The guy who wrote the Thesen Islands Design Guidelines (hyperbole!) and past Chairman of the Design Review PaneI gives his view on the Wall

I asked my brother, Gray Rutherford*, to give his opinion on the boundary wall at P76, as there is no one better qualified than him to give an objective interpretation of the Guidelines.  

I requested Henk Booysen, General Manager of the TIHOA to table his opinion below at both the Trustees meeting on 8 December and the Design Review Panel meeting of 10 December, 2015. 

==================

Dear Ken,

Boundary Wall at P76 Thesen Islands

As the co-ordinator and compiler of the Thesen Islands Design Guidelines and Chairman of the Design Review PaneI for a number of years you requested my views on the above. They are as follows:

The boundary wall should not have been approved by the Thesen Islands Design Review Panel for a number of reasons, but primarily and most importantly:

It does not adhere to the Thesen Islands Design Concept set out on the first page of the Guidelines. The Design Concept specifies white timber picket fencing along property boundaries. This should be the first test of the Design Review Panel and as it fails it, the DRP would have no need to address the detail. 

However, I will take it further:

1. The use of a later (flawed) definition of a lane to the original Guidelines that somehow permits high boundary walls is clearly in conflict with the Design Concept.  A lane is simply a narrower street. It has the same requirements.

2. The argument that because this property has a zero building line where the fence is situated permits a boundary wall is incorrect.  It is a zero building line i.e, for buildings, not walls.

3. The Boundary Fences section in the Guidelines (note the heading is not Boundary Fences and Walls) is specific regarding Lanes and Courtyards.  It refers to fences only.

4. The only place where limited boundary walls may have been permitted in certain circumstances is in Concept Design and Regulation Plans (sometimes referred to as “Site Specific”) for certain small (usually less than 500 sq.m) property precincts.  P76 is not in one of these areas.

5. The wall colour is blue. The fence it has replaced would have been white.

Gray Rutherford      4 December 2015

================================

* (1) If you are a recent arrival in Knysna, you may be wondering what Gray Rutherford had to do with Belvidere Estate & Thesen Islands. Belvidere Estate is a result of his vision and Thesen Islands would not have happened without him. Gray doesn’t see the need to shine the light on his achievements, which opens the door for others to misappropriate as their own.       

Read:
"The Belvidere Estate Story - By Pixie & Mick Roberts" in the blog.

Hyperbole: Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

The first 1.8m street facing brick wall...

Yes, folks. We have taken the first step to living behind high walls on Thesen Islands. The first 1.8m high brick wall has just been built at P76.

So now you can recapture the feeling you had in Johannesburg or Cape Town living behind a high wall. Block the view of your neighbours walking past. Don't like 'em anyway.  Maybe add electric fencing on the top. Keep 'em out!  

If every homeowner in this lane builds a 1.8m wall, all choosing to paint it in their own house colours, this “lane” would have checkered 1.8m walls down both sides. It would look like a very average townhouse complex in Cape Town or Johannesburg, but definitely not Thesen Islands.  

If you feel this a a good idea let the HOA know. Then the Design Review Panel can  retroactively change the Design Guidelines to allow this. But, you ask, this wall must have been approved?  Yes, it was. Even though the Thesen Islands design philosophy and the actual Guidelines don't allow it. 

If, like me, you think this is a huge blunder that has serious consequences for the look and feel of Thesen Islands and, yes, is a threat to our property values, then write to the HOA and tell them. 

The HOA trustees, committee members and staff are well intentioned, work hard and want to make Thesen Islands the best it can be. And we home owners must be thankful that there are home owners who donate their time and skill to be trustees & committee members. We must not forget that. 

Thesen Islands belongs to all of us. And we need to look after it. Home owners need to interact with the trustees, committees and staff to let them know what we think and see. If we hadn't done that a year ago when the scheme was floated to sell off the Parkland, we'd be looking at bulldozers today. And builder's trucks 5 days a week for a few years all the way from Waterfront Drive to the far end of the Islands.  For a few more cents in our pockets. And a lot of Rands in other pockets.    

Aside from a letter I have written directly to the Design Review Panel , I have written this to the Trustees of the HOA:

2 December, 2015

Trustees of the Thesen Islands Home Owners Association

Dear Trustees,

The Design Review Panel has made a stunning error approving a 1.8m high masonry street facing wall recently built at P76. Blunders like this will change the look and feel of Thesen Islands irreversibly.  

If you think I am being alarmist, please read the attached 2013 letter to Richard Wilkinson from my brother Gray Rutherford (1) regarding the experiences at Belvidere Estate when their Architectural Committee took “ …a more accommodating approach.”   

(Reading on the blog?: See " Gray Rutherford on the pitfalls of a more accommodating approach..." for this letter.) 

This 1.8m wall should never have been approved. Not from what Thesen Islands is meant to be, nor the specific requirements for street facing fences.

