appear not to have been actioned and reported back to the then Environment and Public Services Committee as a matter of routine business. This committee was to resign on 15 September 2004, a new committee being formed, under the same presidency, on 28 September 2004.
The matter is thus not then reported back to and considered by the Committee until it features in a report, dated 02 June 2005, prepared by the case officer for a planning application to demolish 16 and 18 Hilgrove Street and 8, 10 and 12 Halkett Street (it is relevant to note that this application excludes any proposals to demolish 12 and 14 Hilgrove Street). The report cites an email from the Assistant Director (Design and Conservation) advising the Committee of the Heritage Advisory Panel deliberations:
Arising from the court case on 12/14 Hilgrove Street, the Solicitor General instructed the Committee to review the registration of 12 Halkett Street – which is currently unregistered. The matter was referred to the Heritage Advisory panel on 03rd September 2004. Following a site inspection and discussion, no decisive conclusion was reached by the Panel (4 voted in favour of registration and 3 against with 1 absentee) In these circumstances, I cannot recommend the registration of this building.
[Decision and Conservation Section comments dated 05 November 2004,
cited in officer committee report P/2004/1414, 02 June 2005]
Planning permission was awarded for this development proposal (P/2004/1414) dated 12 July 2005 and a letter to the applicant’s agent informing them of the Committee’s decision is dated 24 June 2005 (implying that the decision was taken on 23 June 2005). No minute of this meeting or decision can, however, be found.
This is extremely unfortunate as it does not firstly reveal whether the then E&PS Committee properly considered the desirability of restoring 12 Halkett Street to the Register on the basis of the criteria for registration. And secondly, it does not provide any explicit evidence of the Committee’s deliberation as to how it weighed the value of the development proposals against the loss of this historic building. This is even more unfortunate when the decision to again award planning permission for the demolition of 12 Halkett Street is considered against the Court’s judgement that the Committee was ‘wrong’ to take the building off the Register and ‘wrong’ to permit its demolition in the first place.
The matters of registration and development should have been addressed and dealt with as entirely separate issues – the question of the building’s heritage value should have been considered entirely separately from any consideration of its future use or development. There is, unfortunately, no evidence that the Committee asked itself the right question or took reasonable steps to acquaint itself with the relevant information to address issues of the building’s heritage worth and potential re-registration – for example, it is clear that none of the Court judgement papers or details of the historic building assessment report (Jonathan Carey, November 2002 – see appendix 4) relative to 12 Halkett Street, were referred to or appended to the case officer’s committee report. The report simply states that, in response to a representation contesting the Committee’s consideration of re-registration of 12 Halkett Street, ‘this matter has now been conceded by the Department’.
On this basis, and despite the recent judgement of the Court, it would appear that, once again, there has been no explicit and clear consideration of the heritage value of 12 Halkett Street by the Committee and, as happened in 1997, it was inappropriate and wrong to merge the issues of re-registration with the determination of development proposals involving the demolition of 12 Halkett Place. It is quite incredible that this took place a second time and that the Committee would appear to have failed to have explicitly addressed the Court judgement that it was ‘wrong’ to have removed the building from the register and ‘wrong’ to have consented to its demolition.
Having regard to the above, the Department is of the view that it is entirely appropriate for the Assistant Minister to give due and explicit consideration to the matter of the re-registration of this property at this time and to do so by exercising his own judgement having regard to the heritage value of the building (separate to any considerations of its development potential) and to the importance of consistency, in terms of the application of criteria for listing and registration. It is relevant to note that despite there being an extant permission for the demolition of this property (P/2004/1414) the building remains standing and thus possesses an inherent heritage value until it ceases to stand.
The Assistant Minister previously considered a report on the architectural and historic interest of the building prepared by Jersey Heritage dated 12 September 2008 (at appendix 1, with supporting documentation at appendices 2-4 incl.) and determined that this building and place was of sufficient interest to warrant its addition to the Register of Buildings and Sites of Architectural, Archaeological and Historical Importance in Jersey as a Building of Local Interest (BLI). A notice of Assistant Minister’s intent to add this building to the Register was served on the owner of the property on 10 October 2008 in order to provide an opportunity for representations to be made.
