Green light for demolition of historic Woodstock villa : Property News from IOLProperty

« Rates decision not... | Main | Proposals for Cape... »

Friday Jul 23, 2010

Green light for demolition of historic Woodstock villa

Heritage Western Cape says it has approved the demolition of the remaining walls of the original Rocklands Villa in Woodstock on the advice of two independent structural engineers.

But appeals can still be made within two weeks to the MEC of Cultural Affairs and Sport, Sakkie Jenner.

Oasis Asset Management, which is turning the 60-year-old building into its head office, has for 12 years fought off allegations by the Woodstock community that it wanted to demolish the structure entirely. But the company has insisted it is intent on restoring the building to its former glory.

The company had been battling with Heritage Western Cape which, with the City of Cape Town, issued a stop works order in March when two walls were demolished.

The heritage body said the demolition was undertaken without the necessary authority, but it transpired that the city's building inspector had given permission for the demolition of the two walls because they were structurally unsound.

The company also appeared before the Built Environment and Landscape Committee of Heritage Western Cape, furnishing it with additional documents to show it planned to rebuild the villa and to re-install the fittings and fixtures that had been removed during construction.

Heritage Western Cape said today that two structural engineering reports had found the structural integrity of the remaining walls unsafe after the earlier demolition.

Any appeals will be heard by an independent tribunal appointed by Jenner. If the appeals are dismissed, he will issue a permit for the demolition to go ahead.

Oasis deputy chairman Nazeem Ebrahim said today it would be surprising if anyone appealed.

"We followed all laws and at no time did we take any decisions without seeking professional advice.

"The (demolition of the two walls) was done on the advice of a structural engineers and the city's building inspector.

"Now two engineers report that the remaining walls have to be demolished.

"I cannot see how anyone could appeal that. If there are appeals it would be of a malicious nature," he said.

Meanwhile, heritage consultants who were appointed at the request of the city to assist with the undertaking by Oasis to reconstruct the villa, have submitted plans for reconstruction of the building using all the existing historical fittings and fixtures removed during the demolition by Oasis.

They must also furnish the Built Environment and Landscape Committee with specifications for the finishes.

Cape Argus

Posted at 03:16PM Jul 23, 2010 by Editor in Cities and Towns | Comments[46]

« Rates decision not... | Main | Proposals for Cape... »

Comments:

I'm not surprised at all, Woodstock is RUN BY DEVELOPERS. I, unfortunately, live in one of those buildings that they 'have restored to it's former glory', yeah, it's a trashy building with a terrible lifestyle. The agents mis-represented a whole lot of stuff and they say they represent the developer, so needless to say, developers are selling a load of kak as well. Don't trust them at all! Follow our struggle at http://uppereastsidecapetown.blogspot.com/

Posted by Upper East Side Help Desk on July 25, 2010 at 10:22 AM SAST Report this Comment

Its an absolute joke that nobody is doing anything abouyt Oasis. They buy heritage buildings that are perfectly sound, THEN LEAVE THEM OPEN TO BE STRIPPED COMPLETELY, then get the city to condemn the building, then build some ugly horrible modern thing in its place. It happens over and over again.

Posted by walmer resident on July 26, 2010 at 09:04 AM SAST Report this Comment

I agree totally with all the above. It's shocking how Oasis still goes ahead to help destroy the last bit of history in my neighbourhood, Walmer Estate. Their representitives sit in at neighbourhood meetings and ensure that no dissenting voices are heard. As for the rest, I suspect money is changing hands...

Posted by AnythingbutOasis on July 26, 2010 at 09:31 AM SAST Report this Comment

To Oasis .. remember .. the wheel of justice is round .... whatever unethical actions you undertake and it seems from reading this blog that you are indeed chequered with them .... they will in time come around and bring misfortune ... remember when misfortune hits you that it was only the universe doing its work of ensuring the wheel of justice turns back on the wrongdoer ..

Posted by Sandy Buchanan on July 26, 2010 at 09:39 PM SAST Report this Comment

Hi, I live in the area and believe that Oasis has done a huge amount to improve the area. Heritage is full of crap - I know it from personal experience. The rocklands site was derelict long before Oasis purchased it. There was an old lady living there and its was run down with bergies living in the park. Things have turned around. Thanks

Posted by Walmer Resident 5 on July 27, 2010 at 03:56 PM SAST Report this Comment

Mmm.... note so many folk writing here not prepared to reveal their names ... a bit of balance .... I have a copy of the site inspection letter from the city .. It states that the building had concrete foundations and that the excavation around remaining walls was seriously compromising the stabilty and that not enough support had been put around the walls ... comment continued ......

