The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
1240/5(2697)
WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 17th JANUARY 2006
Question
With regard to the property Lerzardrieux', Rue de la Houguette, St. Clement , and questions asked of the former President of the Environment and Public Services Committee on 29th November 2005, would the Minister inform members –
( a ) w h e ther any further actions have been taken to assess the new building's visual impact particularly
from the north, south, east and west elevations and, furthermore, to determine whether it obscures the Mont Ube lighthouse from the south?
( b ) w h e ther any further actions, such as on site measurements, have been taken to confirm the height of
the new building and, if so, how far this exceeds the height of the original building; if not, would the Minister confirm that this will be undertaken and reported to the States and that steps will be taken to reduce any dimension not consistent with the submitted plans? and,
( c ) w h e ther the former Environment and Public Services Committee considered the visual impact of the
new building and, if so, why it permitted the building to be of increased height?
Answer
" ( a) H a v ing visited the site and its surroundings, I agree with the Deputy that the building currently under construction is far more prominent from surrounding views than its predecessor. In my view, the building does not obscure the light on Mont Ube lighthouse, but does affect views from the south and south west, Pontac and the north.
( b ) The photographic evidence and the approved plans demonstrate an increase in overall height of 2.1
metres. Although the sloping roof is considered to reduce the perceived height of the building, its dark mass is still prominent. The roof is only partially pitched and therefore has a considerably lower height than a fully pitched roof. As far as I can ascertain, the surrounding foliage does not appear to have been cut.
( c ) The application was approved in its present form in August 2003, save for a modest revision which does
not affect the building's impact on its surroundings. Measurements of the uncompleted building taken some months ago, demonstrate that the building is being built in accordance with the approved drawings.
( d ) The application was considered by the Department and the Applications Sub-Committee. I understand
that the Sub-Committee considered the impact of the building on its surroundings but deemed it to be acceptable. I was not party to the decision to approve such a conspicuous building.
( e ) If the building were to be built in excess of the approved drawing then the Minister has the legal power
to direct the owner to reconstruct the building in accordance with the approved plans if the increase is considered to be unacceptable. I would have no hesitation in using those powers were that the case."