PROPOSED SELF STORAGE FACILITY
376a Jan Smuts Avenue (Remainder of Erf 222), Craighall, City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng Province.
Heritage Assessment
Issue Date: 14 February 2017 Revision No.: 1
Declaration of Independence
The report has been compiled by PGS Heritage, an appointed Heritage Specialist for Stor-Age Self Storage (Pty) Ltd. The views stipulated in this report are purely objective and no other interests are displayed during the decision making processes discussed in the Heritage Assessment Process.
HERITAGE CONSULTANT: PGS Heritage
CONTACT PERSON: Polke Birkholtz Tel: +27 (0) 12 332 5305 Email: [email protected]
SIGNATURE: ______
DETAILS OF CLIENT
CLIENT: Stor-Age Self Storage (Pty) Ltd
CONTACT PERSONS: Brandon Joscelyne Tel: +27 (0) 21 559 8128 Fax: + 27 (0) 86 665 6874 Email: [email protected]
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR ii Report Title Heritage Assessment for the Proposed Demolition of Buildings at 376a Jan Smuts Avenue (Remainder of Erf 222), Craighall, City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng Province.
Control Name Signature Designation
Author Polke Birkholtz Heritage Specialist / Archaeologist / PGS
Heritage
Co-Author Mauritz Naudé Architectural Historian
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
General
PGS Heritage was appointed by Stor-Age Self Storage (Pty) Ltd to undertake a heritage assessment of the buildings located at 376a Jan Smuts Avenue (Remainder of Erf 222), Craighall, City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng Province.
The site is located along Jan Smuts Avenue in Craighall, Johannesburg. Three buildings occur on the site: (a) a music store cum warehouse (Building 1); (b) an old dwelling converted into small music studios (Building 2) and (c) an old garage converted into a song studio (Building 3). It is proposed that the buildings be demolished and a new development introduced to the site.
Archival and Historical Desktop Study
An archival and historical desktop study of the study area was undertaken. This study has revealed the following information regarding the three buildings located within the study area:
• Building 1
The building was originally constructed as a Hobie Showroom in c. 1985. The building is currently used as a music shop.
• Building 2
This is the oldest building located within the study area. It was built by Mr. William Charles Higgins during the c. 1930s. At the time, the house was known as Tipperary and was occupied by the Higgins family. A number of different owners followed, and in 1980, proposed alterations were drawn up to convert the dwelling into a restaurant. The first restaurant, named Between the Chains, opened its doors in 1982. Subsequently, a Spanish restaurant operated from this building followed by a well known restaurant named Frog. At an unknown time between 1993 and 2004 the building was extensively damaged in a fire. At the moment the building is used as a music studio.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR iv • Building 3
A song studio is located here. The building is not old and was erected in the relatively recent past.
Fieldwork Findings
A site visit was undertaken by an experienced fieldwork tema comprising a heritage specialist / archaeologist as well as an architectural historian. Three buildings were identified within the study area.
The site visit established that the music shop (Building 1) has no architectural significance. Its greatest cultural significance lies with the movable content inside the building and the role the company has played as a commercial outlet for high class musical instruments and related equipment.
Although the remains of a dwelling older than 60 years occur on site (Building 2), it has been extended, altered and changed so extensively that only the hipped roof, two fireplaces and some small sections of the parquet flooring have remained intact. The building has lost all its significant architectural characteristics.
The third building identified within the study area (Building 3), also has no architectural or historical significance.
Recommendations / Required Mitigation Measures
None of the buildings identified within the study area have any architectural historical merit and can be demolished without recording or memorialization. As a result, no mitigation would be required.
General Recommendations
The following general recommendations would be required:
• This Heritage Assessment report must be submitted to the Provincial Heritage Resources Agency for Gauteng.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR v • A permit application for demolition of the buildings must be lodged with the Provincial Heritage Resources Agency for Gauteng. • No demolitions may be undertaken until such time that the relevant permit allowing these activities to be undertaken, has been received from the Provncial Heritage Resources Agency for Gauteng.
Conclusion
On the condition that the recommendations made in this report are adhered to, no heritage reasons can be given for the development and demolitions to be halted.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR vi CONTENTS Page
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE PROJECT 7
3 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 10
4 CURRENT STATUS QUO 17
5 ARCHIVAL AND HISTORICAL DESKTOP RESEARCH FINDINGS 21
6 FIELDWORK FINDINGS 46
7 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 69
8 CONCLUSIONS 70
9 PREPARERS 72
10 REFERENCES 73
List of Appendices
Appendix A Legislative Requirements – Terminology and Assessment Criteria Appendix B Curriculum Vitae Appendix C Sketch Plans
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR vii 1 INTRODUCTION
PGS Heritage was appointed by Stor-Age Self Storage (Pty) Ltd to undertake a heritage assessment of the buildings located at 376a Jan Smuts Avenue (Remainder of Erf 222), Craighall, City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng Province.
1.1 Scope of the Study
The scope of work that PGS Heritage was appointed for was to carry out a Heritage Assessment of the buildings located within the study area. The client proposes the demolition of the buildings located within the study area to allow for the construction of a storage facility.
1.2 Specialist Qualifications
This Heritage Assessment was compiled by PGS Heritage (PGS). The staff at PGS has a combined experience of nearly 70 years in the heritage consulting industry. PGS and its staff have extensive experience in managing HIA processes and will only undertake heritage assessments where they have the relevant expertise and experience to undertake the work competently.
Polke Birkholtz, the Project Manager and author, is registered with the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) as a Professional Archaeologist and is accredited with the CRM Section of ASAPA. He has 18 years’ experience in the heritage assessment and management field and holds a B.A. (cum laude) from the University of Pretoria specialising in Archaeology, Anthropology and History as well as a B.A. (Hons.) in Archaeology (cum laude) from the same institution.
Mauritz Naude is an architectural historian and conservationist. He assists heritage practitioners as private consultant in the assessment of historic buildings and sites, is a contract lecturer at the Departments of Architecture, Visual Arts and Building Sciences (University of Pretoria) and is a research fellow at the Department of Architecture (Tshwane University of Technology). He is also a contract lecturer for the course on Environmental Law at the Centre for Environmental Management (CEM – University of the Northwest). He has more than 35 years experience in the curation and conservation of historic buildings. He holds degrees in Archaeology, Art History (Hons), a post graduate diploma in Museology, a MA-Architecture in conservation (WITS) and is currently
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 1 completing his PHd at the Department of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (University of Pretoria). He is the author of 42 peer reviewed articles and an equal number of popular papers on various topics relating to architectural history, vernacular architecture and building technology.
1.3 Assumptions and Limitations
• Not detracting in any way from the comprehensiveness of the fieldwork undertaken, it is necessary to realise that the heritage resources located during the fieldwork do not necessarily represent all the possible heritage resources present within the area. Various factors account for this, including the subterranean nature of some archaeological sites and the current dense vegetation cover. As such, should any heritage features and/or objects not included in the present inventory be located or observed, a heritage specialist must immediately be contacted. Such observed or located heritage features and/or objects may not be disturbed or removed in any way until such time that the heritage specialist has been able to make an assessment as to the significance of the site (or material) in question. This applies to graves and cemeteries as well. In the event that any graves or burial places are located during the development, the procedures and requirements pertaining to graves and burials will apply as set out below.
1.4 Legislative Context
The identification, evaluation and assessment of any cultural heritage site, artefact or find in the South African context is required and governed by the following legislation:
i. National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) Act 107 of 1998 ii. National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) Act 25 of 1999 iii. Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) Act 28 of 2002
The following sections in each Act refer directly to the identification, evaluation and assessment of cultural heritage resources.
i. GNR 982 (Government Gazette 38282, 14 December 2014) promulgated under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) Act 107 of 1998 a. Basic Assessment Report (BAR) – Regulations 19 and 23
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 2 b. Environmental Scoping Report (ESR) – Regulation 21 c. Environmental Impacts Assessment (EIA) – Regulation 23 d. Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) – Regulations 19 and 23 ii. National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) Act 25 of 1999 a. Protection of Heritage Resources – Sections 34 to 36; and b. Heritage Resources Management – Section 38 iii. Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) Act 28 of 2002 a. Section 39(3)
The NHRA stipulates that cultural heritage resources may not be disturbed without authorization from the relevant heritage authority. 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…”. In addition, the NEMA (No 107 of 1998) and the GNR 982 (Government Gazette 38282, 14 December 2014) state that, “the objective of an environmental impact assessment process is to, … identify the location of the development footprint within the preferred site … focusing on the geographical, physical, biological, social, economic, cultural and heritage aspects of the environment” (GNR 982, Appendix 3(2)(c), emphasis added). In accordance with legislative requirements and EIA rating criteria, the regulations of SAHRA and ASAPA have also been incorporated to ensure that a comprehensive legally compatible report is compiled.
1.5 Terminology and Abbreviations
Archaeological resources
i. 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; ii. 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; iii. 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 in the Maritimes Zones Act, and any cargo, debris
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 3 or artefacts found or associated therewith, which is older than 60 years or which SAHRA considers to be worthy of conservation; iv. features, structures and artefacts associated with military history which are older than 75 years and the site on which they are found.
Cultural significance
This means aesthetic, architectural, historical, scientific, social, spiritual, linguistic or technological value or significance
Development
This means any physical intervention, excavation, or action, other than those caused by natural forces, which may in the opinion of the heritage authority in any way result in a change to the nature, appearance or physical nature of a place or influence its stability and future well-being, including:
i. construction, alteration, demolition, removal or change in use of a place or structure ii. carrying out any works on or over or under a place; iii. subdivision or consolidation of land comprising a place, including the structures or airspace of a place; iv. constructing or putting up for display signs or boards; v. any change to the natural or existing condition or topography of land; and vi. any removal or destruction of trees, or removal of vegetation or topsoil
Earlier Stone Age
The archaeology of the Stone Age, between 400 000 and 2500 000 years ago.
Fossil
Mineralised bones of animals, shellfish, plants and marine animals. A trace fossil is the track or footprint of a fossil animal that is preserved in stone or consolidated sediment.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 4 Heritage
That which is inherited and forms part of the National Estate (Historical places, objects, fossils as defined by the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999).
Heritage resources
This means any place or object of cultural significance.
Later Stone Age
The archaeology of the last 30 000 years, associated with fully modern people.
Late Iron Age (Early Farming Communities)
The archaeology of the last 1000 years up to the 1800s, associated with people who carried out iron working and farming activities such as herding and agriculture.
Middle Stone Age
The archaeology of the Stone Age between 30-300 000 years ago, associated with early modern humans.
Palaeontology
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.
Study Area
For the purposes of this report, the phrase ‘Study Area’ refers to the Remainder of Erf 222, Craighall, City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng Province.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 5
Table 1: Abbreviations
Abbreviations Description
AIA Archaeological Impact Assessment
ASAPA Association of South African Professional Archaeologists
CRM Cultural Resource Management
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ESA Early Stone Age
GPS Global Positioning System
HIA Heritage Impact Assessment
LIA Late Iron Age
LSA Later Stone Age
MSA Middle Stone Age
NEMA National Environmental Management Act
NHRA National Heritage Resources Act
PGS PGS Heritage
PHRA-G Provincial Heritage Resources Authority of Gauteng
PSSA Palaeontological Society of South Africa
ROD Record of Decision
SAHRA South African Heritage Resources Agency
SAHRIS South African Heritage Resources Information System
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 6 2 TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE PROJECT
2.1 Site Location
Property The study area comprises the Remainder of Erf 222, Craighall, City of Johannesburg Description Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng Province.
Location The study area is located in the suburb of Craighall approximately 6 km north of the Johannesburg CBD. The street address for the property is 376a Jan Smuts Avenue, Craighall.
Land See Section 4 below. Description
Coordinates The following four coordinates define the boundaries of the study area: Western corner: S 26.117676 E 28.025526 Northern corner: S 26.117450 E 28.025844 Eastern corner: S 26.117883 E 28.026175 Southern corner: S 26.118032 E 28.025945
Extent The extent of the study area is 0.21 hectares.
Figure 1 – Google Earth depiction of the study area within its wider surroundings.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 7
Figure 2 – Google Earth image providing a closer view of the study area within its surroundings.
Figure 3 – The study area and its buildings as depicted on Google Earth.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 8 2.2 Technical Project Description
The study area comprises the Remainder of Erf 222, Craighall, City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng Province.
Stor-Age Self Storage (Pty) Ltd proposes the construction of a new self storage facility on the property. To allow for this development to proceed, all the buildings located on the property will have to be demolished.
Refer Annexure C for Sketch Plans of the Proposed Development.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 9 3 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
The section below outlines the assessment methodologies utilised in the study.
3.1 Methodology for Assessing Heritage Site Significance
This report was compiled by PGS Heritage as a Heritage Assessment Report for the proposed construction of a new self-storage facility by Stor-Age Self Storage (Pty) Ltd. The methodology followed in this heritage assessment comprised the following steps:
Step I – Archival and Historical Desktop Study: An archival and historical background study was carried out on the study area. This desktop study was aimed at providing historical context for the study area as well to establish the age of the buildings located within the study area. Visits were made to the National Archives in Pretoria and the Johannesburg City Library in Johannesburg. Historical aerial photographs were obtained from National Geo-Spatial Information of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform.