Posted by Sandy Buchanan on July 27, 2010 at 06:27 PM SAST Report this Comment

In essence the fact that the building had concrete foundations indicate a better quality of building .. the major cause of instability of walls would be packed rock foundations as found on many properties in Woodstock that are still standing and very sound . continued ....

Posted by Sandy Buchanan on July 27, 2010 at 06:30 PM SAST Report this Comment

If any walls at time of purchase were in any way compromised and If Oasis were so concerned about restoring the building to " original glory " they would only have needed to do replaster to reinforce ,, a far more cost effective way of doing it ... there are many homes in this area well over a hundred years old still stable and standing mine included ... As to the so called derelict state ,, we cannot prove anything now as all the evidence is gone demolished ..that the grounds were occupied by vagrants , well so was the quarry ,, to regard the demolition of the building as a trade off for removal of vagrants is indeed a weak argument .. my take on matters is that this whole matter was not handled properly by Oasis , the city or heritage ... if anyone is interested in a copy of the letter you may contact me on my email ... alexalexander3@hotmail.com

Posted by Sandy Buchanan on July 27, 2010 at 06:31 PM SAST Report this Comment

last comment -- I imagine the total rebuilding will cost Oasis a lot more than just taking the route of dealing with the easilly remedied problems .. a lesson I hope ...

Posted by Sandy Buchanan on July 27, 2010 at 06:36 PM SAST Report this Comment

last time i looked the constitution gave u right to private property. U guys seem to forget this. U white liberals just angry you couldnt do same as oasis. This building is only an apartheid heritage. They should replace it with something better. I dont care for your white apartheid building heritage. Isnt it amazing that in cape town we still have street names like strydom, and 20yr later we still dont have a road even named mandela.

Posted by constiutional jake on July 27, 2010 at 09:13 PM SAST Report this Comment

yessir. I remember them coming around to see me about 10 years ago with an information sheet on what they wanted to do. pleasant people i remember. if they took 12 years to get a demolition permit, we should be complaining about the government not the developer!!!!

Posted by blakman on July 27, 2010 at 10:00 PM SAST Report this Comment

some of you have clearly forgotten that apartheid extended far into walmer estate long before the 80's. it just so happens that rocklands fits on the white side of the area, not on our side, so clearly you cannot say there isnt a rascist agenda behind this. Agree that we got constitutional right to do whatever we want with our properties. If you fought for liberation of our country then surely you appreciate our constitution and you will abide by it.

Posted by walmer resident5 on July 27, 2010 at 10:03 PM SAST Report this Comment

sandy. what objections did you lodge to THE BOULEVARD. That is a monstrosity. At least Oasis are saying they want to rebuild the victorian home. The boulevard - NOW THAT IS REALLY a monstrosity and where are all the victorian homes now? Somehow i just hear an earie silience when it comes to objections from you

Posted by bob on July 27, 2010 at 10:24 PM SAST Report this Comment

With regard to the Property on the corner of park and coronation roads i did a deed search and it is not owned by oasis. i live around the corner so i would appreciate if you could confirm the source of this misinformation on iol. and i agree about your point re private property and the constitution. cheerz

Posted by walmer resident 2 on July 27, 2010 at 11:14 PM SAST Report this Comment

upper east side showed scant regard for heritage. i cant understand why oasis has had 12 years of issues for a small scrappy house, and they build this place and ran roughshod over every heritage legislation in the city and got it up in 12 months. clearly where there is a will there is a way in this city.

Posted by upper east side on July 27, 2010 at 11:16 PM SAST Report this Comment

Walmer resident 2 ... possibly in the name of a trust ??

Posted by Sandy Buchanan on July 27, 2010 at 11:17 PM SAST Report this Comment

Upper eastside ... hello ... is this the hotel thing in the industrial area ???

Posted by Sandy Buchanan on July 27, 2010 at 11:20 PM SAST Report this Comment

greetings to all and sundry. i have tried to extend my gararge and heritage wants plans and all kinds of small changes and plans. i think this heritage is making money out of this with their heritage architects and their people. if my place wants this so-called heritage site, this would have been done ages ago, without all of this paperwork, bureaucracy and excessive wasted costs. i believe heritage is abusing their authority and wasting taxpayers money. my extention does not affect anyone else. and unfortunately no one listens to our plight. we cant do this for years and years. i agree that there is a constitutional right to private property and we must be able to draw a line somewhere. as blacks under group areas we couldnt own land in walmer estate (certain sections). now in the new government we cant develop the land, but we can own it. and if we want to develop it then we must get permission from a group of people who belong in the old south africa.

