MINUTES OF MEETING - westerncape.gov.za · natural ground (unless provision has been made (e.g. within a coffered slab) for adequate root space, or if the trees are planted in very

Approved BELCom Minutes_22 November 2017

1

APPROVED MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF HERITAGE WESTERN CAPE,

BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LANDSCAPE PERMIT COMMITTEE (BELCom) Held on Wednesday, 22 November 2017 in the 1st Floor Boardroom at the

Offices of the Department of Cultural Affairs and Sport, Protea Assurance Building, Greenmarket Square, Cape Town at 09:00

1. Opening and Welcome

The members present nominated Ms Janine de Waal as the Acting Chairperson who officially opened the meeting at 09:10 and welcomed everyone present. Ms Karin Dugmore Ström resumed her position as the Chairperson at 9.20 took over at Item 5.

2. Attendance

Members Members of Staff Ms Karin Dugmore Ström (KDS) Mr Mxolisi Dlamuka (MD) Ms Janine de Waal (JdW) Ms Colette Scheermeyer (CSc)

Mr Mike Scurr (MS) Mr Zwelibanzi Shiceka (ZS) Mr Peter Büttgens (PB) Ms Penelope Meyer (PMe) Ms Belinda Mutti (BM) Ms Katherine Robinson (KR) Mr Graham Jacobs (GJ) Mr Andrew September (AS) Ms Waseefa Dhansay (WD) Mr Zethembe Khuluse (ZK) Mr Olwethu Dlova (OD) Ms Phindiwe Muncu (PMu) Ms Aneeqah Brown (AB)

Visitors Ms Anja Lareman (AL) Mr Johan Malherbe (JM) Mr Clive Theunissen (CT) Mr Fabien Trzebiatowski (FT) Mr Arn Erasmus (AE) Mr Andre Pentz (AP) Mr Petrus Erasmus (PE) Mr David Ludditt (DL) Mr Andrew Berman (AB) Mr John Rennie (JR) Mr Guy Thomas (GT) Mr Edward Black (EB) Ms Belinka Unger (BU) Prof Jos Hille (JH) Mr Stephen Brand (SB) Mr Geoff Heathcote-Marks (GH-M) Ms Bridget O'Donoghue (BOD) Mr Jacques Retief (JR) Mr Ernst Roodt (ER) Mr Jonathan Green (JG) Mr Leon Saven (LS) Ms Ursula Rigby (UR) Mr Stuart Collins (SC) Ms Lize Malan (LM) Mr Wesley Graham (WG) Ms Elizabeth Sinovich (ES) Mr Johan Cornelius (JC) Observers None

Absent None

3. Apologies

Mr Gaarith Williams (GW)

Mr David Gibbs (DG)

Ms Heidi Boise (HB)


2

4. Approval of Agenda 4.1 Dated 22 November 2017

The Committee approved the agenda dated 22 November 2017 with additional items.

5 Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting 5.1 Dated 25 October 2017

The Committee approved the minutes dated 25 October 2017 with minor corrections. 5.2 Dated 31 October 2017

The Committee approved the minutes dated 31 October 2017 with minor corrections. 6. Disclosure of Interest

MS: item 11.4.

KDS: item 13.14.

7. Confidential Matters

7.1 None 8. Administrative Matters

8.1 Outcome of the Appeals and Tribunal Committees PM reported back on the outcomes of the following Appeals matters:

Proposed Total Demolition of the Maitland Swimming Pool, Erf 174308, 21A Royal Road, Maitland: Section 34

Proposed Total Demolition of structure on Erf 1357, 31 High Level Road, Green Point: Section 34

Proposed Total Demolition, Erf 97471, 4 Lemon Lane, Newlands: Section 34

Proposed Total Demolition, Erf 518, 3 Central Drive, Camps Bay: Section 34

Proposed Total Demolition, Erf 95029, Lady Hamilton Hotel, Weltevreden Street, Gardens: Section 34

PM

8.2 Report back on Stop Works Orders and Charges PM reported back on the following stop works orders:

The Cubana, Drostdy Building, Stellenbosch

Old Bethlehem Farm, Kylemore, Stellenbosch PM/HB 8.3 Formal Protection of Buildings refused for Demolition Nothing to report. PM


3

8.4 City Hall, Mandela Statue A letter of motivation from the CoCT for the exemption of the public participation process was tabled. Among other things, the following points were discussed:

Further public participation is not required. The extensive public participation to date has already addressed the essential Section 27 requirements.

The Committee requires further information on the impact of: a) The position of the installation/ statue. b) Materials to be used (this to be described in detail – including issues like

variations in materials or surface treatments, whether the statue is solid/hollow, etc.).

c) Size, weight. d) Fastenings (including allowance for flexibility in positioning statue). e) Any plaques or interpretive material related to the statue.

The information a) to e) to be put before the Committee for input after award of tender and before the finalization of the specification so that the Committee can make a meaningful contribution.

WD 8.5 Erf 25447, 200 Lower Main Road, Observatory ZS gave a PowerPoint presentation. The Committee checked the applicants drawing no 16010/4.1-A-1 Revision 02,

16010/4.1-A-2 Revision 02, 16010/4.1-A-3 Revision 01, 16010/4.1-A-4 Revision 03 dated 9 August 2017 and noted that the requirement that the vehicular entrance be maximum 3m wide has been complied with. The Committee resolved to approve the application. Copy of drawing to be emailed to Committee members for their records.

HB 8.6 Erf 196, Harlea Court, 38 Breda Street, Oranjezicht

The Committee decided to proceed with hearing this item at item 13.10 on this agenda. CIBRA had been contacted by the applicant using the email address current at the date of notification.

