REVISED DESIGN COVER LETTER Component of the HIA

Cover Letter to HWC: Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape 17 June 2015

PROPOSED HOLIDAY RESORT ON ERVEN 2837 & 2838, LAAIPLEK, PIKETBERG MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, WESTERN CAPE

HWC Comment required under Section 38 (8) of the National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25 of 1999).

HWC Case No.: 14030501AS0502

Report for:

D J Environmental Consultants Postnet Suite 66, Private Bag X15 Somerset West, 7130 Tel: 021 851 0900 Email: [email protected]

On behalf of:

Top Gear Investments (Pty) Ltd

Dr Jayson Orton ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd 6A Scarborough Road, Muizenberg, 7945 Tel: (021) 788 8425 | 083 272 3225 Email: [email protected]

In association

PostNet Suite 122 Private Bag X1005 Claremont 7735 Cape Town South Africa M 071 1090 900 E-Mail [email protected]

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environment 1 Cover Letter to HWC: Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape 17 June 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 3 2. SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF COVER LETTER ...... 3 3. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE ...... 3 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OF REVISED DESIGN ...... 3 5. HWC INTERIM COMMENTS ...... 3 6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 4 7. HIA MITIGATION MEASURES (REVISED HIA 27 JANUARY 2015) ...... 4 8. ASSESSMENT OF REVISED PROPOSAL JUNE 2015 ...... 5 9. CONCLUSION ...... 7 10. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 7

ANNEXURE 1: HWC INTERIM COMMENTS ...... 8

ANNEXURE 2: REVISED DESIGN ...... 12

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environment 2 Cover Letter to HWC: Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape 17 June 2015

1. INTRODUCTION ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd and Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environment was appointed by DJ Environmental Consultants on behalf of their client Top Gear Investments (Pty) Ltd to conduct an assessment of the potential impacts to heritage resources that might occur through the proposed development of a holiday resort on erven 2837 and 2838, Laaiplek, in the Piketberg Magisterial District (Figure 1). This letter is a component of the HIA (1st draft: 04 June 2014 Revised: 17 September 2014 & 27 January 2015) and accompanies the revised project proposal.

2. SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF COVER LETTER This letter accompanies the revised project application drawings and includes an assessment of the revised proposal. The letter outlines any mitigation requirements that will need to be complied with from a heritage point of view and that should be included in the conditions of the DEA&DP authorisation should this be granted.

3. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd, its consultants and Bridget O’Donoghue have no financial or other interest in the proposed development and will derive no benefits other than fair remuneration for consulting services provided.

4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OF REVISED DESIGN In accordance with NEMA requirements for public participation, the previous application was advertised to I&APs for comment as required. The revised design will be advertised to I&APS for comment once HWC final comment is received as part of the final BAR PPP process.

5. HWC INTERIM COMMENTS The application has been submitted to HWC IACOM in October 2014, January 2015 and April 2015. The IACOM have commented on the application and required additional information or/ and revised design to satisfy their concerns on the potential negative impacts on Laaiplek identified heritage resources (Refer HWC Interim comments Annexure 1 – 3).

Table 1: IACOM Interim comments

No IACOM Interim Comment Date Applicant Response 1 Identification of the industrial and social 22 October 2014 Revised HIA heritage of the fishing industry, built Additional studies completed environment assessment of the site and context’s structures and consultation with the fishing industry. 2 The Committee supported in general the 25 February 2015 Presentation to IACOM mitigation proposed by the heritage explaining the 1:50 flood line consultant. However the Committee was constraint, which prevented in the opinion that an active mixed use the applicant from realising ground floor edge facing the street and accommodation that relates the harbour is necessary. Revised directly to the street level sketch plans must be submitted to HWC facing the river. accommodating the mitigation measures proposed and indicating how the harbour edge is to be resolved.

3 The committee requires further 15 April 2015 Revised design: consideration of the manner in which the Reduced height of the ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environment 3 Cover Letter to HWC: Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape 17 June 2015

No IACOM Interim Comment Date Applicant Response height mitigation measures proposed by buildings from street level; the heritage consultant are addressed. Reduces the height of the The heritage consultants should stone wall between the comment on the proposals put before street and the habitable Committee and make recommendations rooms (from 2.5m to 1.25m) for alternatives if the mitigation proposals Removes basement parking cannot be met. adjacent to the Mossel Street river frontage.

6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site presently houses two disused fish factories that would need to be demolished. The land is currently zoned Industrial 1 but a new zoning of Business 1 would be required. The proposed development will be located between the Laaiplek Harbour (to the south) and St Helena Bay (to the northwest). It would take the form of a three storey building, comprising mainly residential units as well as commercial units such as shops, restaurants and recreation facilities, all to serve the potential tourist market.

The revised project description schedule of accommodation:

• Self-catering units, ranging in size of accommodation within three floors; units to face south onto the river and harbour and also north towards the sea; • Accommodation for commercial uses, mainly on the west side of the development and totalling approximately 500 square meters (ground and first floors); • A reception and lobby areas, guest services, shops and restaurants (ground floor); • A pool deck and outside dining areas (ground floor); • Parking: 0 garages, 155 lower ground vehicular bays and 122 off street vehicular bays (total parking 277 vehicular bays).

The entire structure will be less than 12 m from the Natural ground level (street level) as required by HWC (refer Annexure 4).

7. HIA MITIGATION MEASURES (REVISED HIA 27 JANUARY 2015)

The following mitigation measures were accepted by IACOM in the IACOM February 2015 meeting:

• The height of the proposed building should be reduced to a maximum of 3 floors from street levels, approximately 12 m including roofscape. This is in accordance with the Laaiplek Harbour SDF (2013) and the Velddrif/Laaiplek Precinct Plan (August 2014). Otherwise the scale and bulk form will result in a large visual intrusion into the coastal landscape and negatively affect the sense of place on this sensitive environment; • The building must include riverside commercial activities to ensure attraction to the harbour riverside precinct and recreational mooring bay. Although there is a requirement to raise the building due to the flood line, the street wall facades can be utilised for interpretative displays on Laaiplek history; • An appropriate palette of colours and materials should be used for exterior finishes to be compatible with the context; • Lighting should not be excessive and signage should not dominate any elevation; • Every effort should be made to incorporate aspects of local heritage into the development so as to celebrate rather than erode the fishing industry which gave rise to Laaiplek;

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environment 4 Cover Letter to HWC: Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape 17 June 2015

• If any archaeological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development then work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the heritage authorities and may require inspection by an archaeologist. Such heritage is the property of the state and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution.

8. ASSESSMENT OF REVISED PROPOSAL JUNE 2015 The assessment is based on the mitigation measures and HWC Interim comments

Table 2: assessment of revised design

No Mitigation measure & HWC Design revision Assessment Mitigation comment measure 1 The height of the proposed Height reduced to Positive. The - building reduced to a maximum below 12m from proposed roofscape of 3 floors from street levels, surrounding also means that, approximately 12 m including street levels. viewed from the roofscape. harbour edge, the building will be less than 12 m high and will be far less imposing than was the case with previous proposals. 2 The building must include Commercial use No additional Revise scheme to riverside commercial activities has remained commercial use has incorporate to ensure attraction to the facing west been positioned to additional viable harbour riverside precinct and (Mossel Street) face the river. The commercial use on recreational mooring bay. with the corner applicant’s concern of Mossel street position facing economic feasibility ground floor the river (south) with the loss of 21% accommodation (also Mossel of the previous facing the river - to Street). scheme’s GLA (in the a minimum of 15% form of residential of the ground floor units) due to the usage. lowering of the The ground floor at building to under present is 12 m. approximately 1300 sq. meters 15% of 1300 is 200 sq. meters of commercial usage. This is approximately 4 residential units to be changed into commercial use

NOTE: THIS MITIGATION MEASURE HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE APPLICANT PRIOR TO THIS SUBMISSION

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environment 5 Cover Letter to HWC: Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape 17 June 2015

No Mitigation measure & HWC Design revision Assessment Mitigation comment measure 3 Although there is a requirement Non-applicable as Positive, the 1.25 m - to raise the building due to the the building has wall will act as a plinth flood line, the street wall been lowered to to the building and be facades can be utilised for 1.25 above street appropriately detailed interpretative displays on level (the as such. Being just Laaiplek history. minimum height over waist high, the permissible due wall would no longer to the 1:50 flood form a visual barrier line). between the harbour edge and the building. 4 Lighting should not be Detailed design Positive - excessive and signage should will incorporate not dominate any elevation. this measure. This measure will be placed in the BAR as a condition and included in the EMP.

5 Every effort should be made to The detailing of Positive - incorporate aspects of local the proposed heritage into the development building is simple so as to celebrate rather than to be more in erode the fishing industry, context to which gave rise to Laaiplek. Laaiplek. 6 If any archaeological material This measure will Positive - or human burials are be placed in the uncovered during the course of BAR as a development then work in the condition and immediate area should be included in the halted. The find would need to EMP. be reported to the heritage authorities and may require inspection by an archaeologist. Such heritage is the property of the state and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution.

The heritage consultants Heritage Positive - should comment on the practitioners have proposals put before met and been in Committee and make consultation with recommendations for the applicant and alternatives if the mitigation project team for proposals cannot be met. revised design.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environment 6 Cover Letter to HWC: Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape 17 June 2015

9. CONCLUSION The amended design has revised the design in 3 important ways: • Scale: the building is reduced to under 12 m from street level to top of roof pitches; • Relationship between the building, Mossel street and the river: the level of the ground floor facing south towards Mossel street and the river is 1.25m above street level which allows for a positive interface between the building and the public domain; • Design resolution of a long structure: the design has been amended to create a variety of building heights and roofscapes.

10. RECOMMENDATIONS The report recommends HWC IACOM to provide a positive comment in terms of the NHRA Section 38(8) for the revised design with the recommended mitigation measure to increase commercial use on the building’s ground floor Mossel Street River accommodation by a minimum of 15 %.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environment 7 Cover Letter to HWC: Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape 17 June 2015

ANNEXURE 1: HWC INTERIM COMMENTS

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environment 8 Cover Letter to HWC: Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape 17 June 2015

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environment 9 Cover Letter to HWC: Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape 17 June 2015

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environment 10 Cover Letter to HWC: Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape 17 June 2015

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environment 11 Cover Letter to HWC: Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape 17 June 2015

ANNEXURE 2: REVISED DESIGN (attached separate to the letter)

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environment 12 4.92

RS6 46A.69 PARKING 4.56 92 90 BAYS 5.09 4.96 6B 4.87 90 G V-K16 4.93 4.62 4.83 4 .06 4 16 5 5.03 4.88 4 .07 GP4A 90 5 5.03 4 4.90 4.98

GWS6+ 5.02 4 4.96 92 GP4 36 5.09 4.44 5.02 PAR+ 4.63 4 TST+ 4.92 4 5.06 5.03 4 4.91 CRS6 4.686A V-K4 4.53 GRAVEL 4.83 14 4.89 AFDK+ 5.06 4 G 92 4.87 4.67 4.97 ROAD G V-K4 .91 RMP1+ .82 4 5.07 RMP1+ 4 C 5.07 14 SH+ 4.87 4.99 GP4 AFDK+ G 5.08 4.97 4.98 RMP+ RMP+ 6B 5.09 5.08 4.77 SH+ SWS3 4.96 MB4 4.85 V-K16 5.05 GP4A TRS+ 4.73 5.15 5.21 TRS+ RAMP 4 5.21 OVERHEAD 16 4.97 ELECTRICAL TPL+ 4.77 5.12 SWS3+ 44 KBM+ 4.90 36 ELE1+ .83 4.92 G1 4.41 4.92 4 RAMP 5.19 4 ELE1+ ROOF BOX VLR+ .82 4.91 282VLR+ 4 5.42 - 0G V-K4 ELE1+ 5 42 5.13 - 41 4.79 4.87 14 VLR+ 4.83 RS6 VLR+ 46A.62 5.48 G 4.48 5 48 5.05 4 TPL+ 4.92 LEVEL G1 5.03 44 48 5.04 4.77 FLOOR .05 G G 4.62 A 4.77 KBM+ B 4.78 CONCRETE G (MSL) BEL+ 4.96 KBM+ .42m 4.87 .71 5 LEVEL D 4 G1 AFDK2+ BB4+ ME4 PIL+ PIL+ PIL+ G1 GP4 GP4A PIL+ 5.03 D 5.01 5.42 5.19 5.19 5.13 5.13 5.14 .22 FLOOR 5.01 5.14 5 34 KBM+ HEK+PIL+ HEK+PIL+ 321 .14 BB11+G1 4 36 92 4.75 4.76 5 5.14 5.14.15 55.19.19 V-K4 4.82 4.30 4.86 KAS1+ (MSL) .32 STOEP+ PT+ 14 4.76 6B 5 .48m 5.15 .82 4.70 50 5 4 4.81 TRANS+ V-K6 - 5.08 4.65 STOEP+ 6B16 BB4+ 5.39 4.71.71 .42 RW 4 - 45 5 - RS6 .36 5 5 20 .54 STOEP 46A OVERHEAD .41 34 OFF STREET PARKING BB4+ 4 5.43 4.25 257 3.18 .00 44 4.47 VWR+ ROOF 5.36 6 AFDK2+ G 2.18 VLR+ 4.95 TST+ 4.65 .72 VLR+ .50 - PARKING .55 5 4 50.40 33 5 G 25 4.90 BAYS G 3 4.53 4.79 V-K3 .74 LEVEL 4 13 AFDK+ KAS1+ .78 .13 BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM 4 4 WALL 5 KAS1+ 5.29 FLOOR 92 .28 4.81 4.78 5 carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet

G1 G OOG+ (MSL) 5.24 STOEP+ 16 4.49 AFDK+ 5.35 .50m 5.17 4.69 TAR 5.12 5 TPL+ 4.42 4 G1 14 V-K4 4.80 4.95 E 4.79 4.76 fr BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM les les les les les les les

LOUNGE les SWS3+93 4.81 G 4.47 BEDROOM carpet

G KITCHEN les 5.15 BUILDING BATHROOM les 4 4.76 KST+ 3 V-K3 13 4.45 MB4 4.75 4.71 4.74 4.33 fr fr fr fr fr fr fr

92 G 4.75 5.17

WM+ KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN 16 C .51 4.67 4 KPL+ les les les les les les les .50 VLR+ 34 4 VLR+ .28 4.67 5 28 fr 5 LEVEL FLOOR BUILDING LOUNGE les

KITCHEN les 110mm BEDROOM carpet fr VILLIERS STREET BATHROOM les (MSL)5 G13 .28m KITCHEN les 4.82 5 FS BATHROOM les LOUNGE les DE BEDROOM carpet .25

BALCONY CONCRETE 4 LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE 4.70 Tiles les les les les les les les 16 4.57 92 4.74 GP4A TAR 44 .18 4.42 ME13+ 5 ME13+ 4.80 .36 34 5 4.60 KITCHEN les

WALL fr GP4 BATHROOM les VME4+ME4 5.08 BALCONY 4.69 LOUNGE les Tiles BEDROOM carpet 50 - LOUNGE fr 92 4.65 les 4 45 LOUNGE les 3 V-K3 13 4.62 44 G 14 4 .21 - .83 G V-K4 93 4.49 4.45 4.49 4 BALCONY 4 .49 .46 16 BB13+ME13+BEDROOM carpet LEVEL 4.59 4 4 4.50 .60 ME13+ 4 4.53 44.67.67 Tiles BUILDING 5.36 FLOOR FS TPL+

257 KITCHEN les 4.26 RW BATHROOM les 34 BEDROOM BB11+ (MSL) 4.55 5.13 BB11+G1+ .21 .26 G1+ .29m 110mm carpet 5.26 5.27 5 5.12 D 51 4.47 G1 BEDROOM 5.26 0.65 BALCONY carpet 5.25 VLR+ LOUNGE VLR+ .29 Tiles G 5 fr les 5.23 5 29 G DINING 4.45 LOUNGE les 44 les G13 4.32 EN-SUITE KITCHEN les BEDROOM carpet 92 4 4.39 POOL TERRACE 4.58 4.56 G1 les fr LEVEL BATHROOM les .21 V-K4 5

LOUNGE KITCHEN les 110mm 4.54 FLOOR FS

14 BATHROOM les les LOUNGE les RW+ 4.57 EN-SUITE BEDROOM carpet GRAVEL 5.12 BALCONY (MSL) .75 les 5.26m VLR+ CONCRETE 4 Tiles VLR+ ROAD 5 5.26 26 RW+ .16 BEDROOM 110mm 5 BB13+ G G1 carpet EN-SUITE KITCHENG 4.35 4.70 5.17 4.35 les les RMP4+ G13 FS .28 G1 4.31 4 4 G ELE+ JVR3 5.14 .53 4.89 4.96 JVR3 4 5.11 RMP4+ V-K4 5.19 4.49 BEDROOM DINING EN-SUITE BB12G1+ 5 11

RW KITCHEN les 14 4.90 4.52 BALCONY CONCRETE 34 carpet les les

BLOCKEDfr KPL+ LOUNGE 4.48 BATHROOM les 4.45 Tiles 5.16 G les G 4.47 G1 4.37 5.04 C LOUNGE les DINING 4 BB12 BEDROOM carpet 5.02 .25 .46 4 44 les BEDROOM 4.39 EN-SUITE carpet 0.14 GP4 BB13+ .70 LOUNGE les 4.22 BLOCKED 4 91 B 4.53 les KAS2+ 4.25 BB12 EN-SUITE fr 4.79 GP4A BALCONY les KITCHEN BEDROOM 4.81 Tiles carpet RAMP

les LOUNGE les KAS2+ VLR+ VIBRACRETE BB13+ .39 BB12 BB12 VLR+ BEDROOM carpet 4 4.24 FS .84 .20 RW+ 4.50 4 5 TPL+ 110mm CONCRETE BEDROOM 4.38 4.24 RW RW+ 5 20 JB1 4.52 carpet KITCHEN JB1 4 EN-SUITE KITCHEN les LEVEL 4.50 .41 BPLV2+ SWS5+ 4 V-K4 BATHROOM les 4.38 4.60 14 les les JVR2 FLOOR .50 50 4.40 4 4 4.41 JVR2 24 WALL 2.64 4.63 63 4 3 13 V-K3 G (MSL) 4.16 4.14 4.16 TST+ RW BB12 93 .27 KLEP+ BEDROOM DINING 4.27 EN-SUITE .20m 4 4.26 4 .74 4.82 5 14 V-K4 4.37 - 1 .16 .13 4.17 34 carpet les les 4 4 4.25 LOUNGE 4.38 BPLV2M+ les 4.62 3.78 RMP4+ DINING RMP4+ .12 COMMERCIAL KAS2+ 5G.17 4 VM3 BEDROOM 4.26 fr VM3 les 4.47 0.00 0.60 44 41 carpet 4.18 0 00 EN-SUITE LOUNGE les LOUNGE les .50 KITCHEN les - BEDROOM carpet .21 BB12 4 les 4.83 fr KREEF EN-SUITE BATHROOM les 7 BEDROOM KITCHEN les les BATHROOM les

KITCHEN LOUNGE les carpet BEDROOM carpet les G 4.11 G 213 BEDROOM 4.94 4 carpet EN-SUITE KITCHEN 4.28 V-K4 14 G 4.25 4.27 les les 5.04 BUILDING G DINING EN-SUITE 4.07 les les G 3.95 G G 3.98 4.02 KITCHEN les

DINING STREET fr BEDROOM BATHROOM les A les carpet

EN-SUITE LOUNGE les BEDROOM carpet

les RMP3+ 3.95 RMP3+ 4.91 44 3.92 G E BEDROOM 4.57 34 KITCHEN .15 carpet 5 4 les .00