Step II – Fieldwork: A site visit was conducted by an experienced fieldwork team comprising one heritage specialist / archaeologist (Polke Birkholtz) and one architectural historian (Mauritz Naudé). The fieldwork was aimed at locating and documenting sites falling within and immediately adjacent to the proposed development footprint. The site visit was conducted on Monday, 16 January 2017.
Step III – The final step involved the compilation of this heritage assessment report.
The significance of identified heritage sites was based on four main criteria:
• Site integrity (i.e. primary vs. secondary context), • Amount of deposit, range of features (e.g., stonewalling, stone tools and enclosures), • Density of scatter (dispersed scatter) o Low - <10/50m2 o Medium - 10-50/50m2 o High - >50/50m2 • Uniqueness; and • Potential to answer present research questions.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 10
Management actions and recommended mitigation, which will result in a reduction in the impact on the sites, will be expressed as follows:
A - No further action necessary; B - Mapping of the site and controlled sampling required; C - No-go or relocate development activity position; D - Preserve site, or extensive data collection and mapping of the site; and E - Preserve site.
Impacts on these sites by the development will be evaluated as follows:
3.1.1 Site Significance
Site significance classification standards prescribed by the SAHRA (2006) and approved by the ASAPA for the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region, were used for the purpose of this report.
Table 2: Site significance classification standards as prescribed by SAHRA.
FIELD RATING GRADE SIGNIFICANCE RECOMMENDED MITIGATION National Significance (NS) Grade 1 - Conservation; National Site nomination Provincial Significance (PS) Grade 2 - Conservation; Provincial Site nomination Local Significance (LS) Grade 3A High Conservation; Mitigation not advised Local Significance (LS) Grade 3B High Mitigation (Part of site should be retained) Generally Protected A (GP.A) Grade 4A High/Medium Mitigation before destruction Generally Protected B (GP.B) Grade 4B Medium Recording before destruction Generally Protected C (GP.C) Grade 4C Low Destruction
3.2 Methodology for Impact Assessment
In order to ensure uniformity, a standard impact assessment methodology has been utilised so that a wide range of impacts can be compared. The impact assessment methodology makes provision for the assessment of impacts against the following criteria:
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 11 • Significance; • Spatial scale; • Temporal scale; • Probability; and • Degree of certainty.
A combined quantitative and qualitative methodology was used to describe impacts for each of the aforementioned assessment criteria. A summarised explanation of each of the qualitative descriptors along with the equivalent quantitative rating scale for each of the aforementioned criteria is given in Error! Reference source not found..
A combined quantitative and qualitative methodology was used to describe impacts for each of the afore mentioned assessment criteria. A summary of each of the qualitative descriptors, along with the equivalent quantitative rating scale for each of the aforementioned criteria, is given in Table 3.
Table 3 - Quantitative rating and equivalent descriptors for the impact assessment criteria
RATING SIGNIFICANCE EXTENT SCALE TEMPORAL SCALE 1 VERY LOW Isolated corridor / proposed corridor Incidental 2 LOW Study area Short-term 3 MODERATE Local Medium-term 4 HIGH Regional / Provincial Long-term 5 VERY HIGH Global / National Permanent
3.2.1 Significance Assessment
The significance rating (importance) of the associated impacts embraces the notion of extent and magnitude, but does not always clearly define these, since their importance in the rating scale is very relative. For example, 10 structures younger than 60 years might be affected by a proposed development, and if destroyed the impact can be considered as VERY LOW in that the structures are all of Low Heritage Significance. If two of the structures are older than 60 years and of historic significance, and as a result of High Heritage Significance, the impact will be considered to be HIGH to VERY HIGH.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 12 A more detailed description of the impact significance rating scale is given in Table 4 below.
Table 4 - Description of the significance rating scale
RATING DESCRIPTION 5 VERY HIGH Of the highest order possible within the bounds of impacts which could occur. In the case of adverse impacts: there is no possible mitigation and/or remedial activity which could offset the impact. In the case of beneficial impacts, there is no real alternative to achieving this benefit. 4 HIGH Impact is of substantial order within the bounds of impacts which could occur. In the case of adverse impacts: mitigation and/or remedial activity is feasible but difficult, expensive, time-consuming or some combination of these. In the case of beneficial impacts, other means of achieving this benefit are feasible but they are more difficult, expensive, time-consuming or some combination of these. 3 MODERATE Impact is real but not substantial in relation to other impacts, which might take effect within the bounds of those which could occur. In the case of adverse impacts: mitigation and/or remedial activity are both feasible and fairly easily possible. In the case of beneficial impacts: other means of achieving this benefit are about equal in time, cost, effort, etc. 2 LOW Impact is of a low order and therefore likely to have little real effect. In the case of adverse impacts: mitigation and/or remedial activity is either easily achieved or little will be required, or both. In the case of beneficial impacts, alternative means for achieving this benefit are likely to be easier, cheaper, more effective, less time consuming, or some combination of these. 1 VERY LOW Impact is negligible within the bounds of impacts which could occur. In the case of adverse impacts, almost no mitigation and/or remedial activity is needed, and any minor steps which might be needed are easy, cheap, and simple. In the case of beneficial impacts, alternative means are almost all likely to be better, in one or a number of ways, than this means of achieving the benefit. Three additional categories must also be used where relevant. They are in addition to the category represented on the scale, and if used, will replace the scale. 0 NO IMPACT There is no impact at all - not even a very low impact on a party or system.
3.2.2 Spatial Scale
The spatial scale refers to the extent of the impact i.e. will the impact be felt at the local, regional, or global scale. The spatial assessment scale is described in more detail in Table 5 below.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 13 Table 5 - Description of the spatial significance rating scale
RATING DESCRIPTION 5 Global/National The maximum extent of any impact. 4 Regional/Provincial The spatial scale is moderate within the bounds of possible impacts, and will be felt at a regional scale (District Municipality to Provincial Level). The impact will affect an area up to 50 km from the proposed site / corridor. 3 Local The impact will affect an area up to 5 km from the proposed site. 2 Study Area The impact will affect an area not exceeding the boundary of the study area. 1 Isolated Sites / The impact will affect an area no bigger than the site. proposed site
3.2.3 Temporal/Duration Scale
In order to accurately describe the impact, it is necessary to understand the duration and persistence of an impact in the environment.
The temporal or duration scale is rated according to criteria set out in Table 6.
Table 6 - Description of the temporal rating scale
RATING DESCRIPTION 1 Incidental The impact will be limited to isolated incidences that are expected to occur very sporadically. 2 Short-term The environmental impact identified will operate for the duration of the construction phase or a period of less than 5 years, whichever is the greater. 3 Medium-term The environmental impact identified will operate for the duration of life of the project. 4 Long-term The environmental impact identified will operate beyond the life of operation of the project. 5 Permanent The environmental impact will be permanent.
3.2.4 Degree of Probability
The probability or likelihood of an impact occurring is outlined in Table 7 below.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 14 Table 7 - Description of the degree of probability of an impact occurring
RATING DESCRIPTION 1 Practically impossible 2 Unlikely 3 Could happen 4 Very likely 5 It’s going to happen / has occurred
3.2.5 Degree of Certainty
As with all studies, it is not possible to be 100% certain of all facts, and for this reason a standard “degree of certainty” scale is used, as discussed in Table 8. The level of detail for specialist studies is determined according to the degree of certainty required for decision-making.
Table 8 - Description of the degree of certainty rating scale
RATING DESCRIPTION Definite More than 90% sure of a particular fact. Probable Between 70 and 90% sure of a particular fact, or of the likelihood of that impact occurring. Possible Between 40 and 70% sure of a particular fact, or of the likelihood of an impact occurring. Unsure Less than 40% sure of a particular fact or the likelihood of an impact occurring. Can’t know The consultant believes an assessment is not possible even with additional research.
3.2.6 Quantitative Description of Impacts
To allow for impacts to be described in a quantitative manner, in addition to the qualitative description given above, a rating scale of between 1 and 5 was used for each of the assessment criteria. Thus the total value of the impact is described as the function of significance, spatial and temporal scale, as described below:
Impact Risk = (SIGNIFICANCE +Spatial+ Temporal) X Probability 3 5
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 15 An example of how this rating scale is applied is shown below: mpng Scale
IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE SPATIAL SCALE TEMPORAL SCALE PROBABILITY RATING Low Local Medium Term Could Happen Low Impact on 2 3 3 3 1.6 heritage structures
Note: The significance, spatial and temporal scales are added to give a total of 8, which is divided by 3 to give a criterion rating of 2.67. The probability (3) is divided by 5 to give a probability rating of 0.6. The criteria rating of 2.67 is then multiplied by the probability rating (0,6) to give the final rating of 1,6.
The impact risk is classified according to five classes as described in the table below.
Table 9 - Impact Risk Classes
RATING IMPACT CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.1 – 1.0 1 Very Low 1.1 – 2.0 2 Low 2.1 – 3.0 3 Moderate 3.1 – 4.0 4 High 4.1 – 5.0 5 Very High
Therefore, with reference to the example used for heritage structures above, an impact rating of 1.6 will fall in the Impact Class 2, which will be considered to be a Low impact.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 16 4 CURRENT STATUS QUO
The study area is located at 376a Jan Smuts Avenue (Remainder of Erf 222), Craighall, City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng Province. The study area comprises a completely built-up erf consisting of three main individual buildings and structures. One of these buildings is currently used as a Music Shop (see Building 1 in this report), another building is currently used as a Music Studio (see Building 2) and the third building is presently used as a Song Studio (Building 3).
The archival and historical desktop study outlined below has revealed that Building 1 was originally proposed as a Hobie Showroom and erected in c. 1985. Building 2 was built by Mr. William Charles Higgins during the c. 1930s as a dwelling. In 1982 this building was converted into a restaurant, with at least three restaurants operating from these premises for the subsequent decade or so. Between 1993 and 2004 this building sustained extensive damage as a result of a fire. Building 3 is the youngest of the three buildings and was built in the recent past.
Building 3
Building 2
Building 1
Figure 4 – The study area and its buildings as depicted on Google Earth.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 17
Figure 5 – General view of the study area as seen from Jan Smuts Avenue. Building 1 is on the right and Building 2 on the left.
Figure 6 – View of Building 2 as seen from Jan Smuts Avenue.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 18
Figure 7 – Another view of Building 2 as seen from Jan Smuts Avenue.
Figure 8 – Google Earth streetview of the building located immediately adjacent to the study area, on its northern end. The front façade of Building 2 can be seen on the right.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 19
Figure 9 – General view of the building located immediately adjacent to the study area, on its southern end. A section of Building 1 can be seen on the left.
Figure 10 – Google Earth streetview of the building located immediately opposite the study area.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 20 5 ARCHIVAL AND HISTORICAL DESKTOP RESEARCH FINDINGS
The aim of the archival and desktop background research is to provide a historic overview of the study area and the buildings located on it.
5.1 Brief History of Craighall
In 1891, Scotsman William Gray Rattray purchased a portion of the farm Klipfontein on the banks of the Braamfontein Spruit and named it Craighall, after his place of birth in Scotland. Rattray’s property was located some 10 km north of the town of Johannesburg which had only been established five years before. At the time, Craighall Farm and its surrounding landscape were located far enough from the newly established town so that this area could still be described as completely rural and consisting of farms. However, the property that Rattray acquired during the early 1890s falls today in its entirety within the City of Johannesburg and where cows and other farm animals once grazed, the residential suburbs of Craighall, Craighall Park and Blairgowrie now stand (Brodie, 2008).
The first attempt at residential development was undertaken by Rattray in 1902, when a total of 229 plots of about an acre each were sold on auction. These plots were sold on a 999 year lease basis (Smith, 1971) (www.theheritageportal.co.za). However, the plots did not sell as quickly as Rattray had hoped, partly due to the fact that Craighall was located too far away from the bustling city of Johannesburg for workers to commute between Craighall and their place of employment in the city (www.deltaenviro.org.za).
During this time, Rattray dammed up the Braamfontein Spruit and called it Craighall Lake. He subsequently established the Craighall Park Hotel, and in 1905 started advertising the hotel as an ideal recreational spot for Johannesburg city dwellers. At the time, Craighall was located an hour’s journey from the centre of Johannesburg, which made it an ideal location for picknicks and day trips.
The Craighall Park Hotel does not exist anymore. While some believe that the hotel once stood where the Colony Shopping Mall is today found, others suggest that the hotel was located on Westminster Driver. The former locality is situated roughly 630 m to the south-east, whereas the latter is located some 850 m south-east of the study area.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 21
Figure 11 – Postcard depiction of Craighall Park Hotel in 1906 (Brodie, 2008:229). This hotel was the centre of William Gray Rattray’s enterprises at Craighall.
