Heritage Statement
to accompany an application for a permit i.t.o. Section 34 of the NHRA (Act 25 of 1999) for the demolition of No.19 and 17 Kloof Road, Sea Point on Erven 391 and 392 Fresnaye
The subject building from the west, across Kloof Road, with No.17 on the left and No.19 on the right.
April 2016
Frik Vermeulen Pr. Pln BTech TRP (CTech) MPhil CBE (UCT) MSAPI MAPHP Professional Heritage Practitioner
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Location and Context
3. Historical Background
3.1 Brief Development History of Sea Point 3.2 History and Development of the Subject Site
4. Description
4.1 Erf 391 (No.19 Kloof Road) 4.2 Erf 392 (No.17 Kloof Road)
5. Statement of Significance
6. Consultation undertaken
7. Conclusion
ANNEXURES
SG Diagram: Erf 391 Fresnaye
SG Diagram: Erf 392 Fresnaye
Summary Sheet: No.19 Kloof Road (Erf 391)
Summary Sheet: No.17 Kloof Road (Erf 392)
Comment from Sea Point Fresnaye Bantry Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association
Comment from City of Cape Town’s Environmental and Heritage Management Branch
1
1. Introduction
The author has been appointed by K2013204008 (Pty) Ltd, the owner of Erven 391 and 392 Fresnaye, to make application for the total demolition of these two semi-detached houses. Since the building, which contains fabric dating back to c1890, is older than 60 years, a permit is required from Heritage Western Cape in terms of Section 34(1) of the National Heritage Resources Act (25 of 1999).
It is proposed to redevelop the site and utilise the development opportunities offered by its strategic location and its General Business GB5 zoning, with a floor factor of 4.0 and permissible height of 25m.
2. Location and Context
The site’s location is shown on the aerial photo on the next page. It is situated at No 17 and 19 Kloof Road, on its corner with Gorleston Road, Sea Point.
To the north of the site are the 1980s Nedbank Centre, including a Nedbank branch and Dynasty Chinese Restaurant. Further north is the 7-storey Sea Point Medical Centre.
To the east is Monreve, a 1930s, three-storey Early-Modern block of flats.
To the south, opposite Gorleston Road, is the c1970 Marian Heights, a contemporary, 11- storey block of flats.
To the west, opposite Kloof Road, is the three-storey, 1926 Sea Point Fire Station, which replaced the earlier Round Church, located in the fork in Main Road.
The site is not located in a Heritage Protection Overlay Zone (HPOZ) in terms of the City of Cape Town’s zoning scheme.
Kloof Street is identified as an Activity Route in the City’s Table Bay District Plan and along this route, considerable densification has occurred and is still taking place. Further up the hill, away from Kloof Road, finer-grained residential neighbourhoods still exist and historic villas can be found.
The subject site’s urban context can be seen on the photographs below.
Panoramic view of Kloof Road from the Sea Point Fire Station, showing the street context. A Nedbank branch is located to the left of the subject site and Gorleston Road is at the centre of the photograph. The 11-storey Marian Heights is in the right.
d a o R in a M
Sea Point Medical Centre d oa R nt ge e Ir R wi nt on R oa d d a Dynasty o R Chinese f o Restaurant lo K Sea Point Fire Station
! ! Nedbank ! Parking ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! 392 !
! ! ! !
! !
! 391 !
!
! !
!
! Monreve
!
! ! Flats
G or les to n Ro Marian Heights ad Flats
Al ga kir k R oa d ´ Scale 1:750 Date 2012 2
View along Kloof Road towards the south-west, with the 1980s Nedbank Centre on the left and the subject site behind it. Opposite the road is the 1926 Sea Point Fire Station, with Regent Road on the far right.
View along Gorleston Road towards the south-east. On the left is the late-1930s Monreve block of flats and on the right is the entrance to the c1970 Marian Heights.
