Approved Minutes of the Meeting of the Impact Assessment Committee (IACOM) of Heritage (HWC) held on the 1st Floor in the Boardroom, Protea Assurance Building, , , at 09H00 on Wednesday, 11 September 2019

1. Opening and Welcome

The Chairperson, Mr Chris Snelling (CSn), opened the meeting at 09H10 and welcomed everyone present.

2. Attendance

Members Staff Mr Chris Snelling (CSn) Ms Penelope Meyer (PM) Dr Lita Webley (LW) Ms Waseefa Dhansay (WD) Mr Siphiwo Mavumengwana (SM) Ms Aneeqah Brown(AB) Mr Guy Thomas (GT) Mr Andrew September (AS) Mr Frik Vermeulen (FV) Ms Stephanie Barnardt (SB) Ms Cecilene Muller (CM) Ms Colette Scheermeyer (CSc) Mr Dave Saunders (DS) Ms Khanyisile Bonile (KB) Mr Mike Scurr (MS) Ms Nosiphiwo Tafeni (NT)

Observers Mr. Zwelibanzi Shiceka

Draft Visitors Mr Henry Aikman Mr Jonathan Visser Mr Anthony Wain Mr Allan Palmer Mr Hannes Bouwer Mr David Gibbs Ms Fiona Sweeney Ms Lize Malan Mr David Pike Mr Avril Paterson Mr Dave Venter Mr Pieter du Toit Ms Bridget O’Donoghue Mr Tristan Sandwith Ms Cindy Postlethwayt Mr Paul William Ms Jenna Lavin Mr. Hannes Bouwer Mr Henk Lourens Ms Katie Smuts Ms Christine Havenga Mr Anton Prinsloo Mr Bruce Eitzen

3. Apologies Mr Mokena Makeka (MM) Dr Mxolisi Dlamuka (MD)

3.1. Absent None

4. Approval of the Agenda

4.1 The Committee resolved to approve the agenda dated 11 September 2019 with additional items and one minor correction.

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 1

5. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting

5.1 Dated 15 August 2019

The Committee reviewed the minutes dated 15 August 2019 and resolved to approve the minutes with one minor amendment.

5.2 Dated 22 August 2019

The Committee reviewed the minutes dated 22 August 2019 and resolved to approve the minutes with corrections and additions.

6. Disclosure of Interest • Item 13.1 FV • Item 13.2 CSn • Item 9.2 & 13.4 MS

7. Confidential Matters

7.1 None

8. Appointments

8.1 The Committee noted the appointment for item 24.2 set for 11:30.

9 Administrative Matters

9.1 Outcome of the Appeals Committee,Draft Tribunal and Court Cases

The following matters under appeal were noted: • Proposed alterations to heritage building and development on the Remainder of Muldersvlei 34, Stellenbosch • Proposed subdivision, Rezoning and development on Erf 46115, 2 Glen Darrach Road, • Proposed demolition and replacement structure on Erf 55148, 16 Osborne Road, Claremont • Proposed removal of an historical public memorial, Botmaskloof Farm 661, Riebeek Kasteel – For Noting

9.2 76 Albert Road, Woodstock

At the request of the heritage practitioner responsible for the application, clarification was sought from the Committee in respect of the conditions for a social study to be conducted which was recommended by the BELCom.

The Committee confirmed that the social study conducted for the adjacent property, considered by the IACom at its meeting of 15th August 2019, would suffice in this instance, as there would be no additional information provided which would assist the Committee in further understanding the social issues pertaining to the site and the greater area, over and above that already considered previously.

It was further noted, that this is a s34 permit application which has a different set of requirements to that of a s38.

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 2

It was also noted that the application had been submitted to Reclaim the City and Ndifuna Ukwazi for comment, but neither of these bodies had provided comment.

It was recommended that both these parties be informed as to when the application will be tabled at the IACom.

10. Standing Items

10.1 Site Inspections

The following site inspections were conducted by Committee members: • Development of a Site to include 65 Residential Units, Picardie Street, off Main Road, Paarl • Proposed new Development, Erf 1, Farm 1766 Portions 1 and 2, Vendome Bo- Plaas, Paarl • Proposed Residential Development on the Remainder of Farm Cumberland 915, Simondium, Paarl • Proposed Mixed Use Development, Remainder of Farm 123, Portion 4 of Farm 123, Remainder of Portion 2 of Farm 123, Portion 1 of Farm 123, Farm 1446, Portion 9 of Farm 724, Bella Riva Estate,

10.2 Report back from Council and other Committees

The Committee noted that HWC Council has endorsed the nomination of the burial site of Imam Haron at the Mowbray Cemetery, and the Al-Jamia Masjid, Stegman Road, Claremont, as Provincial Heritage Sites. Both will be gazetted shortly.

10.3 Discussion of the agenda Draft

Noted.

10.4 Potential Site Inspections None

10.5 HWC and DEA&DP Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)

Nothing to report.

MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED

11 SECTION 38(2) RESPONSES TO NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO DEVELOP

11.1 None

12 SECTION 38(4), INTERIM COMMENT

12.1 None

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 3

13 SECTION 38(4) RECORD OF DECISION

13.1 Proposed Demolition of Farm/Restaurant Buildings, Tree Removal and Development of New Homestead, Stables, Indoor Horse-Riding and Winery on Erven 9795 & 3025, Constantia Uitsig: MA HM\CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN\CONSTANTIA\CONSTANTIA UITSIG/ERVEN 9795 & 3025

Case No: 14102165AS1029M

Landscape Master Plan and supporting information were tabled.

Mr FV recused himself from the discussion and left the room.

Mr Andrew September introduced the case.

Mr Henry Aikman, Mr Anthony Wain and Mr Hannes Bouwer were present and took part in the discussion.

