approved minutes of the meeting of heritage western … · dr stephen townsend, mr chris snelling,...

Approved BELCom Minutes_27 November 2019

1

APPROVED MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF HERITAGE WESTERN

CAPE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LANDSCAPE PERMIT COMMITTEE (BELCom)

Scheduled for 09:00 and held on Wednesday, 27 November 2019 in the

1st Floor Boardroom at the Offices of the Department of Cultural Affairs and Sport, Protea Assurance Building, Greenmarket Square, Cape Town

1. Opening and Welcome

The Chair, Mr Graham Jacobs, officially opened the meeting at 09:00 and welcomed everyone present.

2. Attendance Committee Members: Members of Staff:

Mr Graham Jacobs (GJ) (Chair) Ms Colette Scheermeyer (CSc) Mr David Gibbs (DG) Ms Penelope Meyer (PM) Mr Peter Büttgens (PB) Ms Waseefa Dhansay (WD) Ms Melanie Attwell (MA) Mr Olwethu Dlova (OD)

Ms Janine de Waal (JdW) Ms Stephanie Barnardt (SB) Ms Helene van der Merwe (HvdM) Mr Lwazi Bhengu (LB)

Mr Andrew September (AS) Ms Khanyisile Bonile (KB) Ms Aneeqah Brown (AB) Ms Cathy-Ann Potgieter (C-AP) Observers: Designated new BELCom members Mr Shawn Johnston (SJ) Mr Dennis Belter (DB)

Visitors:

Ms Bridget O’Donoghue Dr Stephen Townsend Mr Chris Snelling Mr Ashley Lillie Ms Marianna Furman Mr Jerome Furman Mr Alexis van der Merwe Mr Martin Bey Ms Toni Snow Ms Jane Brown Ms Elisabeth Black Ms Ursula Rigby Ms Victoria de la Cour Ms Helen Counihan-Greer Mr Henry Aikman Mr Kevin Fellingham Ms Deborah Gericke Ms Winnie Sze Ms Fowzia Achmat Ms Masnoona Singlee Ms Galieja Martin Mr Robert Rosin Mr Chris Kotze Ms Constance Kotze Mr Andrew Flint Mr Tim Ziehl Mr James Mackay

3. Apologies Ms Belinda Mutti (BM)

Dr Mxolisi Dlamuka (MD)


2

Absent None 4. Approval of Agenda 4.1 Dated 27 November 2019

The Committee approved the agenda dated 27 November 2019 with minor changes including additional items.

5. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting 5.1 BELCom Minutes dated 23 October 2019.

The Committee reviewed the minutes dated 23 October 2019 and resolved to approve the minutes with minor amendments.

6. Disclosure of Interest: 6.1 Recusals

• GJ: item 13.4

7. Confidential Matters 7.1 None 8. Administrative Matters 8.1 Outcome of the Appeals and Tribunal Committees 8.1.1 PM reported back on the following Appeals matters:

• Proposed Total Demolition, Erf 2146, 2 Deer Park, Vredehoek: Section 34

• Proposed Addition & Alteration at Erf 830, 17 Ravenscraig Road, Green Point: Section 34

• Proposed Total Demolition, Erf 1455, 14 Kotze Street, Gardens: Section 34

• Proposed additions & alterations to Erf 1260, Devonshire House, Ryneveld Street, Stellenbosch: Section 27

• Proposed Consolidation, Rezoning and Subdivision of Erven 18467 and 18468, Land-en-Zeezicht, Somerset West Section 38

8.2 Report back on Stop Works Orders and Charges: There were no cases to report.

8.3 Formal Protection of Buildings refused for Demolition: Nothing to report.

8.4 Feldhausen Road, Claremont The matter was discussed prior to item 12.3 and 12.4 being tabled. 8.5 Nomination of Acting Chairperson The Committee nominated DG to act as chair for item 13.4. 8.6 Old Town House

The Committee expressed great concern at the deteriorating condition and lack of care of the Old Town House, Greenmarket Square. This building is one of the City’s most important historic landmarks and the geographical center of the City. Notwithstanding that approval by HWC Council of the CMP for this building is still pending, the onus remains on Iziko to maintain and protect and secure their properties appropriately. The Committee urges Council to approve the CMP urgently and to urge Iziko to provide duty of care to the building in the interim.


