[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.”
