Woodstock Residents Association

The property at 2 Vine Road, on the corner of Salisbury and Vine Roads, has now been demolished (see other posts about this property).

UWRA has made contact with the owner/developer to find out what he plans to do with the plot. We want to establish a positive relationship so that we can give constructive comment at an early stage. The developer has promised that someone would contact us to discuss the plans, but so far we have not heard or seen anything.

UWRA has also kept close contact with the various council departments about future plans for the plot. Apparently plans for a 4 or 5 storey block of flats have been submitted, but not finalised yet. Council officials have assured us that the plans will be send to UWRA for comment.

We will keep you in the loop and let the community know when the plans arrive.

Neighbours of the property at 2 Vine Road, corner of Salisbury Street and Vine Road, noticed activities at the property. They decided to find out what was going on and found that stripping of features was happening inside. UWRA decided to investigate and we have received the following confirmation from council officials:

Herewith confirmation that an application for the demolition of the existing building on this property was officially submitted at this office this morning, 27 June 2008.
 
The applicant was also informed that no demolition related activities may be commenced with until such time as an official demolition permit has been issued and the applicant immediately issued an instruction telephonically in this regard.
 
Please note that Heritage Western Cape has already issued a demolition permit for this property/structure and that the Heritage Resources Section (Johan Cornelius) has also indicated that they will be approving the application.
 
In terms of the National Building Regualtions and Building Standards Act there are not really any reasons why this department cannot consider the application favourably, subject to the mormal conditions relating to public safety, noise and sut control, hours of work etc., as the relevant heritage resources control sections have already approved the demolition.
 
Yours faithfully
 J. Theron, SECTION HEAD: BUILDING DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

Also the building inspector went out to check the property and reported the following:

An inspection of the premises on Friday afternoon 27th June 2008 that the owner was in the process of removing the flexite ceilings in the passage and lounge.
No physical demolition of internal walls or any other part of the building were evident that require approval or permission i.t.o. applicable legislation.
 
However the owner has been instructed to cease with stripping the internal finishing’s and submit the necessary applications should he wish to demolish, alter or re - developed the premises this was clearly understood the situation will be monitored as necessary.
 
Regards
Rashaad Solomon

So it seems that City Council will approve the demolition of the building. UWRA is trying to find out if this will be subject to any kind of public participation.

The concern of neighbours and other residents is about what will happen after demolition. It is said that the owners are planning to build a block of flats on the site. The question is how that will affect the surrounding area in terms of heritage and traffic.

[Article by Adri-Ann Peters of the People's Post] 

RESIDENTS of Upper Woodstock are determined to preserve the architectural heritage of their area as they remain vehemently opposed to the demolition of one house they feel is a valuable asset to the neighborhood. The future of the sprawling white house, situated on the corner of Vine and Salisbury Roads in Upper Woodstock, now hangs in the balance as residents prepare themselves to convince the City of Cape Town to overrule the decision made by Heritage Western Cape (HWC) in 2007 to demolish the house.

The group of residents, who have gone as far as to rally support by drawing up an anti-demolition petition, are specifically opposed to the plan to develop a block of flats on the spacious corner plot. It is understood that development plans have been spear-headed by the owners of the property, the Bahá’ís of South Africa – a well-known independent religious organisation. Substantial portions of Ward 57, which include Woodstock, Salt River, Observatory, University and Walmer Estates, form part of a heritage protected area.  This status implies that should residents or developers wish to construct or renovate on these protected sites, they are subject to strict and very specific building regulations and guidelines as pre-determined by council. In response to concerns raised by residents about the pending demolition in 2007, Stephen Townsend, chief executive officer for HWC, revealed in written correspondence that the demolition application was consi¬dered by a permit committee on two separate occasions. In the e-mail People’s Post has in its possession, Townsend confirms it was decided that the house did not have enough historical or cultural significance to be placed on the heri¬tage register.

Emil Gertz, a Vine Road resident, says he would rather see a house of solid structure and character remain, than to lose it forever – especially if this decision will allow for the construction of a block of flats.