View from Kloof Road, with the 1980s Nedbank Centre on the left and the subject site on the right. In the distance is the 11-storey Marian Heights block of flats.
3
3. Historical Background
3.1 Brief development history of Sea Point
Some of the first settlers in the Sea Point area were the Le Sueuer family from France. Francois le Seuer arrived in 1739 as advisor to Cape Governor Hendrik Swellengrebel. The family’s Cape estate, Winterslust, originally covered 200 acres on the slopes of Signal Hill. The estate was later named Fresnaye. In 1776, one of the commanders serving under Captain Cook, Sam Wallis, encamped his men in the area to avoid a smallpox epidemic which was sweeping through Cape Town at the time. 1
By 1770 a road on the same alignment as the present Main Road already existed, including the fork in the road, now Kloof Road and Regent Road2. By 1814 the whole area extending beyond the present day Boundary Road, even as far as Clifton, was known as Green Point. 3 By 1838 the inhabitants of Green Point (including Sea Point) had risen to about 300. A move to include this area in the proposed Cape Town Municipal area in 1839 met with considerable opposition from the inhabitants who succeeded instead in forming their own Municipality of Sea Point and Green Point that same year.
By the 1860's the population had risen to 700. A start was made on the Breakwater, a new hospital was built and Sea Point became the terminus of the first tram cars in the Peninsula. Water was led from the glen above Camps Bay into a reservoir above Botany, thus opening up the area for future development. The 1875 census indicated that municipality had a population of 1 425. An 1891 map of the proposed sewerage scheme for the area shows about 100 buildings in Green Point, 200 in Sea Point and 35 in Mouille Point.
The opening of the Alfred Dock in 1870, the discovery of diamonds in Kimberley and gold at the Rand greatly stimulated Cape Town’s development and land near the harbour became sought-after. Green Point accommodated more modest, higher density housing, while larger properties were located in Sea Point and Bantry Bay, catering for the better-off. This created a need for public transport to supplement the horse-drawn omnibus and tram system.4
The Sea Point tramline, which was operational since 1862, ran along Main/Regent Road. In 1896, the horsedrawn network was converted to an electrical operation. From 1935, it was gradually replaced by trolleybuses, also known as ‘trackless trams” and later by buses.
Another network, opened in 1901, was an interurban tramway linking Burnside Road in Cape Town with Camps Bay and Sea Point via Kloof Nek. It was powered by electricity, and was in operation until 1930.
After number of false starts, the first railway line connecting Cape Town to Sea Point was opened by the Metropolitan and Suburban Railway Company in 1892. 5The Sea Point portion ran along what today is Beach road. The 1902 Sea Point Municipal Survey indicates that the line was placed seaward and essentially parallel to Beach Road. A second line was opened in 1905. The South African Railways had taken over operations from the City, and the line was served by five Sea Point stations. 6
1 http://www.sahistory.org.za/places/sea-point 2 Todeschini & Japha, 1989, Green Point and Sea Point Conservation Study, p12 3 Sims, JM, 1997, History of Mapping in the Cape Peninsula, Cape Technikon, mss. pp. 21-33. He notes that the name Sea Point was not widely used until 1910 and then applied only to a private estate that extended roughly from Bantry Bay to St Johns Road of today. 4 O’Donoghue, B and Büttgens, P, 2015. Heritage Impact Assessment for Upgrade of Sea Point Promenade, p38 5 Worden, N, Van Heyningen, E, and Bickford-Smith, V (2004). Cape Town – The Making of a City - An Illustrated Social History. David Philip, Cape Town, p214. 6 Hallinan, J, 2009 in O’Donoghue, B and Büttgens, P, 2015. Op Cit 4
The Sea Point Railway experienced operational and financial difficulties from the outset. The alignment necessitated the trains to slow around curves in order not to derail, and the locomotives were prone to breakdowns. In addition, the competing Tramway Company operating on Main Road started to upgrade their facilities. The Railway line was electrified in 1927, but after having run at a loss for 14 years, it was discontinued soon after. The last train ran on the 16th of April 1929. The lines were ripped up and the overhead pylons were removed.7 Eventually, in 1939, the tramway from Adderley Street to Sea Point also closed down.8
Saul Solomon, founder of the Cape Argus and MP for Cape Town, resided in Sea Point until the early 1880s and had much influence on the area’s development.9 One of Solomon’s projects, St John’s Dutch Reformed Church (the Round Church), by architect Charles Freeman and built in 1878, was located at the fork in Main Road. The unusual, round, thatched building was demolished by the City Council in 1924 and was replaced by a fire station and electricity department by architect Frederick Martinus Bongers in 1926.
