Inspector’s Report – Appeal by Mr & Mrs R Whittingham – Ref. P/2018/1299
PLANNING AND BUILDING (JERSEY) LAW 2002 (as amended)
Appeal under Article 108 against a decision made under Article 19 to refuse planning permission
REPORT TO THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
made under Article 115(5)
by D A Hainsworth LL.B(Hons) FRSA Solicitor
the inspector nominated under Article 113(2) from the list of persons appointed under Article 107
__________________________________________________________________
Appellants:
Mr & Mrs R Whittingham
Application reference number and date:
P/2018/1299 dated 9 July 2018
Decision notice date:
16 January 2019
Site address:
Villa Nuova, La Route de la Haule, St. Brelade, Jersey JE3 8BA
Development proposed:
Various internal and external alterations including a replacement chimney
Inspector’s site visit date:
5 April 2019
_________________________________________________________________
- Villa Nuova is a listed building (HER Reference: BR0400). The listing particulars describe its significance as “A pair of 1840s houses which retain their external historic character and architectural features of the period, and contributing to the streetscape.” They record that it has a “Hipped slate roof, with shared central rendered chimneystack - complete with six octagonal pots. … The interior is not of interest”.
- On the non-statutory listed building grading system, Grades 1 to 4 (Grade 1 being the most significant), the building is listed as Grade 4. This grade is defined as “Buildings … of special public and heritage interest to Jersey, being good example[s] of a particular historical period, architectural style or building type, but defined particularly for the exterior characteristics and contribution to townscape …”
- The building no longer exists as the original pair of listed houses, having at some time become four flats and having recently been converted with planning permission (Ref: P/2017/0588) into a three-bedroom dwelling and a one-bedroom dwelling, with a two-storey extension at the rear. The approved scheme included some re-roofing and the retention of the rendered brick chimney, which although redundant, was to have been retained with new structural support work that would have enabled it to remain in place.
- The works that have been carried out, however, are not entirely in accordance with the approved scheme. The main differences are (i) the building has been completely re-roofed, with the asbestos-cement slates being replaced with natural slates throughout, and (ii) the rendered brick chimney has been replaced by a replica chimney constructed with a timber frame and finished with rendered glass-reinforced plastic cladding.
- The appeal arises out of the refusal by a planning officer of planning application P/2018/1299, which was submitted in order to obtain approval for the works as carried out. No objections were made to the complete re-roofing of the building with natural slates being used throughout. The planning officer considered these works to be acceptable and, in my opinion, they are an improvement to the building both in terms of the materials used and their appearance.
- The reason given for the refusal of the application relates solely to the chimney stack and is as follows:
“The removal of the existing chimney stack, and its replacement with a GRP-clad replica is considered to be an inappropriate form of development which is harmful to the character of the existing property, Villa Nuova (a Listed Building Grade 4). Accordingly, the application fails to comply with Policies SP 4 (Protecting the natural and historic environment), and HE 1 (Protecting Listed buildings and places) of the adopted Island Plan 2011 (revised 2014).”
- Policy SP 4 states:
“A high priority will be given to the protection of the Island’s … historic environment. The protection of … the Island’s heritage assets – its … historic buildings …– which contribute to and define its unique character and identity will be key material considerations in the determination of planning applications. ….”
- Policy HE 1 states:
“There will be a presumption in favour of the preservation of the architectural and historic character and integrity of Listed buildings …. Proposals which do not preserve or enhance the special or particular interest of a Listed building … will not be approved.
Permission will not be granted for:
1. …;
2. the removal of historic fabric, which might include roofing materials, elevational treatments (such as render or stucco) and their replacement with modern alternatives;
3. …;
4. extensions, alterations and changes which would adversely affect the architectural or historic interest or character of a Listed building ….”
- Although not referred to in the reason for refusal, Supplementary Planning Guidance Advice Note 6 “Managing change in historic buildings”, which was published by the Minister in 2008, is also relevant. Paragraph 16.6 gives advice about chimney stacks and chimney pots, as follows:
“Chimney stacks are both formal and functional features of the roofscape and can be important indicators of the date of a building and of the internal planning. In many cases chimneys also perform a vital structural function, and they should normally be retained, even when no longer required. … Chimney pots can sometimes be valuable decorative features in their own right, but they are also functional features: plain Georgian and 19th century pots are often important as part of a traditional roofscape which will be damaged if they are removed.”
- The main thrust of the arguments put forward in the appeal by the Growth, Housing and Environment Department is that the new chimney does not match the original because of the materials used and some differences in appearance and proportions. The Department conclude that it has a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the building.
- The appellants disagree. They maintain that the new chimney has been constructed to the exact dimensions and detailed design of the original and that its appearance is identical. They have explained that the original chimney was supported by a central party wall, about which their engineers reported during the course of the works “… the brickwork is loose and the flues are highly unstable. Moreover, the rafters sag and do not provide stability to the chimneystack”. The engineers recommended that, for safety and practical reasons, the party wall should be removed above first-floor level. This led to the decision to construct the replica chimney described above.
- Photographs taken before the works started show that the original brick chimney was rendered and coloured a sandy yellow, including the chimney pots, so as to match the rendering and colouring on the main walls of the building. The new chimney is in all significant respects identical in size and form to the original chimney. It has been rendered and coloured white to match the new colouring of the main walls of the building. I understand that the six original chimney pots have been reinstated. They now have a regular terracotta colour. Overall, the appearance of the chimney and the chimney pots from the street is in my opinion more pleasing than it was in its previous state. No-one viewing the building externally would realise that the chimney was a replica without undertaking a close-at-hand inspection.
- I do not consider that the works are at odds with the main considerations in Policies SP 4 and HE 1 and Advice Note 6. The building still has the characteristic features described in the listing particulars, namely a hipped slate roof with a central rendered chimneystack complete with six octagonal chimney pots. The works have not lessened the contribution that the building’s appearance makes to the streetscape or townscape. The original brick chimney was not identified as having particular historic or architectural interest on account of the manner of its construction or the materials used. Its structural function was not identified as being significant, since the listing particulars state that the interior is of no interest: the major alterations authorised by planning permission P/2017/0588 confirm this. The chimney pots have been attractively refurbished and replaced in their original positions. Whilst I understand the reaction of the Department to the use of glass-reinforced plastic cladding beneath the render on the new chimney, I do not consider that on its own this is a determining consideration in this instance.
- My conclusion, on balance, is that there are insufficient reasons to refuse planning permission for the works that have been carried out. It has not been suggested that any planning conditions should be imposed in this event. Since the works have already been completed and all the conditions imposed on planning permission P/2017/0588 appear to be spent, I do not consider that any planning conditions are necessary.
Recommendation
- I recommend that in exercise of the powers contained in Article 116 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 (as amended) the appeal be allowed in full and planning permission granted for various internal and external alterations including a replacement chimney at Villa Nuova, La Route de la Haule, St Brelade, Jersey JE3 8BA in accordance with the application reference P/2018/1299 dated 9 July 2018 and the plans submitted therewith.
Dated 8 May 2019
D.A.Hainsworth
Inspector
gov.je