KR

9. Standing Items 9.1 Site Inspections

The following site inspections undertaken by members and staff were noted:

Proposed Total Demolition at Remainder Erf 26014, Chippies 75 Milton Road, Observatory

Proposed Total Demolition at 43, 116 Upper-Harrington Street, Gardens

Proposed Additions and Alterations to the existing Pioneer Outbuilding and a New Garage on the PHS, Farm 709-1, Landskroon Farm, Agter-Paarl

Proposed Additions and Alterations at Farm 501/20, Mooikelder, Main Road, Northern-Paarl


4

Proposed Alterations and Additions to Outbuilding on Farm Rondeberg 1116, Yzerfontein

Refurbishment of the Auditorium, allied spaces and services - Erf 4942, City Hall, Cape Town

10. Appointments 10.1 None MATTERS DISCUSSED 11 PROVINCIAL HERITAGE SITES: SECTION 27 PERMIT APPLICATIONS 11.1 Proposed Restoration and Alteration on Farm 579, Farm Druk My Niet, Bodal

Road, Paarl: MA HM/CAPE WINELNDS/DRAKENSTEIN/PAARL/FARM 579 Case No: 17050204HB0503M A revised design proposal, prepared by Malherbe Rust Architects dated September

2017 was tabled. Ms Anja Lareman, Mr Johan Malherbe and Mr Clive Theunissen were present and

took part in the discussion. Among other things, the following points were discussed:

The Committee supports a conservation approach for the building where the base of the existing building (up to wall plate height) and the gable ends are carefully retained and repaired with reconstructed insertions, whereas the roofs are reinterpreted.

The Committee supports the proposal in principle. Window detailing (as shown) which differs subtly from the pre-existing windows is supported. Windows to be dated in inconspicuous places.

FURTHER REQUIREMENTS

1. Viewing panel that shows the historic river stone flooring below the present floor level is to be provided. River stone floor to be separated from new concrete by a blinding layer.

2. Walls to be plastered and finished to emphasise the historic rustic quality and thereby act as historic counterpoint to the new roof.

3. Interim reporting of construction works, which records i) the plastering and ii) joinery insertions, to be submitted to HOMS within one week of completion of those parts of the construction works (depending on timing of the contract, either one or two reports to be submitted).

4. The revised proposal incorporating comments at 1, 2 and 3 (above) to be circulated via Drakenstein Municipality Heritage subsection to municipal I&AP’s. Unless substantial comment is forthcoming these revised submissions can then be submitted to HOMS for approval.

HB


5

11.2 Proposed Additions and Alterations to the existing Pioneer Outbuilding and a New Garage on the PHS, Farm 709-1, Landskroon Farm, Agter-Paarl: MA HM/CAPE WINELANDS/DRAKENSTEIN/PAARL/FARM 709/1

Case No: 17091408KR1004E GJ and JdW reported back on the site inspection. Mr Johan Malherbe was present and took part in the discussion. Among other things, the following points were discussed:

The site is PHS.

Drakenstein Municipality support the proposal in principle but have concerns. DHF and Paarl 300 did not comment within the 30 day commenting period.

The Committee supports the application in principle with certain amendments required.


1. The existing building has not been accurately documented and does not describe the varied qualities of the vernacular building fabric. Variations in walling contribute significantly to the character of the space and must be illustrated. A detailed set of measured drawings, that record all the nuances of the built fabric, must be provided. These measured drawings must form the basis of the drawings used to represent alteration works.

2. The existing river stone columns should either be left as-is or replaced with slimmer columns in an alternative material, e.g. plastered masonry or timber. Introducing slimmer river stone columns to match the 1940’s stone columns on the outbuilding beyond the homestead is considered historically misleading.

3. Detail is required in terms of how existing internal openings, in walls with a thicker base, will be closed up to ensure legibility of the building fabric.

4. A landscape plan is required identifying all trees in the affected area, and distinguishing between trees to be retained, trees to be removed and new trees. The underlying purpose of this landscape plan must be to ensure that the well- treed character of the werf is not diminished.

5. Steel windows are to be retained and recognized as part of the historical layering of the building in this instance. Similarly, the existing timber doors with their small-pane upper lights are to be retained. Although these doors are not older than 60 years, they are nonetheless a historic layer that in this instance contributes to the character of a PHS.

6. Amendments to the base measured drawings to ensure full accuracy including steps in walls, variations in wall thicknesses and positions of door openings.

7. The information contained in the landscape plan referred to in 4. must be sufficient to ensure that the proposed new set-back garage will be effectively screened from the subject structure and restricted to having a very low-key visual impact on the arrival area between the subject structure and the homestead.

KR


6

11.3 Proposed Alteration and Additions to Erf 5357, C/O Alexander and Bird Streets, Stellenbosch: MA HM/ CAPE WINELANDS / STELLENBOSCH /ERF 5357

Case No: 16090506HB0907M; 17072523HB0926M Revised proposal Revision M, prepared by DHK dated 1st November 2017 was

tabled. Mr Andre Pentz, Mr Petrus Erasmus, Mr David Ludditt were present and took part in

the discussions Among other things, the following points were discussed:

The landscape comments will be forthcoming from the Committee by 01 December 2017.

Upon enquiry the applicant confirmed that all building works at the Old Drostdy Building have ceased. A separate HWC application must be submitted.