Rattray developed a series of large lakes which offered fishing, swimming and boating. The facilities offered by Rattray to visitors included a pagoda, beer and tea garden, sports fields (with the playing of cricket a preferred activity) and entertainment areas. Estate agents from this period described Craighall as follows: “Within an hour’s drive of the city, through the beautiful suburb of Parktown and the undulating country beyond, the journey out is an initial enjoyment which is only a foretaste of pleasure to come. Bowling over a road which is for the most part a good one, the city dust and bustle is soon left behind, and a more genial climate exercises its exhilarating influence on the spirits. Whether passing through the large plantation of eucalyptus, fir and pine, or traversing the more open country, the way is equally pleasant … a gleaming lake lies placidly in the lap of a little valley, guarded by a light fringe of foliage, beyond which the veldt swells softly upwards in gentle undulations to where the Magaliesberg Mountains melt in the horizon.” (www.deltaenviro.org.za).
In 1911, the sale of plots at Craighall was advertised once more, but again little response was received. The residential suburb of Craighall was only formally established during the 1930s and was incorporated into Johannesburg in 1938.
Incidentally, Craighall Lake silted up during the late 1930s (Brodie, 2008).
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 22 5.2 Ownership History of the Remainder of Erf 222
The ownership history for the property was compiled by accessing the Valuation Rolls for Craighall at the Johannesburg City Library as well as other sources.
5.2.1 Ownership during 1937, 1938 and 1939
The earliest record in the Valuation Rolls for Craighall was found to be the combined roll for the years 1937, 1938 and 1939. This document indicates that the earliest recorded evaluation of the property was undertaken in June 1939. This relatively late inclusion of Criaghall in the valuation rolls can be understood in view of the fact that Craighall was only incorporated into Johannesburg in 1938. At the time, the value of the land was £225 whereas improvements on the property were valued at £1,100. It is clear from these amounts that by June 1939 a house already existed here.
According to the valuation roll, the Remainder of Erf 222 of Craighall was owned by Mrs. M.J. Higgins at the time (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1937, 1938 and 1939). The death certificate for Mrs. Higgins was obtained from the National Archives in Pretoria. This archival document identifies Mrs. Higgins as Maria Johanna Higgins (born Van Jaarsveld). She was born in Bethlehem in the Free State Republic in 1887 and passed away in the Norman Nursing Home in Johannesburg on 21 November 1947. Her occupation in life was given as ‘Housewife’ and she was married to William Charles Higgins, who had passed away in 1934. The couple had seven children, of which the youngest was Verna Gloria Maisie Higgins (born 4 January 1929) (National Archives, MHG, 5859/47).
The couple’s youngest child is mentioned here as the website of the Craigpark Residents’ Association provides historic recollections of Ms. Verna Maddison, who lived at 376 Jan Smuts Avenue (www.cra.org.za). It is clear that the Ms. Verna Maddision referred to here is the youngest child of William Charles and Maria Johanna Higgins. According to the recorded memories of Ms. Maddison, the house on the property (Building 2 from this report) was known as Tipperary and had been built by her father on a one morgen stand. The property also included a tennis court. This tennis court appears to have been the first such court in all of Craighall (www.cra.org.za).
5.2.2 Ownership during 1940, 1941 and 1942
The Valuation Roll for the years 1940, 1941 and 1942 indicates that the Remainder of Erf 222 was
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 23 owned by Mrs. M.J. Higgins until 28 November 1942, when the property was registered in the name of a Mr. T.H. Spargo. This valuation roll also provides the same values as given in the previous roll, namely £225 for the land and £1,100 for the improvements on the property (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1940, 1941 and 1942).
The acquisition of the property by Mr. T.H. Spargo on 28 November 1942, correspond with the recorded memories of Ms. Maddison in that she remembered that they moved out of the house in 1943 (www.cra.org.za).
The death certificate for Mr. Spargo was located at the National Archives in Pretoria. This certificate identifies this person as Thomas Henry Spargo. Mr. Spargo was born in Zeerust in the Transvaal Republic during 1889 and passed away in the General Hospital in Johannesburg on 29 August 1946. His occupation in life was given as ‘Nursery Gardener’ whereas Mr. Spargo’s residential address was 11 Juta Street, Braamfontein, Johannesburg. Mr. Spargo was married to May Elizabeth Spargo (born Williams) and the couple had three children (National Archives, MHG, 4482/46).
5.2.3 Ownership during 1943, 1944 and 1945
The Valuation Roll for the years 1943, 1944 and 1945 indicates that the Remainder of Erf 222 was still owned by Mr. T.H. Spargo during this time. While the land value had gone down to an amount of £150 (possibly due to the economic effects of the Second World War which ended in 1945), the improvements on the property were still valued at £1,100 (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1943, 1944 and 1945).
5.2.4 Ownership during 1946, 1947 and 1948
The Valuation Roll for the years 1946, 1947 and 1948 indicates that the Remainder of Erf 222 was owned by Mrs. T.H. Spargo until 8 January 1946, when the property was registered in the name of a Mr. M. Torre. Mr. Torre only remainder in possession of the property for a few months and on 30 September 1946 the property was registered in the name of Mrs. K.M.U. Maynard. In terms of valuations, this roll indicates that the land value has increased to £400 whereas the improvements on the property were valued at £1,400, which represents an increase of £300 since the previous valuation (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1946, 1947 and 1948).
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 24 The death certificate for Mr. Toree was located at the National Archives in Pretoria. This certificate identifies this person as Mr. Michele Torre. Mr. Torre was born in November 1909 in Rome, Italy, and passed away at 27 Old Pretoria Road, Johannesburg on 5 February 1952. His occupation in life was given as ‘Company Director and Business Manager’ and Mr. Torre is known to have been the Managing Director of Ferro-Brass Screws (Pty) Ltd and before that Beta Brass Manufacturing Company (Pty) Ltd. Mr. Torre was married to Tullia Bianca Torre (born Rossi) and the couple had one son, namely Vincent Aldo Torre (National Archives, MHG, 930/52).
No information regarding Mrs. K.M.U. Maynard could be located at the National Archives. A building plan compiled in 1946 for the proposed alterations and additions to the house, indicates that a Mr. D.D. Maynard was the client and owner of the house. It seems likely for Mr. D.D. Maynard to have been married to Mrs. K.M.U. Maynard.
5.2.5 Ownership during 1949, 1950 and 1951
The Valuation Roll for the years 1949, 1950 and 1951 indicates that the Remainder of Erf 222 was owned by Mrs. K.M.U. Maynard until 11 July 1950, when the property was registered in the name of a Mr. D.F. Ryan. In terms of valuations, this roll indicates that the land value had increased to £2000 whereas the improvements on the property were valued at £2,000 (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1949, 1950 and 1951). No information regarding Mr. D.F. Ryan could be located at the National Archives in Pretoria.
5.2.6 Ownership during 1952, 1953 and 1954
The Valuation Roll for the years 1952, 1953 and 1954 indicates that the Remainder of Erf 222 was still owned by Mr. D.F Ryan throughout this period. In terms of valuations, this roll indicates that the land value had remained at £2,000 whereas the estimated value of the improvements on the property had decreased by £200 to an amount of £1,800. It is not presently known whether this decrease in value of the improvements had anything to do with activities to the buildings on site (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1952, 1953 and 1954).
5.2.7 Ownership during 1955, 1956 and 1957
The Valuation Roll for the years 1955, 1956 and 1957 indicates that the Remainder of Erf 222 was
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 25 still owned by Mr. D.F Ryan throughout this period. In terms of valuations, this roll indicates that the land value had remained at £2,000 whereas the estimated value of the improvements on the property had again decreased, this time by £800 to an amount of £1,000. It would appear that the original improvements estimated to be to the value of £2,000 by 1951, had within a period of six years decreased by 50%. It is not presently known whether this decrease in value of the improvements had anything to do with activities to the buildings on site (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1955, 1956 and 1957).
5.2.8 Ownership during 1958, 1959 and 1960
The Valuation Roll for the years 1958, 1959 and 1960 indicates that the Remainder of Erf 222 was still owned by Mr. D.F Ryan throughout this period. In terms of valuations, this roll indicates that the land value had remained at £2,000 whereas the estimated value of the improvements on the property remained at £1,000 (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1958, 1959 and 1960).
5.2.9 Ownership during 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964
The Valuation Roll for the period starting in July 1961 and ending in June 1964, indicates that the Remainder of Erf 222 was owned by Mr. D.F. Ryan until 15 November 1962, when the property was transferred to Baumer Investments (Pty) Ltd (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1961, 1962 and 1963). This was the first recorded ownership of the property by a company.
In terms of valuations, this roll indicates two values each for land and improvements. The Union of South Africa became the Republic of South Africa in 1961, and with the republican declaration the British pound was replaced by a new currency called Rand. At this point, the value of the Rand was set at R2.00 to the pound. As a result, the valuation estimates had to be doubled across the board when the new currency was implemented. With this as background, the values provided for the land were £2,000 and R4,000. Similarly, the improvements were still valued at £1,000 which worked out at R2,000 after the republican declaration (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964).
5.2.10 Ownership during 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967
The Valuation Roll for the period starting in July 1964 and ending in June 1967, indicates that the
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 26 Remainder of Erf 222 was owned by Baumer Investments (Pty) Ltd until 6 March 1967, when it was transferred to Boncraig Investments (Pty) Ltd (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967).
In terms of valuations, this roll indicates that the land value had increased to R6,000 whereas the estimated value of the improvements on the property remained at R2,000 (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1964, 1965 and 1967).
5.2.11 Ownership during 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970
The Valuation Roll for the period starting in July 1967 and ending in June 1970, indicates that the Remainder of Erf 222 was still owned by Boncraig Investments (Pty) Ltd throughout this period (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970).
In terms of valuations, this roll indicates that the land value had increased to R8,000 whereas the estimated value of the improvements on the property decreased dramatically to only R500 (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970). The reasons for this dramatic decrease in the value of the improvements on the property is not presently known.
5.2.12 Ownership during 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973
The Valuation Roll for the period starting in July 1970 and ending in June 1973, indicates that the Remainder of Erf 222 was still owned by Boncraig Investments (Pty) Ltd throughout this period (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973).
In terms of valuations, this roll indicates that the land value had increased dramatically to R36,000 whereas the estimated value of the improvements on the property remained at only R500 (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973).
5.2.13 Ownership during 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976
The Valuation Roll for the period starting in 1973 and ending in 1976, indicates that the Remainder of Erf 222 was still owned by Boncraig Investments (Pty) Ltd throughout this period. In terms of valuations, this roll indicates that the land value had again increased dramatically to R110,000
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 27 whereas the estimated value of the improvements on the property only doubled in value during this time to an amount of R1,000 (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976).
5.2.14 Ownership during 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980
The Valuation Roll for the period starting in 1977 and ending in 1980, indicates that the Remainder of Erf 222 was still owned by Boncraig Investments (Pty) Ltd throughout this period (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980).
In terms of valuations, this roll indicates that the land value had increased slightly to R119,500 whereas the estimated value of the improvements on the property only remained at an amount of R1,000 (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980).
5.2.15 Ownership during 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983
The Valuation Roll for the period starting in 1980 and ending in 1983, indicates that the Remainder of Erf 222 was still owned by Boncraig Investments (Pty) Ltd throughout this period (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983).
In terms of valuations, this roll indicates that the land value had increased to R155,500 whereas the estimated value of the improvements on the property remained low at an amount of R3,000 (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983).
According to the website of the Craigpark Residents’ Association (www.cra.org.za), the house was converted into a restaurant which opened its doors in 1982. The restaurant was named ‘Between the Chains’. The then food critic at The Star newspaper, ‘Lucullus’, visited the restaurant and described the premises as a “…neat conversion job which has turned a rather nondescript old Craighall house into a snug and cosy little hideaway, a place of interesting nooks and crannies with the original embossed ceilings remaining and much of the wood-tiled floor.”
5.2.16 Ownership during 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987
The Valuation Roll for the period starting in 1984 and ending in 1987, indicates that the Remainder
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 28 of Erf 222 was still owned by Boncraig Investments (Pty) Ltd throughout this period (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987).
In terms of valuations, this roll indicates that the values placed on both land and improvements had increased dramatically since the previous roll. During this period, the land value was estimated to be R263,000 whereas the estimated value of the improvements on the property was placed at R50,000 (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987).
Building plans for a proposed Hobie Showroom were compiled in 1985 (see section below). This new building was subsequently erected and utilized for this purpose.
5.2.17 Ownership during 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991
The Valuation Roll for the period starting in 1988 and ending in 1991, indicates that the Remainder of Erf 222 was still owned by Boncraig Investments (Pty) Ltd throughout this period (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991).
In terms of valuations, this roll indicates that the land value had increased to R257,000 whereas the estimated value of the improvements on the property was set at R60,000 (Johannesburg City Library, Valuations Roll, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991).
According to the website of the Craigpark Residents’ Association, a Spanish restaurant took over from ‘Between the Chains’, and in 1988 a new restaurant called ‘Frog’ was opened in Building 2 located within the study area. Within a year, this restaurant was voted amongst Johannesburg’s top ten restaurants in the Style Annual Restaurant Awards (www.cra.org.za).
