Earlier this year, a petition – which attracted 142 signatures – was launched against plans for the Ville à l’Evêque Cottage development on Rue de la Monnaie. An objection was also formally lodged by Trinity Constable Philip Le Sueur.
Because of the strength of feeling against the development, the proposals were brought before the Planning Committee – a panel of politicians – who chose to accept a planning officer’s recommendation to approve the scheme.
However, an appeal was made and the application was then taken on by Sue Bell, an independent UK-based planning inspector, who recommended that the application be refused, saying that the development would be incongruous.
‘The development, which would be located further to the south in the site, would impinge on the shallow valley and appear out of character with its surroundings,’ she said. ‘The principal planner [for] historic environment has advised that the proposals… would have an impact on the setting of La Mare d’Angot Bakehouse, which is a listed building. I consider the immediate setting of the Bakehouse comprises the farmstead within which it is located. I have concluded that there would be adverse effects on this landscape.’
Earlier this month Environment Minister John Young officially signed a ministerial decision to allow the appeal and refuse planning permission.
Former advocate Fred Benest was among those who spoke against the development.
‘I am delighted that the cottage has been given a reprieve and we hope to be able
to preserve it,’ he said, reacting to the news.
‘The cottage was built in 1735 and was only one of three traditional buildings in the Ville à l’Evêque settlement that has survived.
‘The UK inspector concluded that there was no evidence to justify its replacement and its setting on the site was important, not only because it was next to other listed buildings but because it is next to a sloping valley and forms an integral part of the landscape.’
He added: ‘It is also worth noting that the cottage shields the Springside Industrial estate but also has a modern function as a traffic-calming measure.’
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.
However, in response Mr Benest said: ‘I disagree. 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.
‘Nevertheless, although it is an unsympathetic alteration, it does not affect the aspect of the cottage and its role in the landscape.’
