BROOKLYN ERF R/783 SPECIALIST HERITAGE REPORT Oct 2014 Submitted by ARCIA CONSULTING

Submitted by

ARCIA CONSULTING (PTY) LTD ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS 381 Aries St, Waterkloof Ridge, 0181 PO Box 95645, Waterkloof, Pretoria, 0145

SPECIALIST HERITAGE IMPACT REPORT: AS PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF SPECIALIST HERITAGE REPORT OF ERF R/783 BROOKLYN, 191 WILLIAM STREET, BROOKLYN

Date: 24 October 2014

BROOKLYN ERF R/783 SPECIALIST HERITAGE REPORT Oct 2014 ARCIA CONSULTING (PTY) LTD: ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS 381 ARIES STREET, WATERKLOOF RIDGE, PRETORIA. (TEL.) 27 12 460 7568 P. O. BOX 95645, WATERKLOOF, PRETORIA 0145. (FAX) 27 86 515 5779 E-mail: [email protected]

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT - ERF R/783 BROOKLYN, PRETORIA APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF BUILDING OLDER THAN 60 YEARS SECTION A - Completed application form

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT - ERF R/783 BROOKLYN, PRETORIA APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF BUILDING OLDER THAN 60 YEARS SECTION B - Proposed plans

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT - ERF R/783 BROOKLYN, PRETORIA APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF BUILDING OLDER THAN 60 YEARS SECTION C - Site Photos

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT - ERF R/783 BROOKLYN, PRETORIA APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF BUILDING OLDER THAN 60 YEARS SECTION D - Copy of original building plans

No original buildings plans were obtainable from Tshwane municipality, therefore the buildings were measured and documented in detail.

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT - ERF R/783 BROOKLYN, PRETORIA APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF BUILDING OLDER THAN 60 YEARS SECTION E - Locality Plan

Map indicating location of 191 William Street in the city context (Copyright AfriGIS(Pty)Ltd, Google, 2014)

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT - ERF R/783 BROOKLYN, PRETORIA APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF BUILDING OLDER THAN 60 YEARS SECTION F - Site Development Plan

BROOKLYN ERF R/783 SPECIALIST HERITAGE REPORT Oct 2014

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT - ERF R/783 BROOKLYN, PRETORIA APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF BUILDING OLDER THAN 60 YEARS SECTION G - Historical Background Information

BROOKLYN ERF R/783 SPECIALIST HERITAGE REPORT Oct 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART 1 OVERVIEW ...... 15 1.1 General ...... 15

1.1.1 Terms of reference and approach ...... 17

1.1.2 Definitions and assumptions ...... 17

1.1.3 Limiting/ restricting factors ...... 18

1.2 Legal context ...... 18

1.3 Heritage Impact assessment specialist ...... 19

1.4 Property details ...... 20

1.5 Development description ...... 20

PART 2 HERITAGE ASPECTS OF THE AFFECTED AREA ...... 21 2.1 Cultural significance, issues and environmental concerns of site and context ...... 21

2.2 General description of environmental and heritage context of affected areas ...... 22

2.3 Short history of the development area ...... 22

2.3.1 Landscape ...... 22

2.3.2 Town planning history and development around Brooklyn ...... 22

2.3.3 Conservation-worthy elements and historic structures in Brooklyn ...... 25

PART 3 HERITAGE AND ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS OF THE SITE ...... 30 3.1 Identification and mapping of heritage resources ...... 30

3.1.1 History of Erf R/783 ...... 30

3.1.2 Buildings on Erf R/783 ...... 33

3.1.3 Owners ...... 34

3.1.4 Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr (1894-1948) ...... 36

3.1.5 Streetscape and urban analysis - Brooklyn in its current form ...... 37

3.2 Architectural analysis - 191 William Street, Brooklyn ...... 38

3.2.1 History ...... 38

3.2.2 Architectural typology value ...... 38

3.2.3 Alterations ...... 40

3.2.4 Current state ...... 41

3.2.5 Decorative gable wall - Gerard Moerdijk connection ...... 44

BROOKLYN ERF R/783 SPECIALIST HERITAGE REPORT Oct 2014 3.3 NHRA Section 38(3) (b) An assessment of the significance of heritage resources in terms of the heritage assessment criteria in Section 6(2) or prescribed in Section 7 ...... 50

3.3.1 Significance criteria in terms of Section 3(3) of the National Heritage Resources Act..... 50

3.3.2 Significance criteria in terms of historical, artefactual and spatial significance...... 51

3.4 Conclusion ...... 53

PART 4 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL ...... 54 4.1 Development overview ...... 54

4.2 Property details ...... 54

4.3 Development description ...... 55

4.4 Legal requirements...... 55

4.5 Drawings ...... 57

4.6 Conclusion ...... 59

PART 5 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 60 PART 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 61 6.1 Databases ...... 61

6.2 Literature ...... 61

6.3 Aerial Photos ...... 61

6.4 Other Archives ...... 62

6.5 Other sources ...... 62

BROOKLYN ERF R/783 SPECIALIST HERITAGE REPORT Oct 2014 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Map indicating the location of the site (Courtesy of City of Tshwane GIS maps 2011) ...... 16 Figure 2: Location of Erf R/783, Brooklyn, with the erf boundary outlined (Courtesy of City of Tshwane GIS maps 2011) ...... 16 Figure 3 Map of Pretoria in 1899 not showing Brooklyn. Brooklyn was not yet considered part of Pretoria Municipality at this stage, although some houses, including Brooks house may already have been built at this stage (Longland's Pretoria Directory of 1899) ...... 23 Figure 4: Surveyor General's diagram of Brooklyn in 1902, signed by WM Anderson, indicating the lesser extent of Brooklyn and with the location of the later house at 191 William Street outlined in red. (Courtesy of Surveyor General's Office) ...... 24 Figure 5: Map from 1955, showing main Pretoria Municipality suburbs and the years they were laid out in (Pretoria 1955) ...... 25 Figure 6: Brooks House ...... 26 Figure 7: Eugene Marais house, circa 1906 (Rautenbach et al 1993: 10) ...... 27 Figure 8: Brooklyn Manor House (Brooklyn Manor House website 2014)...... 28 Figure 9: House at 65 Brooks Street ...... 28 Figure 10: House, dated 1904 ...... 28 Figure 11: Osborne House (Osborne Guest House 2014) ...... 29 Figure 12: Surveyor general's diagram form 1934, showing the northern part of the erf, R/723) that was later to be incorporated into the current Erf R/783 (Courtesy of Surveyor general's office) ...... 31 Figure 13: Surveyor general's diagram from 1937. The erf boundaries have remained unchanged since. The erf number has been indicated. (Courtesy of Surveyor general's office)...... 32 Figure 14: Aerial photograph taken in 1947 showing the house at Erf R/783, with the extent of the site outlined. [Enlargement of aerial photo by National Geospatial Information, job no. D47_008_93638 (1947)]...... 33 Figure 16: Mention of 191 William Street address in the deed of lease (Courtesy of Historical Records, William Cullen Library, University of the Witwatersrand) ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 15: The first page of the deed of lease between the owner Richard Harvard Baker and Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr signed on 13 July 1948, for occupation of 191 William Street on 15 July 1948. (Courtesy of Historical Records, William Cullen Library, University of the Witwatersrand) ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 17: Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr as Minister of Finance (Paton 1964:VI) ...... 36 Figure18: Map indicating location similar Transvaal houses ...... 39 Figure 19: Drawings showing stages of alterations - Stage 1 ...... 40 Figure 20: Drawings showing stages of alterations - Stage 2 ...... 40 Figure 21: Drawings showing stages of alterations - Stage 3 ...... 40 Figure 22: Most of the timber floors, joists and skirtings have been removed...... 41 Figure 23: Most timber doors and windows have been removed...... 41 Figure 24: Some pressed metal ceilings have been removed from the kitchen, north and south verandah and one bedroom...... 42