3

9. Standing Items 9.1 Site Inspections undertaken

The following site inspection undertaken by members was noted:

• Proposed Additions and Alterations, Erf 1318, 26 Hofmeyr Street, Gardens 9.2 Potential Site Visits

• Proposed Total Demolition Farm 600, Stillerust, Calais, Paarl: GJ

• Proposed Total Demolition of current structure on Erf 229, Visser Street, Clanwilliam: GJ

• Proposed Additions and Alterations, Erf 68058, 4 Smithers Road, Kenilworth: PB, MA and HvdM

• Proposed New Additional Structure and Alterations on Erf 569, 10 Marine Drive, Hermanus: PB and MA

9.3 Report back on Closeout Reports Nothing to report. 9.4 Report back on HWC Council Meetings

The Chair provided an update on the memberships of the various new Standing Committees that are to take over from the present Committees in February 2020. GJ has been appointed by Council to chair BELCom for the new term.

9.5 Discussion of agenda Noted. 10. Appointments 10.1 None MATTERS DISCUSSED 11 PROVINCIAL HERITAGE SITES: SECTION 27 PERMIT APPLICATIONS 11.1 None 12. STRUCTURES OLDER THAN 60 YEARS: SECTION 34 PERMIT FOR TOTAL DEMOLITION

12.1 Proposed Total Demolition on Erf 1046, Corner of Avenue St. Bartholomew and Avenue De Berrange Fresnaye: NM

HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/FRESNAYE/ERF 1046 Case No: 19092505KB1106E Permit application was tabled. Ms Khanyisile Bonile introduced the case. Ms Bridget O’Donoghue was present and took part in the discussion.

DISCUSSION: Amongst other things, the following was discussed:

• The building is graded IIIB.

• The CoCT does not support the proposal.

• The SFB objected to the proposal.


4

• The CoCT has suggested the property being graded IIIB. This grading may have been mistakenly accorded to this site instead of its neighbour opposite, which clearly does have at least architectural and aesthetic significance.

• The Committee is of the opinion that the building does not warrant retention.

• The property does not fall within an HPO (either proposed or declared). RECORD OF DECISION:

The Committee resolved to approve the application for total demolition for the following reasons, amongst others: 1. The building is not considered to have sufficient architectural merit to warrant retention

and does not qualify for inclusion on HWC’s Register. 2. The predominant qualities of the surrounds are of insufficient heritage merit to require

HWC approval of the replacement development. 3. Consequently, the Committee does not believe that heritage resources will be negatively

impacted.

KB 12.2 Proposed Total Demolition for Erven 1788 and 1789, 8 & 10 Constantia Road, Gardens: MA

HM/GARDENS/ERVEN 1788 & 1799 Case No: 16060110AS0611E Heritage Design Indicators and Recommendations for Future Proposals were tabled. Mr Andrew September introduced the case.

Ms Bridget O’Donoghue, Ms Marianna Furman and Mr Jerome Furman were present and took part in the discussion.


• The Committee does not support this proposal as presented re: report dated 7 November 2019).

FURTHER REQUIREMENTS: The Committee does not support this proposal as presented (re: report dated 7 November 2019).

The Committee is in general support of the heritage indicators although there are certain aspects that require further elaboration: 1. Acknowledgement of the specific urban patterns that characterise the streetscape e.g.

recognition of the widths of existing street frontages, nature of garden interfaces, street and side boundary setbacks, roofscape characteristics (i.e. predominantly hipped), etc.

2. The stepping of the new development in response to the slope. 3. Overall scale and height which should not exceed 2 storeys plus possible attic

accommodation. 4. The articulation of the proposed development into two predominant forms as reflected

in the neighbouring properties. A single monolithic mass extending over both properties is to be avoided.