In 1913, Green Point and Sea Point Municipality was incorporated into that of the greater Cape Town. 10
During the latter half of the 20th C, major densification and redevelopment took place, particularly along Beach Road, Main Road, Regent Road and the eastern section of Kloof Road.
3.2 History and Development of the Subject Site
The subject site, consisting of Erven 391 and 392, was still vacant at the time of William Barclay Snow’s survey of 1862 and Alexander Wilson’s survey of 1878 (surveyed c1860).
In December 1889, the subject site, a portion of Lots E & F, was transferred to Mathew Meiklejohn and it is estimated that the current semi-detached house was built in c1890. He passed away shortly thereafter and the property was transferred to James Jones in 1991. The Surveyor General’s diagram of 1891 shows the current building footprint. Jones transferred it to Catherine Bushell in 1895 and she transferred it to Georgina Cook in 1919. Cook then transferred it to James Wightman in 1920.
In 1920, Wightman subdivided the property into two equal portions and sold off No. 19 Kloof Road, now known as Erf 391 to Friga Waskansky. The remainder, No 17 Kloof Road, is now known as Erf 392 (refer to the SG Diagrams attached).
In 1947, Erf 391 was inherited by Waskansky’s daughter, Annie Stein and in 1981 it was inherited by Max Stein. In 1992, it was transferred to Michelle Kawalsky, in 1995 to Rosalyn Baines and in 2001 to Comprehensive Secretarial Services Rentals CC. In 2013 it was transferred to Atlantic Ocean Developments (Pty) Ltd and in 2015 to the current owner, K2013204008 (Pty) Ltd. Until recently, it accommodated a home finishing showroom (‘Florstore’), with a dwelling above.
7 O’Donoghue, B and Büttgens, P, 2015. Heritage Impact Assessment for Upgrade of Sea Point Promenade, p38 8 Worden, N, van Heyningen, E, and Bickford-Smith, V (1999). Cape Town in the Twentieth Century - An Illustrated Social History. David Philip, Cape Town. 9 http://www.sahistory.org.za/places/sea-point 10 Sims, JM, 1997, Op Cit. 5
Detail from a c1920 postcard of Main Road where it forks into Kloof Road (left) and Regent Road (right), with the tram in the foreground. The upper storey of the subject building, with its pitched roof, central chimney and open balcony can be seen beyond a flat-roofed shop on Kloof Road.
The remainder of Erf 392 was transferred to William Coombes in 1921, then to Annie Stephens in 1923, to Isaac Euvrard in 1928, to James Godfrey in 1936 and inherited by Violet Godfrey in 1941. She transferred it to Bronica Willis in 1978, who transferred it to Julie Donen in 1979. It was inherited by Michael Donen in 2014, who transferred it to the current owner, K2013204008 (Pty) Ltd, in 2015. Until recently, it accommodated a veterinary surgery, with a dwelling above.
In 1957 this part of Sea Point was declared a White Group Area. There is however no evidence in the transfer registers at the Registrar of Deeds that any forced removals took place on either of the two properties.
A survey diagram for the consolidation of Erven 391 and 392 with the adjacent Erven 1571 and 1769 (Nedbank Centre) has been approved in July 2015, but has not been registered.
