APPROVED DECISIONS OF THE MEETING OF HERITAGE … · BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LANDSCAPE PERMIT COMMITTEE (BELCom) held on Wednesday, 26 September 2018 in the 1st Floor Boardroom at the

Approved BELCom Decisions_26 September 2018

1

APPROVED DECISIONS OF THE MEETING OF HERITAGE WESTERN CAPE, BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LANDSCAPE PERMIT COMMITTEE (BELCom)

held on Wednesday, 26 September 2018 in the 1st Floor Boardroom at the Offices of the Department of Cultural Affairs and Sport,

Protea Assurance Building, Green Market Square, Cape Town at 09:00

MATTERS DISCUSSED: 11. PROVINCIAL HERITAGE SITES: SECTION 27 PERMIT APPLICATIONS 11.1 Erf 4141, Corner of Victoria - Van Ryneveld and Crozier Streets, University of

Stellenbosch: MA HM/CAPE WINELANDS/STELLENBOSCH/ERF 4141

Case No: 18041012HB0412M FURTHER REQUIREMENTS: COURTYARD AND STAIR ENVIRONS Updated proposals are to be submitted to supplementary HOMS, given that the

Committee are in agreement with the position of the stair as motivated in terms of fire requirements.

Revised proposals are to incorporate design mitigation of the overwhelming scale of the new fire wall as follows: 1. Horizontal leading lines (in plaster, or other material treatment) picking up

horizontal design features, such as the level of the walkway, to be introduced to the face of the fire wall, to reduce visual impact of the over scaled fire wall.

2. Stair columns (i.e. columns supporting new stair) to culminate at top of slab with light weight balusters above.

RECORD OF DECISION REGARDING FIRE DOORS The Committee accepts the architect’s explanation of the position of the new fire

doors. The fire door position is approved. RECORD OF DECISION REGARDING LIFT The Committee accepts the architect’s explanation of the position of the new lift. The

lift position is approved, with the proviso that further large scale details showing the manner in which the new lift impacts minimally on heritage fabric are provided to supplementary HOMS.

HB 11.2 Proposed Restoration at Portion 9 of Farm 1576, Farm Augusta Kleinbosch,

Kleinbosch Road, Dal Josaphat, Paarl: MA HM/CAPE WINELANDS/DRAKENSTEIN/PAARL/ DAL JOSAPHAT/ FARM 709/1

Case No: 18080202HB0808M

FURTHER REQUIREMENTS Revised proposals are required to be submitted, as per the following points:

1. In order to inform the recovery of significance overall and to place the rehabilitation of the building in its context, spatial analysis of the werf around the building is required, including: a) Landscape indicators which inform design responses. b) A landscape rehabilitation plan indicating the materials and spaces is to be

provided.


2

2. Certain components of the material approach to restoration were supported with

the proviso that existing elements are appropriately translated into a new architectural language. Transition points between old and new need to be carefully detailed such that existing materials are not compromised or used as weight-bearing. The following design elements are supported in principle: a) Glass gable b) Reinzink roof - this can be successful as a roofing solution that is a

consciously new intervention, but the success of this will depend on careful detailing at eaves and ridge lines (the sketch level detailing as per the current proposals is not accepted and will need further development)

3. The following design elements and strategies were not supported/ not wholly

supported in principle, and the proposals must be accordingly amended (alternatives suggested in brackets, italicised): a) The theoretical heritage approach suggested, whereby the building is not

reconstructed, but treated as a ruin with contrasting elements inserted and interpreted to suggest the earlier form of the building needs further consideration. This type of approach has been applied successfully to buildings which are typically robust “ruins” of stone or hard brickwork (the applicant has provided illustrated precedent of this type). [This theoretical approach needs to be considered in light of the difference in material approach required when ruins are fragile (and friable), as is the case here, not robust, as per stone ruins. This site displays some elements of robustness but also a great deal of friability. Because of this friability, the theoretical approach must not be overbearing, in either material or architectural conceptual terms. Rather, the theoretical approach must be adapted to incorporate suitable approaches to repair, finding within the overall concept of repair a more nuanced manner of inserting contrasting elements].

