Approved IAComMinutes 5 December 2018 1 · Ms Juliet Harrison-Egan (JH-E) Ms Marise Grobler (MG) Rev Cedric van Dieman (CvD) Mr Geoff Underwood (GU) Ms Marielle Penwarden (MP) Mr

Draft

Approved IAComMinutes_5 December 2018 1

Approved Minutes of the Meeting of the Impact Assessment Committee (IACOM) of Heritage Western Cape (HWC) held on the 1st Floor in the Boardroom, Protea

Assurance Building, Greenmarket Square, Cape Town, at 09H00 on Wednesday, 5 December 2018.

1. Opening and Welcome

The Chairperson, Mr Chris Snelling (CSn), opened the meeting at 09H02 and

welcomed everyone present. 2. Attendance Members Staff

Mr Chris Snelling (CSn) Ms Penelope Meyer (PM) Prof Lucien le Grange (LLG) Ms Waseefa Dhansay (WD) Mr Frik Vermeulen (FV) Mr Andrew September (AS) Dr Lita Webley (LW) Ms Heidi Boise (HB) Mr Dave Saunders (DS) Ms Stephanie-Anne Barnardt (SB)

Ms Cecilene Muller (CM) Mr Olwethu Dlova (OD) Mr Guy Thomas (GT) Mr Thando Zingange (TZ) Mr Mike Scurr (Co-opted) Ms Khanyisile Bonile (KB) Ms Colette Scheermeyer (CSc) Ms Aneeqah Brown (AB) Ms Nosiphiwo Thafeni (NT) Mr Lwazi Bhengu (LB)

Observers None Visitors Dr Nicolas Baumann (NB) Mr Neil Schwartz (NS) Mr Johan Malherbe (JM) Mr Henry Aikman (HA) Ms Lizel Rust (LR) Mr Andrew Berman (AB) Mr Andre Pentz (AP) Mr Zane De Decker (ZDD) Mr Sebastian van Greunen Mr J Venter (JV) Mr Anton Slabbert (AS) Mr William Whitaker (WW) Mr Neil Franks (NF) Mr Johan Lanham (JL) Ms Fiona Caira (FC) Prof Mino Caira (MC) Mr Alwyn Bester (AB) Mr Shawn Johnston (SJ) Ms Ursula Rigby (UR) Ms Robyn Campbell (RC) Ms Danjelle Midgley (DM) Mr Luca Maraschin (LM) Dr Stephen Townsend (ST) Mr Peter Büttgens (PB) Ms Juliet Harrison-Egan (JH-E) Ms Marise Grobler (MG) Rev Cedric van Dieman (CvD) Mr Geoff Underwood (GU) Ms Marielle Penwarden (MP) Mr Tim Hart (TH) Ms Karin Dugmore-Ström (KDS) Mr Dave Child (DC) Ms Janet Bodenstein (JB) Mr David Mc Gibbon (DMG) 3. Apologies Mr Siphiwo Mavumengwana (SM)

Draft


3.1. Absent None

4. Approval of the Agenda 4.1 The Committee resolved to approve the agenda dated 5 December 2018 with minor

amendments. 5. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting 5.1 The Committee resolved to approve the minutes dated 7 November 2018 with

corrections. 6. Disclosure of Interest

FV: item 13.2

CSn: item 13.2 and 13.7

DS: item 13.2 7. Confidential Matters 7.1 None 8. Appointments 8.1 None 9 Administrative Matters 9.1 Outcome of the Appeals Committee, Tribunal and Court Cases

PM reported on the following appeals matters:

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

Proposed New Dwellings on Remainder of Farm 96, Knysna: Section 38

Proposed Additions and Alterations at Erf 390, 34 Woodside Road, Tamboerskloof: Section 34

Proposed Partial Demolition, Addition and Alteration at Erven 2455 & 2456, c/o Joubert & Merriman Streets, Stellenbosch: Section 34

Proposed Addition and Alteration at Erf 191, 119 Buitenkant Street, Gardens: Section 34

9.2 Amsterdam Battery, Waterfront Mr Andrew September gave a PowerPoint presentation.

Dr Nicolas Baumann and Mr Neil Schwartz were present and took part in the discussion. An e-mail request from Dr Baumann, addressed to the Case Officer, which requested a meeting on site in order to further assess the nature of the impacts on the Battery, and actions required to recover significance, was tabled.

The Committee noted that the cease works order had effectively been ignored by the V&A Waterfront and that the skate park has been completed and is now open to the public and in operation.

Draft


Further requirements imposed by the Committee in order to lift the cease works order were again noted, and include:

“The submission of a heritage agreement by the heritage practitioner, describing mitigation measures and how significance can be recovered, should take place. The heritage agreement must include a revised landscape plan, which addresses the concerns raised by the Committee, together with comment by the heritage practitioner. Such a heritage agreement will be tabled at the earliest possible IACom meeting for assessment”. Notwithstanding the above, the Committee understood that the heritage practitioner’s request for a site meeting was in order to assist in the fulfilment of the above requirement, and notwithstanding the Committee’s concern that the cease works order has been ignored; the request for a site meeting was agreed to.