The following points were raised with regard to the landscape plans: a) These plans indicate existing and proposed trees, as well as trees to be

removed. The Landscape plans seem diagrammatic at this (site development plan) stage, and require further information in accordance with points 2-7 below.

b) The additional street tree planting is commendable, however it is unclear (from the drawings) why the two existing trees in Alexander Street are to be removed and replaced with new trees in almost the same positions (slightly close to the building) Proposed planting-out size should be indicated (e.g. Quercus nigra, 500L, 4m height/ 2,5m canopy, etc.) .

c) Although the landscape plan makes reference to ‘special courtyard paving with historic feel’ this is vague, giving no clear indication of paving typology suggested. (e.g. laterite gravel, natural stone cobbles, crushed aggregate, etc.) This point needs to be clarified with a detailed layout and specification

d) Tree planting around the pool deck does not seem viable given that this is not on natural ground (unless provision has been made (e.g. within a coffered slab) for adequate root space, or if the trees are planted in very large containers. A detailed section through this space is required to clarify the intention.

e) Proposed paving of the sidewalk should be indicated. The landscape plan is to be amended accordingly.

f) A tree planting detail (showing tree pit, staking, and proposed tree size) is required.

g) As per standard practice for a Landscape SDP, a suggested shrub and groundcover species list and area calculation is required. The landscape plan must also include approximate planting densities and quantities, and indicate areas of proposed paving (material, bond pattern, if applicable) as ‘hard landscaping’ on the plans

RECORD OF DECISION The Committee resolved to approve the application in principle. Amendments and

additional information as required in Points a-g are to be submitted to HOMS for final approval.

HB


7

11.4 Refurbishment of the Auditorium, Allied Spaces and Services - Erf 4942, City Hall, Cape Town: MA HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ CAPE TOWN CBD/ ERF 4942

Case No: 17103111WD1101M MS recused himself and left the room. A report back from site inspection conducted on 6 November 2017 was tabled. Mr Andrew Berman, Mr John Rennie and Mr Andre Pentz were present and took part

in the discussion. Among other things, the following points were discussed:

The backstage area of the City Hall is woefully inadequate for any events and as the principal metropolitan concert hall venue. The inappropriate conductor’s suite addition to the rear provides the most feasible area where a properly designed addition could be placed to rectify the lack of suitable back stage facilities such as a proper “green room”, performers change rooms, etc. This would ensure that the City Hall auditorium can accommodate world-class events to the benefit of both the performers and audience. Placing the air reticulation machinery on the roof of this inappropriate structure perpetuates the present unsatisfactory back-stage conditions for a great number of years. Improving one aspect of the auditorium’s many challenges to the detriment of others might jeopardise the usefulness of the building.

Nonetheless, the Committee resolved to approve the air conditioning installation as shown on the drawings, including 3D graphics, but the cladding and façade treatment of the air conditioning unit and conductor suites will be subject to further assessment by the Committee after design development.


Proposed planning of the conductor suites incorporating the better functioning of backstage requirements in general must be submitted to the Committee before approval of either façade treatment options.

RECORD OF DECISION

The Committee resolved to approve the air conditioning installation. An architect with suitable heritage experience to the approval of HWC is required to closely monitor the installation of all air conditioning components. A close out report detailing the contract progress and finalisation is to be submitted to HWC within 21 days of practical completion.

WD


8

11.5 Consent Use for a Guest House and Tourist Facility, Portion 19 of Farm 830 Knorhoek, Sir Lowry's Pass: NM

HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ SIR LOWRY'S PASS/ PORTION 19 OF FARM 830 KNORHOEK

Case No: 17102607WD1101M Application documents were tabled. Ms Waseefa Dhansay gave a PowerPoint presentation. Among other things, the following points were discussed:

The site is a PHS.

The site is located outside an HPOZ.

CoCT supports the application. Helderberg Renaissance Foundation does not support the application.

RECORD OF DECISION The Committee resolved to approve the proposed consent use as this will not impact

negatively on heritage significance. WD 12 STRUCTURES OLDER THAN 60 YEARS: SECTION 34 PERMIT FOR TOTAL

DEMOLITION 12.1 Proposed Total Demolition, Erf 1487, 15 Davenport Road, Vredehoek: MA HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ VREDEHOEK / ERF 1487 Case No: 16031526WD0413E Revised plans were tabled. Ms Waseefa Dhansay gave a PowerPoint presentation. Mr Fabien Trzebiatowski, Mr Guy Thomas and Mr Edward Black were present and


CIBRA and Greater Vredehoek Heritage Action Group (GVHAG) provided input. GVHAG expressed certain concerns relating to scale, roof terraces and street interface. The Committee expressed concerns regarding street interface landscaping, height and permeability of street boundary treatment and the size of signage.

Concern was also expressed regarding the insufficient width of the roof terrace planters and proposed screens.

RECORD OF DECISION

1. The Committee resolved to approve the proposals as not impacting negatively on the surrounding context but with the following conditions related to the discussion points above: I. Amendments addressing the concerns relating to street interface as

discussed above are to be prepared. II. Amendments addressing the concerns regarding the width of planting and

removing the currently proposed screens are to be prepared, the purpose


9

among others being to indicate convincingly that the proposed roof terrace will not read as a de facto additional storey.

2. Revised proposals to be submitted to HOMS for approval.

WD 12.2 Proposed Total Demolition at 43, 116 Upper-Harrington Street, Gardens: MA HM/ CAPE METROPOLITAN/OBSERVATORY/RE-ERF 26014 Case No: 17090508HB1003M Heritage Statement prepared by Mr Johan Cornelius, dated 31 July 2017 was tabled. Ms Belinka Unger and Mr Johan Cornelius were present and took part in the

discussion. Among other things, the following points were discussed:

The applicant expressed concern that the Committee had not viewed the interior.