b) Windows with images printed on glass, and protruding box-like from the façade. [The reason for this proposed window treatment not being supported is that taken all together as an intervention, along with all the other suggested contemporary elements, the window inserts proposed become a highly dominant element, overpowering the heritage resource itself both visually and materially. Alternative ways of providing new window and door inserts must be provided in revised design proposals, either (i) timber windows designed with moulding profiles that are clearly contemporary, and date stamped; or (ii) another contemporary interpretation strategy which allows the existing heritage qualities of the façades to be retained into the future.]

c) The use of cement on site is to be restricted to areas on site where it is absolutely necessary. [Specifications to be provided such that there is assurance provided that no OPC cement will be used on the site except where strictly required for contemporary structural inserts – these occasions must be shown explicitly. Mixes for lime mortars etc. to be provided]

d) The proposal has an unvarying conceptual approach to varied parts of the homestead and werf, rather than having a nuanced approach which recognises that the front façade has a special relationship to place making related to the werf and the “school” alongside.


3

[The conceptual approach must take into account the fact that the front façade treatment should differ from the way the rear area is treated conceptually in terms of proposed inserts and repairs.]

HB 11.3 Proposed Rezoning from Residential 1 to General Residential in order to

develop a Guest House on Erf 4784, Paarl: NM HM / PAARL / ERF 4784 Case No: 18080107SB0831E FURTHER REQUIREMENTS

The current design proposal is not supported as it does not sufficiently relate to building typologies and streetscape interfaces. The heritage practitioner is to provide a streetscape assessment which refers to long established (and from different periods) typologies for buildings, streetscape interfaces and landscaping along the Main Road in Paarl. This is to inform further the development of the design proposal. Reference to the Drakenstein Heritage Survey to inform assessment of these typologies is required.

The above is to be submitted to HOMS for circulation to the Committee, after which a site inspection to assess the streetscape will be arranged, prior to the revised / updated report and proposals being presented at a subsequent session of the Committee.

SB 11.4 Proposed Additions and Alteration at Portion 6 of Farm 1121, Farm Klein

Constantia, Klein Constantia Road, Constantia: NM HM/CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/CONSTANTIA/PTN 6 OF FARM 1121 Case No: 18080203HB0808E RECORD OF DECISION

1. Loft: The Committee does not support the use of the loft space for this type of accommodation, as the structural requirements, physical impact as well as visual clutter that result are inappropriate in this circumstance, due to the particularly high heritage significance of the werf space and its constituent buildings.

2. Ground floor: It is noted that proposed ground floor alterations excluding the new stair to the loft are supported in principle.

HB 11.5 Proposed Additions and Alterations to the Homestead, Remainder of Portion

12 of Farm 653, Vergenoegd Farm, Somerset West: MA HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ SOMERSET WEST/ RE OF PORTION 12 OF

THE VERGENOEGD FARM NO 653 Case No: 18080704WD0808E RECORD OF DECISIONS

1. Buttresses (alongside door from “Room K” – these are to be retained in toto. 2. The conversion of the WCs (altered c2001) shown as “L” is supported 3. Demolition of the kitchen (added by c2001 is supported


4

4. The repair / restoration of the pergola is supported 5. Door position (for the door leading from the room named “K”). The Committee

indicated a preference for the position as per the historic Elliot photograph, rather than constrained between the buttresses. (There should not be an attempt to force ‘symmetry’ onto this façade) which appears always to have been eccentric.

FURTHER REQUIREMENTS The current design solution for the room marked “K” on the plans is not supported by the Committee, and further design exploration and motivation is required, as follows: Alternative design solutions which further explore and motivate changes to “room K” in heritage terms can considered for approval. At least both of the following need to be presented to the Committee as possible solutions for consideration: 1. The current proposal shows retention of the “footprints” of walls only (i.e. the

possibility of the internal walls in question to be reduced to flush with timber flooring alongside, and suitably protected from foot traffic). This has not been sufficiently motivated in detail terms for the Committee to consider it fully. The committee noted that if this approach is followed, this would have implications for ceiling treatment which would need to be dealt with. There were also concerns about possible floor level discrepancies, along with a means for protecting the walls reduced to the floor level. It was suggested that if this approach is pursued that a plaque explaining the wall remnants at floor level would be required to ensure the retention of those into the future.