5.2.18 Ownership from 1992 to 2004
The ownership history of this period is not at all well known. It is known that sometime during this period the property was taken over by Snow Ski Investments or Leisure Investments. A Ski and Wintersport Shop was operated from the property during this time. At an unknown time within this overall period, the Scuba Diving Acadamy was also operated from the property. This dive academy had lecture rooms and a heated swimming pool. The diving school and swimming pool appears to have been located in proximity to Building 2.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 29 5.2.19 Ownership from 2004 to 2017
In 2004 the present owner, Mr. Yuri Serfontein, bought the property. He established a music shop in Building 1 as well as a music school and studios in Building 2. According to Mr. Serfontein (pers. comm.), Building 2 had been extensively damaged in a fire at an unknown time before he bought the property in 2004.
5.3 Building Plans
All available building plans for the buildings located within the study area were provided to the author by the project architect, Mr. Michael Madden. These building plans will be individually discussed in this section.
5.3.1 Proposed Alterations and Additions to House (1946)
This building plan represents the earliest plan for the study area that is available. It shows proposed alterations and additions to the house at Building 2. The plan was compiled on 27 August 1946 by William George Whyte from the architectural firm Duncan & Whyte for D. Maynard. Whyte was born in Scotland on 13 February 1905 and was became an Associate of the Royal Institute of British Architects (ARIBA) early in 1929. During October 1928 Whyte moved to South Africa and was employed by J.C. Cook in Johannesburg. By 1934 he was working in the office of Emley & Williamson. At an unknown date thereafter, George Willam Whyte entered into a partnership with T.N. Duncan. The architectural firm Duncan & Whyte was dissolved in 1948, and after working alone for the subsequent 21 years, Whyte entered into a partnership with P.J.L. Powell, P.S.A. Hahn and C. Bristol in 1969. George William Whyte passed away in South Africa on 26 December 1984 (www.artefacts.co.za).
The building plan provides an insight into the appearance and characteristics of the house at Building 2 early in its existence. As far as can be deduced from the building plan, the original building consisted of a south-facing dwelling which had semicircular bay windows flanking a projecting verandah on its southern (front) façade facing towards Jan Smuts Avenue. Its interior layout comprised two bedrooms, two kitchens, two bathrooms, one lounge, one hall, one dining room, two verandahs, a passage way and two verandahs. On the western end of the building a garage and domestic worker accommodation were located.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 30 The proposed alterations and additons to the original building proposed in 1946 comprised the conversion of one kitchen into a third bedroom, a new bathroom attached to the domestic worker accommodation, new domestic worker accommodation to be added to the eastern end of the building, removal of the existing French drain and soil pipes and the installation of a new French drain and vacuum tank as well as new pipes. The architect calculated that these proposed additions and alterations would cost less than £100.
Figure 12 – Cropped sections from the building plan showing the front and rear evelations of the original house at Building 2. On the front elevation, note the bay windows flanking the verandah. On this depiction, the garage can be seen on the left.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 31
Figure 13 – The earliest building plan for any of the structures located within the study area that is available. This plan depicts proposed alterations and additions to the house that is referred to in this report as Building 2. The architect was William George Whyte.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 32 5.3.2 Proposed Alterations to Existing Structure (1980)
This building plan represents the second oldest plan that is available for any of the buildings from the study area. The plan shows proposed alterations to the house at Building 2 for the purposes of a proposed new restaurant. The plan is undated, but was initialed by A. Beaton and J. Vogel on 6 February 1980. As a result, it would appear that the plan was drawn shortly before this date.
The plan was drawn for Boncraig Investments (Pty) Ltd by R. van Wezel. No information for R. van Wezel could be found.
It is clear from this plan that the proposed alterations and additions of 1946 were all implemented, and that the resulting building remained largely unchanged for the subsequent 34 years.
The alterations proposed in this plan were all aimed at converting the existing dwelling into a restaurant. As a result, the proposals included the erection of separate bathrooms for men and women, the establishment of large kitchen and scullery as well as the creation of three dining areas. A number of changes were proposed for the southern (front) façade of the building, including a gable triangle above the main entrance as well as steps leading down from the remainder of the stand (where parking facilities would have been created) to the the main entrance. The garage was also to be demolished and plants planted over it.
Figure 14 – Cropped section from the building plan showing the front and rear evelations as proposed for Building 2 in 1980. On the front elevation, note the new triangle gable as well as the steps.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 33
Figure 15 – The second building plan that is available for the dwelling at Building 2. It depicts proposed alterations to this building to convert it from a dwelling to a restaurant.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 34 5.3.3 Proposed Hobie Showroom (1985)
This section deals with three building plans for the proposed Hobie Showroom at Building 1. The plans were compiled in July and October 1985 by Van Heerden Hutchison Associates Incorporated.
The building plans proposed a new double storey steel and facebrick building where Building 1 is located today. The new building was to be used as a showroom for Hobie Catamarans. As a result, the main section with a very tall height and located on Jan Smuts Avenue, was to be used as the showroom for the catamarans. Behind this section, a lower extension was proposed which comprised a safe room, one office, two store rooms, a tea kitchen, client bathrooms (for men and women) as well as one staff bathroom.
A total of 11 new covered parking areas were proposed immediately adjacent the proposed building, six of which were to be located north of the building as staff parking. The restaurant proposed in 1980 was evidently already in existence and had parking available. The proposed development aimed to establish a total of 26 covered parking spaces across the property.
The building as proposed on these plans was evidently built and is largely still located on site (see Building 1).
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 35
Figure 16 – One of three building plans of the proposed Hobie Showroom. The responsible architects were Van Heerden Hutchison Associates Incorporated.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 36
Figure 17 – Another one of the building plans for the proposed Hobie Showroom.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 37
Figure 18 – Cropped section from the third building plan depicting the proposed Hobie Showroom. This image depicts both the proposed building as well as the existing restaurant, and shows the proposed parking bays.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 38 5.4 Aerial Photographs
Aerial photographs provide a valuable tool for establishing the chronology of buildings, as well as their approximate age. A sequence of aerial photographs were obtained for the study area. Images taken in 1938, 1952, 1962, 1976, 1984 and 1993 were obtained from the National Geo-Spatial Information at the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform in Cape Town.
In the section that follows, the relevant aerial photographs will be discussed. Any observations and conclusions that can be drawn from the study of these aerial photographs will be outlined in these discussions.
5.4.1 Aerial Photograph taken in 1938
The 1938 aerial photograph (NGI, Aerial Photographs, 133_07_06004) represents the oldest aerial photograph depicting the study area that could be found.
This image indicates that the surroundings of the study area showed signs of urban developmentby the late 1930s, although this was still very much at an early stage. While the road network visible on the entire aerial photograph (not depicted in this report) is well developed and very similar in layout to the present road network, all these roads, including Old Pretoria Road (present day Jan Smuts Avenue) were clearly gravel roads at the time. Although a number of dwellings and buildings had evidently been built in the residential township of Craighall, the majority of the proclaimed residential stands depicted on this image had evidently remained largely undeveloped. The owners of a number of the stands containing dwellings, had planted fruit orchards and vegetable gardens on their properties which must have given Craighall an agricultural or semi-agricultural character.
An assessment of this depiction of the study area indicates that the dwelling at Building 2 was already in existence in 1938 (see Point A on image below). The projected verandah can also be identified on this depiction.
A number of small unidentifiable structures are associated with the dwelling. These structures must have been outbuildings. None of these still exist today.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 39 A
Figure 19 – Section of the 1938 aerial photograph (NGI, Aerial Photographs, 133_07_06004). The approximate position of the study area boundary is shown in red stippled line.
5.4.2 Aerial Photograph taken in 1952
The 1952 aerial photograph (NGI, Aerial Photographs, 314_1952_03_42587) represents the second oldest aerial photograph depicting the study area that could be found.
By the time that this aerial photograph was taken, the suburb of Craighall had developed extensively. In the immediate surroundings of the study area, a new dwelling to the east of the study area was in the process of being built.
An assessment of this depiction of the study area still depicts the dwelling at Building 2 (see Point A on image below). At the time that this image was taken, the proposed alterations and additions to the dwelling as proposed in 1946 must have already been completed.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 40 A
Figure 20 – Section of the 1952 aerial photograph (NGI, Aerial Photographs, 314_1952_03_42587). The approximate position of the study area boundary is shown in red stippled line.
5.4.3 Aerial Photograph taken in 1961
The third oldest aerial photograph that could be found, was the 1961 image (NGI, Aerial Photographs, 438_1961_12_04479).
The development of Craighall had evidently continued unabated since the 1952 image was taken, with only a few undeveloped stands visible in the surroundings of the present study area.
An assessment of this depiction of the study area still depicts the dwelling at Building 2 (see Point A on image below).
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 41 A
Figure 21 – Section of the 1961 aerial photograph (NGI, Aerial Photographs, 438_1961_12_04479). The approximate position of the study area boundary is shown in red stippled line.
5.4.4 Aerial Photograph taken in 1976
The subsequent aerial photograph that could be found, was the 1976 image (NGI, Aerial Photographs, 775_1976_02_00288).
The development of Craighall would have continued unabated since the 1961 image was taken. One of the most obvious changes is the development of a very wide throughfare, namely Jan Smuts Avenue. Furthermore, a number of the dwellings along this main road had by now been converted into businesses and offices.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 42 An assessment of this depiction of the study area still depicts the dwelling at Building 2 (see Point A on image below). An unidentified rectangular structure is shown for the first time immediately north of the dwelling. It is not presently known what the function of this structure was. An electrical substation (see Point B below) is shown immediately adjacent to the boundary of the present study area. This substation still exists today.
A
B
Figure 22 – Section of the 1976 aerial photograph (NGI, Aerial Photographs, 775_1976_02_00288). The approximate position of the study area boundary is shown in red stippled line.
5.4.5 Aerial Photograph taken in 1984
The fifth oldest aerial photograph that could be found, was the 1984 image (NGI, Aerial Photographs, 498_190_1984_03_06067).
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 43 The development of Craighall would have continued since the 1976 image was taken. An assessment of this depiction of the study area still depicts the dwelling at Building 2 (see Point A on image below). The conversion of the dwelling into a restaurant as proposed in 1980, would in all likelihood have been completed by this time. An open area to the east of Building 2 appears to have been the parking area for the restaurant (see Point B below). An electrical substation (see Point C) is shown immediately adjacent to the boundary of the present study area. This substation still exists today.
A
B
C
Figure 23 – Section of the 1984 aerial photograph (NGI, Aerial Photographs, 498_190_1984_03_06067). The approximate position of the study area boundary is shown in red stippled line.
5.4.6 Aerial Photograph taken in 1993
The sixth oldest aerial photograph that could be found, was the 1993 image (NGI, Aerial Photographs, 498_311_1993_03_00661).
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 44 An assessment of this depiction of the study area still depicts the dwelling at Building 2 (see Point A on image below). As indicated elsewhere, this building would have long been used as a restaurant. For the first time, Building 1 is depicted (see Point B). At time time, Building 1 would have been used as a Hobie Showroom. An electrical substation (see Point C) is shown immediately adjacent to the boundary of the present study area. This substation still exists today.
A
B
C
Figure 24 – Section of the 1993 aerial photograph (NGI, Aerial Photographs, 498_311_1993_03_00661). The approximate position of the study area boundary is shown in red stippled line.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 45 6 FIELDWORK FINDINGS
A field assessment of the study area was undertaken by a experienced fieldwork team comprising a heritage specialist / archaeologist (Polke Birkholtz) and architectural historian (Mauritz Naudé).
6.1 Introduction
The site contains three buildings: (a) a large warehouse type structure that was erected in c. 1985 and later extended (see Building 1); (b) an old dwelling extended and altered extensively to the point where only the original roof and some parquet flooring sections have remained (see Building 2) and (c) an extensively altered garage at the back of the dwelling (Building 3).
Three detached buildings on the site allowed for large parking space paved across the entire property allowing no opportunity to investigate the site for archaeological material, be it related to the Stone Age, Iron Age or Historic Period.
Building 3
Building 2
Building 1
Figure 25 – The study area and its buildings as depicted on Google Earth.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 46 6.2 Buildings Identified within the Study Area
6.2.1 Building 1 – Music Shop
General Description
The building was designed as a warehouse with steel framework and yellowish face bricks as infill. The building plans for the building was compiled in 1985, which indicates that it was erected shortly thereafter. The building is located on a slight slope allowing the building to be a double volume structure on the side and triple volume on the lower end. The current building has been extended and the floor space was doubled. The original part of the building is located along the street edge right up to the boundary of the site. It is assumed that the building complied with the setback regulations of the City Council at the time of construction, but when Jan Smuts Avenue was widened this set back space was expropriated to allow the road corridor to expand right up to the exterior wall of the warehouse.
The interior of the building consists of a large open space which has been subdivided into horizontal floor areas by the construction of several mezzanines. The building only contains a few windows on the second level and has a large entrance off Jan Smuts avenue.
Figure 26 - Large double volume shop for music instruments (photograph: M. Naude 2017).
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 47
Figure 27 – Western façade of the music shop with paved parking evident.