FURTHER REQUIREMENTS: The Committee resolved to undertake a site meeting on Friday 11 January 2019 at 11:00 (DS, CM, LLG, CSn, GT, LW and FV).

AS 10. Standing Items 10.1 Site Inspections

The Committee has conducted the following site inspections:

Proposed Development Framework at Erven 17300 & 7205 Farm La Concordia, Cecilia Street, Paarl

Kirstenbosch Drive and Winchester Avenue (Protea Village), Redevelopment of the site for Residential, Education and Public Open Space

10.2 Report back from ExCo, Council and other Committees

The Chair provided feedback from the Council meeting held on 14 November 2018.

Amongst other things it was noted that Adv. Geoff Budlender has now been formally appointed to provide legal opinion on the provisions of s38(8) of the NHRA.

10.3 Discussion of the agenda Noted.

10.4 Potential Site Inspections

Proposed Demolition of Existing Buildings and Development of an Apartment Building at Erven 332, Re-335 & 336, Braemar Road, Green Point

Proposed Re-Development of Erven 143, 144, 145, 155,156,157,158,166,167,168,169,170, Rem 185, 4683 & 5957, Dennisig & Paul Kruger Streets, Stellenbosch

Proposed Development of an Apartment Complex at Erven 141-142 & 163-165, Dennesig & Paul Kruger Road, Stellenbosch

Proposed Development, Erven 8504, 8505 and 8513, Woodstock

Proposed New Building and Landscaping to Erven 857, Portion of 861 and Portion 858, Sylvan Close, Oranjezicht

Draft


MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED 11 SECTION 38(2) RESPONSES TO NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO DEVELOP

11.1 None 12 SECTION 38(1) INTERIM COMMENT 12.1 None 13 SECTION 38(4) RECORD OF DECISION 13.1 Proposed Development Framework at Erven 17300 & 7205 Farm La Concordia,

Cecilia Street, Paarl: MA HM/ CAPE WINELANDS/ DRAKENSTEIN/ PAARL/ERVEN 17300 & 7205 Case No: 18030501ZK0315E IACom reported back on the site inspection undertaken on 22 November 2018. A Site

Inspection Report prepared by CSn dated 23 November 2018 is attached (Annexure SI1).

Mr Johan Malherbe and Mr Henry Aikman were present and took part in the

discussion.

Amongst other things, the following was discussed:

Having conducted a site visit and getting a better understanding of the farm werf and context, the Committee noted that it had no objection in principle to new development in the areas noted in the heritage practitioner’s Phase 1 HIA, (Figure 31: Option 5, the Preferred Option, Aikman and Associates HIA October 2018, pg. 23). - However, some observations were provided which should be considered,

and/or incorporated into the Phase 2 HIA in order to assist in guiding an appropriate final development model. These include, but are not limited to:

- A deeper reading into, and grading of, significance of the werf and surrounds. - More work on the fabric analysis of the structures. - A more in-depth provision of Landscape Indicators. - Care and attention being paid to the scale, form, layout etc of proposed new

buildings. - The sense of place making as a whole, rather than just paying attention to not

impacting only on the werf itself. In other words, it is the ‘whole’ which contributes to significance and not just the werf. New development should be directed toward to appropriate place making as a whole, rather than just mitigating for anticipated impacts on the werf itself. Orthogonal geometries could also be explored, and ‘sub werven’ created, if the further studies and informants thus indicate.

All future development should however be subservient in height, scale, footprint, etc to the main werf.

The demolition of later accretions to the wagon house is supported.

Parking which extends eastwards, beyond the west façade of the manor house and into the ‘forecourt’ area of the werf will not be supported.

Draft


INTERIM COMMENT: The Committee supports the development of the portions of the farm as indicated in the HIA in principle, and awaits the submission of the Phase 2 HIA, which has taken the above considerations into account. HB

13.2 Proposed Deviations to existing SDP for Mixed-Use Development on Longkloof Studios, Erf 152678, Kloof Street, Gardens: MA HM/GARDENS/ERF 152678

CSn, FV and DS recused themselves and left the room. The Committee nominated LW to chair this item.

Aikman Associates Motivation for Departures 2018 and revised sketch plans by DHK

Architects were tabled. Mr Andrew September gave a PowerPoint presentation.

Mr Henry Aikman and Ms Lizel Rust were present and took part in the discussion.


Although the scope of work has increased, there has been a decrease in the footprint while the bulk has been redistributed. This is due to the change in use of the proposed building from office space to hotel

The linking building with the glass bridge may increase the bulk, but the glass bridge was incorporated to increase the view corridor

Vehicular routes have been taken away from the public square

The Committee supported the need for archaeological monitoring during below-ground excavations.

The Committee noted that various iterations of the proposed overall development in this precinct have been submitted to BELCom and that these have been approved.

RECORD OF DECISION

The Committee approves the deviations to the originally approved Site Development Plan and volumetric extent, as per the drawings on page 5-11 in the letter (titled Proposed Departures from Approved Volumetric Extent of Option 5: Longkloof Studios: Park Road Cape Town: Erf 173081, Remainder 152676 and Remainder 153692, Cape Town) by Aikman Associates dated 9 March 2018.