BROOKLYN ERF R/783 SPECIALIST HERITAGE REPORT Oct 2014 Figure 25: A timber mantelpiece has been removed...... 42 Figure 26: Most steel windows and patio doors have been removed...... 43 Figure 27: Bathroom and kitchen cupboards and sanitary appliances have been removed...... 43 Figure 28: Roof sheets have been partially removed over the kitchen and completely from northern verandah...... 43 Figure 29: Plumbing and rain water pipes have been removed...... 44 Figure 30: Doors and windows removed from outbuildings...... 44 Figure 31: House Van Der Merwe 1922 by Gerard Moedijk - Arcadia ...... 45 Figure 32: House Moerdijk 1924 by Gerard Moedijk - Lukasrand...... 45 Figure 33: A Moerdijk house showing his typical two gables flanking a recessed front verandah / entrance (Fisher & le Roux, 1989:20,21) ...... 46 Figure 34: Another Moerdijk house indicating the typical gable arrangement and style (Fisher & le Roux, 1989:33) ...... 47 Figure 35: House on Erf R/783 showing two gables on different elevations, and inconsistent with Moerdijk's style ...... 47 Figure 36: Map of Brooklyn indicating the location of gabled buildings...... 48 Figure 37: Brooklyn gable 1 Figure 38: Brooklyn gable 2 ...... 49 Figure 39: Brooklyn gable 3 Figure 40: Brooklyn gable 4 ...... 49 Figure 41: Brooklyn gable 5 Figure 42: Brooklyn gable 6 ...... 49 Figure 43: Proposed Ground Floor Plan ...... 57 Figure 44: Proposed elevations ...... 58

©Copyright ARCIA CONSULTING (Pty) Ltd The information contained in this report is the sole intellectual property of Arcia Consulting (Pty) Ltd. It may only be used for the purposes it was commissioned for by the client.

DISCLAIMER: Although all efforts are made to identify all sites, buildings or objects of cultural heritage (archaeological and historical) significance during an assessment of study areas, the nature of archaeological and historical sites are as such that it is always possible that hidden or subterranean sites, features or objects could be overlooked during the study. Arcia Consulting (Pty) Ltd are not liable for such oversights or for costs incurred as a result thereof.

BROOKLYN ERF R/783 SPECIALIST HERITAGE REPORT Oct 2014 SPECIALIST HERITAGE REPORT OF ERF R/783 BROOKLYN, 191 WILLIAM STREET, BROOKLYN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report fulfils the partial requirements for the statutory application for a demolition permit as prescribed by the Gauteng Provincial Heritage Resources Authority (PHRAG). PHRAG requires, inter alia, the submission of a historic report.

Arcia Consulting (Pty) Ltd, architects and planners, undertook the investigation.

The dwelling house at 191 William Street is deemed to be of some historic value to its being the one time residence of a prominent figure in national politics, Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr (1894-1948). However, said Hofmeyr only resided in the house for just over 5 months before his death on 3 December 1948.

There are no records to prove who the architect of the house is, but as per our comparative study and expert opinion it is highly unlikely that the house was designed by architect Gerard Moerdijk, as has been surmised by some. The unfortunate dilapidation and informal partial demolition of the house by unknown persons / vagrants has also diminished the historical and aesthetic value of the building and site.

Based on the assessment, it is our recommendation, from a heritage perspective, that the house be demolished, as it is in poor condition and not of enough heritage significance to be preserved, taking into account the recommendations at the end of the report.

BROOKLYN ERF R/783 SPECIALIST HERITAGE REPORT Oct 2014 PART 1 OVERVIEW

This report is based on:  SOUTH AFRICAN HERITAGE RESOURCES AGENCY, Heritage Impact Assessment Notification of SAHRA of intent to develop  DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AFFAIRS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING, PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF THE WESTERN CAPE, 2005, Guideline for involving heritage specialists in EIA processes  DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AFFAIRS AND TOURISM, Integrated Environmental Management Guidelines  SOUTH AFRICAN HERITAGE RESOURCES AGENCY, 2006, Minimum Standard: archaeological and palaeontological components of impact assessment reports (unpublished)

1.1 General This study is part of the documentation required by the Gauteng PHRA for authorising the demolition of a historic dwelling on the remaining extent of Erf 783, Brooklyn, at 191 William Street, Brooklyn, Pretoria. The house has been in existence since around the 1920s It was bought at auction by the owners Lynnwood Varsity Lodge (Pty)Ltd early 2014 as part of the estate of the late owner Ms SJ Clarke . It is currently partially demolished by unknown persons, presumably vagrants and scrap metal sellers, done without the owner's knowledge.

The current dwelling dates back to around the 1920s, although no fixed date can be determined, as there are no original plans or plans for the subsequent alterations to the building available at the Building Inspectorate section of the Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality. The Brooklyn Township has been subdivided since 1902 and includes some heritage resources as outlined in the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999):  Places, buildings and structures and equipment of cultural significance  Historical settlements and townscapes

Arcia Consulting (Pty)Ltd was appointed by the owner, Lynnwood Varsity Lodge (Pty)Ltd as an independent heritage consultant to conduct a historical investigation and assessment of the site for the purpose of authorisation of the demolition of the building by the Gauteng PHRA.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 15

Figure 1: Map indicating the location of the site (Courtesy of City of Tshwane GIS maps 2011)

Figure 2: Location of Erf R/783, Brooklyn, with the erf boundary outlined (Courtesy of City of Tshwane GIS maps 2011)

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 16

1.1.1 Terms of reference and approach The investigation consisted of a historical investigation of the site in question, in accordance with the requirements of Section 34 of the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999).