Figure 28 - Interior of the music shop.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 48 6.2.2 Building 2 – Music Studios
General Description
The old dwelling has been gutted from inside, partially due to a fire that destroyed most of the roof structure. The interior of the dwelling has been redesigned into several spaces of irregular configuration with diagonal walls completely different from the original floor plan of the dwelling. Some sections of the original floor have remained. It was assumed that the building had a suspended wooden floor but no evidence of this floor could be found. Instead some sections of a parquet floor have remained. The original pressed ceiling has been removed completely and some sheets have been used to reconstruct a small section of the ceiling in the music warehouse as part of a display room. The ceiling height in the old dwelling has been lowered and a gypsum board ceiling was installed in all the small studios. A steel grid has been installed above the ceiling to prevent burglars from entering the building through the roof and ceilings. All windows and doors have been removed and the voids were filled with brickwork and plastered. Only the original hipped roof has remained intact. The original dwelling must have had stone quoining at the corners of the building but only a single corner has remained. The entire building has been surrounded by billboards and plastered brick walls extending to double volume height above the original roofline.
Figure 29 - Old dwelling adapted into small music studios (photograph: M. Naude 2016).
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 49
Figure 30 - Old dwelling viewed from the top floor of Building 1 indicating the extent of the extensions and additions – including the carport along the street façade (photograph: M. Naude 2016).
Figure 31 – Inteior of the Old dwelling showing the new passage way providing access to the individual music studios.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 50 6.2.3 Building 3 – Song Studio
General Description
The song studio is located at the back of the site and used to be a garage. The building has been altered extensively to accommodate the song studio. It still has the original plastered brick walling and roof while the interior has been redesigned to accommodate several small rooms.
Figure 32 - Garage of old dwelling adapted into a song studio (photograph: M. Naude 2016)
6.3 Assessment of the Significance of the Identified Buildings
This section deals with an assessment of the significance of the identified heritage resources in terms of the heritage assessment criteria in Section 6(2) or prescribed in Section 7 and relates to Section 38(3) (b) of the National Heritage Resources Act.
According to the Burra Charter ‘cultural significance’ means ‘aesthetic, historic, scientific or social value for past, present or future generations’. Cultural significance is a concept which helps in
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 51 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, 1999).
The categorization into aesthetic, historic, scientific and social values is one approach to understand the concept of cultural significance (Burra Charter, 1999). 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.
6.3.1. Criteria of significance in terms of Section 3(3) of the National Heritage Resources Act.
Criteria Significance 1. The importance of the cultural heritage in the community or Rating pattern of South Africa’s history (Historic and political
significance)
Building 1 – music store: the significance of the site resides in the Low institution and the products it sells and service it renders, not in
the architecture or architectural fabric on the site.
Building 2 – music studios: the significance of the site resides in Low the institution and the products it sells and service it renders, not in the architecture or architectural fabric on the site.
Building 3 – song studio: the significance of the site resides in the Low institution and the products it sells and service it renders, not in the architecture or architectural fabric on the site.
2. Possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of South Rating Africa’s natural or cultural heritage (Scientific significance).
Building 1 – music store: This type of architecture is not rare but Low only uncommon along Jan Smuts Avenue.
Building 2 – music studios: The building has been altered to the Low extent that it has lost its identity and architectural character.
Building 3 – song studio: this type of altered garage is very Low
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 52 common and not rare at all.
3. Potential to yield information that will contribute to an Rating understanding of South Africa’s natural or cultural heritage
(Research/scientific significance)
Building 1 – music store: The building does not make a Low contribution to the history of architecture in South Africa.
Building 2 – music studios: the building has been altered beyond Low recognition of the original intent of the design of the building.
Building 3 – song studio: the building contains no elements or Low features in structure, design or detailing that would contribute to the history of architecture in South Africa.
4. Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a Rating particular class of South Africa’s natural or cultural places or
objects (Scientific significance)
Building 1 – music store: the building is representative of a particular type or class of building design, namely warehouse Low design. This is a particular type of warehouse that also serves as retail outlet for musical instruments.
Building 2 – music studios: the original building was a dwelling but this building cannot be compared with other dwellings due to Low the extensive alterations to its form, style, structure and internal spatial arrangement.
Building 3 – song studio: the original building was used as a garage for a single vehicle. It has not become a song studio. Low
5. Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics Rating valued by a community or cultural group (Aesthetic significance)
Building 1 – music store: the building was designed as a Low warehouse and the only aesthetic in such a design relates to functionality and the creation of a single large interior space with no effort to address the building design from an aesthetic point of view. The interior is the only aspect of the building that contains and reflects any aesthetics or characteristics that may be clustered within the ambit and sprit of aesthetics. In this instance none of the construction work or immovable structural elements and features reflect exceptional aesthetics. The only elements
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 53 that of aesthetic significance are the movables: furniture pieces and exceptional collection of musical instruments.
Building 2 – music studios: the original dwelling has been altered Low to such an extent that it has lost all aesthetic value relating to the original intent of the design.
Building 3 – song studio: the original building never had any Low aesthetic significance and after major alterations has retained this character.
6. Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or Rating technical achievement at a particular period (Scientific
significance)
Building 1 – music store: the building does not reflect exceptional Low engineering or craftsmanship representative of the period when it was constructed.
Building 2 – music studios: the building has lost almost all Low detailing that would have made the original dwelling exceptional in the neighborhood. The 2017 building contains no exceptional architectural detailing, except for the few features that are left of the original dwelling.
Building 3 – song studio: the building contains no features of exceptional creative or technical achievement. Low
7. Strong or special association with a particular community or Rating cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons (Social
significance)
Building 1 – music store: the institution (company) has a special association with the music industry in Johannesburg as it supplies Medium exceptional variety of high class musical instruments to the region.
Building 2 – music studios: the institution serves the community with studios where bands can practice. This is an exclusive service Medium in the neighborhood.
Building 3 – song studio: the institution serves the community Medium with studios where bands can practice. This is an exclusive service
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 54 in the neighborhood.
8. Strong or special association with the life and work of a person, Rating group or organization of importance in the history of South
Africa (Historic significance)
Building 1 – music store: no significant individual or group in the Low history of South Africa are associated with the institution or site.
Building 2 – music studios: no significant individual or group in Low the history of South Africa are associated with the institution or site.
Building 3 – song studio: no significant individual or group in the Low history of South Africa are associated with the institution or site.
9. The significance of the site relating to the history of slavery in Rating South Africa.
Neither the site nor any of the buildings have any association with Low the history of slavery in South Africa:
6.3.2. Significance criteria in terms of historical, artefactual and spatial significance.
Historical 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:
(a) 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).
(b) Architectural significance The objective of this set of criteria is to assess the artefactual significance of the heritage
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 55 resource, its physical condition and meaning as an ‘object’.
(c) Spatial significance Focuses on the context in which the object and place exists and contributed to the landscape, the region and neighborhood.
Criteria Significance
1. Is the site or building associated with a historical person or Rating group?
Building 1 – music store: not associated with a significant person Low or group.
Building 2 – music studios: not associated with a significant Low person or group.
Building 3 – Song studio: not associated with a significant person Low or group.
2. Is the site or building associated with a historical event? Rating
Building 1 – music store: not associated with a significant event. Low
Building 2 – music studios: not associated with a significant event. Low
Building 3 – song studio: not associated with a significant event. Low
3. Is the site or building associated with a religious, economic, Rating social, political or educational activity?
The site has become associated with various commercial
enterprises of which the current business is the most significant. The site and buildings are used for music training and as an outlet for selling musical instruments for the popular music market.
Building 1 – music store: this is a store and a commercial building Low trading in musical instruments
Building 2 – music studios: is a building containing several small Low training studios.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 56
Building 3 – song studio: this is a small-scale studio. Low
4. Is the site or building of archaeological significance Rating
The entire site is covered with buildings or paving and no ground Low is exposed. None of the buildings on the site are older than 100
years and cannot be considered as features of archaeological significance.
5. Are any of the buildings or structures on the site older than 60 Rating years?
Building 1 – music store: the original section of the warehouse Low dates to the mid 1980s.
Building 2 – music studios: according to the desktop study work Medium undertaken for this study, the building was built before 1939.
Building 3 - song studio: it is impossible to determine the date Low without documentary evidence as it has been altered and replastered to obscure the new windows and doors.
Architectural significance (artefactual significance)
These criteria focus on the object or artifact (building or structure or both) itself. They relate to the qualitative aspects of the artifact in terms of technology, period and style.
Criteria Significance
1. Are any of the buildings or structures an important example of a Rating building type?
Building 1 – music store: the building was designed as a Low warehouse and storage facility. It has now been altered into a large shop without altering the warehouse character of the building.
Building 2 – music studios: the building has been altered Low extensively to the point where almost nothing of the original
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 57 building is visible anymore.
Building 3 – song studio: this used to be a garage and a minor Low supporting outbuilding to the original dwelling.
2. Are any of the buildings outstanding examples of a particular Rating style or period.
Building 1 – music store: The building has a steel superstructure Low with infill walls of yellowish face bricks. It is a commercial warehouse type structure serving only as a storage and display facility. The building only has a few windows and a single entrance. It is not an outstanding example of the period neither does it reflect it any specific style.
Building 2 – music studios: The original dwelling which is now serving as a sound studio, would have been a significant building Low from its period and representing a particular style if it was retained and maintained. The building has lost almost every feature and element that may have related to a single period or style.
Building 3 – song studio. The building was intended to be a garage Low for a single vehicle and has not been altered to serve as a
soundproof studio.
3. Do any of the buildings contain fine architectural details and Rating reflect exceptional craftsmanship?
Building 1 – music store: none Low
Building 2 – music studios: this building was originally a dwelling house and isolated features of the dwelling has been retained Low after the fire and the extensive extensions and alterations. The entire exterior has been altered and the only evidence of some Arts and Crafts features is located along the southeastern corner of the building where the prominent stone masonry quoining is exposed (but painted)
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 58
The flooring blocks of the parquet flooring are exceptional. Usually these blocks were manufactured from Transvaal kiaat or Rhodesian teak but it is suspected that the blocks in this building
are made of Partridge wood (Afrikaans: ‘ Patryshout’: Millettia Stuhlmannii). The tree species has almost disappeared in South Africa but is a common wood type in Tanzania, also occurring
further southeast into northern Mozambique. The wood is also referred to as ‘panga-panga’. In some sections of the old passage the parquet flooring was laid in the single herringbone pattern while in another room the parquet flooring was laid according to a brick pattern.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 59
The original dwelling had two fireplaces. As the floor plan of the interior has been changed completely it is impossible to determine in which rooms they were originally located.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 60
Building 3 – song studio: the building contains no significant architectural detailing. Low
4. Are any of the buildings an example of an industrial, Rating engineering or technological development.
Building 1 – music store: although this is a warehouse and of Low industrial original it does not contain any exceptional features that can be considered avante- garde in the engineering industry
Building 2 – music studios: contains no exceptional technological Low features.
Building 3 – song studio: contains no exceptional engineering Low features.
5. What is the state of the architectural and structural integrity of Rating the building?
Please note these observations are made from a heritage point of See text in view only, and do not represent any statement on the structural adjacent integrity of these buildings from a civil engineering standpoint. column
Building 1 – music store: architectural integrity is very good. Structural integrity is very good
Building 2 – music studios: architectural integrity of dwelling is very bad. Structural integrity of current building is good.
Building 3 – song studio: architectural integrity of the original building is fair and the structural integrity is good.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 61 6. Is the building’s current and future use in sympathy with its Rating original use (for which the building was designed)?
Building 1 – music store: the building will be demolished. See text in adjacent
column Building 2 – music studios: the building will be demolished.
Building 3 - song studio: the building will be demolished.
7. Were the alterations done in sympathy with the original design. Rating
Building 1 – music store: the alterations were done in sympathy See text in with the design and existing structure. adjacent column
Building 2 – music studios; The alterations were done without any sympathy with the original design of the dwelling
Building 3 – song studio: the alterations were done inside the building resulting in the exterior remaining the same.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 62 8. Were the additions and extensions done in sympathy with the Rating original design?
Building 1 – music store: the extensions were done in sympathy See text in with the original design and blend into the original architectural adjacent fabric. column
Building 2 – music studios: all later extensions were done without any sympathy for the original building.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 63
Building 3 – song studio: The building could not extended as it is located right in the corner of the property and no space allowed extensions, instead it was subdivided inside.
9. Are any of the buildings the work of a major architect, engineer Rating or builder?
Building 1 – music store: not designed by any significant architect. Low
Building 2 – music studios: not designed by a significant architect. Low
Building 3 – song studio. Do not know whether the building was Low designed. It may have been erected without architectural drawings.
Spatial significance
Even though each building needs to be evaluated as single artifact, the site still needs to be evaluated in terms of its significance in its geographic area, city, town, neighborhood or precinct. This set of criteria determines the spatial significance of the site and any of the buildings and structures.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 64 Criteria Significance
1. Can any of the buildings be considered a landmark in the town Rating or city?
Building 1 – music store: The building is not a landmark in the Low city.
Building 2 – music studios: It is not a landmark in the city. Low
Building 3 – song studio: the building is not a landmark in the city. Low
2. Do any of the buildings contribute to the character of the Rating neighborhood?
The general character of the neighborhood along this section of Low Jan Smuts Avenue reflects mixed land uses resulting in a variety of building types of varying scale such as multistory apartments, some with gardens on ground floor and some with small stores and shops on street level. This section has lost its original single dwelling residential character and the music warehouse and altered façade dwelling fit into the general character of the neighborhood.