14 G 4 V-K4 4.13 3.76 ERF 2838 4 4.10 LEVEL 4.14 KITCHEN EN-SUITE G FLOOR - les les 4.21

(MSL) 36 4.95m RAMP PAVING .25 VLR+4 .20 G VLR+ BEDROOM 3.68 4.95 SWS5+91 95 - 4.19 carpet 4 fr CONCRETE 38 5A V-K5 4.11

4.05 C LOUNGE les 4.10 180 BEDROOM carpet

RMP3+ 4.91 RMP3+ 3 13 93 .78 V-K3 KITCHEN les 3.75 3.82 3 3.74 3.77 G 14 4 BATHROOM les 4.11 V-K4 3.75 3.72 3.75 64 4 BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM .00 BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet - carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet TAR 2 .85 GBM+ 4.23 3 OMHB14 3.57 .25 - VME14+ TPL+ 3.57 3.60 BB+ 3.84

G KITCHEN les 3.46 25 G 4.86 fr

BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM les ERF 2837 MBO4 G les les les 3.56 les les les les les les les les les les 4.59 les les les les les LOUNGE les

BEDROOM carpet CONCRETE MO4 KBBM 2.98 HUT4 4.02 .50 3.25 3 G 3.51 TPL+ 3.72 MBO4 G 3.48 BB12 4.82 MO4 3 .82 SECURITY 2.78 .25 4 MB4 WALL RMP2+ BOL+ 3.50 HUT4+G3 3.56 3.93 MO4 fr fr fr 22.85.83 fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr 2.78 RMP2+ 4.70 G 3.55 FENCE 3 KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN .00KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN .00 G les les les les les les les les les les les les les les les les les les 3.51 2.75 4.75 4 BB3+G3 BPLV2+ OMHB14H 2.69.66 3.71 3.60 G 4.72 RAMP TAR BPLV2+ VLR+ 3.71 VLR+ BOL+ 14 RW .72 3.82 V-K4 3.75 4 4 3.72 WALL 4 72 3.75 BB3+ MB2 2.63 3.99 3.55 MB2 3.55 OMHE14 0.91 fr 91 3.39 3.87 3.08 BB3+ 2.92 LOUNGE les G4 LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE

3.03 BEDROOM carpet LEVEL les les les les les les les les les les RW+ les les les les les les les les 4 FLOOR RMP2+ .50 4.66 RMP2+ 5A INFORMAL .99 V-K5 RW 3 3.36 25 .74 3.78 3.78 3 G4 KITCHEN les 3.12 .81 G BATHROOM les 3 GBM .36 (MSL) BOL+ 4 4.11 G .72m 3.73 4 G4 .30 3.16 STRUCTURE 0.73 4 OMHB5 MOSSEL RW .77 CONCRETE 3 3.08 G4 RW+ 2.78 3.81 .25 ME3+ 3.09 BB2+ VLR+4 .15 3.67 VLR+ HEK+ MB3 3 4.32 3.48 3.23 M3X+ 3.14 G3 2.34 32 2.59 4 SECURITY .44 LEVEL 0 110mm 3 V-K3 170 FS 93 .26 RW COMMERCIAL 3.32 3.26 3.22 3 FLOOR RMP1+ 14 V-K4 4 CONCRETE G 33.25.25 3.20 3.26 FENCE 3.78 2.94 .00 RMP1+ RW RW (MSL) 3.86 .75 1.65 3 3 110mm 4.32m BB2+ FS 3 BB2+ 3.76 2.78 2.83 .00 3.66 KRN+ .00 1.29 .52 4 3 WATERMETER - BB3+ 2.41 2.48 2.64 BB2A+ BB2A+G2A 3.31 43 33.33.37 G3 .37 .35 2.57 G2A 0 BB12+ 0 45 3.31 3.53 4.50 IL+ BB12+ OURW+ 1.29 H1+ .86 RAMP 2.94 D 3.32 WALL KRN+ 3 STREET ME3+ 3.63 BPLV12+ 3.86 .75 .50 ME3+ VWR+ G2 3 BB3+ 3.85 4.38 .47TRS+ TRS+G2+ BPLV12+ .87 4 4.52 4.53 3.91 VLR+ .57 3.46 2 BB3+TRS+ TRS+ 3 VLR+ WALL 23.91.14 3.78 3.81 RW+ 2.77 RW+ 110mmBB12+ 3 81 CONCRETE BB12 .83 FS 3.92 BOL+ - 2 4.41 .50 3.75 3.60 PAVING 4 G2ME2+ G G2B BPLV12+ CONCRETE G2 14 .45 33.43.43 2.76 TRS+ 3.98 G14+ G2 ME2+ 3 TRS+ 4.49 4.52 G2 G2 G2 3.34 3.14 CONCRETE 4.37 G14+ STOEP+ 3.31 3.83 G 4.45 5.14 3.81 3.72 VLR+ 4.10 G2 VLR+ 4.38 .25 3.40 4 G2 RW 4 3.27 .25 40 RW .00 .50 3 3 3 4 SWS4+ 3 .11 .78 .00 RMP1+ 3 2 2.50.83 .75 4 4 G 3.03 3.53 LEVEL RMP1+ 2.48 RW .25 .75 FLOOR 3.85 LEVEL 2.50 3 3.50 FLOOR 0.30 0.33 2.83 (MSL) .49 G14+ .81m 2 3 2 4.07

.00 .75 (MSL) RW 0.34 3 3.40m RW 2.83 .50 .50 G 3 3.17 2.83 2.54 3 .49 G BUILDING.25 2 .29 3.27 3 0 0.34 ME3 .25 BOL+ 14 3 2.74 BUILDING .46 V-K4 3 4 3.30 3.34 3.34 MB3 2.96 3 .25 SEWER PIPES, SW .50 ALL 3 .00 SIZE .25 91 3.40 LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE 3 LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE 110mmLOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE 3 LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE LOUNGE 300mm G1A G1A BUILDING les les les les les les les les les les les les les les les les les les 3.14 les 3.08 les les les

.75 BUILDING G 2.43 5A TPL+ 2 V-K5 3.36 3.06 25 3.32 3.36 G2B G2 3.03 3.11 2 .25 SWR TSTUT+ OMHD+ .17 .75 .39 3 3 3 SECURITY 2.78 1.76 FENCE KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN .02 V-K4 les les les les les les les les les les les les les les les les les les les les les les 1 2.61

G BOL+ 3.05 SW SWR+ 350mm 3.32 RI2+ 2.77 2.58

TLYN+ fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr fr 3.26 BUILDING 93 2.71 14 4 BUILDING 2.60 .00 2.59 .75 3 3 2 RI2 RI2 2.61 2.58 2.57 COMMERCIAL BATHROOM LEVEL BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM 1.93 1.97 FLOORles les les les les les les INFORMAL les les lesBUILDING les les les les les les les les les les les les 0.65 0.60 ASB+ 2.52m (MSL) 2.75 3.01 TAR BB4+G1 BB4+ STOEP+.62 STRUCTURE G1 2 22.58.58 2.54 G 2.59 2.89 C BB4+ BB4+ 2.44 2.47 TRS+ TRS+ 2.76 .25 2.79 G BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM 3 2.92 4 carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet carpet 2.45

BOL+ .15 3 14 .97 VLR+ 2 VLR+ V-K4 .52 4 2.94 2 G 2.98 G5+ 2 52 2.53.53 2 .50 2.50 91 3.09 2 G .50 FCONCRETE G5+G4 2.48 2.46 2 .50 2 FLOOR LEVEL LEVEL 36 .50 2 FLOOR LEVEL STOEP - 5A FLOOR 25 3.06 LEVEL 3.06 2 HUT4 DRN (MSL) DRN (MSL) BB4+G4 .50 2.56 FLOOR .26m DRN 5B 2.54.51 2 2.47m 3.04 .21 (MSL) 5B 2 2.20 3.04 HUT4G3 2.40 2.43m 18 4 2.44 OMHE4+ (MSL) 2.31 .40 .91 2 2.81m DRN 1 1.86 1.44 - BB4+ .39 2.49 .30 DRN 2 H1+ 0 0.34 .96 OMHB5 2.40 0 .21 G 3.07 HUT4 2.42 2.43 2.14 2 2.27 56 7 SWS4+ 14 SECURITY .25 2.33 2.81 G OVERHEAD V-K4 .54 G2 2.76 2 .35 BB24+ .74 4 BB4+ 0 VLR+ 2.26 2.29 1 2.81 2.39 VLR+ G VLR+ BOL+ 2.26 2.27 VLR+ .98 BB24+ .47 VLR+ 2 G 2.29 26 DRN+ G 2 VLR+ 2.27 2 DRN+ 2.40 97 - 1 - 42 .23 G1A+G2 G1A+ 0.53 H G1+ .25 2 47 2.43 FENCE .14 ROOF VLR+ .20 2 2.61 2 BB14 STOEP+ 2 2 2.26.21 BB4+ H1+ VLR+ 2.25 2 43BB14 BB14G1 2.42 .42 HUT4+ .34 2.81 DRN+ 2 2.29 STOEP+ G 2 2.35 2 G2 2.21 2.45.30.32 5B .46 81 200mm 2 2 2.30 2 SW DRN+ 3.00 DRN+ .27 CONCRETE 2.49 2 KRN+ K .49 OMHE4+HUT4+ TRS+ 200mm 91 2 HUT4 SW 22.34.34 TRS+ 2.93 2.34 NB1+ 2.42 2.42 RAMP 2.22 OMHB14 CONCRETE BOL+ CONCRETE CONCRETE FH+ 2.61 OMHB4+ 2.11 2.75 2.34 73.55 4 G .20 2 OMHD+ 4 RMP+ .92 BOL+ SH+ 4 .15 4 2 2.91 135 4 BB24+4 2.20 .18 SH+ 2 RMP+4 .16 2 2.17 .16 2.18 BB24+ .18 2.16 2 2.19 2.17 .00 24.20 4 2 BOL+ 2.18 2.15 OMHE14+ BOL+ 2.15 STUCK G3 NB1+ 2.17 4 3 2.44 4 2.43 .24 4 2.17 2 2.17 RI1+ 2.15 .16 TAR 5A - 0 4 2 .23 V-K5 2.88 - SWR 0 2 2.85 - VAS+VWR+ 5B AV+ 22.55.54 90 2.88 14 2.48 .51 G 93 0 2 AFDK+ 2.62 .19 2.50 BB4+2.53 2 V-K4 2.50 BOL+ 2.60 2.83 4 1.06 .63 - 2 7 BB4+4 P200+ 2.25.25 RI1 SWR+.53 2 .45 1 .51 G .07 0 1 2 2.84 OMHB14+ .00 .16 H1+ 2 2.39 42 2.40

110mm HEK+ 2.37 4 1.52 BB4+ .31 2.56 2 91 SECURITY 2.79 0.64 BOL+ 2.79 SW 91 91 91 2.09 14 SW 2.09 2.10 91 2.54 OMHB14 2.11 2.44 FENCE V-K4 4 2.49 2.32 TAR 4 SW .50 200mm 2 91 2 4 2.10 .75 V-K4 2.32 TAR 2.51 91 2.05 RI2+ 144 200mm BOL+ 2.50 2.56 91 .74 2.50 J OMHD+ 2 MOSSEL 2.09 2.73 4 4 2.41 STREET 5A 2.46 2.71 4 V-K5 2.53 2.68 5B 2.72 RI2 350mm BOL+ 2.50 2.67 91 VWR+ 2.65 1.71 2.31 2.00 5 91 .99 SH+ SH+ 5 G 1 1.98 2.00 .65 2.08 2.02 5 SW 2 0.79 1.98 5 2.00 5 .99 T04 BOL+ 1 T04 1.97 2.57 57 BOL+ 2 91 2.58 2.56 91 5 2.11 JB2 1.96 JB2 5 1.95 1.95 1 95 5 T13 T13 1.91 1.92 BOL+ 5A 1 92 2.56 2.56 BOL+ V-K5 1.88 2.50 91 OMHD+ 5B 2.42 2.54 .54 2 91 2.08

BOL+ 15 2.50 15 CONCRETE 1.89 5 .89 15 RI2 1.93 1 1.85 91 2.08 5A 2.47 2.36 .50 15 2 V-K5 1.81 G .43 .48 BOL+ 2 5 2 2.45 .45 1.94 5B 1 2.46 15 RI1 1.81 0.91 SW 15 CONCRETE 1.84 RI1 .60 91 1 BOL+ 2.19 15 2.42 1.55 1.05 RI1 1.82 200mm V-K5 5A 2.38 1.02 1.56 RI2+ 2.40 CONCRETE 0.55 OMHB5 .41 2.36 2 5 1.92 0.53 1.01 5B KBL+ BB5 2.37 1 BB5 2.39 .75 .72 BB5 1 1.74 .55 ELECTRICAL 1.71 0 15 TOP75+RI1+ BOL+ V-K15+ .12 V-K15+ 1.83 LPL+ 1.69 1 1.60 1.64 2.32 RI1+ V-K15+ 1.71 1.55 1.60 LPL+ .72 GP5 M5 1 1.77 BOX B 1.73 M5 SECURITY A M5+ 1.71 V-K15+ 5 1.71 1.70 1.92 15 CABLES RI1+ BB5 1.82 ELECTRICAL 1.56 1.69 M5 .76 V-K15+ FENCE BB5 1 1.62 .74 ASB+ 1 1 1.70 BOX V-K15+ .75 1.63 WALL M5 BB5 ASB+ SW 1 1.70 1.68 1.70 .75 ELE1+ V-K15+ ELE+ 1.89 5 M5 1.67 1.67 1.93 1.74 ELE+ BOL+ 1.99 2.23 ELE1+ ELE1+ M5 1.86 1.93 1.68 ELE1+ LPL+ 200mm 15 1.95 1.68 1.83 ELE1+ 1.93 2.25 SW RI2 TAR 15 1.83 1.54 BB5 1.73 BOL+ 2.13 350mm 0.97 V-K15+ 1.66 TIMBER BOARDWALK .57 DECK 350mm 0 M5 1.71 DECK DECK 5 1.94 15 SW .83 1 BB5 1.73 RI1+ V-K15+ 1.54 1.59 BOL+ 2.05 M5 H1+ 1.73 DECK 2.05 BB5 DECK+ DECK+ 1.71 1.81 1.82

LPL+ V-K15+ 1.66 1.65 M5 200mm 1.66 DECK+ SW 1.77 BOL+ 1.96

.00 5 BB5 1.96 .73 2 BB5+5 1 11.92.92 15 V-K15+ 1.78 1.69 KBM+ 1.99 M5 1.71

BOL+ 1.93 CONCRETE DECK

DECK+ 1.82

REV. DESCRIPTION PROJECT / PROJEK DRAWING / TEKENING PROJECT No. DWG No. REVISION No. DATE PROJEK Nr. WYSG. BESKRYWING DATUM TEK Nr. WYSIGING Nr. 74 DE BRON AVENUE, Proposed development, 1341 2.01 5 KENRIDGE, DURBANVILLE PO BOX 4931, TYGER VALLEY 7536 Bergriviermond, Laaiplek SCALE DATE DRAWN www.vbba.co.za GROUND LEVEL SKAAL DATUM GETEKEN email: [email protected] IACom feedback TEL: (021) 914-4945 Nov. 2013 TV FAX: (021) 914-4963 1:400 date printed: 11.06.2015 Ground Level 12m Height Restricon Above Site

SECOND FLOOR LINE

SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR LINE

Mossel Str BOUNDARY De Villiers Str

FIRST FLOOR

BOUNDARY GROUND FLOOR 5.00 ASL 4.50 ASL 4.75 ASL 4.75 ASL 4.00 ASL 4.25 ASL 3.50 ASL 3.75 ASL 3.50 ASL 1/50 Year Flood Level GROUND FLOOR BASEMENT PARKING 2.00 ASL 2.25 ASL

SECTION A-A SCALE 1:250

Level Above Site Ground 12m Height Restricon LINE

SECOND FLOOR LINE BOUNDARY BOUNDARY FIRST FLOOR

Mossel Street De Villiers FIRST FLOOR GROUND FLOOR Str 5.00 ASL 5.06 ASL 4.50 ASL 4.75 ASL 4.00 ASL 4.25 ASL 3.50 ASL 3.75 ASL 3.50 ASL 1/50 Year Flood Level GROUND FLOOR BASEMENT PARKING 2.00 ASL 2.25 ASL

SECTION B-B SCALE 1:250

12m Height Restricon Above Site Ground Level

3.50 ASL 1/50 Year Flood Level

SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE 1:400

REV. DESCRIPTION DATE PROJECT / PROJEK DRAWING / TEKENING PROJECT No. DWG No. REVISION No. WYSG. BESKRYWING DATUM PROJEK Nr. TEK Nr. WYSIGING Nr. 74 DE BRON AVENUE, Proposed development, 1341 3.00 KENRIDGE, DURBANVILLE SECTIONS A-A & B-B / 6 PO BOX 4931, TYGER VALLEY 7536 Bergriviermond, Laaiplek SCALE DATE DRAWN www.vbba.co.za SKAAL DATUM GETEKEN email: [email protected] IACom feedback SOUTH ELEVATION TEL: (021) 914-4945 Nov. 2013 TV/DvS FAX: (021) 914-4963 1:250 / 400 date printed: 15.06.2015 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR A PROPOSED HOLIDAY RESORT ON ERVEN 2837 & 2838, LAAIPLEK, PIKETBERG MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, WESTERN CAPE

Required under Section 38 (8) of the National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25 of 1999).

HWC Case No.: 14030501AS0502

Report for:

D J Environmental Consultants Postnet Suite 66, Private Bag X15 Somerset West, 7130 Tel: 021 851 0900 Email: [email protected]

On behalf of:

Top Gear Investments (Pty) Ltd

Dr Jayson Orton & Carol Orton ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd 6A Scarborough Road, Muizenberg, 7945 Tel: (021) 788 8425 | 083 272 3225 Email: [email protected]

In association

4 Oakdale Road Newlands Cape Town South Africa M 071 1090 900 E-Mail [email protected]

1st draft: 04 June 2014 Revised: 17 September 2014 & 27 January 2015 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 2 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Site Name

Bergrivier Mond, Laaiplek

2. Location

Corner de Villiers and Mossel Streets, Laaiplek, Piketberg Magisterial District. Erf 2837 and erf 2838, Laaiplek. 32° 46’ 11” S 18 08’ 50” E

3. Locality Plan

4. Description of Proposed Development

The proposed development will be located between the Laaiplek Harbour (to the south) and St Helena Bay (to the northwest). It would take the form of a four and five storey building, comprising mainly residential units as well as some commercial units such as shops, restaurants and recreation facilities, all to serve the potential tourist trade. The proposed schedule of accommodation includes the following:  Self-catering units, ranging in size of accommodation over four and five floors with lofts; units to face south onto the river and harbour and also north towards the sea;  Accommodation for commercial uses, mainly on the west side of the development and totalling about 960.5 m2 (ground and first floors);  A reception and lobby areas, guest services, shops and restaurants (ground floor) ;  A pool deck and outside dining areas (ground floor);  Parking: 22 garages, 178 lower ground floor spaces and 122 off street spaces.

The entire structure from the south would be 16.895 m high. The site is already serviced so no new bulk services would need to be supplied.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet iii Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

5. Heritage Resources Identified

Palaeontology: The site has marine shell related to earlier raised sea levels. The resource is focused in the north-western corner of the site with the rest of the site having already been disturbed in the past. Archaeology: No archaeological resources were present. Cultural landscape and sense of place: The West Coast landscape and the local harbour environment are significant scenic resources contributing to the sense of place of the village. The development will impose a significant built form into this landscape which surrounds the development site. Intangible heritage: The intangible heritage of the local fishing community is connected to Laaiplek pre settlement. Laaiplek position on the river mouth has allowed its use to be associated with the movement and sourcing of resources (grain and fish). The development of fish preparations is of intangible and scientifically significant. Built Environment: The historic settlement pattern of Laaiplek has been determined by the opportunities afforded by the position at the river mouth and coast. This pattern and its close relationship to the river is assessed as culturally significant. Within these precincts of significance, structures have varying levels of significance.

6. Anticipated Impacts on Heritage Resources

Paleontological resources will be directly impacted but these are of low significance (ungraded). The cultural landscape (provisional grade 3b) will be directly impacted through change to its visual character. Intangible heritage (provisional grade 3a) will be indirectly impacted unless it is well integrated with the proposed development. The site is situated within a precinct of local significance (historic) and mitigation measures are recommended to limit negative impacts that could reduce significance by a new larger scale building within a sensitive precinct. No impacts to significant structures are anticipated.

