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 âspecifyâ that âspecial interestâ. The notice dated 26 June 2015 at Appendix 1(a) of the DoEâs Statement of Case (SoC) identifies the special interest of La Grande Maison as âArchitecturalâ and âHistoricalâ. 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 âstatement of significanceâ and a âdescriptionâ of the building intended to support the Departmentâs view that the site is of special interest. The schedule also assigns the building a âlisted status and non-statutory gradeâ of âListed Building Grade 4â. 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 DOEâs SoC. A more recent heritage assessment report by Jersey Heritage, following submission of the appeal, is at Appendix 4 to the DoEâs SoC.
3 According to the Ministerâs criteria for the listing and grading of heritage assets, adopted in April 2011, Grade 4 buildings are âBuildings 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 valueâ.
IS THE BUILDING OF âSPECIAL INTERESTâ?
Architectural and other physical features of the building
4 From my inspection the âdescriptionâ of the physical features of the exterior of the main (central) section of the house at Appendix 2 of the DoEâs 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 âdescriptionâ (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 âoriginal houseâ. However, the appellant states that Lady Cunliffe Owen (a previous occupier) told her that she had âput in the plaster decoration around the roofâ.
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 DoEâs 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 âdower wing to the west may be a later additionâ. Presumably âlaterâ in that context means a âpost 1852â 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 âpatioâ 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 DoEâs SoC. There are a number of doors on this elevation â 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 âdescriptionâ, 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 â 1852.
10 North of the house the L-shaped former farm buildings (now converted to residential use) are appropriately summarised in the âdescriptionâ 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 âdescriptionâ at Appendix 2 add to the sense of grandeur of the buildingâs setting, such as the âelaborate cast iron gatesâ framing the âlong drivewayâ from the entrance from La Rue de Feugerel. However, the appellant gives details of her motherâs design and creation of these features with the assistance of a friend - âMr Hillierâ 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 âthe house now looks posh â 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 likeâ. In her view it is ânot a notable example of a cod houseâ. 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 âothers like it all over the islandâ. She concludes that if the east wing did not exist no-one would be able to describe the original house as âin the grand classical styleâ. Nor is it in a âformal landscape settingâ or set in âextensive groundsâ: the plot is 50ft wide and to the east of this is a field in different ownership.
Historical significance of the house
13 The âdescriptionâ 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. DoEâs SoC (at Appendix 4) refers to showpiece houses of this type having earned the nickname âcod housesâ. 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 ânotable example of a cod houseâ: 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 â 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 Officersâ Mess for the Luftwaffe.
Appellantâs other points
16 The appellant is concerned that when the east wing, which âhas no proper foundations and moves from time to time upon the big stones from the (original) greenhouseâ 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 âforced to employâ an architect to obtain permission to insulate the roof at âÂŁ29,000 extraâ and, having obtained grant aid, âtalked intoâ 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 âcod houseâ built in a classical grand style on the proceeds of the Newfoundland fishing industry, which itself played a significant role in Jerseyâs 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 âspecial interestâ under Article 51(2)(b) and that the entry on the LSSI appropriately specifies that âspecial interestâ as required by Article 51(3).
20 My conclusion takes account of the views expressed by the appellant on the statutory factors bearing upon âspecial interestâ. 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 âto the extent that (they) relate to the special interest of the buildingâ. The appellantâs âother pointsâ summarised above do not relate directly to âspecial interestâ 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