6
Extract from the 1902 Green Point and Sea Point Municipality Survey, with the site in red. The building footprint with bay windows can be seen. (Source: City of Cape Town EHRIC)
Extract from the 1926 aerial photography, with the site in red. (Source: Chief Directorate Surveys & Mapping) 7
4. Description
Erf 391 (No. 19 Kloof Road) and Erf 392 (No 17 Kloof Road) constitute a semi-detached, double storey late-Victorian building, which is atypically set back from Kloof Road. Originally they were mirror images of each other. The building has a hipped, pitched cement-tile roof.
4.1 Erf 391 (No.19 Kloof Road)
The building has been substantially altered and its only intact features are: The general building envelope, the original front garden wall and the staircase in the hall.
The building has flat roof lean-tos at the back, of which one is the covered courtyard.
Over the years, many alterations have taken place, including: the stoep and balcony have been enclosed with masonry walls and metal windows; the round columns were replaced by square masonry columns; the bay window was removed and the stoep was incorporated into the shop (the former lounge); several internal walls were removed to form an open plan shop; the rear courtyard was covered and converted into accommodation; the sheet metal roof was replaced by cement tiles; all fireplaces have been removed; the kitchen and two bathrooms are contemporary. all windows have been replaced; mostly with steel windows, a metal sliding door was inserted between the front bedroom on the top floor and the balcony; a metal sliding door was inserted on Gorleston Road.
Overall, this building is no longer representative of its period. Architecturally it is not noteworthy and it is not rare. Hardly any period features remain.
Apart from its age, the building has no historical or social significance.
It is part of a semi, but is not part of a greater or significant grouping of buildings.
Refer to the photographs on the next page, as well as the summary sheet attached as an Annexure.
8
View from Gorleston Road, with No 19 Kloof Road on the foreground. The stoep has been enclosed and incorporated into the shop.
Hall and staircase of No 19 Kloof Road Arch where the bay window was removed and the stoep was joined with the lounge
9
The open plan shop (former lounge and bedroom) of No.19 Kloof Road, with the enclosed courtyard in the background.
The kitchen on the ground floor of No.19 Kloof Road
The bathroom on the first floor of No.19 Kloof Road
10
The enclosed balcony on the first floor of No.19 Kloof Road. A metal sliding door has been inserted
The bedroom in the rear extension of No.19 Kloof Road. A metal sliding door leads to Gorleston Road.
The rear extensions of the subject site from Gorleston Road. The courtyard of No. 19 Kloof Road (in the foreground) has been covered and incorporated into the building.
11
4.2 Erf 392 (No.17 Kloof Road)
The building has been considerably altered, but is more intact than its neighbour, No.19.
Relatively intact features include: The building envelope, the front and back garden wall, the timber front door, the timber bay window on the stoep, timber floors in most rooms, two cast iron fireplaces (one in the lounge downstairs and one in the bedroom above) and the staircase in the hall.
The building has a flat roof lean-to and courtyard at the back. A common passage runs to the north of the building, between the road and the centre of the street block.
Over the years, many alterations have taken place, including: The top floor balcony was enclosed with concrete & masonry walls and contemporary timber windows; the columns on top floor balcony were clad in timber; the corrugated iron roof was replaced by fibre cement tiles; the party wall between the front gardens has been extended in height by breeze blocks; most windows have been replaced with modern timber windows of various shapes and sizes and the kitchen and two bathrooms are contemporary.
Overall it is a reasonable example of its period, but architecturally it is not noteworthy and it is not rare. Very few period features exist and they are quite ordinary.
Apart from its age, it has no historical or social significance.
It is part of a semi, but is not part of a greater or significant grouping of buildings.
Refer to the photographs on the next page, as well as the summary sheet attached as an Annexure.
12
Stoep of No 17 Kloof Road, showing the front door and bay window.
The lounge of No 17 Kloof Road, showing the bay window, fireplace and timber floor.