AS

Draft


13.3 Proposed Total Demolition of 3 Buildings and Consolidation for the Development of a Four Storey (Lower Ground Parking, 2 Floors & a Floor in The Roof) Erven 31751; Erven 31752; Erven 150019, Rosebank: MA HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ROSEBANK/ERVEN 31751; ERVEN 31752; ERVEN 150019 Case No: 17111605ZK1122E Application documents and Final Integrated Heritage Impact Assessment were tabled. Ms Stephanie Barnardt gave a PowerPoint presentation. Mr Andrew Berman, Mr Andre Pentz, Mr Zane De Decker, Mr Sebastian van

Greunen, Mr J Venter, Mr Anton Slabbert, Mr William Whitaker, Mr Neil Franks, Dr Stephen Townsend and Ms Danielle Midgley were present and took part in the discussion.


The Committee clarified the process undertaken thus far in respect of the public participation component of the application. It was resolved that the process followed complied with the policy, as set out by HWC, and that all parties had been given reasonable opportunity to provide comment. Any additional comment in respect of the final revised proposal could be presented at the meeting.

The applicants agreed that Dr Townsend’s latest comment, (received after the closing date for submissions), could be entered into the record. The Committee noted that final comment from RAMPAC however, was only submitted two days before the meeting. It was agreed that this comment would not be entered into the record, however could be verbally communicated to the Committee by their representative. The applicant’s right to respond to these comments at the meeting was regarded as self-evident.

Heritage related submissions made by the objectors included, but was not limited to, the following: - The HIA remains vague. - The analysis of the townscape is inadequate and as such, was unable to

appropriately guide the development. - The scale and height of the development is out of character with the proposed

HPOZ and does not respond to its location as a gateway site.

The applicant’s responses included, but was not limited to the following: - The HIA had looked more carefully at the detailed context, etc. - The context of the site is considered as unique given its location opposite

Huis Luckhoff and being at a major intersection, as such the proposal is deemed contextually appropriate.

- The HIA has used the City’s Urban design guidelines to inform the development.

The Committee sought clarity on certain issues, and the applicants informed it that the overall height of the building, (described as three storeys with a semi basement), has been dropped by 2.5 to 3 metres, by sinking the basement into the ground by a further metre, as well as reducing the floor to underside of ceiling heights to 2.6m.

The structure fronting onto Alma Road is now 7m to wall-plate height and 9m to the top of the apex from street level, and the York Road fronting structure is between 7,5 to 8m to the top of the parapet.

Draft


The Committee noted that adequately dimensioned sectional drawings, (through the site and streets), must be provided in order to illustrate heights accurately.

In commenting the Committee noted: - The Committee acknowledged that the proposal had improved on the

proposals tabled previously, and that it was better articulated and scaled, however there were concerns which remained.

- The Committee stands by its previous comments and observations. Specifically, the Committee reiterated that: a) Whilst acknowledging the City of Cape Town’s Heritage Resources

Section’s objection to the proposed demolition, the Committee does not believe that the structures earmarked for demolition are of any intrinsic significance and do not have sufficient significance for them to be formally protected.

b) However, the two structures graded as IIIC do contribute to the overall character of the proposed HPOZ in which they are located. There is no dispute from any party that the area does have heritage significance on a local level, and that the amount of heritage related interest and comment received in respect of the application underscores the cultural significance of the area to the community.

c) The significance of the area, (whilst not limited to this), is primarily represented by the scale, form, massing and historic architectural qualities of the majority of the surrounding structures which contribute to the townscape. In this regard, it was reiterated, that should consent for demolition of the structures be granted, then any replacement structure must likewise contribute to the character of the area, and respond to the form, scale etc. of the good precedent in the area, and not bad precedent, or models located outside of the area.

d) The Committee disagreed with the applicant’s contention that the site is located at a major intersection and as such will be able to absorb the impact of the proposed building. Noting the intersection is more accurately described as a node, as well as a gateway, it is the finer scaled fabric of the proposed HPOZ to which the development should respond, and not the larger grained and scaled fabric opposite Liesbeek Parkway.

e) The overall height of the proposal remains a concern along the Alma Road edge, and this is exacerbated by the large gabled elements. The proposal is generally over-scaled when balanced against the finer grained context of the proposed HPOZ. The Committee indicated that it would consider a proposal that was only two floors above the semi-basement.

f) The bridges between the buildings were noted as being problematic and alien elements.

g) The timber cladding to the end gables was not considered contextually appropriate.

h) Whilst the ‘building on stilts’ typology has been screened by walls, edge conditions have still not adequately been taken into account and the development has not responded to existing patterns in the area.

i) The Committee agreed that the provisions of s38(3) of the Act had been complied with, noting that whilst it did not necessarily agree with certain findings of the HIA report, this did not equate to the identification and assessment not having been done. However, the Committee resolved that it could not support the proposal development in its current form, as it will impact negatively on the significance of the proposed HPOZ.