Posted by moosa on July 27, 2010 at 11:29 PM SAST Report this Comment

The Oasis site is not graded, and its not in a heritage or a conservation zone. whats the big fuss about. i say demolish the victorian house and lets put some life into that area. I agree. Melbourne Road was the dividing line for your information re GAA.

Posted by Abdul Bawa on July 27, 2010 at 11:36 PM SAST Report this Comment

We would like to confirm that the Oasis Retirement Home is not affected by this development and this site is not going to be demolished. You can rest assured that you will continue to rest assured

Posted by Oasis Retirement Home on July 27, 2010 at 11:51 PM SAST Report this Comment

Is it becoming a retirement home I thought it was going to be an office. ive seen the adverts in the weekend argus. didnt know that was going to be down the road.

Posted by Mxolisi on July 27, 2010 at 11:53 PM SAST Report this Comment

As.salaamwa alaikum. I appreciate that all that Oasis has done for our community. I suport them in this venture. Please give them an opportunity to develop their property. Shukran

Posted by m saloojee on July 27, 2010 at 11:55 PM SAST Report this Comment

Wow. Congratulations. Its been a 12 year battle. Ive been following the discussion and agree that they should be allowed to demolish the place.

Posted by Don Pedro on July 28, 2010 at 07:31 PM SAST Report this Comment

So whose heritage are we protecting here?In University Estate to the east of Mountain Road I guess they all want to be reminded of where they came from, in Walmer Estate to the west they will never forget what they went through....

Posted by Marie on July 29, 2010 at 05:33 PM SAST Report this Comment

i think walmer resident 2 is referring to oasis place which is on the highway. last time i checked it looked far from derelict and its probably one of the most prominent properties on the highway once you come past hospital bend. the reality is that there is lot of development on roodebloem road truly, and the rockland villa should be demolished. personally i like the boulevard since i think it picks up a depressed area, and hopefully this development will pick up the upper roodebloem area which hasnt seen any development like the other sections of roodebloem.

Posted by walmer resident 3 on July 29, 2010 at 11:52 PM SAST Report this Comment

holiday inn eastern boulevard. how did they manage to build such a huge structure and block the views of so many houses? any answers from anyone out there. clearly this development is nothing like that. they have already put up a rof so we know its full height. how come they let such a massive hotel go up in walmer estate?

Posted by constitutional jake on July 30, 2010 at 12:23 AM SAST Report this Comment

To the readers, I agree that the site is definately not in a conservation zone, and its not a listed heritage site even in category 3 so why is this such a big deal if SA Heritage themselves dont even regard it as a Heritage site!

Posted by Ryan NcNeal on July 30, 2010 at 12:26 AM SAST Report this Comment

I was driving up Rhodes Avenue and there is a huge house being built up there. Has the residents association objected to this ?

Posted by Wendy on July 30, 2010 at 06:31 PM SAST Report this Comment

This villa is going to be demolished and become as big as holiday inn and there will be no stopping it once it starts.

Posted by Anythingbutthis on July 30, 2010 at 06:33 PM SAST Report this Comment

There was never intent to break down villa.Note extraordinarily long approval process - had Oasis intended not to restore building some unfortunate incident could easily have been precipitated. Items of heritage value were removed & restored at great cost.There were many problems - foundations of large pebbles bonded with mortar,structurally defective walls of substandard clay brick bound by mud,asbestos,woodworm,etc - impossible for engineer to sign off in line with today’s standards.What if someone had been killed had developer not heeded safety advice? 2 remaining walls are unsafe.They need to come down in order to facilitate rebuilding of Rocklands House. Development will give Rocklands a new lease on life. Let’s face it, a manor house on large piece of land just off highway was never going to continue as private residence in this day & age. Leave the professionals to continue work & quickly restore the old manor house.

Posted by Sharon on July 31, 2010 at 10:48 AM SAST Report this Comment

if thats the case then fine with me sharon. Its good they rebuiding it. Thank you.

Posted by ross on July 31, 2010 at 11:27 PM SAST Report this Comment

If thats the scenario Sharon , then we await the rebuild .. reading through all the posts here seems there was a lack of information .. all that was needed was open cards all the way .

Posted by Dominic on August 01, 2010 at 06:18 AM SAST Report this Comment

Hi, I am looking forward to the development being completed soon so that I can take my dog for a beautiful walk in the surrounding area. Please give them the permit to rebuild this wonderful home.

Posted by AK on August 02, 2010 at 05:15 PM SAST Report this Comment

AK. Please do no sidetrack this important discussion about the resident association since this is really at the heart of this issue. I agree with William about this Boulevard development. It came up really suddenly like a mushroom in the lightening storm. There are a lot of historical sites there. I remember as a child I used to go fishing and we used to walk down that area. Now its a big glass building with a Spar that only keeps limited stock of basic goods!. I understand Oasis took twelve years, but this went up quickly.