Kitchen of No 17 Kloof Road. The window, floor, ceiling and all finishes are modern
13
Hall and staircase of No 17 Kloof Road Master bedroom and fireplace on the upper floor of No.17 Kloof Road
The enclosed balcony on the top floor of No 17 Kloof Road
14
Door between the corridor and master bedroom Bathroom on the upper floor on the upper floor of No 17 Kloof Road
Rear courtyard of No 17 Kloof Road. Most windows and doors are contemporary.
15
5. Statement of Significance
The Green Point & Sea Point Conservation Study (1988-1989), undertaken by Todeschini and Japha, pre-dated the National Heritage Resources Act and the grading system that was used does not correlate with the current system of attributing national, provincial and local significance. The study was however useful in inter alia dating development, identifying proposed conservation areas and “special areas” and assessing/grading “noteworthy elements”. Categories of noteworthy elements included:
Buildings of national significance Buildings of local significance Pre-1915 buildings of historical interest Pre-1940 buildings of historical interest Buildings that contribute to a special area / group
Nos 17 and 19 Kloof Road were however not considered to fall in any of these categories.
Extract from the Sea Point West sheet from the Green Point & Sea Point Conservation Study (1988-1989), p84. The subject site is circled in red. 16
Section 3(3) of the NHRA lists the criteria for considering a place or object as part of the national estate. In the case of the subject site,
its “importance in the community, or pattern of South Africa’s history” is considered to be low. While it dates back to c1890, it currently displays very little of the country or the city’s history and is not a rare or noteworthy example of its type;
it is not considered to not possess “uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of South Africa’s natural or cultural heritage”, as many better and more intact examples of such semi-detached buildings can be found;
its potential to “yield information that will contribute to an understanding of South Africa’s natural or cultural heritages” is low and it does not contribute to any context;
its “importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of South Africa’s natural or cultural places or objects” is low and it is rather nondescript;
its “importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group” is considered low – it is not considered to be of intrinsic significance, neither does it contribute to an environment of aesthetic significance;
it does not demonstrate “a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period” and it never has, even before its substantial alterations;
it does not have “strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons”. It has always been used as private, middle class dwellings, until accommodating businesses more recently;
it does not have a “strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organisation of importance in the history of South Africa. Its architect is not known, but it does not display any design excellence or signature characteristics and
it has no association with the history of slavery in South Africa.
The subject building is not considered to be of provincial significance, but is of some local significance (Grade III).
HWC’s Grading Guide of March 2016, states that in order for buildings and sites to be graded Grade IIIA or Grade IIIB, it may be representative, being excellent examples of their kind and may be rare. Grade IIIB buildings may have similar significances to those of a grade lIlA building or site, but to a lesser degree.
The site has no associational value with a historic person or historic events. The site is located on a street corner, but is not a visual-spatial landmark. Even at the time of the c1920 photograph above, when the surrounding buildings were smaller, the two-storey building could not be described as a landmark, due to being set back from Kloof Road and being very ordinary in style. Both dwellings have always been ordinary in style, detailing and materials. While No.17 is more intact than No.19, neither can be described to be of high architectural quality. The former contains its original fireplaces, timber floors, doors, stairs and some windows. Also, the damage to No.17 is more reversible than No.19, where major reconstruction would be required to return it to a mirror image of No.17. However, even if that could be achieved, it would (a) lack authenticity, (b) still be a fairly ordinary example of its type and period and (c) still not contribute to any urban environment of significance. The building envelope dates back to the 1890s, which is approximately midway through the development history of Sea Point. 17
The building envelope in general and the fabric that is still intact illustrate the historical period that it dates to, but it remains a very ordinary and compromised example of its time and style. Being set back from the road, the built form shows the building’s original residential role, as opposed to commercial use. The interiors of No 17 illustrate its original residential use more clearly than No.19, which is . The site does not contribute to a Grade I or Grade II heritage resource (there are none in the vicinity), neither does it contribute to an environment of any significance.