DISCUSSION: Amongst other things, the following was discussed: • The Committee noted that the information previously requested has been provided, and that active steps are being taken to remove or mitigate the unauthorized work which had taken place subsequent to the previous approval. • The proposed actions to address/ remedy unauthorised work is supported. This includes the removal of the berm, as well as the reduction of the walls between the cottages fronting onto Spaanschemat Road to 1.2m high, with the entire central wall being demolished. The shade nettingDraft fronting onto Spaanschemat River Road is also being removed. • It is noted that the berm fronting onto Buitenverwachting will be reshaped and screened. • The Committee noted that the landscape plan requested, (Landscape Master Plan Tree and Plant List, Planning Partners, August 2019), had also addressed concerns raised previously. • It was however noted that the ’s Heritage Resources Section had raised concern in respect of the removal of trees proposed from the area around the new winery, which it believed had previously mitigated the scale of this building. • It was accepted that other plantings are proposed for this area, that would assist in mitigating the scale of the building, but it was also noted that the Committee did not share the same concerns as the City in respect of the scale of the winery building. • Final consideration was given to the revised homestead and werf layout, as well as the relocation of the new indoor arena, and the impact of this on the cultural landscape. • It was noted that the Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) had indicated that the impact of this indoor arena on the wider landscape would be mitigated by the proposed landscaping. • The Committee gave consideration as to whether the relocation of the arena, or revised homestead layout and form, would in fact impact on heritage resources any more than the previously approved development would have, and it was agreed that this would not be the case. • The Committee agreed to endorse the final proposal as submitted.

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 4

FINAL COMMENT: The Committee resolved to support the amended development on condition that: 1. All final landscaping is to be substantially in accordance with the Landscape Master Plan, Drawing Number 77038.301, dated August 2019. 2. Final architectural drawings are submitted to HWC for endorsement prior to final building plan submission.

AS

13.2 Proposed Residential Redevelopment on Erf 148055, Between Oxford and Tennant Street, Kenilworth: MA HM/WYNBERG/ERF 148055

Case No: 15120915AS1214M

Addendum Report prepared by Bridget O'Donoghue was tabled.

Mr CSn recused himself from the discussion and left the room,

Mr FV was nominated by the Committee as chairperson for this item.

Mr Andrew September introduced the case.

Ms Fiona Sweeney, Mr David Pike and Ms Bridget O’Donoghue were present and took part in the discussion.

DISCUSSION:

Amongst other things, the following wasDraft discussed: • The extent of excavation and the level of the semi-basement parking garage, relative to natural ground level and street level were clarified in the revised architectural drawings. • The design changes subsequent to the previous meeting were discussed. • The wing along Oxford Street was shortened to not exceed the line held by the existing guest cottage, in order to preserve the tree-lined forecourt setting of the Palm House. As a result of this reduction or shortening of the wing, the view corridor to the Palm House from Oxford Street has been maintained. Some development was also shifted towards the centre of the site, but this was not considered to intrude on the setting of the Palm House. Certain roofs were raised to accommodate lofts and others were lowered. Roof heights of the proposed new buildings however remained lower than the height of the existing Palm House. • The Committee reiterated that the immediate neighbourhood, and streetscape, were not considered to be of heritage significance, as was established at the site inspection on 28 June 2019. • It was noted that several town planning conditions were applicable to the property, but these were for the City of Cape Town to process and assess. From a heritage perspective, the Committee was supportive of the layout, built form and building heights proposed.

RECORD OF DECISION: The Committee endorsed the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) report and the supplementary report as satisfying the requirements of Section 38(3) of the National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA). The revised proposal by APR Architects, dated August 2019 is approved.

AS

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 5

13.3 Erf 5457, Imhoff Farm, , Cape Town: MA HM/CAPE METROPOLITAN/KOMMETJIE/ERF 5457

Case No: 15070701WD0708M

Phase 2 HIA by Cindy Postlethwayt was tabled.

Ms Waseefa Dhansay introduced the case.

Ms Cindy Postlethwayt was present and took part in the discussion.

DISCUSSION: Discussion which followed included, but is not limited to the following: • The Committee noted that the proposed development had responded well to the indicators contained in the Phase 1 HIA, which had been previously endorsed by the IACom in 2016, and that furthermore the office/mixed use component had been located even further away from the historic werf. • It was also noted that there was no longer any work proposed within the werf area itself. • Whilst the layout, envelopes, and general principles of the development were supported, concern was raised in respect of the proposed buildings’ corporate office park typology, as expressed in their architectural detailing, in this particular location which still has a rural quality, and that this would also detract from the quality of the farm werf. • It was noted however, that much of the surrounding area has been earmarked for future development, and that this would change the existing rural character of the area considerably.

Draft • The Committee observed that without sight of such development, it can only assess the proposal based on information at hand, and given that the rural character of the property, is part of the overall identified significance, the proposal should be looked at in that light. • Nonetheless, given the proposal is regarded by the Committee as a well- considered scheme, and that the overall layout, general massing, scale, and envelope of the buildings, as well as the landscape plan is supported by the Committee, final drawings which respond to the Committee’s concern in respect of the typology, must be submitted to HWC for endorsement prior to the submission of final building plans.

RECORD OF DECISION. The HIA report complies with the provisions of s38(3) of the NHRA.

The Committee resolved to approve the development on condition that: 1. Final building plans must be submitted to HWC for endorsement prior to building plan submission to the City of Cape Town. 2. If any sub-surface work is required during leveling for the proposed pedestrian avenue along the length of the slave quarters/garage building, then this should be monitored by an historical archaeologist.