Draft


j) The applicants considered the Committee’s comments and indicated that they would be prepared to revise the application to address the Committee’s concerns.

k) The Committee noted that whilst observing that a new HIA was not required and the 30-day comment period would not be applicable, it indicated that the applicant should ensure that all I&APs be sent a copy of the revised proposal, on the same day, (or as reasonably near to), as it is submitted to HWC, in order for I&APs to have a reasonable period of time to formulate comment which can be presented when the revised application is next tabled at IACom .

INTERIM COMMENT The Committee awaits the submission of a revised application that takes into account

its comment and concerns as noted above and issued previously. SB 13.4 Proposed New Building and Landscaping to Erven 857, Portion of 861 and Portion 858, Sylvan Close, Oranjezicht: NM HM/ORANJEZICHT/ERVEN 857, PTN OF 861 AND PTN OF 858 Case No: 17032402AS0331E Heritage Impact Assessment and appendices prepared by Ursula Rigby Architects was tabled. Mr Andrew September gave a PowerPoint presentation. Mr Alwyn Bester, Mr Shawn Johnston and Ms Ursula Rigby were present and took

part in the discussion.


The site was noted as being graded IIIA, and borders the Oranjezicht Farm and Field of Springs which are Provincial Heritage Sites (PHS).

The Committee noted the general support of all I&APs consulted, as well as that of the City of Cape Town (CoCT) Heritage Resources Section. One objection was noted.

Certain concerns were discussed, and from a heritage point of view this was primarily in respect of the removal, or potential loss of trees along the street edge just outside the boundary of the site. The applicants informed that this aspect has been looked at, and that a tree management plan will be provided, and is recommended as a condition.

The Committee agreed that the development would not impact negatively on the identified PHS, nor the other identified heritage resources.

It was however noted that there was some difficulty in placing certain of the 3D sketches provided in the broader context. The applicants informed that there is a wider plan, which has not been issued as yet.

The Committee informed that the application should be updated, and new dimensioned plans should be submitted. These should include a wider contextual site plan and a key plan.

The application can be dealt with by HWC staff.

Draft


INTERIM COMMENT: The HIA report meets the requirements of section 38(3) of the NHRA. The Committee resolved to support the proposal in principle, subject to the requested additional drawings being submitted to HWC for approval. The application can be dealt with by HOMS.

AS 13.5 Proposed Demolition of Existing Buildings and Development of an Apartment Building at Erven 332, Re-335 & 336, Braemar Road, Green Point: NM HM/CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ GREEN POINT/ ERVEN 332, RE-335 & 336 Case No: 18032809ZK0510E Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by Bridget O' Donoghue dated 14 November 2018 was tabled. FUTHER REQUIREMENTS:

The Committee resolved to undertake a site inspection on Friday, 11 January 2019 at 10:00 (DS, CM, LLG, CSn and FV).

HB 13.6 Proposed Re-Development of Erven 143, 144, 145, 155,156,157,158,166,167,168,169,170, Rem 185, 4683 & 5957, Dennisig & Paul Kruger Streets, Stellenbosch: NM HM/ CAPE WINELANDS/STELLENBOSCH/ ERVEN 143, 144, 145, 155,156,157,158,166,167,168,169,170, Rem 185, 4683 & 5957 Case No: 18062502HB0627E Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by Cindy Postlethwayt dated November 2018 was tabled. FURTHER REQUIREMENTS:

The Committee resolved to undertake a site inspection on Monday, 14 January 2019 at 10:00 (DS, CM, LLG, CSn, LW and FV).

HB 13.7 Proposed Development, Erven 14990, 14991, 14992 and 14993, 9 - 11 Oxford Street, Woodstock: NM HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ WOODSTOCK/ ERVEN 14990, 14991, 14992 AND 14993 Case No: 18032001WD0320M CSn recused himself and left the room. FV was nominated to chair this item. Application documents were tabled. Ms Waseefa Dhansay gave a PowerPoint presentation.

Draft


Ms Juliet Harrison-Egan and Ms Marise Grobler were present and took part in the discussion.


The Committee commended the applicants on the quality of the contextual assessment and the design response.

The proposal is an exemplary case of sensitive densification, which respects the existing context.

The positive street façade, with parking behind, was considered an appropriate model.

RECORD OF DECISION

The HIA report satisfies the requirements of S.38(3) of the NHRA. The Committee resolved to approve the development proposal as per sketch plans dated September 2018 prepared by Urban Concepts. WD

13.8 Proposed Development of an Apartment Complex at Erven 141-142 & 163-165, Dennesig & Paul Kruger Road, Stellenbosch: NM HM/CAPE WINELNDS/STELENBOSCH/ERVEN 141-142 & 163-165 Case No: 18062708HB0629E Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by Cindy Postlethwayt dated November 2018 was tabled. FURTHER REQUIREMENTS:

The Committee resolved to undertake a site inspection on Monday, 14 January 2019 at 10:30 (DS, CM, LLG, CSn, LW and FV).