It is the conclusion of the author that the site and buildings do not have enough intrinsic heritage significance to elevate it to a Grade IIIA or IIIB heritage resource or to warrant its inclusion on the provincial register.
The subject building is therefore considered to be Grade IIIC.
Grade IIIC grading is applied to buildings and sites whose significance is, in large part, a significance that contributes to the character or significance of the environs. Such buildings and sites should, as a consequence, only be protected and regulated if the significance of the environs is sufficient to warrant protective measures.
The subject site is however not located in a significant environment, an existing or proposed conservation area. The closest declared conservation area is the Sea Point Heritage Protection Overlay Zone area, approximately 350m to the north-east. While there are historic neighbourhoods elsewhere in Sea Point that have potential to become protected areas, the site is not located in such a neigbourhood and does not contribute to any significant group of buildings or a distinct townscape.
18
6. Consultation undertaken
On 11 March 2016, the heritage statement and inventory sheets were circulated to the Sea Point Fresnaye Bantry Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association (SFB) and the City of Cape Town’s Environmental and Heritage Resources Branch and their comment on the demolition application requested.
On 4 April 2016, comment was received from the SFB Planning Committee. It states:
“The SFB are comfortable with the photos, plans and docs and have no objection to the proposed demolition of the above properties from a HWC point of view as depicted in the aforementioned documents”.
A copy of the SFB’s comment is attached.
On 12 April, comment was received from City of Cape Town’s Environmental and Heritage Management Branch. It reads:
“The semi-detached building, a double-storey hipped roof structure with an attached double storey front verandah, is relatively intact from a structural and original build. Internally, there have been many changes, but some early fabric remains – fireplace, high ceilings, doors, ironmongery, etc. There are very few remaining examples of early Sea Point double storey homes left in the immediate area. Although not in a very good condition and with many changes made, EHMB believe that a suggested grading of 3C is desirable. EHMB does not support the proposed total demolition.”
A copy of EHMB’s comment is attached.
It is correct that there are very few remaining examples of early Sea Point double storey homes left in the immediate area. There are in fact very few remaining examples of any Victorian or 1920s or 1930s architecture in the immediate area. That is why the immediate area is not, and will never be, a conservation area. In the greater neighbourhood, some isolated Victorian homes can be found and two ordinary examples of Early-Modern blocks of flats, but there is no coherent streetscape or collection of noteworthy buildings to warrant designation as a conservation area.
The EHMB comments that structurally, the building is “relatively intact” and that internally some early fabric remains, but still supports a grading of no higher than IIIC. Such grading is only applied to a buildings and/or site whose significance is contextual, i.e. due to its contribution to the character or significance of the environs. HWC’s approved Grading Guide of March 2016 states that Grade IIIC buildings and sites should “only be regulated if the significance of the environs is sufficient to warrant protective measures”.11 In this case, it is not.
After stating support for a grading of IIIC and noting that the building is not in a good condition and with many changes made, the EHMB concludes that it does not support the proposed total demolition. This is a contradiction and is not in agreement with HWC’s grading guidelines, as the building does not have sufficient intrinsic significance to be regarded as a conservation worthy resource and the significance of the environs is not sufficient to warrant protective measures.
11 Heritage Western Cape, 2016, Grading: Purpose and Management Implications, p5 19
7. Conclusion
The original building dates back some 120 years and No.17 Kloof Street (Erf 392) still contains some of its original, but ordinary interiors. Both dwellings have however been compromised by insensitive alterations over the years and the substantially altered condition of No.19 (Erf 391) detracts from the moderate heritage significance of No. 17, which it is attached to. Some of the damage is reversible, but even if this was done, neither dwelling would be worthy of placing on the provincial register.
In the Green Point & Sea Point Conservation Study (1988-1989), the building was not considered by Todeschini and Japha (1989) to have any conservation value.
The City of Cape Town has not formally graded this area yet, but in their branch comment, the Environmental and Heritage Management Branch agreed with the proposed IIIC grading of this building, but did not agree with the demolition.