The aim of the investigation was to identify, verify and analyse heritage issues and to make recommendations as how to address them in the context of the proposed demolition and subsequent development

The objectives of the investigation are:  Identify heritage places, objects, buildings, structures, etc.  Analysis of the above  Assessing broader cultural significance of identified sites, places, buildings, structures, objects etc. involving the site  Surveying and mapping of significance,/ sensitivity issues and opportunities / constraints issues  Recommending initial management measures to conserve significant heritage elements

1.1.2 Definitions and assumptions The following aspects have a direct bearing on the investigation and the resulting report:  Cultural (heritage) resources are all non-physical and physical human-made occurrences, as well as natural occurrences that are associated with human activity. These include sites, structures and artefacts of importance, either individually or in groups, in the history, architecture and archaeology of human (cultural) development.  The significance of sites and artefacts is determined by means of their historical, social, aesthetic, technological and scientific value in relation to their uniqueness, condition of preservation and research potential. It must be kept in mind that the various aspects are not mutually exclusive, and that the evaluation of any site is done with reference to any number of these.  The value is related to concepts such as worth, merit, appeal or attraction, concepts that are associated with the (current) usefulness and condition of a place or an object. Hence, in the development area, there are instances where elements of the place have a high level of significance, but a lower level of value.  The guidelines as provided by the NHRA (Act 25 of 1999) in Section 3, with special reference to subsection 3, and the Australian ICOMOS Charter (Burra Charter) are used when determining the cultural significance or other special value of archaeological or historical sites.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 17

 It must be kept in mind that significance and value are not mutually exclusive, and that the evaluation of any feature is a balance or combination of the two.  Isolated occurrences: findings of artefacts or other remains located apart from archaeological sites. Although these are noted and samples are collected, it is not used in impact assessment and therefore do not feature in this report.  Traditional cultural use: resources which are culturally important to people.  All archaeological remains, artificial features and structures older than 100 years and historic structures older than 60 years are protected by the relevant legislation, in this case the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999). No archaeological artefact, assemblage or settlement (site) and no historical building or structure older than 60 years may be altered, moved or destroyed without the necessary authorisation from the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA). No burial site may be destroyed, altered or relocated with SAHRA authorisation. Full cognisance is taken of this Act in making recommendations in this report.

1.1.3 Limiting/ restricting factors The investigation has been limited by the following factors:  Difficulty in establishing the exact date of construction of the original house, due to the lack of plans at the City of Tshwane Building Inspectorate /Planning division.  Consequent difficulty and general lack of definitive information about the architect of the house.  Difficulty in establishing the intangible heritage values, which can only be established during the public participation process.  The house is already partially demolished by unauthorised persons (presumably vagrants), unbeknown to the owners, making full documentation and assessment of historic value of objects, structures or buildings on the site very difficult.

1.2 Legal context This investigation constitutes a historic report in compliance with Section 34 of the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999). Section 34(1) of the NHRA states that: No person may alter or demolish any structure or part of a structure which is older than 60 years without a permit issued by the relevant provincial heritage resources authority.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 18

The purpose of this report is to:  identify aspects and elements of the historic dwelling that may be of exceptional heritage significance.  inform the owners, Lynnwood Varsity Lodge (Pty)Ltd, the relevant authorities and any interested and affected parties of such significance of heritage features present on the site.  evaluate any aspects or elements of the building in terms of criteria set out by the National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA).  identify the impact of the demolition and subsequent development on the site on the historic value of the site and make a recommendation.

The report is part of a submission to the Gauteng PHRA for purposes of authorising the demolition of the buildings.

1.3 Heritage Impact assessment specialist

Name and contact Johan K Jooste (PrArch), PO Box 95645, Waterkloof, address 0145, Pretoria Qualifications and 40 Years experience in heritage alterations and field of expertise conservation Telephone no. (012) 460 7568 Fax no. 086 515 5779 Email [email protected]

Method of work

 Survey of literature A survey of relevant literature was conducted to help determine the potential of the Brooklyn township. Various historical literary sources were consulted to this end  Databases Various national and local databases consisting of historic records and archives were consulted.  Field survey A field survey consisting of measured drawings and a photographic report was completed, and submitted as partial fulfilment of the application for demolition to the Gauteng PHRA. All structures on the site were located and identified as they currently exist. Site visits were undertaken to the site. A visual survey was undertaken of a few houses in the vicinity, designed by Gerard Moerdijk, as a comparison study between the style of these houses and the building on Erf R/783 in order to establish the

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 19

likelihood of the house having been designed by Moerdijk. Street views of adjacent properties were also taken.  Other sources Current and original cadastral maps from the Surveyor-General's office were studied. A search of title deeds was conducted at the Deeds Office. Aerial photographs from various years from the National Geospatial Information service were studied. The original building plans as well as plans for the subsequent additions could not be provided by the City of Tshwane Building Inspectorate. The current zoning certificate was obtained from the City of Tshwane Municipality.

1.4 Property details Property Details Location of Property Remaining extent of Erf 783, Brooklyn, Pretoria Street Address 191 William Street, Brooklyn, Pretoria Farm Uitvalgrond no.361JR Magisterial District Pretoria Local Authority City of Tshwane Current use Residential Current zoning Residential 1 Land use of surrounding Most of the properties surrounding Erf R/783 are properties Residential 1, with the exception of Erf 893 to the back of the property, which is zoned as Special Residential (residential units) and Erf 1/723 to the north of the site, which is zoned as Special residential (guesthouse and/ or residential) Extent of property 3027m²

1.5 Development description

A description of the proposed development is contained in Part 4

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 20

PART 2 HERITAGE ASPECTS OF THE AFFECTED AREA

2.1 Cultural significance, issues and environmental concerns of site and context Cultural significance, issues and concerns Environmental and See below heritage contexts Cultural Significance of None adjoining properties Archaeological remains None known Palaeontological remains None known Structures older than 60 Yes years Graves or burial sites None known Formally protected heritage None adjacent to or opposite development sites Is affected area part of No proclaimed special area, conservation area, heritage area, protected area? Places or objects of None cultural significance, listed heritage resources Places with oral traditions No Part of historical settlement No or townscape Part of landscape of No cultural significance Geological sites of cultural None importance Places or objects related to No history of slavery History of properties See below Association with important Yes. Inhabited by Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr (1894- person, event, groups, 1948), see under Part 3 below. activities, public memory Sea frontage or water No source Rocky outcrops None Rock shelters None Part of coastal dune No system

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 21

Geological features No Located on land reclaimed No from sea Situated adjacent to or No within scenic route Previously cultivated No

2.2 General description of environmental and heritage context of affected areas The property is located in the township of Brooklyn west of Jan Shoba St (Duncan St). This suburb was divided into erven in 1902. Today it retains its mainly residential character with commercial activity mostly occurring along the busy Jan Shoba corridor leading towards Brooklyn mall in the south and Hatfield in the north.