WD

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 6

13.4 Proposed Residential Development on Erven 64295, 64296 And 64297, Corner Main & Braeside Road, Kenilworth: NM HM/KENILWORTH/ERVEN 64295, 64296 AND 64297

Case No: 16090111AS0914M

MS recused himself.

HIA prepared by Christine Havenga and Associates was tabled.

Mr Andrew September introduced the case.

Mr Dave Venter and Ms Christine Havenga were present and took part in the discussion.

DISCUSSION: Amongst other things, the following was discussed: • The applicants were informed that the IACom could not consider the HIA, as HWC’s public participation policy has not been complied with in this instance. Given there is no registered conservation body for the area in which the site is located, a 30-day notice and comment procedure should be followed. • Notwithstanding the above, in order to assist the heritage practitioner, the Committee deemed it appropriate to discuss aspects of the HIA, as it currently does not comply with other provisions of s38(3) of the Act, and identified areas of the report that would require additional work. • Primarily this is in respect of the identification and mapping of heritage resources. Whilst the Committee notes that the Victorian Villa had been assessed, it was felt that the surrounding context had not been adequately assessed. Draft • For example, the Committee noted that the Todeschini & Japha survey had identified the double storey Kellie House (now earmarked for demolition) to be noteworthy (the equivalent of a IIIB heritage resource), as indeed it did for a number of other structures located in the Close, and that furthermore the Buttgens survey of C2003 had likewise noted these structures as significant. • Furthermore, it was also noted that the CoCT has identified the area as a proposed Heritage Protection Overlay Zone. • The HIA has not identified or interrogated this, and should assess whether the Close, or environs, are heritage resources or not. • A more thorough assessment of the environs will assist in determining appropriate development informants, and whether the proposal impacts on heritage resources, and if so, whether alternatives should be considered, as required in terms of s38(3)(f) of the NHRA. This includes individual buildings provided in the HIA which are not in context and do not establish a general view of the area to inform assessment of impact on immediate buildings. • The Committee noted that the documentation informed that a peer review had been obtained, however this review was not included within the documentation. • It was recommended that the heritage practitioner obtains the assistance of an experienced practitioner in order to help package the HIA to comply with the provisions of s38(3).

INTERIM COMMENT: IACom cannot consider the application until the requirements of s38(3) of the NHRA have been complied with.

AS

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 7

13.5 Proposed mixed-use development on Portion of Farm Schoonspruit 3171, Malmesbury: MA HM/MALMESBURY/FARM SCHOONSPRUIT 3171

Case No:18050909AS0510M

Revised HIA prepared by Bruce Eitzen responding to IACOM's concerns was tabled.

Mr Andrew September introduced the case.

Mr Bruce Eitzen was present and took part in the discussion.

DISCUSSION: Amongst other things, the following was discussed: • Brief discussion was held with the heritage practitioner who expressed concern with the previous comment received from the IACom in respect of the HIA prepared. • The Committee assured the practitioner that this was not criticism of the work itself, but how the HIA was packaged, as it was difficult to synthesise what exactly was being recommended. It was suggested that the prescribed HWC Executive Summary format be used as a guiding template in the future. • Nonetheless, the IACom observed that its previous concerns had been addressed and resolved to endorse the HIA as having met the requirements of s38(3), and that the recommendations contained therein are supported.

RECORD OF DECISION: The Committee resolved to endorse the report as having met the requirements of S38(3), and broadly supported the heritage related recommendations of the consultant. Draft

The revised development may proceed subject to: 1. The property must be protected in order to arrest further decay and vandalism as a matter of urgency. 2. An architect with the requisite expertise must inspect the building(s) and make appropriate recommendations for its restoration. This report must be submitted to HWC for endorsement. 3. A Landscape Master Plan, prepared by a landscape architect with the requisite experience in heritage work, and which takes into account the recommendations of the HIA, must be prepared for the homestead area. This must be submitted to HWC for endorsement prior to any submission of final building plans to the Municipality 4. Solid walling to the boundaries fronting onto the public roads should be avoided, and should be treated with a semi-permeable edge such as planting and palisade. 5. Landscape elements that should also be conserved include generally all the mature trees and palms around the house, other driveway trees, and other scattered mature trees with good form around the estate, particularly the large gum near the old outbuildings. 6. The pre-colonial history and the history of the family and the grounds should be accommodated in interpretive displays developed for the public or estate use. 7. The buildings on the edge of the Private Open Space and around the conserved homestead and werf area must be carefully planned to avoid over-scaling against the historic homestead. 8. With respect the restoration of the parterre gardens, it is recommended that an historical archaeologist is involved in the locating historic features of the garden.

AS

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 8

14 SECTION 38(8) NEMA RESPONSES TO NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO DEVELOP

14.1 None

15 SECTION 38(8) NEMA INTERIM COMMENTS

15.1 Proposed Mixed-Use Development, Remainder of Farm 123, Portion 4 of Farm 123, Remainder of Portion 2 of Farm 123, Portion 1 of Farm 123, Farm 1446, Portion 9 of Farm 724, Bella Riva Estate, Durbanville: NM HM/ CAPE TOWN METROPOLOLITAN/ DURBANVILLE/ REMAINDER OF FARM 123, PORTION 4 OF FARM 123, REMAINDER OF PORTION 2 OF FARM 123, PORTION 1 OF FARM 123, FARM 1446, PORTION 9 OF FARM 724

Case No: 19032619LB0404E

IACom reported back on the site visit undertaken on 5 September 2019. Site visit report prepared by FV dated 7 September 2019 attached (annexure SI1).

Ms Jenna Lavin and Mr Henk Lourens were present and took part in the discussion.