Posted by wendy on August 02, 2010 at 05:23 PM SAST Report this Comment

Please follow our struggle at http://uppereastsidecapetown.blogspot.com/ This is truly an example of what large scale developers can do. Oasis took twelve years and they still got troubles. This was 12 months and look at what we got!!!!!!

Posted by Upper East Side Help Desk on August 02, 2010 at 05:28 PM SAST Report this Comment

They spent R 220mil on Upper East Side. The developers there were Redefine and Swish Property Group. I read in the property mag that its a five star hotel, offering three star rates......What a joke but funily enough I never read about this on IOL. These developers prob bought it for a steal and made millions. Where was our esteemed kult of a residents association when this happened. Check this out: http://www.thepropertymag.co.za/pages/452774491/Hotels-Guest-Houses/10/Jun/First-upmarket-hotel-for-Cape-Towns-Woodstock.asp

Posted by ross on August 02, 2010 at 05:40 PM SAST Report this Comment

Looking at the posts I think there was misleading information and that this demolition can go ahead since most of the site has already crumbled, and they are going to rebuild it (suprisingly). Must remind everyone that we were all told that they would never keep to their word. I would however suggest that we keep the politics and apartheid out of this since we have moved on and we cannot keep on blaming apartheid when things dont go the way. I understand the sentiment regarding Oasis and I agree that a decade is an inordinate time, but I believe that in order to move together we shouldnt keep on playing this race card.

Posted by McDonald, G. on August 02, 2010 at 05:48 PM SAST Report this Comment

My earlier post about the massive four storey house on Rhodes Avenue still remains unanswered. The residents association is doing nothing about this and this is far higher than the Oasis building.

Posted by Wendy on August 02, 2010 at 05:59 PM SAST Report this Comment

i am getting tired of hearing about this. i really dont understand why they cant just rebuild this place like they want to. i also wonder how much of free publicity oasis got out of this thing going on for so many years since every few months the papers write about it.

Posted by Mxolisi on August 02, 2010 at 06:21 PM SAST Report this Comment

u write about the free publicity. these property developers all interested in the publicity about the projects.

Posted by ross on August 02, 2010 at 06:22 PM SAST Report this Comment

heard bout this property a lot. after 12 years i think we should start to hold those that were in power responsible for these delays. this is just the type of inefficiency that needs to be rooted out

Posted by Lindiwe on August 02, 2010 at 06:43 PM SAST Report this Comment

i dont think many of you know but oasis in fact already own, and have owned for a number of years one of the oldest and most stunning heritage buildings in the cbd - protea building - in greenmarket square. i would doubt that an organisation that went to preserve this structure to make it one of the leading heritage sites in the city would intentionally demolish a heritage site in woodstock unless there was justification. thus i would like to give them the benefit of the doubt. they undertook to rebuild it so i would be more that satisfied to let them go ahead, if you ever in doubt look at their property in greenmarket square. its simply stunning.

Posted by Leonora Sher on August 03, 2010 at 12:15 AM SAST Report this Comment

Sharon. your comments are appreciated. you seem to be quite interested and informed. Leonora similarly well researched. I shall make a point to take a look at the Protea Building by the way since I think your point i well taken.

Posted by Michaela on August 03, 2010 at 12:20 AM SAST Report this Comment

Many of us take the time to write serious comments on this site. Some you have no reason to object so you make flippant statements such that "they are going to build another holiday inn on the site". that is just sensationalism that you want to get attention with. we'bve been through this for 12 years. i think we all have a fair idea of whats being build and they intend to now rebuild the manor house. sharon. i know who you are, and i thank you for the explanation.

Posted by Ross on August 03, 2010 at 12:24 AM SAST Report this Comment

to mxolisi. we dont need your rascist views here. i dont need to be black to support the development. and you dont need to believe that every white person is opposed to it. clearly you are very mistaken. we need to develop the site, and we recognise that we live on the urban fridge. the development of the rocklands manor will continue to maintain the setting together with this beautiful park so it should be you who needs to change the attitude brother!

Posted by Ross on August 03, 2010 at 12:29 AM SAST Report this Comment

must admin that oasis ended up getting a lot of publicity over a small house and in the same period a whole of big developments took place. have we been so focussed on this small issue that we as residents took our eye off the ball. now we have a glass office block at the southern end of woodstock, and a 5 star hotel on the other end. thank you residents association

Posted by Moombie on August 03, 2010 at 12:35 AM SAST Report this Comment

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
« February 2012
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29

Today

Calendar

Search

Top Property Searches:

RSS Feeds

Other Areas