Erfenisgeboue / Heritage buildings

Guide for dummies to heritage grading and law

Some developers want more time to come to grips with the grading system for heritage assets. Kevin Poulter explains it in a five-minute read.

“A heritage building is a structure that has cultural, historical, architectural, aesthetic, or social significance to a community, region, or the country. These buildings are protected because they tell the story of who we are and where we come from.

A heritage area refers to a defined zone—often a street, neighbourhood, or townscape—where the overall character, buildings, public spaces, and layout have historical or cultural value when viewed together. These areas help to maintain a town’s identity.

In South Africa, heritage assets are graded under the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999 – NHRA), according to their level of significance:

Grade I – National significance, managed by Sahra (South African Heritage Resources Agency).

Grade II – Provincial significance, managed by provincial authorities – Heritage Western Cape in our province.

Grade III – Local significance, managed at municipal level or by the relevant provincial authority. This grade is further divided into local gradings as follows:

- Grade IIIA: High local significance; strong protection against demolition.

- Grade IIIB: Moderate significance; protection may be contextual.

- Grade IIIC: Contributes to a heritage area or streetscape; usually more flexible.

Once a building or area is formally graded, it is recorded in the heritage inventory and becomes subject to specific legal protection and guidelines for development, alteration, or demolition.

What about buildings older than 60 that are not graded?

Even if a building is not formally graded, if it is older than 60 years, it is automatically protected under Section 34 of the NHRA. This applies nationwide, regardless of whether the building is listed in an inventory or heritage register.

According to section 34(1): "No person may alter or demolish any structure or part of a structure which is older than 60 years without a permit issued by the relevant heritage authority."

In short:

- Grading is not required for the 60-year rule to apply.

- A permit is needed for demolitions or any alterations of such structures.

- Grading may increase the level of protection, but not being graded does not remove the obligation to apply for a permit.

Can heritage buildings or areas be identified for protection?

Yes. Any property, building, or area can be added to a heritage inventory or register at any time, provided the proper assessment and consultation process is followed. This can be initiated by heritage authorities, municipalities, members of a community, residents’ associations, or civic bodies, and also by independent heritage consultants through planning applications.

The process generally includes identifying the buildings and motivating on the basis of cultural significance. An assessment by experts then takes place and/or public participation. Recommendations for grading and inclusion in the heritage inventory comes next, followed by approval and adoption by the relevant authority.

This flexibility allows the system to evolve and accommodate new understanding of heritage value as communities change and research advances.

What is a heritage survey and inventory?

A heritage survey is a technical and community-based process of identifying and documenting heritage resources within a defined area. It includes:

Researching historical records; inspecting buildings and sites; consulting the public and relevant stakeholders; and recommending gradings and protection.

The outcome is a Heritage Inventory, which lists graded and notable heritage sites. It describes their characteristics and significance, informs planning, development, and conservation decisions. And then it provides input into municipal bylaws and policies.

The inventory is therefore a planning tool. Once adopted by a municipality, it can form the basis for heritage overlay zones and regulations in zoning schemes.

From strategy to law: How heritage fits into land use planning Heritage Strategy

A Heritage Strategy is a long-term policy document that:

• Guides how heritage is conserved and integrated into development.

• Sets out objectives for education, tourism, and heritage-based planning.

• Is usually adopted by a municipality or province but is not a law on its own.

Spatial Development Framework (SDF)

Required under the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, an SDF outlines how land should be used and developed over time. It includes:

• Identifying heritage areas.

• Giving guidelines for managing change while protecting heritage character.

• Public participation is essential before adoption.

Once approved by the council, an SDF becomes a binding policy framework for land use decisions.

Land use and zoning bylaws

Municipalities must adopt zoning schemes to regulate land use. These may include:

• Heritage Overlay Zones to manage alterations or demolition.

• Design guidelines to ensure new development fits the historic character.

• Permit requirements for any work in or near heritage sites as specified by the

municipality.

Once passed, these zoning bylaws are legally enforceable.

Conclusion

Heritage preservation is more than protecting old buildings—it’s about maintaining the character, identity, and memory of our communities. South African law protects both graded buildings and those over 60 years old, whether officially recognised or not. Municipalities and communities play a vital role in identifying and conserving heritage through surveys, inventories, and planning tools.

