APPROVED MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF HERITAGE WESTERN CAPE, APPEALS COMMITTEE Held on Wednesday, 17 February 2021 via Microsoft Teams, scheduled for 09:00

1. Opening and Welcome The Chairperson, Ms Katherine Dumbrell officially opened the meeting at 09:00 and welcomed everyone present.

2. Attendance

Committee Members: Members of Staff: Ms Katherine Dumbrell (KD) Ms Aneeqah Brown (AB) Dr Andre van Graan (AvG) Mr Olwethu Dlova (OD) Dr Antonia Malan (AM) Ms Cathy-Ann Potgieter (CAP) Dr Nicolas Baumann (NB) Ms Zikhona Sigonya-Ndongeni (ZS) Mr Stuart Hermansen (SH) Ms Nosiphiwo Tafeni (NT) Ms Emmylou Bailey (Alternate) Ms Penelope Meyer (PM) Ms Khanyisile Bonile (KB) Mr Thando Zingange (TZ) Ms Stephanie Barnardt (SB)

Visitors: Item 9.1 Mr Stephen Parkes Mr Philip Smith Ms Laila Mahomedy

Item 9.2 Ms Claire Abrahamse

Item 9.3 Ms Nandi Siegfried Mr Luke Stevens Ms Bridget O’Donoghue, Mr Ori Saban Mr Torben Pheiffer

Item 10.1 Ms Kathy Dumbrell Mr Daniel Barnard Mr Darryn Botha Ms Quahnita Samie Mr Andrea Couvert Ms Patty Price

Observers: Mr Stuart Burnett Mr Johan Cornelius Mr Philip Smith Mrs Meryl O’Brien

3. Apologies None

Absent None

Approved Appeals Minutes 17 February 2021 1 4. Approval of Agenda

4.1 Dated 17th February 2021 The Committee resolved to approve the Appeals Agenda dated 17th February 2021.

5. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting

5.1 Appeals Minutes dated 20th January 2021. The Committee resolved to approve the minutes of the Appeals Committee meeting which was held on 20th January 2021.

6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

6.1 Item 10.1: KD Item 9.3: SH

7. Confidential Matters

7.1 None

8. Administrative Matters

8.1 Outcome of the Tribunal Committees and Recent Court Decisions PM reported back on the Athlone ruling.

8.2 Report back from HWC Council None

8.3 Site Visits Conducted None

8.4 Potential Site Visits None

8.5 Discussion of Agenda The Committee resolved that, due to recusals and the fact that Mrs Bailey was only available until 12h00, the Committee would hear item 9.1, followed by item 10.1. Thereafter the order of items would be as indicated on the agenda.

8.6 Starting times of Committees WD put it to the Committee that it is possible to start the meetings at 8.30am instead of 9am. The Committee agreed to start future meetings at the earlier time.

8.7 Documentation The Committee supported the legal team’s recommendation that the appeal documentation for each case be compiled as a single document and requested that the material be ordered in reverse chronological order.

9 Matters Arising

9.1 Proposed additions and alterations, Erf 86617, 16 Wherry Road, HM/ METROPOLITAN/MUIZENBERG/ERF 86617 Case No: 20092102TZ1030E

Mr Thando Zingange introduced the case.

Mr Stephen Parkes (architect for the applicant), Mr Philip Smith and Ms Laila Mahomedy were present and took part in the discussion.

Approved Appeals Minutes 17 February 2021 2 APPELLANTS – represented by Mr Smith and Ms Mahomedy  The appeal is against the HOMs decision to approve the plans.

DISCUSSION Amongst other things, the following was discussed:  The Committee notes that the revised proposal is supported by CoCT  The Committee notes that the architect has responded to the Committee’s concerns appropriately.

DECISION The Appeal is upheld, and the decision of HOMs is substituted by the following: The revised plans 2028-LA-A101 & A102, stamped by CoCT EHM on 09/02/2021 are approved.

9.2 Proposed redevelopment of Erven 45530 and 45531, Nursery Road. HM/CAPE METROPOLITAN/ROSEBANK/ERVEN 45530 & 45531 Case No: 21020206

Ms Stephanie-Ann Barnardt introduced the case.