HB 13.9 Proposed Development, Erven 8504, 8505 and 8513, Woodstock: NM HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/WOODSTOCK/ ERVEN 8504, 8505 AND 8513 Case No: 16072505WD0810M Application documents by Bridget O’Donoghue were tabled. FURTHER REQUIREMENTS:

The Committee resolved to undertake a site inspection on Friday, 11 January 2019 at 12:00 (DS, CM, LLG, CSn, GT, LW and FV).

WD 14 SECTION 38(8) NEMA RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO DEVELOP 14.1 None

Draft


15 SECTION 38(8) NEMA INTERIM COMMENTS 15.1 Kirstenbosch Drive and Winchester Avenue, Re-Development of the Site for

Residential, Education and Public Open Space: NM HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ BISHOPS COURT/ ERVEN 212 AND 242 Case No: 17120718WD1208M IACom reported back on the site visit undertaken on 29 November 2018. A Site

Inspection Report prepared by CSn dated 2 December 2018 is attached (Annexure SI2).

Rev Cedric van Dieman, Mr Geoff Underwood, Ms Marielle Penwarden, Mr Tim Hart

and Mr Dave Child were present and took part in the discussion.


The applicants noted that the application was still in the public consultation phase.

The applicants acknowledged that the findings of the site inspection in respect of the inherent qualities of the site, are universally acknowledged by the consultant team.

In setting out argument in support of the proposed development as tabled, the applicants submission included:

An overview of the proposed business model: - It was submitted that a number of options were looked at, but this was the

only one which responded to various informants on a heritage and overall environmental and planning level, (including a landscape architect and arborist’s analysis), and would accommodate the returning claimant community of 86 families. It was also argued to be a sustainable model whereby surcharge levies by the property owners’ association will fund claimants for ongoing repairs, etc.

- It was submitted that the primary heritage resource in this instance, is the returning community itself, and that everything else is secondary to this, and that it should be borne in mind that what can be seen on site today is wholly resultant of a distressing history. Much of what exists today is furthermore a construct, and the sylvan landscape is a later construct, with the introduction of the site as an arboretum. The series of pools below the spring is a human-made landscape.

Rev. Van Dieman provided the Committee with background in respect of the formulation of the Community Property Association, as well as personal memories of the site prior to the Community being forcefully evicted, which served to highlight a strong, and indeed emotive, connection to the social history and remnant tangible heritage resources, such as the spring, and the cultural significance of the site.

Whilst the Committee indicated that it was fully supportive of the redress and restitution of the community to the land, (indeed the preamble of the NHRA specifically sets out that the Act aims to facilitate healing and material and symbolic restitution), there are several concerns that it had in respect of the proposal as tabled.

The Committee acknowledged the HIA as having provided a good historic and social background to the significance of the site, and agreed that the returning community was the primary heritage consideration. It furthermore supported in principle the overall grading of the site as IIIA and the spring as a PHS.

Draft


However, the Committee was concerned that the HIA has not provided a more in-depth assessment of the significance of the site as a highly significant cultural landscape. It has not mapped heritage resources, provided clear, site-specific informants, no-go zones or buffers. Neither has it, or the attendant VIA, provided for an adequate assessment of the impact of the proposed overall development on the significance of the site. There is furthermore simply not enough information provided in the HIA or attending documentation for the Committee to agree with the broader assertion provided in the HIA that as the primary concern is the return of the community to the site, all other heritage considerations should effectively be secondary. It was a strong recommendation of the Committee that the heritage practitioners must engage another professional to assist with a more meaningful assessment of the heritage resources pertaining to the site and its location within the overall cultural landscape, interrogate the various tangible layers that pertain to the site, and in doing so, provide more appropriate and spatialised design indicators as to how an appropriate development could respond to the very strong informants present on the site.

The HIA has also made no reference at all to previous studies conducted for the site, including a detailed analysis by Nisa Mammon and Associates.

The VIA noted that “to minimise visual dominance of rooflines, the building footprints should step forward and backward to further articulate the roofscape and thereby reducing the cumulative impact of buildings” (p59). This design consideration has not been complied with in the current layout.

The VIA also noted that ‘the underlying purpose must be to weave into the existing landscape pattern, rather than to displace it with a new pattern” (p59). However, as it stands, it appears as if the majority of the site is to be ‘wiped clean’, and, in the absence of any other supporting documentation informing to the contrary, have a new development layer, (noted by one member as being reminiscent of a 1950’s ‘planned neighbourhood’ ethos), superimposed onto the landscape, rather than being informed by, and weaving into the landscape.

Concerns relating to the above include, but are not limited to, the following: - The landscape plan, or tree survey, whilst appearing to be environmentally

based, has little heritage significance assigned to it. The contention that the sylvan landscape, which is such a dominant feature of the site, is only an ‘apartheid’ construct with the establishment of Erf 212 as an arboretum, is dismissed by the Committee, as an interrogation of the 1945 aerial photograph clearly shows the site as being historically heavily treed and the rural development dominated by trees. The HIA has failed to acknowledge this. It is a strong view of the Committee that the development layout should be informed by the heritage significance of the heritage resources, adequate buffers, the trees, and the attendant canopy.

