Order of the High Court concerning the building Highclere

 

BPH lost their review application we, Habitat Council, have been in touch with Cape Town Heritage

COMMENT FROM LEN RAYMOND 

I have read all the responses with interest. The decision in effect  has little to do with heritage and the “victory” is  based upon  a legal decision re the time period.

What is being  asked is in respect of the IAT ‘s decision which  was to order an compulsory repair order. HWC  could not do that as it is not a heritage site in terms of the act and thus section 45 does not apply.

 

In 2010 I inspected the site for HWC’s  BELCom. , the report was considered by the new committee  who did not support my recommendations, At that stage a compulsory repair order  would only just have been  structurally possible as the building was suffering from serious neglect.

 

I visited the site some months back on an invitation from  Roy (before winter which would have caused more damage)  in an attempt to see what could be salvaged. The building had deprecated substantial  by then to be   in a state that would now require reconstruction rather than restoration/ repair. The building is current dangerous and risk to life  if entered..

 

BPH want the site for parking while Roy &Co were considering rebuilding  (with some reclaimed elements) elsewhere as they believed that was the best they could hope for.

 

The legal aspects  aside the damage to the building was caused by wilful neglect on the part of BPH which was accelerated while they stalled their review application. The unanswered question  is what is  BPH’s legal obligation? What can the local committee  force them to do following this decision? and what does the local committee want?

Is rebuilding elsewhere the option?

 

This is good news in that the CT Heritage people want the owner to honour his legal obligations for a heritage building.  What the owner will do still remains to be seen.  It is a good precedent for us and for future application of the law. the Independent Tribunal Decision and formulate how that decision informs the way forward”. Kathy is equally interested in meeting with us.

This is good news in that the CT Heritage people want the owner to honour his legal obligations for a heritage building.  What the owner will do still remains to be seen.  It is a good precedent for us and for future application of the law

Order HIGH COURT 17 Aug 2018 Highclere Case A38817 (1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

Comments are closed.