“There are so many issues around this case that are causing alarm, one being the negative impact more flats will have on the area. In the past we’ve had problems with tenants in other blocks. “Generally it is important that we maintain a balance; we don’t want the area to become a flat land.” Andrew Porter, another resident, says he is particularly concerned about the added strain the development will have on traffic congestion. “On the whole that part of Woodstock is already so highly developed with blocks of flats. If they were planning to demolish a slum and put up a block of flats, it would be a different thing all together.

“But as it stands, this development will only damage the image of the area.” 

Teun Baartman, chairperson of the Upper Woodstock Residents’ Association (UWRA), confirms the association’s aesthetics committee was never consulted around the time HWC gave permission to have the house demolished. “They told us at the time we had not been registered as interested parties. Although they might have a point based on a technicality, it is still not right, because HWC knew we were operational in the area. “This time we will support residents’ efforts.” Similarly Cedric Thomas, ward councillor for the area, strongly lashes out in opposition to the heritage agency.

He suggests the HWC often acted “carelessly” when considering the fate of sites that are of historical significance to the area. “This is not acceptable, because the HWC received a list of contact details for ward councillors so we at least can offer input when important decisions must be made.

It seems they never make the effort to contact me; they are a law unto themselves.” Furthermore, Thomas confirms that while no formal building plans for the proposed new development have been submitted to council yet, the city retains the right to have the final say about the ultimate fate of the building.

“The city has the right to overrule any decision to demolish a building that has been made by the HWC, and council’s approach will definitely have greater public participation involved.”

From the PeoplesPost: http://www.news24.com/Regional_Papers/Components/Category_Article_Text_Template/0,2430,1806-1810_2212616~E,00.html

PROPERTIES owned by the provincial government in Woodstock are raising the ire of residents, who say they are becoming an eyesore and attracting vagrants and criminals.

The Upper Woodstock Residents’ Association (UWRA) in particular has identified a number of properties in the area as being of concern to them.

Properties are on the corner of Devonshire and Bideford Roads, and on the corner of Earl Street and Victoria Walk.

Another property that has come to council’s attention is one located in Pine and Greatmore Streets in Woodstock, added ward councillor for area, Cedric Thomas.

To add insult to injury, residents maintain that provincial government departments they have contacted over recent months have been anything but helpful. On many occasions officials have simply told them that there is no budget to maintain these properties.

Earl Street resident Lynda Nielsen, whose property borders one such empty plot, points out that the fence around the property is broken. As a result, the property has become a dumping site.

“The rubbish rots, stinks and blows all over Earl Street. The grass is now 2 m high and will burn at least twice this summer,” she says.

Nielsen adds that vagrants use the land as an “open-air toilet”, making it a potential health hazard.

She explains that when she was told by provincial government’s edu?cation department that the fence would not be fixed as a result of a lack of funds in their budget, she decided to take action herself and now plans to source money from residents.

Teun Baartman, chairperson of the UWRA, says he has contacted the Department of Public Works about the ill-kept land. He says initially he was informed that the properties in question are on the department’s maintenance list and should be cleared close to the end of this year.

According to a department official, the land would then be cleared once a year after that. This, Baartman says, is insufficient.

“On Monday, I spoke to another official who told me that this might not even happen because of a lack of funding.” Baartman described provincial government’s lack of responses to a vast number of e-mails and telephone calls as “upsetting”.

“It seems province is just ignoring the complaints of residents and it makes one angry,” he said.

He maintained that unkept properties in the area not only look ugly, but also largely invite vagrants to come into the area, as well as encourage dumping.

Similarly, Thomas voiced his concern regarding the effects these unkept properties have on the overall image of the area. “It is totally unacceptable that they are not accepting responsibility for their property,” he said.

“This problem makes a major contribution to anti-social behaviour in this area and it is unacceptable that they say they don’t have money.”

People’s Post tried on a number of occasions to obtain comment from the Department of Public Works, but by the time of going to print, no response was forthcoming.