7. Recommendations

It is recommended that the proposed development be supported, as it wills neither negatively impact significant heritage resources nor the historic settlement pattern. It will positively impact the tourism industry and assist in the transformation of the ailing Laaiplek Harbour into larger mixed use area. However, consideration of the sensitivities of a coastal landscape, the links between historic core site and village to the harbour, public precinct between the site and river in addition to the intangible fishing heritage of the context need to be considered.

The following mitigation measures are recommended in order to reduce potential negative impacts to this sensitive precinct.

 The height of the proposed building should be reduced to a maximum of 3 floors from street level, approximately 12 m including roofscape. Otherwise the scale and bulk will result in a large visual intrusion into the coastal landscape and negatively affect the sense of place on this sensitive environment;  Investigation to include commercial activities at ground floor levels to ensure attraction to the harbour riverside precinct and recreational mooring bay result. Although there is a requirement to raise the building facing the river due to flood line levels, this street ground

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet iv Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

floor level can be realised with interpretive heritage displays and commercial activities could potentially occur on the northern and/or eastern street levels;  An appropriate palette of colours and materials should be used for exterior finishes;  Lighting should not be excessive and signage should not dominate any elevation;  Every effort should be made to incorporate aspects of local heritage into the development so as to celebrate rather than erode the fishing industry which gave rise to the village;  If any archaeological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development then work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the heritage authorities and may require inspection by an archaeologist. Such heritage is the property of the state and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution.

8. Author/s and Date

HIA: Dr Jayson Orton and Carol Orton ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd

In association

Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environment

1st draft: 04 June 2014 Revision: 17 September 2014 Revision: 27 January 2015

VIA: Karen Hansen Karen Hansen Landscape Architect 1st draft: March 2014 Revision: September 2014

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet v Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape Glossary

Cosmic landscape: One of three archetypes of natural place developed by Norberg-Schulz (1980) and generated by the basic relationship between earth and sky. Cosmic landscapes are those with wide open spaces and little topographic relief.

Later Stone Age: Period of the Stone Age extending over the last approximately 20 000 years.

Pleistocene: The geological period beginning approximately 2.5 million years ago and preceding the Holocene (last 12 000 years).

Abbreviations

ASAPA: Association of Southern African NHRA: National Heritage Resources Act (No. Professional Archaeologists 25) of 1999

CRM: Cultural Resources Management NID: Notification of Intent to Develop

GPS: global positioning system SAHRA: South African Heritage Resources Agency HIA: Heritage Impact Assessment SAHRIS: South African Heritage Resources HWC: Heritage Western Cape Information System

LSA: Later Stone Age

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet vi Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 8 1.1. Project description...... 9 1.1.1. Alternatives ...... 12 1.2. Terms of Reference ...... 14 1.3. Scope and purpose of the report ...... 15 1.4. The authors ...... 15 1.5. Declaration of independence ...... 15 1.6. Public Particpation ...... 15 2. HERITAGE LEGISLATION ...... 16 3. METHODS...... 17 3.1. Literature survey ...... 17 3.2. Field survey ...... 17 3.3. Assessment of Impacts ...... 17 3.4. Grading ...... 17 3.5. Assumptions and limitations ...... 17 4. CULTURAL HERITAGE CONTEXT ...... 18 4.1. Paleontological aspects ...... 18 4.2. Archaeological aspects ...... 18 4.3. Industrial and social heritage of Laaiplek and its Fishing Sector ...... 18 5. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT ...... 34 5.1. Site context ...... 34 5.2. Site description ...... 34 5.3. Built environment ...... 39 6. FINDINGS OF THE HERITAGE STUDY ...... 54 6.1. Archaeological study...... 54 6.2. Visual study ...... 54 6.3. Social And Fishing Industry History ...... 55 6.4. Built Environment ...... 56 6.5. Visual Assessment ...... 59 6.6. Graves ...... 62 6.7. The cultural landscape and sense of place ...... 62 6.8. Summary of heritage indicators and provisional grading ...... 62 7. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ...... 63 7.1. Archaeology ...... 63 7.2. Intangible Heritage ...... 63 7.3. Built Environment (site and local precinct) ...... 64 7.4. Visual Impacts ...... 65 8. CONCLUSIONS ...... 67 9. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 67 10. REFERENCES ...... 68 APPENDICES

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet vii Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

1. INTRODUCTION

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd was appointed by DJ Environmental Consultants to conduct an assessment of the potential impacts to heritage resources that might occur through the proposed development of a holiday resort on erven 2837 and 2838, Laaiplek, in the Piketberg Magisterial District (Figure 1). The site covers a small block of approximately 8850 m2 and located on the northern bank of the Berg River, very close to its anthropogenic opening into St Helena Bay. Bridget O’Donoghue was appointed in December 2014 to satisfy Heritage Western Cape Impact Assessment Committee (IACOM) Interim comment, dated 22 October 2014 for the identification of the industrial and social heritage of the fishing industry, built environment assessment of the site and context’s structures and consultation with the fishing industry (refer Annexure 4). Although the Notification for Intent to Develop (NID) recommended these aspects for the HIA, HWC did not initially require the above item to be included in the HIA (refer Annexure 3).

3218CA&CC Velddrif (Mapping information supplied by Chief Directorate: National Geo-Spatial Information. Website: wwwi.ngi.gov.za)

Figure 1: Map showing the location of the site (red polygon) at the mouth of the Berg River.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 8 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

1.1. Project description

The site presently houses two disused fish factories that would need to be demolished. The land is currently zoned Industrial 1 but a new zoning of Business 1 would be required.

The entire structure from the south would be 16.895 m high. The site is already serviced so no new bulk services would need to be supplied.

The local authority has indicated an in principle support, since they wish to see the area developed into a tourism hub. The planned development includes the following components:

Figure 2: Photomontage looking towards the northeast showing the western side and south- western corner of the proposed development.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 9 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Figure 3: Photomontage looking towards the north showing the south-western corner of the proposed development.

Figure 4: Photomontage looking towards the northwest showing the southern, river-facing side of the proposed development.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 10 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Figure 5: Photomontage looking towards the west showing the southern, river-facing side of the proposed development.

Figure 6: Photomontage looking towards the west showing the east-facing side of the proposed development (but note that no vehicular access to the basement will be constructed on this side).

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 11 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Figure 7: Photomontage looking towards the south showing the north-facing side of the proposed development.

1.1.1. Alternatives

The project, as originally conceived, included an interactive face at the basement level – this is the level of the pavement and boat quay along the river façade. However, due to a recent revision of the floodlines applicable to the Berg River, this proposal had to be reworked. The result is that the basement level is restricted to parking, does not have any openings and is accessed via a ramp from the higher land to the north. This would make it safe for use in the event that the Berg River experienced a serious flood.

Two alternatives are available for assessment. These are known as the ‘Preferred Alternative’ and the ‘No-Go alternative’. The initial draft of the report also assessed what is now referred to as ‘Alternative 1’ but because this alternative is no longer feasible it cannot be assessed.

Alternative 1 involves shops and facilities on the southern, river-facing side of the development. The preferred alternative was developed later in response to changes in the 50 years floodline and would see a sealed basement level with all accesses to the building being taken off De Villiers Street to the north.

Figures 8 to 11 show the various floor plans, excluding the basement which is exclusively parking. The ground floor (Figure 8) would be at natural ground level on the north side of the property and one level up as viewed from the south, while the third floor (Figure 11) would be the fifth storey as viewed from the south.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 12 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Figure 8: Ground floor plan (second level as viewed from the south).

Figure 9: First floor plan (third level as viewed from the south).

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 13 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Figure 10: Second floor plan (fourth level as viewed from the south).

Figure 11: Third floor plan (fifth level as viewed from the south).

1.2. Terms of Reference

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd was asked to compile a heritage impact assessment that would meet the requirements contained in the HWC comment issued on 21st May 2014 in response to a NID. The comment requested submission of an HIA consisting of archaeological and visual specialist studies.

It should also be noted, however, that following S.38(3) of the National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25 of 1999), even though certain specialist studies may be specifically requested, all heritage resources should be identified and assessed.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 14 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

1.3. Scope and purpose of the report

A heritage impact assessment (HIA) is a means of identifying any significant heritage resources before development begins so that these can be managed in such a way as to allow the development to proceed (if appropriate) without undue impacts to the fragile heritage of South Africa. This HIA report aims to fulfil the requirements of the heritage authorities such that a comment can be issued for consideration by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA & DP) who will review the Basic Assessment and grant or withhold authorisation. The report will outline any mitigation requirements that will need to be complied with from a heritage point of view and that should be included in the conditions of authorisation should this be granted.

1.4. The authors

Dr Jayson Orton has an MA (UCT, 2004) and a D.Phil (Oxford, UK, 2013), both in archaeology, and has been conducting Heritage Impact Assessments and archaeological specialist studies in the Western Cape and Northern Cape provinces of South Africa since 2004. He has also conducted research on aspects of the Later Stone Age in these provinces and published widely on the topic. He is accredited with the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) CRM section (Member #233).

Carol Orton has a BA (Rhodes 1994) in Fine Art, a post-graduate diploma in education (Rhodes 1995) and an MLA (UCT 2011). Since 2006 she has, on an ad-hoc basis, assisted with historical research and landscape design projects.

Bridget O’Donoghue has a M. Phil (Environmental Science) (UCT 1996) and a B. Architecture (UCT 1987). She has worked in heritage and environmental management since 2000 and has been responsible for heritage impacts assessments, heritage statements, survey of heritage resources and applicable guidelines. Clients include the National and Provincial Government entities, local municipalities in the Western Cape and private companies and individuals.

1.5. Declaration of independence

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd, its consultants and Bridget O’Donoghue have no financial or other interest in the proposed development and will derive no benefits other than fair remuneration for consulting services provided. A formal declaration for ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd is included as Appendix 1.

1.6. Public Particpation In accordance with NEMA requirements for public particpation, notice for 30 day comment period on the Drfat Basic Assessmenr Report (DBAR) was advertised in the local and provinncial newspapers. In addition, an opne house meeting was held in Laaiplek for all interetsed and affection people for a presenttaion on the proposal and to engage with the projects consultants. Once the BAR is finalised, a 21 comments period will be advertised (Refer Annexure 6 for I&AP comments received to date). The HIA has considered all comments and addressed certain comments on proposed buildings scale in the revised report.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 15 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape 2. HERITAGE LEGISLATION

The National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) No. 25 of 1999 protects a variety of heritage resources as follows:  Section 34: structures older than 60 years;  Section 35: palaeontological, prehistoric and historical material (including ruins) more than 100 years old;  Section 36: graves and human remains older than 60 years and located outside of a formal cemetery administered by a local authority; and  Section 37: public monuments and memorials.

Following Section 2, the definitions applicable to the above protections are as follows:  Structures: “any building, works, device or other facility made by people and which is fixed to land, and includes any fixtures, fittings and equipment associated therewith”;  Palaeontological material: “any fossilised remains or fossil trace of animals or plants which lived in the geological past, other than fossil fuels or fossiliferous rock intended for industrial use, and any site which contains such fossilised remains or trace”;  Archaeological material: a) “material remains resulting from human activity which are in a state of disuse and are in or on land and which are older than 100 years, including artefacts, human and hominid remains and artificial features and structures”; b) “rock art, being any form of painting, engraving or other graphic representation on a fixed rock surface or loose rock or stone, which was executed by human agency and which is older than 100 years, including any area within 10m of such representation”; c) “wrecks, being any vessel or aircraft, or any part thereof, which was wrecked in South Africa, whether on land, in the internal waters, the territorial waters or in the maritime culture zone of the Republic, as defined respectively in sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Maritime Zones Act, 1994 (Act No. 15 of 1994), and any cargo, debris or artefacts found or associated therewith, which is older than 60 years or which SAHRA considers to be worthy of conservation”; and d) “features, structures and artefacts associated with military history which are older than 75 years and the sites on which they are found”;  Grave: “means a place of interment and includes the contents, headstone or other marker of such a place and any other structure on or associated with such place”; and  Public monuments and memorials: “all monuments and memorials a) “erected on land belonging to any branch of central, provincial or local government, or on land belonging to any organisation funded by or established in terms of the legislation of such a branch of government”; or b) “which were paid for by public subscription, government funds, or a public-spirited or military organisation, and are on land belonging to any private individual.”

While landscapes with cultural significance do not have a dedicated Section in the NHRA, they are protected under the definition of the National Estate (Section 3). Section 3(2)(c) and (d) list “historical settlements and townscapes” and “landscapes and natural features of cultural significance” as part of the National Estate. Furthermore, Section 3(3) describes the reasons a place or object may have cultural heritage value.

Section 38 (2a) states that if there is reason to believe that heritage resources will be affected then an impact assessment report must be submitted. This report fulfils that requirement.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 16 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Under the National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998; NEMA), as amended, the project is subject to a Basic Assessment. Heritage Western Cape (HWC) is required to provide comment on the proposed project in order to facilitate final decision making by the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP). 3. METHODS

3.1. Literature survey

A survey of available literature was carried out to assess the general heritage context into which the development would be set. This literature included published material, unpublished commercial reports and online material, including material located on SAHRIS.

3.2. Field survey

The site was subjected to a detailed foot survey, while surrounding roads were driven to assess the cultural landscapes and views to and from the site. The fieldwork took place on 29th May 2014. During the survey the positions of finds were recorded on a hand-held GPS receiver set to the WGS84 datum. Photographs were taken at times in order to capture representative samples of both the affected heritage and the landscape setting of the proposed development.

3.3. Assessment of Impacts

Formal impact assessment has followed the criteria laid out in Winter and Baumann (2005).

3.4. Grading

Section 7 of the NHRA provides for the grading of heritage resources into those of National (Grade 1), Provincial (Grade 2) and Local (Grade 3) significance. Grading is intended to allow for the identification of the appropriate level of management for any given heritage resource. Grade 1 and 2 resources are intended to be managed by the national and provincial heritage resources authorities, while Grade 3 resources would be managed by the relevant local planning authority. These bodies are responsible for grading, but anyone may make recommendations for grading – something that is, at times, required in HIAs.

It is intended that the various provincial authorities formulate a system for the further detailed grading of heritage resources of local significance but this is generally yet to happen. Heritage Western Cape (2012), however, uses a system in which resources of local significance are divided into Grade 3A, 3B and 3C. These approximately equate to high, medium and low local significance, while sites of very low or no significance (and generally not requiring mitigation or other interventions) are left ungraded.

3.5. Assumptions and limitations

The single limitation experienced in terms of archaeology is that only a small portion of the site could be inspected for archaeological remains because the rest is presently developed.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 17 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape 4. CULTURAL HERITAGE CONTEXT

This section of the report briefly establishes what is already known about heritage resources in the vicinity of the study area. What is found during the field survey may then be compared with what is already known in order to gain an improved understanding of the significance of the newly reported resources.

4.1. Paleontological aspects

The eastern coastline of St Helena Bay is well known for its raised beach deposits that date back to the late Pleistocene (c. 125 000 years ago) and mid-Holocene (c. 6000-5000 years ago). These deposits have been exposed in excavations such as the Laaiplek Dump, and are widely evident on the surface (e.g. Kaplan 208; Pether 2004).

4.2. Archaeological aspects

The South African West Coast is well-known for the extreme wealth of archaeological resources to be found there. These resources are largely associated directly with rocky shorelines, although shell middens have been located (Hart & Miller 1994; Kaplan 2006; Parkington & Manhire 1988) and excavated (Jerardino 2003; Orton 2009) from the sandy shoreline of St Helena Bay to the north of Laaiplek. To the west, a survey did not reveal any shell middens to be present, despite the rocky shoreline there (Hart &Halkett 1992).

South of the Berg River mouth is a complex of tidal fish traps that are located on a rocky reef (Hart & Halkett 1992). Previously thought to be Stone Age resources (Avery 1975), these structures are now known to be historical (Hine et al. 2010).

4.3. Industrial and social heritage of Laaiplek and its Fishing Sector

Prehistory

Human occupation of the West Coast dates back hundreds of thousands of years – first by archaic and San hunter-gatherers, and later (after ca 2000 BP), and to some extent overlapping, by Khoekhoen pastoralists. At the time of first European contact, the Vredenburg Peninsula and St Helena Bay (bay) area and surrounds formed part of the larger territory of the Cochoqua Khoekhoen. The area provided seasonal grazing for their flocks and herds. The seashore – like for all those before them – provided a food resource in the form of shellfish, fish, marine birds, seals and beached whales.

Prehistoric inhabitation of St Helena Bay (bay) coastline was likely seasonal (red tides can affect shellfish in summer), and focused on portions of rocky shoreline, where marine resources were plentiful, and where natural features could provide shelter and act as windbreaks (ACO, 2014). It is also known that the Khoekhoen practiced seasonal transhumance, in other words not residing permanently anywhere, but likely visiting the same locations regularly to encamp for periods of time.

In contrast to the western shore (e.g. Stompneus Bay, Britannia Bay), the area around the Berg River mouth is sandy, featureless, and devoid of natural large tree cover. In addition, fresh water

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 18 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape intrusion from the Berg River negatively affect shellfish productivity around the mouth. Laaiplek therefore did not favour occupation for any period of time, and the historical settlement did not evolve overlying a pre-colonial settlement site.

The fish vywers located near Swartpunt are now known to be from historical times (Orton, 2014).

Dutch Colonial times to 1850s

Early European presence in the Saldanha Bay region was largely motivated by the exploitation of resources such as fish, seals and whales (and later guano during the 19th century). As attested to by van Riebeeck’s Dagh Register, fish from the area played an important role in feeding the Cape population right from the start of the Dutch period. Facing competition from the French into the 18th century, the Dutch constructed a number of military posts to protect their interests in the area, including at Soldatenpos on the southern shores of St Helena Bay (ACO, 2014).

By the end of the 17th century, the Berg River mouth was in use as a harbour by free burghers supplying the VOC with fish. Farming in the area only became established during the course of the 18th century, with the VOC giving out loan places for grazing as far north as the Olifants River. By the end of the century the Sandveld was an area of marginal mixed farming and seasonal grazing concentrated along the flood plain of the Berg River (Ellis, 2008). The Berg river mouth economy was based on small-scale mixed farming and the processing (salting, drying) of mullet (harder), horse mackerel (maasbanker) and snoek.

Henry Lichtenstein visited the Laaiplek area (Berg river mouth) in 1803 as guest of the local farmer Kirsten, whose farm “Fishwaters” straddled both sides of the river near the mouth – i.e. in the vicinity (if not actually including) the Laaiplek subject site (Lichtenstein, 1812: 51-53). He described the mouth area as “excellent pasture for horned cattle”, and still visited by plentiful large game such as hartebees and gemsbok. He observed that so few people lived in the area that a pont or bridge was not justified. He remarked that “10-12” hippos still survived near the mouth, and came out at night to destroy the farmers’ “corn” (wheat) – the last hippos within the then Cape Colony. The north bank inland from the Kirsten property is described as a sandy plain with no water, little shade, many pelargoniums, and plentiful mole-hills.

He did not mention any dwellings in the Laaiplek area apart from that of his farmer host at “Fishwaters” on the north bank. Travelling inland along the Berg, closer to Velddrif, he observed huts and small houses on both banks, to him indicative of cattle posts near permanent pools in the river. These posts he found typically manned by slaves or Khoi workers, and serving the purpose of providing slaughter stock and a refuge from “lamziek” (stock disease) for farmers with main operations elsewhere. This tallies with Barrow’s earlier account (1798) of the lower Berg as a relatively marginal farming area. Thus, the inhabitants he encountered on the north bank near Hopefield he described as very poor, and subsisting on “a cow or two, some corn, and a few sheep and goats” (Barrow, 1806)1.

