Save Jersey’s Heritage published alternative proposals in the hope of saving the 1830s Regency-era listed building that could be demolished under the original scheme. Marcus Binney, a founding member of the heritage group, said that tweaking the application could save the building and also allow the development to take place.
Objections to Le Masurier's plans were also made by the National Trust, Marcus Binney on his own, and Save Jersey’s Heritage.
Jersey Heritage in its comments on the listing status of the building noted that:
“It was acknowledged that part of the ground floor and the original entrance wing had been lost. It was also noted that the 20th century extensions and other later external additions to the front (east) and side (north) of the 1830s house were not of interest and were excluded from the listing. Consequently, the listing was restricted to the main circa 1830s house as shown on the plan attached to the Listing Schedule.”
“No.90 Bath Street was previously assessed for inclusion on the former Historic Buildings Register under an earlier protection regime in 2007. The advice from Jersey Heritage and the Ministerial Registration and Listing Advisory Group at that time was that No.90 had group value with No.92 and that this group value and its importance as one half of a pair of houses should be recognised in any future development of the site. It was, however, concluded that as the original exterior character of the building had been damaged by the addition of a side extension (probably incorporating the original entrance wing), the reconfiguration of the roof from its original hipped form, and the loss of external historic features such as timber windows and doors, that No.90 failed to meet the criteria for registration in its own right.”
Ville à l’Evêque Cottage in Trinity was also slated to be demolished to allow the construction of three houses. Fortunately it has beensaved from demolition following a successful appeal.
Advocate Fred Benest noted that “‘The cottage was built in 1735 and was only one of three traditional buildings in the Ville à l’Evêque settlement that has survived.”
During the planning committee meeting, it was suggested that, as the cottage had undergone substantial modification and was not listed, it was not worth saving. Fred disagreed: “There cannot be any reasonable doubt that the profile and the footprint of the cottage is original. It is only on the south side that a dormer has been put into its roof.”
Clearly despite the town houses having been reconstructed considerably, because they had been counted as “listed”, the alterations – really also substantial modification - were deemed of no significance by the heritage lobby. But when it came to the cottage – where the dormer is invisible from the road facing side – it was not listed, and could go!
All the National Trust could say was “This cottage appeared on the Godfrey map and has been traced back to 1803 by Marie -Louse Backhurst who found it was owned by Corbel and Binet. The Trust hopes therefore that before the cottage is demolished its historical features are recorded.”
Clearly they hadn’t done as much historical research as Fred Benest who traced the history back to 1735!
Save Jersey’s Heritage, Marcus Binnet, and the rest of the usual bandwagon of heritage objectors were nowhere to be seen. This was not a listed building, and not seen of importance!
It should be noted that the town development objections gave rise to this reply from Le Masurier
“The report highlights that the exterior, interior and setting of 92 Bath Street has been significantly damaged and, indeed, the Listing does not extend to the pair of buildings (i.e. 90 Bath Street). The schedule limits internal interest to features including a mahogany staircase, some panelled doors and matching joinery, windows with panelled lining and bedroom fireplaces. Le Masurier is sympathetic to any listed structure and we have offered to carefully remove and salvage these listed features, where possible, so they can be re-appropriated by heritage groups.”
Doesn’t this fit with the idea proposed for the Trinity Cottage by the National Trust that before it is “demolished its historical features are recorded.”?
Jersey Heritage in its comments on the listing status of the building noted that:
“It was acknowledged that part of the ground floor and the original entrance wing had been lost. It was also noted that the 20th century extensions and other later external additions to the front (east) and side (north) of the 1830s house were not of interest and were excluded from the listing. Consequently, the listing was restricted to the main circa 1830s house as shown on the plan attached to the Listing Schedule.”
“No.90 Bath Street was previously assessed for inclusion on the former Historic Buildings Register under an earlier protection regime in 2007. The advice from Jersey Heritage and the Ministerial Registration and Listing Advisory Group at that time was that No.90 had group value with No.92 and that this group value and its importance as one half of a pair of houses should be recognised in any future development of the site. It was, however, concluded that as the original exterior character of the building had been damaged by the addition of a side extension (probably incorporating the original entrance wing), the reconfiguration of the roof from its original hipped form, and the loss of external historic features such as timber windows and doors, that No.90 failed to meet the criteria for registration in its own right.”
Ville à l’Evêque Cottage in Trinity was also slated to be demolished to allow the construction of three houses. Fortunately it has beensaved from demolition following a successful appeal.
Advocate Fred Benest noted that “‘The cottage was built in 1735 and was only one of three traditional buildings in the Ville à l’Evêque settlement that has survived.”
During the planning committee meeting, it was suggested that, as the cottage had undergone substantial modification and was not listed, it was not worth saving. Fred disagreed: “There cannot be any reasonable doubt that the profile and the footprint of the cottage is original. It is only on the south side that a dormer has been put into its roof.”
Clearly despite the town houses having been reconstructed considerably, because they had been counted as “listed”, the alterations – really also substantial modification - were deemed of no significance by the heritage lobby. But when it came to the cottage – where the dormer is invisible from the road facing side – it was not listed, and could go!
All the National Trust could say was “This cottage appeared on the Godfrey map and has been traced back to 1803 by Marie -Louse Backhurst who found it was owned by Corbel and Binet. The Trust hopes therefore that before the cottage is demolished its historical features are recorded.”
Clearly they hadn’t done as much historical research as Fred Benest who traced the history back to 1735!
Save Jersey’s Heritage, Marcus Binnet, and the rest of the usual bandwagon of heritage objectors were nowhere to be seen. This was not a listed building, and not seen of importance!
It should be noted that the town development objections gave rise to this reply from Le Masurier
“The report highlights that the exterior, interior and setting of 92 Bath Street has been significantly damaged and, indeed, the Listing does not extend to the pair of buildings (i.e. 90 Bath Street). The schedule limits internal interest to features including a mahogany staircase, some panelled doors and matching joinery, windows with panelled lining and bedroom fireplaces. Le Masurier is sympathetic to any listed structure and we have offered to carefully remove and salvage these listed features, where possible, so they can be re-appropriated by heritage groups.”
Doesn’t this fit with the idea proposed for the Trinity Cottage by the National Trust that before it is “demolished its historical features are recorded.”?
I leave you with two pictures. Of course a picture is not the whole story, but it is surely part of it, and quite honestly I find it appalling that the heritage groups seem to have double standards when it comes to their own particular brand of heritage.
Described as: A fine example of an 1830s house [that] illustrates the development of the town and architectural fashion in St. Helier in the early 19th century that must be preserved.
Described as: A cottage that is not listed and has had “substantial modifications” and can be demolished.
I'd also like to observe that the heritage lobby seems to have done nothing to argue for improving and restoring the facade of those buildings until demolition came along.
I'd also like to observe that the heritage lobby seems to have done nothing to argue for improving and restoring the facade of those buildings until demolition came along.
I'd also observe that the nearby Odeon, another listed building, has had massive and substantial modifications internally. From a classic cinema with circle and stalls, it was radically restructured into a multiplex before closing, removing the original seating and much of the internal fabric.
I'm sure this will annoy some people, but I am not against preserving heritage, I just think that those who lobby for preservation often seem to have significant blind spots, and a philosophy of conservation that at times appears inconsistent.
Another example I could cite can be seen here:
.jpg)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment