Napier, one of South Africa’s small-town gems, thought it had the preservation of its unique heritage all sewn up — but then an angry would-be property developer put a spoke in the wheel.
Last year the Cape Agulhas municipality commissioned consultants to list the heritage assets of the Overberg town of about 5,000 people, and make proposals on how to conserve them.
In November, a Heritage Western Cape (HWC) committee recommended approval of the “inventory and public participation process ... as fulfilling the criteria set out by the National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) and HWC” and said formal protection should be implemented.
A key feature identified as crucial to the rustic charm of Napier — founded in 1838 — is its “strip farms” on the Klippedrif River that runs through the town, on which fruit and vegetables have traditionally been grown. The report recommends strict limits on subdivision of these allotments and on building on them.
The decision to reopen public participation … undermines a process that was already inclusive, well-publicised and procedurally sound.
— Kevin Poulter, Napier Residents Association chair
But it is some of these plots that town resident Bertus du Plessis has targeted for development. He lodged an objection to the consultants’ report with HWC, arguing that the public participation process had been rushed. His objection was upheld in May.
The HWC decision, which can be appealed within 30 days, requires the municipality to reopen the public participation process for 60 days.
Kevin Poulter, chair of the Napier Residents Association (NRA), is unhappy about the delay.
“The decision to reopen public participation … undermines a process that was already inclusive, well-publicised and procedurally sound,” he told the Sunday Times.
“The appeal was lodged by an individual with personal development interests affected by the [heritage] inventory and strategy, who does not represent any community body. The NRA, which represents all sectors of our town, supports heritage protection and fair public process — not repeated delays driven by private agendas.”
Du Plessis has in the past unsuccessfully challenged Poulter’s position in the NRA. Last year, amid reports that Du Plessis planned to bus hundreds of supporters to the association’s AGM, the community police forum recommended the meeting be cancelled due to security fears.
Du Plessis said Poulter was wrong to accuse him of opposing the heritage report because it would scupper his development. He said the report’s proposals would not affect his building plans — his problem was mainly with the inadequate public participation process.
“This is about constitutional rights. I’m concerned about the constitutional rights of people. I’m completely pro-heritage, I love old buildings,” he said.
Du Plessis said no-one could explain why the municipality had launched the Napier initiative and a related heritage strategy for the rest of the municipal area now, more than two decades after the NHRA was introduced.
“Why is it being pushed so vehemently? What is the urgency? Now you want to trample on people’s rights ... I’m on the fighting path.”
Du Plessis said “many people in this town” believed the municipality’s real motive was to block his development plans in Napier. “Why else? Why now, 26 years later, what the f**k is the use?”
He said the heritage process had cost the ratepayer almost R490,000 — “but we don’t have proper toilets, our roads are s**t. This is absolute bulls**t, from day one.”
He said he did not “give a continental s**t about the content” of the heritage report. “I’m more concerned about why this process was pushed so vehemently ... We’ve got a bunch of people trying to be important, ‘preserving heritage for their children’. They don’t even have f**king kids.”
Kent Georgala, chair of the Napier Heritage & Conservation Body, said the HWC decision to uphold Du Plessis’s objection would delay but not derail the process.
“We’re confident it will go through eventually. It’s been a bit of a shock because we weren’t expecting HWC to deviate from their own norms and standards, because the people who did the report did it strictly in accordance with the public participation process of the municipality and HWC,” he said.
“I’ve sent a letter to [the municipality] to say we’re requesting a moratorium on any further development in the heritage area of Napier until all of this is resolved and the municipal bylaw has been updated accordingly.”
Mayor Raymond Ross said the municipality had yet to decide if it would appeal the decision to extend the public participation process.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.