Independent Report

on the recent approval for redevelopment of

 

Windward House

 

Le Mont Sohier

St. Brelade

 

Martyn Ward

(BA History)

 

My 5 main areas of concern…

 

  1. The main basis for approval being based on the fact that Windward House is classed as a building “not particularly noteworthy in terms of architectural or historical interest”, when in fact historical documentation proves the opposite.
  2. That the new development will not be constructed “on the existing footprint” of the current buildings, therefore there is a guarantee that a) the skyline that Windward House currently dominates will be intruded my a second building built on its current gardens, b) the ‘Jersey History’ of the house and its surrounding landscapes will be lost and c), there is a possibility that such historical sites such as ‘Le Cinq Pierres’ could be harmed from overdevelopment.
  3. That there are more than one discrepancy between the planning approval and the policies it refers too, plus certain planning policies appear to have been ignored.
  4. That there are more than several reasons to believe that the current owner of the house, Mr. T Scott, has deliberately allowed the building to fall into its current state, thereby assisting him in his plans for redevelopment, which I believe, is against building laws.
  5. That there is ample evidence to suggest the building meets the requirements of the ‘Site of Special Interest’ / ‘Building of Special Interest’ register

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1. The main basis for approval being based on the fact that Windward House is classed as a building “not particularly noteworthy in terms of architectural or historical interest”, when in fact historical documentation proves the opposite.

 

Through research of the building, it came to light that the houses first owner, Francis William Synge Le Maistre, a well known artist and Jersey man none the less, had a hand in the houses design that would end up becoming a direct link between his profession and his home. In the drawings of the house, Le Maistre designed two ‘Watercolour Galleries’ in which to display his paintings. He built these two galleries running parallel with each other, ground floor and first floor, on the northern side of the house, thus being able to take advantage of the changes in light as the sun rose and fell each day, this in turn would affect how his pictures were interpreted, many of which were based on coastal scenes . Its of my believe that this unique design, which explains the buildings bizarre L shape , not usually seen within architecture from the 1920’s, is but one of the houses ‘Unique’ qualities.

            Along with the main house itself, the surrounding lands I also believe have a certain historical and unique quality, mainly the Cider Press, apple orchid and fruit gardens. Any Jersey historian will know that the early part of the 20th century was a time of mass Cider production, which is evident in many of our well preserved farm houses around the Island. Windward House is no exception. From assessing ordnance surveys and maps from the time of the houses construction, 1924, the maps indicate that the Cider press, contrary to the planning applications assessment, is an original feature of the house. This is further supported by the fact that the house contains, now the remnants, of an Apple Orchid to the East of the south facing gardens. Although there can be no conclusive evidence to suggest the two were used in conjunction with each other, it would be very rare for a house of this age to have both a Cider press and an apple orchid and not be using them for some form of production. Short of asking Le Maistre if he actively took a role, it will be impossible to say either way, but everything points to the fact that they were used together.

            So, not only do we have a house that dates back to the 1920’s, but we have a house that is of a unique design, a direct link to the Jersey Born artist/architect/island profession of the era, and built for a specific purpose, and we have its surrounding landscape, apple orchid, cider press and fruit gardens which harks back to an era of Jersey where a Jersey man would be self sufficient within his lands, taking part in one of Jerseys main industries of the year, that of cider production.

            What is also unique about Windward House is that the house still stands, largely untouched since its construction in 1924. For example, examining the images supplied with this report, you will note that features such as the windows and light switches remain original, along with its opulent staircase and, most impressively, its passenger lift. Confirmed independently by a previous university tutor, the lift is an original and rare find. These features help the house under the regulations for designation as a ‘Building of Special Interest’, covered further on.

 

   

 

 

  1. That the new development will not be constructed “on the existing footprint” of the current buildings, therefore there is a guarantee that a) the skyline that Windward House currently dominates will be intruded my a second building built on its current gardens, b) the ‘Jersey History’ of the house and its surrounding landscapes will be lost and c), there is a possibility that such historical sites such as ‘Le Cinq Pierres’ could be harmed from overdevelopment.