1 Barrow only visited the mouth for one day, and did not cross over to the right (north) bank. His observations were limited to the sanded-up mouth and the fact that the area was frequented by the Cape’s few remaining hippos (Barrow, 1806). Paravicini di Capelli also visited the Berg mouth in 1803 and 1804. Only his 1804 account has survived. He visited the Laaiplek area for less than a day on an unsuccessful quest to shoot a hippo. His account adds nothing of substance to that of Lichtenstein.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 19 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

While Lichtenstein did not mention fishermen’s dwellings or a fishing community in the Berg estuary area, he did observe that, as in Saldanha Bay, such vast quantities of fish were taken that trade with inland areas in salted and dried fish made an essential contribution to the support of the (Velddrif) community. In his earlier account of Saldanha Bay, he indicated that the trade stretched as far inland as Tulbagh and Goudini, and that many farmers also had fishing huts on the coast to supply their inland farms with this slave and worker staple (Lichtenstein, 1812: 37). It is not unlikely that the huts observed by Lichtenstein also included those of artisanal fishermen, and slaves and labourers catching and processing fish for inland farming operations.

After the Second British Occupation (1806), the Swartland, including the Piketberg area developed as a major wheat producing area, and dried fish (“rantsoenvis”) became further entrenched as a staple farm labour ration. This was to influence the development of Laaiplek/ Velddrif in two important ways, namely as a source of such fish, and as a entrêpot for Swartland and Sandveld agricultural produce destined for the Cape market.

The Velddrif area is well suited to salt-fish production. Southern mullet (harder), round herring and snoek naturally occur in abundance in the Berg or inshore St Helena Bay. Local salt sources are readily available in Velddrif (as attested to by the Cerebos salt works on the left bank near the Carinus bridge), and drying conditions (sunlight, wind) are optimal.

The existence of a fish house in the Laaiplek area was reported by 1819. Here boats landed their catch, which was then cleaned and processed – salted down in barrels (mootjies), or processed into bokkoms (Ellis, 2006a, 2008). However, as Orton (2014) points out, no reference is provided by Ellis in this regard. Ellis also does not provide any detail of where the structure may have been located.

According to Ellis (2008), the members of the emerging St Helena Bay (including Laaiplek/ Velddrif) fishing communities early in the 19th century comprised “a rural underclass of failed or dispossessed farmers, the dispossessed of the indigenous population, runaway slaves, deserters, maroons and other cast offs from the maritime trades, in all a miscellaneous flotsam of humanity cast up in this peripheral backwater of the Cape Colony – who could nevertheless maintain a subsistence existence upon the abundant fish resources of St. Helena Bay” (Ellis, 2008: 17). These artisanal fishers dwelt on the banks of the Berg River, and with the permission of the relevant farmers, erected dwellings and fish houses on payment of an annual ground rent (Ellis, 2006a, 2008).

The importance of the Berg estuary to local fishing livelihoods (and the existence of a local fishing community) is attested to by the fact that when the original Velddrif Velddrift Velddrift farm was granted to Martin Melck 3rd in 1839, the deed of grant acknowledged the fishing rights to the river of the public “as theretofore”. Melck’s farm stretched inland from near the mouth along the northern bank for 15 km, and up the coast to Dwarskersbos (Ellis, 2006a, 2008). The property did not include the mouth itself. The mouth and portion of land up to the current government marina (i.e. including the subject erf) is indicated as Crown land on the 1939 title deed diagram (see Ellis, 2008: 19).

While the Velddrif settlement largely originated around fishing activities, Laaiplek evolved around trade. The development of the northern Swartland (Piketberg) and Sandveld farming areas saw the need for viable transport of produce, especially grain, to Cape markets. While portions of the

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 20 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape lower Berg River are navigable under certain conditions, the sanded-up mouth made it impossible for larger sea bound cargo vessels to enter the mouth. Annual flooding mainly affects the southern bank. Laaiplek therefore developed as a “laai plek” (i.e. loading place) on the stable northern shore from where inland produce was transferred from warehouses by smaller boats to cargo vessels moored in the bay. It is only after the mouth was opened up in the late 1960’s that Laaiplek would become a proper harbour.

By the 1830’s, merchant brigs and cutters were plying a growing trade in grain and other commodities. The lower reaches of the Berg River became an important market for the farmers of the interior (Ellis, 2008).

Grain trade 1850’s – 1900’s

In 1855 the districts of Malmesbury and Piketberg were established, divided by the Berg River. The Malmesbury authorities privatised the southern St Helena Bay area (Vredenburg Peninsula), allowing merchants like the Stephan Brothers (SB) of Cape Town to establish as grain and fish shippers, and eventually buy up all key shipping points on the southern bay. Until the 1890’s, when the snoek resource collapsed, SB held the monopoly in sea-borne salt snoek trade from the St Helena Bay area, shipping dried snoek as far as Mauritius (Van Sittert, 1993).

The Piketberg authorities, influenced by local farming interest, however considered the Berg mouth unsuitable to accommodate factories, and mainly followed a policy of protecting the local beach seine (“treknet”) fishing industry from encroachment by factories and other fisheries. This labour-intensive industry provided the landlords with rental income, and served the interests of Sandveld farming by providing it with a captive pool of off-season labour and cheap rantsoenvis (Van Sittert, 1993).

By the last quarter of the 19th Century the West Coast farmers’ sole road to market was controlled by Stephan Brothers (Ellis, 2006 b). Starting in the local grain trade, initially on the Vredenburg peninsula, and later also in Laaiplek, Stephan Brothers diversified into land speculation, general dealing, shipping and fishing. The main offices of the company were at Cape Town and later Laaiplek, with the Laaiplek premises initially rented from TE Smit, the new owner of Velddrif farm as of 1852. Tradition has it that SB acquired the rights to build houses, a barn and a shop in Laaiplek when Smit purchased the farm, but according to Ellis a prior agreement may already have existed with Melck (Ellis, 2008). No buildings dating from this period however seem to have survived.

The Anglican congregation of St Christopher’s (Laaiplek) came into existence around the early 1860’s as one of a number of “Hottentot Missions” established by the Anglican Church in the St Helena Bay area. Possibly by as early as 1865 they were making use of a burial ground located ~370 m north-east of the subject site (open erf north of Laaiplek Hotel). Members of the Laaiplek Anglican and Catholic communities were buried here until around 1961 (Ellis, 2008).

From a report by Bishop West Jones visiting the area in 1880 (quoted in Ellis, 2008: 22). it is clear that the settlement at the Berg mouth was smaller than those at Stompneus Bay and Steenberg’s Cove. By 1880 Steenberg’s Cove had a chapel and school, and served as the headquarters of the Deacon, and place where regular services were held. Bishop Jones’ report makes clear that the mission congregants were essentially poor, simple, fisher folk. The Register of St. Mary Magdalene,

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 21 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Steenberg’s Cove records the baptism of 84 persons residing at the Berg River mouth between the years 1862 and 1878 (Ellis, 2008).

From 1878 onwards, the salvaged French barque “Nerie”, permanently moored to the north bank, served as offices, a warehouse and living quarters for Carel Stephan 2nd’s operations. By 1885 SB had 600 employees, and dominated the West Coast grain trade (Ellis, 2008). Their monopoly was resented by local farmers - including TE Smit, owner of a number of farms in the Piketberg district, including most of Melck’s original farm - and did not go unchallenged. In 1893 a ferry service was introduced across the Berg in Velddrif to improve farmers’ direct access to the market (Ellis, 2006a; Van Sittert, 2001).

The “Nerie” was delivered by an Italian skipper, Francisco Carosini, one of the first of an initial group of Italians to settle in Laaiplek around the late 1870’s. Other families included the Tallies (probably the first), the Colombos and Violas. This pioneering group were sea folk, mainly sailors, and all in the employ of SB. They joined the (mainly Coloured) St Christopher’s Anglican congregation in Laaiplek (Ellis, 2008).

In 1884 Stephan Brothers (SB) acquired a share of the farm Velddrif from one of TE Smit’s sons. This share was subsequently exchanged for a parcel of land on the north bank known as Laaiplek in 1886, to which SB acquired freehold rights in 1916. Laaiplek was bounded by the Tong to the west (Ellis, 2008; van Sittert, 2001). The land was to remain in SB’s ownership until 1942, when it was sold to Marine Products. Laaiplek’s remaining historic core developed around the riverside site occupied by SB’s operations from around the 1870’s (possibly earlier). Until 1944, when the first erven were laid out by MP, Laaiplek developed as small clusters of huts and small houses on the periphery of the Berg and SB’s operations.

Carel Stephan 2nd constructed his dwelling just inland from where the “Nerie” was moored, the site currently occupied by the Laaiplek Hotel. The Hotel site is at the heart of the remaining historic core. By 1897 a substantial building (currently still standing) had been constructed to the north of the Stephan dwelling to house a school and church associated with the Anglican Mission (Ellis, 2008).

The Stephans housed their employees in reed and mud huts and corrugated iron dwellings. Further settlement on their land was encouraged in order to generate rental income, either in the form of cash or fish. The property was not subdivided, and no formal lease agreements were entered into (Ellis, 2008). As aerial photographs into the 1930’s show, the settlement pattern was mainly dictated by access to the river, and supported by no formal services infrastructure.

1902 to 1929

The fortunes of Stephan Brothers and Laaiplek went into decline soon after Piketberg and Hopefield were connected by rail to the Cape early in the 20th century (1902), making the complicated and costly system of transfers redundant. The loss of grain trade forced SB to shift their focus to the crayfishing industry. SB was already established on the Vredenburg peninsula, but now also wanted to exploit the inshore area near the Berg mouth in order to save their Laaiplek operation. The clout of the Smits with the Piketberg authorities however saw the SB’s attempts to have a local crayfish area opened frustrated, forcing SB to focus their main interests in

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 22 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Paternoster and St Helena Bay. The decline of the SB’s activities in Laaiplek also depressed fishing activities in Laaiplek (Ellis, 2008; van Sittert, 2001).

A second group of Italian (and Corsican) fishermen settled in Laaiplek in the early decades of the 20th century. They were recent immigrants to the Cape, some attracted by prospects in the emerging Table Bay crayfish canning industry (and recruited in Sicily by such), others fleeing endemic poverty and hardship in Italy. They moved up north from the Cape in response to declining crayfish catches. Families who forged ties with Laaiplek include the Casaleggios, Dipaolas, and possibly Donaggis (Ellis, 2008).

A sufficient number chose to retain their Roman Catholic faith, and a Roman Catholic Church and Presbytery was eventually built on an erf made available by SB to the RCC in 1922 (corner of Church Ave and Stephan Str). The descendants of both groups of Italian immigrants still live on the West Coast, including Velddrif/ Laaiplek. Those in Velddrif retain Italian names, but have become “Afrikanerised” (Ellis, 2008). Erasmus (1995) also mentions a Portuguese immigrant component to SB’s workforce in Laaiplek, but no further reference could be found. By 1927 the population of Roodebaai (Laaiplek) was reported as 370 (Ellis, 2008).

The first bridge over the lower Berg was constructed at Kersefontein (near Hopefield) in 1929, opening Velddrif up to lorry traffic, and integrating the Berg River fisheries into the Cape Town market (Van Sittert, 2001).

The Depression years

Population figures for the interwar period suggest a more or less stable population in the 1920’s, and expanding rapidly in the first half of the 1930’s in the wake of the Depression, creating “semi- urban conditions at Velddrif and Berg River Mouth” (Van Sittert 2001, quoting an official sanitation report from 1932, 2001:197). The Berg river mouth during the 1930’s thus became “a way station for those forced off the land where they could maintain the vestiges of independent production through inshore fishing” (Van Sittert, 2001: 197).

The local fishery (estuarine gill nets for harder, beach seine for small pelagics, and snoek hand line) could however not support the influx, leading to extreme poverty in the area. An Exclusive Trek Seine Fishing Zone, closed to crayfishermen, was formally declared at the mouth during the 1910’s, and nominally remained in force until World War II (Van Sittert, 1993).

The treknet fishery was labour intensive. Johnnie Eigelaar, growing up in Soverby near Dwarskersbos, describes a fishery based on “trekbote” (4 oars) and “bakkies” (2 oars), requiring a large number of people to launch. The nets were made of cotton, and prone to rot. They had to be steamed in blood as many as 3 times to improve durability – an unpleasant task, which moreover made for heavy nets. Like other Berg fishermen, the Eigelaars sold their catch to farmers travelling in by lorry or mule cart during the 1930’s.

Dried maasbankers were sold as rantsoenvis, while the farmers bought fresh fish (“tafelvis”) for themselves. Fishermen were poor – White fishermen like Andries Eigelaar (Johhnie’s father) earned as little as £70 per year (Eigelaar, 1999, www.eigevis.com/eigelaar-family.php).

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 23 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

By the mid 1930’s the widespread introduction of motor boats and lampara nets in St Helena Bay fisheries had effectively spelled the end of the Berg mouth treknet fishery. While the treknet Zone in theory restricted such craft and methods, the collapse of the crayfish canning sector due to French trade restrictions in 1934 saw St Helen Bay crayfishermen switching to fish, and extending their operations into the Berg mouth area. Boat engines scared fish away from the beach, and lampara net catches flooded the market with cheap fish. Regional market integration also meant that individual fisheries had lost much of their locational advantages (Van Sittert, 1993).

By the 1930’s SB was leasing premises in Laaiplek to the state for a police station (which also served as seat of the periodical court) and trade rights to LH Carosini. Carosini ran a general dealer’s store, and sublet the existing wooden and corrugated iron buildings in Laaiplek to employees and fishermen. The inland portion of Laaiplek farm was rented out to a local farmer for tillage (“saaigrond”) at a fixed share of the meagre annual harvest (Van Sittert, 2001).

By 1935 only 20% of the Berg river fisheries catch was still sold to local farmers as rantsoenvis. The rest was sold by local operators distributing by lorry to small inland towns or the Cape Town market. Integration into the Cape Town market equalised price differentials, leading to a massive collapse in the value of beach seine fish – a unit producer price decrease of 1 800% from 1933 to 1939. Competition from Namibia-based fisheries also started affecting the profitability of the important local supplementary off-season snoek fishery (Van Sittert, 1993).

An official report from 1935 described the tenant settlement at Velddrif: “Houses are placed anyhow and anywhere and gardens and roads are difficult to find” (quoted in Van Sittert, 2001: 198). This informal pattern also prevailed in Laaiplek, as evident from 1938 and 1942 aerial photography.

Houses were built with available material (clay brick and reed thatching) in the Sandveld vernacular style. Another report from the same year describes the structures: “the rooms are arranged in a row, one leading into the other, comprising a ‘voorkamer’, kitchen and bedroom”. Other tenants inhabited simple “hartebeeshuisies”, reflecting their transitory status. Very few of these houses remain in Velddrif. A report from 1939 indicated that while 10% of dwellings inhabited by Whites were deemed unfit for habitation, those of Coloured tenants were “uniformly bad… mud hovels” (quoted in Van Sittert, 2001: 198).

In Velddrif, tenants could not own the land, needed the Smits’ permission to sell their dwellings, and were only compensated by what the owners deemed appropriate (or alternatively remove only the roof) when they moved. It is assumed that conditions in Laaiplek were not too dissimilar. Under such conditions of tenure, tenants had no incentive to improve their dwellings. While the majority of tenants in Velddrif were White, Laaiplek’s population was predominantly Coloured. All lived under the same appalling conditions (Van Sittert, 2001).

Observers noted the lack of sanitation, inadequate water supplies, extreme overcrowding, and poor ventilation and lighting. By the 1930’s typhoid epidemics were recurring annually. Overcrowding and poverty also lead to high incidences of TB and child malnutrition. The staple diet was dried fish, bread and black coffee. A Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) report on living conditions for Velddrif’s (White) tenant population in 1936 estimated that 80% were “poor” or “dirt poor” (“brandarm”). As befitting a DRC report, the low moral standard of the Berg mouth communities was also bemoaned - a “dirty, thriftless and shiftless lot”, living a hand to mouth

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 24 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape existence, and inclined to squander rather than save, and thus prone to chronic starvation (quoted in Van Sittert, 2001: 200).

Efforts by the DRC and Department of Labour around 1936 to relocate poor Whites to the Vaalharts scheme (north-eastern Cape) met with little success, as they were reluctant to abandon the “fishing profession of their fathers”. Stubborn independent-mindedness and a fear of “foreign communism” also saw state efforts to establish a local fisherman’s co-op founder. The Department of Labour’s efforts to try and establish a Local Area authority in order to improve sanitation conditions foundered upon resistance by the Smits (Van Sittert, 2001).

Ellis’s dwelling unit count based on 1938 aerial photography indicates approximately 90 units at Laaiplek. The bulk of structures were located less than 300 meters from the Berg, and had been constructed by ground rent tenants. The settlement pattern was informal, reflecting the informality of lease arrangements (Ellis, 2008).

By the end of the decade the Velddrif/ Laaiplek fishing community was in dire straits. It was impoverished, and largely living in squalor. An estimated 70% of St Helena Bay (bay) fishers were estimated to live below the bread line by 1939 (Van Sittert, 1993). The limited local resource base and prevailing market conditions made for grim prospects. In 1938 an official report commented that Velddrif (assume Laaiplek included) was “without hope of industrial development” (quoted in Van Sittert, 2001: 202).

By the outbreak of WWII, the only public land in the Velddrif/ Laaiplek area was the Tong (tongue) Van Sittert, 2001: Figure 5, 206). The Tong was officially reserved for camping and bathing, but fishing sites in the reserve were also rented out to boat owners for a token fee. Despite annual leases, some tenants constructed fish houses, jetties, and dwellings for their fishermen, thus further undermining the local treknet fishery – in effect, thanks to an administrative loophole poaching from within the reserve. By 1939 there were 7 tenants operating boats from the Tong (Van Sittert, 2001). Structures are visible on the subject property as well as to the west and east (later Eigevis property) in 1938 aerial photography, and remain visible into 1942.

WWII and the establishment of factories

The outbreak of WWII brought a total reversal of fortunes to Laaiplek – and the West Coast fishing sector. It brought the West Coast inshore fishery to prominence, and revitalized the fortunes of local fisherman and private boat owners.

The War interrupted international trade, creating a huge local consumer demand for canned fish. The military demand for meat and consequent rising meat prices further stimulated demand for fresh and canned fish. The Imperial war effort also required canned fish. At the same time, the war effort diverted deep-water (offshore) fishing vessels to coastal defence – about half the Union’s 1939 trawler fleet strength (van Sittert, 1993). Furthermore, the passing of the Sea Fisheries Act (1940) promoted the development of industrialized fishing, amongst others by providing for state funding for sector development, which became available from 1943 via the Fisheries Development Corporation (Jarre et al, 2013).

As a result, the established West Coast crayfish canning sector shifted their main focus to the processing of medium-sized pelagic fish – snoek, horse mackerel (maasbanker) and adult pilchard,

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 25 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape relying mainly on local private boat operators to provide them with fish. Enlistment also drastically reduced local unemployment. In Velddrif unemployed fishermen-tenants enlisted in such numbers that the settlement recorded the highest per capita enlistment rate in the Union by 1942 (Van Sittert, 1993; 2001).

Demand for fish and labour created a boom for inshore fisheries – labourers as well as boat owners. Private boat owners invested the profits from prevailing high fish prices in lorries to supply the Cape Town market and canning factories (Van Sittert, 2001). Wartime needs and state support also saw to the establishment of the first fish factories in the Berg river area.

Laaiplek Visserye (owned by Marine Products, and ultimately Federale Volksbeleggings, with close ties to the National Party) bought Laaiplek in its entirety from SB in 1942 (Van Sittert, 2001), excluding the plot which was granted to the Catholic Church in 1922 (Ellis, 2008).

Laaiplek Visserye initially erected a wooden factory, and used makeshift technology to produce rantsoenvis on an industrial scale. In 1943 Irvin and Johnson’s subsidiary African Inshore Fishing Development Corporation (AIF) bought a riverside portion of Velddrift farm from the Smits, the nucleus of the current Velddrif town. A fully mechanized cannery went into operation there in 1945 (Van Sittert, 2001). The first fishmeal reduction plant went operational in Laaiplek in 1944, presumably on Laaiplek Visserye’s premises. The factory processed bokkom production offal which, prior to then was commonly buried in trenches or dumped at sea, causing significant nuisance and inshore pollution (Jarre et al, 2013).