Importantly, heritage assets can be added at any stage, allowing communities to safeguard their past as they plan for the future continuously. With active public participation and awareness, heritage becomes a living part of development, rather than a casualty of it.”

What becomes law and what is preparatory?

Process / Document Legal status Enacted by

National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) Binding national law National Parliament

60-Year Rule (Section 34 NHRA) Automatically applicable Sahra/Provincial body

Grading of heritage assets Binding once gazetted Sahra/Provincial body

Heritage permits Enforceable legal mechanism Sahra/Provincial body

Heritage inventory Policy / planning tool Municipality / Provincial body

Heritage strategy Advisory, not binding Municipality / Province

Spatial Development Framework (SDF) Binding once adopted Municipality

Zoning scheme / Land use bylaw Binding regulation Local Council

SOURCE: Suidernuus, 07 July 2025.

Apart from being the only town or village to develop around a lighthouse, some of the streets in the town were named after lightkeepers, while streets in a later suburb of the town were named after the numerous shipwrecks along the coast - which was the reason why the Lighthouse was built in the first place. 

The Cape Agulhas Lighthouse has a heritage of family lightkeepers.

Note: The lighthouse can currently only be accessed from the southern (sea-)side because of the precinct development.

The exterior of the buildings annexed to the Cape Agulhas Lighthouse tower are, and have been, deteriorating quite badly since the old plastered surfaces and verandahs were removed during the renovation process in the early 1980’s.

In view of this deterioration, the Lighthouse Service of the National Ports Authority, the then Portnet, has consulted with Rennie & Scurr Architects & Dr. Lewcock, author of the publication Nineteenth Century Buildings in South Africa in order to come up with a long term solution. The conclusion was that the only “cure” that both agree upon as a long-term solution is:

Option 1 - to replace the effected stone with a harder “weathered” stone

Option 2 - by “special plaster repair”, simulating stonework.

Option 3 - to replaster the unplastered areas.

The replacement limestone used for the restoration of the tower in the early 1980’s was obtained from the same area from which the stone was obtained for the construction of the tower in the 1800’s. The option to use limestone again for the intended restoration work has proved not to be a feasible long-term solution, taking the current condition of the replacement stone into consideration.

It should be mentioned that the limestone is visible on the inside of the building where a section of the tower is unplastered and on display. As a matter of interest, the limestone, although enclosed in a glass display case, is also deteriorating on a continuous basis.

The possibility of having artificial “blocks” made and for it to be moulded, or “screwed on” was also investigated, however no contractors were interested in conducting a feasibility experiment.

Lighthouse Services has also been looking into other methods by which the limestone of the building may be preserved. These methods all involved “silicon”, or related products being injected into the stone. Various methods of sealing the limestone have been experimented with and various “experts” have been consulted, but with very little success.

After some years of experimenting and trying to get good advice on how to cure the unacceptably high rate of deterioration of the blocks making up the bulk of the building, a permit was issued in 1999 by the then National Monuments Council to plaster the top of the parapets to stop the water leaking into the rooms annexed to the tower.

The search continued to find an amicable solution for the rest of the building and various experiments were conducted on samples of the affected areas, but no long-term solution could be found.

After many years of experimenting and trying to find a long-term solution on how to cure the high rate of deterioration, the conclusion was that the only option is replaster the unplastered areas.

The other two options mentioned above may be theoretically viable and therefore preferable, but looking at it from a practical and financial point of view, they do not seem possible for the following reasons:

(i) Both are very time-consuming and expensive options, without being sure if the stone or the simulated stone will indeed withstand the elements over a period of time.

(ii) Currently a real problem exists in that the deterioration has a negative influence on the interior of the buildings annexed to the lighthouse tower i.e. damp and the flaking of the stone on the inside.

What makes the plastering option more viable is that after going through our records, we find that in fact these buildings were plastered from about the turn of the century until the renovations in the early 1980’s. So it seems as if the building was definitely covered with plaster for some eighty years of its life and might have been for far longer.

Given the above and the fact that it seems as if we are fighting a losing battle with the elements and given the fact that the greater part of the buildings is already covered by plaster, it left Lighthouse Services with but one option and that was to apply to the Heritage Western Cape (HWC) for a permit to cover the unplastered areas of the buildings annexed to the lighthouse with a suitable layer of plaster. Once plastered, it would be painted to fit the rest of the plastered exterior.