Here is what our website says about the design philosophy for Thesen Islands (bold added by me):

The New Urbanist, or Traditional Neighbourhood Design philosophy, underlies the design concepts and planning of Thesen Islands. 

Livable neighbourhoods are those built to reduce dependency on cars, provide easy access to public and commercial amenities, increase community interactivity, improve cost-effectiveness of services and provide a simplified but higher quality of life. The focus is on the pedestrian as opposed to the motor vehicle. Buildings, open spaces, streets and walkways are scaled down for the pedestrian to experience and relate to with enjoyment and appreciation. 

http://www.thesenislands.co.za/lifestyle/nudc.html

And from the Design Concept at the beginning of the Design Guidelines:

The Islands’ architecture is “Colonial Maritime” – identifying with Knysna’s historic vernacular architecture and seafaring connection. The concept is based on criteria derived from Cape Colonial buildings, but without the Victorian embellishments. The concept emphasizes simplicity, human scale and vertical proportions, traditional plan form, harmony, refined details and natural colours. Buildings are smooth plastered brick or timber clad frames. Wooden verandahs, decks, railings, boardwalks, gazebos and picket fencing reflect the Thesen Islands’ and Knysna’s timber heritage

Then if you read further in the Guidelines:   

D35. Boundary Fences Apart from their visual appeal the Thesen Islands picket fences define the edge and scale of the streets. The pickets reinforce the vertical vernacular form. See definition of Picket. No part of a fence or wall may extend over the property boundary.

Street facing fence: A fence of an approved picket design in treated timber or approved composite material with timber proportions and painted white between 0.6 and 1.2 metres in height must be erected along the entire street and parkland boundary of the property or the outer estate lagoon facing boundary. These fences must have posts placed on the private side and face towards the public areas or be both side friendly. Street and public facing picket fences must have 40% openings for example if the picket is 100mm wide, an opening of 40mm must be between pickets. Gate width not to exceed 6.5 metres.

Lanes and Courtyards have site specific designs. In order to ensure variety, adjacent properties may not use the same design. The street facing fence must include a gate opening to the outside with an enclosed area behind sufficient for the storage and concealment of two refuse bins. Adjacent properties to have different picket fence designs. Entrance features: an entrance feature forming part of the fence may be erected outside building lines. Size must be limited and cannot be linked to other structures. Must be a light weight structure and be simple in design.

In reply to my query, Elfrieda Loubser, most likely on information from the Design Review Panel, wrote that a lane is not a street: It is beyond obvious that the Guidelines intend, and state, no difference when it comes to street facing fencing. 

Also, I was told, that zero building lines mean you can build a 1.8m wall facing the street.  Walk around Thesen Islands, paying particular attention to where garages are built on the boundary line. See if you see any 1.8m masonry walls. You won’t because it would not have been approved. You only see picket fences. 

Whatever, verbal gymnastics are used, a 1.8m masonry boundary wall with about a metre of stone cladding and painted blue and white is not a street facing picket fence.

If every homeowner in this lane builds a 1.8m wall, all choosing to paint it in their own house colours, this “lane” would have checkered 1.8m walls down both sides. It would look like a very average townhouse complex in Cape Town or Johannesburg, but definitely not Thesen Islands.  

The value of Thesen Islands is maintained by keeping to the standards. A Design Review Panel that does not understand the design philosophy of the Thesen Islands and ignores clearly written requirements is a threat to the value. 

This is a dangerous precedent that can change the character of Thesen Islands. Do we want to be another Security Estate living behind high walls?

1.8m walls certainly do not facilitate “increased community activity” between residents.

1.8m walls are not “scaled down for the pedestrian to experience and relate to with enjoyment and appreciation”.

1.8m walls destroy the essence of Thesen Islands and shut off neighbour from neighbour.

Thank you for reading this.

Yours sincerely,

Ken Rutherford

P79

(1) If you are a recent arrival in Knysna, you may be wondering what Gray had to do with Belvidere Estate and Thesen Islands. Belvidere Estate is a result of his vision and Thesen Islands would not have happened without him. Gray doesn’t see the need to shine the light on his achievements, which opens the door for others to claim as their own. Read "The Belvidere Estate Story" on this blog.       

Gray Rutherford on the pitfalls of a "more accommodating approach" to design on Belvidere Estate and the design philosophy on Thesen Islands

12 March 2013

To : Richard Wilkinson, Chairman, Thesen Islands Home Owners Association

Dear Richard

I read with great interest your circular dated 4 December 2012 to TIHOA Homeowners, forwarded to me by my brother Ken.  It was a well presented and comprehensive review.  I particularly laud your commitment to remaining true to the TI Design Guidelines.  This is essential for the integrity of Thesen Islands. It brought a sense of déjà vu as I observed a similar situation unfold at Belvidere Estate in the 90’s.  I hope my story below will help bolster this commitment and serve as a warning of what can happen if one starts making exceptions based on the influence or insistence of an owner.