The property to the west of Brooklyn, opposite Roper Street is today the location of the Afrikaans medium primary school, Laerskool Pretoria Oos and beyond that, Boys High School.

The University of Pretoria main campus and Nerina ladies' hostel is opposite the northern boundary of Brooklyn, situated north of Lynnwood Road.

2.3 Short history of the development area

2.3.1 Landscape Brooklyn lies to the south east of the original town centre. It is part of the slightly higher lying areas of Pretoria, sloping down towards Pretoria West. Brooklyn itself is fairly level, sloping from higher lying parts in the south east, down to its lowest part at the corner of Roper and Lynnwood. There are no natural watercourses or bodies of water in the suburb.

2.3.2 Town planning history and development around Brooklyn Central Pretoria (CBD) was first laid out in 1859. Between then and the early 1900's, the city gradually expanded outwards with the townships of Capital Park (1914), Sunnyside (1887), Muckleneuk and Nieuw-Muckleneuk (1889), Arcadia and Les Marais (1890), Pretoria West (1892), Villieria (1896), Riviera (1899) and Brooklyn 1902. Hatfield to the north of Brooklyn followed in 1905.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 22

Figure 3 Map of Pretoria in 1899 not showing Brooklyn. Brooklyn was not yet considered part of Pretoria Municipality at this stage, although some houses, including Brooks house may already have been built at this stage (Longland's Pretoria Directory of 1899)

Brooklyn and Brooks Street was named after James Brooks, a government surveyor and one of the earliest residents of Brooklyn. He originally purchased 300ha in the area, being part of Uitvalgrond 361JR (referred to in some sources as Uitvalgrond 67) in 1896 from a Mr. Malherbe. He immediately sold part of this land to Surveyor General Johan Rissik. Brooks, together with government surveyor HM Anderson (who Anderson street was named after), were responsible for the layout of Brooklyn in 1902.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 23

The original township was smaller than the Brooklyn of today, being bound on the south by Mackenzie Street and in the East by Alexander Street. In 1911 there is mention that the City Council declared it 'desirable' that the township of Brooklyn, together with Hatfield, Hillcrest and Riviera be incorporated within the Pretoria Municipality. A street address directory in the same publication indicated streets included in the extended Brooklyn township. Thus, the township was extended between 1902 and 1911 at least. Indeed, Brooklyn is included as a suburb in the street address directory of Pretoria in 1913.

Figure 4: Surveyor General's diagram of Brooklyn in 1902, signed by WM Anderson, indicating the lesser extent of Brooklyn and with the location of the later house at 191 William Street outlined in red. (Courtesy of Surveyor General's Office)

As mentioned before, the property to the west of Brooklyn, opposite Roper Street is the location of the Afrikaans medium primary school, Laerskool Pretoria Oos and a part of Boys High School. Boys High School was first opened in 1896, when it was known as the Staats Model skool. The Primary school was relocated from Hatfield to its current location in 1958, which was indicated as town commonage on the 1902 survey diagram issued by the Surveyor General's office.

The University of Pretoria main campus lies directly to the north of Brooklyn. Up until 1930 it was known as the Transvaal University College, and it was first accommodated in the Old Arts building on campus, completed in 1911.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 24

Figure 5: Map from 1955, showing main Pretoria Municipality suburbs and the years they were laid out in (Pretoria 1955)

2.3.3 Conservation-worthy elements and historic structures in Brooklyn Seeing as Brooklyn has been laid out since 1902, there are many historic houses, with 91 already being listed in a Pretoria directory of 1913. However, it must be noted that today, most of these houses have been altered beyond recognition or hidden behind high walls, as is evident from the street views in the next Part.

There are a few buildings that have been fairly well preserved:

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 25

2.3.3.1 Brooks House, 109 Brooks St

The Brooks house was built shortly after James Brooks purchased the land that would form part of Brooklyn in 1886 (see 2.3.2 above). James Brooks was partially responsible for the layout of the Brooklyn township. After his death, the house was bought by Louis Eugen Kothe in 1904 and sold again in the same year to Rupert Marais.

After Marais' passing in 1924 the house was purchased by Leopold Greenberg and again sold in the same year to Philip Arbuthnot. The house was repaired and extended after a fire partially destroyed the house during 1924, and it was again extended in 1925. It seems as if the architects Cowan, Powers and Ellis were responsible for the 1925 additions. In 1929 the current kitchen, pantry, store and coldroom were added.

Following the death of Arbuthnot in 1939, the house was remained in a trust intended to provide accommodation for preachers and missionaries and left in the care of the Church of England. At some stage it seems it was also remodelled as student accommodation. The house was purchased in 1991 by the Afrikaans Protestant Church (APK) and lovingly restored. It is mentioned on the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) online registry information system.

Figure 6: Brooks House

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 26

2.3.3.2 Eugene Marais house, 180 William Street

This house was built somewhere around 1906 and was the residence of Afrikaans poet and writer Eugene Marais. It is not known how much of the original structure is still intact.

Figure 7: Eugene Marais house, circa 1906 (Rautenbach et al 1993: 10)

2.3.3.3 Brooklyn Manor House, 323 Anderson Street

Figure 8: Built in 1927, this house is being used a guest house today.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 27

Old stables (today residential), 65 Brooks Street

Figure 8: Brooklyn Manor House (Brooklyn Manor House website 2014)

Figure 9: House at 65 Brooks Street

House, c/o Brooks and Hay Streets

Figure 10: House, dated 1904

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 28

2.3.3.4 Osborne House, 82 Anderson Street

This house, today a guest house, was built around 1904

Figure 11: Osborne House (Osborne Guest House 2014)

2.3.3.5 House, 115 Justice Mahomed St (Charles)

This house was declared a National Monument under the old NMC legislation on 23 June 1989.

2.3.3.6 Anton van Wouw house, 299 Clark Street

This house was designed by Norman Eaton for the artist Anton van Wouw and completed in 1938. It is typical of the Norman Eaton use of facebrick and thatched roofs. van Wouw lived there until his death in 1945. The house was purchased by the University of Pretoria with the help of Dr. Anton Rupert and the Rembrandt Group on 21 May 1974. It was declared a National Monument under the old NMC legislation on 23 June 1989.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 29

PART 3 HERITAGE AND ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS OF THE SITE

3.1 Identification and mapping of heritage resources

3.1.1 History of Erf R/783

The original survey diagram (see section 2.3.2) shows the large erven that Brooklyn was originally divided into in 1902. It was signed by government surveyor HM Anderson and approved by acting Surveyor General WH Gilfillan.

According to records at the Surveyor general's office, the current erf, being the remainder of 783, was originally part of Erf 31 of the 1902 survey diagram. This is also confirmed in a deed of lease signed in 1948 between the owner of 191 William Street and a tenant, where the property is referred to as Remaining extent of Erf 31.

