APPEAL: PROPOSED ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS AT ERF 14363, LODGE LAAN 1, WELLINGTON,

HWC logo

HM/CAPE WINE-LANDS/DRAKENSTEIN/WELLINGTON/ERFI 4363

Case No: 15052622RN0528E

Mr. & Mrs. M. van der Merwe

I Lodgelaan WELLINGTON

7655

Outcome of Appeal lodged in terms of Section 49 of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act 25 of 1999) and Regulation          of PN 298 (29 August 2003)

APPEAL: PROPOSED ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS AT ERF 14363, LODGE LAAN 1, WELLINGTON, SUBMITTED IN TERMS OF SECTION 34 OF THE NATIONAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ACT (ACT 25 OF 1999)

CASE NUMBER: 15052622RN0528E

The matter above has reference.

Your submission regarding the decision of HWC taken on the matter of the application for additions and alterations was tabled at HWC Appeals Committee meeting held on 17 February 2016.

The Committee noted that:

The Appellant had been afforded a reasonable period within which to provide the Committee with the information that was first requested at the Appeals Committee meeting on 22 September 2015. Despite the Case Officer liaising subsequently with the Appellant in this regard, the information requested has not been provided to the Committee. Additional enquiries were made by Mr Thorold to assess whether a heritage consultant had been appointed or engaged to undertake the work in question. Although the Appellant had been in touch with Mr Chris Snelling to discuss this matter, Mr Thorold reported that Snelling had referred the owner to Mr Henry Aikman to undertake the investigation in question. There was no evidence that the Appellant had in fact communicated with Mr Aikman or that any effort had been made in this regard. The current situation is one in which the Appellant, through persistent inaction, has of his own volition delayed the finalisation of the appeal. The position is untenable from the perspective of administrative uncertainty and the Appeal cannot go undecided for this reason. In the final assessment, no expert evidence was placed before the Committee in support of the Appellant’s contention that there were several structural constraints supporting the notion that the roof was required to be replaced. The Committee is sympathetic to the Appellant’s concerns about the impact of the thatch roofing on his son’s health. That fact however does not entitle the Appellant to unilaterally alter a heritage resource without first obtaining any approvals required by the National Heritage Resources Act. The Appellant’s contention that there was no information regarding the historical significance or nature of the property on the Internet and that the Appellant was not aware of any permits that were required in respect of the roof replacement are not supported. The building is clearly a 1 9 th Century building with some considerable (and readily ascertainable) degree of heritage significance. It is of great concern that there has been no credible attempt to obtain the input from a heritage consultant or a suitably qualified conservation architect despite this having been requested by the Committee.

DECISION:

  • Despite having undertaken a site inspection, the Committee resolved that the documentation / information submitted in connection with the appeal is inadequate to enable an informed assessment of the significance of the resource in question, the degree to which the heritage significance of the building has been affected by the intervention. The Committee is therefore unable to second-guess the relative merits of the decision by BELCom to require the reinstatement of the thatch roofing. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

www.westerncape.gov.za/cas

ILifa leMveli leNtshona Koloni

Erfenis Wes-Kaap

Heritage Western Cape

  • This decision is subject to an appeal period of 21 working days.
  • The applicant is required to inform any party who has expressed a bona fide interest in any heritage-related aspect of this record of decision. The appeal period shall be taken from the date above. It should be noted that for an appeal to be deemed valid it must refer to the decision, it must be submitted by the due date and it must set out the grounds of the appeal. Appeals must be addressed to the Minister of Cultural Affairs and Sport and it is the responsibility of the appellant to confirm that the appeal has been received within the appeal period.
  • Work may NOT be initiated during this 21 day appeal period.
  • If any unexpected archaeological or palaeontological material or evidence of burials is discovered during earth-moving activities all works must be stopped and Heritage Western Cape must be notified immediately.

Should you have any further queries, please contact the official above and quote the case number.

Dr. Erro Myburg

Comments are closed