- The proposed development appears to take little cognisance of the topography of the site.

- The HIA has not provided, or assessed any development alternatives, as is required by the provisions of s38(3) of the NHRA.

- As one example of the limitations of the HIA, the report has not meaningfully assessed either the tangible spatial or intangible social significance of the old sports/cricket ground, nor commented on the impact of the development on this area. To merely note as was done verbally, that “if the grounds were to be kept, then the development potential of the wider site is constrained, to the detriment of adequate provision of housing for the claimant community”, is not considered as being an adequate assessment of the development on significance.

Draft


- It is acknowledged that the spring is one of the most significant tangible heritage resources present on site, however the Committee is concerned that there is hardly any meaningful linkage between the spring and the area of the village to which the community is returning. Indeed, the area earmarked as open space along the spring and Liesbeek River appears to be hardly accessible to the public and is cut off from the claimant village.

- Likewise, whilst the HIA makes reference to the significance of the Church of the Good Shepherd, (and its attendant graveyard), to the community, there is also no meaningful linkage between this site and the claimant village.

- The Committee noted strong reservations in regard to the location and form of the proposed townhouse mews between Kirstenbosch Drive and the spring and series of pools. This area of the site had been identified in a previous study as a no-go area as it is located in a wetland.

- The applicants acknowledged that there are gaps in the information provided to HWC, particularly design informants and that this would be rectified.

INTERIM COMMENT: The Committee awaits the submission of an HIA that complies fully with the requirements of s38(3) of the Act, as well as all outstanding documentation. WD

16 SECTION 38(8) NEMA FINAL COMMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

ASSESSMENT

16.1 Farm 41 Boterberg Philadelphia Service Station, Philadelphia: MA HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ PHILADELPHIA/ FARM 41 BOTERBERG Case No: 15062211WD0624M Application documents were tabled. Ms Waseefa Dhansay gave a PowerPoint presentation.


The concerns raised by the heritage practitioner are noted and endorsed.

The Committee agrees that the proposed location, layout, nature and typology of the proposed service station and its attendant over-engineered road works required for access to the site, including a suburban traffic circle and a substantial retaining wall, will have a significant detrimental impact on the identified heritage resources, in particular, the intact rural cultural landscape, the farm werf and the scenic route.

The Committee does not support the service station proposal in its current form. FINAL COMMENT:

The HIA report satisfies the requirements of S.38(3) of the NHRA, however the Committee cannot support the proposed development in its current form.

WD

Draft


16.2 Pipelines Proposed For Farm 815/Re, Philippi: MA HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ PHILIPPI/ FARM 815 Case No: 18023002WD0607M Application documents were tabled. Ms Waseefa Dhansay gave a PowerPoint presentation.

Ms Janet Bodenstein and Mr David McGibbon were present and took part in the discussion.


The Committee noted that the HIA had been amended to take into account impacts that the Cape Flats Aquifer (CFA) project may have on the entire project relating to the Philippi Horticultural Area (PHA), and that the recommendations and indicators contained therein are generally sound.

The Committee agreed that the conditions, as imposed by the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) were sound and would ensure that the Philippi Aquifer would not be negatively impacted on, if adhered to. In this regard it was considered as vitally important that the monitoring committee must be established prior to any further work or extraction being undertaken.

Ms Bodenstein informed the IACom that the monitoring committee is in place and that a first meeting is to be held on 7th December 2018. An HWC representative will join the monitoring committee in January 2019.

FINAL COMMENT:

The Committee endorsed the HIA as having met the requirements of S.38(3) of the NHRA and resolved that this phase of the development may proceed subject to: 1. The monitoring committee, as per the DWS conditions, must be established prior

to any further work on the pipeline, or related infrastructure commence. 2. Given the heritage significance of the PHA, HWC must be included on the

monitoring committee of the CFA Project, and be kept updated of all progress going forward;

3. Because layout changes may occur, each aspect of the CFA Project must be presented to HWC via NID applications, so that it can be determined whether that aspect is in keeping with the general expectation for the CFA Project as set out and considered in the revised HIA, prepared by ASHA Consulting, dated 31st October 2018. It is noted that such future NID’s can be considered by HOMS, however should HOMS deem future proposals as contentious, or in its opinion will impact on the significance of the PHA, then such submissions must be referred to IACom.

4. In this instance, any future NIDs submitted must contain full and adequate description, and photographic or 3D montages of the proposal in its context, if applicable.

5. Dark-coloured permeable fencing and cages should be used as far as possible around the water treatment plants and boreholes in order to reduce visual contrast and intrusion in the landscape;

6. Appropriate edge treatment and planting should take place around (and within if possible) the treatment plants to reduce visual impacts and break up their overall form. A landscape architect should be consulted in this regard (this could be an internal CCT landscape architect) and the proposals approved by HWC prior to implementation; and

Draft


7. If any archaeological material, palaeontological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development then work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the heritage authorities and may require inspection by an archaeologist. Such heritage is the property of the state and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution.

