Appeal against plans for Boschendal
2006-06-22
THE Drakenstein Heritage Foundation has appealed against the in-principle approval given by the South African Heritage Resources Agency to the first phase development of Boschendal farmlands.
The DHF believes the ad hoc Permit Committee of the SA Heritage Resource Agency (Sahra) has exceeded the powers laid down in the National Heritage Resources Act, has imposed conditions that are vague and subject to dispute, and has effectively shut out the rights of interested and affected parties.
The first-phase proposal by Boschendal’s owners, Boschendal Limited - which bought the historic estate from the Anglo American Corporation a few years ago - is to sell on the basis of 99-year leasehold not more than 19 single residential 20ha stands to form what it terms would be a Founders Estate, set among the vineyards below the Simonsberg and abutting Pniel village.
In giving its in-principle approval Sahra indicates its awareness that the Cape Winelands cultural landscape has been placed on the World Heritage Tentative List as it meets some of the criteria used to assess “outstanding universal value”, which includes those of authenticity and integrity.
“Even with proposed mitigating measures for the development, the Permit Committee believes the integrity of the landscape will be affected and the likelihood exists that it and that potentially the Dwars River Valley “would be excluded from eventual WHS (World Heritage Site) listing”.
It would, the DHF says “have a potentially significant negative impact on the natural and cultural heritage that currently exists on the
property.”
“There needs to be some kind of co-operative arrangement that would ensure that uniform and consistent management of the natural and cultural heritage takes place.
Individual owners of sub-divisions would have to accord with closely defined guidance concerning heritage values.”
In June last year, the area was included in the provisional declaration of the landscape as a Grade One Heritage Site.
The National Heritage Recources Act, meanwhile, states that “a heritage resource authority may not act in any manner inconsistent with any statement of general policy.”
As Sahra, the national heritage resources authority, is mandated to protect and manage nationally protected heritage sites in terms of the Act, the DHF argues that the Permit Committee had neither the authority nor the legal capacity to approve the scheme, as it is contrary to general policy.
“Moreover, not one of the reasons given for in-principle approval are included under the objectives of the Act.
“Also, the Act states that all affected communities have a right to be consulted and participate in the management of heritage resources.
“Arrangements specified in the scheme’s approval-in-principle schedule, however, remove the right of interested and affected parties to participate in the management of the resource. Thus the approval is legally flawed.”
Disputing Sahra’s right to issue in-principle approval, the DHF points out that Sahra can indicate areas and concerns that a future application must address.
If such a future application is made it has to be advertised, and interested and affected parties be given the opportunity to comment and the right to appeal should a permit be issued.
“Sahra can only issue a permit on receipt of a new application. It does not have the power to delegate this authority. The application as submitted must, then, be refused.
“Also, in terms of the Act, notification to interested and affected parties includes a range of conservation and cultural bodies, none of which were included in the consultation process.
“This has been a keynote of our objection and proves that, for the purposes of a heritage Impact Assessment, there was inadequate public participation,” says the DHF in its newsletter.
“The inadequate participation was reflected in Sahra’s conditions and had to lead to the rejection of the proposal.
“In general we believe the decision is legally flawed and we appeal on that basis.”
The DHF, in giving notice of appeal, says that apart from the legal aspects, it gives further notice that it believes the actual sites and sizes are inappropriate and that the Sahra Committee, by its motivation, agrees.
“It is unnecessary for us, then, to appeal the decision on that basis. Thus we restrict ourselves to the legal consequences of approval in principle.”
More
News
|