AS 12.3 Proposed Total Demolition Erf 55165, 8 Feldhausen Road, Claremont: MA


5

HM/CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/CLAREMONT/ERF 55165 Case No: 16070501JW0720E A letter from the applicant was tabled together with responses from I&AP’s. Ms Waseefa Dhansay introduced the case. Dr Stephen Townsend, Mr Chris Snelling, Mr Alexis van der Merwe and Mr Martin Bey were

present and took part in the discussion.


• The applicant requested that the Committee make a decision in lieu of calling for further requirements.

• Claremont heritage survey is being prepared by the Claremont Residents and Ratepayers Association.

RECORD OF DECISION:

The Committee resolved to refuse the application for the following reason: a) The application contains insufficient information for the Committee to properly apply its

mind as the information previously requested on 24 July 2019 was not supplied. These requirements are reiterated in italics below: “The Committee requires further analysis relating at block and street scale with particular attention to height, scale, massing and roofscape and relationship to heritage resources, as informed by the following discussion points”:

1. The Committee has accepted that the area within which the site is located does have special spatial characteristics and can be considered a heritage resource, notwithstanding that the area is currently neither declared nor proposed as an HPO by the CoCT. (The Committee however notes that the area was previously recommended as a Special Area by heritage consultants to the CoCT in the late 1980’s).

2. The Committee is of the view that the current buildings on these properties have insufficient significance to warrant retention, hence requiring heritage indicators for possible replacement structure/structures.

3. The indicators prepared by the heritage consultant are extensive but draw on the wider context for identifying precedent and informing the heritage consultant’s recommendations, and not focused enough on the specific block and adjoining streetscapes within which the affected properties are located.

4. Considering the more immediate context of the subject block and adjoining streetscapes, the Committee was of the view that the proposed re-development concept derived from the heritage consultant’s recommendations was abrupt, over-scaled and inappropriately massed.


6

5. Taking the above into account, the Committee was of the view that the very extensive indicators prepared on behalf of the applicant be distilled with regard to height, scale, massing and roofscape and relationship to heritage resources with particular consideration of the subject block and adjoining streetscapes which are considered to be heritage resources.

6. The indicators do not consider the possible consequences of the old Group Areas Act, if relevant, on the significance of this area.

WD

12.4 Proposed Total Demolition Erf 55166, 10 Feldhausen Road, Claremont: MA HM/CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/CLAREMONT/ERF 55166 Case No: 16052305JW0602E

Letter from applicant and response from I&AP’s was tabled. Ms Waseefa Dhansay introduced the case. Dr Stephen Townsend, Mr Chris Snelling, Mr Alexis van der Merwe and Mr Martin Bey were

present and took part in the discussion.


• The applicant requested that the Committee make a decision in lieu of calling for further requirements.

• Claremont heritage survey is being prepared by the Claremont Residents and Ratepayers Association.

RECORD OF DECISION: The Committee resolved to refuse the application for the following reason: a) The application contains insufficient information for the Committee to properly apply its

mind as the information previously requested on 24 July 2019 was not supplied. These requirements are reiterated in italics below: “The Committee requires further analysis relating at block and street scale with particular attention to height, scale, massing and roofscape and relationship to heritage resources, as informed by the following discussion points”:

1. The Committee has accepted that the area within which the site is located does have special spatial characteristics and can be considered a heritage resource, notwithstanding that the area is currently neither declared nor proposed as an HPO by the CoCT. (The Committee however notes that the area was previously recommended as a Special Area by heritage consultants to the CoCT in the late 1980’s).

2. The Committee is of the view that the current buildings on these properties have insufficient significance to warrant retention, hence requiring heritage indicators for possible replacement structure/structures.


7

3. The indicators prepared by the heritage consultant are extensive but draw on the wider context for identifying precedent and informing the heritage consultant’s recommendations, and not focused enough on the specific block and adjoining streetscapes within which the affected properties are located.

4. Considering the more immediate context of the subject block and adjoining streetscapes, the Committee was of the view that the proposed re-development concept derived from the heritage consultant’s recommendations was abrupt, over-scaled and inappropriately massed.

