Heritage Cases

HERITAGE VALUE:- An architectural impact assessment was conducted by Dr Debbie Whelan in June 2010 which concluded that there was low: (1) architectural; (2) historical; (3) technical; (4) social; and (5) scientific significance as to the cottage, the dairy and the coal shed. The main house was found to have low: (1) architectural; (2) technical; and (3) scientific significance; and no (4) historical; or (5) social significance. This expert architectural study proposed demolition. STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY:- From the report of N G Hayter (Structural Engineer), the structural integrity of the buildings is seriously compromised. There was evidence of foundation failure of the original shale residence with a possible total failure of the gable wall. The North-East facing verandah was determined to be unstable and dangerous and likely to collapse. The verandah floor had also sagged due to a failure of the retaining wall. Concrete lintels over opening in the main dwelling showed signs of distress due to excessive movement and settlement of the walls. AMAFA'S 23/01/2014 BEC MINUTES:- These indicated that the developer had not provided supporting documentation for not being able to use the building for any other purpose with the development. It is not encumbent upon the developer to have done so. To do so would cast an unconstitutional onus on the developer. The developer may elect not to develop the site where the dairy farmstead stands due to AMAFA's stance, which leaves a dangerous structurally unsound building in close proximity of a mall to be frequented by the general public. It also poses a risk of vagrant occupation and general detraction from the aesthetics of the area. UNECONOMICAL TO REPAIR:- The dairy farmstead has been determined to be uneconomical to repair by the structural engineer. Nora Choveaux's email to Ros Devereux of 10/09/2011 and the evenly dated Ros Devereux response indicated only a need for a permit for the demolition of the dairy farmstead. The developer points out the risk of injury, harm or death due to this hazardous structure to AMAFA. AMAFA controls this potentially dangerous situation and in the absence of the developer repairing and renovating the structure, the question becomes "who would" if the structure does not fit with the development plan and is left to stand? AMAFA'S LETTER OF 31/01/2012:- This represents an evolving decision. It suffices to say that none of the requirements at items 4(b) to (d) have been met, nor are they likely to be. NOTICE OF APPEAL:- Notwithstanding that "planning issues" were not yet resolved in terms of AMAFA's 05/12/2011 decision, a Notice of Appeal was delivered in February 2013 which was served on objectors. Apart from AMAFA indicating that the time period for Appeal had lapsed (which although this could not have happened with non-resolution of the planning issues), no objectors responded. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:- Public participation happened at both the EIA stage and at the point of the Application to AMAFA. It is not necessary for further public participation. When the general population of Pietermaritzburg is taken into account, there was not "overwhelming" support for the retention of the structures, but a dismal lack of support thereof. Apart from the Biodiversity Trust, the only persons seeking the retention of the structures were residents of Mills Circle and the immediate vicinity seeking to maintain the status quo. LACK OF EXPERT OBJECTION:- There has been no objection lodged by experts to support the retention of the structures on the basis of intrinsic value. 'It is submitted hence that the only justicible exercise of AMAFA's discretion in the current circumstances is to permit the demolition of the structure.