RECORD OF DECISION The Committee resolved to undertake an interior site inspection (GJ, PB, KDS and

MS, went 28 November 2017). (The exterior and streetscape were viewed on 6 November 2017)

HB 12.3 Proposed Total Demolition at Remainder Erf 26014, Chippies 75 Milton Road,

Observatory: MA HM/ CAPE METROPOLITAN/OBSERVATORY/RE-ERF 26014

Case No: 17090508HB1003M Report back on the site inspection. JdW reported back on the site inspection. Mr Johan Cornelius was present and took part in the discussion. Among other things, the following points were discussed:

The site is graded IIIC by CoCT.

The site is inside a proposed HPO.

The CoCT does not support the application. I&AP’s objected to the proposal. The OCA does not support the proposal.

The future redevelopment around the site cannot be discussed or assessed at this point.

The building is located on a corner, with a wraparound colonnade and balcony along Main Road, terminating on Milton Road.

New colonnades of this type along a street edge cannot be approved in terms of City regulations (repair of existing only is allowed). It is therefore important to retain the existing columns and their configuration as important historic streetscape features. This is feature is rare in this area of Main Road, however it is complemented by other buildings with cantilever roofs over the pedestrian walkways/pavements and other smaller balconies.


10

RECORD OF DECISION The Committee resolved not to approve the application for total demolition as the

building has both intrinsic and contextual heritage significance. The gateway and landmark qualities of the site are of great significance both to Observatory and as an urban marker on the Main Road.

HB 12.4 Proposed Total Demolition of Structure and Future Design Proposal on Erf

1464, 17 Florida Road, Vredehoek: MA HM/CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/VREDEHOEK/ERF 1464 Case No: 16121404KR1215E Application documents, CoCT comment, CIBRA comments, future design proposals

prepared by Bernicchi Architect were tabled. Ms Katherine Robinson gave a PowerPoint presentation. Prof Jos Hille, Mr Stephen Brand and Mr Geoff Heathcote-Marks were present and


The CoCT graded the site as IIIC.

The site is located in a proposed HPO.

The CoCT neither supports nor objects to the proposed application.

CIBRA supports the demolition and the future proposal.

GVHAG oppose this demolition in principle as it would be further loss of residential houses of a particular period in the area." Prof. Jos Hille noted that he is an adjacent property owner. He raised concerns with the public participation process, and noted that the new proposal is at variance with his own home’s architectural style.

Concerns about height, particularly related to rooftop

Concern that no overall height is confirmed for planter top in the proposal drawings.

RECORD OF DECISION The Committee resolved to approve the application subject to the following

suspensive conditions with regard to the replacement building proposal: 1. The roof terrace may have no shading devices, vertical support for shading

devices, screens, pergolas, etc. Thus the overall height to be lowered. 2. The roof terrace may have no pools or jacuzzis that raise the internal wall height

of the planter above the required safety height. The external wall of the planter must be kept to a minimum, allowing the sufficient soil depth (500mm max).

3. The planting feasibility needs to be confirmed by a landscape architect. 4. The overall heights of the development need to be established and approved by

this Committee. Likewise, the street section must be correctly represented in the amended submission drawings.

KR


11

12.5 Proposed Total Demolition on Erf 813, 40 Avenue Fresnaye, Fresnaye: NM HM/FRESNAYE/ERF 813 Case No: 17103017AS1101M A permit application and addendum was tabled. Mr Johan Cornelius was present and took part in the discussion. RECORD OF DECISION The Committee resolved to undertake a site inspection on Monday, 4 December

2017 at 13:00. (MS, PB, KDS and JdW). AS 13 STRUCTURES OLDER THAN 60 YEARS: SECTION 34 PERMIT FOR PARTIAL

DEMOLITION/ALTERATIONS 13.1 Restoration and Additional Conservatory Floor Added at Roof Level on Erven

1389 & 1390, Queen's Hotel, 2 Dock Road, Cape Town: MA HM/CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/CAPE TOWN/ERVEN 1389 &1390

Case No: 17060516KR0609E

Heritage Statement, prepared by Bridget O'Donoghue dated May 2017, City heritage comments and drawings prepared by Leon Saven Design (490DRJ_LAD.1000 - Dock Road Junction Site plan_Rev A; 490DRJ_LAD.1001 - Proposed basement and ground floor plan_Rev A; 490DRJ_LAD.1003 - Proposed third and fourth floor plans_Rev A; 490DRJ_LAD.2001 - Queens Hotel Section_Rev A; 490DRJ_LAD.2002 - Queens Hotel Section_Rev A; 490DRJ_LAD.2003 - Queens Hotel Section_Rev A; 490DRJ_LAD.3001 - Queens Elevations_Rev A; 490DRJ_LAD.4001_Queens Hotel Corner View_Rev A; 16024-QB 01 sheet 02 P00 new (31.10.2017) & 16024-QB-01 sheet 01 P00 new (31.10.2017) were tabled.

Ms Katherine Robinson gave a PowerPoint presentation. Ms Bridget O'Donoghue, Mr Jacques Retief, Mr Ernst Roodt, Mr Jonathan

Green and Mr Leon Saven were present and took part in the discussions. Among other things, the following points were discussed:

The site is grade IIIB.

The CoCT and I&AP did not comment on the revised proposals.