The application was considered by the HWC’s Built Environment and Landscapes Committee (BELCOM) on the 12 th April 2007 and the Record of Decision (ROD) was that, and I quote “The Committee decided that the repairs to the structure could be approved in principle but require that the works be submitted to HWC for approval. The Committee further required that the supervising architect be an expert in the restoration of buildings of this sort”.

Mr. John Rennie of Rennie & Scurr Architects, who was consulted as far back as 1998, was an obvious choice to be approached in order to assist in executing the ROD. A briefing session and site visit is still to take place, but the good news is that the process is at last in motion to get the badly deteriorated exterior areas of the buildings annexed to the Cape Agulhas Lighthouse tower repaired once and for all.

Compiled by: James Collocott, Lighthouse Services, National Ports Authority, 25 May 2007

Nadat Erfenis Weskaap in beginsel toestemming gegee het dat Transnet Nasionale Hawe-owerheid die Kaap Agulhas Vuurtoringgebou herstel deur dit tepleister en te verf, is die argitek John Rennie van Rennie & Scurr Adendorf Argitekte aangestel om hierdie groot werk aan te pak.

Na verskeie inspeksies, navorsing, gesprekke en oorwegings het John Rennie sy aanbevelings en bevindings aan Erfenis Wes-Kaap voorgelê, wat die voorstelle aanvaar het.

Die idee was om in plaas daarvan om alles te pleister en te verf, om met ‘n minder drastiese metode mee te begin en sien hoe dit die elemente weerstaan. Die oorblywende ontblote kalkklipmure gaan eers herstel en met ’n lagie kalk en sementmengsel bedek en dan geverf word. Deur dit te doen en nie geheel en al die gebou met pleister te bedek nie, is dit moontlik om die oorspronklike klipwerk se oppervlaktekstuur te bewaar en dit terselfdertyd ook nog te kan waardeer. Dit het geblyk te duur te wees.

Die Vuurtoring het vir ‘n baie lang tyd ‘n veranda gehad. Verandas dateer uit die laat 19de eeu en is ‘n tipiese Victoriaanse kenmerk uit daardie era. Daar is dus besluit om die veranda terug te sit om die 159 jaar oue vensters en deur te beskerm wat direk aan die winterweer en somer son blootgestel is. Dit word ook gedoen om die erg verweerde voetlys aan die noordekant te bedek deur ’n stoep daaroor te bou om terselfdertyd ook toegang aan gestremdes tot die gebou te gee.

As voorbereiding om die stoep en veranda te vestig en die ander beoogde werk gedurende 2008 aan te pak, gaan gedeeltelike herstelwerk hopelik voor die einde van die jaar voltooi word. Die plan is om hierdie jaar nog die noordekant se voetlys te herstel en met pleister te bedek, die vensters en deur na om te sien en die gebou te verf. Die dak gaan ook met aluminium “sinkplaat” vervang word en die geute met aluminium geute. 

Die mikpunt is dat die voorlopige herstel- en opknappingswerk teen 30 November 2008 klaar moet wees voor die Desember vakansie begin.

(Inligting verskaf deur James Collocott, Transnet Nasionale Hawe-owerheid,Kaapstad)

Met erkenning aan Agulhas Nasionale Park Argief

Die Park is gestig as Government Notice 1135 in 1999 in die Government Gazette 20476, gedateer 23 September  1999.  Die hoofredes waarom die park gestig is, was om die volgende vier  aspekte te beskerm: 

Vir meer inligting besoek die Parkkantoor by Hoofweg 218, L'Agulhas

The iconic Hotagterklip traditional cottages, set amongst mature milk wood trees along a visually prominent natural crestline between the urban settlements, known in present day as Struisbaai North and Struisbaai South, are perhaps the most recognised buildings in the area, second perhaps (in stature only) to the historic L’Agulhas lighthouse. Although the exact date when local fishermen and their families began settling at Hotagterklip is unknown, oral history research suggests that the first fisherman cottages were constructed during the 19th century (Agulhas National Park, 2011). Hotagterklip was described by Fransen (2004:447) as follows:

“This small cluster of picturesque fishermen’s cottages just outside Struis Bay has a name that is nearly as picturesque (lit. ‘Left rear stone’). They are built of stone and whitewashed, with simple straight end gables supported at one end by massive outside chimneys, and often consist of not more than one or two rooms. They stand in haphazard but often attractive arrangements on top of small dunes. Some may well date from the middle of the 19th century, though the same way of building remained in use long afterwards. A group of three small cottages, west of the road, were in fact built only towards the end of the 19th century.  A ‘group areas’ proclamation for whites-only in the 1970’s forced out the original occupants. A dozen or so rapidly deteriorating remaining cottages were well restored and now in use as holiday accommodation, unfortunately this unique group is bisected by the tarred road”, (Oberholser p108 and Pretorius p200).