In 1934 a portion of Erf 30 and 28 was consolidated to create Erf 723. The remaining portion of erf 723 was later to be incorporated into the current erf, and forms the northernmost part of the current erf.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 30

Figure 12: Surveyor general's diagram form 1934, showing the northern part of the erf, R/723) that was later to be incorporated into the current Erf R/783 (Courtesy of Surveyor general's office)

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 31

Then, in 1937, the remainder of Erf 723 and portions of Erven 29 and 31 were consolidated to form Erf 783. The original house was located in what was now known as the Remainder of Erf 783.

3.1.2

Figure 13: Surveyor general's diagram from 1937. The erf boundaries have remained unchanged since. The erf number has been indicated. (Courtesy of Surveyor general's office) Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 32

Buildings on Erf R/783 No record of previous buildings could be found. The plans for the current building could not be provided by the local Council either, and no archival plans or photos could be located from either the Fire stations in Bosman Street or locally at Erasmuskloof, the National Archives or other literary sources.

Figure 14: Aerial photograph taken in 1947 showing the house at Erf R/783, with the extent of the site outlined. [Enlargement of aerial photo by National Geospatial Information, job no. D47_008_93638 (1947)]

The current site consists of the main house, which seems to have had the current kitchen and western bedroom added at a later stage, seeing as the building style is different and the roof construction had to be accommodated in a different manner to the main roof. The original part of the house seems to be the easternmost part, with two gables and a corrugated metal hip roof. The northern verandah may have been added at a later stage as well.

There are various outbuildings of indeterminate age on the site.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 33

3.1.3 Owners The earliest mention of an owner of 191 William Street is in a deed of lease in 1947. Prior to that there is no mention in Longland's Pretoria Directory for 1899 for any erven in Brooklyn. Also in both Lochhead's Guide, Handbook and Directory 1913 and the City of Pretoria and Districts official guide book 1913 there is no mention of an owner or house at 191 William Street.

A deed of lease was sourced indicating a lease agreement between the owner, Richard Harvard Baker and Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr, signed on 13 July 1948. The erf is referred to as the Remainder of Erf 31 and also as 191 William Street. No information could be found on RH Baker, and it has been concluded that he was of no specific cultural or historic interest. Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr was a figure of some note and is discussed below.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 34

Figure 15: The first page of the deed of lease between the owner Richard Harvard Baker and Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr signed on 13 July 1948, for occupation of 191 William Street on 15 July 1948. (Courtesy of Historical Records, William Cullen Library, University of the Witwatersrand)

Figure 16: Mention of 191 William Street address in the deed of lease (Courtesy of Historical Records, William Cullen Library, University of the Witwatersrand)

After this, there is a slight gap until the next owner is confirmed as Ms. SJ Clarke in 1972. According to oral sources, it seems she passed away earlier in 2014, and her house passed onto Ms.JD Clarke, DJ Kuun and RL Clarke as part of her estate. The property was sold at auction in 2014 to the current owner Lynnwood Varsity Lodge (Pty)Ltd.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 35

3.1.4 Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr (1894-1948)

Figure 17: Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr as Minister of Finance (Paton 1964:VI)

Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr was an important figure in education and national politics in the early 1900's.

He was born in Cape Town on 20 March 1894 to mother Deborah. His father, Andries Brink Hofmeyr died when Jan was aged 3. He was extremely intelligent and matriculated at age 12. He attended the University of Cape Town, as well as attending Oxford as a Rhodes scholar.

Being both an intellectual and good administrator, he was appointed as principal at the University of the Witwatersrand in 1919. During this time he and his mother lived on the East campus of the University of Witwatersrand, in what is today still known as Hofmeyr House. He vacated the post to become Administrator of the Transvaal at Prime Minister Jan Smuts' request in 1924. His tenure would last five years.

In 1929 he entered parliament as a South African Party member. In 1933 Hofmeyr helped negotiate a coalition or fusion government between the Afrikaans and Afrikaner-centric Nationalist Party and the Anglo- Afrikaans centered South African Party, as well as a fusion of the two parties. Thus the United Party was established of which Hofmeyr would remain a member for the rest of his life.

Jan was appointed as a cabinet Minister first as Minister of Education, Interior, and Public Health under Prime Minister Hertzog's fusion government, and then under Smuts' leadership, as Minister of Finance and Education.

The 1930's were a time when government passed much legislation regarding the so-called Native Problem, which was later to be encapsulated under apartheid. Hofmeyr was not afraid to voice opposition or concerns in respect to some of this

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 36 legislation, including opposing the abolition of the Cape African franchise in 1935, which would exclude black people from the franchise in future.

During the Second World War, in which then Prime Minister Smuts was widely involved, he often took over many other ministerial duties, including serving as acting Prime Minister. Some believed he would become the next Prime Minister after Smuts.

He died of heart complications, apparently in the house 191 Williams Street, on 3 December 1948, with his funeral procession attended by an estimated 10,000 people, including General Jan Smuts, who delivered a graveside tribute.

3.1.5 Streetscape and urban analysis - Brooklyn in its current form Brooklyn is a well established upper middle class neighbourhood with strong connections to Boys High school and the University of Pretoria along its western and northern perimeters respectively. The neighbourhood was already fully built up between its establishment in 1902 and 1947 as can be seen on the aerial photograph in section 3.1.2. At this stage, however, it consisted mainly of single storey houses on large stands. Since then most of the stands have been subdivided and double storey houses built, with some older houses altered to double storey.

The section of Brooks Street between Hay and Jan Shoba Street, however, still contains numerous single storey, pitched corrugated roof houses of similar design and construction dating from the 1920s and 1930s.

Except for Lynnwood Road (Struben) and Jan Shoba Street (Duncan / James) which has become main vehicular arteries with increased rezoning to commercial properties, the inner Brooklyn urban environment has changed little in function and character and remains a quiet, friendly neighbourhood with strong community involvement and interaction.

The University of Pretoria is said to require accommodation for an additional 35 000 students. Though it is common for students to convert houses to communes in the surrounding neighbourhoods of Hatfield, Brooklyn and Clydesdale, this has proved to be an insufficient provision of housing. Private developers are taking this opportunity to build much needed apartment blocks and in so doing, are densifying the surrounding neighbourhoods and transforming the low density urban character. Brooklyn is under increased pressure to adapt with blocks such as the one between Lynnwood, Brooks, Jan Shoba and William street due for redevelopment into apartments, currently in its rezoning phase.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 37

3.2 Architectural analysis - 191 William Street, Brooklyn

3.2.1 History Due to no drawings or documentation of the buildings being available, an architectural evaluation is done to estimate the date of construction, by investigating stylistic elements and construction methods and materials. Lochhead's Guide, Handbook and Directory 1913, together with the Valuation Roll of the City of Pretoria and an aerial photo from 1947 puts the construction of the dwelling between 1913 and 1947. Shale stone foundations, as is visible from inside the house, were commonly used in pre-war buildings. The rounded column on the eastern entrance verandah was commonly used between 1915 and 1935. Kirkness brick fireplaces, of which there are two in the house, were commonly used in 1920s and 1930s which is the period in which it is estimated the house was built.