5. Taking the above into account, the Committee was of the view that the very extensive indicators prepared on behalf of the applicant be distilled with regard to height, scale, massing and roofscape and relationship to heritage resources with particular consideration of the subject block and adjoining streetscapes which are considered to be heritage resources.

6. The indicators do not consider the possible consequences of the old Group Areas Act, if relevant, on the significance of this area.

WD

12.5 Proposed Total Demolition Farm 600, Stillerust, Calais, Paarl: NM HM/ CAPE WINELANDS/ DRAKENSTEIN/ PAARL/ FARM 600 Case No: 19053115HB0604E Application documents were tabled. FURTHER REQUIREMENTS:

The Committee resolved to undertake a site inspection (GJ and DG). WD

12.6 Proposed Total Demolition of current structure on Erf 229, Visser Street, Clanwilliam: NM HM/CLANWILLIAM/ERF 229 Case No: 19101002AS1018E Permit application and addendum were tabled. FURTHER REQUIREMENTS: The Committee resolved to undertake a site inspection (GJ).

AS


8

12.7 Proposed Total Demolition, Erf 67517, 29 Wellington Ave Wynberg: MA HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ WYNBERG/ ERF 67517 Case No: 1806112WD0907E Application documents were tabled.

Ms Waseefa Dhansay introduced the case. Ms Ursula Rigby, Ms Victoria de la Cour and Ms Helen Counihan-Greere were present and took

part in the discussion. RECORD OF DECISION:

The Committee resolved to approve the sketch proposals as indicated the drawings prepared by Victoria de la Cour Architects (with particular emphasis on Option 1) as meeting previous requirements conditional on the following: 1. The final proposals be submitted to HWC for approval prior to local authority building

plans submission. WD

13 STRUCTURES OLDER THAN 60 YEARS: SECTION 34 PERMIT FOR PARTIAL

DEMOLITION/ALTERATIONS 13.1 Proposed Additions and Alterations, Erf 172004, 212A Buitengracht Street, Bo-Kaap: MA HM/ BO KAAP/ RE. ERF 172004 Case No: 19080614LB0807E Section 34 application, plans and other relevant documents were tabled.

Mr Lwazi Bhengu introduced the case.

Ms Ursula Rigby, Mr Kevin Fellingham, Ms Deborah Gericke, Ms Winnie Sze, Ms Fowzia Achmat, Ms Masnoona Singlee and Ms Galieja Martin were present and took part in the discussion.

FURTHER REQUIREMENTS: 1. The Committee noted that the Bo-Kaap Civic Association has not seen the proposals that

were revised in response to BELCom’s previous comments. 2. The item cannot be discussed further by Committee until the Bo-Kaap Civic Association

has had an opportunity to view these proposals. 3. Consequently, this item will be carried forward until the following BELCom meeting

pending the above having been carried out. 4. It was agreed by the applicant and the Bo-Kaap Civic Association that the applicant will

forward the copies of the revised proposals to the following contacts: - Ms Jackie Poking: [email protected] - Ms Fowzia Achmat: [email protected]

LB

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


9

13.2 Proposed Partial Demolition and Additions and Alterations, Erf 678, Huguenot and Voortrekker Streets, Malmesbury: NM

HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ MALMESBURY/ ERF 678 Case No: 19102920LB1030E Section 34 application, plans and other relevant documents were tabled. Mr Lwazi Bhengu introduced the case.

Mr Henry Aikman was present and took part in the discussion. FURTHER REQUIREMENTS: The Committee supports the proposed alterations in principle but requires further

information regarding the degree to which historic fabric is removed/ replaced and/ or added to.

The Committee recommends that as much historic fabric as possible be retained while still allowing the proposed new use of the building to be effectively realised. i.e. retain corner wall nibs to acknowledge historic room layout. The Committee also recommends that the abutting commercial development on the eastern side opposite the subject building’s veranda acknowledge this veranda in terms of (the commercial building’s) architectural treatment. This edge to be further developed.

