CommentFullView

What is today known as Westfort began in the 1880s as a hospital for the treatment of, and research into smallpox. Consisting of four rooms and an outside toilet designed to house eight patients, the site was originally named Daspoort Hospital. Wards for leprosy patients were added in 1890, and it was probably at this time that the site was prepared to function as a completely isolated and self-sustaining leprosy asylum. West Fort Hospital was built as an extension of Daspoort Hospital in 1898, with the two eventually merging to become Pretoria Leprosy Hospital. In the 1900s the hospital managed its own farm, had a post-office, police station, four churches, a school and shops, making it a virtually independent settlement. From 1918 the Hospital was vastly expanded as all leprosy patients from other institutions in South Africa were transferred here, reaching 2000 patients in 1931. The Hospital was eventually closed in 1996/7, and allegedly purchased from a government tender by Octopus Productions, who intended to turn it into a heritage tourism site. Westfort residents allege that is was this company that employed security guards to prevent occupation. Plots were also allegedly sold by this company to individuals, who still occupy these buildings. The few initial inhabitants of the site claim to have been soon abandoned by their employer, and remained in occupation of the buildings as they had no alternative accommodation, and some claim legitimate purchase of their homes. The site has since seen a slow increase in informal occupants, today numbering around seven thousand individuals. It appears that Octopus Productions is currently instituting legal proceedings contesting their ownership of the property. Such dispute seems not to have deterred the municipality from rolling out its development plans on the site, for which they have contracted the services of Scip Engineers. ‘West Fort’ in referred to in a number of municipal planning documents as incorporated into a broader development plan to provide mixed income housing establishments. One such example in the City of Tswane First Draft Built Environment Performance Plan (January 2012) which proposes 5072 houses to be built there. These documents provide no detailed outline of such proposals, and we may only assume that they refer to the property with which we are concerned. SCIP Engineering Group, responsible for the planning and implementation of the development, contracted Ace-Environmental Solutions to conduct the Environmental Impact Assessment for the property Fort 646 JR on which the remains of Westfort Hospital stand. According to maps from the Surveyor General’s office, the Hospital complex is situated on the farm Fort 646 JR, which was created from a consolidation of various portions of surrounding farms in 1994. The outline of this farm, and its exact JR reference correspond to the proposed mixed township layouts produced by SCIP Engineering Group and Ace-Environmental Solutions. However, no such property exists in the Registrar of Deeds Office, with only its predecessors (Portion 0 (remaining extent) of Broek Scheur 318 JR, and Portions 16, 31 and 226 of Pretoria Town and Townlands 351 JR) registered as belonging to the Republic of South Africa. According to the National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998), such an assessment must include consultation with interested and affected parties (s2(4)(f)). The Heritage Impact Assessment, forming part of the EIA, also requires such public consultation (according to the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999, an HIA must include ‘the results of consultation with communities affected by the proposed development and other interested parties regarding the impact of the development on heritage resources’(s38(3)(e)). A draft HIA was conducted by M. Naude, and included no such participation. This HIA should probably be understood as a ‘scoping report’, to define the parameters for a full HIA yet to be conducted. We have been unable to obtain the EIA from SCIP or Ace-Environmental Solutions, and have been informed by the residents of the Hospital complex that no public consultation has taken place. ‘Fortwest Phase 2 Housing Project’ is listed on Ace Environmental Solutions’ website as having a ‘final EIA’, but the links provided on the page do not furnish the searcher with the required documents. The reference number for this EIA (Gaut002/11-12/0165) was obtained from Philip Booyens, a manager of Scip, but has been of little assistance in the sourcing of the EIA. The EIA was finally obtained from SAHRA, and (for the first time) given to the residents of Westfort. In collaboration with these residents, University of Pretoria staff are preparing a PAIA (promotion of access to information act) applications in collaboration with the Right2Know campaign. In an apparent attempt to evict the sites current residents, water and electricity to the property was disconnected in 2004. Those who can afford it make use of generators, while others burn wood fires for cooking and keeping warm. The municipality provides an alarmingly small amount of water and portable toilets, brought in by tank. The community faces constant threats of eviction due to a development project at the site, details of which have been notoriously difficult to obtain. Hearsay alleges that some buildings will be demolished, while others restored in the development process. Residents have been promised title to these restored houses, or to new houses in the incoming development, though this remains rumour. It is against the destruction of this site in the face of development, and toward the decent treatment of residents in the case of development, that UP staff have gotten involved at Westfort. Living within the historic buildings, the residents today impact both physically and non-physically on the site, altering the buildings through occupation, and providing new meanings to the site. Those engaged with the residents of Westfort are aware of the complicated and difficult nature of this case. On the one hand the informal occupation of this site is leading to an alarming rate of degeneration, with buildings being slowly broken down for raw materials. At the same time, municipal development plans could similarly negatively affect this historic site, and the vagueness of information obtainable from the state rings alarm bells of heritage destruction in the face of development. Along with this is the constitutional obligation of every citizen to ensure the rights, including adequate living conditions, of the residents of Westfort. It is because of the significant nature of this heritage site, and our desire to see the memory of this place preserved, that we turn to the expertise and guidance of the South African Heritage Resources Agency. As a loosely defined collective of concerned archaeologists, anthropologists, theologians, philosophers, lawyers, residents, students and humans, we request the assistance of the South African Heritage Resources Agency in this case, with particular focus on the following. 1. It is of paramount importance to understand the municipality’s proposed plans in relation to the historic buildings. We request SAHRA to obtain this information from the municipality/developer and ensure that the development objectives will not adversely affect the significant heritage of the site. 2. It is also of utmost importance to know of the municipality's plans for the future of the current residents of Westfort. We request SAHRA to obtain this information from the municipality/developer and ensure that provision is made within the development plans of the site for the future of these individuals. 3. Not a single person or group of people with whom we have been in contact (The residents, the Leprosy Mission, ex-patients and staff etc.) recalls ever being approached for comment on the development plans for this site. We request SAHRA to obtain details of the public participation process followed by the municipality/developer, and if necessary instruct them to include additional interested and affected parties in future discussions for the development of the site. We understand the complexity of this case, and appreciate the significant value of this heritage site as a place of memory for those who were forcibly kept there, a home and community to those who current live there, and an invaluable insight into the past for those researching there. We seek to ensure that all interested stakeholders are permitted an adequate contribution to discussions on the future of this site, to which end we have sought, and continue to seek, clarification on certain information, to which we now turn to SARHA for assistance.