Heritage Impact Assessment Boschendal Village Node
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Prepared in terms of Section 38 (8) of the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) BOSCHENDAL VILLAGE NODE Portion 7 of Farm 1674 and Portion 10 of Farm 1674, Boschendal, Stellenbosch Municipality May 2017 (Amended 1st August 2017) Prepared By: Nicolas Baumann Sarah Winter Dave Dewar Piet Louw TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summmary 1-2 9. Assessment of Heritage Impacts for Each Alternative 43-47 2. Name, Expertise and Declaration Of Independence 2 9.1 Overarching Principles: Dominance of Wilderness and Rural Landscapes and Authenticity 3. Introduction 3-13 9.2 Locational Indicators: Regional and Subregional 3.1 Scope Of Study 9.3 Village Qualities and Spatial Indicators 3.2 Assumptions and Limitations 9.4 Street Indicators 3.3 Gaps in the Knowledge 9.5 Open Space and Landscaping Indicators 3.4 Description of Proposed Development and Alternatives 9.6 Roads and Parking Indicators 4. Methodology 14 9.7 Signage, Lighting and Architectural Indicators 5. Description of the Site 14-21 9.8 Implementation 6. Historical Overview 22-27 9.9 Summary 7. Statement of Heritage Significance and Grading 28 10. Cumulative Impacts 48 7.1 Broader Landscape Assessment 11. Summary Impact Table 48 7.2 Precinct Assessment 12. Outcome of the Public Consulation Process as part of the 48-53 7.3 Site Assessment pre-application NEMA Process 8. Heritage Related Design Indicators 29-42 12.1 Conservation and Community Bodies 8.1 Overarching Principles 12.2 Heritage Authorities 8.2 Locational Indicators: Where Development should not go 13. Heritage Impacts relative to sustainable social and Economic Benefits 53 8.3 Sub-Regional Indicators 14. Conclusions and Recommendations 54 8.4 Village Indicators 15. References 54 8.5 Street Indicators 8.6 Visual Indicators 8.7 Architectural Indicators and Controls Nicolas Baumann - Sarah Winter - Dave Dewar - Piet Louw BOSCHENDAL VILLAGE HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MAY 2017 2 LIST OF FIGURES LIST ANNEXURES Figure 1: Site Location Annexure A: HWC response to NID dated June 2015 Figure 2: Site Location with Context of Boschendal Estate and Grade 1 Landscape Annexure B: Proposed Boschendal Village: Heritage Indicators and Directives dated April 2015 Figure 3: Site Development Plan: Alternative 4 Annexure C: Archaeological Assessment dated March 2015 Figure 4: Land Use Concept: Alternative 5a Annexure D: Proposed Boschendal Village Development, Stellenbosch Municipal Area, Western Cape, Visual Impact Assessment May 2016 Revised Figure 5: Site Development Plan: Alternative 5a Annexure E: Urban Design Framework dated November 2015 Figure 6: Land Use Concept: Alternative 5b Annexure F: Illustrated Timeline Figure 7: Land Use Concept: Alternative 5c Annexure G: Social Impact Assessment Figure 8: Proposed Development Controls Annexure H: Public Participation Comments Figure 9: 3D Model of Alternative 5a Figure 10: Site Photographs Figure 11: Extract from composite map showing 17th and 18th century grants in the Valley Figure 12: Compilation of land grants in the Drakenstein Valley 1650-1795 Figure 13: Extract of the 1901 Inch Series showing Paarl and Stellenbosch Districts. Figure 14: Extract of 1923 Topographical Plan of Rhodes Fruit Farms Figure 15: Extract of 1966 topographical map Figure 16: Constraints and Informants Relating to the Natural Environment Figure 17: Constraints and Informants Relating to the Heritage Cultural Landscape Figure 18: Constraints and Informants Relating to the Existing Public Structure Figure 19: Conceptual Approach to Interlinked Corridors and Agricultural Superblocks Figure 20: The Ideas Applied Diagrammatically to the Context Figure 21: Composite Precinct-Specific Constraints and Informants Figure 22: Village Definition and Density Gradient Figure 23: Broader Cultural Landscape: Rural Corridor Zone Figure 24: Implementation Focus Areas Figure 25: Landscape Framework Plan Nicolas Baumann - Sarah Winter - Dave Dewar - Piet Louw BOSCHENDAL VILLAGE HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MAY 2017 3 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMMARY 1.4 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The HIA process in being carried out in terms of Section 38 (8) of the National Heritage Resources Act The preferred alternative is for the development of a village with a development footprint of 27.45ha. (Act 25 of 1999; NHRA). The main elements of the proposal are as follows: 1.1 SITE NAME • A ‘village high street’ parallel to the R310 with a farmers’ market, shops and restaurants. • A central axis off the main street which provides visual connection to the residential areas and the Boschendal, Stellenbosch agricultural landscape beyond. • Residential development of low, medium and high density with a total of 440 units and 100 rooms for hospitality. 