LB 13.3 Proposed Additions and Alterations, Erf 1430, 30 Bradwell Road, Vredehoek: NM HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ VREDEHOEK/ ERF 1430 Case No: 19110601LB1106E Section 34 application, plans and other relevant documents were tabled. Ms Waseefa Dhansay introduced the case.

Mr Ashley Lillie was present and took part in the discussion.


• CoCT opposes total demolition.

• CoCT has graded the building grade IIIC.

• The Committee is of the opinion that the building does not warrant formal protection as it has insufficient architectural and aesthetic significance to warrant retention.

• However, the property does fall within an area that has heritage significance. Consequently, the proposals for the replacement development are to be submitted to HWC for approval. These proposals are to be informed by heritage indicators considering the nature and characteristics of the surrounding area.


10

FURTHER REQUIREMENTS: The Committee is prepared to consider the demolition of the subject building provided that

the replacement development be appropriate in relation to its context as informed by a set of heritage indicators prepared by a suitably qualified professional with built environment heritage experience. The development proposals supported by the appropriate indicators are to be submitted to HWC for approval.

LB 13.4 Proposed New Additional Structure and Alterations on Erf 569, 10 Marine Drive, Hermanus:

NM HM/HERMANUS/ERF 569 Case No: 19092301AS1018E GJ recused himself and left the room. DG was nominated to chair this item. Permit application prepared by Frederick Kotze including addendum were tabled. Mr Andrew September introduced the case.

Mr Robert Rosin, Mr Chris Kotze and Ms Constance Kotze were present and took part in the discussion.

DISCUSSION:

Amongst other things, the following was discussed:

• The building is materially attached to the existing building, therefore NHRA Section 34 is applicable.

• Lack of graphics / photomontage of proposal in broader landscape context, in particular the sea cliff context which is of high heritage significance.

• Concern around proposed construction of ‘heritage walls and landscaping. FURTHER REQUIREMENTS: The Committee will undertake a site inspection (PB and MA). AS 13.5 Proposed Additions and Alterations, Erf 1318, 26 Hofmeyr Road, Gardens: NM HM / GARDENS / ERF 1318 Case No: 19092004SB1002E

BELCom reported back on the site visit undertaken on 21 November 2019. The site visit report prepared GJ by dated 21 November 2019 was tabled as per the attached Annexure SI1.

DISCUSSION:

Amongst other things, the following was discussed:

• CIBRA object to both submissions made to them.

• CoCT objected to the initial proposal but supports the amended proposal.


11

RECORD OF DECISION: The Committee supports the findings of the site inspection report dated 21 November 2019

and resolved to approve the application as indicated on drawing number 175-SP-01 to 175-SP-05 dated 21 November 2018 as the proposals do not impact negatively on heritage significance.

SB

13.6 Proposed Alterations and Additions on Erf 168330, 48 Dublin Street, Woodstock: MA HM/CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ WOODSTOCK/ ERF 168330 Case No: 18060601AS0812E

A Contextual Analysis responding to Further Requirements dated September 2019 was tabled. Mr Andrew September introduced the case.


• The property is within an HPO.

• CoCT does not support the proposals.

• WAC supports the proposals.

• The proposals in their current form will set a negative precedent for the rest of the terrace where future additions may be required.

FURTHERE REQUIREMENTS:

1. The Committee is of the opinion that first floor additions are acceptable in principle but not in the form currently proposed. Future extensions require to be of a nature that can be replicated in terms of pattern along the rest of the terrace where required (the current proposals do not achieve this).

2. The Committee strongly recommends that the applicant obtain guidance from a suitably qualified built environment professional with heritage experience.

AS 13.7 Additions and Alterations - Erven 689, 690, 691 & 697, 221 Beach Road, Winchester

Mansions Hotel, Sea Point: MA HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ SEA POINT/ ERVEN 689, 690, 691 & 697 Case No: 19080205WD0904E Revised proposals were tabled. Ms Waseefa Dhansay introduced the case.