 

a) Within the Planning and Environment Department Report (PEDR), P2, the environment division had stated in a letter dated 23rd February 2009, that “if the Minister approved the application, it should be on the condition that the buildings are constructed on the existing footprint, or at least moved back a substantial distance from the skyline”. Having spoken to Constable John Gallichan on Monday 1 February, who informed me that the only difference to the plans that were received was that the two gatehouses were removed, that were due to be constructed on the northern side of Windward House on the site that currently occupies the former ‘Servants’ house, evidence suggests that the recommendations of the environment department have not been taken into account. At present, when looking towards Windward House from either Ouaisne Bay or Portelet Common, only one house can be seen, that being Windward House. The ‘servants’ house is located behind Windward, and the third residence is located behind trees to the east. The approval of a second ‘substantial house’, located to the west of Windward House on its existing gardens thereby means construction will take place on what is currently ‘natural land’, land not yet built on, which means, regardless of how many trees are planted in an attempt to cover it from view, two properties will be visible from the aforementioned vantage points. This is further supported by the National Trusts view, which states that “the proposed planting of mature trees is unlikely to adequately screen the site”. Furthermore the planning report states “two of the [new] dwellings would be visible above the tree tops when viewed from the lower end of Ouaisne and one would probably be visible from the western end of St. Brelades Bay”. At present, none of the existing dwellings can be seen from St. Brelades Bay so how can this be an improvement? This approval thereby goes against the Environment Divisions suggestion, along with the National Trusts views.

            b) The plans approved consist of three ‘substantial’ buildings on the site. One, as we have established on the western side of the current ‘Windward House’, currently occupied by Gardens, the second on the site of Windward House, and the third on the site of the former apple orchid and fruit garden. In the PEDR, it states “The proposed replacement dwellings would all be of a very high architectural quality, along classical lines”        This I have no doubt in, but the fact remains that the current Windward House IS of a very high architectural quality, along classic lines, primarily because it is an original house, built in the 1920’s period. You could say it’s an original, compared to the proposed replicas. If Windward House was allowed to be demolished, not only would we loose a unique Jersey property, but we would loose a time piece of years gone by. For example, the third ‘substantial’ building will be constructed on the former apple orchid and fruit garden, thereby removing another unique quality of Windward House. Its gardens form part of its uniqueness, and represent an era when a Jersey man became self suffiencint on the land he owned, and grew his own apples and fruit for a form of either self sufficiency or production. All this would be lost if this third building was allowed to be constructed. The PEDR than states “The Layout of the proposed scheme will retain significant openness between the dwellings and, in distant views, will not significantly alter the landscape character of the area”. Again, as we speak, the site already has significant openness. I thereby ask, how can the construction of three ‘substantial’ properties on the site of currently one ‘substantial property’ possibly not significantly alter the landscape character of the area?

c) My final concern in this section comes from an archaeological point of view. The Historic Environment Team have stated in their letter dated 23 February 2009 that the location of the megalithic chamber ‘Le Cinq Pierres’ is not known, though it is located adjacent the site. Their report continues “The Team, accordingly, recommend that a desk based assessment of the potential for archaeology here be undertaken. This has subsequently been submitted, and it is recommended that a condition be attached on any permission granted requiring a ‘watching brief’ of the site during clearance and construction works”. Im in no way doubting that the Historic Team know what there talking about, but one thing I am aware of is that any site that contains something as significant as a megalithic chamber should be assed by a Geo-Physics team and properly excavated accordingly, before allowing any development of any kind on site. This has been the case, especially in areas such as Chester, one of three institutes I studied at, where housing developments have gone on hold for up to 6 years whilst archaeologists excavate such chambers/relics thoroughly, in order to guarantee perfect preservation of archaeological items.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 / 4.  That there are more than one discrepancy between the planning approval and the policies it refers too, and that there are more than several reasons to believe that the current owner of the house, Mr. T Scott, has deliberately allowed the building to fall into its current state, thereby assisting him in his plans for redevelopment, which I believe is against building laws?