The war years also saw the humble first beginnings of the Eigelaars in Laaiplek. In 1943 Andries Eigelaar managed to secure the rent of a portion of the Tong – the premises adjacent to the subject erf. Eigelaar bought his own boat, and erected a dwelling and small fish processing facility aimed at the salt fish market (Eigelaar, 1999). This was the beginning of the Eigelaar business empire, which in time also expanded to include farming, hotel, liquor store, hotel and other interests. The Eigelaars only managed to buy the land from the state in 1999 (www.eigevis.com/eigelaar-family.php).

The adequate supply of labour was initially a problem for Laaiplek Visserye, as the bay’s factories competed with one another as well as independent boat owners. To recruit its factory workforce, Marine Products used the same strategy commonly employed by local boat owners to recruit crews, namely to provide housing. By 1944 MP had constructed 30 houses, and a further 30 were envisaged. These were rented to Coloured fishermen and factory workers at sub-economical rates. To cater for more prosperous employees, a portion of Laaiplek was subdivided (the first township subdivision) and 70 freehold plots were laid out. The plots were reserved for Whites and 60 sold in the first week. To exert further control over employees and local labour, MP also applied for (and was granted) a liquor license in Laaiplek, one of two in Velddrif (Van Sittert, 2001).

Fish supply largely remained in the hands of private boat owners, a factor which served to dampen the prospects of militant trade unionism during and shortly after the War, but also to retard the introduction of new fishing technology such as echo-sounders and radio communication until the mid 1950’s (Van Sittert, 1993).

The war years were good to Laaiplek fishermen. By 1944 a Marine Products official complained that Laaiplek created the impression of a new-rich community, with the average fisherman making

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 26 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape up to £250 per year (compared to £30 in 1936), living extravagantly, and saving none. The Velddrif/ Laaiplek liquor trade was estimated at £1 000 per month (Van Sittert, 2001).

Post war boom, bust and restructuring (1945 – 1958)

Competition for labour stiffened in the years immediately after the War as a result of cannery expansion in St Helena Bay (town) and a growing group of private boat owners who needed crew for their vessels. Many of the new boat owners were local farmers and professionals involved on a speculative, part-time basis, some running boats from leased sites and informal jetties on Crown land at the Tong (Van Sittert, 2001).

The post-war years up to the end of the Korean War (1953) saw a huge international demand for canned fish. Europe and Japan were rebuilding their economies and fishing fleets. Tinned snoek (“snook”) from the Cape became a hated staple in Britain, which continued to endure food rationing until 1954. The huge pre-war Californian sardine industry (of Steinbeck’s “Cannery Row” fame) had collapsed, and the Peruvian sector was still getting established. This gave the West Coast small pelagics fisheries the opportunity to step in, and establish South Africa as a significant fish exporter (Van Sittert, 2001).

During the War the sudden population increase and pollution stemming from processing activities associated with the new factories in Velddrif/ Laaiplek had lead to renewed calls for the establishment of a local area authority in specifically (White) Velddrif, this time from the Department of Health. It was mainly to address concerns by the Piketberg Divisional Council that the rates base would be impracticably small, that it was decided to include Laaiplek in the Velddrift Local Board (VLB), which was constituted in 1946. The VLB’s area of jurisdiction consisted of the Crown land at the Tong (i.e. including the subject erf), the MP and AIF estates, and the intervening small portion of Velddrif farm along the Berg (Van Sittert, 2001).

The Local Board initially had 3 members, was controlled by the existing land owners - the Smits and the factory owners - and used mainly to further their interests. While the Smits only reluctantly submitted a small portion of Velddrift farm for incorporation, the factory owners largely supported incorporation as a means of subsidizing some of their own maintenance and supply costs with ratepayers’ money, and to attract state-subsidised infrastructural development necessary to create a stable local industrial workforce. Via the Board the companies managed to gain control over the entire north bank of the Berg, from the mouth to De Plaat on the eastern outskirts of Velddrift. This enabled them to vet leases on Crown land, and thus shut out competition and control development of the local industry (Van Sittert, 2001).

To ensure continued profitability in the post-war years, both factories continued combined canning operations with the reduction of by-products into fishmeal and oil. By 1948 Laaiplek Visserye had a mechanized cannery (Ellis, 2008), and three reduction plants with a total capacity of 35 tons of fish per hour by 1951 (Van Sittert, 2001).

The sand bar at the mouth however placed crucial limitations on the size of vessels able to enter the mouth, and initially saw to the diversion of fish from independent boat owners to St Helena Bay canneries. To remedy the situation, jetties were built on the shore north of Laaiplek. Laaiplek Visserye constructed an underground pipeline to pump fish from offloading boats to its factory in

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 27 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

1952 . The pipeline ran directly north from the MP factory on the Berg, and continued to be in use until the mouth was opened up in 1968 (Ellis, 2008).

The new factories “catapulted the Berg river settlements overnight from agrarian poverty to industrial prosperity”, but also brought an overwhelming stench. While the trader Carosini admonished townsfolk that it was the “smell of money” (quoted in Van Sittert, 2001: 203), something evidently had to be done to satisfy stricter post-war norms and standards, as well as address the nuisance factor.

Initial efforts focused on fish meal recovery from canning process wastewater solids. By 1950 Laaiplek Visserye was the first operational “stick water” recovery plant in South Africa, which by 1956 became the standard in West Coast and Walfish Bay canneries. This solved some public health and nuisance issues and also made the plants far more efficient and cost-effective producers (Jarre et al, 2013).

By the early 1950’s the state had supplied the factories with reticulated water and electricity. The Carinus Bridge was being constructed (completed in 1959), and the road link to Vredenburg (station) was tarred (Van Sittert, 2001).

In 1950 the Board was upgraded to a Village Management Board (VMB), consisting of six elected members. Nevertheless, during much of the 1950’s the Board primarily served the interests of the farm-owner, factories, and middle class interests. The Board was however hampered throughout the decade by a lack of funds. This was largely due to the inability to sustain growth of the rates base as a result of stagnation of the Berg estuary fisheries caused by the natural obstacle of the sand bar at the mouth (Van Sittert, 2001)

By 1950 Velddrift (Velddrif/ Laaiplek) was a still boom town in a booming regional pilchard industry (“the Pilchard Coast”). Since the end of the war (1945), the population had increased from 1 630 to 5 498 (1951) – roughly a threefold increase within 6 years (no Black African numbers were recorded in 1945). By 1951 54% of the population was recorded as White, 34% Coloured, and the remaining 12% as Black African (see: Van Sittert, 2001: Table 1, 208). Laaiplek assumedly accommodated the bulk of the Coloured and Black population.

Given the lack of town planning and services infrastructure, the sharp, sudden population increase since the start of WWII posed a serious health concern. In addition, housing demand far outstripped supply, and squatting on Velddrift farm became a huge problem. No more freehold erven were available in Laaiplek. Marine Products used a Fisheries Development Corporation loan to build a further 67 sub-economic units for Coloured tenants in Laaiplek during the late 1940’s, but overcrowding remained endemic into the 1950’s. Marine Products’ tenants were subjected to cleanliness inspections of their accommodation by the company. Easy money and alcohol fuelled a spiralling crime rate (Van Sittert, 2001).

Sanitation throughout the 1950’s was rudimentary, consisting of a night soil bucket system which was introduced in 1950. A town health officer was appointed in 1953, also as inspector of business premises (Van Sittert, 2001).

By the mid-1950’s the inshore (crayfish and pelagics) industry dominated the local canned fish and reduced fish market. Five new fish canning factories were opened in St Helena Bay (town)

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 28 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape between 1946 and 1956 – a processing capacity twice the country’s actual pelagic catch, the result of importing plants “as is” from California’s bust sardine cannery sector. Fifteen reduction plants were in operation in the St Helena Bay (bay) area by the mid-1950’s. By the same date, the bay was home to more than 60% of the Union’s pelagic fleet, more than 90% of which was privately owned (compared to 20% for other SA fisheries) (Van Sittert, 1993). This disparity between the capacity of large modern factories and the fish supplied by a plethora of small boat owners using dated fishing technology did not make for an inherently efficient fishery.

Annual fisherman’s incomes rose to four figures during the early 1950’s, and Velddrift became known as the “Eldorado of the enterprising salesman”. Even Coloured fishermen benefited during the boom. By 1952 they were earning twice that of their West Coast counterparts. Many observers noted the new-rich, flashy, boom-town wealth of Velddrift, one describing “new, shiny American cars parked outside tiny whitewhashed cottages, scarcely big enough to act as garages” (quoted in Van Sittert, 2001: 213).

With the exception of the Eigelaars, these private boat owners resisted modernisation beyond motorisation and lampara nets. Instead of echo-sounding devices then becoming the norm elsewhere in the world’s commercial fisheries, they continued to rely on planktonic bio- luminescence (“branding”, “vuur” - “fire”) on the water to indicate the location of shoals – a method which by its nature also limited activities to a few moonless nights per month, much to the frustration of the canneries (Eigelaar, 1999; Jarre et al, 2013; Van Sittert, 1993).

The prevailing general prosperity also supported a nascent White middleclass of professionals and retailers, many of which also invested heavily in the St Helena Bay coast fishing industry and related enterprises. An estimated 80% of boats in the pilchard fishery were privately owned, a substantial portion by Velddrift middle class professionals and local farmers (Van Sittert, 2001).

By the mid-1950’s, the post-war demand for canned fish had essentially subsided, and major producers like Japan and Peru were becoming established as international competition (Van Sittert, 1993). The looming crisis came to a head in 1956/ 57, when cold water intrusion into St Helena Bay resulted in less pilchards (and thus snoek), and also caused the bio-luminescence to disappear from the bay for two years altogether. Catches plummeted to relative insignificance, as crews were now forced to fish “blind” (Jarre et al, 2013; Eigelaar, 1999; van Sittert, 1993).

The resulting profitability crisis drove many private owners out of the sector. From a high of 111 boat owners in 1955, numbers declined to 60 by 1959, and 40 by 1961 (20 less than in 1946) (see: Van Sittert, 2001: Table 2, 211). As many were indebted to factories, the factories were able to strengthen their grip on production by buying vessels and otherwise reducing the fleet size to larger, more modern vessels (Van Sittert, 1993; 2001). Thus, the bust of 1956 saw the start of a trend still continuing today, namely the vertical integration of the fishery, favouring larger players with capital for larger and modernized vessels, in control of canneries, and also capable of fishing offshore.

The Eigelaars were the most successful of the few remaining independent operators. From 1946 they started building their own boats, the names all characteristically ending in “–veld” (Sandveld, Groenveld, etc). All five Andries Eigelaar’s son were involved in fishing or fish retail (Eigelaar, 1999). Johnnie Eigelaar is commonly regarded as the most formidable of the sons, and a true pioneering spirit (Jarre et al, 2003). By 1955, he had introduced echo-sounders on their vessels,

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 29 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape and they were making use of lightweight Japanese nylon nets. In 1958, on the back of salted fish trade, AJF Eigelaar & Sons (Pty) Ltd was formed - (www.eigevis.com/eigelaar-family.php, Eigelaar, 1999).

Until the mouth was opened up in 1968, inaccessibility was a major obstacle to growth for Berg river factories. AFI in Velddrift was forced to rely on trucks to transport fish from the shore, and eventually closed down the Velddrif factory in 1957 due to unprofitability, relocating its canning license to St Helena Bay harbour (Van Sittert, 2001).

The dampeners on growth are reflected in declining Velddrift population numbers: 3129 in 1956, and 2945 in 1960 – 53% down from 1951 (Van Sittert, 2001: Table 1, 208). It also served to stunt growth of the nascent White middle class, with some professionals relocating. Decreased spending drove many small retailers out of business. Velddrift lost the bid to Vredenburg to host the regional hospital (Van Sittert, 2001).

Nevertheless, the need for housing remained acute. MP opened up further erven for development in 1954. 60 Were reserved for Coloured buyers – the first freehold property made available to non-Whites in Velddrift. 16 Were sold within the first two weeks (Van Sittert, 2001).

Marine Products operations necessitated the relocation of St Christopher’s Anglican church and school out of the harbour to its current site in St Christopher’s street in 1954 (Ellis, 2008).

During the late 1950’s the VMB spent most of its available funding on tarring the road from the Carinus bridge to the factories (1955), installing street lighting (1957), and establishing water reticulation to White-owned residential properties (Van Sittert, 2001).

An informal colour bar was maintained at sea, with most owners and skippers White, and Coloured labour restricted to deck work. Throughout the 1950’s racial segregation which had formerly largely applied to school and church only, become expanded to services, cemeteries and housing. Buffer zones were enforced between White and non-White residential areas, and the removal or screening of the former from main roads was made mandatory. However, during this period, racial segregation was largely unsupervised by the state, in other words, at Marine Products bidding (Van Sittert, 2001).

Velddrift’s small Coloured middle class consisted of a few private boat owners, teachers and ministers, who mainly invested their earning in housing during the 1950’s. The factories made no land available for Coloured purchase, with the result that prospective home owners instead rented land from the Smits on Velddrift farm to build. The inability to purchase the land meant that their investment remained tenuous, and could not be used to raise loans (Van Sittert, 2001).

The passing of the Group Areas Act (1960) saw progressive state intervention in racial segregation. The Coloured township of Noordhoek was created. By 1981 the southern portion up to Neptune street had been developed (Chief Directorate Surveys and Mapping, 1983).

The Black Africans who had been recruited to work in the factories were accommodated in fenced-in, supervised hostels – a total of 639 in 1955, and 278 in 1961 (Van Sittert, 2001: Table 1, 208). The hostels were in all likelihood located at the northern terminus of St Christopher’s and Carosini streets, visible in 1960 aerial photography as well as the 1965 1: 50 000 topo map (which

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 30 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape indicates it part of the “Lokasie” (native area). The 1981 topo map indicates a blank area at the terminus of the relevant streets.

Alcohol abuse remained the biggest threat to the social order during the 1950’s, with a major portion of wealth generated by the factories spent on alcohol. Disorder, vandalism and assault were the order of the day. At the same time MP benefited from one of two liquor licenses in town (the other being in Velddrif). This enabled them to profit from and exert some control over what they regarded as an unavoidable evil. At the same time, alcohol-driven indebtedness to the company locked fishermen into company employment (Van Sittert, 2001).

From the late 1950’s MP’s fraternal ties with the National Party government helped secure Laaiplek Fisheries a crayfish export quota and a promise of state funding to save Velddrif “from becoming a ghost town” by addressing the sanded-up Berg mouth (Van Sittert, 2001: 211).

By 1959 the Smits were no longer able to hold out to pressure to the incorporation of further portions of Velddrif to enable township development to solve the housing crisis in Velddrif. In 1960 the VMB was upgraded to a Municipality – a rise in status which would unlock more generous funding for local infrastructure development in coming decades (Van Sittert, 2001).

1960s to 1990s

From around 1958, when boat ownership started shifting to the factories, larger vessels equipped with echo-sounders permitted record pilchard catches, restoring factory profitability. By 1961 63% of boats in St Helena Bay (bay) fisheries were owned by factories. Unskilled employment had declined by 25%, providing companies with a surplus labour pool (Van Sittert, 1993).

The effort also shifted from adult pilchards to juveniles. Until 1963, when West Coast pilchard stocks collapsed, catches reached up to 400 000 tons per year. St Helena Bay (bay) was still the centre of the small pelagics fishery, but the fishery also started expanding eastward, to Gansbaai (Jarre et al, 2013).

The catastrophic collapse of West Coast pilchard stocks as a result of overfishing in 1963 lead to a number of responses. The pilchard fishery shifted northwards into Namibian waters, and also expanded along the east coast (Gansbaai). Effort also shifted from inshore to offshore. The industry became more capital intensive, favouring increasing vertical integration, with companies increasingly owning the entire production chain. Authorities responded to the pilchard crisis by drastically reducing the net mesh-size (from 37 mm to 12 mm) in 1963 to allow for the capture of anchovies for reduction to oil and meal. Chub mackerel was now also included as a target species for canning (Jarre et al, 2013).

State funding and technical expertise provided by the University of Stellenbosch enabled the opening up of the current Berg mouth, essentially by blowing open a canal through the “root” of the Tong, and dredging the canal and creating a deeper artificial harbour during the late 1960’s, completing the task in 1968 (Erasmus, 1995). Laaiplek now became an actual harbour for the first time, allowing a revival of the town’s fortunes and “saving it from becoming a ghost town”. Vessels could now directly enter the harbour, and offload to the factory in Laaiplek, greatly increasing productivity. The pipeline from the coast was decommissioned (van Sittert, 2001).

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 31 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Port Owen marina was presumably constructed during the late 1970s, as it first shows up on the 1981 edition of the Velddrif 1: 50 000 map (Chief Directorate Surveys and Mapping, 1983).

On the back of spatial expansion, relaxed restrictions, and resource substitution, the small pelagics sector continued to do well into the 1970’s. This was further helped by the collapse of the Peruvian anchovetta industry during the 1970’s, creating great international demand for fishmeal. By these means the small pelagics industry, dominated by West Coast fisheries, managed to continue landing catches of up to 500 000 tonnes per year into the 1980’s (Jarre et al, 2013).

Until the 1980’s, the entire small pelagics sector would close down for 1-3 months (sometime between August and December). Boats and gear would be repaired, and crews had the opportunity to supplement their incomes through line fishing and crayfishing activities. From the 1980’s onwards the break would become reduced to less than a month a year, a maintenance break taken mainly in December. While crews were assured of more continuous employment, they also stayed away from home for longer periods, and became entirely dependent on the factories for their livelihoods (Jarre et al, 2013).

The 1990’s saw the standard introduction of “dry offloading” at factories, a method by which no water is added when fish is pumped onshore, and all blood water and frozen ice was retained in the ship’s hold for discharge offshore. This has resulted in considerable reduction of inshore pollution (Jarre et al, 2013), presumably also in Laaiplek.

Late 1990’s to present

Major ecosystemic changes from the late 1990’s into the present have seen the spatial relocation of both the main pilchard and West Coast crayfish stocks further south, towards Gansbaai and the Agulhas bank. Unlike during the 1960’s resource substitution is not an option (for lack of remaining candidates), and the mesh size cannot be decreased.

As of the early 2000’s, large quantities of fish have to be transported from Agulhas bank and Gansbaai fisheries to West Coast canning plants to keep these running. This process still continues, with fish also supplied from Namibian waters. This increasingly favours big players with the capital to invest in large, fast vessels with chilling facilities, and who can absorb the greater transportation costs – in other words, increasing owner-concentration and fishery industrialisation. Smaller factories like Premier in Saldanha and Oceana in Lambert’s Bay could no longer compete, and folded (Jarre et al, 2013; DAFF, 2012).

The 1990’s and 2000’s saw a continued decline in private skippers relative to company-owned vessels. The norm by now was that companies would service and maintain the boats, and hire skippers and crews on a commission basis. These companies also tend to own the remainder of the production chain (canneries, etc), and are therefore able to regulate small independent operators. The process continues into the present, with new-entrant long term fishery rights holders still dependent on the large companies for processing their catch (Jarre et al, 2013).

The Report on the Economic and Socio - Economic State and Growth Prospects of the 12 Proclaimed Fishing Harbours in the Western Cape provides a good overview of the current state of Laaiplek harbour:

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 32 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

The Eigelaar family retains a strong foothold in the harbour, owning several plots which are rented to light industry and tourism facilities such as take-aways. The Eigevis company headquarters is still located on the original property. The Eigevis factory on the site closed down a few years ago, but Eigevis retains two pelagic vessels in Laaiplek fishing harbour.

Laaiplek harbour has one privately owned slipway and one ship repair facility as well as a state- owned fishing quay (between the Eigevis and Foodcorp factory). The old Laaiplek Visserye is now owned by Foodcorp, who have several private jetties. A recently-erected DAFF fence restricts access to the western part of the harbour and the mouth. The unique small vessel and gillnet harder/ bokkom fishery is centred on Velddrif town (“Bokkom laan” near the Carinus bridge).

