- ALBERTON STARTS A HERITAGE SOCIETY and REPLY FROM HERITAGE SOUTH AFRICA
- AN OPEN LETTER TO SHELL SOUTH AFRICA
- SIR PERCY FITZPATRICK REMEMBERED
- SOUTH END MUSEUM - A MOVING TRIBUTE
THE OLD GRANARY, CAPE TOWN
The City of Cape Town has concluded a long term lease agreement with the Cape Town Heritage Trust such that the iconic early 19th Century Granary Building in historic Buitenkant Street, Cape Town will be completely restored; appropriately tenanted and managed by the Cape Town Heritage Trust in the near future.
Laura Robinson, Executive Director of CTHT explains further: “The mission of the Cape Town Heritage Trust is to conserve the architectural heritage and cultural landscape of Cape Town and its environs for the benefit of the inhabitants of the City and of the nation. Heritage Square is a prime example of the kind of development we have managed. The Trust plans to restore the historic building facing Buitenkant Street and to redevelop the rear portion to accommodate tenants that are allied to the East City Creative Industries objectives being driven by the Cape Town Partnership.”
Laura continues: “It needs to be noted that all activities envisaged for the restored and redeveloped complex must support the overall mission of the Heritage Trust, the revitalization of the East Precinct of the central city and should fall within the concept of creative industries. Creative Industries may be broadly defined as activities relating to the arts (including the visual and performing arts, film and media), culture (museums and heritage), fashion and design, and educational opportunities. The opportunity for a restaurant/wine bar/coffee shop to supportive the creative industries will also be considered. Commercial office and retail activities will generally not be considered.
• There are a number of development options that may be considered for the Granary complex, which has two distinct components. The front (Buitenkant Street) half of the block is occupied by the historic building known as the Old Granary. This is an important Heritage Site, which is graded as Grade II (i.e. Provincial Heritage Site status). This implies that careful and considered restoration is required under the direction of a recognized heritage architect and consultant team. Uses within the building should be compatible to the nature and quality of the building, and alterations to the historic building fabric require particular attention and therefore the opportunities for change are limited.
Issued by Laura Robinson Director: Cape Town Heritage Trust Sunday 26 July 2009 E-mail: ctht@heritage.org.za Tel: 021 421 0287
CONTENTIOUS ASSUMPTION
The assumption that heritage organisations have recourse to the Heritage Act is a contentious one. We have two very valuable sets of buildings in the Swartland – the Sendingkerk in Malmesbury and the Tiger Oats complex in Moorreesburg – both falling to the ground as I write - and nothing we can do about it.
I have investigated the issue through Heritage Western Cape and brought it up on a heritage course I did, and these buildings seemingly cannot be protected under the Act, unless they are declared heritage sites. The process to do this is time-consuming (research, consultation with the owners, neighbours, etc), then an application must be made to Heritage Western Cape. If this body agrees, the application then needs to go the Minister. If he approves only then will it be listed and Section 45 of the Act can be applied. This section specifically deals with '. . . the protection of a heritage site . . .'.
I am not aware of any structure having been listed in this way, therefore don't believe any prosecutions have been made.
It seems to me that Heritage Western Cape only concerns itself with formal applications, and that of course relies on an informed public or municipality. Any structure can be left to fall down, with no apparent consequences. If you ask a heritage practitioner about it you get a shrug. Of course, what's in it for them? If they aren't commissioned by a client why would they be involved? The authorities have neither the time nor inclination to follow up, even when notified.
The conclusion is that heritage is only protected when financially motivated.
Ultimately, it a structure becomes dangerous, the local municipality can implement National Building Regulations and declare it so, with the likelihood of subsequent demolition. This is probably the way the structures mentioned in the first paragraph are to end their respective lives.
All in all a very sad state of affairs.
Chris Murphy Chairman Swartland Heritage Foundation orchard@wcaccess.co.za Download the pdf for a broader view on structures falling into disrepair in the Western cape
We have started a Heritage Society in Alberton. We have about 25 members. We felt a need to start the society as daily we witness "our past simply being deleted". Our main aim of the society is to increase public appreciation for heritage and promote adaptive re-use of old buildings so that historic buildings remain part of Alberton's living history.
We have no formal structure as yet. Could you offer any advice on how to successfully set up a society which is sustainable (non profit organisation etc), what institutions are currently in place that could assist us, what recourse there would be against council for approval of plans where old buildings are simply demolished.
We are desperately trying to save the original farmhouse in an area of Alberton. Council has approved the demolition of the farmhouse (which until 5 years back had been an old age home, it was then converted into 6 flats). Council has approved plans for the building of 25 townhouse units on the property. The house needs TLC but is definitely not in a state beyond repair. What permission would council need to have got to allow such approval of plans? It seems that developers bypass any laws in place in their pursuit of profit.
This is just one property in Alberton that is at risk of being destroyed in favour of so called "development".
We desperately need to save these buildings and encourage adaptive re-use of them.
To demolish any building older than 60 years a permit must be obtained from the provincial heritage authority. The meeting where this is discussed should be open to the public and you should be granted the opportunity to present a short case but may have to recuse yourself when the decision is being taken.
You would have 14 (business) days to appeal the decision after the developer notifies you of the decision and, if you are still unsuccessful, another day to appeal to the minister’s tribunal.
You would have to argue the case on the heritage value of the property and site including the surroundings. Heritage value is not restricted to the building alone nor its age, and similar buildings in different places could have different values.
If the building has been severely altered, much would depend upon the historical and aesthetic merits of the alterations.
The social importance (oldest house in the district, home of a famous person, contribution to the sense of place in an important area) are some of the other considerations that help to determine its heritage value.