 

The PEDR comments that certain planning policies have been considered during the course of the decision, which is evident. However, evidence of these considerations seem hard to see, and appear to have been ignored. Below are the examples….

 

G2 – General Development considerations…..

 

Applicants need to demonstrate that the proposed development:

 

(iv) will not have an unreasonable impact on the landscape, ecology, archaeological remains or architectural features and includes where appropriate measures for the enhancement of such features and the landscaping of the site.

 

Unreasonable Impact on the landscape: - it simply will by adding a new development to what are currently gardens / open natural land.

Unreasonable impact on archaeological remains:-  This cannot be guaranteed unless properly assessed and excavations taken place PRIOR to any redevelopment of the site beginning.

Unreasonable Impact on architectural features ;- By demolishing Windward House, you are indeed having a serious impact on its unique architectural design.

Measures for the enhancement of such features :- it could be argued that the new development will enhance the area as currently Windward House may be seen, by some to be a rundown property. Unfortunately, it appears that this has been done deliberately, as explained below..

Finally, appropriate measures for the landscaping of the site: - prior to the ownership of Tom Scott, the gardens surrounding Windward House were beautifully landscaped, so as to blend into the headland the house dominates, as can be seen by the images provided, the nine years the house was featured in the ‘Bergerac’ television serial and the aerial shots held on the Planning and Environments computer systems. However, sources suggest that Tom Scott, in 2005, had the entire gardens and therefore the landscaping, pulled up and burnt onsite, leaving the house exposed. Interestingly now, there is no evidence of these landscaped gardens and apple orchid on the site. Its interesting to note that the removing of these items are specifically where the new developments are to take place, although these features were removed five years prior to an application being submitted.

 

(vi) will not have an unreasonable impact on important open space. Again, building on what is currently ‘open space’ goes against this consideration, although I accept that the demolition of the two properties behind Windward House will free up further ‘open land’.

 

G3 – Quality of Design

 

A high standard of design that respects conserves and contributes positively to the diversity and distinctiveness of the landscape and the built context will be sought in all developments. The planning and environment committee will require the following matters to be taken into account as appropriate:

 

(i)                  the scale, form, massing, orientation, siting and density of the development, and inward and outward views.

 

In particular, focusing on scale and density of the development. The PEDR states “At present, there are 3 dwellings and a storage / garage building on site which total up to a floor area of approximately 1,350 sq.m (14,500sq.ft). The new structures would total in the region of 1,600 sq.m (17,000 sq.ft) which represents a net increase in floor area of around 18%” How can an increase of 18% in floor area respect, conserve and contribute positively to the diversity and distinctiveness of the landscape? At present, on two of the proposed locations for development, the areas are simply grassland, so how can building on these areas conserve the distinctiveness of the landscape. The reason why it’s so distinctive is because there is nothing built there.

 

(v) the incorporation of existing site features into the development such as boundary walls, banks and trees.

 

As already mentioned, the banks and trees have already been ripped up by Mr Scott, and so cannot be incorporated into the development. Especially when we look at the site of the former apple orchid, there’s not a single tree left. It is therefore suitable to stress again that that the areas where Mr. Scott has cleared seem to be the areas where he plans to build the new developments, however these were cleared nearly five years ago. If these trees and banks that the house once had were kept, surely they would have to have been incorporated into the new designs? And surely the density of the trees and banks would have had an adverse effect on the decision to allow the plans to be approved?