3.2.2 Architectural typology value The original house started as a typical pre-war, single storey, rectangular, corrugated steel roof, Transvaal house, as often built by developers in the 1920s and 1930s. It measures 14,3m by 9,9m and consists of 230mm brick walls externally and internally, plastered on both sides.

The walls are built on shale stone foundations measuring between 400mm and 600mm wide, which were commonly used in pre-war buildings.

Timber floors were used throughout the original house of which only a small piece remains. Timber door and window frames were used throughout the original house.

Pressed metal ceilings are still present in the northern rooms and were used in the kitchen and verandahs, but have been removed by unknown persons.

The house has two decorated gables facing east and south, though it is suspected that these were added after the initial construction. Though the gable sets this specific house apart from the typical pre-war Transvaal house, gables were commonly used as status symbols.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 38

Figure18: Map indicating location similar Transvaal houses

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 39

3.2.3 Alterations Investigations reveal that additions have been made to the original structure. The 1947 aerial photo (3.1.2) shows the full extent of the current roof coverage, although the verandahs were probably open and only enclosed at a later stage. Alterations and additions most likely executed according to the following sequence, as per the best estimate from material use and signs of construction: 1. It is presumed the original structure was a simple rectangular building with pyramid shaped pitched corrugated roof.

Figure 19: Drawings showing stages of alterations - Stage 1

2. At a later stage the verandah, entrance hall, bathroom spare bedroom and gables were added.

Figure 20: Drawings showing stages of alterations - Stage 2

3. After this the existing kitchen was opened up to the adjacent room and a new kitchen was built along the north western edge.

Figure 21: Drawings showing stages of alterations - Stage 3

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 40

3.2.4 Current state As the house has been without occupants since the passing of the previous owner, the house has been vandalized to a ruinous state.

Figure 22: Most of the timber floors, joists and skirtings have been removed.

Figure 23: Most timber doors and windows have been removed.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 41

Figure 24: Some pressed metal ceilings have been removed from the kitchen, north and south verandah and one bedroom.

Figure 25: A timber mantelpiece has been removed.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 42

Figure 26: Most steel windows and patio doors have been removed.

Figure 27: Bathroom and kitchen cupboards and sanitary appliances have been removed.

Figure 28: Roof sheets have been partially removed over the kitchen and completely from northern verandah.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 43

Figure 29: Plumbing and rain water pipes have been removed.

Figure 30: Doors and windows removed from outbuildings.

3.2.5 Decorative gable wall - Gerard Moerdijk connection The house has two similarly decorated gable walls facing east & south and as mentioned in section 3.2.3 the details of their construction indicate that these gables were constructed after the original house (stage 1) was built. In a newspaper article in Beeld on 23 July 2014, it is surmised that these gables and other elements are in the style of the architect Gerard Moerdijk. Following this a study was done at the University of Pretoria Architecture Department Archives to confirm this suspicion but no record or mention of this residence in Brooklyn was found. In the book Man en Monument by Irma Vermeulen a House Dyason in Brooklyn is listed, but the address of the house is not given. No record of a Dyason owning or commissioning the house at 191 William Street could be found either.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 44

Heritage consultants Mauritz Naude and Nicolas Clarke are of the opinion that the pyramid shaped corrugated metal roof is atypical of Moerdijk design and the lack of detailed architectural features in stone, brick or wood are indications that the house was most likely not designed by Moerdijk.

A study was done of typical gables used on Moerdijk residences. No gables similar to the buildings on the development site were found and houses were found to be typically ornate with detailed masonry and woodwork.

Figure 31: House Van Der Merwe 1922 by Gerard Moedijk - Arcadia

Figure 32: House Moerdijk 1924 by Gerard Moedijk - Lukasrand

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 45

Figure 33: A Moerdijk house showing his typical two gables flanking a recessed front verandah / entrance (Fisher & le Roux, 1989:20,21)

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 46

Figure 34: Another Moerdijk house indicating the typical gable arrangement and style (Fisher & le Roux, 1989:33)

Figure 35: House on Erf R/783 showing two gables on different elevations, and inconsistent with Moerdijk's style Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 47

A study was also done of gabled residences in Brooklyn. Gables were commonly used in this area during the presumed period of construction at Erf R/783, though all the gables are unique in design, with no specific area identity, as can be seen on photos (Figures 37 to 42).

Figure 36: Map of Brooklyn indicating the location of gabled buildings

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 48

Figure 37: Brooklyn gable 1 Figure 38: Brooklyn gable 2

Figure 39: Brooklyn gable 3 Figure 40: Brooklyn gable 4

Figure 41: Brooklyn gable 5 Figure 42: Brooklyn gable 6

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 49

NHRA Section 38(3) (b) An assessment of the significance of heritage resources in terms of the heritage assessment criteria in Section 6(2) or prescribed in Section 7

According to the Burra Charter ‘cultural significance’ means ‘aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations’. Cultural significance is a concept which helps in estimating the value of places. These terms and their meaning are not mutually exclusive, for example, architectural style has both historical and aesthetic aspects (Burra Charter, 2013).

The categorization into aesthetic, historic, scientific and social values is one approach to understand the concept of cultural significance (Burra Charter, 2013). However, more precise categories may be used as understanding of a particular place may increase.

For the purposes of this report such categories are used in tandem with the criteria set out by the National Heritage Resources Act.

3.2.6 Significance criteria in terms of Section 3(3) of the National Heritage Resources Act.

Criteria Significance Rating 1. The importance of the cultural heritage in the Medium community or pattern of South Africa’s history (Historic and political significance) 2. Possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects None of South Africa’s natural or cultural heritage (Scientific significance). 3. Potential to yield information that will contribute to an Low understanding of South Africa’s natural or cultural heritage (Research/scientific significance) 4. Importance in demonstrating the principal Low characteristics of a particular class of South Africa’s natural or cultural places or objects (Scientific significance) 5. Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic Medium characteristics valued by a community or cultural group (Aesthetic significance) 6. Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative Low or technical achievement at a particular period (Scientific significance)

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 50

7. Strong or special association with a particular Low community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons (Social significance) 8. Strong or special association with the life and work of a Low person, group or organization of importance in the history of South Africa (Historic significance) 9. The significance of the site relating to the history of None slavery in South Africa.