Foodcorp’s canning plant currently processes up to 15 000 tons of pilchard, and up to 45 000 tons of anchovy and redeye herring into fishmeal. While still the most important employment provider in town, only 80 plant jobs and 60 boat crew jobs are permanent and year-round. The bulk (490) of jobs are seasonal (e.g. adult anchovy during winter). Lacking sufficient fish, the fishmeal plant has been running under capacity for a number of years. As a result, the factory has also not been modernized recently.

The future for Laaiplek and Velddrif fisheries and processing is not looking bright. Unless the mouth and harbour is dredged, and the fishing harbour infrastructure upgraded, there is a good case for processing facilities to relocate to the modern and well-equipped St Helena Bay (town) harbour. The harder fishery has also been facing steep increases in the cost of capture since the setting of nets in the Berg estuary is no longer permitted, requiring them to go into the bay (Western Cape Province Provincial Government: Department of the Premier, 2012).

By 2014 the South African pelagic canning and fishmeal industry had become dominated by two players, Oceana and Foodcorp. Oceana (Lucky Star) dominated the pilchard market (73%), with Foodcorp (Glenryck) the second biggest player. The proposed sale of the Laaiplek factory to Oceana lead to an investigation by the Competition Tribunal in 2014 (Mail & Guardian, 2014), but the outcome is unclear. Both companies have made clear the intention not to close down the Laaiplek fishery, at least for now.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 33 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape 5. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

5.1. Site context

The site is located within the Laaiplek Harbour precinct and is presently surrounded by facilities related to the harbour. Some of these, including those on the site, are in a poor state and not much used. The subject block is bounded by De Villiers Street to the north, Kreef Street to the east and Mossel Street to the south and west. The harbour itself lies to the south of the site with a boat launching ramp (slipway) located to the southwest. To the north are a car park, some vacant land, and the shore of St Helena Bay which is being subjected to much erosion due to the artificial modification of the Berg River Mouth in the early 1960s.A Spatial Development Framework for the harbour has been prepared by Delta Built Environment Consultants (2013). This indicates that the subject site has been set aside for commercial development, with an area immediately to the west allocated to the small scale fishing industry (Figure 12).

5.2. Site description

The site is largely developed with structures related to the harbour and fishing industry. A section on the northwest corner of the block is undeveloped and a large open space occurs in the middle of the block between the extant structures. Two large gum trees are present within this space (Figure 13).The site contains a motley mix of single and double storey buildings and some open spaces. The structures lack visual cohesion and are generally in poor condition. Figures 14 to 18 show a selection of panoramic views of the site in order to illustrate the character of the properties in question.

Figure 12: Extract from the SDF masterplan as compiled by Delta Built Environment Consultants (2013). The pink blocks indicate ‘mixed commercial’ development and the dark blue to the west is for the ‘small-scale fishing industry’.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 34 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Figure 13: Aerial view of the study area (red polygon with erf numbers labelled) showing the surrounding land uses.

Figure 14: Boundary of original Laaiplek Farm identified in the darker yellow line

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 35 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Figure 15: View towards the northeast showing structures along the southern boundary of the site. The harbour is visible to the right.

Figure 16: View towards the northwest showing the structures on site. Mossel Street lies to the left and Kreef Street is to the right.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 36 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Figure 17: View towards the east from the middle of the site showing structures present.

Figure 18: View towards the south from the northern edge of the site (adjacent to De Villiers Street) showing buildings and the gum trees.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 37 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Figure 19: View towards the west showing the present character of the harbour area. The brown buildings in mid-picture are on the site, as are the trees behind them.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 38 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

5.3. Built environment

The description and assessment of Laaiplek built environment is undertaken determine the town’s settlement patterns and the cultural significance of the precincts and individual buildings. In order to document Laaiplek development, certain sites have been identified on historic images and maps, as depicted in Figure 2. Laaiplek settlement developed from an informal arrangement of formal and temporary shelters to the present configuration in the 1940s as a result of the demand for labour formal workers housing for the Coloured and White workers and the Black male workers was provided. The expansion of the neighbouring settlement Velddrift in the late 1970 resulted in the joining of Laaiplek and Veldrift. A synopsis of Laaiplek development from 1652 until the present, with reference to structures and sites is captured in Table 1.

Figure 20: Laaiplek components of the historic built environment

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 39 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Figure 21: Laaiplek sites relating to its development (refer key below)

NO. SITE NO. SITE 1 Graveyard 14 1944 Coloured residential area for factory workers 2 Rooibaai 15 C 1945 Coloured residential area for factory workers 3 Berg River mouth 16 Hostel for Black male workers 4 Position of moored ‘Nerie’ used as offices 17 1944 White residential area 70 freehold sites 5 Hotel site, Carel Stephan’s house (1886), 18 Jameson Street which was a racial divide for St Christopher’s Church & School (c1897) residential areas 6 Berg River mouth exclusive treknet fishing 19 St Christopher Church and School relocated 1954 zone 1910 - c1938 7 Position of Crown Land boundary 20 8 Sites on Crown land leased to 7 boat 21 Portion of Tong removed for new river mouth owners for homes, jetties, boat houses 1965 - 1968 9 Roman Catholic Church site given by 22 Harbour deepened to allow larger fishing boats to Stephan Brothers 1922 access river 10 Site of Police Station and Court pre 1938 23 Eigevis purchases State land for factories (portion of former Crown Land) 11 Fish factory precinct 24 Noordhoek Coloured residential area late 1970s 12 Government slipway 25 Port Owen and Admiralty Island, late 1970s 13 Buffer zone racial groups residential areas 26 Underground pipeline and jetty 1952 - 1968 27 Farmland rented to local farmers for tillage c 1930s

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 40 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Table 1: Laaiplek and Context Spatial Timeline

DATE DESCRIPTION SITE/STRUCTURE 1652 Laaiplek area forms part of Cochoqua Khoekhoen territory Ca. 1700 Berg mouth used as harbour to transport fish to CT markets. Berg river mouth Ca. 1800 Berg estuary area used as marginal cattle posts and source Estuary of rantsoenvis by inland famers 1803 Lichtenstein visits homestead (“Fishwaters”) of farmer ‘Fishwaters’ Homestead Kirsten in what appears to be Laaiplek, location unclear. 1819 First recorded “fish house” in Laaiplek, but location unclear. 1st ‘fish house’ 1839 Martin Melck 3rd acquires quit-rent farm Velddrif – Original Veldrift & Laaiplek stretching from boundary with the Crown land (the Tong) 15 farms km inland and up to Dwarskersbos along shore 1852 Melck’s Velddrift is subdivided, and portion Velddrift Development of informal (Laaiplek and Velddrift) sold to TE Smit. Around this time structures Stephan Brothers acquire rights to erect houses, a barn and a shop, possibly earlier 1865 or Anglican Mission burial ground first used. Used until ca 1961 Graveyard slightly by Anglican Church and RCC, possibly as many as 850 burials later 1878 “Nerie” permanently moored in Laaiplek on bank opposite Hotel site identified as later Laaiplek Hotel. It is assumed that by this time Laaiplek central site on river edge had become SB’s second head offices (outside Cape Town). and settlement 1886 SB acquires portion “Laaiplek” from Smits – Carel Stephan Laaiplek, initial building on 2nd builds house on site of current Hotel shortly after (date Hotel site, settlement unclear). Employees are essentially housed in shacks around pattern historic core and Berg 1897 Original St Christopher’s Anglican school and church Original St Christopher’s established in historical core, the building is still standing Anglican school & Church on Hotel site 1899 Velddrift pont goes into operation on site later to be Bridge site occupied by Carinus bridge. The pont remained operational until 1950 1910s Berg mouth declared an exclusive trek netting zone, limiting Berg River Mouth potential for crayfishing and factories Ca 1914 SB relocates to St Helena Bay, and rents out Laaiplek to Laaiplek general dealer Carosini and a farmer. 1922 SB gives a plot to the Roman Catholic Church, which remains Roman Catholic Church & unbuilt for some time site, cnr Church & Stephan St. 1935 Great Depression swells Velddrif/ Laaiplek population Organic settlement pattern (predominantly Coloured). Organic settlement pattern and continues modesty of Sandveld huisies and hartebeeshuisies, as well as lack of sanitation, and conditions of general poverty and deprivation. The SBs and Smits see no incentive to subdivide or enter into formal lease agreements 1938 Old Police Station/ court [It disappears between 1960 Former Police State, corner (aerial) and 1965 (topo)] Rivier and Suid Streets Ca 1940 Crown land at Tong reserved for bathing and camping, but Former fish houses and (by) sites leased to 7 boat owners, some of whom construct fish jetties on Tong houses, jetties and dwellings 1942 Marine Products/ Laaiplek Visserye acquires entire Laaiplek Laaiplek, Factory

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 41 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

DATE DESCRIPTION SITE/STRUCTURE from SB (apart from RCC plot) – constructs a wooden factory development and new to produce rantsoenvis from 1943, and fishmeal by 1944. processes 1943 Andries Eigelaar rents portion of Crown land on Tong (same Site adjacent to project site Eigevis premises as current) 1944 First subdivision of Laaiplek, essentially as a “factory town” Coloured residential area to serve MP: 30 Coloured sub-economic rental units and a between Carosini & Meyer further 30 planned. 70 freehold units laid out for White race str. White residential area south of Jameson street. between River and Voortrekker St. 1944 ca Hostel for Black male workers north of Coloured residential Hostel top of Carosini and St area. Christopher’s streets 1946 Eigelaar family builds their first boat (Sandveld) – the first of Fishing fleet development a large number of Eigevis boats from Laaiplek with names ending in “-veld” (Eigevis website). 1946 Laaiplek and Crown land at river mouth included in Velddrift Removal of jetties, fish (Local Board). MP uses control of the Board to have jetties, houses & tanks on Tong and fish houses and processing tanks removed on their land and river edge uses Board to vet leases on Crown land 1948 First pilchard cannery operational at MP factory in Laaiplek Factory precinct 1950 SA’s first slick water recovery plant goes into operation at Factory precinct Laaiplek Visserye, enabling it to recover wastewater solids from canning for the purpose of reduction to meal Ca 1950 Electricity and water reticulation installed to factories Infrastructure Ca 1950 Carinus bridge constructed Carinus bridge – 1959 1951 3 fish reduction plants established at Laaiplek Factory precinct 1952 MP constructs underground pipeline from its factory to Former pipeline along shore, as well as jetties from which the fish is pumped Garnaal St. 1954 MP develops additional erven, 60 reserved for Coloureds Residential precinct (first non-White freehold option) between Oos & Protea St. 1954 St Christopher’s Church moved to new site on St St Christopher’s Church Christopher’s street 1955 Road from Carinus bridge to factories tarred Infrastructure 1959 Additional portions of Velddrift farm incorporated Town expansion 1960 – Progressive relocation of Coloureds to Noordhoek, (Group Noordhoek Areas Act) 1965- Current mouth constructed and Laaiplek harbour deepened, Harbour structures still 1968 for the first time becoming a proper harbour. located west of the new canal/ mouth on Tong 1970s- Port Owen and Admiralty Island created south of Laaiplek Port Owen and Admiralty 1980s Island 1999 Eigevis buys property from state Factory precinct

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 42 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Figure 22: Key to sites identified on aerial images and maps

Figure 23: 1938 aerial image overlaid on 2014 image depicts Laaiplek as a group of structures arranged in an informal manner. The extent of the settlement is indicated in the yellow outline. The outlines of the sites refer to figure 22.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 43 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Figure 24: 1938 image of site outlined within immediate context, note sand track on edge of land to river edge

Figure 25: 1938 image of site outlined. Structures are evident in the southeastern corner

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 44 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Figure 26: 1942 aerial images which depicts the natural river month open, Chief Directorate Surveys and Mapping Image 168:42 no. 38122

Figure 27: 1942 aerial image with identified sites overlaid on 2014 image. The image identifies what appears to be a small number of structures in the historic core site and the factory (and site) precinct. The yellow outline defines the extent of the settlement. The outlines of the sites refer to figure 22.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 45 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Figure 28: 1942 detail of site and its immediate context

Figure 29: 1942 image of the site indicates what appears to be structures in the southeastern corner have increase/enlarged since 1938. The eastern section of the site remains vacant

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 46 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Figure 30: Laaiplek in 1960 seen in context to the development of Velddrift and the extensive farming on Berg River’s southern bank. River mouth still remains open

Figure 21: 1960 aerial image overlaid on 2014 image depicts a dramatic development in the factory precinct and residential areas. The yellow outline define the extent of the urban development. The outlines of the sites refer to figure 22.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 47 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Figure 32: 1960 image detail indicating the site and its immediate context, note roadway to the north of the site and the Tong prior to the creation of the harbour. Additional jetties are visible from the 1942 image

Figure 33: 1960 detail of site indicating what appears to be structures on the eastern portion of the site in addition to an increase of structures to the east of site

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 48 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Figure 34: Laaiplek 1965 Topographical map indicates many individual buildings along the river’s edge precinct and numerous jetties south of the factory precinct. The yellow outline defining the settlement, note structures on the Tong

Figure 35: 1965 Topographical map overlaid on 2014 aerial image. The outlines of the sites refer to figure 22.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 49 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Figure 3: 1965 detail of survey indicating the site and its immediate context. Disbused buildings are indicated in an informal layout. A defined road is indicated north of the site

Figure 37: 1965 detail of survey indicating structures on site

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 50 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Figure 38: 1972 aerial image depicts Laaiplek expansion, such as new harbour with the resultant change to Rooibaai, factory precinct development, additional residential areas developed in the 1940s and 50s and the Caravan Park establishment. Jameson Road is not developed as a commercial strip. Laaiplek is defined as a separate entity to Velddrift in 1972 prior to the development of Port Owen and Admiralty Island

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 51 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Figure 39: 1981 Topographical maps depicting the establishment of Noordhoek and Port Owen

Figure 40: 1981 Topographical Map overlaid on 2014 aerial image. The outlines of the sites refer to figure 22.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 52 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Figure 41: 1981 detail of topographical map of site and it immediate context

Figure 42: 1981 detail of site indicating buildings, Note road remains to the north of the site allowing direct access from the river frontage sites to the river’s edge

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 53 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Relationship of the River Edge to the Settlement Laaiplek has an intimate relationship with the Berg River and its edges. The river has been the reason for its existence and development. The settlement has developed in a ribbon fashion along the river edge. Only the from the Coloured residential areas developed from the 1940s – 1970s have been located away from the river edge due to planning policies during the pre democratic governments. The use of the river edge has given the town its name (Loading Area) as from the Tong until the wetland area; boats have been moored for delivery and receipt of produce. The river has been a place where people can establish a food resource. The river edge in Laaiplek has always been accessible to the public. Currently the river edge is utilised for recreational and commercial uses:  Commercial fishing vessels are loaded and off loaded;  Traditional fish preparation (bokkams) is done at the rivers edge;  Boating and fishing are popular pastimes for residents and visitors to Laaiplek.

6. FINDINGS OF THE HERITAGE STUDY

This section describes the heritage resources recorded in the study area during the course of the project.

6.1. Archaeological study The site was inspected for archaeological heritage but none was located. The undeveloped part of the site was, however, coated in marine shell which is related to an earlier raised beach. This is a widespread palaeontological resource that has been documented in several other studies in the area. A careful examination of the material showed no anthropogenic material (stone artefacts, pottery, animal bones) and the majority of the shell fragments were heavily rounded showing their source as being from wave action rather than human collection. It seems highly unlikely that any significant historical archaeological resources will be present on the site.

6.2. Visual study Here we discuss the Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) conducted by Karen Hansen (2014). Our own supplementary observations are added as required. The original VIA is submitted along with this report as Appendix 1. Although Hansen (2014) did not find any cultural heritage associations within the site, it is the opinion of the present authors that the site and its surroundings are very strongly connected to the long history of commercial fishing, not just in Laaiplek, but in St Helena Bay and the south-western Cape. This contention is supported by the background historical review in Section 5.3 above. However, as noted by Hansen (2014:16), the present site itself has “little or no value for its original purpose and as it benefits from proximity to landscapes of high value for tourism, it appears to be currently undervalued”.

Hansen (2014) describes the visual significance of the study area as relating to its situation at the harbour area, its gateway potential, its proximity to the sea and its recreational opportunities, since the group of buildings located on and adjacent to the site have no unifying characteristics. We concur that the significant heritage resource in this regard is the Laaiplek Harbour along with the history that it carries relating to the local fishing industry. It is the visual impacts to the harbour and its setting that are therefore of concern here.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 54 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

The viewshed envelope is affected by the nature of the site location, the open aspect of its location and the proposed land uses and built form. Hansen (2014) notes that, given the height of the proposed development, significant views could be widespread because there are few obstructions; other buildings in the vicinity are almost exclusively single and double storey. The visual impacts from land-based receptors is likely to be intermittent because of the relationship between receptors and buildings of any height, but from the sea, river, harbour and undeveloped land to the south of the river the views would be much more exposed. Hansen (2014) has used a radius of 2.5 km from the study site in her determination of the viewshed envelope. Figure 19 shows the affected areas. These include the land to the north and northeast, properties along the river margins to the south (including at Port Owen) and the undeveloped land of Flamink Vlei to the southwest.

The degree of visual influence is assessed as being high because the development could influence the view and act as a visual focus for receptors within a 2.0-2.5 km radius. The high rating is due to the height of the proposed building (16.895 m), the intervening buildings in the area, the topography and the probability that the new structure will have a markedly different appearance to those surrounding it (Hansen 2014).

The visibility of the proposed development is affected by the site’s open aspect, the open views from the surrounding landscape and the land uses and land cover in the vicinity. Hansen (2014) notes that views from further away than 2.5 km become insignificant in the landscape. The main localities from which the development would be seen are the immediate area within 200 m of the site, land to the north and east, parts of Port Owen, and the Flamink Vlei area to the south of the river. Visual clutter may be reduced through implementation of the proposed development because, although the new building would have a greater scale, it would offer a more uniform appearance. Lighting at the site would influence its visibility at night.

6.3. Social And Fishing Industry History Laaiplek social significances are connected to the fishing industry’s development. Its development from farmland to an organic informal development that only became formalised after WWII. This period resulted in a and a mixed race community after housing for Coloured and White workers and their families in addition to hostels for Black male workers was provided by Marine Products. The fishing industry is a dominant element in the town with the factories and buildings situated on the prime river frontage sites. The industry is significant in its ability to develop technical solutions to the improvement of processes for fishing and factory production. The industry’s period of achievements and failures were linked to fishing industries worldwide. The industry is the reason for the town’s development and continues to be the town’s major employment. The town is therefore strongly connected to its surrounding natural resources of Berg River St Helena bay, Atlantic Ocean.

With so little historical fabric still remaining in Laaiplek, it is important to recognise the intangible heritage of the fishing tradition that lives on in the minds of many local residents and which was expressed at the open house meeting. During preparation of the 2013 SDF for the Laaiplek Harbour, the following sentiment was expressed at an open house meeting: “there was a concern that sufficient provision should be made for the fisher community, that these traditions should be maintained and that the private sector alone should not benefit” (Delta Built Environment Consultants 2013 : 33). This shows that local residents are concerned about their heritage and do

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 55 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape not want it to be summarily discarded in favour of modern development. The continued tradition of making and selling ‘bokkoms’ is an example of local intangible heritage in action.

6.4. Built Environment Laaiplek built environment responds to the site at the Berg River mouth and the opportunities the river and the ocean have provided to its inhabitants. The river and sea used for transport of farming produce in addition to its supply of resource have defined the optimum placement of initially informal and later formal structures. The built environment has been a process of adaption and change to structures. Functionality requirements for placement and accommodation of the fishing industry have resulted in the positioning of the industries buildings adjacent to the river. Early settlement along the rivers edge is also demarcated by mature Eucalyptus trees. The historic core site at the centre of the river edge development is the site where important buildings and functions originated, such as the initial Church and school, land owners offices and residences and later the hotel as a communal gathering area. A portion of the river’s estuary was the place for the development of Laaiplek: from the Tong’s mainland edge to the large wetland the river’s horse shoe provided a pace where boats could be safely moored and embarked. The creation of the harbour provided infrastructure to accelerate the fishing industry’s potential. The historic buildings are connected with the fishing industry but few represent the kind of structures whose relationship to fishing is commonly celebrated elsewhere, for example at Paternoster on the west coast or Arniston and Hotagterklip on the south coast (Fransen 2013).