3. Do any of the buildings contribute to the character of the square Rating or streetscape?
Building 1 – music store: the music store has quite a visual impact Low at this point along Jan Smuts Avenue. It is not a pedestrian friendly building as its entrance is located at the side of the building. It has no display windows and the face brick walling rises directly from the boundary of the property upwards creating a flat and unsympathetic wall directly along the pavement.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 65
Building 2 – music studios; the former dwelling has become obscured completely from the street view due to the low
plastered brick wall with steel bars along the boundary of this section of the property. The carports behind the fence also contribute to the disappearance of the old dwelling. This is further enhanced by the complete removal of the façade of the original dwelling and the construction of a high and wide billboard along the roof line of the dwelling. The original residential streetscape character has been altered completely and new typical commercial streetscape character was introduced by the large graffiti paintings along the western and southern elevations.
Low
.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 66
Building 3 – song studio: this building is located in the backyard Low and is completely isolated from the streetscape.
4. Do any of the buildings form part of an important group of Rating buildings?
All three buildings on the proposed development site support Low each other in terms of function and use. They have no architectural coherence as they were originally designed and erected to function separately.
The most significant building associated with the buildings on the Medium site is the small transformer building located directly adjacent to the multi storey music warehouse. This transformer building is located outside of the present study area.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 67 6.4 Section 38(3) (c) An assessment of the impact of the development on such heritage resources
The proposal is for the three buildings identified within the study area to be demolished to allow for the construction of a new storage facility by Stor-Age Self Storage (Pty) Ltd.
In the following chapter the impact of the proposed development on the identified heritage sites (in this case the buildings) will be discussed in more detail. Impact assessment risk calculations of these identified impacts will also be undertaken.
6.5 Section 38(3) (d) An evaluation of the impact of the development on heritage resources relative to the sustainable economic benefits to be derived from the development
No site development plan and future land use for the proposed development were presented.
6.6 Section 38(3) (e) The results of consultation with the communities affected by the proposed development and other interested parties regarding the impact of the development on heritage resources.
No public participation process has been initiated yet.
6.7 Section 38(3)(f) If heritage resources will be adversely affected by the proposed development the consideration of alternatives.
As indicated below, none of the buildings identified within the study area have any architectural historical merit. No alternatives were assessed as part of this study.
6.8 Section 38(3)(g) ..plans for mitigation of any adverse effects during and after the completion of the proposed development.
None of the buildings have any architectural historical merit and can be demolished without recording or memorialization.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 68 7 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON IDENTIFIED HERITAGE SITES
7.1 Introduction
An assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the identified heritage sites will be made. Only one of the three buildings located in the study area was found to be older than 60 years, namely Building 2. The assessment of development impacts on this building will be outlined below.
7.2 Assessment of Impacts
7.2.1 Risk Calculation for the Impact of the Proposed Development on Building 2
In this section the impact of the proposed development on Building 2 will be assessed. The proposal is for this building to be demolished. Although the building was originally built during the 1930s, it underwent significant renovations during the early 1980s to convert the original dwelling into a restaurant. Subsequently, between 1993 and 2004, the building was damaged in a fire. The building would have been a significant building from its period and representing a particular style if it was retained and maintained. The building has lost almost every feature and element that may have related to a single period or style and does not have any architectural historical merit.
(Significance + Spatial + Temporal) Probability Impact Risk = X 3 5
(1 + 1 + 5) 4 Impact Risk = X 3 5
IMPACT RISK = 1.87
Table 10: Risk Calculation for the Development Impact on Building 2
IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE SPATIAL SCALE TEMPORAL SCALE PROBABILITY RATING
Very Low Isolated Permanent Very Likely Low
Impact on 1 1 5 4 1.87 Building 2
This calculation has revealed that the impact risk of the proposed development on Building 2 falls within Impact Class 2, which represents a Low Impact Risk. No mitigation would be required.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 69 8 CONCLUSIONS
General
PGS Heritage was appointed by Stor-Age Self Storage (Pty) Ltd to undertake a heritage assessment of the buildings located at 376a Jan Smuts Avenue (Remainder of Erf 222), Craighall, City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng Province.
The site is located along Jan Smuts Avenue in Craighall, Johannesburg. Three buildings occur on the site: (a) a music store cum warehouse (Building 1); (b) an old dwelling converted into small music studios (Building 2) and (c) an old garage converted into a song studio (Building 3). It is proposed that the buildings be demolished and a new development introduced to the site.
Archival and Historical Desktop Study
An archival and historical desktop study of the study area was undertaken. This study has revealed the following information regarding the three buildings located within the study area:
• Building 1
The building was originally constructed as a Hobie Showroom in c. 1985. The building is currently used as a music shop.
• Building 2
This is the oldest building located within the study area. It was built by Mr. William Charles Higgins during the c. 1930s. At the time, the house was known as Tipperary and was occupied by the Higgins family. A number of different owners followed, and in 1980, proposed alterations were drawn up to convert the dwelling into a restaurant. The first restaurant, named Between the Chains, opened its doors in 1982. Subsequently, a Spanish restaurant operated from this building followed by a well known restaurant named Frog. At an unknown time between 1993 and 2004 the building was extensively damaged in a fire. At the moment the building is used as a music studio.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 70 • Building 3
A song studio is located here. The building is not old and was erected in the relatively recent past.
Fieldwork Findings
A site visit was undertaken by an experienced fieldwork tema comprising a heritage specialist / archaeologist as well as an architectural historian. Three buildings were identified within the study area.
The site visit established that the music shop (Building 1) has no architectural significance. Its greatest cultural significance lies with the movable content inside the building and the role the company has played as a commercial outlet for high class musical instruments and related equipment.
Although the remains of a dwelling older than 60 years occur on site (Building 2), it has been extended, altered and changed so extensively that only the hipped roof, two fireplaces and some small sections of the parquet flooring have remained intact. The building has lost all its significant architectural characteristics.
The third building identified within the study area (Building 3), also has no architectural or historical significance.
Recommendations / Required Mitigation Measures
None of the buildings identified within the study area have any architectural historical merit and can be demolished without recording or memorialization. As a result, no mitigation would be required.
General Recommendations
The following general recommendations would be required:
• This Heritage Assessment report must be submitted to the Provincial Heritage Resources Agency for Gauteng.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 71 • A permit application for demolition of the buildings must be lodged with the Provincial Heritage Resources Agency for Gauteng. • No demolitions may be undertaken until such time that the relevant permit allowing these activities to be undertaken, has been received from the Provncial Heritage Resources Agency for Gauteng.
Conclusion
On the condition that the recommendations made in this report are adhered to, no heritage reasons can be given for the development and demolitions to be halted.
9 PREPARERS
Polke Birkholtz - Project Manager / Heritage Specialist / Author Mauritz Naudé – Architectural Historian / Co-Author
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 72 10 REFERENCES
10.1 Published Sources
Brodie, N. 2008. The Joburg Book: A Guide to the City’s History, People & Places. Pan Macmillan South Africa, Johannesburg.
Smith, A. 1971. Johannesburg Street Names. Juta & Company.
10.2 Archival Sources
National Archives, MHG, 4482/46 National Archives, MHG, 5859/47 National Archives, MHG, 930/52
10.3 Johannesburg City Library
Valuation Rolls for Craighall, 1937 - 1991
10.4 Internet Sources www.artefacts.co.za www.cra.org.za www.deltaenviro.org.za www.theheritageportal.co.za www.wikipedia.org
10.5 National Geo-Spatial Information, Department of Rural Development
The historic aerial photographs and topographic maps were all obtained from National Geo-Spatial Information at the Department of Rural Development in Cape Town.
10.6 Google Earth and Google Earth Pro
All contemporary aerial views used in this report were obtained using Google Earth and Google
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 73 Earth Pro. This is true for overlays made as well.
10.7 Personal Communication
Mr. Yuri Serfontein, 16 January 2017, 376a Jan Smuts Avenue, Craighall, Johannesburg.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 74
Appendix A LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS – TERMINOLOGY AND ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 75 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
In areas where there has not yet been a systematic survey to identify conservation-worthy places, a permit is required to alter or demolish any structure older than 60 years. This will apply until a survey has been completed and identified heritage resources are formally protected.
Archaeological and palaeontological sites, materials, and meteorites are the source of our understanding of the evolution of the earth, life on earth and the history of people. In terms of the heritage legislation, permits are required to damage, destroy, alter, or disturb such sites. People who already possess such material are required to register it. The management of heritage resources is integrated with environmental resources and this means that before development takes place heritage resources are assessed and, if necessary, rescued or mitigated.
In addition to the formal protection of culturally significant graves, all graves which are older than 60 years and are not in a cemetery (such as ancestral graves in rural areas) are protected. The legislation protects the interests of communities who have an interest in the graves: they must be consulted before any disturbance takes place. The graves of victims of conflict and those associated with the liberation struggle should be identified, cared for, protected and memorials erected in their honour.
Anyone who intends to undertake a development must notify the heritage resource authority and if there is reason to believe that heritage resources will be affected, an impact assessment report must be compiled at the applicant’s (i.e. mining company or development company) cost. Thus, the applicant will be able to proceed without uncertainty about whether work will have to be stopped if an archaeological or heritage resource is discovered.
According to the National Heritage Act (Act 25 of 1999 section 32) it is stated that:
An object or collection of objects, or a type of object or a list of objects, whether specific or generic, that is part of the national estate and the export of which SAHRA deems it necessary to control, may be declared a heritage object, including – • objects recovered from the soil or waters of South Africa, including archaeological and palaeontological objects, meteorites and rare geological specimens; • visual art objects;
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 76 • military objects; • numismatic objects; • objects of cultural and historical significance; • objects to which oral traditions are attached and which are associated with living heritage; • objects of scientific or technological interest; • books, records, documents, photographic positives and negatives, graphic material, film or video or sound recordings, excluding those that are public records as defined in section 1 (xiv) of the National Archives of South Africa Act, 1996 ( Act No. 43 of 1996), or in a provincial law pertaining to records or archives; and • any other prescribed category.
Under the National Heritage Resources Act (Act No. 25 of 1999), provisions are made that deal with, and offer protection to, all historic and prehistoric cultural remains, including graves and human remains.
2. GRAVES AND CEMETERIES
Graves younger than 60 years fall under Section 2(1) of the Removal of Graves and Dead Bodies Ordinance (Ordinance no. 7 of 1925) as well as the Human Tissues Act (Act 65 of 1983) and National Health Act (Act 61 0f 2003) and are the jurisdiction of the National Department of Health and the relevant Provincial Department of Health and must be submitted for final approval to the Office of the relevant Provincial Premier. This function is usually delegated to the Provincial MEC for Local Government and Planning or in some cases the MEC for Housing and Welfare. Authorisation for exhumation and reinterment must also be obtained from the relevant local or regional council where the grave is situated, as well as the relevant local or regional council to where the grave is being relocated. All local and regional provisions, laws and by-laws must also be adhered to. In order to handle and transport human remains, the institution conducting the relocation should be authorised under Section 24 of Act 65 of 1983 (Human Tissues Act).
Graves older than 60 years, but younger than 100 years, fall under Section 36 of Act 25 of 1999 (National Heritage Resources Act) as well as the Human Tissues Act (Act 65 of 1983) and National Health Act (Act 61 0f 2003) and are the jurisdiction of the South African Heritage Resource Agency (SAHRA). The procedure for Consultation Regarding Burial Grounds and Graves (Section 36(5) of Act 25 of 1999) is applicable to graves older than 60 years that are situated outside a formal cemetery
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 77 administrated by a local authority. Graves in the category located inside a formal cemetery administrated by a local authority will also require the same authorisation as set out for graves younger than 60 years over and above SAHRA authorisation.