2. Retention of parts (nibs) of walls – it was noted that this make sense in terms of ceilings, and that this is most likely to be a better solution. The issues regarding ceilings and protection of thresholds (as above) also apply here.

WD 12 STRUCTURES OLDER THAN 60 YEARS: SECTION 34 PERMIT FOR TOTAL DEMOLITION 12.1 Proposed Total Demolition, Erf 56345, 17 Feldhausen Road, Claremont HM/CLAREMONT/ERF 56345 Case No: 17110810KR1108E

FURTHER REQUIREMENTS The Committee resolved to undertake a site inspection on Friday 19 October 2018 at

13:30 (DG, NI, MN and BM). The site visit is to assess the streetscape. WD 12.2 Proposed Total Demolition at Erf 290, 29 Ocean View Drive, Green Point: MA HM/CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ GREEN POINT/ ERF 290 Case No: 18071903HB0727E RECORD OF DECISION The committee resolved not to approve the application for demolition as it will result

in the loss of heritage resources: both the house in question, and its broader streetscape context have heritage significance. Demolition of 29 Ocean View Drive would have resulted in unacceptable depletion of heritage significance for both the site and its broader environs.


5

It was noted that the immediate context is composed of a grouping of double storey red-roofed buildings which together comprise conservation worthy heritage micro-precinct, notwithstanding the one building that is contrary to this context. Heritage features of this grouping of buildings include shared figure/ground relationships, site relationships as well as architectural characteristics including (for example) wall/ window/ balcony relationships.

HB 12.3 Proposed Total Demolition, Erf 659, 17 Hall Road, Sea Point: NM HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ SEA POINT/ ERF 659 Case No: 18080611WD0808E RECORD OF DECISIONS The Committee resolved to support the total demolition without any requirement for

any further heritage studies (it is noted that one member dissented regarding the issue of further heritage studies but did not oppose the total demolition).

WD 12.4 Proposed Total Demolition, Erf 67517, 29 Wellington Avenue, Wynberg: NM HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ WYNBERG/ ERF 67517 Case No: 1806112WD0907E

FURTHER REQUIREMENTS The Committee resolved to support the total demolition with the requirement for further heritage investigation that focuses on the house within its broader context. A heritage investigation (report) that considers context, and provides heritage design indicators to inform a possible proposal for a replacement building must be provided. (It is noted that one member dissented regarding the issue of the further heritage studies but did not oppose the total demolition). The heritage design indicators are to be provided by an architect with suitable heritage experience.

WD 12.5 Proposed Total Demolition at Rem Erf 14345, 14 Devonshire Road, Woodstock:

NM HM/CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ WOODSTOCK/ REM ERF 14345 Case No: 18290301HB0905E RECORD OF DECISIONS The Committee resolved to undertake a site inspection on 18 October 2018 at 14:30

(IS, MS and GW). HB


6

13. STRUCTURES OLDER THAN 60 YEARS: SECTION 34 PERMIT FOR PARTIAL DEMOLITION / ALTERATIONS 13.1 Proposed Partial Demolition, Addition, Restoration and Alteration to Farm

6/153, Hendrikse Street, Stellenbosch: MA HM/CAPE WINELANDS/STELLENBOSCH/FARM6/153 Case No: 16041911HB0511E / 17030314HB0307E RECORD OF DECISIONS

1. The committee resolved to approve the landscape indicators contained in the Old Bethlehem Landscape Statement and Indicators Report dated 4 May 2018 prepared by Square One Landscape Architects and landscape plan enclosed in Old Bethlehem, Landscape Design Proposal, dated September 2018 and as they accord with the rural character of the werf.