1.2 LOCATION • Retail and business development of low, medium and high density with a three storey limit. • Existing civic activities (police station and clinic) along with other community facilities. Portion 7 of Farm 1674 and Portion 10 of Farm 1674, Boschendal are situated in the Dwars River Valley, near the intersection of the R45 and R310, within the Cape Winelands District and Stellenbosch municipalities. GPS co-ordinates: 33°52’26.62’’ S; 18°58’24.33” E. 1.5 HERITAGE RESOURCES IDENTIFIED The site is located within a Grade I landscape. It is located within the Dwars River Valley which is 1.3 LOCALITY PLAN an integral component of this landscape and of outstanding heritage value. The site is situated at a gateway location at the intersection of the R45 and R310 and junction of two valley systems, namely the Dwars River and Berg River valleys. The R45 and R310 form a major part of a regional scenic and tourism route network. The site is situated on the northern boundary of a highly significant historical precinct incorporating the farm werfs of Boschendal and Rhone and their agricultural frames, as well as the R310 scenic corridor and the Dwars River corridor. The werf is a PHS and is of outstanding heritage value. It is one of the most iconic farm werfs within the Cape Winelands with prominent views towards the homestead from the R310 and views from the Boschendal homestead looking across vineyards and the development site, towards Wemmershoek Mountains beyond. There are no buildings situated on the site that are worthy of formal protection in terms of the NHRA. The site is not archaeologically sensitive and has been heavily transformed. There are no archaeological finds worthy of grading. No archaeological mitigation is recommended. 1.6 ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ON HERITAGE RESOURCES A key component of the study methodology was the formulation of a comprehensive set of heritage indicators and directives which followed a rigorous process of analysis and against which the development proposals have been assessed. This method recognises that the site cannot be assessed in isolation, that indicators should relate to the region as a totality and that the assessment should occur across scales. It is foregrounded by the principle of maintaining the dominance of wilderness and rural landscapes as opposed to the increasing dominance of urban and suburban landscapes, and the principle of authenticity. It sets out criteria for where development should not occur and establishes an argument for the location of a village at the intersection of the R45 and the R310. It then provides a set of indicators for what constitutes a rural village in terms of its relationship with its setting, spatial structure, patterns of access and use. These are then developed further at the level of street, visual and architectural indicators. The proposed development conforms to the identified heritage indicators and will improve the area. The option of no further development does not address the opportunities evident in the site’s location and the derelict nature of existing site conditions. The overall heritage impact of the No-Go alternative (Alternative 1) is thus regarded as medium negative. The overall heritage impact of the preferred alternative (Source: Lawson and Oberholzer 2016) Nicolas Baumann - Sarah Winter - Dave Dewar - Piet Louw BOSCHENDAL VILLAGE HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MAY 2017 1 THE SITE 1.81.8 LISTLIST OF OF AUTHORS AUTHORS (Alternative 5), including the mandatory controls and guidelines specified in the Urban Design Report and 1.10 LIST OF AUTHORS Heritage Impact Assessment Report dated March 2016 prepared by Nicolas Baumann, Sarah recommended mitigation measures, is regarded as potentially medium-high positive. However, should Heritage Impact Assessment Report dated March 2016 prepared by Nicolas Baumann, Sarah these mandatory controls, guidelines and mitigation measures not be implemented, then the overall HeritageWinter,Winter, Dave ImpactDave Dewar Dewar Assessment and and Piet Piet Report Louw Louw dated March 2016 prepared by Nicolas Baumann, Sarah Winter, heritage impact of the proposed development is potentially medium-high negative. Dave Dewar and Piet Louw ArchaeologicalArchaeological AssessmentAssessment dateddated MarchMarch 20152015 preparedprepared byby NatalieNatalie HendrickHendrick andand TimTim HartHart 1.7 OUTCOME OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS Archaeological(ACO)(ACO) Assessment dated March 2015 prepared by Natalie Hendrick and Tim Hart (ACO) Heritage related comments were received from the Vernacular Architecture Society, Cape Institute of VisualVVisualisual Impact Impact Assessment Assessment dateddated dated March March 2016201 2016 6 prepared prepared by by QuintonQuinton Quinton LawsonLawson Lawson ((MLA) MLA(MLA) )and andand Bernard BernardBernard Architects,