 

At this point, I would like to draw your attention to policy

 

G14 – Protection of Trees (Not included in the proposal)

 

Proposals which would result in the loss of or damage to protected and other significant trees would not normally be permitted. The Planning and Environment Committee will seek to protect trees where they make a significant contribution to amenity by maintaining a List of Protected Trees worthy of preservation and threatened by felling or harm will be placed under immediate protection orders.

 

In a Jersey Evening Post article of 18th May 1996, it states that Mr. Martland, previous owner of Windward House before Mr. Scott had replanted many new trees in his garden, quote “since the great strom of 1987, a landmark in the history of so many local gardens and which cost the Martlands 170 trees, they have planted 1000 in the progressive redevelopment of their garden”. Between 1996 and 2005, it would be very unlikely that these trees would have grown to full capacity, but today there are no traces to found of them. Now I understand that these may not have been listed trees, but the layout of the garden and the planting of these trees would have made a significant contribution to the area, and helped to cover the current Windward House. However, all these have been subsequently removed by Mr Scott almost five years prior to the application for redevelopment.

 

I would also like to draw your attention to Policy G16 (Not included in the proposal)

 

G16 – Demolition of Buildings

 

The demolition of a building or part of a building will normally only be permitted where the proposal:

 

(i)                  involves the demolition of a building or part of a building that is not appropriate to repair or refurbish. At present, Windward House is in a state, having had some five years of no occupancy; however it is far from beyond restoration. When the Martlands past away, the house was left to theie three daughters, who could not afford to continue to maintain the property, however they say that the house was still in a habitable condition, which supports the theory that simply through Neglect has the house fallen into its current state. Having visited the house three times, with permission, there is mould on some doors, some damp in others, and its classic ‘Parquet’ flooring has been taken up in both the living room and dining room. The flooring is, however, still in the house, in a pile. This also begs the question, did Mr. Scott purchase the site for redevelopment all along? Hence the neglect? Regardless of this answer, the house would still be habitable if these issues were addressed, and if the property had been well maintained or even lived in. It surely cannot be argued that the current owner did not have the ready funds to maintain the house. Also, given its uniqueness in design and what the surrounding grounds hold for the houses history, it could easily pass as being appropriate to repair.

 

G15 -  Replacement Buildings

 

The replacement of buildings will normally only be permitted where the proposed development would:

 

(i)                 enhance the appearance of the site and its surroundings;

(ii)               replace a building that is not appropriate to repair or refurbish

(iii)             not have an unreasonable impact on neighbouring uses and the local environment by reason of visual intrusion or other amenity considerations;

(iv)             involve loss of an existing building that is unsympathetic to the character and amenity of the area

 

It cannot be argued that the new development will enhance the site and its surrounding area, when the plans include building three ‘substantial’ buildings where one ‘substantial’ building currently stands, unless the case is set on the fact that the current building is an eyesore due to its current condition. On that basis I would suggest that an investigation is launched to see if Mr Scott had deliberately neglected the building for redevelopment purposes, given the evidence already revealed above. In terms of unreasonable impact, especially on the local environment by reason of visual intrusion, the fact that trees will be planted to hide the new development has already been mentioned as being “unlikely to adequately screen the site”, added to which the new development may be seen from St. Brelades, when currently it cannot be. Finally, in terms of loss of an existing building that is unsympathetic to the character or amenity of the area, it cannot be argued that the construction of three ‘substantial’ buildings will be anymore sympathetic to this area than one ‘substantial’ building, that being Windward House. Also given the fact that Windward House was once surrounded by a vast array of trees and shrubs, as shown through ‘Bergerac’ and the images supplied with this document, its clearly obvious that the gardens made a significant contribution to making the current Windward House very sympathetic to its surroundings, with its gardens returning some of the natural character back to the area. Clearly building more than one ‘substantial’ building on the site, regardless of how many tress are planted, will take away some of this character.

 

C2 – Countryside Character

 

The Planning and Environment Committee will promote the conservation, management, enhancement and restoration of the islands countryside character. Development proposals and land management should be informed by, be sympathetic to, and wherever possible, restore the local landscape context and local character.