2. The committee resolved to approve the bathroom layout as shown on drawing no: S-4005 Rev C dated 14 September 2018. This proposal shows a small “pop out” from recently built walling, providing a design solution which fits subtly and neatly into its heritage context without causing any negative heritage impact.

3. The committee resolved to approve drawing nos: W-5703A, W-5703B and W-570C.

HB 13.2 Proposed Additions and Alterations, Erf 11245, 22 Cavendish Street,

Woodstock: MA HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ WOODSTOCK/ ERF 11245

Case No: 18050303WD0516E

RECORD OF DECISIONS 1. Dormer and roof configuration: The hipped roof-end solution as presented in the

current proposal is supported, provided that the dormer window is reduced in size and moved further away from street edge alongside.

2. Window issue: Retention of existing windows is supported. 3. Final drawings showing minor amendments as per 1) above are to be submitted

to HOMS for approval.

WD 13.3 Proposed Additions and Alterations at Erf 390, 34 Woodside Road,

Tamboerskloof: MA HM/CAPE METROPOLITAN/ TAMBOERSKLOOF/ERF 390 Case No: 17120413HB0221E RECORD OF DECISIONS The Committee resolved to approve the proposed additions and alterations as

presented as per drawing no. 02.100 C Rev G, dated 11 June 2018 prepared by Bernicchi Architects.

HB


7

13.4 Proposed Addition and Alteration at Erf 191, 119 Buitenkant Street, Gardens: MA

HM/CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ GARDENS/ ERF 191 Case No: 18080204HB0806E

FURTHER REQUIREMENT A revised proposal which keeps the roofscape of the house intact (and thus keeps the roofscape of the row of terrace houses intact) and explores other means of meeting the owners brief is required.

HB 13.5 Proposed Partial Demolition, Addition and Alteration at Erven 2455 & 2456, c/o

Joubert & Merriman Streets, Stellenbosch: MA HM/CAPE WINELNDS/STELLENBOSCH/ERVEN 2455 & 2456 Case No: 18080605HB0807E; 15030607GT0309M RECOMMENDED DECISIONS

1. The committee resolved not to support the demolition of either No. 38 or No. 40. A completely revised proposal which incorporates the two buildings is required. This revised proposal is to explore a roofing solution which is not contrary to context – the predominant use of flat roofing in the current proposal does not have a good fit within its locale.

2. The two buildings are to be suitably protected so that their heritage significance is not affected further by their unoccupied status. This protection to be put in place immediately.

3. This decision to be ratified by email.

HB

13.6 Proposed Alterations and Additions on Erf 88788, 20 Ley Road, St James: MA HM/CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ ST JAMES/ ERF 88788

Case No: 18031205ZK0319E RECORD OF DECISIONS The Committee resolved to approve the proposal which has met requirements

previously outlined. AS

13.7 Proposed Alterations and Additions, Erf 118437 Located on 41A Polo Road, Observatory: MA

HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ OBSERVATORY/ ERF 118437

Case No: 17082803ZK0803E

RECORD OF DECISIONS The Committee resolved to approve the heritage design indicators as outlined on pages 21 and 22 of the report. A two-phase application process whereby indicators are presented for approval ahead of a design proposal is to be done on the understanding that design is a reiterative process and the Committee may outline further, more nuanced requirements in terms of the indicators once the design is presented.

SB


8

13.8 Proposed Additions and Alterations at Erf 609, 27 Alexandra Avenue, Oranjezicht: MA

HM/ CAPE METROPOLITAN/ORANJEZICHT/ERF 609 Case No: 18030512HB0315E FURTHER REQUIREMENTS: The Committee noted their satisfaction that the heritage designer indicators have

largely been implemented successfully with the following requiring further attention: 1. Conservatory roof glazing: This height is to be lowered to below the lowest eave

line. 2. Eave treatment - flat eave interface with historic sprocketed eave requires careful

handling - detail required. 3. Rhythm of the vertical classical ordering in existing shade areas of existing

historic north façade to be reflected in the vertical and horizontal ordering of the glazing of the new east wing.