If the grave is not situated inside a formal cemetery but is to be relocated to one, permission from the local authority is required and all regulations, laws and by-laws set by the cemetery authority must be adhered to.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 78
Appendix B CURRICULUM VITAE
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 79 PROFESSIONAL CURRICULUM FOR POLKE DOUSSY BIRKHOLTZ
Name: Polke Doussy Birkholtz
Date & Place of Birth: 9 February 1975 – Klerksdorp, North West Province, South Africa
Place of Tertiary Education & Dates Associated:
Institution: University of Pretoria Qualification: BA (Cum Laude) - Bachelor of Arts Specializing in Archaeology, History & Anthropology Date: 1996
Institution: University of Pretoria Qualification: BA Hons (Cum Laude) - Bachelor of Arts with Honours Degree Specializing in Archaeology Date: 1997
Qualifications:
BA - Degree specialising in Archaeology, History and Anthropology BA Hons - Professional Archaeologist
Memberships:
Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) Professional Member of the CRM Section of ASAPA
Overview of Post Graduate Experience:
1997 – 2000 – Member/Archaeologist – Archaeo-Info 2001 – 2003 – Archaeologist/Heritage Specialist – Helio Alliance 2000 – 2008 – Member/Archaeologist/Heritage Specialist – Archaeology Africa 2003 - Present – Director / Archaeologist / Heritage Specialist – PGS Heritage
Languages: English: Speak, Read & Write & Afrikaans: Speak, Read & Write
Total Years’ Experience: 17 Years
Experience Related to the Scope of Work:
• Polke has worked as a HERITAGE SPECIALIST / ARCHAEOLOGIST / HISTORIAN on more than 275 projects, and acted as PROJECT MANAGER on almost all of these projects. His experience include the following:
o Development of New Sedimentation and Flocculation Tanks at Rand Water’s Vereeniging Pumping Station, Vereeniging, Gauteng Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Greenline.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 80 o EThekwini Northern Aqueduct Project, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal. Heritage Impact Assessment for Strategic Environmental Focus. o Johannesburg Union Observatory, Johannesburg, Gauteng Province. Heritage Inventory for Holm Jordaan. o Development at Rand Water’s Vereeniging Pumping Station, Vereeniging, Gauteng Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Aurecon. o Comet Ext. 8 Development, Boksburg, Gauteng Province. Phase 2 Heritage Impact Assessment for Urban Dynamics. o Randjesfontein Homestead, Midrand, Gauteng Province. Baseline Heritage Assessment with Nkosinathi Tomose for Johannesburg City Parks. o Rand Leases Ext. 13 Development, Roodepoort, Gauteng Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Marsh. o Proposed Relocation of the Hillendale Heavy Minerals Plant (HHMP) from Hillendale to Fairbreeze, KwaZulu-Natal. Heritage Impact Assessment for Goslar Environmental. o Portion 80 of the farm Eikenhof 323 IQ, Johannesburg, Gauteng Province. Heritage Inventory for Khare Incorporated. o Comet Ext. 14 Development, Boksburg, Gauteng Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Marsh. o Rand Steam Laundries, Johannesburg, Gauteng Province. Archival and Historical Study for Impendulo and Imperial Properties. o Mine Waste Solutions, near Klerksdorp, North West Province. Heritage Inventory for AngloGold Ashanti. o Consolidated EIA and EMP for the Kroondal and Marikana Mining Right Areas, North West Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Aquarius Platinum. o Wilkoppies Shopping Mall, Klerksdorp, North West Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Centre for Environmental Management. o Proposed Vosloorus Ext. 24, Vosloorus Ext. 41 and Vosloorus Ext. 43 Developments, Ekurhuleni District Municipality, Gauteng Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Enkanyini Projects. o Proposed Development of Portions 3, 6, 7 and 9 of the farm Olievenhoutbosch 389 JR, City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Marsh. o Proposed Development of Lotus Gardens Ext. 18 to 27, City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Pierre Joubert. o Proposed Development of the site of the old Vereeniging Hospital, Vereeniging, Gauteng Province. Heritage Scoping Assessment for Lekwa. o Proposed Demolition of an Old Building, Kroonstad, Free State Province. Phase 2 Heritage Impact Assessment for De Beers Consolidated Mines. o Proposed Development at Westdene Dam, Johannesburg, Gauteng Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Newtown. o West End, Central Johannesburg, Gauteng Province. Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment for the Johannesburg Land Company. o Kathu Supplier Park, Kathu, Northern Cape Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Synergistics.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 81 o Matlosana 132 kV Line and Substation, Stilfontein, North West Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Anglo Saxon Group and Eskom. o Marakele National Park, Thabazimbi, Limpopo Province. Cultural Resources Management Plan for SANParks. o Cullinan Diamond Mine, Cullinan, Gauteng Province. Heritage Inventory for Petra Diamonds. o Highveld Mushrooms Project, Pretoria, Gauteng Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Mills & Otten. o Development at the Reserve Bank Governor’s Residence, Pretoria, Gauteng Province. Archaeological Excavations and Mitigation for the South African Reserve Bank. o Proposed Stones & Stones Recycling Plant, Johannesburg, Gauteng Province. Heritage Scoping Report for KV3. o South East Vertical Shaft Section of ERPM, Boksburg, Gauteng Province. Heritage Scoping Report for East Rand Proprietary Mines. o Proposed Development of the Top Star Mine Dump, Johannesburg, Gauteng Province. Detailed Archival and Historical Study for Matakoma. o Soshanguve Bulk Water Replacement Project, Soshanguve, Gauteng Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for KWP. o Biodiversity, Conservation and Participatory Development Project, Swaziland. Archaeological Component for Africon. o Camdeboo National Park, Graaff-Reinet, Eastern Cape Province. Cultural Resources Management Plan for SANParks. o Main Place, Central Johannesburg, Gauteng Province. Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment for the Johannesburg Land Company. o Modderfontein Mine, Springs, Gauteng Province. Detailed Archival and Historical Study for Consolidated Modderfontein Mines. o Proposed New Head Office for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Pretoria, Gauteng Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Holm Jordaan Group. o Proposed Modification of the Lukasrand Tower, Pretoria, Gauteng Province. Heritage Assessment for IEPM. o Proposed Road between the Noupoort CBD and Kwazamukolo, Northern Cape Province. Heritage Impact Assessment for Gill & Associates. o Proposed Development at the Johannesburg Zoological Gardens, Johannesburg, Gauteng Province. Detailed Archival and Historical Study for Matakoma.
• Polke’s KEY QUALIFICATIONS:
o Project Management o Archaeological and Heritage Management o Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment o Archaeological and Heritage Fieldwork o Archival and Historical Research o Report Writing
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 82 • Polke’s INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EXPERIENCE:
o MS Office – Word, Excel, & Powerpoint o Google Earth o Garmin Mapsource o Adobe Photoshop o Corel Draw
I, Polke Doussy Birkholtz, hereby confirm that the above information contained in my CV is true and correct.
______5 January 2016 PD Birkholtz Date
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 83
CV: MAURITZ NAUDÉ (2015)
Qualifications
BA - Archaeology (Pretoria) BA – Hons Art History (Pretoria) Post Graduate Diploma - Museology (Pretoria) MA - Architecture – Conservation (WITS) D. Phil – Dept Architecture and Landscape Architecture (Pretoria) current - to be completed.
Professional Experience
1) CURATOR AND CONSERVATOR
2011-2015 – Senior Conservationist and Curator for buildings and structures: Architecture. Ditsong: National Museum of Cultural History.
1980-1983 – Curator Botshabelo Mission Station and South Ndebele Open Air Museum (Middelburg – Mpumalanga Province)
2) RESEARCHER
1990-2009 - Senior researcher - National Cultural History Museum, Pretoria (Heritage Resources Management: conservation of architecture and the built environment)
1984-1990 – Researcher – National Cultural History Museum, Pretoria (Heritage sites and historic buildings)
1977-1979 – Research assistant – Department of Archaeology (University of Pretoria)
3) LECTURER
2015 - Part time lecturer – History of the Environment, Dept Engineering, Built Environment and Information Technology, University of Pretoria
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 84 2011-2013 – Part time lecturer – BA Honors (Museum Sciences), Heritage and museum development. Dept of Historical and Heritage studies, Univ of Pretoria
1996-2015 - Part time lecturer – Post Graduate Diploma Museology: Module 1: Conservation of architecture; Module 2: Research in the Museum. Dept of Historical and Heritage Studies, Univ Pretoria.
2002-2015 - Part time lecturer - Environmental Law (Heritage legislation) Centre for Environmental Management (CEM), University of the North West (Potchefstroom campus)
2004-2010 - Part time lecturer - Dept of Architecture, Tshwane University of Technology (Conservation and Theory of Design)
2008-2009 – Guest lecturer – Architectural history and the assessment of buildings, Dept of Art History, Visual Arts and Musicology, UNISA.
External examiner and co-study leader
2014 - MA thesis: The cultural significance of the church of the Vow (Pietermaritzburg). Dept of Historical and heritage studies, University of Pretoria.
4) EXPERT CONSULTANT: CONSERVATION OF BUILDINGS AND HISTORIC SITES
1995-2015 - Consultant - Assessment of historic sites and buildings
2000-2006 - Member of Heritage task group: Mapungubwe National Park (World Heritage Site)
2004-2009 – Member of South African Champion Trees Committee (National Committee – Dept of Water Affairs and Forestry).
2007 -2015 – Editorial Committee ‘South African Journal for Art History’ (Accredited Journal).
Heritage assessment projects in past twelve (12) years
2015 – Heritage assessment of Caledonian Sport grounds. Arcadia, Pretoria 2015 – Public participation process for proposed new buildings and alterations to former Government Garage, Pretoria 2015 – Heritage assessment of old farmstead on the farm Der Brochen in Steelpoort Valley 2015 – Heritage assessment of redundant Detonators Campus at Modderfontein Dynamite factory, Midrand 2015 – Public participation process for renovations on Grootkerk Bosman Street Pretoria. 2015 – Inventorying and assessment of heritage sites and monuments within the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Council region
2014 – Urban heritage sensitivity study Salvokop 2014 –Architectural heritage assessment Government Garage buildings and campus 2014 – Mitigation of design and reuse of a portion of the Government Garage site for Government printing Services
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 85 2014 - Heritage assessment of farmstead and buildings on the farm Honingkrantz Postmasburg (Northern Cape Province) 2014 – Architectural assessment of dwellings in Lunnon Street Hatfield (Pretoria) 2014 – Heritage assessment and rehabilitation guidelines for reuse of semi-detached dwellings Oak Avenue Cullinan (Petra Diamonds) 2014 – Heritage assessment of Grootkerk (Bosman Street), Pretoria 2014 – Recording of old farm dwellings on the farm Steenkoolspruit (Witbank district) Mpumalanga Province 2014 – Heritage Assessment of historic farmstead and buildings on the farm Zwartkoppies (Pretoria)
2013 – Architectural assessment of historic buildings at redundant Durban Roodepoort Deep mine village (Roodepoort) 2013 – Heritage assessment of historic farmstead on the farm Mooifontein, Witbank district (Mpumalanga Province). 2013 – Heritage assessment of old farmstead - Kuruman small holdings, (Northern Cape Province) 2013 – Urban heritage sensitivity study – for proposed new Rapid Bus Transit route from Kempton Park to Thembisa (Gauteng Province). 2013 – Heritage assessment of TOLAB site and building, Pretoria City centre 2013 - Heritage assessment of old farmsteads on the farm Steenkoolspruit, Witbank district (Mpumalanga Province) 2013 – Heritage assessment of historic Bakker Pharmacy building, Modimolle (Limpopo Province) 2013 – Heritage assessment of historic mine building at Voorspoed diamond mine Kroonstad (Freestate Province) 2013 – Architectural recording of historic mine building at Voorspoed diamond mine Kroonstad (Freestate Province) 2013 – Heritage assessment of all buildings at Trans-Oranje School for the Deaf, Pretoria (Gauteng Province).
2012 – Assessment of historic buildings on former Durban Roodepoort Deep mining village 2012 – Mitigation measures for re-use of buildings on site for former Rand Leases mining village (Boksburg) 2012 – Heritage assessment of Benoni City Hall 2012 – Heritage assessment of buildings at Rustenburg Prison 2012 – Heritage assessment of buildings at Lichtenburg Prison 2012 – Assessment of old black mine workers compound of Rand Leases Mine - Boksburg 2012 – Assessment of historic farm dwellings on the farm Steenkoolspruit – Witbank district 2012 – Assessment of historic dwellings in Pretorius Street Hatfield 2012 – Assessment of historic dwellings in Flowers street Capital Park 2012 – Assessment of historic Aviation and navigation centre Bapsfontein 2012 – Assessment of farm dwellings of the historic Borchards family Levubu (Limpopo Province) 2012 – Assessment of historic industrial shed Olifantsfontein (Gauteng) 2012 – Assessment of historic Wesfort Leprosy Hospital site 2012 – Rehabilitation guidelines for proposed maintenance and restoration work on Kruger House 2012 – Assessment of historic Vereeniging Hospital – Vereeniging (Gauteng) 2012 – Assessment of historic buildings along proposed BRT route in the city centre and Sunnyside 2012 – Assessment of historic dwellings in Kotze Street, Sunnyside 2012 – Drafting a CMP framework for historic Rand Water pumping station and boiler facility,Vereeniging
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 86 2011 – Heritage assessment of alterations to eastern façade of Pretoria Station Building 2011 – Assessment of dwelling of former Director of SA Mint, Waterkloof, Pretoria 2011 – Heritage assessment of buildings at Cullinan mine (Petra Diamonds) 2011 – Assessment of old dwellings for proposed Eastwoods Mall – Arcadia 2011 – Conservation Management Policy framework: Pioneer Museum 2011 – Conservation Management Policy framework: Sammy Marks Museum 2011 – Conservation Management Policy framework: Willem Prinsloo Agricultural Museum 2011 – Conservation Management Policy framework: National Museum of Cultural History 2011 – Conservation Management Policy framework: Kruger Museum 2011 – Assessment of historic stone field post buildings Machadodorp Mpumalanga 2011 – Architectural recording of farm houses on proposed site for new Kusile Power Station Witbank
2010 – Assessment of site proposed for Department of Statistics new Head Offices, Salvokop, Pretoria. 2010 – Assessment of historic buildings on former property of ERPM Mine Boksburg 2010 - Assessment of historic buildings on redundant ERPM Eastern Shaft site, Boksburg 2010 – Assessment of decommissioned filtering dams Rand Water Board Vereenging 2010 - Assessment of historic turbine buildings, Rand water Board Vereenging 2010 – Assessment of industrial buildings and structures of Cullinan Mine 2010 – Assessment of old dwellings Park and Eastwood Streets Arcadia, Pretoria. 2010 – Assessment and mitigation of old farm dwelling Northam, Northwest Province.
