9 Commercial Buildings, St. Helier: Appeal Decision

STATES OF JERSEY

REPORT TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

APPEAL by Shrawley Investments Ltd 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:  9 (store/workshop), Commercial Buildings, St Helier

Department of the Environment (DoE) ref no: HE0165

Accompanied site visit made on 12 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 15 May 2015 at Appendix 1(a) of the DoE’s Statement of Case (SoC) identifies the special interest of the building under appeal as ‘Architectural’ and ‘Historic’.  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 (at Appendix 1(b) to the DoE’s SoC) contains 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 3’.  After the receipt of further information from the appellant in connection with the appeal the DoE prepared a modified ‘description’ at Appendix 3 to its Additional Statement of Case (ASoC).  However, the ‘statement of significance’ in the revised schedule remains unaltered.

3 According to the Minister’s criteria for the listing and grading of heritage assets, adopted in April 2011, Grade 3 buildings are ‘Buildings and places of special public and heritage interest to Jersey, being important, good quality examples of a particular historical period, architectural style, building type, or archaeological site; but with alterations that reduce the special interest and/or have particular elements worthy of listing.’

CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND MATERIAL

4 The following descriptive material should provide helpful context to an understanding of this appeal. 

5 The building which is the subject of the appeal was listed by notice dated 15 May 2015 and is a 19th century structure of 3 storeys occupying part of the rear of the plot at 9 Commercial Buildings - see the plan at Appendix 1 of the DoE Additional Statement of Case (ASoC).  The entire plot at No 9 is built-up; therefore, the listed structure is surrounded to the west, south and east by that larger (non-listed) building mass.  The remaining (northern) side of the listed building abuts a high granite wall separating No 9 from the next plot on Commercial Buildings.  The non-listed parts of No 9 consist of a building to the west fronting Commercial Buildings (A19) and a 2-storey store infilling the rest of No 9’s original yard to the south and east of the listed building.  Only the upper (third) level of the listed structure rises above these more recent 2-story structures, as may be seen in the photograph of the exterior of the building included in the DoE’s ASoC. 

6 The ground and first floors of the entire plot (including the ground and first floors of the listed building) are occupied by a single business.  The second floor of the listed building forms a separate vacant unit and is independently accessed via a roller shutter door at the foot of a ramp sloping down from Pier Road to the east of the site.  The ramp and door can be seen in the photograph referred to above.

IS THE BUILDING OF ‘SPECIAL INTEREST’?

Historical Interest

7 The ‘statement of significance’ in the DoE’s two schedules quoted above describes the listed building as ‘a rare surviving example of early-mid 19th century store/workshop located in the heart of St Helier’s historic harbour area: part of an outstanding unique set of merchants’ houses and ancillary buildings’.  Paras 1.1 to 1.8 of the DoE’s SoC, describe the historical significance of the development of the area known as Le Quai des Marchands (Commercial Buildings) to the growth and economy of St Helier and Jersey during the early 19th century.  That commentary also refers to the building’s identification on the Le Gros map of 1834 and the Ordnance Survey map of 1935. 

8 A substantial number of the merchants’ houses facing the port across Commercial Buildings remain reasonably intact and the map at ASoC Appendix 1 indicates that while many of those are listed there are few listed elements within the buildings occupying the rear sections of the plots.  Views across the area are easily obtainable from Pier Road and it is clear that most of the back parts of the plots are wholly occupied by substantial 20th century industrial buildings with roofs covered by various forms of corrugated cladding.

Architectural interest

9 The upper floor of the building most clearly displays the ‘historic form and structure’ described in the most recent ‘description’ at ASoC Appendix 3.  The basic form of the building is most easily discerned at this level, ie a ‘long narrow plan of nine bays aligned roughly east-west’ with ‘walls constructed of rubble granite’ and ‘dressed granite quoins and long and short stonework dressings to window and door openings, the style of dressings matching the early 19th century buildings fronting Commercial Buildings’.  The ‘principal south front’ has, as described, ‘a wide warehouse door opening to the central bay, flanked on either side by four bays of windows’.  However, as may be seen from the photographs, all of the original window fittings have been replaced by new pvc windows at the upper level and the exterior south wall at this level has been rendered.  The upper level rubble wall and stone dressings are revealed only on the single window in the short east wall facing Pier Road.  To the side of this is a modern goods opening to one side (behind a roller shutter door in front of plywood doors) accessed by a ramp from Pier Road.    

10 The original interior character of the building is also most evidence at third storey level – with ‘substantial timber floor framing characteristic of a 19th century warehouse interior, a largely open-plan design with full-width beams running north-south sitting into the walls on either side, supporting wood boarding with additional squat rectangular joists to the roof.’  At the centre on the upper floor is a wide stair trapdoor which once gave access to the floor below.  The staircase has now been removed but original planked walling to the staircase survives at first floor level.

11 The original pattern of the building (nine bays on the south elevation) with the central one forming a warehouse door opening and the north wall part of the high granite dividing wall with the adjoining plot, is repeated at the ground and first floor levels.  In places (eg on the first floor, as visible in the photographs) the long and short stonework window dressings form attractive features to workspaces.  However, at other places the original pattern of openings within the south and short east and west walls, is less straightforward to observe as some are ‘partly hidden by modern linings and later extensions’ and on the ground floor ‘the south west corner of the building has been removed and replaced with a reinforced concrete lintel’.    

Appellant’s view on the architectural merit of the building

12 The appellant considers there nothing to warrant listing.  This would be disproportionate to its interest.  There is a lack of original or exposed features after continuous maintenance and renovation over the company’s ownership (about 50 years.  Works have included re-rendering walls, repair and replacement of the roof and rainwater goods, repairs to roof rafters, and strengthening and patching of floors.  The trap door is secured and has not been opened in the owners’ memory. Since the upper floor is a separate unit for rental purposes it is not intended to open it; nor is it intended to remove it, subject to any recommendations from structural engineers who have been engaged to report and recommend upon what works may be required to ensure the building is fit for its intended purpose of letting as dry storage.

CONCLUSION

13 While comparatively little of the original building’s nature and interest are open to external view, a visit to the interior of the property reveals its nature as a 19th century workshop/store which served business activities on the Quai des Marchands.  The special interest attached to this surviving remnant of the town’s historical mercantile heritage has to some extent been reduced by the attached two-storey buildings which have subsequently developed around it and the changes made to the original structure, many of which were probably made in order to integrate it into the larger ground/first floor business unit.  On the other hand the interest of the building is enhanced by the rarity of such survivals in this historic location.  Therefore my overall conclusion is that the building retains the necessary architectural and historical ‘special interest’ under Article 51(2)(b) and that the LSSI appropriately specifies that ‘special interest’ as required by Article 51(3).

14 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

15 I recommend that the appeal be dismissed and the building therefore retained on the List of Sites of Special Interest at non-statutory grade 3.

Roy Foster, Inspector

18 October 2015