Ms Claire Abrahamse (heritage consultant) presented the heritage indicators and current scheme, as well as participated in the discussion.

DISCUSSION Amongst other things, the following was discussed:  The matter has been referred to HWC by the Tribunal to approve the plans and assess the Heritage Indicators required by the Tribunal.  As the matter is not an appeal hearing de novo, the only party to present would be Ms Abrahamse as author of the Heritage Indicators.

FURTHER REQUIREMENTS The heritage indicators are endorsed. The possibility of exploring the expression of the current top floor as a roof is supported. The revised roof should be within the existing roof height. It is recommended that it be double-pitched and habitable dormers be used to articulate a roofscape in line with the indicators.

9.3 The Proposed Alterations and Additions of Erf 649, 19 Torbay Road, Green Point HM/CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/GREENPOINT/ERF 649 Case No: 20030309KB0615E

Mr Stuart Hermansen recused himself for this item.

Ms Nandi Siegfried, Mr Luke Stevens, Ms Bridget O’Donoghue, Mr Ori Saban, and Mr Torben Pheiffer were present and took part in the discussion.

APPELLANTS  The appeal is against BELCom’s decision to approve the proposed development.

DISCUSSION Amongst other things, the following was discussed:  On balance, the concerns raised by the Committee in terms of massing, shape and form have been addressed by the revised proposal.

DECISION The Appeal is upheld, and the decision of BELCom is substituted by the following decision: The Committee resolved to approve drawing revision set 17, option 2, dated 5/2/2021.

Approved Appeals Minutes 17 February 2021 3 10. New Matters

10.1 The Proposed Mixed-Use Development on Erf 8019. Sir Lowry Square, Woodstock HM/CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/WOODSTOCK/ERF 8019 Case No: 20091008KB0921E

Ms Kathy Dumbrell recused herself as a chairperson from the item. The committee nominated Dr Andre van Graan as acting chairperson for this item.

Ms Khanyisile Bonile introduced the case.

Mr Andrea Couvert (WRA), Ms Patty Price (WRA), Mr Andrew Nimmo, Mr Darren Botha, Ms Kathy Dumbrell and Ms Quahnita Samie were present and took part in the discussion.

APPELLANTS (WRA)  The appeal is against IACom’s decision to approve the proposed development.  The appellants take issue with the delivery and refuse trucks and their impact on the community living in the street in question.  The heritage and culture of the community is linked into Woodstock, despite it having a area code.  The proposed development will have a negative impact on the residential character of Francis Street.  The appellants stressed the living heritage of the area.

APPELLANT (MR NIMMO)  The plans allow for very little public interface.  The existing residential community of is located to the south and east and the proposed development closes off interaction to the public.

DISCUSSION Amongst other things, the following was discussed:  The issues raised by the appellants relate to urban design and city planning and are not inherently heritage related.  The block in question has never been residential. As such, the proposed development is maintaining the typology of the space.  The Committee notes that there are not sufficient heritage grounds raised for Supporting the appeal.

DECISION Both Appeals are dismissed. The approval of the HIA by IACom is endorsed.

10.2 Proposed Total Demolition of Erven 24514 and 24515, 10 Parow and Milner Streets, Maitland HM/CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN/MAITLAND/ERVEN 24514 AND 24515 Case No: 20100602KB1127E– This item is for noting only.

The Committee noted the item. The Committee resolved to decide by email on the need for a site visit. CAP to advise once the material is uploaded.

11. Adoption of decisions and resolutions The Decisions and Resolutions of the meeting were unanimously adopted by the Appeals Committee.

13. Proposed next date of the meeting: 17th March 2021

14. Closure: The meeting was adjourned at: 12:58

MINUTES APPROVED AND SIGNED BY:

Approved Appeals Minutes 17 February 2021 4 CHAIRPERSON______DATE______17,03,2021______

SECRETARY______DATE______17.03.2021______

Approved Appeals Minutes 17 February 2021 5