The Sea Point Fresnaye Bantry Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association indicated that they have no objection to the proposed demolition.
When compared with examples of Grade IIIA and B heritage resources of this style and period, this building is not considered to be worthy of either of those gradings and does not have enough intrinsic significant to be retained as part of the National Estate.
Due to the fact that the dwellings are part of a pair and display some characteristics of a late- Victorian semi-detached building (even if it was never a noteworthy example and is definitely not rare), it is considered to be a Grade IIIC resource.
Even though considered Grade IIIC, the building has lost its historical context and is located in a high-density development corridor. It is not located in an existing or potential conservation / HPOZ area and it does not contribute to a grouping or urban environment of any significance.
Hence, it is concluded that the building and its immediate context have insufficient heritage significance to warrant formal protection.
It is recommended that the proposed total demolition be supported by Heritage Western Cape and that the required Section 34 permit be granted.
Erf number Date built Type of building
Double-storey, semi-detached Erf 391 Fresnaye c1890 house Style Architectural period Present NHRA protection Originally a Victorian semi-detached Late-Victorian Section 34 house
Address & GPS Co-ord Alterations Use Stoep and balcony enclosed with masonry Unoccupied. Previously a home 19 Kloof Road, Sea Point walls and metal windows; columns were finishing showroom (‘Florstor’), with 33°55’09” S, 18°23’13” E replaced by square masonry columns; dwelling above Bay window was removed and stoep was Zoning incorporated into shop (former lounge) Date of survey Several internal walls removed – open plan Rear courtyard was covered;
Sheet metal roof replaced by cement tiles; General Business GB5 2 March 2016 All fireplaces have been removed; Most windows have been replaced; Front view from north-west, with No.17 Kloof Road on the left and No.19 (outlined in red) on the right. Sliding door was inserted on Gorleston Rd. Name of the building General evaluation Suggested grading Substantially altered. Only the original envelope, garden wall and stairs remain. Date of photograph(s): 2 March 2016
No longer representative of its period;
Kitchen and bathrooms are modern Architecturally not noteworthy. No historical (Marginal) Grade IIIC No. 19 Kloof Road or social significance. Part of a semi, but not outside an HPOZ of a greater grouping. Its environs are not significant or intact. Ungraded in Todeschini & Japha study (1989) Not graded by CoCT yet Not worthy of formal protection / register Description History Social history
Double-storey, semi-detached, three Built between 1889 and 1891. Current foot- Declared a White Group Area in bedroom house, atypically set back print appears on SG diagram of 1891 and 1957. from Kloof Road. Flat roof lean-to’s Sea Pont Municipal Survey of c1902. No forced removals on record for at the back. Designed as a dwelling house and built at this site. Mirror image of its neighbour, No.17. the same time as its neighbor, No.17 by the Hipped, pitched cement-tile roof. owner, Mathew Meiklejohn, then transferred
Located in a high-rise, modern to James Jones in 1891. Rear view from the south-east, with No.19 Kloof Road on the left streetscape. Subdivided off Erf 392 in 1920 and sold to (outlined in red) and No.17 on the right. Not located in an existing or Friga Waskansky (née Zell) in 1921; proposed Heritage Protection Current owner: K2013204008 (Pty) Ltd (2013)
Overlay Zone (HPOZ). Consolidated with Erven 392, 1571 and 1769
in 2015, but still unregistered (Erf 2051).