4. The boundary wall street forms part of a truly exceptional grouping of building/streetscape interfaces. The wall treatment indicated on drawings submitted is not approved on the understanding that it is “indicative” (heritage practitioner confirmed that it is indicative only) and further information will be provided. Site and building to be considered holistically with the progression from rustic to refine respected and enforced.

5. Landscape plan be submitted, including careful recording of existing walling etc. on site. It was noted that the stone walling on the site has rustic qualities that are important to the conceptual site/ house relationship, with the site being generally more refined and the house more rustic.

6. Revised submission to be submitted to BELCom. HB 13.9 Proposed Addition and Alteration at Erf 640, 14 Upper Orange Street,

Oranjezicht: MA HM/CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ORANJEZICHT/ ERF 640 Case No: 18060603HB0723E RECORD OF DECISION: The Committee resolved to approve the application with the proviso that revised

proposal with the boundary wall which does draw on contextual boundary making precedent is provided. The revised proposal to be submitted to HOMs for approval.

HB 13.10 Proposed Alterations and Additions, Erf 177196, 91 Plein Street, Cape Town

CBD” MA HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ CAPE TOWN CBD/ ERF 177196 Case No: 18032210WD0529E RECORD OF DECISION The Committee resolved to approve the application with the proviso that an architect

with suitable heritage experience is appointed to provide input on the way in which new doors are detailed and inserted into the existing façade. Particular attention should be given to resolving new detailing for the plaster quoined surrounds. The fins which divide the balcony into portions also need design attention and must not be


9

visually intrusive. The appointment is to extend to overseeing the implementation on site during construction.

WD 13.11 Proposed Additions and Alteration at Erf 27432, UCT Health Sciences Campus,

Observatory: NM HM/CAPE METROPOLITAN/OBSERVATORY/ERF 27432 Case No: 18032709HB0606E FURTHER REQUIREMENTS: The Committee noted that in general the heritage pointers from previous minutes

have been implemented successfully, with the following requiring further attention: 1. Proposed floor slabs must not touch the walls of the existing buildings. This is

both to avoid interference with existing stone walling and for conceptual clarity. Architect to decide on “gasket” dimensions for this interface: the Committee suggests approximately 400mm. The insertion is not to be structurally reliant on the existing building (must not be braced to the existing stone walling).

HB 13.12 Proposed Alterations and Additions on the Erf 1307, 3 Stephen Street,

Oranjezicht: NM HM/ORANJEZICHT/ERF 1307 Case No: 1806209SB0824E FURTHER REQUIREMENTS

Revised proposals are to be submitted further to the above, as the current design/application impacts negatively on heritage significance. These revised proposals must use 3D modelling to ensure that the house as an existing heritage resource is not overwhelmed by the scale and proportions of the additions, and that the detailing of the existing house is respected where the new proposal and the existing house meet each other. Revised proposals need to address the following: 1. The overall scale (size) and height of the proposed additions need to be reduced

so that the proposal does not overwhelm the existing house. It is suggested that some re-organising of the internal spaces proposed can assist with reducing the overall scale of the proposals.

2. Placement of the scullery needs to be re-considered – in its current position it is visually prominent.

3. It is problematic that the proposal is to clip off the back eave of the existing house – both because this can cause waterproofing problems, and because it is unsympathetic to the original design of the house. Instead of this clipping off of the eaves to allow the new proposed areas to link the old house, it is instead suggested that an architectural gasket (a linking area, probably under its own roof) is used to link the existing house to the proposed spaces.

4. Further to point c) above, if a “gasket” linking old and new is introduced, some form of lean-to roof over the proposal may be workable, but the flat roof as shown on the current proposal is not supported. It is suggested that alternative roofing solutions are explored.


10

5. The structural system proposed whereby a new structure straddles over the existing kitchen and dining room would cause maintenance problems in the long run and is therefore not supported as a reasonable solution for maintaining this house into the future. An alternative structural solution (removal of existing kitchen/ dining roof) is preferred.