WD 17 SECTION 38(8) MPA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN RESPONSES TO

NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO DEVELOP 17.1 None 18 SECTION 38(8) MPA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN INTERIM

COMMENT 18.1 None 19 SECTION 38(8) MPA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL

COMMENT

19.1 None

20 SECTION 38(8) OTHER LEGISLATION NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO DEVELOP

20.1 None

21 SECTION 38(8) OTHER LEGISLATION INTERIM COMMENT

21.1 None 22 SECTION 38(8) OTHER LEGISLATION FINAL COMMENT

22.1 None 23. SECTION 27 PROVINCIAL HERITAGE SITES 23.1 None 24 SECTION 42 – HERITAGE AGREEMENT

24.1 None

Draft


25. OTHER/ ADVICE 25.1 Proposed redevelopment of the Tygerberg Hospital Estate on Erf 15350

(Remainder of Erf 14298), Parow: MA HM/PAROW/TYGERBERG HOSPITAL PRECINCT REDEVELOPMENT Case No: 16060607AS0606M Letter from DTPW requesting clarity was tabled. Mr Andrew September gave a PowerPoint presentation. Ms Karin Dugmore-Ström was present and took part in the discussion. ADVICE

The Committee endorses the proposed plan of study as indicated in the letter from DTPW, and suggests that future engagement in respect of the nature of the memorialization project can be dealt with between DTPW and HOMS. Given the final decision in respect of the Tygerberg Hospital was taken by the HWC Appeals Committee, it is recommended that the Appeals Committee is notified of the process endorsed by IACom. AS

25.2 Proposed Demolition of the Collier Jetty Gantry, Clocktower Precinct, V&A

Waterfront: NM HM/V&A WATERFRONT/CLOCK TOWER PRECINCT Engineer’s Report and previous approvals were tabled. Mr Andrew September gave a PowerPoint presentation.

Dr Nicolas Baumann and Mr Neil Schwartz were present and took part in the discussion.


It was noted that the gantry structure is in imminent danger of complete structural failure, and in this regard the entire area has been cordoned off. This has also negatively impacted on the functioning of the fishing industry.

The Committee noted its concern in that it appears that in spite of previous concerns raised by HWC in 2011 about the commitment of the V&A in respect of maintenance, inadequate maintenance appears to have been carried out. This served to highlight the urgent need for a Conservation Management Plan and/or a Heritage Agreement being entered into between the V&AW Company and HWC in order to manage the heritage resources within the V&A holistically, and not in the ad-hoc and incremental manner, which appears to have been the norm until now.

The Committee observed that neither the Collier Jetty nor the V&A as a whole, is formally protected in terms of the provisions of the NHRA. As such, and given the immediate health and safety issues and impacts on the fishing industry, which is an important heritage factor, the Committee has little other option than to endorse the proposed demolition of the gantry. Noting however, that previous heritage

Draft


indicators endorsed in 2011 will still be applicable to any new development on the site.

The Committee notes that the submission to HWC was requesting advice only, and as such, the Committee cannot issue approval for the demolition as yet. This must be submitted to HWC and processed by HOMS as an s34 application.

ADVICE

The applicants must submit an s34 permit application to HWC for the proposed demolition of the Collier Jetty gantry.

AS 26 Adoption of decisions and resolutions 26.1 The Committee agreed to adopt the decisions and resolutions. 27. CLOSURE – 16:20 28. DATE OF NEXT MEETING: 16 January 2019 CHAIRPERSON____________________ DATE_____________ SECRETARY______________________ DATE_____________

Draft


Annexure SI1 Erf & Street: ERF 17300 AND 7205, CECILIA ROAD, PAARL.

File Number/s: HM\DRAKENSTEIN\PAARL\17300 &7205 Registered owner: STOKFIN TRUST Nature of Application: IACOM Site Inspection Date of site visit: 22nd November 2018 HWC Representative/s: Olwethu Dlova (HWC Official Secretariat), Chris Snelling, Ceciline Muller, & Lucian Le Grange (IACOM Members) Met on Site by: Mr. Johan Malherbe. Mr. Henry Aikman. Observers: Mr. Zwelibanzi Shiceka and Ms. Zenobia Ayford. Drakenstein Municipality. Reason for Site Inspection: Application for the proposed development Framework for the Farm La Concordia was tabled at the IACom meeting of 7th November 2018. The Committee resolved to undertake a site inspection prior to formal consideration of the application.

Understand the context in terms of the cultural landscape which the werf is in, as well as the significance and layout of the werf.