Regarding the proposed alterations to the existing building: i) The Committee agreed that the design proposal for basement, ground floor

and first floor levels (plan dwgs dated 27-10-2017, and sectional dwgs dated 2017-11-01) indicate conceptually adequate levels of retention of authentic original building fabric for heritage integrity to be retained. Conceptual thinking around heritage integrity will need to be sustained during detail design (the heritage statement provides commitment to retention of various historic components – these commitments must be followed through).

ii) The structural concept as proposed (Henry Fagan & Partners Structural Engineers, Dwg QB-01, Sheets 01&02, both rev P00- dated Oct 2017) which


12

allows more of the existing building fabric to remain than was shown in previous design proposals is accepted by the committee.

iii) The applicant enquired whether it would be possible for HWC to review in sequence a phased submission for this project, such that: a) Firstly, a proposal showing only the alterations to the existing structure

(without the addition of 2nd, 3rd and 4th stories/levels, and retaining the existing roof) would be submitted and

b) Secondly, a proposal showing alterations from existing roof level up, with the additions at 2nd, 3rd and 4th stories/levels.

c) It is noted that the applicant must use consistently on drawings the nomenclature “stories” on plan and sectional drawings, as per current CoCT MPB requirement.

d) The Committee agreed that this would be acceptable, and that should the applicant choose to proceed in this manner, that the proposal for a) could be approved by HOMS, provided it does not deviate from the current proposals for ground floor and first floor.

e) The applicant will inform the case officer about the decision whether or not to phase the application as above.

Regarding the proposed additions above the existing building: i) Proposed new programmatic uses of space, and related planning, are

supported. ii) The 3D renderings show a design in “block form” which the committee feels

has potential, but still requires much further conceptual and detailed design resolution.

iii) The vertical and horizontal setting back of the proposed new additions is supported in principle. However, it is noted that the setback dimensions to the face of the existing building have not been adequately dimensioned by the applicant in the current proposal.

iv) The use of exposed columns (pilotis) at the second story level, such that the second storey acts as a “gasket” element between existing and new architecture is supported, but requires further design attention.

v) The fenestration of the main planes of the proposed new panelled façade treatments picks up on the leading lines and proportions of the existing building. Given that the finishing treatment of the new panelled upper levels is a contrast from the existing decoratively plastered existing building, picking up the existing fenestration rhythm is an effective element of continuity between old/new but require further design and detail resolution. (Further comments about fenestration are recorded below).

vi) The flush glazing lacks depth – the committee is of the opinion that the architectural result of this is overly bland, and that some depth in the façade design and window reveals would be an improvement to the design.

vii) The architectural treatment of the corner (prow) component is not supported: the recessed balconies in the planar façade create a composition which becomes over-dominant in relation to the existing ground-first floor corner – this requires re-design.

viii) The architectural treatment of the 5 storey stair tower component is not supported, although its role as a junction in the architectural ensemble is acknowledged and supported. The projecting 5th level of this element is top heavy in the overall composition, and the projecting balconies add to bulk (in the 3D they are shown without any handrails). The Committee is of the opinion that this element is contrary to the context – both the Queens Hotel, and to the streetscape, and thus has a negative impact on heritage resources. The area to the west of the tower along Alfred Street is also not resolved.


13

ix) The rendered 3D drawings show the existing building finished in red-brown paint finish, with historic plaster detailing picked out in white, with the new levels above in stark white. The result of this, particularly with the white upper levels offset against dark wall treatments above, is that the white building “pops” visually and becomes dominant. This dominance of the contemporary insert is inappropriate as a heritage response. The colour treatment must ensure that the new upper level parts of the proposal are visually recessive.

DECISION: The Committee decided that interventions to the existing building were supported, but that for the proposed additions above existing rooftop height, further heritage requirements needed to be outlined. It was agreed that due to the time required to draw up these “further requirements”, that the Committee would confer on the matter and prepare the further requirements within 10 days after the meeting. The requirements would be framed in terms of the discussion, and further to the heritage consultant’s indicators. FURTHER REQUIREMENTS:

1) Setback dimensions establishing clearly the dimensional relationships of new fabric related to existing, dimensioned to the face of the existing building (or to other clear set out points) need to be provided.

2) The use of exposed columns (pilotis) at the second story level, such that the second storey acts as a “gasket” element between existing and new architecture is supported. However, it is noted that the setback of columns and glazing to the face of the existing building have not been adequately dimensioned by the applicant in the current proposal, and that the glazing divisions still need attention. Care needs to be taken that these “pilotis” remain as a subservient, linking element in the development of the design – it is important that they are not too high i.e. they read architecturally as a “link” rather than a divide. Revised proposals must provide clear dimensions of any panel upstands/ downstands etc. that are visible at this “pilotis” interface, as they will impact visually on the existing building.

3) The architectural treatment of the 5 storey stair tower component; the projecting 5th level of this element must be reduced, and balconies, if they are indeed to be included, must be detailed further. The architect is to explore alternatives to break up the mass of this element effectively.

4) The building addition to the west of the stair tower along Alfred Street must be revised, addressing (along with other any other heritage issues) a careful transition between the existing building at parapet height and the new proposed building mass above the existing parapet line.

5) Renderings must commit to an exterior colour scheme which ensures the visual dominance of the existing building.

6) An architect with suitable heritage experience is required to monitor the entire construction period: the applicant is to provide HWC with the details of the appointment of such a consultant, to HWC’s approval. This architect is to be involved in the next round of design, such that commitments to retention of, and support of existing heritage fabric in the Heritage Consultant’s report must be demonstrated to have had an impact in revised design proposals, with supporting notes and specifications provided as part of the application.

7) In line with the nature of architectural design, which is a re-iterative process, application of the recommendations above may well create other design issues for the design team to address. The list of requirements above must not be addressed as a final or limited set of design opportunities and constraints - the


14

results of the next round of design will be subject to further assessment by the committee.