3.2.7 Significance criteria in terms of historical, artefactual and spatial significance. As the criteria set out in the National Heritage Resources Act tend to approach heritage from the level of ‘national’ significance and few heritage sites and features fall within this category, a second set of criteria are used to determine the regional and local significance of heritage sites. Three sub-categories are used to determine this significance:

Historical significance – this category determines the social context in which a heritage site and resource need to be assessed. These criteria focus on the history of the ‘place’ in terms of its significance in time and the role they played in a particular community (human context). Architectural significance – The objective of this set of criteria is to assess the artefactual significance of the heritage resource, its physical condition and meaning as an ‘object’. Spatial significance – focuses on the physical context in which the object and place exists and how it contributed to the landscape, the region, the precinct and neighbourhood.

3.2.7.1 Historical significance

Criteria 1. Is the site or building associated with a historical Yes. Jan person or group? Hendrik Hofmeyr 2. Is the site or building associated with a historical No event? 3. Is the site or building associated with a religious, No economic, social, political or educational activity? 4. Is the site or building of archaeological significance? No 5. Are any of the buildings or structures on the site older Yes than 60 years?

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 51

3.2.7.2 Architectural significance (artefactual significance)

Criteria Significance Rating 1. The importance of buildings or structures as an Medium example of a building type 2. Are any of the buildings outstanding examples of a Medium particular style or period. 3. Presence or level of fine architectural details or Medium exceptional craftsmanship in the buildings 4. Are any of the buildings an example of an industrial, No engineering or technological development? 5. What is the state of the architectural and structural Very poor integrity of the building? 6. Is the building’s current and future use in sympathy Yes. with its original use (for which the building was Residential designed)? 7 Additions and extensions done in sympathy with the Low original design? 8. Are any of the buildings or structures the work of a No major architect, engineer or builder? 3.2.7.3 Spatial significance

Even though each building needs to be evaluated as single artefact the site still needs to be evaluated in terms of its significance in its geographic area, city, town, village, neighbourhood or precinct. This set of criteria determines the spatial significance

Criteria Significance Rating 1. Can the building or structure be considered a landmark No in the town or city? 2. Do any of the buildings contribute to the character of Medium the neighbourhood? 3. Do any of the buildings contribute to the character of Low (not very the streetscape? visible) 4. Do any of the buildings form part of an important group Low of buildings?

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 52

3.3 Conclusion The house and outbuildings are of low heritage value. The property in context of the Brooklyn historic residential neighbourhood is also of low heritage value, due to the extreme alterations made over the years to the surrounding historic urban fabric.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 53

PART 4 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

4.1 Development overview The current owner, Lynnwood Varsity Lodge (Pty) Ltd, proposes to demolish the existing buildings on the property and erect multi-level dwelling units. The three northern residential blocks rise to 4 storeys above the basement while the two southern residential blocks rise to 2 storeys above the basement, to visually link with single storey residential buildings on the southern side. The blocks consist of 52 units with three bedrooms each, sharing a bathroom and kitchen. A basement level is proposed to accommodate parking requirements.

The proposed development consists of the following: Basement 103 Parking bays Ground Floor 1631,1m² 16 Units (3 Bedrooms each) First Floor 1631,1m² 16 Units (3 Bedrooms each) Second Floor 926,1m² 10 Units (3 Bedrooms each) Third Floor 926,1m² 10 Units (3 Bedrooms each) TOTAL 5114,4m² 52 Units (3 Bedrooms each) 156 Bedrooms

Site Area 3027m² Coverage 53,9% FAR 1,69

4.2 Property details Property Details Location of Property Remaining extent of Erf 783, Brooklyn, Pretoria Street Address 191 William Street, Brooklyn, Pretoria Farm Uitvalgrond no.361JR Magisterial District Pretoria Local Authority City of Tshwane Current use Residential Current zoning Residential 1 Land use of surrounding Most of the properties surrounding Erf R/783 are properties Residential 1, with the exception of Erf 893 to the back of the property, which is zoned as Special Residential (residential units) and Erf 1/723 to the north of the site, which is zoned as Special residential (guesthouse and/ or residential) Extent of property 3027m²

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 54

4.3 Development description Development description Nature of proposed Dwelling Units development Proposed rezoning Residential 4 Possible impact on Yes. Demolition of historic house heritage value of site Structures older than 60 Yes. Structures (original house) older than 60 years years affected by are proposed for demolition as part of new development residential development Construction work Yes, buildings, parking, roads Total floor area of 5114.4m² development Extent of coverage of 53.9% proposed development Earth moving and Yes excavation Number of storeys of 4, excluding basement parking proposed development Maximum height of new 4 storeys development above ground level Monetary value of R50m proposed development Time frames 12 Months

4.4 Legal requirements Legal requirements Is planning permission Yes required for any departures from or consent use in terms of zoning schemes? Has an application been Rezoning application has been submitted submitted to the planning authority and have any comments or approval from the planning authority been obtained? Is planning authority Not applicable permission required for any subdivision or consolidation?

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 55

Has an application been Not applicable submitted to the planning authority and has any comment or approval from the planning authority been obtained? Is the proposed No development subject to EIA regulations and has an application been submitted to the provincial environmental agency? Has any assessment of the No impact of the proposed development on any heritage resources been undertaken in terms of EIA or planning processes? Title deed restrictions No Is affected area situated No within or adjacent to conservation area, special area, scenic route or any other area that has special environmental or heritage protection? Does the affected area No have special conservation status? Are there any restrictions No on the property? Does the proposed Yes. conforms to planning guidelines in Tshwane development conform to Regional Spatial Development Framework 2014. local planning policies? What interested and In progress. affected parties have been consulted Is approval from any Yes. City of Tshwane Building Control, City authority required? Planning Department and PHRAG Has permission for any No similar development been refused by any authority in the past?

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 56

4.5 Drawings

Figure 43: Proposed Ground Floor Plan

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 57

Figure 44: Proposed elevations

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 58

4.6 Conclusion Due to the growth of the university and its increased student numbers, it is natural that the surrounding neighbourhoods adapt to provide more student accommodation, especially areas within walking distance of the university, to decrease vehicular traffic and congestion. This means existing buildings need to be altered or demolished to accommodate this increased density. At the same time the historic fabric and residential scale and rights of property owners should be respected. Therefore, it would be sensible to limit commercial activity and high density housing to the edges of the neighbourhoods along major routes such as Lynnwood Road and Jan Shoba Street. The site in question, 191 William Street, falls on the edge of this area and can be considered appropriate for residential densification.

In terms of the detail layout of the proposed development, it increases the residential density of the area fairly drastically and changes the character of the neighbourhood fairly drastically due to the height of the buildings and increased activity.