DISCUSSION: Amongst other things, the following was discussed: • The Committee endorsed the findings of the site inspection report. Whilst recognizing that a previous development on the site had been deemed as not impacting on heritage resources by HWC in 2008, the Committee placed on record, that it considered both the original Notification of Intent to Develop (NID) submitted to, (prepared by a consultant who has little heritage experience), as well as the ‘Record of Decision’ received fromDraft , HWC as deeply flawed; even given that understanding of and identification of heritage resources has changed considerably in the period since the initial NID decision was issued. • Whilst it is noted that the proposal is now in contradiction with the City’s Municipal Spatial Development Framework (MSDF), in that the site falls within an identified ‘discouraged growth area’, the City has approved the land use of the property, based on the original golf estate application. • The previous Environmental Authorization was not proceeded with and application has now been made for a revised, high density proposal. • The Committee noted that the general context of the site is certainly a heritage resource in that it is an integral part of a significant wider rural cultural landscape, and the findings of the site visit which noted that; “the site is surrounded by a rural landscape of high scenic quality, characterised by gently rolling hills of grassland and the site is located at the juncture of three identified cultural landscapes – Koeberg / Swartland, Durbanville Hills and Agter-Paarl / Paardeberg. This rural landscape is largely intact and is considered to range between Grade IIIB and Grade IIIA in significance”, was strongly endorsed. • Whilst the Committee noted that the HIA had identified the site and context as a heritage resource, there was a definite disconnect between the identification of heritage resources and the recommendations which are trying to mitigate the impact on the identified cultural landscape. Indeed, the VIA accompanying the HIA was very specific in this regard, and noted: “The proposed high-density development is incongruent with this rural area and will have a HIGH visual intrusion from the north, west and east” (p32). Also: “The visual impacts of this proposed high density urban development on the rural character of the area and on the receptors in the surrounding area will be high” (p44).

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 9

• In addition, the HIA does not provide a spatial settlement overview in order to assess the impact of the proposed development on the receiving environment, as viewed from Koeberg / Swartland, Durbanville Hills and Agter-Paarl / Paardeberg. • This is not an impact that can be mitigated and the proposed mitigation measures, such as tree planting and building design guidelines are totally ineffective relative to the scale of the development proposed. • As stated in the HIA report: “The mitigation measures proposed in the VIA go some way to mitigating the negative impact of the proposed development, however the impact of the development as proposed on the cultural landscape remains significant”. • It was finally noted that the HIA does not comply with the provisions of s38(3) of the NHRA. • Whilst this is applicable in broad terms to the fulfilment of the requirements of s38(c) -38(g), attention is specifically drawn to the requirements of s38(3)(f), in that no alternatives have been considered. This is considered as being a fatal flaw. • It is a strong recommendation of the Committee that an Urban Designer, with the appropriate experience in heritage related applications be employed in order to assist in arriving at a more appropriate planning model for development within a significant rural cultural landscape.

INTERIM COMMENT: The report does not comply with the requirements of s38(3) of the NHRA.

LB

15.2 Development of a Site to include 65 Residential Units, Picardie Street, off Main Road, Paarl: NM Draft HM/ CAPE WINELANDS/ DRAKENSTINE/ PAARL/ RE ERF 3396

Case No: 17112101ZK1205E

IACom reported back on the site visit undertaken on 5 September 2019. Site visit report prepared by MS dated 10 September 2019 attached (annexure SI2).

Mr Anton Prinsloo was present and took part in the discussion.

DISCUSSION: Amongst other things, the following was discussed: • The Committee endorsed the findings of the site inspection report. • Mr Prinsloo informed the Committee that Mr Jacobs had been involved in a traffic accident the previous day, and was unable to be present at the meeting. • It was accepted that the primary purpose of tabling the matter now was, as requested in writing by the heritage practitioner, for the Committee to comment whether the proposed development layout has any fatal flaws, and for the IACom to endorse the “heritage statement”, and development indicators. • The Committee endorsed the indicators in principle, but felt that these should be expanded to take note of the following. • The Committee noted that the site falls within the Municipality’s Urban Edge, however it was also noted that the site forms part of the Paarl Mountain Slopes, proposed as a heritage area by the Drakenstein Municipality and identified as a fine example of a historically evolved landscape incorporating suburban development patterns with surviving rural settlement and cultivated landscapes that are layered, intact and authentic. • The northern portion of the site is immediately adjacent to the historic Laborie werf and vineyards which fall within a Provincial Heritage Site.

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 10

• The Committee noted that the development model proposed is problematic in that it essentially extends, and imposes a two-dimensional, inwardly focussed and repetitive suburban model into the landscape without recognition of the topography, visual exposure and significance of the site itself. It was also noted that the linear layout, the ‘sameness’ in architectural style and palette, and the solid, white boundary walls exacerbate the visual impact of the development. • Furthermore, there should be a clear distinction / curtilage between the development and the Laborie werf and vineyards. Absorbing Laborie into suburbia should be wholly avoided. Indeed the “red zone” as noted on Diagram 6 in the HIA should be enlarged towards the west and is considered to not only be a sensitive zone, but in fact a no-go zone. • The Committee gave consideration as to whether the application site could be developed at all, but noted that the primary significance of the site, is a contributory one, rather than intrinsic, and as such it could support development of the site in principle. • However, such development design must address a successful transition between the urban and cultural rural landscapes, and that the primary informants should be the rural quality of the landscape and site, and not be seen as an extension of suburbia. This includes the visual impact of high walls (including their colour and texture) in a rural setting.

COMMENT: The HIA should incorporate and address the concerns as noted by the Committee in discussion.

WD

15.3 Proposed Residential Development onDraft the Remainder of Farm Cumberland 915, Simondium, Stellenbosch: NM HM/SIMONDIUM/FARM CUMBERLAND 915

Case No:17021409AS0217E

IACom reported back on the site visit undertaken on 5 September 2019. Site visit report prepared by CM dated 9 September 2019 attached (annexure SI3).