Table 2: Laaiplek Culturally Significant Built environment sites and precincts (note figures in firts column do not trefer to diagrams) NO SITE/PRECINCT DESCRIPTION SIGNIFICANCES PROPOSED GRADE 1 Unmarked Anglican and RCC graveyard used from Grave, Historic, Associational IIIA Graveyard 1865 2 Rivers edge From Harbour to Main street Historic, Associational, IIIA Aesthetic 3 Hotel site Situated at strategic position adjacent to Historic, Aesthetic IIIA river, used to accommodate early Associational residence and offices of the Stephan Brothers, St Christopher’s Church and School, Hotel, present museum, landscape features 4 Factory Precinct Factory precinct south of Hotel site Historic, Technical, Scientific IIIA 5 Factory Precinct Factory precinct north of hotel site Historic, Aesthetic IIIB 6 Religious sites St Christopher's Anglican Church Historic, Associational IIIA Anglican Church Aesthetic

7 Historic Established by Marine Products post Historic, Associational IIIC Coloured WWII; Housing was situated north of workers housing Jameson street separate from White residential areas 8 Hotels for Black Established by Marine Products post Historic, Associational IIIB male workers WWII, situated north of Coloured housing Rare 9 White Established by Marine Products post Historic, Associational IIIC residential WWII, situated south of Coloured housing housing over Jameson St. 10 Historic routes Voortrekker and Jameson streets Historic IIIB The original access route from Velddrif was east of Voortrekker street

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 56 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Figure 43: Built environment culturally significant sites within Laaiplek

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 57 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Figure 44: Significant site and structures within context of the site

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 58 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

6.5. Visual Assessment

The extent of the visual impact is assessed as being local (up to 2.5 km distant). Visual exposure is rated as high in areas up to 500 m away and moderate when viewed from further away. In assessing the zones of visual influence Hansen (2014) states that in the immediate environs of the site (within 200 m) the development would be highly visible and would act as a visual focus (rating: high). In surrounding areas to the north and east the height of the proposed building would ensure its visibility from many areas and the development could form the focus of the view, depending on the location of the receptor (rating: moderate-high). Along the river to the south Hansen (2014) rates the zone of visual influence as moderate because of distance and shielding by local building clutter. However, the present authors note that the clutter only pertains to views from relatively close to the site, and particularly from the southeast, since further away to the south there is a clear, unobstructed view of the site from the river’s edge (Figure 20). From Port Owen the zone of visual influence is affected by distance and shielding from other structures (rating: low-moderate). From Vlamink Vlei the zone of visual influence is assessed as low because of distance. However, it should be noted that this relates to the cottages opposite Port Owen and not to the vacant land immediately across the river from the development where views would be close and uninterrupted.

Figure 45: View towards the development site in the north (the tree on site is arrowed) from the jetties immediately north of Port Owen.

Figure 46: View towards the south showing the height of fishing boats (masts arrowed) relative to the current single and double storey structures on site.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 59 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Figure 47: Map showing the viewshed envelope or view catchment area up to 2.5 km from the site. Source: Hansen (2014: fig. 5.1).

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 60 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Hansen (2014) notes that the new land use would differ from the status quo, that the development would be at a greater scale than what is presently surrounding the site and that the strong built form would signal the harbour (Figure 21), replacing the current cluster of smaller buildings. Despite these factors, Hansen rates the visual absorption capacity as medium. While it is true that the proposed development would clearly locate the harbour in the landscape, it should be pointed out that the scale of the items comprising the scene in the architect’s sketch is somewhat incorrect and, importantly the sketch only shows three and four storeys from the south (Figure 22). In the sketch we find that both the single storey buildings to the right of the development and the fishing boat are too large (our own photographs and those in Hansen (2014) show that the top of the boat masts tend to be about the same as or less than a double storey building; Figure 23). Our photographs suggest that the tree on site would not be visible from the south as shown here, and in any case, the tree would need to be removed to make way for the structures. The building will thus likely dominate the landscape more strongly than one is led to believe. The present authors believe that the lack of an accurate photomontage of this view has hindered proper assessment of the visual absorption capacity of the site.

Figure 48: Architects sketch of the proposed development as viewed from the south and as referenced by Hansen (2014). Source: Hansen (2014: fig. 5.8).

Figure 49: Close up of the architects sketch as shown in Figure 13. Source: Hansen (2014: fig. 5.8).

Figure 50: View towards the south showing the height of fishing boats (masts arrowed) relative to the current single and double storey structures on site.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 61 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Hansen (2014) assesses the compatibility of the development with the surrounding landscape as being appropriate. In justification she cites the local SDF which has earmarked the site for commercial use and notes that the new structure would add a positive visual presence to the harbour area. It would also serve to upgrade the current built environment fabric. (One may compare this development to similar ones at the Victoria and Alfred Waterfront at the Cape Town harbour which sets a fine precedent for the present project.)

The visual sensitivity of the overall landscape character is rated as moderate because of the range of uses within the urban area along the river, while that for the immediate vicinity of the river’s edge and harbour area is moderate-high because of their vulnerability to inappropriate development.

6.6. Graves

A single grave site is marked as occurring to the west of the proposed development, very close to the walled entrance of the Berg River (Delta Built Environment Consultants 2014). A graveyard also occurs to the east of the site, north of De Villiers Street. Neither of these will be impacted and it is deemed highly unlikely that burials would be located on the remaining undeveloped parts of the study area.

6.7. The cultural landscape and sense of place

The West Coast of South Africa is typified by its lack of topography, its big sky and strong sense of remoteness that are characteristic of a cosmic landscape (sensu Norberg-Schultz 1980). The urban form of coastal villages tends to consist of small structures huddled behind the beach in windswept environments. Although Laaiplek is focused on the river rather than the ocean and incorporates a large industrial component, it does, to some degree, conform to this traditional pattern of harsh, wide open spaces with little topographic relief. This characteristic contributes to the sense of place of the area and draws people to it as they seek to escape the density of the city.

6.8. Summary of heritage indicators and provisional grading

There are no archaeological concerns but some paleontological shell deposits are present. Given their widespread nature, excavations into them are unlikely to be a significant concern. These resources are left ungraded. Although some structures may be older than 60 years, none are significant and are also not suggested for grading.

In terms of visual impacts, some concern exists over the height of the proposed development because the Laaiplek Harbour SDF advocates structures up to three storeys high for the area and the scale and bulk of the proposed structure will affect views and the sense of place of the west coast environment. Aside from this, it is considered that the proposed development is an appropriate land use and, if appropriate colours and materials are used, it will bring upliftment to the general visual environment of the Laaiplek Harbour. The present landscape can be provisionally graded as a 3b resource.

The traditions and history of fishing from Laaiplek and in St Helena Bay (intangible heritage) will likely be further eroded to some degree, although it is acknowledged that the industry is in decline for various other reasons as well. The proposed development offers an opportunity to celebrate

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 62 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape the fishing industry and bring new life to the harbour area. This intangible heritage can be provisionally graded 3a, particularly since there is community concern over it. 7. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS

7.1. Archaeology

No archaeological resources were found on the site and no impacts are expected (Table 1). No mitigation or management measures are suggested.

Table 1: Assessment of archaeological impacts.

Potential impacts on geographical and physical Potential archaeological impact aspects: Nature of impact: Destruction of archaeological material. Extent and duration of impact: Permanent Probability of occurrence: Improbable Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Low Magnitude: Low Degree to which the impact may cause High irreplaceable loss of resources: Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: n/a (because no impacts are expected) Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation Low (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: n/a (because no impacts expected) Proposed mitigation: n/a Cumulative impact post mitigation: n/a Significance rating of impact after mitigation n/a (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

7.2. Intangible Heritage The intangible heritage associated with the site and its immediate precinct relate to its use with the fishing industry. The topographic map dated 1981 confirms the present roadway between the site and the river was constructed post 1981 which confirms the close connection the riverside land had with the river. The potential negative impact the prosed building can have on the intangible heritage of Laaiplek and its fishing industry is to require change to the industry that will negatively impact the industry, for example directly opposite the site fishing boats are moored through out the day and night2. These fishing activities cannot be limited or prohibited by the proposed development, as the site is adjacent to a working harbour.

Table 3: Assessment of impacts on the intangible heritage. Potential impacts on geographical and physical Potential impact aspects: Removal of places and activities that are part of the fishing Nature of impact: industry and where intangible value exists. Insertion of a structure that is out of context in scale and relationship to context Extent and duration of impact: Permanent Probable, if fishing activities are changed to suit the hotel’s Probability of occurrence: functioning Probable, if a 5 storey development is approved

2 Personal commeuniaction Laaiplek Museum

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 63 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Potential impacts on geographical and physical Potential impact aspects: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Low High, if there is a loss of intangible heritage and impact on the Magnitude: sense of place Degree to which the impact may cause High irreplaceable loss of resources: Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Nil at present as fishing activities are not arranged to change Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation Low (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) High Degree to which the impact can be mitigated:

Reduce height of proposed building, give clarity to hotel owners Proposed mitigation: of the impacts of the fishing activities adjacent to the hotel on the riverside facing buildings Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low Significance rating of impact after mitigation Low (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

7.3. Built Environment (site and local precinct) Historic aerial photographs and maps confirm the site was developed over time with various buildings that replaced former site buildings. The present site buildings are assessed an insignificant structures although they are situated within a locally significant precinct (historic, intangible significances). The SDF (2013) and the Precinct Plan (August 2014) locate the site and its precinct within a Central Business District and indicate the intention for future development on and adjoining the site (refer Figure 12 and Annexure 5). The impact of the proposed building on the built environment must be assessed in light of the future development of the precinct.

Table 4: Assessment of impacts on the built environment.

Potential impacts on geographical and physical Potential impacts on the built environment aspects: Removal of structures of significance on site and negative impact Nature of impact: of proposed building on precinct Extent and duration of impact: Permanent Improbable on site as site structures are assessed as insignificant Probability of occurrence: Medium on site precinct with negative impact of proposed buildings scale Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Low Magnitude: Medium/High Degree to which the impact may cause Medium irreplaceable loss of resources: Low as proposed building the first of future development on Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: precinct Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation Low (site) Medium (precinct) (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High Reduction of scale, commercial activities relating to public realms, Proposed mitigation: control of lighting, signage Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low Significance rating of impact after mitigation Low (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 64 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

7.4. Visual Impacts

Visual impacts are, by their nature, indirect impacts; they are impacts to the context of a place. Hansen (2014:35) rates various aspects of the development in her impact assessment, but here we refer to her Impact 2.1 which is the “effect on local receptors of the change in character from 1 and 2 storey mixed uses to 4 and 5 storey tourism related”. She rates the intensity/magnitude of visual impact to the site as being high and the duration as permanent. With extent rated as local and surrounds, she assigns an overall significance rating of medium-high. These impacts are summarised in Table 2. There are no fatal flaws in terms of visual impacts.

Table 5: Assessment of visual impacts as adapted from Hansen (2014).

Potential impacts on geographical and physical Potential archaeological impact aspects: Change in character of and visual intrusion into the local Nature of impact: landscape. Extent and duration of impact: Permanent Probability of occurrence: Definite Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Low Magnitude: High Degree to which the impact may cause High irreplaceable loss of resources: n/a (because no similarly large-scale developments exist in Laaiplek. However, given the planning evident in the Laaiplek Harbour SDF, cumulative impacts are likely to occur through the addition of further commercial developments to the area. Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: However, if similar high standards are met then this impact could be seen as positive since the entire harbour precinct would be upgraded. Overall the significance of cumulative impacts is low because the environment should be able to withstand further similar impacts.) Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation Medium-High (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Low Use of subtle colour palette (off-whites, greys, etc.); use of variety in external finishes (plastered and painted, timber features, shiplap boarding); incorporation of marine themes, particularly Proposed mitigation: relating to the fishing industry; lighting should be limited according to local guidelines; signage should not dominate any elevation; excessive tree-planting should be avoided as trees are not characteristic of the local vegetation. Cumulative impact post mitigation: n/a Significance rating of impact after mitigation Medium (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Cumulative impacts are quite likely to occur in future since the block immediately to the east has been earmarked in the Laaiplek Harbour SDF for commercial development. However, this cumulative impact is not necessarily a negative impact since the opportunity exists to greatly enhance the visual appearance of the harbour precinct if any neighbouring developments are of a suitably high standard. The V&A Waterfront in Cape Town is a good example of how colour and life can be brought to an otherwise unexciting harbour area through high quality development.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 65 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Hansen (2014:33) lists two mitigation requirements that have a bearing on heritage resources:  “Managing the Visual Impact beyond the development site requires a subtle colour palette to be used for external finishes, such as off-whites and greys, etc., and also variety in materials, plastered and painted walls, timber features and shiplap boarding”; and  “Street Lighting and security lighting should be designed to respond to public safety, and light pollution should be limited in accord with W Cape guidelines. Signage should not dominate any elevation.”

Although Hansen (2014:31) states that the development “would be in keeping with the Berg River Local Municipality Spatial Development Framework Policies, and other policies, that promote tourism and the provision of tourism related facilities in this locality”, we note that, in its discussion of built form and building height, the Laaiplek Harbour SDF says the following:

While the core economic function of the harbour as a fishing harbour must be retained and enhanced, building placement should not be determined purely on the basis of functional and practical requirements. Consideration must be given to achieving legibility, communicating function and roles for different areas, protecting views, shaping the space between buildings and achieving a network of public spaces.

A maximum building height of two storeys for the operational zone and the tourism zone is considered to be appropriate to the harbour context and for achieving the bulks necessary to carry the required operations in the harbour. The built form located on the public space at the head of the harbour should be of modest scale. Buildings should support the creation of a public space shaped by the formalised setting with strong connectivity to a unique location on a river mouth estuary.

A maximum height of three storeys limited to few limited facilities (sic) is considered appropriate for the community enterprise zone. The buildings could be orientated around an internal public space network integrating the mixed land use contained on these parcels (Delta Built Environment Consultants 2014:55).

Visual impacts to the harbour itself are important from a heritage point of view because it is largely the harbour that serves to represent the (often intangible) fishing heritage that is present at Laaiplek. Concern exists that the scale of the proposed structure is greater than that envisaged in the Harbour SDF (as quoted above) and that it will erode the significance of the historic fishing industry unless this industry is well integrated with the development. The opinion expressed at the open house meeting strongly reflects this (see Section 6.3.1 above). In this regard it is of paramount importance that the development provides opportunities for local fishing heritage to be incorporated and expressed. This can be done in various ways, one of which may be to include a museum/display dedicated to the history of Laaiplek and its fishing industry.

The scale and bulk of the structure so close to the coastline needs careful consideration. Traditional west coast landscapes are typified by small structures behind long sandy beaches with a strong sense of remoteness – Laaiplek and Elands Bay are good examples – and the bulk of the planned development will introduce a strongly urban feel to the environment. The SDF quoted above notes the need for protecting views and, while a large structure (or group of structures) is feasible on the present site, too much height, particularly towards the western end, will interrupt the continuity between land and sea and will visually separate the land to the north from the river to the south. It may be possible to reduce the visual intrusion of the structure through having reduced height towards the west.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 66 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape 8. CONCLUSIONS

This HIA has been compiled following the requirements of HWC and of section 38(3) of the NHRA. As the site is included in Laaiplek SDF and Precinct Plan for future development as the proposal, the proposed future use of the site as a hotel is recommended. However, these planning documents give direction to the future scale of development in this precinct in order to retain the precinct’s valuable character. There are no archaeological issues but concern exists over the scale of the proposed buildings that will potentially in the erosion of the already fragile fishing heritage of Laaiplek and disturbance of the typical West Coast sense of place. However, through appropriate design mitigation as recommended below and incorporation of aspects of local heritage, it is assessed that the development proposed will have a positive impact on the Laaiplek Harbour area and should be supported.

9. RECOMMENDATIONS

The proposed hotel development is in accordance with the SDF and the Precinct Plan. Mitigation measures are recommended in order to reduce negetive impacts on the precinct’s cultural heritage. Specifically, the coastal landscape, the links between village and harbour and the intangible fishing heritage need to be considered. To this end the following recommendations are made:

 The height of the proposed building should be reduced to a maximum of 3 floors from street levels, approximately 12 m high including roofscape. This is in accordance with the Laaiplek Harbour SDF (2013) and the Velddrif/Laaiplek Precinct Plan (August 2014). Otherwise the scale and bulk form as proposed will result in a large visual intrusion into the coastal landscape and negatively affect the sense of place on this sensitive environment;  The building should include commercial activities at street level to ensure attraction to the harbour riverside precinct and recreational mooring bay. Although there is a requirement to raise the building on the riverside frontage due to flood line requirements, the riverside street wall facades can be utilised for interpretative displays on Laaiplek history. In addition, an investigation for commercial activities on the northern and eastern street level accommodation should occur;  An appropriate palette of colours and materials should be used for exterior finishes to be compatible with the context;  Lighting should not be excessive and signage should not dominate any elevation;  Every effort should be made to incorporate aspects of local heritage into the development so as to celebrate rather than erode the fishing industry which gave rise to Laaiplek;  If any archaeological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development then work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the heritage authorities and may require inspection by an archaeologist. Such heritage is the property of the state and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 67 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape 10. REFERENCES

ACO Associates (2014). Archaeological Specialist Study of the Proposed Housing Development on Erf 1283, Velddrif, Western Cape. Prepared for SRK Consulting.

Avery, G. 1975. Discussion on the age and use of tidal fish-traps (visvywers). South African Archaeological Bulletin 30: 105–113.

Barrow, J (1806). Travels into the Interior of Southern Africa. Volume 1. Cadel and Davies, London.

Chief Directorate Surveys and Mapping (1965). 3218 CC&CA Velddrif 1: 50 000, Second edition, 1981.

Chief Directorate Surveys and Mapping (1983). 3218 CC&CA Velddrif 1: 50 000, Third edition, 1981.

DAFF (2012). Status of the South African Marine Fishery Resources.

Delta Built Environment Consultants. 2013. WC proclaimed harbours SEDF – Laaiplek: Phase 2: Options Generation (Draft SDF/ Masterplan). Tokai: Delta Built Environment Consultants (Pty) Ltd.

Eigelaar, J (1999). As die Skipper op die Voorstewe Staan. Nasionale Boekdrukkery, Kaapstad.

Ellis, R (2006b). Heritage Impact Assessment Remainder Farm Oliphantskraal No. 61 Bergrivier Municipality. Prepared for Doug Jeffrey Environmental.

Ellis, R (2008). Heritage Impact Assessment: Phase 2 Sections 36 & 38(1) & (8): NHRA Proposed Development Erven 231 & Re. 478 Laaiplek, Bergrivier Municipality. Prepared for Akubra Trading 34 (Pty) Ltd.

Ellis, R. (2006a). Heritage Screening Report Ptn. of Ptn. 2: Farm De Plaat Annex No. 113, Piketberg District, Bergrivier Municipality. Prepared for Shadewind 12 (Pty) Ltd.

Ellis, R. 2008. Heritage Impact Assessment: Phase 2 Sections 36 & 38(1) & (8): NHRA erven 231 & re. 478 Laaiplek Bergrivier Municipality. Unpublished report prepared for Medmin Project Management. Velddrif: Robin Ellis Town & Coastal Planner, traditional building design and heritage consultant.

Erasmus, BJP (ed) (1995). Oppad in Suid-Afrika. Jonathan Ball, Johannesburg.

Fransen, H. 2013. Old towns and villages of the Cape. Roggebaai: Jonathan Ball Publishers.