Another (partly referenced) description of the settlement, as published on www.artefacts.co.za are as follows (sic): 

“The date of origin of the fishing community of Hotagterklip is not known. The beaches of the Cape Coast have served as larders for man since time immemorial. The many fish traps and middens that dot the coast are testament to the riparian heritage of the area. These houses originally housed Coloured fishermen. These were forcibly evicted under the Group Areas Act of 1950. The name Hotagterklip literally means 'towards the left behind the rock', 'hotagter' being a term traditionally used to describe the left rear ox in a team of oxen pulling an ox wagon. Eric Vertue furthers the explanation of the name (Vertue; 53) by associating the name with the idiomatic Afrikaans expression 'Hy kry dit hotagter' meaning that someone is having a tough time. The name can thus be construed to refer to the rocky ridge on which the houses are built as a place of suffering. The houses are constructed of rough stone with reed (Chondropetalum tectorum) roofs. Typically the kitchen fireplace(s) is built on the outside of one of the gable walls as a "kommyntjie". This device is typical of Cape architecture until the arrival of the English at the Cape in 1806. The whole was white-washed. Architecturally they form part of the larger Cape-Dutch family, having the same material and technology employed in their construction. Their simple and humble dwellings speak eloquently of the humble peoples that of need constructed them using locally available materials and minimising the economic expenditure required to build and maintain these dwellings. This is a threatened typology with few other remaining ensembles as coherent as the one at Hotagterklip of which the (SAHRA) owned houses form the largest part”, (Artefacts.co.za, 2022).

Read the full report here:

The Hotagterklip heritage conservation zone: interpreting the 1938 aerial image 

Harry Bolus and Ratelrivier 

South Africa has been the destination of botanical explorers from about 1592 and established, unbeknown to them, the beginning of a significant bio-cultural heritage for South Africa. Plant populations found and identified from those days are recognised as historical scientific artefacts, but the link between the first collections made by early botanists and the scientific heritage value of these collections has not been made in the South African context yet. Carly Cowell of the Cape Research Centre, at the time, did a study which aimed to establish the scientific heritage of type plant collections in the Agulhas National Park before 1914. Three farmsteads, today part of the Agulhas National Park, were visited by botanical explorers in the 1800s, namely Ratelrivier, Rietfontein and Rhenosterkop. These botanists made the Elim Missionary station their base from where they conducted exploration and collection trips to the neighbouring farms. From the type specimens it can be seen that there were two major collection times when travel to the Agulhas Plain was suitable, namely April before the heavy winter rains and December, once the wetlands had dried out sufficiently for travellers to pass through. In September 1894 Harry Bolus left the Cape for Elim. On October 4, he travelled to Ratelrivier where he met up with Mr and Mrs Hughes, who at the time managed the farm for the Ratel River Estate Consortium. He proceeded to do botanical work along the roads and fields near the farmstead. During his visits to the farm, he was told that Mrs Hughes liked wildflowers and kept what remained around the homestead intact. 

Harry Bolus, 1834 - 1911

During the 1894 collection trip to Ratelrivier area Harry Bolus collected 14 type-plant specimens in total. His friend, Rudolf Schlechter, collected 18 specimens. Bolus collected mainly in the western part of the Agulhas Plain around Elim and Ratelrivier, while Schlechter ventured further eastwards and collected near the Southern Tip, Rhenosterkop and Brandfontein. In all, Bolus collected 40 types and Schlechter 106 in the Agulhas Plain. To date 29 of the 32 species which had been collected inside the boundaries of the Agulhas National Park have again been found. These have Red Data statuses from critically endangered to threatened. At a national and global scale these plants are rare as well as having a heritage value within the park, and of course, within the Agulhas Plain. (SOURCE: COWELL, C. 2014. Critical moments for botany on the Agulhas Plain. Unpublished).