The owner and developers of the PM Cross building in Main Street, Paarl, which has been converted into a new restaurant, now face criminal charges for not adhering to heritage-related legal stipulations.
A Ministerial Heritage Appeal Tribunal recently found the renovations and alterations done to this historic building in Paarl were done illegally.
Last year, alterations were begun on the central Paarl property, which included partial demolitions of sections of the older-than-60 years building. Because of its provenance it has been graded a 3A heritage resource by Heritage Western Cape (HWC).
The Drakenstein Municipality has also come under fire for their decision to approve authorisation for the restoration work on the double-storey Victorian building.
The Heritage Act clearly does not allow any alteration to a building 60 years and older without a permit issued by an appropriate heritage authority such as HWC.
A stop-works-order was issued last year but ignored, and the work on the building was completed and the restaurant, Rocco Mommas, opened in December.
The appellant, Riodor Sewentien, appealed against the decision of the respondent, HWC, to withdraw a letter issued in terms of the National Heritage Resources Agency (NHRA). This, in essence, means no illegal work had been undertaken by the appellant and that no further interventions were required.
At the tribunal the heritage-related significance of the building was highlighted. The building, it was said, carries immense heritage value as a place of cultural significance, worthy of conservation and management.
It is a place with deep cultural connections to the community and its surrounds, the tribunal heard. It is a connection to the past and to the lived experiences of the people of Paarl.
The appellant was aware of the heritage status of the building and was obliged by law to be mindful in his approaches to any changes or renovations. This meant it was required to obtain the necessary approvals to care properly for the place with the aim of making it usable and, most importantly, to ensure its cultural significance is retained.
The tribunal found there was sufficient evidence showing the appellant had failed to fulfil the requirements of conservation and proper management of the heritage resources that formed part of the building. There were, however, mitigating and aggravating factors for the illegal work done worthy of some consideration. Mitigating factors, among others, are the renovation and changes done on the building’s inside. The outside appears to have been left intact, more or less as it was 122 years ago, except for some paintwork.
As for aggravating factors, the Tribunal took a grim view of the appellant’s contravention of the NHRA and its failure to take appropriate measures to preserve the heritage value of the building. It could, for example, have employed an architect specialising in heritage conservation to draw up the building plans in a proper manner and submit it to the respondent and the Drakenstein Municipality for approval.
It is further apparent from the evidence presented to the tribunal that renovations and changes to the building were done before the appellants’ submission of the application.
The recommendations of the tribunal are that remedial measures be taken by the appellant to preserve and protect the heritage value of the building in consultation with the respondent, DHF, Drakenstein Municipality and any interested and affected party.
Prof Rolf Annas, chairperson of the Drakenstein Heritage Foundation (DHF), welcomed the outcome and said it sets an important precedent in the region, and the public and municipalities must respect the heritage status of buildings, follow correct procedures and not destroy valuable, irreplaceable assets.