Hansen, K, 2014. Berg River Mouth Family Resort, Laaiplek Harbour, Velddrif, Western Cape: visual impact assessment. Somerset West: Karen Hansen Landscape Architect.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 68 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Hart, T., & Halkett, D. 1992. A first phase archaeological survey of Wilde Varkens Valley 48. Report prepared for Willem Buhrmann Associates Town Planners and Valuers. University of Cape Town, Archaeology Contracts Office.

Hart, T., & Miller, D. 1994. Phase 1 assessment of a proposed mining area on the farm Veldrif 110. Report prepared for Lime Sales Limited. University of Cape Town, Archaeology Contracts Office.

Hine, P.J. & Sealy, J. Halkett, D. & Hart, T. 2010. Antiquity of stone-walled tidal fish traps on the Cape coast, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin 65: 35–44.

Jarre, A., S. M. Ragaller, and L. Hutchings (2013). “Long-term, ecosystem-scale changes in the southern Benguela marine pelagic social-ecological system: interaction of natural and human drivers”, in Ecology and Society 18 (4).

Jerardino, A. 2003. Pre-colonial settlement and subsistence along sandy shores south of Elands Bay, west coast, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin 58: 53-62.

Kaplan, J. 2006. Phase 1 Archaeological impact assessment proposed housing development erf 149 Dwarskersbos Cape west coast. Unpublished report prepared for Envirodinamik. Riebeek West, Agency for Cultural Resource Management.

Kaplan, J. 2008. Phase 1 archaeological impact assessment proposed development erven 478 and 231 Veldriff Cape West Coast. Unpublished report prepared for Akubra Trading 34 (Pty) Ltd. Riebeek West, Agency for Cultural Resource Management.

Lichtenstein, H (1812). Travels in Southern Africa, In the Years 1803, 1804, 1805 and 1806. Volume 1. Henry Colburn, London.

Mail & Guardian, 31 January 2014. “Fight to net lion’s share of pilchard markets heat up”.

Norberg-Schultz, C. 1980. Genius loci: towards a phenomenology of architecture. London: Academy Editions.

Orton J and C (2014). Heritage Impact Assessment for a Proposed Holiday Resort on Erven 2837 and 2838, Laaiplek, Pikteberg District, Western Cape. Prepared for DJ Environmental Consultants. Orton, J. 2009. Final report on archaeological excavations at erf 149, Dwarskersbos, Piketberg Magisterial District, Western Cape. Unpublished report prepared for Enviro Dinamik. University of Cape Town: Archaeology Contracts Office.

Pether, J. 2004. Paleontological mitigation report, coastal marine deposits Dwarskersbos. Dwarskersbos Erf 276 housing development. Unpublished report prepared for BKS (Pty) Ltd. Kommetjie: John Pether.

Turner, M. 2009. The growth of Shelley Point, St Helena Bay. In: In: Athiros, G., Athiros, L., Athiros, N. & Turner, M. (eds) A West Coast Odyssey: a journey into the colourful and fascinating history of the Cape’s West Coast peninsula: 114-117. Tokai: Historical Media cc.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 69 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Van Sittert, L ‘Velddrift’: the making of a South African company town, in Urban History, 28, 2 (2001), pp. 194-217.

Van Sittert, L. 1992. Labour, capital and the state in the St Helena Bay fisheries c.1856-1956. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cape Town.

Van Sittert, L. 1993. 'Making Like America': The Industrialisation of the St Helena Bay Fisheries c. 1936-c. 1956. Journal of Southern African Studies Vol. 19 No. 3, September 1993, pp. 422- 446.

Western Cape Province Provincial Government: Department of the Premier (2012). Report on the Economic and Socio-Economic State and Growth Prospects of the 12 Proclaimed Fishing Harbours in the Western Cape.

Winter, S. & Baumann, N. 2005. Guideline for involving heritage specialists in EIA processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report No ENV-S-C 2005 053 E. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Cape Town. www.eigevis.com/eigelaar-family.php

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 70 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

APPENDIX 1- Declaration

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 71 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

APPENDIX 2 – VIA

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 72 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

APPENDIX 3 – HWC COMMENT NID 21 MAY 2014

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 73 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 74 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

APPENDIX 4 – HWC INTERIM COMMENT 22 OCTOBER 2014

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 75 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 76 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

APPENDIX 5 – LAAIPLEK/VELDDRIF PRECINCT PLAN 2014 SECTION 5.4.2

Figure 5:

Veldrift/Laaiplek Precinct Plan Final August 2014 City Think Space 2014 P 56 (site identified with red circle)

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 77 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Veldrift/Laaiplek Precinct Plan Final August 2014 City Think Space 2014 Section 5.4.2 p 57 (relevant portions highlighted)

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 78 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape APPENDIX 6 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TABLE

(Within the National Environmental Management Act’s Basic Assessment Report requirements) SDF

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 79 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TABLE

NAME DATE MEANS OF COMMENT RECEIVED COMMUNIC - ATION Alana Duffel- 07 Email Re: Proposed Berg River Mouth Family and Lifestyle Facility – Draft Basic Assessment Report. Canham November DEA&DP Ref: 16/3/1/1/F1/2/3016/14 (Cape 2014 Nature) CapeNature would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application. Please note that whilst we acknowledge that there will be impacts on sense of place, visual impacts etc., our comments pertain to biodiversity related impacts.

1. The proposed development site is located close to the edge of the Berg River, within a buffer area of an aquatic Critical Biodiversity Area, within the 1:50 year floodline and 1:100 year floodline and below the 5m contour. Usually CapeNature would strongly object to any development footprint located within any of the above criteria even if the floor level of the building is raised above the 1:100 year floodline.

2. However, the following has been taken into consideration for this particular site:  Most of the development area has already been hardened, as has the area between the development site and the river and the site therefore has low value in terms of wetland ecology or flood attenuation.  The development is on the north bank of the estuary which is already developed and not on the natural south bank which provides important breeding habitat for fish and birds; and  Very little natural vegetation remains on site, what does remain CapeNature considers being of low to medium conservation value

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 80 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

3. Therefore, whilst CapeNature does not encourage development on this site and accepts no responsibility for damages or costs incurred from actual or potential damage or risks as a result of flooding, we do not object to the application.

4. With regard to the Environmental Management Plan, it is generally adequate but we would like to suggest that a table is included with columns clearly indicating the actions required the frequency thereof and the responsible person (s).

Cape Nature reserves the right to revise comments and request further information based on any additional information that may be received. Carel Mienie 27 Email Publieke deelname: Voorgestelde Bergriviermond Ontwikkeling (A.J.F. November DEA&DP verw. Nr 16/3/1/1/F1/2/3016/14 Eigelaar & 2014 Seuns) U skrywe van 28 Oktober 2014 verwys.

Hierdeur lewe ons graag kommentaar en spreek ook ons bekommernisse uit rondom die voorgestelde ontwikkeling.

1. Die Bergrivier-mond is die een van die min, indien nie die enigste, werkende rivier-hawe in Suid- Afrika. Verder is Laaiplek ‘n visvang gemeenskap en meeste van die werksgeleenthede in ons dorp word deur die visvangbedryf geskep. Die Visvang-bedrywighede kan nooit vasgevang raak met ‘n horlosie nie. Die bote en fabriek is afhanklik van die see en getye om suksesvol hulle bedrywighede te beoefen.

Indien die voorgestelde ontwikkeling plaasvind sal ons vanaf die Ontwikkelaar, toekomstige eienaars en owerhede ‘n waarborg wil hê dat die visbedryf en verwante besighede in die hawe nie ingeperk gaan word, t.o.v. bv. tye wat gewerk mag word en lawaai-drempels in die nag wanneer bote in en uitkom nie.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 81 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

On sal graag in die finale verslag wil sien hoe hierdie aspek aangespreek gaan word.

2. Die voorgestelde ontwikkeling is 5 verdiepings hoog en sluit ondergrondse parkering in. Ons is eerstens bekommerd oor die impak op die marine biologie van die omgewing (kon nie sien waar dit aangespreek is nie) en die stabiliteit van die grond om so ‘n “swaar” ontwikkeling te kan dra. Tweedens is die impak van ‘n 5 verdieping gebou op die horison-lyn van hierdie unieke kusdorpie geweldig en ons wil ook teen die hoogte beswaar maak. Hoeveel van die rivieroewer-eienaars is direk betrek/genader in al die verslae wat opgestel is? Die impak op ander eiendom-eienaars laer in die rivier af moet nie uit die oog verloor word nie.

Ons vertrou dat u ons kommentare in die positiewe lig wat dit geopper is sal beskou en inagneem. Ons mag ook na verdere ondersoeke verdere kommentaar lewer wanneer die finale verslag voorgelê word. Doretha 01 Email DRAFT BAR: PROPOSED BERGRIVIER MOUTH FAMILY & LIFESTYLE FACILITY ON ERVEN 2837 & 2838, Kotze (West December LAAIPLEK Coast 2014 District 1. I refer to your letter dated 29 October 2014 and the DBAR for the abovementioned proposal. Municipality) 2. The proposal is aligned with the Bergrivier SDF for the area and the West Coast District Municipality does not wish to offer any comments.

3. Your attention is drawn to the DEA&DP’s project for the determination of coastal setback line in the West Coast District, indicating that Velddrif/Laaiplek will face significant risks in future because of its location on the coast and Bergrivier Estuary. It is noted that a Flood Line Study was undertaken during the current assessment however, cognisance should also be taken of recommended measures for the management of said risks as contained in the concluded DEA&DP study.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 82 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

A P Viljoen 01 Email DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: ERF 2837 & 2838, LAAIPLEK (Foodcorp) December 2014 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft BAR.

A general point is that it seems that the alternatives were not considered as required by DEA&DP Basic Assessment Report template. These include site, design, locality and operational alternatives. These are, however, aspects that should be decided by DEA&DP.

The main concern is that the impact of the development on neighbouring businesses and vice versa were not considered. The proposed development is within a harbour with sometimes 24 hour operation by fishing boats with resultant noises. The neighbouring factories also from time to time operate 24 hours with resultant noises and smells. The question is how the lifestyle facility will operate within these natural business operations for a fishing harbour.

It is also not clear where the port boundaries are and whether the National Department of Public Works responsible for fishing ports was consulted. The possible operation of boats by the facility within the harbour should also be addressed.

The site for the sewer pump station and pipeline route is not indicated. It is possible that depending on the pump station position and pipeline route a license application to DWS might be required. Since it is likely that the proposed development is within 500m from a wetland an application might also be required. These positions and route(s) should be investigated should be investigated and added to the final Basic Assessment Report.

A study is at present underway for a sewer pump station and pipeline route not far from the proposed development. Linkage with this project should be investigated Orlean 13 Comments Goeie plan sal dorp ‘n finansiële hupstoot gee e nook meer toeriste lok. Grasmus November on DBAR 2014 during open day Inge & Jan 04 Email Looked at the information and I am very impressed. Things of constructive input: van Dijk November • Parking for guest and visitors is limited 2014 • Use of the water (slipway/jetty) • Development Flaminkvlei

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 83 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

Inge & Jan 13 Comments A plan that got our support van Dijk November on DBar Suggestion: 2014 during  Jetty in front for boating visitors to shops/restaurants openday  Contact fishery department for building on corner to find out future plans Are your aware about the future project on the other side of river? Willie 04 Email APPLICATION FOR REZONING AND DEPARTURE: CONSOLIDATION OF ERVEN 2837 AND 2838, Strohfeldt November LAAIPLEK (Velddrif 2014 Erfenis The Board of Velddrif Heritage Foundation studied the proposed Application, as prepared by Nuplan Africa Stigting) and the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by ASHA Consulting. We comment as follows: 1. General Fishing has been the economic base upon which settlement at Laaiplek was founded in the early part of the 19th Century. It is still the most important economic activity in the town today. Growth of the industry is constrained by the limited size of the resource and the quotas necessary to protect it.

It is generally accepted that tourism is the growth pillar upon which the economic future of Velddrif should be built. Heritage resources in the Western Cape are recognised as a major tourist attraction. Old harbours are amongst them.

The limited number of tangible heritage resources in Laaiplek needs protection and enhancement at every opportunity that is presented. This application presents such an opportunity.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 84 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

2. The Proposals

The Foundation supports the principle of a mixed use holiday resort compromising self-catering holiday units, related commercial functions and other activities, with open spaces and parking. However in terms of the Zoning Regulations applicable to Velddrif the residential component is not designated as a Business Zone primary use and would therefore require a consent use application and not a departure.

Business Zone 1 permits a height of three storeys, not 2 as shown in Paragraph 6.1 Table 4 of the application. Business Zone 2 prescribes 2 storeys.

A consent use application is subject to paras. 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 of the Zoning Regulations, which allows the Municipal Council to prescribe whatever development controls it seems fit. Thus the additional controls to those of the primary use may be applied.

One of the greatest concerns of the Foundation has with regard to the proposals is its scale of 180/200 rooms and 4/5storeys. Para. 5.5 of the application invoke the Laaiplek Precinct Plan and its identification of a boutique hotel as appropriate for the subject site. The Foundation supports this. Boutique is French for a small (often specialised) shop. A boutique Hotel is therefore a small hotel. However the proponent in the Introduction to this application compares the proposals to the Beacon Island Hotel (Plettenberg Bay). This is a 7 storey 5 star hotel which has 200 rooms, some of which are held as time-share. It also offers a broad range of activities (squash, tennis, volley ball, spa, swimming pool, gymnasium) as well as a conference facilities, restaurants, hairdresser and other retail shops. All on an island site much larger than that of this proposal.

The Foundation could support the proposals on a smaller scale which we consider to be more appropriate to the harbour’s sense of place and heritage.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 85 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

3. Laaiplek Harbour

The proclaimed fishing harbour runs upstream from the Berg River mouth to the Carinus Bridge. The old harbour (pre 1964) was centred around the historic core of Laaiplek established by the Stephan family in the 19th century. Today erven 479,495 and 523 and owned by the Eigelaar group of companies who also own erf 2839 immediately east of Kreef Street. A number of the buildings within this historic core date from the 19th century (although some much altered) and are the oldest in Laaiplek. These buildings represent the vernacular architecture of the period. The 2 old cottages known as Hangbos, erf 2834, north of De Villiers Street are also within this context.

The old harbour extended upstream from this historic core to what is today the northern boundary of Port Owen. An area known as Rooibaai, from the original Roodebaai, as it was known before the name Laaiplek came into use. A number of new dwellings on the river bank of Rooibaai have followed the vernacular architectural theme of the West Coast.

We are of the view that the consultants have neglected the broader context of the harbour area and concluded “There is a mixture of architectural styles locally, therefore the development cannot be expected to ‘fit in’ with any predefined design principles.” We disagree: As previously set out the limited heritage resources of Laaiplek, particularly the historic core need to be supported and enhanced. The development of a vernacular West Coast theme respecting our heritage and sense of place needs to be adopted for the whole of the harbour area. The Victoria and Albert Waterfront’s respect for heritage has shown the way using historically themed in attracting tourists.

The Foundation is concerned that the architectural proposals express little empathy with the West Coast, nor with this simple little fishing harbour. Use of metal structures and frameworks, with timber on the facades, face brick gateways and turrets, suggest an eclectic artisanal theme which says very little to Laaiplek’s heritage and is perhaps too sophisticated for a harbour quay side.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 86 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

4. Heritage Impact Assessment 4.1 Visual Study

The study finds that the visual impact of the proposals on the environment will be high. This is due to the height and appearance of the proposed buildings. Hansen also notes that the strong built form would signal the harbour in the landscape due to the low topographic profile. Lighting would also influence the visibility at night. The author notes that the building is likely to dominate the landscape more strongly than the architects sketches lead one to believe. The recommendations in the executive summary seek to mitigate the visibility of the proposals by  Use of an appropriate palette of colours for exterior finish  Lighting should not be excessive  Consideration should be given to the height of the structure.

However the Laaiplek Harbour Spatial Development Framework (Delta Built Environmental Consultants 2014:55) p.32 of the HIA proposes maximum heights of 2 and 3 storeys as being appropriate within the operational tourism zone and community zone respectively.

The Foundation supports these limitations.

4.2 Heritage Impact Assessment

We draw attention to the concerns expressed on p.32 of the HIA.

“Visual impacts to the harbour itself are important from a heritage point of view.” “The scale and bulk of the structures so close to the coast needs careful consideration.” “Too much height … will interrupt the continuity between land and sea.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 87 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

There have been suggestions within the consultant’s report that the fishing industry at Laaiplek is “ailing” and is in decline. This is not so. ST Helena Bay is the centre of the pelagic fishing industry in South Africa. Marine Products of Laaiplek, one of four major fish factories on ST Helena Bay is currently undertaking an Environmental Impact Assessment prior to a R65 million upgrade of its waterfront and fish meal plant. Laaiplek harbour is full of fishing vessels with a catch capacity of up to 300 tons. Some of these catch for Marine Products; others discharge at other factories in the Bay. Much of the canned catch is exported and the brand names of Glenryck and Lucky Star pilchards are well known in the UK and Europe.

Velddrif Heritage Foundation have been successful in transferring the ailing SA Fisheries Museum from Hout Bay harbour to vibrant life in Laaiplek’s historic core where it is ensconced in a 19th century house. Laaiplek is a lively active harbour full of traditional wooden and modern steel and fibreglass craft. The dilapidated state of the quayside buildings is due to change not decline in the industry, as boats and companies have become larger and more sophisticated. The Foundation has also created a new annual festival, the West Coast Heritage Makietie, in the Laaiplek harbour to celebrate Heritage Day in September.

The HIA concludes with the recommendation: “Consideration should be given to reducing the height of the structure, particularly towards the West where the scale and bulk form a large visual intrusion into the coastal landscape and negatively affects the sense of place.”

5. Concluding Statement In the light of the above comments Velddrif Heritage Foundation finds as follows: 5.1 We are supportive of the mixed use development proposal to rezone consolidated erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek to Business Zone 1 with appropriate consent uses to accommodate a residential holiday component with other activities/functions, provided that the 3 storey height limit is maintained. 5.2 We are concerned about the scale, height and architectural thematic of the proposals as depicted in the architect drawings, and deem them inappropriate on heritage grounds. 5.3 We formally object to the application as it stands on heritage and other grounds as indicated in this document. 5.4 We would welcome the opportunity to engage with the proponent and other bodies to arrive at a successful outcome for revised proposals.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 88 Heritage Impact Assessment Boutique Hotel Erven 2837 and 2838 Laaiplek Western Cape

George 11 Email The West Coast Aboriginal Council has no comment on the proposed development and actually thinks it's a Williams November great concept for employment and business opportunities. (West Coast 2014 Aboriginal The hotel would be an asset to the West Coast as we have a lot of tourists streaming in annually. Council) Sandra 04 Email Crafford December As I am part of the Mayoral Committee who will be making the final decision on any land-use planning (Ward 2014 applications, I have only registered as an I&AP to keep up to date on the latest information. Councillor) I will not be making any comments at this stage. Andrew Hall 02 Email CASE NUMBER: 14030501AS0502 (Heritage December HIA: THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A HOLIDAY RESORT ON ERF 2837 AND 2838, LAAIPLEK. Western 2014 Cape) The matter above has reference.

Heritage Western Cape is in receipt of your correspondence on the above matter, dated 8 October 2014:

Response:

1. The Committee noted that the S 38(3) of the NHRA has not been satisfied in the following respects: There is no evidence of consultation with communities affected by the proposed development and other interested parties. In particular the Committee believes it appropriate to consult with local fishing community. 2. The Committee is of the opinion that not all the heritage resources have been adequately identifies and assessed. In particular the industrial and social heritage of the fishing industry requires identification (including the heritage value of the existing buildings on the site and its surrounds). Furthermore, an evaluation of the townscape and the site’s relationship with the water edge is required. 3. The name/s of appropriately qualified heritage practitioner/s should be submitted to HWC’s officials for approval to undertake the additional assessments. Ryno Pienaar 08 Email RE: Notification of Open House - 13 November 2014 (Cape West December Coast 2014 We have no comments at this stage. Biosphere)

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 in association with Bridget O’Donoghue Architect Heritage Specialist Environmnet 89