 

In terms of promoting conservation, enhancement and restoration of the islands countryside character, I cannot see how the new development will ultimately achieve this goal. In one way, it could be argued that the conservation aspect will arise from the demolition of the two outbuildings north and north east of Windward House, thereby returning some land to nature, however, construction of two further ‘substantial’ properties, with an 18% increase in floor area being taken up cancels out the previous remark. Also in terms of enhancement, the planting of new trees to separate the new development will indeed enhance the area, but the fact that there were already trees and shrubs in place without the development, which have been removed by Mr. Scott prior to applying for planning permission does beg the question, if the garden landscaping was still in place, would the ‘enhancement’ aspect of this policy still stand? Indeed, would the application have been approved bsed on the fact that the trees and shrubs made an active contribution to the environment of the area? And again, finally, in terms of being both sympathetic and wherever possible, restoring the local landscape context and local character, this cannot be achieved by increasing the floor area of development by 18% and building on land that is currently unoccupied by development.

 

Before moving onto the final policy that the PEDR refers to, I would like to draw your attention to another policy that appears to have been omitted from the report…

 

C4 – Zone of outstanding character.

 

In which the second paragraph of the policy states…

 

Proposals for the redevelopment of existing residential properties in this zone will only be permitted where they are within the same or lesser-sized footprint of the existing dwelling where any such proposal makes a positive contribution to the character of the area and where it is in accordance with all other principles and policies of the plan.

 

It may well be the case that the headland overlooking Ouaisne Bay may not be classed as a zone of outstanding natural character, but given its openness at present, surely it should be considered for its natural state? In any case, the new development goes against this policy, as the buildings, with exception to one, will not be built within the existing footprint of the current buildings, and certainly will not make a positive contribution to the area, as supported by the National Trust and the Environment Division

 

C5 – Green Zone

 

In short, as the policy is long in length, under the proposals for new development, the policy states….

 

 

Proposals for new developments which must occur outside the built-up area will only be permitted in the Green Zone where it is demonstrated that there are no suitable alternative sites available in the Countryside Zone and wherever possible, new buildings should be sited next to existing ones or within an existing group of buildings. In all cases, the appropriate tests as to whether a development proposal will be permitted will be its impact on the visually sensitive character of this zone and whether it accords with the principles of sustainability which underwrite the Plan.

 

For the avoidance of doubt:

 

(a) large scale developments will be strongly resisted, unless they are proven to be in the Island interest

 

This type of development would easily class as a large scale development, given what is currently on the site at present, and cannot be considered as being in the Islands interest, as clearly the only people to benefit from this development shall be the Owner, developers and a handful of particularly wealthy individuals.

 

 (c) there will be a presumption against the redevelopment of other commercial buildings. Exceptions may only be permitted where it is demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Committee, that the redevelopment would give rise to

substantial environmental gains and a significant contribution to the character of the area. It is expected that such improvements would arise, in particular, from significant reductions in mass, scale and built floor space, changes in the

nature and intensity of use, careful consideration of sitting and design and a restoration of landscape character

 

Clearly Windward House is not a commercial building, but the policy still stands. This policy could not have been considered thoroughly, as the development increases floor space as opposed to decreases the floor space used, therefore increasing the density of the site as opposed to decreasing it. Also, part of the new development will be placed in view of the public, as opposed to the current buildings where only one is visible, clearly showing that careful consideration has not been taken on sitting of the new buildings and the restoration of the landscape.

 

 

 (f) applications for the development of new dwellings will not normally be permitted unless it is demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Committee, that the development is

essential to meet agricultural needs and cannot reasonably be met within the built-up area or from the conversion/modification of an existing building.

