To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Demolition: It’s a poor legacy
Share this:
From Celia Jeune, president, National Trust for Jersey.
FURTHER to the recent consent for the J1 development between Broad Street and Commercial Street, The National Trust for Jersey should like to wholeheartedly support the views expressed by André Ferrari and Chick Anthony.
They have highlighted the current flaws in the planning system as well as the urgent need for the regeneration of St Helier to celebrate and enhance what remains of its historic character and built heritage, as opposed to whole scale demolition and out dated façadism.
None of the heritage bodies objected in principle to a substantial development taking place between Broad Street and Commercial Street subject to the listed buildings on the very edge of the site being safeguarded and the scale being appropriate to its overall surroundings. All of this was perfectly and easily achievable especially given Le Masurier’s highly skilled development team, which has extensive knowledge of construction, engineering and historic building conservation.
If the minister had chosen to secure the future of the buildings, the developer’s profit margins may have been slightly lowered and some of their existing tenants may have been somewhat inconvenienced, but above all the economic viability of the scheme would have remained robust. Is this really too much to ask for?
In making this decision in the way he has the minister has also completely ignored his very own new code of conduct lodged in the States on Monday.
‘The Minister will only become involved in determining applications for planning permission or any other application that requires consent in exceptional circumstances…In cases where the Minister does become involved the reasons for the intervention must be publicly recorded and will be determined by either a public inquiry or public ministerial meeting……’
Following a revised application for a six-storey development the minister has made the decision in private with no public inquiry or public ministerial meeting. Indeed according to a report in the JEP on 21 December the developer has been working with the minister on securing a timeline for determination on 16 December. Is this what the Planning Officers’ Society had in mind when they submitted their recent report calling for less ministerial interference and greater transparency?
With the imminent demolition of all but the facades of the two modest but important historic buildings in Hilgrove Street (decision made without public consultation) and another eight historic buildings in St Helier threatened with full or partial demolition, the National Trust would urgently invite the new Council of Ministers to review how best to safeguard the historic character of St Helier before it is too late.
During the presentation by Le Masurier’s on the proposed J1 development, Mr McCarthy advised us that his employers were very keen to leave a legacy to the Island. Might we be bold enough to suggest that the demolition of our heritage is not the best legacy to leave and we sincerely hope that the Council of Ministers will not follow suit.
Related