KR 13.2 Proposed Additions and Alterations at Farm 501/20, Mooikelder, Main Road,

Northern-Paarl: MA HM/ CAPE WINELANDS/ DRAKENSTEIN/ PAARL/NORTHERN- PAARL/ FARM

501/20 Case No: 091407HB1004E Drawings prepared by Malherbe Rust Architects (drawing No. 1101 Rev A;1102 Rev

A;1201 Rev A; 11301 Rev A & 1302 Rev A) dated 4 October 2017 were tabled. MS reported back on the site inspection. Among other things, the following points were discussed:

A copy of the site inspection report is annexed.

The building is graded II on the Drakenstein Survey. The committee concurs with this grading.

The existing building has not been accurately documented in terms of describing the varied qualities of the vernacular building fabric. For instance, deflections of ceiling rafters are not taken into account in the design of the new foldable partition screen, which will require a perfectly plumb installation. Variations in walling contribute significantly to the character of the space and must be illustrated.

Over-simplified drafting (in particular brick hatching at existing openings) causes confusion as to the intention with regard to existing fabric as opposed to new insertions.

The precedent photographs provided show interior environments which the committee considers to be problematic in that they are at variance with the rustic and vernacular quality of Mooikelder. While the committee does not oppose clean modern internal additions, these must not have a generic corporate character but should engage with the existing fabric in a way which enhances this and does not obscure or detract from it.

The committee expressed concern over the use of both brick infill and drywall elements and the confusion arising from this.

FURTHER REQUIREMENTS 1. A detailed set of measured drawings that record all the nuances of all elements

the built fabric must be provided. These measured drawings must form the basis of the drawings used to represent alteration works.

2. All new internal walling must be dry-walling that is separated with a movement joint, so as to be visually distinct from existing walling.

3. The proposed hearth is not approved; a free-standing wood burning stove would be more appropriate.

4. Planning: While the creation of internal offices and pods is seen as necessary in order to allow the space to be used, these should be detailed so as to be subservient to the overall space and should not clutter the volume nor obscure the visual reading of the overall space. The brick infill is not considered appropriate, and a clear attitude as to how the dry walling is inserted and finished must be supplied with the final drawings.

5. Existing openings: A clear attitude to the retention and refurbishment of existing windows and doors must be indicated on the drawings. In the same vein, if/ when


15

new doors or windows are absolutely a requirement, a clear architectural concept for any new inserts must be developed.

6. Detail is required illustrating how the new door is to be designed to fit into the existing opening that has a stone plinth and is not plumb or square.

HB 13.3 The Proposed Development of Erven 15763 & 15761, 345 Lower Main Road,

Observatory: MA HM/CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/OBSERVATORY/ERVEN 15763 & 15761

Case No: 17080411KR0808E Heritage Report addendum prepared by Ursula Rigby, dated 7 August 2017,

drawings (drawing no: 17001/3-A17001-345/Lower Main Road (10 Pages) prepared by Two Five Five Architects, dated 2017-08-07 were tabled.

Ms Katherine Robinson gave a PowerPoint presentation. Ms Ursula Rigby was present and took part in the discussion. Among other things, the following points were discussed:

The sites are graded IIIB and IIIC.

The sites are located inside an HPOZ.

The CoCT (HRS) still express reservations.

The Woodstock Aesthetic Advisory Committee (WAAC) supports the revised proposal.

The Committee complemented the heritage practitioner on the thoroughness and clarity of the report.

RECORD OF DECISION The Committee resolved to approve the application with the following suspensive

condition: 1. That the junction where the new development meets the parapet height of the

two existing single story buildings on Chatham Road, be illustrated in 3D for HOMS to provide comment on detail resolution at that point. HOMS will thereafter be in a position to finalise approval of the application.

KR 13.4 Proposed Alterations and Additions to Erf 59855 (177835 & 177836) 6 Balmoral

Road, Landsdowne: MA HM/CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ERF 598559 (177835, 177836)

Case No: 16111513KR1118E Heritage Statement prepared by Pentz & Berman Architects dated 15 October 2017

was tabled. Ms Katherine Robinson gave a PowerPoint presentation. Among other things, the following points were discussed:

The site is graded IIIB by CoCT. The Committee is of the opinion that IIIC is more appropriate.

The site is not located in a HPOZ or proposed HPO.


16

The heritage practitioner motivated that the property has no heritage value. RECORD OF DECISION HWC cannot condone unauthorized work. KR 13.5 Proposed Second Dwelling, Porch, and Carport on Erf 4888, No. 556A Main

Road, Paarl: NM HM/DRAKENSTEIN MUNICIPALITY/ PAARL/ ERF 4888 Case No: 17101706ZK1017E Application documents to be tabled. The matter was withdrawn from the agenda. ZK 13.6 Proposed Additions and Alterations, Erf 16044, 49 Plein Street, Stellenbosch:

NM HM/ CAPE WINELANDS/ STELLENBOSCH/ Erf 16044 Case No: 17103005WD1101M Application documents were tabled. Ms Waseefa Dhansay gave a PowerPoint presentation. Ms Lize Malan was present and took part in the discussion. Among other things, the following points were discussed:

The site is graded IIIB according to the Stellenbosch survey. RECORD OF DECISION The Committee resolved to approve the application with the following suspensive

condition: 1. That the joinery for doors, windows and louvres on the Plein Street façade be

timber.