Ms Bridget O’Donoghue and Mr Andrew Flint were present and took part in the discussion.


• The applicant was complimented on the quality of the graphics of the submission and the well-resolved design detail.


12

RECORD OF DECISION: The Committee resolved to approve the application as meeting previous requirements. WD 13.8 Proposed Additions and Alterations, Erf 44646, 3 Park Road, Rondebosch: MA HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/RONDEBOSCH/ ERF 44646 Case No: 19102931WD1119E Additional documents were tabled. Ms Waseefa Dhansay introduced the case. RECORD OF DECISION: The Committee cannot condone unauthorised work. However, the Committee recommends

that charges not be laid by HWC against the owner as the unauthorised work has not substantially impacted upon heritage significance.

WD 13.9 Proposed Additions and Alterations, Erf 165381, 21 Durban Road, Wynberg: MA HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ WYNBERG/ ERF 165381 Case No: 18052909WD0903E Additional documents were tabled. Ms Waseefa Dhansay introduced the case.


• CoCT supports the proposals.

• OWVS opposes the proposals.

• The property is a PHS which, amongst others, requires HWC approval for changes in land use.

RECORD OF DECISION: The Committee resolved to approve the application as not impacting negatively on heritage

significance. However, this approval in terms of NHRA Section 27, which includes a change in land use, is restricted to the existing building envelope.

WD


13

13.10 Proposed Alteration & Additions of 14 and 16 Papegaai Street, Stellenbosch: MA HM / STELLENBOSCH / ERF 523 AND 6174 Case No: 19050923SB0813E Revised design and comments from municipality and local conservation bodies were tabled. Ms Waseefa Dhansay introduced the case.

Mr Tim Ziehl was present and took part in the discussion. FURTHER REQUIREMENTS: The committee remains concerned at the roof configuration at the rear of the heritage

building. However, negative impacts would be significantly reduced if the shape of the side hipped roof planes and portion of the rear of the roof were to be retained while accepting the introduction of the link structure between the existing building and the new rear extension. It is further recommended that the vertical sides of the link structure be corrugated iron to match the roof structure of the heritage resource.

SB 13.11 Proposed Additions and Alterations - Erf 68058 - 4 Smithers Road, Kenilworth: NM HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ KENILWORTH/ ERF 68058 Case No: 19110410WD1106E Application documents were tabled. FURTHER REQUIREMENTS: The Committee resolved to undertake a site inspection. WD 13.12 Proposed Partial Demolition, Additions and Alterations, Erf 24582 - 43 Montague Road,

Maitland: NM HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ MAITLAND/ ERF 24582 Case No: 19100710WD1106E Application documents were tabled. Ms Waseefa Dhansay introduced the case.

Ms Bridget O’Donoghue and Mr James Mackay were present and took part in the discussion.


• The development as proposed could be extended to three storeys without any negative impact on heritage resources.


14

RECORD OF DECISION: The Committee resolved to approve the proposals as indicated on Figures 57-60 of the

heritage statement prepared by Ms Bridget O’Donoghue, dated 6 November 2019, as meeting previous requirements.

Final municipal submission plans to be referred to HWC for final approval. WD 13.13 Proposed Additions and Alterations - Erf 628 - 90 High Level Road, Green Point: NM HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/GREEN POINT/ ERF 628 Case No: 19100905WD1031E Application documents were tabled. Ms Waseefa Dhansay introduced the case. RECORD OF DECISION: The Committee resolved to approve the application as the proposal does not differ

substantially from the previously approved proposal.

WD 14 HERITAGE AREAS: SECTION 31 CONSENT APPLICATIONS 14.1 None 15 PROVINCIAL PROTECTION: SECTION 29 PERMIT 15.1 None 16 PROVINCIAL PROTECTION: SECTION 28 REFUSAL 16.1 None 17 HERITAGE REGISTER: SECTION 30 PROCESS 17.1 None 18 PUBLIC MONUMENTS & MEMORIALS: SECTION 37 PROCESS 18.1 None 19 REQUESTS FOR OPINION/ADVICE 19.1 None 20 OTHER MATTERS 20.1 None 21. NON-COMPLIANCE 21.1 None


15

22. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS The Committee adopted the resolutions and decisions as minuted above.

