The demolition of the historic Richmond laundry in the past week is likely to end in court, with the City expected to take legal action against the owners.

THE City is to take "strong legal action" against the owners of the historic Richmond laundry, in response to the demolition of the buildings over the past several days.

"We are outraged that the owners and developers went ahead with the demolition of a 106-year-old building despite an order preventing them from doing so," says Phil Harrison, the City's executive director of development planning and urban management.

The buildings were sold to Imperial Properties in March 2006; and the company plans to build a showroom on the site.

Harrison says his department issued an order to stop demolition on the day it started, on Thursday, 10 January. "The order was issued on site by Preggie Naidoo, the chief building control inspector."

Another order, from the Provincial Heritage Resources Authority of Gauteng (PHRAG), was issued on Friday, but the demolition continued. It was only on Monday afternoon, 14 January, with another City order to stop, that the bulldozers were finally switched off. But by then it was too late – most of the landmark buildings on the site had been levelled.

Opened in 1902

A bulldozer getting dangerously close to the road

Rand Steam Laundries and Cleaning and Dyeing Works began business on the site in 1902. It consisted of a small village with cottages for workers and managers, a blacksmith and farrier and a soap-making area. The four-acre site in Napier Road has since the early 1960s been a ramshackle collection of light-industrial businesses. The site was the last remaining example of a steam-driven industry in the city.

It has provisional protection for two years, given by the PHRAG in September 2006, but the owners claim they had no knowledge of this protection. Demolition began on Thursday, 10 January, and has been ongoing 24 hours a day since then.

Harrison says that a dilapidation notice was sent to Imperial in November last year. This notice indicates that the property is in a dilapidated state, and the owner should take action, which could either be to consider demolition, or to get a structural engineer's report and repair the structures. At the same time it was made clear to Imperial that if it wanted to demolish the buildings it would have to formally apply for a demolition permit to the PHRAG, Harrison stresses.

This would involve a heritage report as the buildings were older than 60 years.

Fire in building
John Carstens, the managing director of Imperial Properties, disputes this, saying that demolition went ahead because he received a demolition order from the City late in 2007. This happened, he says, following a fire in one of the buildings on the site; he feared another fire would result in loss of life, as people were living in the derelict buildings.

Carstens says that all demolitions have now stopped, after the order to stop was received from the City on Monday, 14 January. The removal of rubble from the site continues. He denies having seen the first order to halt demolition issued by the City.

However, another order to halt demolition was issued by Grant Botha of the PHRAG, on Friday, 11 January. Carstens claims the company did not receive this order, otherwise it would have halted demolition. Botha also laid a charge of illegal demolition with the police on Friday.

"We could not wait for any further risks or problems," Carstens says, referring to the state of the site after the fire last year. "We respect the order from the City of Johannesburg.

"We deeply regret what has happened and obviously don't want the negative publicity."

No knowledge of protection

A bulldozer pulls a building to the ground

He is adamant that Imperial had "absolutely no knowledge" of the provisional protection the site had received. "We disagree that the property was protected."

Harrison disputes this. "The developers were well aware of the heritage status of the site but proceeded with the demolition in defiance of this," he says. "We will take legal action against them and also charge them with the violation of building standards and demolition without the necessary permit."

In a letter from Imperial's lawyers dated 27 March 2006 to Flo Bird, the chairperson of the Parktown and Westcliff Heritage Trust, they make clear that they know of the site's provisional protection and intend respecting it. "Our client has instructed us that it is fully aware of the requirements of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 ("the Act") and that it has at no time made any attempt to derogate from the requirements of the Act.

"In light of our client's willingness to follow the due processes in consulting with the necessary authorities and conducting the necessary investigations, your allegation contained [in] your letter that our client is willing to pay the applicable fine in lieu of complying with the requirements of the Act is duly unfounded."

The fine refers to an alleged comment made by Imperial to a journalist and repeated to Bird that the fine is "only R10 000" and is well worth the ignoring the provisional protection of an historic site.

Laws in mind
The attorneys go on to say that, "our client's intentions to develop the property will be in accordance with the laws, by-laws, regulations, licences, consents, authorisations and permits required by the relevant authority with competent jurisdiction regarding the development of the property".

They continue, "The conservation of the property cannot therefore be considered to be threatened at this point in time and as a result thereof we [do] not believe that it is necessary for the property to be provisionally protected."

This indicates that Imperial was well aware that an application for provisional protection was being made. This protection was granted and published in the provincial gazette of 20 September 2006.

Imperial has applied to have the site rezoned to allow for the building of a vehicle showroom. Harrison says that the application would require a number of reports from professionals in the industry, who would have made clear to the company the significance of the site. "They would be very, very aware of the heritage of the property."

Demolishers began on Wednesday

All that is left of the red corrogated iron roof of the Richmond laundry

Bird says that demolition of the site began on Wednesday, 9 January, when roof sheeting and ventilators were being removed. She went to the site and indicated to the demolishers, DEMOB, that what it was doing was illegal. Despite this, work continued.

Bird maintains that the demolishers "drove back and forth across the rubble crushing the bricks, splintering the Oregon pine and twisting any metal in its path. Whatever survived was lifted and dashed down repeatedly until it too was crumpled and useless".

"We will work with the relevant conservation authorities to ensure that the demolishers are prosecuted and so send out a message to developers to keep their hands off historical buildings in Johannesburg," Harrison says. The case is with the City's lawyers.

Carstens says he "wouldn't be surprised" if it goes to court.

Bird has called for the authorities to prosecute Imperial, and instead of imposing a fine, the owners should be ordered to re-instate the buildings.

"Imperial Group has demonstrated its contempt for the law, for the heritage of Johannesburg, for due process and for the people of Johannesburg," she says.

Related stories:

• Historic Richmond laundry demolished
• Richmond laundry wins temporary protection
• New owners plan to develop Richmond laundry
• AmaWasha - Jozi's first black businessmen