A representation was subsequently submitted dated 14 November 2008 (at appendix 5).
Discussion
The representation submitted seeks to question the eligibility of this building’s designation as a Building of Local Interest relative to the adopted criteria for assessment. In so doing, it essentially seeks to offer a differing opinion to that put by the Department’s professional advisors. Jersey Heritage has sought to respond to the points made, as set out in its supplementary report at appendix 6 (dated 19 November 2008). As stated in the JH report, the particular architectural and historic interest of the building is and has been supported by others also, including the owner’s own specialist advisers (the Carey Report: @ appendix 4).
The representation also raises other issues.
It suggests that the Assistant Minister is estopped (prevented) from considering the registration of the building: it is considered that this is not that case, and the Assistant Minister is able to consider this matter (see EXEMPT 3.2.1(a)(v) appendix 7 (dated 17 June 2008).
The fact that the building was de-registered and then sold by the Public is also raised. The Department is of the view that this is not of particular consequence in respect of the proposal to determine whether the building has particular interest warranting addition to the Register and is also a matter previously addressed and dismissed by the Court of Appeal [see also EXEMPT 3.2.1(a)(v) appendix 8 (dated 25 February 2009)].
In our judgment, when taken in the round, having regard both to its historic and architectural interest as well as its contribution to the street scene, it was a mistake for the Committee to remove 12 Halkett Street from the Register and give permission for its demolition. We emphasize that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest any improper motives on the part of the Committee or its officers as hinted at by Mr. Voisin. We have no doubt that Mr. Fell and his colleagues offered honest opinions which were genuinely held….
(Trump Holdings Ltd v. Planning and Environment Committee [2004 JLR 16])
The issue of the extant permission to demolish the building is raised as is the suggestion that there have been no change in circumstances since this determination. These issues are worthy of further consideration (see attached at EXEMPT 3.2.1(a)(v) appendix 8 dated 25 February 2009).
Relevant considerations include the fact that the building has inherent value until it is lost through the implementation of any extant permit to demolish: the permit might not be implemented. The Assistant Minister is thus able to consider the merits of the building as it stands presently. This is considered to be given greater credence as the Court of Appeal has highlighted the fact that the owner’s own expert regarded 12 Halkett Street as a building worthy of preservation and that the earlier decision to permit the demolition of 12 Halkett Street was, in conservation terms, an error.
The Assistant Minister is also directed to consider whether proper consideration was given as to whether 12 Halkett Street is a building worthy of retention in the determination of the permission to demolish, having regard to the views of the Royal Court and the Court of Appeal. On the face of it, the Department is now of the view that the Committee has previously failed to take this into account as a material consideration and that the Assistant Minister is entitled to exercise his own judgement on the matter on the basis of the materials considerations before him.
Legal and resource implications
The inclusion of buildings and places in the Register of Buildings and Sites of Architectural, Archaeological and Historical Importance in Jersey is consistent with the purposes of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002.
Any decision to add this building to the Register as a Building of Local Interest would not have any effect on extant permission to demolish the building. Should that permission fail to be implemented, however, the heritage value and designated status of the building would fall to be considered as a material consideration in relation to any new development proposals that might be forthcoming.
Recommendation
On the basis of the recommendation of Jersey Heritage to add 12 Halkett Street, St Helier to the Register of Buildings and Sites of Architectural, Archaeological and Historical Importance in Jersey as a Building of Local Interest (BLI) and having had regard to all other material considerations as outlined in the report and appendices, the Assistant Minister is requested to consider the addition of this building to the Register as a Building of Local Interest.
Reason(s) for Decision
The particular interest of 12 Halkett Street, St Helier, as identified and described in the report and relative to the published criteria for selection, justifies its inclusion on Register of Buildings and Sites of Architectural, Archaeological and Historical Importance in Jersey as a Building of Local Interest, and it accords with the States Strategic Plan commitment of protecting and enhancing the Island’s built heritage assets.
Action Required
1. Notify the owner
2. Update the Register of Buildings and Sites of Architectural, Archaeological and Historical Importance in Jersey
3. Notify Development Control
Written by: | Assistant Director, Policy and Projects |
| |
Approved by: | Director |
gov.je