Significance in terms of NHRA Very Some Significant No significance Not assessed significant significance Historical X Rarity X Aesthetical X Architectural X Technological X Panoramic view of Kloof Road from the Sea Point Fire Station, showing Cultural X the urban context. A Nedbank Branch is located to the left of the subject Social history X site and Gorleston Road is at the centre of the photograph. Slave history X
Erf number Date built Type of building Double-storey, semi-detached Erf 392 Fresnaye c1890 house
Style Architectural period Present NHRA protection Originally a Victorian semi-detached Late-Victorian Section 34 house Address & GPS Co-ord Alterations Use
Top floor balcony was enclosed with Unoccupied. Previously a veterinary 17 Kloof Road, Sea Point concrete & masonry walls and timber surgery, with dwelling above 33°55’09” S, 18°23’14” E windows; Columns on top floor balcony clad in timber; Zoning Sheet metal roof was replaced by fibre Date of survey cement tiles; Most windows have been replaced with General Business GB5 2 March 2016 modern ones of various shapes and sizes Kitchen and bathrooms are modern. Front view from north-west, with No.17 Kloof Road on the left (outlined Name of the building General evaluation Suggested grading in red) and No.19 on the right. Considerably altered, but more intact than its neighbour, No.19. Garden wall, front door, Date of photograph(s): 2 March 2016
bay window, Oregon pine floors and two fireplaces still extant. Reasonable example of its period, but architecturally not noteworthy. No historical Grade IIIC No. 17 Kloof Road or social significance. Part of a semi, but not outside an HPOZ part of a greater grouping. Its environs are not significant or intact. Ungraded in Todeschini & Japha study (1989) Not graded by CoCT yet Not worthy of formal protection / register Description History Social history
Double-storey, semi-detached, three Built between 1889 and 1891. Current Declared a White Group Area in bedroom house, atypically set back footprint appears on SG diagram of 1891 1957. from Kloof Road. Flat roof lean-to and Sea Pont Municipal Survey of c1902. No forced removals on record for and courtyard at the back. Designed as a dwelling house and built at this site. Mirror image of its neighbour, No.19. the same time as its neighbor, No.19 by the
Hipped, pitched cement-tile roof. owner, Mathew Meiklejohn, then transferred Rear view from the south-east, with No.19 Kloof Road on the left and Located in a high-rise, modern to James Jones in 1891. No.17 (outlined in red) on the right.
streetscape. Subdivided in two in 1920 - Erf 391 sold off.
Not located in an existing or Current owner: K2013204008 (Pty) Ltd proposed Heritage Protection Consolidated with Erven 391, 1571 and 1769 Overlay Zone (HPOZ). in 2015, but still unregistered (Erf 2051). Most recently a veterinary surgery. Significance in terms of NHRA Very Some Significant No significance Not assessed significant significance Historical X Rarity X Aesthetical X Architectural X Panoramic view of Kloof Road from Sea Point Fire Station, showing Technological X the urban context. A 1980s Nedbank Branch is located to the left of the subject site and Gorleston Road is at the centre of the photograph. Cultural X Social history X Slave history X
To : Frik Vermeulen Heritage Practitioner
Email : [email protected]
Date : 4 April 2016
Dear Sir
ERVEN 391 & 392, FRESNAYE, 17 & 19 KLOOF ROAD, SEA POINT: Demolition: HWC
This serves to confirm that members of the SFB Planning Committee have studied:
Photos Documents Plans provided by you in respect of the property located on the above erven.
The SFB are comfortable with the photos, plans and docs and have no objection to the proposed demolition of the above properties from a HWC point of view as depicted in the aforementioned documents.
Yours faithfully
This is an electronic transmission and is therefore unsigned
Sea Point Fresnaye Bantry Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association SFB Planning Committee Email: [email protected]
"This association is not a regulatory authority and accepts no responsibility or liability for checking and ensuring compliance with any laws and regulations concerning land use".
Please support our Sponsors
Executive Committee: David Polovin (Chair), Marco van Embden (Vice-Chair), Janey Ball, Suzanne Kempen, Marc Sher, James Townsend, Jacques van Embden, Aris Vayanos, Theodore Yach 1 Gibraltar House St Andrews Road Sea Point 8005 || P O Box 229 Sea Point 8060 www.sfb.org.za [email protected] www.facebook.com/SeaPointFresnayeBantryBay