Heritage Society

Apologies - this section of the site is being upgraded at the moment, we are adding an archive of McGregor Buildings amongst other things! 

First, apologies for the late arrival of this newsletter, which was intended for distribution during  the third quarter of 2011, but is now going out in the last, as the year races to a close.  In this newsletter you will find news of our work on the restoration of old houses in McGregor, what is happening in terms of the Krans Nature Reserve,  our engagement with the youth of McGregor and the Museum.

LATEST NEWS   RESTORATION PROJECT   BUILDING  GUIDELINES   ARCHITECTURE  BECOME A MEMBER 

 

MOVIE NIGHT     This Weeks Movie!     

A short, attractive description goes here - your description should include keywords and main points to showcase your unique offering.
The image that appears on the left is always named image1.jpg in your list of images.
The height is fixed at 100pixels, the width can vary up to 350pixels
If you image is too wide, it may obscure this short description.

R20 plus soup

Telephone +27 023 6251xxx

Mobile +27 023 6251xxx

Fax +27 023 6251xxx

E-mail 

Caritas

 

Total Listed: 1

©Copyright McGregor Tourism -  

When the initial application from the developer was submitted to BELComm (Heritage Western Cape) in August 2008 the total number of units was 43 independent units and 34 assisted living units. This application was refused on the grounds that it was too dense. At this meeting the chairman of BELComm said “developments such as these may be suitable for cities and towns, but villages require a more natural, slower and incremental form of development”. Subsequent applications to BELComm have not reduced the density of the development: In the May 2009 revised application the total number of units was 58 independent units and 33 assisted living units, whilst in the October 2009 revision “K” for the development the number of assisted living units was reduced to 26 units from 33. However the number of independent living units was increased from 58 to 59.

Comparing the August 2008 proposal with the latest Revision K shows that the independent units increased from 43 to 59 (plus 16) and the assisted living units decreased from 34 to 26 (minus 8). This makes for a total net increase in living units of eight. The only difference being that some of these units are now semi-detached. What the developers have done through the various applications to BELComm is to move the houses around without reducing the density or the tightness of the development.

In past month we have also lodged our opposition to the application for Consolidation, Rezoning and Consent Use basing our objection partially on two grounds:

Procedural grounds:

1. The application was prepared in December 2009 before the Appeal lodged with Heritage Western Cape (HWC) had been considered by the Appeal Committee of HWC. The application fails therefore to take into account the Record of Decision (RoD) of that Appeal Committee issued on 26 February 2010.
2. The Record of Decision (29 October 2009) which forms part of the application (MN NR. 24/2010) is an outdated and incorrect RoD which was superseded by the RoD issued on 26 February 2010 which laid down a clear set conditions for approval. The failure of the applicant to not include these conditions in the submission means that the public have been deprived of the right both to see them and to comment on them. This therefore brings into question the whole issue of open and correct public participation.
3. The application documents only reached the McGregor Municipality Offices on 21 April 2010, some 4 weeks after the notice had been published. This is a failure in terms of due procedure and means that interested parties have had less than 2 days to respond to the application. Again a failure to allow for full public participation.
4. A final procedural issue is the fact that the RoD issued on 26 February 2010 is on appeal with the Provincial Minister of Cultural Affairs, Sports and Recreation. The Appeal was lodged on the 15th March 2010 (see attached). Until this Appeal has been heard and resolved we do not believe that this application should be considered.
5. On the above grounds the McGregor Heritage Society believes that the current application should not be considered at this time. If the Appeal of the McGregor Heritage Society to the Minister is unsuccessful then a new application with the correct documentation should be submitted to the Langeberg Municipality for consideration which will then allow for proper due procedure and public participation.

Secondly, McGregor’s Heritage Status was also used in the response:

In a letter to the Appeals Committee of HWC, Beverley Crouts-Knipe, Provincial Manager: SAHRA Western Cape, (dated 9 February 2010), who had been asked to comment on the development, said:

“McGregor’s significance as a mid-nineteenth century village is unquestionable; thus the reason for SAHRA’s indication that it is considered to be a potential grade 1 cultural landscape. It is incumbent on HWC to take cognisance that it is against this known significance that the proposed development application and the subsequent appeal should be reviewed. Limited development over time has resulted in the essence of the place remaining in tact. ... the nature and scale of the newly proposed activity on erven 27 and 72 is a precedent development in this context and a superimposition onto the area.”

“... SAHRA wishes to note certain concerns and advise as follows:

(2) There appears to be no Environmental Impact Assessment conducted at this stage and, as such, limited information exists on the further impacts of the proposed development on the cultural – versus the natural landscape. Questions in relation to the impact of the development on frail water resources, its quality and quantity, remain open.

(3) The impact or strain on the infrastructure of the town is not addressed or expressed.”

The McGregor Heritage Society supports the above and believing that McGregor indeed has the potential to be granted Grade 1 status, we are of the view that a development of the nature, scale and density as proposed by the developer is inappropriate even if such Grade 1 status is never achieved.

However your committee is aware that over the past 18 months some of our members may have changed their position in terms of opposition to the development (plus we now have many more members than we had at that time) and we wish to ask you for a new mandate to continue opposing this development.

Last changed: 01 Oct 2010 at 11:19 AM