WD 13.7 Proposed Additions and Alterations, Erf 28887, 19 Malleson Road, Mowbray:

NM HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ MOWBRAY/ ERF 28887 Case No: 17092009WD1020E Application documents were tabled. Ms Waseefa Dhansay gave a PowerPoint presentation. Among other things, the following points were discussed:

The site is graded IIIC.

The site is located outside an HPOZ.


17

CoCT and RAMPAC do not support the proposal.

The Committee advises that the applicant employ an architect with heritage experience to draw up design indicators.

RECORD OF DECISION The Committee decided to carry out a site visit. (KDS, BM, 12 Dec 2017, 6pm) WD 13.8 Proposed Additions and Alterations to Erven 2071 & 9545, Corner of

Spaanschemat River & Doordrift Roads, Constantia: NM HM/CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/CONSTANTIA/ERVEN 2071 & 9545 Case No: 17103004KR1101M Heritage Statement prepared by Lize Malan dated October 2017, CoCT HRS

comments, I&AP's comments and drawing CON2071/01/01 prepared by Headland Town Planners dated July 2017 were tabled.

Ms Katherine Robinson gave a PowerPoint presentation. Ms Lize Malan was present and took part in the discussion. Among other things, the following points were discussed:

Erf 2071 is graded IIIC and Erf 9545 is graded IIIB.

The Barbarossa Residents Group raised concerns.

A landscaping proposal is required.

The Committee needs to inspect the site in order to assess the proposals further and be able to provide further comment. It is noted that amendments to the proposal may be called for.

FURTHER REQUIREMENTS The Committee resolved to undertake a site inspection (MS and DG) after

submission of landscape plan by the applicant. KR 13.9 Proposed Additions and Alterations, Erf 2256, 10 Haarlem Street, Paarl: NM HM/ CAPE WINELANDS/ DRAKENSTEIN/ PAARL/ ERF 2256 Case No: 17092001WD0920E Application documents were tabled. Ms Waseefa Dhansay gave a PowerPoint presentation.

Among other things, the following points were discussed:

The site is graded IIIC.

The site is located outside the Paarl area of significance.

The Drakenstein Municipality does not support the proposal.

Paarl 300 does not support the proposal.

RECORD OF DECISION The Committee resolved to approve the application as there will be no impact on

heritage significance.

WD


18

13.10 Proposed Boundary Wall on Erf 196, Harlea Court, 38 Breda Street, Oranjezicht: NM

HM/CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ORANJEZICHT/ERF 196 Case No: 17092816KR1003E Application documents, CoCT comment, communication with CIBRA, drawings and

objection were tabled. Ms Katherine Robinson gave a PowerPoint presentation. Mr Stuart Collins, Mr Wesley Graham and Ms Elizabeth Sinovich were present and


The site is graded IIIC by the CoCT.

The site is inside a declared HPO.

The CoCT approved the plans.

The wall design indicates the introduction of several new columns which are at variance with the rhythm of the heritage building to which the wall plays a foreground role.

The wall at the corner of Breda and Prins Streets may include late 18th/ early 19th Century fabric. If in future demolition of this section of walling is contemplated, a report dealing with the heritage fabric becomes a requirement.

RECORD OF DECISION The Committee resolved to approve the application with the following suspensive

conditions: 1. The corner walling to a distance of 4095mm x 4095mm be retained entirely as is. 2. That a revised proposal with fewer columns which relate to the existing design of

both wall and building be submitted to HOMS for approval. The Committee will provide a marked-up sketch indicative of which columns to remove from the design.

KR At this stage, PB left the meeting, the time being 16h22. 13.11 Proposed Alterations to Shopfronts of structure on Erf 11207, 59 Victoria Road,

Woodstock: NM HM/CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/WOODSTOCK/ERF 11207 Case No: 17031509KR1024E Application documents, CoCT HRS comment, drawings HSB-WSTK-00, HSB-

WSTK-01 & HSB-WSTK-02 prepared by Sudhier Magan Architect dated 02 September 2016 & 30 August 2017 were tabled.

Ms Katherine Robinson gave a PowerPoint presentation. Among other things, the following points were discussed:

Shopfronts have already been altered substantially.

Proposals for new shopfronts are acceptable in their proportions, especially since the existing colonnade to an extent masks the shopfronts.


19

RECORD OF DECISION The Committee resolved to approve the application as there would be no negative

impact on heritage significance. KR 13.12 Proposed Alterations and Additions on Erf 29378, 9 Kew Road, Mowbray: NM HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/ MOWBRAY/ ERF 29378 Case No: 17101607ZK1017E Application documents to be tabled.

The matter was withdrawn from the agenda. ZK 13.13 Proposed Addition of a Double Story Structure to the South of an Existing

Structure on Erf 1678, 64 Van der Stel Street, Stellenbosch: NM HM/CAPE WINELANDS/STELLENBOSCH/ERF 1678 Case No: 17092709HB1004E Application documents, municipality comments, I&AP's comments and drawings

prepared by Visser Kapperer de Bruin were tabled. Ms Katherine Robinson gave a PowerPoint presentation. Mr Arn Erasmus was present and took part in the discussion. Among other things, the following points were discussed: RECORD OF DECISION The Committee resolved to approve the application with the following suspensive

conditions: 1. An intermediary “gasket” element to be introduced which allows spatial mediation

between the existing gable ends and the proposed additions, and which provides an element linking the existing house and the proposed additions. The “gasket” dimension must allow for the new addition to be offset minimum 800mm from the gable ends of the house, with further dimensions to be determined through detailed design - the intention being to allow the gable ends of the existing house to be visually legible.