23. CLOSURE The meeting adjourned at: 16:50

24 DATE OF NEXT MEETING: 11 December 2019 MINUTES APPROVED AND SIGNED BY: CHAIRPERSON_____________________ DATE_______________________ SECRETARY________________________ DATE_______________________


16

Annexure SI1

26 HOFMEYER STREET GARDENS, CAPE TOWN

Submitted by Graham Jacobs

Land Parcel Type:

Residential.

Erf/Farm No.:

Erf 1318 Cape Town

HWC file No.:

19092004 SB 1002E

Street Address:

26 Hofmeyer Street

Registered Owner:

Grading:

Falls within a proposed or declared HPOZ. Graded IIIB

Nature of Application:

Alterations (Internal with rear extensions)

Date of Site Visit:

21 November 2019

HWC Representatives:

Graham Jacobs, Helene van der Merwe (BELCOM members)

Met on Site By:

The case officer (SB)

Reasons for Site Inspection:

1. To confirm the significance of the internal fabric and the degree to which the rear additions

would impact on the character of the HPO.

2. CIBRA has objected to the proposals on grounds that the extension will, amongst others,

overpower the site. They also question the base level of the rear extension, and its consequent

effect on the height of this addition.

Findings of Site Inspection:

1. The property is a single storey villa dating back to 1900. It is a good, albeit fairly typical

architectural example of its period, and contains much intact period fabric.

2. The site is sandwiched between two other developed sites. This effectively screens the rear of

the property (where the extension is proposed) from Hofmeyer Street.

3. I concur with the Grade IIIB grading accorded to the property by the CoCT and the heritage

consultant.


17

4. Hofmeyer street is characterized by a streetscape that is of very high scenic and architectural

quality, and is well treed.

5. The extensive surviving period fabric on the interior is well documented in the application, most

of which will remain unaffected by the proposed alterations.

6. There is an outbuilding at the rear of the property earmarked for demolition. This appears to

have been constructed in two phases, the more recent of which is stylistically mid-latter 20th C.

This structure is architecturally non-descript.

7. The internal alterations proposed will not significantly impact period fabric, which will include

retention of both good quality period fireplaces, period four-panel doors, architraves and other

similar period joinery.

8. Notwithstanding the height of the proposed rear extension. Only the uppermost portion of the

roof will be visible from Hofmeyer Street given its level difference with the back yard and will

not significantly impact the streetscape. Views of the small portion of new projecting roof will

be further restricted by dense tree canopies during summer (the trees are mostly deciduous,

losing their leaves in winter).

Conclusions & Recommended Action: 1. Loss of historic period fabric and impacts on the Hofmeyer Street streetscape will be minimal.

2. The proposals are regarded as an appropriate solution for increasing well-needed densities

within the City without detrimentally impacting heritage resources including the overall

character of the HPO.

3. There are certain aspects of the proposals that will in fact constitute an improvement within the

streetscape, i.e. the replacement of the visually inappropriate ‘Harveytile’ roof with a more

stylistically appropriate and traditional corrugated iron sheets.

4. Which committee should this report be submitted to: BELCOM

Managers Comments:

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

______________________

Pictures:

SEE OVERLEAF

http://www.hwc.org.za/taxonomy/term/6


18

FIGURE 01: View of the subject property from Hofmeyer Street.

FIGURE 02: View down the front passage showing intact period joinery and floor, all of which will be retained.


19

FIGURE 03: All fireplaces to be retained. The left fireplace will have new doors introduced to both sides.

FIGURE 04: The far kitchen wall with the door opening is to be removed and re-built further back (with doorway) to provide more space. The sash window (right) will be replaced with a set of contemporary folding windows.


20

FIGURE 05: Non-descript outbuilding in the back yard which is to be demolished.

approved minutes of the meeting of heritage western … · dr stephen townsend, mr chris snelling,...

Documents