Ms Cindy Postlethwayt and Mr. Zwelibanzi Shiceka were present and took part in the discussion.

DISCUSSION: Amongst other things, the following was discussed: • The Committee endorsed the findings of the site inspection report, noting that the site formed part of a rural node and that appropriate development in this area could be supported. • The Committee supported the recommendations and indicators as contained in the Phase 1 HIA but recommended that these be expanded to include built form/architectural indicators for the proposed industrial sheds, so as to guide building typologies and achieve some articulation. Mr Shiceka noted that the Drakenstein Municipality had certain concerns in respect of the future of farm workers currently living on the site and suggested that HWC could impose conditions to ensure their continued tenure on the site. • The Committee noted that the current occupants were to be relocated elsewhere on the site, and further noted that the site had only been settled fairly recently and as such there are no direct historic ties to the site. The socio-economic provisions

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 11

of the NHRA would not be triggered. It was suggested that this is a Municipal, rather than a heritage matter.

INTERIM COMMENT: The Committee endorsed the Phase 1 HIA, and its indicators, but recommended that these be expanded to include indicators for the built form of the proposed development.

AS

15.4 Proposed new Development, Erf 1, Farm 1766 Portions 1 and 2, Vendome Bo- Plaas, Paarl: NM HM/ CAPE WINELANDS/ DRAKENSTEIN/ PAARL/ ERF 1, FARM 1766, PORTIONS 1 AND 2

Case No: 18012202WD0124M

IACom reported back on the site visit undertaken on 5 September 2019. Site visit report was prepared by DS dated 11 September 2019 attached (annexure SI4), and application documents were tabled.

Mr David Gibbs, Mr Zwelibanzi Shiceka, and Ms Lize Malan, were present and took part in the discussion.

DISCUSSION: Amongst other things, the following was discussed: • The Committee noted that it had certain difficulty in giving consideration to a single phase of the proposed development without being able to see the entire development holistically, and in context.Draft • In discussion however, both Mr Shiceka of the Drakenstein Municipality, as well as Ms Malan, (present as an observer, and previously a consulting planner who was involved in the drafting of the original Urban Edge), confirmed that this particular site was of little heritage significance in its own right, and that the primary heritage resource was the edge of the site fronting onto Jan Van Riebeeck Drive. It was noted that there will be no development on this portion of the property. • Other heritage resources present, as noted in the site inspection report, are too far away to be impacted on by the development, any more than existing development in the area already does. • Notwithstanding the Committee’s concern in respect of the proposed planning model, and ongoing sprawl it represents, the Committee acknowledged that as no heritage resources would be impacted on by the development, this is not a matter for HWC to comment on.

FINAL COMMENT: The HIA complies with the provisions of s38(3) of the NHRA.

From a heritage perspective, HWC has no objection to the development.

It is recommended that the consenting authority imposes the following conditions: 1. If any human remains are uncovered or exposed during construction activities, these must immediately be cordoned off and reported to HWC.

WD

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 12

15.5 Proposed Boulder Wind Farm, West Coast District Municipality, Western Cape: MA HM/ VREDENBERG/ SALDANHA

Case No: 18022002SB0314E

Revised Integrated Heritage Impact Assessment and Visual Impact Study were tabled.

Ms Stephanie Barnardt introduced the case.

Ms Katie Smuts, Mr Jonathan Visser and Mr Allan Palmer were present and took part in the discussion.

DISCUSSION: Amongst other things, the following was discussed: • The Committee noted that the application had been discussed at the APM meeting of 4th September, and that the APM had resolved to support Option 2 as tabled in the HIA. • The Committee noted that Option 2 was arrived at following previous comments raised by the IACom, as well as from various specialist reports, including the HIA previously tabled. • This current proposal has resulted in the removal of the seven turbines proposed from the western side of the Vredenburg-Stompeneus Road, and a densification of turbines elsewhere. • It was noted that the Heritage Practitioner prefers the removal or relocation of all wind turbines west of the Vredenburg-Stompneus Bay road in order to best mitigate the impact of the development on the Vredenburg cultural landscape and the heritage Draft significance of Kasteelberg within that landscape, and the committee agrees with this. Furthermore, the committee also noted its concern that the remaining turbines to the west of the road would potentially set future precedent. • However, the Committee also has to take into account the provisions of s38(3)(d) of the NHRA which requires an evaluation of the impact of the development on heritage resources relative to the sustainable social and economic benefits to be derived from the development. • In this regard the Committee accepted that removing the remaining turbines to the west of the road would render the proposed WEF unviable, and that the provision of alternative energy sources was of national economic benefit. • It was further noted that given various restrictions, it was unlikely that other Wind Farms would be able to be developed to the west side of the road. • As such the Committee resolved to endorse alternative 2 as the preferred option. • The Committee endorsed the HIA as having met the requirements of s38(3) of the NHR Act, and endorses the recommendations contained therein. • Whilst not directly related to the subject application, the Committee supported the recommendations arising from the public participation process that HWC should proceed with the declaration of Kasteelberg as a Provincial Heritage Site, as well as Cape Columbine Lighthouse.

FINAL COMMENT: The HIA is endorsed as having met the requirements of S38 (3) of the NHRA.

The Committee supports the Development alternative 2 and has no objection to the development proceeding.

