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