 

Obviously the new development is not essential to meet agricultural needs, but in terms of accommodation needs, the current Windward House, if restored, would easily meet the needs of potential residents, added to which, with the gardens re-established, would clearly fetch a price of over one million, based on today’s current housing prices. This new development can only be seen as a profit making scheme by the owner, demolishing one unique Jersey residence and replacing it with three, thus, bringing in three times the amount of money than would be received if the current house was to be sold, given the evidence laid out in this report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.That there is ample evidence to suggest the building meets the requirements of the ‘Site of Special Interest’ / ‘Building of Special Interest’ register

 

Using the Planning and Environment Supplementary Planning Guidance paper, November 2008, practise note 9 “The identification and designation of buildings and places of architectural, archaeological, historical or other interest” as a guideline, it has become apparent that this too has been ignored during the planning process, and that, given much of the evidence stated above, Windward House comes under many of the requirements for a Listed Building.

 

Principles for Listing as Sites of Special Interest

 

Sites of special interest are defined as buildings and places of ‘public importance’, having special archeological, architectural, artistic, historical, scientific or traditional interest (Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002, Art 51(2) (b)), or a combination of these

 

The evidence put forward in this report suggests that Windward House has special architectural historical and traditional interest, which derives from the following.

 

  • Francis Le Maistre made a direct contribution to the houses design, based on his profession as an artist, meaning thanks to its ‘watercolor galleries’, and the effect these galleries locations had on his watercolor images, the building is architecturally unique. From an historical and traditional interest, as previously explained, the house and surrounding grounds are great examples of how a type Jersey men lived in the early part of the 20th century, although I agree that there are many houses in the island that still contain apple orchids and cider presses, thus not making this property unique in this sense.

 

Architectural Interest of the Exterior :- Where buildings are of special interest for their architectural design or style or as a result of conscious design.

 

  • Clearly Windward House is unique in its design, as it was built to serve a purpose, consciously designed by Francis Le Maistre for a specific purpose.   

 

 

 

Architectural or Traditional Interest of the plan form – Where the internal Plan form contributes significantly to the special interest of the building, by virtue of its distinctiveness, innovation, or ability to shed light on the cultural traditions of Jersey

 

  • Again, as previously covered, Francis Le Maistre had a hand in the houses design for a specific purpose, that being to display his artwork in different shades of light. It should be stressed that Francis Le Maistre was not a painter by hobby, but a professional Island painter, as described in the book “Dictionary of Painters of the Channel Islands” by Philip Stevens. His hand in the design contributes significantly to the special interest in the building, as it makes it unique. Not only this, but the L shape design that came about because of Le Maistres purpose for the property, also makes it distinctive, innovative, as a direct link to Jerseys past, when a man could make his way in this island as a painter. Not only this, but the apple orchid and fruit garden also shed light on the cultural traditions of Jersey, when Jersey man could be self-sufficient on their own land.

 

All points mentioned above also apply to the Historical Interest section….

 

Buildings which illustrate significant aspects of or innovation in Jerseys Social, economic, cultural or military history, or where there is close, documented, historical association with significant people or events. This includes interiors associated with such a significant event, or occupation or use by a key figure in the islands history, particularly when the interior concerned has survived with little significant change.

 

The policy states, after laying out the principles for listing as Site of Special Interest listed above (Listed are policy’s relevant to Windward House, and do not represent all policy’s listed), that “Clearly, not all designated buildings will qualify under all these headings, but many will qualify under more than one”.  Currently, Windward House comes under three of these headings, out of a possible six

 

Principles for Registration: Buildings of Local Interest

 

As well as qualifying under three principles for listing under a Site of Special Interest, Windward House also comes under two of the three main criteria for selection under the ‘Building of Local Interest’. These are

 

Architectural Interest – Buildings which are of significance for their architectural design or style, decoration and craftsmanship, composition, or use of materials and details, whether it be in the vernacular or ‘polite’ traditions;, but also significant examples of particular building types and techniques, for example those showing technical innovation or virtuosity, who’s interest may not necessarily be expressed in high aesthetic quality.

