Sufficient time for scrutiny of the Jersey Heritage Trust’s plans for Mont Orgueil Castle

1240/5(1786)

QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE ON TUESDAY, 4th FEBRUARY 2003

BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT

Question 1

Will the President give an assurance that sufficient time will be allowed for proper scrutiny of the plans to be submitted by the Jersey Heritage Trust regarding Mont Orgueil Castle?

Answer Yes.

Sufficient time will be allowed for proper scrutiny of the plans and other documents that have been submitted by the Jersey Heritage Trust. The application was received on 31st January 2003, and has been subject to preliminary validation prior to acceptance to ensure completeness of the documentation. The application will be included in the list published in the Jersey Evening Post due tomorrow, 5th February 2003, for public comment.

This is a complicated application which requires a longer period of public deposit than the usual two weeks. We have decided that a period of six weeks is appropriate to allow interested persons to inspect the application and submit written representations upon it to the Committee.

As usual the application details will be available for public inspection at the Planning Office. However, as an exception, a copy of the full application particulars has also been deposited at the Public Library. The applicant has also made available identical copies at the Jersey Archive Centre and the Library of La Société Jersiaise. Information is available on the Jersey Heritage Trust website (www.jerseyheritagetrust.org). Individual copies of the application have also been provided to Friends of Mont Orgueil, La Société Jersiaise and The Natural Trust for Jersey.

It is my intention to make a public statement at the conclusion of this six week period of public deposit and will then set out the likely timetable and process for the subsequent determination of the application. This will take account of the opinions of the Committee's professional officers and it's independent external advisor upon the matters raised by all the written representations received.

I will consider how we can provide an opportunity for the respective principal parties to address the Committee on the major issues in person and to hear the other submissions being made.  Exact details of these arrangements will be decided at a later date once we know the nature of the written representations made.

Question 2

Is the President  able to give details of the brief under which the Paul Drury Partnership, independent advisor to the Committee, is working and state its role with regard to the Jersey Heritage Trust's plans for Mont Orgueil Castle?

Answer

The Paul Drury Partnership (Fellows of the Society of Arts, Associate Members of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Members of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation) was commissioned by the Committee on 26th February 2001, to give independent advice to the Committee and its officers on all aspects of the Mont Orgueil project, insofar as they relate to the exercise of the Committee's planning powers.

The  Paul  Drury  Partnership  has  very  extensive  experience  of  historic  building  and  archaeological  planning matters and provides the current United Kingdom representative, and Chair, of the Built Heritage Committee of the Council of Europe, and who was previously Director of the London and South-East region of English Heritage.

The exact nature of the Drury Partnership's brief in Jersey has been modified as the project has evolved since its appointment in 2001. In summary its present brief is toadvise, in all the relevant circumstances, whether the proposed works of repair, restoration and alteration are acceptable in planning, archaeological and architectural terms.' If so it is also asked to advise how best we can ensure that appropriate standards of management and monitoring of the work are achieved.