Findings and Discussion:

The members of the Committee noted that the core werf is generally intact, and is located in a pocket of Vineyards which are of significance, and contain 2 other historic werven, albeit the Western and Southern edges of this pocket are characterized by industrial development and the Paarl Mall, and is bounded by the Berg River to the East. The presence of the Boland, (Du Toit’s) Mountain Range to the East, and the Paarlberg to the West of the Site are noted as strong informants of the sites sense of place. The buildings on the werf include the homestead, Slave Lodge, Wagon House and Wine Cellar. All of the structures are largely intact, albeit it is noted that the Slave Lodge was remodeled in the 1990’s, and there are later unsympathetic additions which have been made to the Wagon House and Wine Cellar. The Homestead shows a turn of Victorian/Edwardian layer added to it evidence by the verandah addition. The buildings on the site are Provincial Heritage Sites. The site inspection included getting an understanding of the core werf itself, and the areas of the property surrounding the werf where areas of potential development have been earmarked. The only discussion allowed by the Chair, in respect of the application, was in regard to the process which will be followed relative to the Heritage Western Cape Process. It was noted

Draft


that the Site Development Plan submitted was in respect of a proposed school on the site, however it is noted that this is one of a range of options that will be explored, and that it will be heritage related considerations and informants that will dictate the nature of future development, rather than certain requirements of the Municipal Zoning scheme. The purpose of the current submission is to obtain HWC’s endorsement and or comment for development potential only as identified. Recommendations: It is recommended that the matter be referred to the next IACOM for consideration.

Report prepared by: Chris Snelling. Date: 23rd November 2018 Images: Figure 1: View to Homestead looking west. Figure 2: Slave Lodge.

Draft


Figure 3: Wagon House. North Facade with later cottage addition. Figure 4: Wagon House. South Façade Figure 5: Area to the North of the Wine Cellar

Draft


Figure 6: Area to the West of the Homestead.

Draft


Annexure SI2 Erf & Street: ERVEN 212 AND 242, BISHOPS COURT.

File Number/s: HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ BISHOPS COURT/ ERVEN 212

AND 242 Registered owner: City of Cape Town & Republic of South Africa (Protea Village Communal Property Association) Nature of Application: IACOM Site Inspection Date of site visit: 29th November 2018 HWC Representative/s: Olwethu Dlova (HWC Official Secretariat), Chris Snelling, Ceciline Muller, Siphiwo Mavumengwana, Dave Saunders, Frik Vermeulen & Lucien Le Grange (IACOM Members) Met on Site by: Not Applicable Observers: Not Applicable Reason for Site Inspection: Application for the re-development of the site for residential, educational and public open space was tabled at the IACom meeting of 7th November 2018. Given the exceedingly high significance of the site, both in terms of its socio-historic, and landscape significance, the Committee resolved to undertake a site inspection prior to formal consideration of the application, in order to experience first-hand, the sites qualities, and sense of place, as a heritage resource. Findings and Discussion: The site visit consisted of a walk-through of erf 212, from the Liesbeek River, through to the Spring and then eastwards along the path of the 3 pools. From there the route taken was across Kirstenbosch Drive to the eastern boundary of erf 242 and a general meander through the erf to its western boundary with the stone cottages, and from there to the portion of erf 212 which lies to the south of the Liesbeek and North of Protea Stream.

Apparent to the Committee was the strong sense of place evident in both erven, be it the tangible heritage significance of the overall sylvan character of the site, the spring and ponds, the Liesbeek River and streams, and continual presence of Table Mountain dominating the site, or the more intangible significance and memory of the displaced Protea Village community; occasional fragments of clay brick possibly relating to old chimney flue’s, rusted piping, the remnants of the old water pipe which fed Bishops Court, and the clearing on erf 212 which was noted in the HIA as being the site of the cricket field used by the Community. The Committee supports the contention that the site as a whole is worthy of a grading of at least Grade IIIA, possibly all a PHS, and that the spring and attendant water course, is certainly worthy of declaration as a PHS.

Draft


The significance of the site is attributed to both the historic associational significance with the displaced Protea Village Community as well as the site’s notable significance as a sylvan landscape. There was common agreement that any development of the site must respond to this significance, and that it is the mature trees, contours/topography, sense of place, etc. that should determine, and guide an appropriate development response. Recommendations: It is recommended that the matter be referred to the next IACOM for consideration.

Report prepared by: Chris Snelling. Date: 2nd December 2018 Sample Images: FIGURE 1: Kirstenbosch Drive looking East

FIGURE 2: Kirstenbosch Drive. Looking North West over

erf 242

FIGURE 3: Liesbeek River

FIGURE 4: Erf 212 between Liesbeek and Protea

Stream looking south

Draft


.

FIGURE 6: Spring and remnant well

FIGURE 7: Spring

FIGURE 8: Erf 212 Through clearing toward

Kirstenbosch Driive.

FIGURE 5: Kirstenbosch Drive looking West

Draft


FIGURE 9: Erf 212 Through clearing toward

Kirstenbosch Drive.

FIGURE 10: From Kirstenbosch Drive looking South.

FIGURE 11: Eastern edge erf 242; drainage

ditch

FIGURE 12: Southern Edge erf 242 looking

north west

Draft


FIGURE 13: Erf 242 FIGURE 14: ?

FIGURE 15: Erf 242; FIGURE 16: Erf 212 looking North over Liesbeek

Documents

Approved IAComMinutes 5 December 2018 1 · Ms Juliet Harrison-Egan (JH-E) Ms Marise Grobler (MG) Rev Cedric van Dieman (CvD) Mr Geoff Underwood (GU) Ms Marielle Penwarden (MP) Mr