2. Revised design proposals are to be submitted to HOMS for approval.

KR 13.14 Proposed Alterations and Additions to Outbuilding on Farm Rondeberg 1116,

Yzerfontein: NM HM/YZERFONTEIN/FARM RONDEBERG 1116 Case No: 17062202AS0627E KDS recused herself and left the meeting. GJ was nominated by remaining members to act as chair for the duration of this item.


20

The committee was not quorate for the item.

Site Inspection Report, plans and Preliminary Heritage Statement were tabled. Mr Andrew September gave a PowerPoint presentation. Among other things, the following points were discussed:

The heritage consultant recommends a grading of IIIA.

The historical research undertaken confirms the barn in particular as being of high heritage significance.

The Committee expressed concern regarding the nature of the proposed intervention on the north side of the barn and expressed concern regarding any alteration on its west side. Also of concern are the proposed new roof dormer and skylights.

The lowering of the existing loft rafters is likely to result in extensive damage to the building fabric.

Trees are inaccurately and inadequately recorded.

The committee is of the opinion that the current proposals will result in negative impacts on the significance of the heritage resource. Revised proposals are therefore required.

RECOMMENDED FURTHER REQUIREMENTS In light of the above concerns, the following is required:

1. A detailed set of measured drawings that record all the nuances of historic built fabric affected. These measured drawings must form the base for a revised set of proposals for the works.

2. A tree/vegetation survey up to the perimeter of the werf, including around the barn and north side of the house adjacent to the forecourt, must be submitted.

3. An architect with heritage experience must be engaged to prepare the revised proposals, exploring alternatives informed by the indicators in the heritage report. This should be in terms of a holistic view of the werf, exploring alternative sitings for the brief requirements to minimise intervention in the historic fabric of the barn. (This architect will be required to monitor the work and, prepare an interim and final close-out report for the proposals, once approved by HWC).

4. If, after exploring these alternatives it is still deemed necessary to add to the barn, then this addition will need to be appropriately situated and of a subservient architectural nature in terms of scale, configuration and materiality.

AS 13.15 Proposed Alterations and Additions on Erf 642, Corner of Mark Street and Uys

Street, Gansbaai: NM HW/ OVERSTRAND MUNICIPALITY/ GANSBAAI/ ERF 642 Case No: 17092714ZK1011E Application form, internal, external and Streetscape photographs, locality plan,

municipal building plans, Overstrand Heritage and Aesthetics committee comments, SG Diagrams, Power of Attorney, Company Resolution, Title deeds to be tabled.

The matter was withdrawn from the agenda. ZK


21

13.16 Proposed Alterations and Additions on Erf 4054, Durr Street, Paarl: NM HM/PAARL/ERF 4054 Case No: 17101707AS1017E A permit application and addendum was tabled. Mr Andrew September gave a PowerPoint presentation. Among other things, the following points were discussed:

The building is not regarded as conservation worthy.

The DHF objected to the proposal. The committee does not consider their reasoning to be substantive.

RECORD OF DECISION The Committee resolved to approve the proposal as there is no negative impact on

heritage significance.

AS 13.17 Proposed Additions to existing Structure and Alterations on Erf 10905,

Steenberg Road, Tokai: MA HM/TOKAI/ERF 10905 Case No: 16111705HB1122E Amongst other things, the following was discussed:

The existing building has not been sensitively documented in terms of describing the varied qualities of the vernacular building fabric. For instance variations in wall thickness, steps in walling etc. must be illustrated in all drawings.

A great deal of original walling is proposed to be demolished. The Committee is of the opinion that this damages the heritage resource in terms of its spatial sequence and materiality.

The Committee confirmed as per previous meetings that conceptually, the heritage resource needs to read clearly as an architectural entity that is distinct from the new build parts of the development. To achieve this, heritage fabric (mostly in the form of walling) must be retained as far as possible, with the vernacular origins of the original reinforced by the use of compatible material inserts and finishes.


1. The report of the Method Statement prepared by Pentz and Berman Architects Urban Designers and Heritage Consultants dated 27 October 2017 is accepted.

2. A detailed set of measured drawings that record all the nuances of the existing built fabric must be provided. These measured drawings must form the base of the drawings used to represent alteration works.

3. The wall between the study and the entrance must be retained with existing opening in place.

4. The walling between the living area, dining and entrance must be retained as is, except that a large opening with minimum 600mm nibs can be introduced between the entrance area and the living room. This opening must have a lintel with brickwork over it, i.e. it must not extend to ceiling height.

5. Door and window openings must be reduced in size such that total openings in the exterior walling of the old structure measure no more than 20% of the total façade area (all facades). Over and above the “front door” (with its side-lights)


22

there should be only one further wide opening (not exceeding 2, 4 m) in the exterior walling.

6. All windows and doors in the refurbished historic building to be painted timber including surviving window frames not yet vandalized.

HB

14 HERITAGE AREAS: SECTION 31 CONSENT APPLICATIONS

14.1 Proposed New Building in a Heritage Area on Erf 163, 37A Shortmarket Street, Stanford: NM HM/STANFORD/ERF 163

Case No: 17102601AS1101M

Permit application and addendum to be tabled.

The matter was withdrawn from the agenda.

AS 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 22. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS

The Committee adopted the resolution and decisions.

23. CLOSURE

The meeting adjourned at: 18:15

24 DATE OF NEXT MEETING: 13 December 2017 CHAIRPERSON_____________________ DATE_____________

SECRETARY________________________ DATE_____________

Documents

MINUTES OF MEETING - westerncape.gov.za · natural ground (unless provision has been made (e.g. within a coffered slab) for adequate root space, or if the trees are planted in very