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 13

It is recommended however that the consenting authority includes the following conditions: . Palaeontology: 1. The Heritage Western Cape Chance Fossil Finds Procedure must be included in the EMPr and implemented in the case of fossil remains being encountered. Archaeology: 1. The Lombard and Pienaar cemetery (2011/329 at s32.80442800 e18.00421500) shall be a “no-go” area. As the existing farm road that passes the cemetery site will be upgraded as an access road during turbine construction, the alignment must is modified, and that the road should be shifted moderately to the west to avoid any possible impact on the cemetery; 2. Avoid and conserve significant heritage resources (buffers, no-go areas, etc) around farm buildings and graveyards, archaeological sites or complexes. 3. Accidently discovered archaeological material must be reported to the Provincial Heritage Authority in terms of section 35 of the National Heritage Resources Act. The finds should also be reported to the appointed archaeologist for assessment and possible action; 4. Accidently discovered human remains must immediately be reported to the Provincial Heritage Authority in terms of section 36 of the National Heritage Resources Act. The finds should also be reported to the appointed archaeologist for assessment and possible action; 5. The ECO should be informed of any chance finds; 6. Monitoring of the construction activities by the archaeologist is required to determine the effectiveness of the mitigation. This will be at earthmoving stage to ensure that there are not significant buried archaeological resources being

exposed. Draft

Visual: 1. Where sensitive visual receptors are likely to be affected, the developer shall enter into negotiations regarding the potential screening of visual impacts at the receptor site. This may entail the planting of vegetation, trees or the construction of screens. Ultimately, visual screening is most effective when placed at the receptor itself. 2. The vegetation cover (i.e. either natural or cultivated) be maintained in all areas outside of the actual development footprint, both during construction and operation of the proposed facility. This will minimise the visual impact as a result of cleared areas, power line servitudes and areas denuded of vegetation. 3. Existing roads shall be utilised wherever possible. New roads should be planned taking due cognisance of the topography to limit cut and fill requirements. Construction/upgrade of roads should be undertaken properly, with adequate drainage structures in place to forego potential erosion problems. 4. In terms of on-site ancillary buildings and structures, they must be planned so that clearing of vegetation is minimised. This implies consolidating this infrastructure as much as possible and making use of already disturbed areas rather than undisturbed sites wherever possible. 5. Reduce lighting impacts through: a) Limiting aircraft warning lights to the perimeter turbines; b) Investigate aircraft warning lights with proximity sensors c) Limit mounting heights of lighting fixtures, use footlights or bollard level lights; d) Use down-lighters or shielded fixtures e) Use motion sensors on security lighting f) Once the facility has exhausted its life span, the main facility and all associated infrastructure not required for the post rehabilitation use of the site should be removed and all disturbed areas appropriately rehabilitated.

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 14

Once the final layout has been presented, a pre-construction survey by a suitably qualified stone age archaeologist must be undertaken of the affected area.

SB

15.6 Farm 550/1 Kleinbosch Road, Daljosaphat, Paarl: NM HM/ CAPE WINELANDS/ DRAKENSTEIN/ PAARL/ FARM 550/1

Case: 19032201WD0827E

Application documents were tabled.

Ms Waseefa Dhansay introduced the case.

DISCUSSION: Amongst other things, the following was discussed: • The HIA does not comply with any of the provisions of s38(3) of the NHRA. As such the Committee cannot consider the application. • It is recommended that the developer employs the services of an experienced heritage practitioner to assist the architect with the preparation and packaging of the Impact Assessment Report in order for it to be compliant. • In particular, and noting that the site falls within the Drakenstein Municipality’s proposed “Daljosophat Historical Area”, a meaningful identification, assessment, and mapping of heritage resources, not just of the site, but also the wider context, is a primary requirement of the HIA. This must also include a proper visual assessment and photographic documentation. • Furthermore, it is recommended that the requirements of HWC, as spelt out in its response to the NID submitted, shouldDraft be responded to in general, with the exception of the second bullet of the Built Study requirement: the reference to “the architectural character on existing immediately adjacent heritage resources within the Victoria Hospital precinct”, is clearly a cut and paste or recording error and should be ignored. • The HIA should instead include an assessment of the visual impact of the proposed development on the Cultural Landscape. • It is also recommended that comment from an archaeologist is obtained, in order to determine as to whether an archaeological study would be required to be included within the HIA.

INTERIM COMMENT: The HIA currently does not meet the requirements of S38 (3) of the NHRA. A revised HIA must be prepared and resubmitted to HWC.

WD

16 SECTION 38(8) NEMA FINAL COMMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

16.1 None

17 SECTION 38(8) MPA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN RESPONSES TO NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO DEVELOP

17.1 None

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 15

18 SECTION 38(8) MPA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN INTERIM COMMENT

18.1 None

19 SECTION 38(8) MPA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL COMMENT

19.1 None

20 SECTION 38(8) OTHER LEGISLATION NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO DEVELOP

20.1 None

21 SECTION 38(8) OTHER LEGISLATION INTERIM COMMENT

21.1 None

22 SECTION 38(8) OTHER LEGISLATION FINAL COMMENT

22.1 None

23. SECTION 27 PROVINCIAL HERITAGE SITES

23.1 None

24 SECTION 42 HERITAGE AGREEMENTDraft

24.1 None

25. OTHER/ ADVICE

25.1 Cloetesdal Farm, Stellenbosch: NM HM/STELLENBOSCH/CLOETESDAL FARM

Case No: N/A

Background document were tabled.

Mr Andrew September introduced the case.

Mr David Gibbs, Ms Lize Malan, Mr Avril Paterson and Mr Pieter du Toit were present and took part in the discussion.

DISCUSSION: • Ms Malan had requested the advice of the IACom prior to the preparation of an HIA and development plans. • The Committee notes that the site is included within the Stellenbosch Municipality’s Urban Edge, however it also falls within a landscape unit identified as having heritage significance in the Stellenbosch Heritage Inventory. • Notwithstanding the Committee appreciates the difficulty expressed in respect of maintaining the property as an agricultural unit, it notes that it can only assess a potential development, and the impact that it would have on the identified cultural landscape from a heritage point of view.