2009 – Assessment of industrial buildings and structures on the farm Wilge River (Cullinan Mine) 2009 – Assessment of married quarters housing complex Rand Leases Mining (Roodepoort) 2009 – Assessment of old magistrates Court Building Naboomspruit (Limpopo Province) 2009 – Assessment of old Police Station building Bolubedu – Tzaneen. 2009 – Assessment of old magistrates Court Building Dzanani (Limpopo Province) 2009 – Assessment old magistrates Court building Shilvavusiku (Limpopo Province) 2009 – Assessment of farm buildings on the farm Goedehoop Middelburg district 2009 – Assessment of old dwellings in Brooklyn and Arcadia 2009- Assessment of old dwelling Pomona, Kempton Park (Gauteng) 2009 – Assessment of proposed development plan for Hendrik Potgieter Street development (Klerksdorp) 2009 – Recording of three old dwellings as part of the Westridge mall development (Klerksdorp) 2009 – Assessment of Post Office buildings – Menlyn Park (Pretoria) 2009 – Assessment of Mutual Park shopping mall - Rosebank (Johannesburg) 2009 – Assessment of old dwellings in Krugersdorp 2009 - Assessment of site for proposed Westridge Mall development (Klerksdorp)
2008 – Recording of old buildings for proposed Ngwenya River Lodge (Brits) 2008 – Recording of old buildings for proposed Pollak Park development (Springs) 2008 – Conservation management plan for the re-use of old buildings as part of the Pollak Park development (Springs) 2008 – Recording of old dwelling on the farm Leitrim – Heilbron 2008 – Assessment of archaeological sites on the farm Zwartkoppies (Pretoria) 2008 – Proposed mitigation of site of the former 2008 – Conservation management plan for Berea Sport Club buildings as part of the proposed new Land Affairs Head Offices 2008 – Conservation Management Plan for historic Goudkoppie site Klerksdorp 2008 – Assessment of old hangers and sheds at the Medical and Pharmaceutical Depot of the South African Department of Defense, Pretoria.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 87
2007 – Assessment of 1902 -Wanooka House, (Park Town Johannesburg) 2007 – Assessment of 1914 dwelling (Houghton, Johannesburg) 2007 – Assessment of 1902 workers compounds Cinderella Mine (Benoni, Gauteng) 2007 – Assessment of remains of mining structures Randfontein mine (Randfontein) 2007 – Assessment of 1930 dwellings (Hatfield, Pretoria) 2007 – Drafting of an interface document for integrated management plan (ISM) for Union Buildings (Pretoria) 2007 – Assessment of buildings at the Johannesburg Observatory 2007 – Assessment of single quarters housing complex Rand Leases Mining Co 2007 – Assessment of historic Magistrates Court (Rustenburg, North West Province) 2007 – Heritage sensitivity study of University of Pretoria campuses 2007 – Assessment of buildings (Klerksdorp) 2007 - Assessment of buildings and structures Bob van Reenen Sport Stadium (Klerksdorp). 2007 – Assessment of dwelling (Ruimsig, Krugersdorp) 2007 – Sensitivity study Kopanong Precint - City Centre of Johannebsurg 2007 – Assessment of old farmstead Hartebeestpoort (Akasia). 2007 – Assessment of buildings Berea Park Sports Grounds (Pretoria)
2006 – Urban Heritage sensitivity study for Precincts 1,2,3,4,5,6, and 7 for Pretoria Strategic Development Framework (SDF) 2006 – Characterisation of Precincts 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7 for Pretoria Strategic Development Framework (SDF) 2006 - Assessment of buildings Oeverzicht Sunnyside (Pretoria). 2006 – Assessment of Springkell Hospital Modderfontein Dynamite Factory, Midrand. 2006 - Heritage assessment of Pretoria Jewish Synagogue 2006 - Assessment of buildings Ferreirasdorp (Johannesburg City Centre) 2006 – Assessment of buildings Marshallstown, (Johannesburg City Centre).
2005 – Research and text for exhibition on the history of Church Square 2005 – Recording of remains of workers housing Rooigrond Brits 2005 – Assessment of farm buildings Ngwehya River, (Brits) 2005 – Assessment of 1886 outbuildings and dwellings on the farm Zwartkoppies (Pretoria) 2005 – Assessment of 1935 buildings Rand Airport (Germiston).
2004 - Recording of archaeological remains in proposed development area on farm Brakfontein (Centurion). 2004 - Site inventories of three sites proposed for the new head offices of the Department of Foreign Affairs (Pretoria) 2004 - Heritage impact assessment of the proposed “Lalela” Freedom of speech platform on Church Square (Pretoria). 2004 – Assessment of farm buildings and structures Vredefort Dome World Heritage Site.
2003 - Preliminary Heritage Impact Assessment of the proposed Casa Giovanetti executive apartments in Niew Muckleneuk (Pretoria). 2003 Assessment of National Heritage Site Klerksvly in the Golden Gate National Park. 2003 - Archaeological phase 1 assessment for proposed upgrade of road D2900 Siyabuswa. 2003 - Heritage Assessment of site proposed for KFC development Polokwane (Limpopo Province) 2003 - Mitigation of archaeological sites. St Lucia National Park (World Heritage Site) 2003 - Reconstruction and restoration of historic dwelling in Aoub River (Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park). Client: SANParks
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 88 2003 - Heritage Impact Assessment Phase 2 Gautrain Speed Rail Client : Bohlweki Environmental Consulting 2003 - Assessment of dwelling house in Otto Street (Krugersdorp) 2003 - Assessment of old buildings in proposed residential area of Devland 33, (Soweto). Client: Helio Alliance
2002 - Heritage assessment in the proposed road corridor for route K97 (Bon Accord). 2002 - Heritage impact assessment in area proposed for development at ESCOM head offices (Witbank). 2002 - Heritage assessment in the proposed interchange of routes K57 and Atlas road (Kempton Park). 2002 - Desk study on historic features in area proposed for Department of Environment Affairs and tourism new head offices (Pretoria). 2002 - Heritage Impact Assessment Phase 1 Gautrain Speed Rail. 2002 - Assessment of remains of structures in proposed new residential area (Kathlehong). 2002 - Heritage impact assessment in proposed road corridor K111 (Kempton Park). 2002 - Heritage impact assessment in Proposed road corridor Atlas Road (Kempton Park). 2002 - Heritage impact assessment for EMP for proposed development of Municipal stone quarry, (Bon Accord). 2002 - Assessment of structures in proposed development area of Brakfontein (Centurion). 2002 - Recordings of historic farmstead of the farm Brakfontein (Centurion). 2002. Assessment of all old buildings and farmsteads in proposed Vhembe Dongola Transfrontier Park (World Heritage Site). 2002. Recording of old farmsteads (Witbank). 2002 Assessment of old Modderfontein Mine workers compound, Brakpan East. 2002. Assessment of dwelling houses in Luipaardsvlei, (Krugersdorp). 2002 - Heritage assessment in proposed road corridor for re-alignment of Jochemus Street (Moreleta Park, Pretoria). 2002 - Heritage assessment in area proposed for Zwartland residential development (Centurion). 2002 - Assessment of historic structures and buildings on Zwartkops Country Club for proposed new residential development (Zwartkops).
5) PUBLICATIONS
Accredited Journals
2014 – Bellman hangars, structures of scale and functionality. South African Journal of Art History.
2010 – Circular structures and buildings associated with vernacular farm architecture and folk engineering. South African Journal for Art History.
2010 – A typology for ‘waenhuise’ in the vernacular farm architecture of the trans-Vaal River region. South African Journal for Art History.
2009 – The selective use of slate in vernacular farm buildings and structures north of the Vaal River. SA Journal of Art History (Vol: 24, nr2)
2007 – A legacy of rondavels and rondavel houses in the northern interior of South Africa. SA Journal of Art History.
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 89 2004 – A legacy of timber frame sheds and shelters in the trans-Vaal River region. SA Journal for Art History
2004 – Oral evidence on the construction of vernacular farm dwellings in the Waterberg (Limpopo Province). SA Journal of Cultural History.
2002 – Erich Mayer’s depiction of the vernacular hut and multiple hut building tradition. SA Journal for Art History
2000 – Vernacular stone buildings and structures on farmsteads in the southern districts of the Mpumalanga Province. SA Journal for Cultural History.
Published Peer Reviewed Articles
2013 – Manufacturing of iron and related metal products in South Africa during the Second World War (1939-1945). Research Journal Ditsong National Museum of Cultural History (Vol 8).
2013 – Towards sustainable design and sympathetic site development; the new KPMG campus annex (Parktown, Johannesburg). Research Journal Ditsong National Museum of Cultural History (Vol 8).
2012 – Supporting outbuildings on farmsteads north of the Vaal River. Research Journal Ditsong National Museum of Cultural History (Vol 7).
2012 – The animal housing complex, a lesser building on the Hartebeestpoort farmstead. Research Journal Ditsong National Museum of Cultural History (Vol 7).
2011 – Indigenous wood types north of the Vaal River used for construction and as timber in vernacular buildings during the period 1840-1940. Research Journal (Vol 6). Pretoria: Ditsong National Museum of Cultural History.
2011 – The use of dolerite at a remote stock kraal field post on the farm Rietvlei in the Machadodorp district (Mpumalanga Province). Research Journal (Vol 6). Pretoria: Ditsong National Museum of Cultural History.
2010 – Shelter and place making: from ‘association’ to ‘construction’. Research Journal (Vol 5). Pretoria: Ditsong National Museum of Cultural History.
2010 – The ‘presence’ of a Highveld farm house. Research Journal (Vol 5). Pretoria: Ditsong National Museum of Cultural History.
2010 – Matching, scratching and patching materials. The Green Building Handbook, South Africa, the essential guide (Vol. 3) CSIR: Section Building Environment.
2009 – Building technology associated with the construction of early frontier dwellings; the example of the Hartebeestpoort dwelling (Pretoria). Research Journal (Vol 4). Pretoria: Ditsong National Museum of Cultural History.
2009 – Prominent entrepreneurs and businessmen associated with the first hundred years of the economic history of Pretoria. Research Journal (Vol 4). Pretoria: Ditsong National Museum of
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 90 Cultural History.
2008 – Oral evidence on aspects of folk life during the first hundred years (1840-1940) of frontier settlement in the Waterberg (Limpopo Province). Research Journal (Vol 3). Pretoria: National Cultural History Museum .
2008 – Engineering structures and buildings associated with the history of industry in Gauteng and its environs. Research Journal (Vol 3), Pretoria: National Cultural History Museum.
2007 – Silverton Tannery and other early industries in Pretoria. Research Journal (Vol 2). Pretoria: National Cultural History Museum.
2007 – The architectural significance of the Pioneer House in Silverton (Pretoria). Research Journal (Vol 2). Pretoria: National Cultural History Museum.
2006 – Conservation of the built heritage – unpacked. Research Journal (Vol 1). Pretoria: National Cultural History Museum.
2006 – Urban conservation and sustainability: facing complexities and exploring different approaches (Vol 1). Research Journal. Pretoria: National Cultural History Museum.
2005 – Beyond the frontier history of the Vredefort Dome area. Reimhold, W. U. and Gibson R.L. (Eds) Meteorite impact, the danger from space and South Africa’s mega impact, the Vredefort structure. Johannesburg: Chris van Rensburg Publishers.
2004 – Historic landscape characterization (HLC) as an essential objective for layering of the rural landscape. Research by the National Cultural History Museum (Vol 13). Pretoria: National Cultural History Museum.
2003 – Aspects of architectural conservation for the museologist. Chapter 1: Museums and architecture – a shift to variety and place making. Chapter 3: The museologist and architectural research. Chapter 4: The museologist and the conservation of architecture. Chapter 5: Museums and the presentation of architecture. Chapter 6: Oral evidence on the historic buildings and structures on the Klerksvly farmstead in the former Qwa-Qwa National Park. Chapter 7: Architectural significance of the 1886 homestead on the farm Zwartkoppies (Pretoria).
2002 – Assessing the feature or the whole: the Lalela - Freedom of Speech Platform on Church Square, Pretoria.
2000 – Cultural heritage and the environmental impact assessment process. Research by the National Cultural History Museum. Pretoria: National Cultural History Museum
1999 – The construction of homesteads, shelters and other structures of survival associated with the Anglo Boer War. Research by the National Cultural History Museum. Pretoria: National Cultural History Museum
1998 – Oral evidence of vernacular buildings and structures on farmsteads in the Waterberg (Northern Province). Research by the National Cultural History Museum. Pretoria: National Cultural History Museum
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 91
Appendix C SKETCH PLANS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Heritage Impact Assesment - Portion 312 of the farm Turffontein 96 IR 92
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12