Dr Roy Stauth, Shell Delegation Chairman and Member of the Graaff-Reinet Heritage Society, John Rupert Committee and Tourism Committee
Shell SA has proposed a significant expansion of their service station at the corner of Parsonage and Church Streets in the heart of Graaff-Reinet’s most valued heritage district. The existing station, situated between the Drostdy Hotel (on Church Street) and the John Rupert Little Theatre (in Parsonage Street), already impairs the view down Parsonage Street between the Drostdy Hotel and Reinet House (on Murray Street), but the new facility will create an even greater blight, being much larger and much more open on the Parsonage Street side.
The proposed re-build would involve the demolition of Seaman’s Garage, which though neither aesthetically pleasing nor architecturally appropriate to its surrounds, at least serves as an acoustic barrier for the John Rupert Little Theatre, and presents a solid frontage to Parsonage Street. The new facility, by contrast, would present a broad, blank prospect along a considerable length of the western end of Parsonage Street, thus widening the view of the more modern and busy Church Street from Parsonage Street. Moreover, the charming prospect down Parsonage Street from the Drostdy Hotel to Reinet House would be greatly impaired by a gaping space, together with completely inharmonious architectural designs and vehicular activity, at its southwestern corner.
The Camdeboo Municipality has offered Shell a serviced site at the south end of town in exchange for selling or leasing their present site to be developed in a manner more appropriate to its sensitive location, but Shell has declined this offer. The Graaff-Reinet Heritage Society believes the Municipality’s offer is a generous one since the business centre of town is expected to move south (the only direction expansion can occur, given that the town is enclosed on three sides by the Camdeboo National Park), and this new development node is expected to grow rapidly.
Further, it is the Society’s belief that Shell’s strategy is to use its present, favourable location to attract market share from the other service stations in town (all of which are located in far less heritage-sensitive areas), which could result in the closure of other stations. Shell would then become entrenched in the very heart of our famous heritage town, thus despoiling the heritage character of the town and frustrating further heritage initiatives. We feel strongly that Shell’s proposal could be the tipping point that turns “the gem of the Karoo” into just another town that offers petrol and food on the way to somewhere else.
The position of the Graaff-Reinet Heritage Society is that Shell’s planned facility would have unavoidable cultural, heritage and aesthetic impacts that could never be satisfactorily mitigated, and that would severely compromise the town’s heritage-tourism status. After several discussions with Shell executives, we have been informed that Shell intends to go ahead with the project, and we have informed Shell that we will contest their proposal on environmental grounds.
We believe that Shell SA, the international parent of which has invested heavily in establishing a worldwide "green" reputation, would do well to demonstrate its sensitivity to our community’s cultural and aesthetic values, our economic future, and our quality of life, by agreeing to move to another location. We believe that Shell International would agree that it would make sense from a public relations point of view to ask Shell SA to move a single service station, which is now occupying a prime location in a small but well-known and remarkably well-preserved heritage town, heavily dependent on tourism for its future, to a location outside its heritage area, where a new development node is currently being planned by the town council. Surely a demonstration of social responsibility on the part of a giant corporation is as important as demonstrations of environmental and ecological responsibility, especially in these difficult times, during which corporate greed and irresponsibility are being headlined by the media all over the world.
If Shell were to cooperate, we can imagine the benefits they would reap from, say, a full-page ad in an international magazine showing a picture of Graaff-Reinet's beautiful Parsonage Street highlighting a new and architecturally appropriate "Shell Heritage Centre" (designed to house museums and other heritage-related tourism attractions) in place of a modern service station that would be totally incongruous with this historic setting. Graaff-Reinet receives a great number of international visitors (many from the home of Shell International!), and they - as well as many South Africans and virtually all Graaff-Reineters - would be greatly impressed by and genuinely appreciative of such a gesture.
Finally, we are convinced that this is a classic case in which ethical considerations should be allowed to trump economic considerations. It is not right that so few should gain more riches or – in the case of local Shell patrons - a bit more convenience at such a great cost to so many (including future generations of Graaff-Reineters and South Africans). Our position in this matter is simply this:
A corporate decision is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, aesthetic quality and cohesion of the built, natural and social environments of the surrounding community; a corporate decision is wrong when it tends otherwise.
GEORGE HERITAGE TRUST
Len O' Reilly at the Lookout, a commemorative site to Sir Percy Fitzpatrick on the Sundays River Sir Percy Fitzpatrick remembered
We had a happy visit to Addo and the Elephant House was just lovely and very special. We took ourselves to The Lookout which is a site on the north side of the Sundays River and the burial place of Sir Percy Fitzpatrick and his wife, Lady Fitz. As well as writing the admirable Jock of the Bushveld, Sir Percy had the foresight to design and start the Sundays River Irrigation scheme which has led to the valley's great agricultural success. A plastered brick staircase takes one up to a viewing platform (where Len is sitting in the pic) and to my surprise and pleasure the site bears a National Monuments plaque!
Sue and Len O' Reilly, George Heritage Trust, 13 September 2008
South End museum, a moving tribute to Port Elizabeth displaced community
We visited the South End museum in Port Elizabeth. I am truly sorry a visit to this museum was not on our national symposium agenda, as it was well worth while. We met curator Colin Abrahams who had spoken so eloquently at the Red Location symposium programme. His staff were super and very proud of their memories and their museum. Neither pretentious, nor slick and glitzy, it is a very personal, human and most moving testament to what had been a vibrant living space for a truly multi-cultured society in Port Elizabeth. That museum gave me more insight into the lives of a displaced community than the monumental Red Location museum did to the lives of those who had lived in that vicinity in New Brighton.
Sue and Len O' Reilly, George Heritage Trust, 13 September 2008