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 16

• The Committee noted however that it would in all likelihood resist planning models which resulted in urban sprawl, and/or are inwardly focussed and closed off residential estates. The issue at hand would be how to successfully transition from Urban to Rural, with an appropriate development typology. • The Committee also recognizes that there are other planning and socio-economic considerations at play, which would have implications in respect of a wider context than just the site. In this regard it is a strong recommendation that both heritage and urban design indicators help inform an appropriate development model. The work of Dewar & Louw in respect of the Dwars River Valley was mentioned as a useful example, which could guide future thinking.

ADVICE: It is suggested that a Two Phase HIA may be the appropriate approach in this instance, with a 1st Phase report being used to identify and assess heritage significance, and provide appropriate urban design and heritage informants for a development model, which can be endorsed by HWC, prior to the development being assessed in a 2nd Phase Report.

Public Participation should also be conducted in the Phase I HIA in order to assist with the identification of heritage resources.

AS

25.2 Erf 3, Johannesdal: NM HM/JOHANNESDAL/ERF 3

Case No: N/A Draft Background document was tabled.

Mr Andrew September introduced the case.

Mr David Gibbs, Ms Lize Malan, Mr Avril Paterson, Mr Pieter du Toit, Mr Tristan Sandwith and Mr Paul William were present and took part in the discussion.

DISCUSSION AND ADVICE: • Ms Malan had requested the advice of the IACom the nature of development that would be acceptable to it on this site, prior to the preparation of an HIA and development plans. • Whilst noting that the site still retains a connection to the surrounding rural cultural landscape, it essentially falls within a block that is considered as infill development. • The Committee noted that in this instance the primary heritage resource is Helshoogte Road, and the site’s mountain backdrop. • It was noted that given the typography of the site, development to the rear of the site would not be visible from Helshoogte Road. The Committee believed it could support a slightly denser development model than the average density, which allows for opportunities for more greening, on this portion of the site. • It was recommended that the development team looks at the Louw & Dewar interventions along the , at Pniel, for examples of an appropriate model for dealing with the developments interface with Helshoogte Road. • Ultimately the Committee would support a development model which is able to stitch together an appropriate interface along Helshoogte Road, and at the same time still retains the connections with the Mountain, and the site’s overall sense of place.

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 17

• An inwardly focussed, repetitive development model, which excludes itself from its village context, would not be supported.

AS

26 Adoption of decisions and resolutions

26.1 The Committee agreed to adopt the decisions and resolutions.

27. CLOSURE:

28. DATE OF NEXT MEETING: 9 October 2019

CHAIRPERSON______DATE______

SECRETARY______DATE______

Draft

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 18

Annexure SI1

Committee Site Inspection Report for BELLA RIVA LIFESTYLE & COUNTRY ESTATE, DURBANVILLE

Case No. 19032619LB0404E Submitted by FRIK VERMEULEN ON 7 SEPTEMBER 2019 Erf/Farm No.: REM FARM 123, PORTION 4 OF FARM 123, REM OF PORTION 2 OF FARM 123, PORTION 1 OF FARM 123 AND FARM 1446 Street Address: , NORTH OF FISANTEKRAAL Registered Owners: BUNKER HILLS INV 311 (PTY) LTD, CITY OF CAPE TOWN, MONTAGUE PROP & ADMINISTRATORS (PTY) LTD, BILLTRADE 104 (PTY) LTD, BEN VAN DER MERWE TRUST Grading: GRADE IIIB, LOCATED IN A GRADE IIIA CULTURAL LANDSCAPE Nature of Application: HIGH-DENSITY MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT Date of Site Visit: 5 SEPTEMBER 2019 HWC Representatives: OLWETHU DLOVA CHRIS SNELLING, MIKE SCURR, FRIK VERMEULEN, CECILENE MULLER, SIPHIWO MAVUMENGWANA (IACOM). Reasons for Site Inspection: IACOM RESOLUTION TO ASSESS THE SITE’S URBAN/RURAL CONTEXT, LANDSCAPE AND SENSE OF PLACE.

Area Inspected: MELISH ROAD, THE CATTLE FARM ON THE SITE, VIEWS FROM THE SITE AND VIEWS TOWARDS THE SITE FROM THE R302 AND THE R312.

Findings:

The site is located to the east of the R302, whichDraft runs from Durbanville to , where it joins the to Malmesbury. A railway line runs immediately to the west of the site from south to north with the Mellish station next to the site. The R312, which runs past Fisantekraal airfield, is located further to the south.

It was noted that the previous heritage assessment for the proposed golf estate consisted only of an archaeological impact assessment and the cultural landscape was not assessed. The site is surrounded by a rural landscape of high scenic quality, characterised by gently rolling hills of grassland and the site is located at the juncture of three identified cultural landscapes – Koeberg / Swartland, Durbanville Hills and Agter-Paarl / Paardeberg. This rural landscape is largely intact and is considered to range between Grade IIIB and Grade IIIA in significance.

The isolation of the site is striking. The closest settlements are Klipheuwel, 4,5km to the north, Mikpunt smallholdings, 2km to the north and Fisantekraal, 1,5 km to the south. Durbanville is 5,5km to the south-west. The Visual Absorption Capacity of the site is considered low.

On site no Archaeology could be seen on the ground, but this observation does not preclude possible subsurface evidence.

Recommended Action:

Members to report the findings of the inspection at the next Committee meeting.

Which committee should this report be submitted to:

IACom

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 19

Photographs overleaf

PHOTOGRAPHS

View of the site from Melish Road towards the north-east

Draft

View of the site from Melish Road towards the south-east, with the cattle farm in the distance

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 20

View across the cattle farm towards the south-west, with in the distance. The rolling hills of the Durbanville Hills Cultural Landscape are visible.