SB 13.13 Proposed Alterations and Additions on Erf 48808, 18 Kings Street, Newlands:

NM HM/NEWLANDS/ERF 48808 Case No: 18052916AS0810E FURTHER REQUIREMENTS A revised proposal whereby the eaves height is reduced by 300mm minimum is

required. It is noted that a varied eaves datum line may assist with finessing the revised proposal.

AS 13.14 Proposed Additions and Alterations, Erf 165381, 21 Durban Road, Wynberg:

NM HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ WYNBERG/ ERF 165381 Case No: 18052909WD0903E FURTHER REQUIREMENTS The Committee resolved to undertake a site inspection on 19 October 2018 (DG, NI,

MN and BM) to understand that the spatial sequence of the interior and relationship of house to site and streetscape.

WD 13.15 Proposed Additions and Alterations, Erven 1252 and 1253, Wellington: NM HM/CAPE WINELANDS/DRAKENSTEIN / WELLINGTON/ ERVEN 1252 AND 1253 Case No: 17072531ZK0808E RECORD OF DECISION:

The Committee resolved to approve the application (drawing no NR 4253/2 dated 01 July 2018 Rev 1) as it has responded appropriately to previously outlined

requirements. AS 13.16 Proposed Additions, Alterations and Partial Demolition, Erf 68058, 4-6 Smithers

Road, Kenilworth: MA HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ KENILWORTH/ ERF 68058 Case No: 18053105WD0704E

FURTHER REQUIREMENTS:

A new proposal is required. The Committee does not support the demolition of the lean-to portions of the existing dwelling, as the negative impacts on the heritage


11

significance of house and site which result are substantial and unacceptable for a heritage resource of this quality. The Committee supports in principle the concept of further dwelling units for this site but not with each having its own separate roof (i.e. some can be attached) or with each its own vehicular access. The Committee is of the opinion that some of the smaller proposed units can well be accommodated within the existing main dwelling (i.e. careful partitioning the existing building into apartments). Parking that is organised such that a combined, landscaped parking courtyard (or courtyards) is accommodated within a greater suitable landscaping concept is encouraged. Use of this kind of combined parking strategy (as opposed to the double-garage-per-site model) can result in reducing negative impacts on the house/ site heritage relationships.

Heritage investigative work, which explores how this heritage site can be densified with minimal damage to heritage significance is required, considering impacts to significance of the existing house, as well as to the broader site (recognising symbiotic house/ site heritage significance). View corridors, relationships between indoor and outdoor spaces, and the house itself as a “three dimensional composition” (2-gabled, double-storied etc.) within its landscape all need to be considered as having heritage significance in and of themselves in an integrated heritage design process.

WD 13.17 Proposed Addition and Alteration at Erf 10250, 10 Beach Road, Woodstock: NM HM/CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ WOODSTOCK/ ERF 10250 Case No: 18082901HB0830E RECORD OF DECISIONS The Committee resolved to approve the application as it does not impact on the main

elevation and therefore does not measurably detract from heritage significance. HB 13.18 Proposed Addition and Alteration at Erf 1071, 27 Bergzicht, Malmesbury: MA HM/ WEST COAST / SWARTLAND / MALMESBURY/ ERF 1071 Case No: 18040605HB0409E

RECORD OF DECISIONS The Committee resolved to approve the application with the proviso that the pergola

is to be set back 500mm from the face of the north elevation. Revised proposals to be submitted to HOMs for approval.

HB 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


12

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 Advice - Way forward on conditions imposed on a permit, Erf 3032, Bo-Kaap HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ CAPE TOWN CBD/ ERF 3032 Case No: 18030611ZK0307E

FURTHER REQUIREMENTS The Committee advised the applicant to proceed with a public participation process. Thereafter, a formal application for the amendment of the third condition of the permit dated 14 May 2007 may be made to the HWC.

WD 20. OTHER MATTERS 20.1 None 21. NON-COMPLIANCE 21.1 None 22. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS

The Committee adopted all resolutions and decisions taken.

Documents

APPROVED DECISIONS OF THE MEETING OF HERITAGE … · BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LANDSCAPE PERMIT COMMITTEE (BELCom) held on Wednesday, 26 September 2018 in the 1st Floor Boardroom at the