|
Public Responsiblity of Property Owners. Argitektoniese waarde van Bestaande Geboue.
In ‘n onlangse nuusbrief van Meridian Realty word ‘n situasie bespreek waar die PHRA (Provinsiale Erfenis Hulpbron Raad) ingevolge artikel 34 van die Wet op Nasionale Erfenishulpbronne (25 van 1999) 'n permit toegestaan het vir die sloping van 'n struktuur wat reeds langer as 60 jaar gelede opgerig was op 'n eiendom sonder formele erfenis-status. Tydens verlening van die toestemming, is daar egter voorwaardes opgelê om beheer uit te oefen oor die toekomstige ontwikkeling op die eiendom.
In the reported case of Gees v the Provincial Minister of Cultural Affairs and Sport (974/2015) [2015] ZASCA 136 (29 September 2016) the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) recently dismissed an appeal against a judgment of the Western Cape High Court in which the applicant’s attempt to have the conditions as were imposed by the PHRA declared invalid, was dismissed. In so doing the SCA held that the large concentration of art deco buildings spanning Davenport Road, Vredehoek, Cape Town, forms part of the national estate and is worthy of protection as a heritage resource.
Therefore, the SCA held that Heritage Western Cape, in granting a permit for the demolition of the appellant’s 60-year-old block of flats, was justified in imposing conditions controlling future development on the property.
Die Hof het bevind dat alhoewel dit korrek sou wees, om te argumenteer, soos die appellant het, dat die voorwaardes wat in die slopings-permit opgelê was, beskou kan word as 'n inperking van sy reg om met sy eiendom te handel soos hy mag goedvind en kan dus tot 'n mate beskou word as 'n ontneming van sy eiendomsreg. Dit word egter algemeen erken deur ons howe dat daar in ons huidige grondwetlike demokrasie meer klem gelê word op daardie eienskap van eienaarskap, wat vereis dat regte ingevolge die sosiale funksie van die reg in belang van die gemeenskap uitgeoefen moet word.
The aforesaid judgement underlines the principle set out by AJ van der Walt and GJ Pienaar in “Introduction to the Law of Property” 7ed (2016), where they put it as follows:
‘. . . the inherent responsibility of the owner towards the community in the exercise of his entitlements is emphasised. The balance between the protection of ownership and the exercise of entitlements of the owner regarding third parties, on the one hand, and the obligations of the owner to the community, on the other hand, must be maintained throughout. This might, in certain circumstances, even mean that an owner’s entitlements could be limited or infringed upon in the interest of the community. In such cases the infringement must always be reasonable and equitable [not arbitrary].’
Groete / Regards.
Hennie & Eberhard
|
|
|