View across the railway line and Mosselbank River to the south-west

Draft

View of the cattle farm from the R312, looking south-east. Over the rise (out of view) is Fisantekraal village, where Greenville Garden City is currently developing to the east.

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 21

Annexure SI2

Committee Site Inspection Report for: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Submitted by MIKE SCURR on 10 SEPTEMBER 2019 Erf/Farm No.: ERF 3396, PAARL Street Address: off LABORIE ST, PAARL Registered Owner: FARM PICARDIE, HIA COMMISSIONED BY ARUN PROJECTS (PTY) LTD. Grading: IIIA – PICARDIE WERF Nature of Application: SECTION 38(8) Date of Site Visit: 05 SEPTEMBER 2019 HWC Representatives: OLWETHU DLOVA (STAFF), CHRIS SNELLING, SIPHIWO MAVUMENGWANA, MIKE SCURR, CECILENE MULLER, FRIK VERMEULEN, DAVE SAUNDERS – FOR IACOM) Reasons for Site Inspection: IACOM RESOLUTION TO ASSESS THE SITE AND CONTEXT Area Inspected: The overall site was inspected including visual inspections from the adjacent Laborie werf.

Findings: The site inspection was conducted on Thursday 05/09 with Committee members as noted above.

It is noted in the documentation that the consultant, Graham Jacobs, has submitted a Phase 1 HIA (together with the VIA by Bridget O’Donoghue) to gain early comment pre the Assessment stage given the recent comments by HWC on applications within the urban edge.

The site is located on Picardie farm and adjacentDraft to Laborie. The site forms part of the Paarl Mountain Slopes area and thus forms part of a significant cultural landscape. The Laborie werf is a PHS and the Picardie werf is graded IIIA.

IACom members viewed the site from the upper homestead area, as well as the parking area to the eastern portion of the proposed development area. In addition, the site was viewed from Laborie on the northern side as well

The site has varying surrounding conditions; suburban development to the south and east, Laborie to the north and Picardie werf on the west. Key views to the Taal Monument and Paarl rock are evident from various vantage points. The overriding impression gained however is the effect of the topography on the proposed site area; in addition to sloping sharply down the mountain slope, the site is also comprised of a rolling landscape running north-south. This in turn affects the visibility and appreciation of the site from various vantage points and therefore should be a primary informant to the position and layout of any potential buildings on the site.

Recommended Action: Members to report the findings of the inspection at the next IACom Committee meeting.

Which committee should this report be submitted to: IACom

Photographs: A selection of key images taken on site are included in this report.

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 22

01 Vineyard area looking towards Laborie

Draft

02 Picardie homestead

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 23

03 View across site form Picardie homestead

Draft

04 View from parking area in middle of proposed site area

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 24

05 View from Picardie across Laborie werf

Draft

06 North view to Paarl rock

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 25

07 Vineyards and worker’s cottages

Draft

08 View of ridge of site from Laborie with church tower visible

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 26

Annexure SI3

Committee Site Inspection Report for Remainder Farm Cumberland 915 Simondium, Drakenstein Municipality

Submitted by Cecilene Muller on 9th September 2019 Case Number: 17021409AS0217E Erf/Farm No.: Remainder Farm Cumberland 915 Simondium, Drakenstein Municipality Registered Owner: Telegenix Trading 856 (Pty) Ltd. Grading: The property is located in a Grade 1 cultural landscape and according to the Drakenstein Heritage Survey, it is situated in the proposed Simonsberg Slopes Heritage Area. The is a Scenic Route and the former Drakenstein Co-operative Winery is graded IIIA. The property itself is not significant or conservation worthy. Nature of Application: Proposed office, light industrial and warehousing development Date of Site Visit: 5TH September 2019 HWC Representatives: Olwethu Dlova (Staff) IACOM Committee Members: Chris Snelling, Frik Vermeulen, Dave Saunders, Siphiwo Mavumengwana, Mike Scurr and Cecilene Muller. Reasons for Site Inspection: IACOM resolution to assess the site in rural context and landscape. Area Inspected: Remainder Farm Cumberland 915

Findings:

The property was accessed from the parking lot of the Simondium Guild (Farm 1337) on the day of the site visit. A fence separated the parking lot from that of the Remainder farm Cumberland 915. Grass covered most of the property with a number of tall trees, occurring in a row. Some invasive flora is seen growing onDraft the site. Apart from the trees, a clear view of Simonsberg was obtained. Rubble from previous buildings are evidenced and a few structures are scattered on the property. An old water tower also occurs on site. The site itself has been disturbed by previous activities.

On the east of the site directly in front of the Guild, the Scenic Route of the R45 is traversed by vehicles, while the old train track can be seen between the Guild and the R45. The site is largely screened from the R45 by the large, gabled Guild building. The site forms part of a node surrounded on the south, west and north by agricultural land and activity. At the Guild a number of businesses operate, for example a coffee shop, a beer brewery, wine bottling plant, etc. As such, there is precedent for light industrial and business development.

On site no Archaeology could be seen on the ground, but this observation does not preclude possible subsurface evidence.

Recommended Action:

Members to report the findings of the inspection at the next Committee meeting.

Which committee should this report be submitted to:

IACom – 11th September 2019

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 27

Photographs of Remainder Farm Cumberland 915 Simondium on the overleaf PHOTOGRAPHS:

Figures 1 & 2: The parking lot of the Simondium Guild and the vibracrete fence separating the subject site from the Guild.

Draft

Figures 3 & 4: The Simonsberg and rubble on the site

Figures 5 & 6: Existing structures and a row of tall trees

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 28

Figure 7: Grass and tree cover on the site

Draft

Approved IACom Minutes_ 11 September 2019 29