 

Historic Interest – Buildings which illustrate significant aspects of Jersey’s social, economic, cultural or military history. This includes close, documented, historical association with significant people and events, although normally there should be some quality or interest surviving in the physical fabric

 

If we move onto more specific points, focusing on buildings constructed after 1920, Windward House again satisfies three of the four criteria for designation as a building of special interest. These are…

 

The Building might be a representative example of a recognisable design or stylistic movement – for example in plan form.

 

The Building might be by a well known architect or designer – in a local or wider context, or be notably individualistic in its design that is outside the mainstream.

 

The Building might be an unusual type or a rare survivor

 

The Supplementary Planning Guidance also states that…..

 

After 1920, the number of surviving buildings increases still further and local distinctiveness is less evident. Only a small number of buildings of exemplary architectural quality or great historical interest will be appropriate for registration and the following criteria will be considered. Buildings less than 30 years old will not normally qualify for registration.

Where twentieth century buildings are to be included in the Register, it will be a requirement that a high proportion of the original fabric will have survived. In addition, one or more of the [Above] criteria should be satisfied

 

 

This is where Windward House comes into its own. As it stands, the building has not been modernised in anyway. As previously noted at the beginning of this report, everything from the windows to the light switches are original, especially the inside passenger lift (See images provided). Even the cupboards in the pantry remain original. It appears that Le Maistre and subsequent owners, especially the Martlands, truly embraced the property they owned, keeping everything in the traditional sense so as not to ruin its appearance in any shape or form. This is especially apparent when looking through the Jersey Evening Post reports on the Jersey Open Garden Scheme, in which Windward House was often chosen to launch this charitable event. Sadly though, the house has been subject to a ‘development’ scheme, and we now run the risk of loosing this unique property

 

 

Conclusion

 

In conclusion, there is much to debate over this planning approval. I have tried to stay neutral in my approach to this report, putting my personal feelings towards Windward House to one side and focusing purely on facts and there are a lot of facts to consider. This report highlights the fact there is a lot more history behind the building than what was considered when the application was on the planning table. It also highlights the fact that the house falls under many criteria for it to be saved and restored, and that there are many discrepancies between the planning policy’s considered and the approval, but I think the most important aspect of the scheme it highlights is the apparent deliberate neglect by the houses current owner, Mr Scott. If Mr. Scott had kept the house in the condition that it was in, complete with gardens and landscaping, the application panel would have seen an entirely different site when they visited, which may in turn have changed their decision to allow development on what is now grass land, but what was once carefully cared for garden and lanscaping. The evidence to show what the house used to look like is everywhere, from aerial shots to Bergerac, and this approval seems to suggest that its ok to build on the land because the resulting development will be an improvement on what is there now and will subsequently be covered by newly planted trees. However, it appears Mr. Scott made sure all the landscaping was taken away prior to the application, and that Mr Martlands trees that he planted back in 1996 to help preserve the natural aspects of the headland were ripped up on purpose, along with the apple orchid. There is simply too much evidence to suggest that Mr Scott deliberately allowed the house to decay and pulled the gardens out simply to aid him in his planning application. I am therefore recommending the following…

 

  1. That an investigation be launched to see whether or not Mr. Scott has broken any planning laws in his deliberate neglect of the building and the subsequent ripping up of all the gardens trees and landscaping
  2. That if the gardens and landscaping had remained in place, and the house was still in acceptable condition  would this have altered the opinions of the decision makers who approved the new development.
  3. That a site visit be arranged with the correct Heritage representatives to decide whether the building is fit to be designated a site of special interest or building of special interest, based on the above findings
  4. That, if building is to go ahead, a proper archaeological evaluation take place on the site
  5. That the building permission that is currently outstanding be halted until these investigations have been carried out.

 

 

 

Reagrds