[Article by Adri-Ann Peters of the People's Post]
RESIDENTS of Upper Woodstock are determined to preserve the architectural heritage of their area as they remain vehemently opposed to the demolition of one house they feel is a valuable asset to the neighborhood. The future of the sprawling white house, situated on the corner of Vine and Salisbury Roads in Upper Woodstock, now hangs in the balance as residents prepare themselves to convince the City of Cape Town to overrule the decision made by Heritage Western Cape (HWC) in 2007 to demolish the house.
The group of residents, who have gone as far as to rally support by drawing up an anti-demolition petition, are specifically opposed to the plan to develop a block of flats on the spacious corner plot. It is understood that development plans have been spear-headed by the owners of the property, the Bahá’ís of South Africa – a well-known independent religious organisation. Substantial portions of Ward 57, which include Woodstock, Salt River, Observatory, University and Walmer Estates, form part of a heritage protected area. This status implies that should residents or developers wish to construct or renovate on these protected sites, they are subject to strict and very specific building regulations and guidelines as pre-determined by council. In response to concerns raised by residents about the pending demolition in 2007, Stephen Townsend, chief executive officer for HWC, revealed in written correspondence that the demolition application was consi¬dered by a permit committee on two separate occasions. In the e-mail People’s Post has in its possession, Townsend confirms it was decided that the house did not have enough historical or cultural significance to be placed on the heri¬tage register.
Emil Gertz, a Vine Road resident, says he would rather see a house of solid structure and character remain, than to lose it forever – especially if this decision will allow for the construction of a block of flats.
“There are so many issues around this case that are causing alarm, one being the negative impact more flats will have on the area. In the past we’ve had problems with tenants in other blocks. “Generally it is important that we maintain a balance; we don’t want the area to become a flat land.” Andrew Porter, another resident, says he is particularly concerned about the added strain the development will have on traffic congestion. “On the whole that part of Woodstock is already so highly developed with blocks of flats. If they were planning to demolish a slum and put up a block of flats, it would be a different thing all together.
“But as it stands, this development will only damage the image of the area.”
Teun Baartman, chairperson of the Upper Woodstock Residents’ Association (UWRA), confirms the association’s aesthetics committee was never consulted around the time HWC gave permission to have the house demolished. “They told us at the time we had not been registered as interested parties. Although they might have a point based on a technicality, it is still not right, because HWC knew we were operational in the area. “This time we will support residents’ efforts.” Similarly Cedric Thomas, ward councillor for the area, strongly lashes out in opposition to the heritage agency.
He suggests the HWC often acted “carelessly” when considering the fate of sites that are of historical significance to the area. “This is not acceptable, because the HWC received a list of contact details for ward councillors so we at least can offer input when important decisions must be made.
It seems they never make the effort to contact me; they are a law unto themselves.” Furthermore, Thomas confirms that while no formal building plans for the proposed new development have been submitted to council yet, the city retains the right to have the final say about the ultimate fate of the building.
“The city has the right to overrule any decision to demolish a building that has been made by the HWC, and council’s approach will definitely have greater public participation involved.”
To: hwc@pgwc.gov.za
Subject: Attn. Dr Townsend: A house of integrity
Dear Dr Townsend,
Take a house built in the mid-1930s, still standing today in a residential area. It has its original double columns and front stoep, teak windows with casement tops, balustrading and bay windows. It’s modest, but it’s of its time and it has integrity. The style of its exterior has not been altered for some 70 years. Most of all, it has an architectural character that fits its neighbourhood because there are a significant number of other houses like it. Yet this is a house that in your wisdom you have decided is ‘of no historical or cultural significance’. I am writing about 2 Vine Road, Upper Woodstock and you have approved a permit for it to be demolished.
Is this the fate we can expect for all other houses of this type around Cape Town, since by implication they too have no significance? Is a suburb’s architectural character of no matter to heritage? How can you, the CEO of Heritage Western Cape, take this excellent example of its style out of context and so dismissively relegate it to the rubble heap? And what of the Act that is supposed to protect buildings older than 60 years? Are we to assume that this holds no significance too? Where is your integrity?
I would welcome an exercise in public participation over this matter in which the public could convey to you what heritage means to them.
Yours,
Sandy Shepherd
Latest news on the Vine Road property (May 2008):
During the month of April 2008 UWRA followed up the issue of the Vine Road property (described below in the People’s Post article) on behalf of the residents in the immediate area with the Ward Councillor and council officials. Thanks to Ward Councillor, Cedric Thomas, we received the first clear answer from council officials: Heritage Western Cape approval to demolish does not constitute approval to demolish a building. It only confirms that they do not have an objection to the building being demolished from their point of view and that there are no reasons in their opinion why the building needs to be preserved in terms of the relevant Heritage Legislation. They only provide the Local Authority with input from a Heritage conservation point of view. They are not the controlling authority who issues Demolition Permits in terms of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act, Act 103 of 1977, as amended; the Local Authority is.
The owner or developer of the building still needs to apply for a permit from the Local Authority (City of Cape Town) to demolish the property if he wishes to do so. Demolition of a building without obtaining approval in writing from the Local Authority is a serious offence. The owner of the Vine Road house will be made aware of this by the City of Cape Town.
UWRA and the residents in the vicinity of the property are very happy with this response. UWRA is sure that, should an application to demolish come in, they are going to be informed of that and can take the appropriate action.