A total of 156 bedrooms are provided with no social or gathering spaces in the individual units or between the buildings in the form of, for example, courtyards of a usable size. The individual residential blocks proposed do not respond to the street which is a favoured pedestrian link to the university and detracts visually from the streetscape.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 59

PART 5 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the investigation the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. In our opinion the house at 191 William Street, Brooklyn is of little, if any, architectural significance. According to the best information available the house was not designed by Gerard Moerdijk. The building is typical of houses designed and built in the 1920s or 1930s with additions accrued over time, such as the enclosure of a verandah, addition of gables, addition of rooms, etc. 2. Although a significant historical political figure, Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr resided at 191 William Street, he lived there for only 5 months and rented the house from Mr R. H. Baker. In our opinion the fact that Hofmeyr lived in the house is of some significance and should be commemorated. Hofmeyr’s presence is not of sufficient significance to warrant the conservation of the house. The commemoration is recommended to be in the form of a plaque displayed on the site, the wording and location of which is to be approved by PHRA-G. The design, supply and erection of such plaque is to be the responsibility and at the cost of the registered owner.

It is therefore recommended that the demolition of structures at Erf R/783 be approved and the proposed development be allowed to continue.

In terms of the proposed development we recommend the following mitigating measures: 1. The density of the development should be lowered making it more compatible with the historic urban character of Brooklyn. 2. The eastern elevation should be redesigned to respond and interact positively with the existing streetscape. 3. That the existing stone wall facing the street be retained as far as possible as it contributes to the character of the neighbourhood. 4. That an application for a demolition permit be lodged with PHRA-G, including a public participation process, consisting of publication of legal notices in local newspapers, erection of a site notice and public consultation/ comments.

From a cultural heritage perspective, we recommend the development be allowed to continue, taking into account the above. The presence of subterranean archaeological or historical sites, features or objects is always a possibility. If any should be uncovered during the development process, a professional archaeologist, registered with the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA), should be consulted for an assessment and recommendations.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 60

PART 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY

6.1 Databases National Archives Cultural History Museum National Library of South Africa, Pretoria

6.2 Literature ALLEN, V. 1971. Kruger's Pretoria: Buildings and personalities of the city in the nineteenth century. Cape Town: A.A. Balkema. Die Afrikaanse Woning : Herdrukke uit die Boerevrou (1919-1931). 1989. Edited by FISHER, R., LE ROUX, S. Hammanskraal: Unibook Publishers DUNSTON, L. 1975.Young Pretoria:1889-1913. Publisher unknown. Lochhead's guide, handbook and directory of Pretoria. 1913. Pretoria: Transvaal Reliable Agency. Longland's Pretoria Directory for 1899. Facsimile reprint by the State Library, 1979. PATON, A.1964. Hofmeyr. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Pretoria (1855-1955): History of the city of Pretoria. 1955. Edited by ENGELBRECHT, S.P., AGAR-HAMILTON, J.A.I., PELZER, A.N., BEHRENS, H.P.H. Pretoria: The City Council of Pretoria. RAUTENBACH, N., WILDE, S., ROBBERTZE, A. 1993. Brookshuis: Geskiedenis. Pretoria: Die Afrikaanse Protestantse Kerk. The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance.2013. The City of Pretoria and Districts: An official handbook describing the Social, Official, Farming, Mining, and general progress and possibilities of the administrative capital and surrounding districts. 1913. Issued by Pretoria Municipality and South African Railways. VERMEULEN, I. 1999. Man en monument: die lewe en werk van Gerard Moerdijk. Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik.

6.3 Aerial Photos Department of Rural Development and Land Reform: National Geospatial Information. Job no: D47_008_93638 (1947). City of Tshwane, Geomatics Division: Cadastral maps and aerial photos. 2011. Available at http://www.tshwane.gov.za/AboutTshwane/MapsandGIS/Pages/Tshwane- Geographic-Information-and-Aerial-Photos.aspx. Accessed on 8 August 2014. City of Tshwane, City Planning Department, Development Information Service. Zoning Certificate. Requested on 12 August 2014.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 61

6.4 Other Archives Surveyor-General Pretoria: Original survey diagrams 1902, 1934, 1937. Deeds Office, Pretoria: Title Deed history search. Historical Records Collection, William Cullen Library, University of the Witwatersrand. Accessed 13 August 2014. Collection no: A1 - Collection name: Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr Item no: Gb7.2 Item: 191 William St, Deed of Lease Historical Records, Department of Architecture, Landscape Architecture and Interior Architecture reading Room, University of Pretoria. Accessed August 2014.

6.5 Other sources Valuation Roll of the City of Pretoria: 1st July 1944 to 30 June 1947. City Council of Pretoria. Website: Laerskool Pretoria Oos. Accessed at: http://www.osieland.co.za/index.php/algemene-inligting/geskiedenis. Accessed on 15 August 2014. UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA. History of the van Wouw house. 2011. Website. Accessed at http://web.up.ac.za/default.asp?ipkCategoryID=10878&sub=1&parentid=5885&s ubid=10318&ipklookid=14. Accessed on 19 August 2014. Website: Brooklyn Manor House. Accessed at http://www.brooklynmanor.co.za/gallery.html. Accessed on 18 August 2014. SAHRIS. South African Heritage Resources Agency. Accessed at http://www.sahra.org.za/sites. Accessed on 25 August 2014. Website: Osborne Guest House. 2014. Accessed at http://www.osborneguesthouse.com/gallery/. Accessed on 18 August 2104

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 62

ARCIA CONSULTING (PTY) LTD: ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS 381 ARIES STREET, WATERKLOOF RIDGE, PRETORIA. (TEL.) 27 12 460 7568 P. O. BOX 95645, WATERKLOOF, PRETORIA 0145. (FAX) 27 86 515 5779 E-mail: [email protected]

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT - ERF R/783 BROOKLYN, PRETORIA APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF BUILDING OLDER THAN 60 YEARS SECTION H - Comments - State owned property

The property is not state owned, therefore this section is not applicable.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 63

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT - ERF R/783 BROOKLYN, PRETORIA APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF BUILDING OLDER THAN 60 YEARS SECTION I - Proof of invitation for comments

Site Notice at placement - 12 September 2014

Site Notice at removal - 13 October 2014

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 64

Pretoria News Notice - 12 September 2014

Beeld Notice - 12 September 2014

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 65

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT - ERF R/783 BROOKLYN, PRETORIA APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF BUILDING OLDER THAN 60 YEARS SECTION J - Comments received from interested

Phrag was contacted via e-mail from Monday 13 October to Monday 20 October requesting copies of any comments and objections received. Ms. Ramphele stated that no record of objections could be found on the Phrag system.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 66

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT - ERF R/783 BROOKLYN, PRETORIA APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF BUILDING OLDER THAN 60 YEARS SECTION K - Letter from heritage body

The site does not fall within a heritage area and is therefore not applicable.

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 67

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT - ERF R/783 BROOKLYN, PRETORIA APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF BUILDING OLDER THAN 60 YEARS SECTION L - Size of stand

Stand area: 3 067m²

Registration: 2000/021367/07 Directors: JK Jooste & SE Jooste Jordaan Page 68