I was a partner in the development of Belvidere Estate in 1987/8 and was the motivator for the adoption of a strict architectural code for buildings and the urban landscape. It emerged out of the perceived need to harmonise all new buildings with the historic Belvidere House at the centre of the development and pioneered the concept of a code based on the Cape Colonial vernacular.  To a large extent the code was compiled by talented George architect Boets Smuts, who has an intimate knowledge of our Cape architectural heritage through his work as a restoration architect.  (Incidentally the Steenberg  Estate you mentioned adopted much of the Belvidere Estate code at the time of its development).

We set up an architectural committee comprising Boets, myself and several different architects from time to time, with observer representation for Homeowners.  We were challenged almost immediately with legal action by an owner who decided that the code didn’t suit him.  Once that was seen off things went along fairly smoothly, the biggest challenges always coming when owners wanting “minor”deviations.  We did our best  to be fair and even handed but had a reputation as being “strict”.  After almost 4 years when 90% of the houses had been built I stepped down as Chairman as I was now fully occupied in the construction of the Belvidere Manor Hotel complex.

On my departure the committee took what they thought was a more accommodating approach, approving some deviations and exceptions.  The problem was that one deviation was used as a motivation for the next, often not in the same context.  These occurrences multiplied.   The result was that several houses and alterations were approved that in no way resembled the original architectural concept.  Suddenly owners woke up, particularly those near the deviant designs.  It was too late in some cases and these houses unfortunately still jar in their streetscapes.  The reaction from owners was strong – the committee had to immediately return to strict adherence to the Building Design Manual.  In fact some requirements were tightened up.  It has remained this way.

I would also like to record the background to the Thesen Islands Design Guidelines insofar as they relate to the architecture of the residential homes.  These Guidelines were adapted to a very large extent from the Belvidere Estate Design Manual, reflecting lessons we learned there.  Smuts, CMAI and I then also incorporated the requirements of adifferent waterfront environment.  However they were true to the ethic of our Cape Colonial architecture, hence “Colonial Maritime”.  The TI Guidelines are not an import, although they have aspects common  with British Colonial architecture in other parts of the world such as  the east coast of the US, Australia and New Zealand.  A significant difference between our and American Colonial residential architecture is their widespread use of elements of the Classical style, which did not generally occur here in a residential context so would be inappropriate on Thesen Island.

New Urbanist relates to urban design and town planning and not to architectural style.  Whilst Thesen Islands has some aspects of New Urbanism it could not be called a New Urban development.  Thesen Islands design was influenced by the Traditional Neighbourhood Development movement, and in particular the Seaside development in Florida, which I visited for the first time in the early 1990’s.  When we were busy with the planning of Thesen Islands I urged Chris and Stef Mulder to visit Seaside, which they did.  We particularly liked its human scale and emphasis on pedestrian amenities and walkways, public spaces and building setbacks thereby facilitating greater community between residents.  Some of these design elements can be seen on Thesen Islands today.

Best regards,

Gray Rutherford

The Belvidere Estate Story - By Pixie & Mick Roberts

What is a story about Belvidere Estate doing on a blog about Thesen Islands, you ask?

Well, if you are a newcomer to Knysna you can be forgiven for thinking that the development of Belvidere Estate was done by others. Gray has never seen the need to shine a light on his own achievements so this is a fitting way of setting the record straight, through the eyes of  someone else, an early buyer on the Estate. This first appeared in the Belvidere Home Owners newsletter. 

Gray Rutherford:  25 Years   

First, a few historical facts to get things into perspective.    It is nearly 50 years since the botanist Dr   A.V. (Ave) Duthie, grand-daughter of Thomas Duthie, passed away in 1963.   Plus it is nearly 40 years since the last resident Duthie family members, Dr John and Jean Marr, gave up farming at Belvidere in 1974.  For those and other bits we’ve taken from her book “A Vista and a Vision” in compiling this memo, we are indebted to Patricia Storrar.  

For thirteen years from 1974 to 1987 the descendents of the original Belvidere Duthies and others attracted to Belvidere, tried unsuccessfully to formulate a practicable plan, for development compatible with the preservation of the special ambience of Belvidere farm.   During that period of standstill on Belvidere farm, Tony Bowman of Field House in old Belvidere Village, managed to get ESKOM power to the old village, via Knysna in 1982. 

In 1985, his nephew, the innovative designer Gray Rutherford acquired and restored Ferry House as a small Country Inn.   Gem Morton recalls spending holidays there and getting to know Gray Rutherford at that early stage of Gray’s inspired personal crusade, for the conservation of Belvidere’s heritage.  Gray’s vision, of development of Belvidere farm, as Belvidere Estate, always incorporated Tony Bowman’s ideal of architectural harmony and large parkland areas.    

It was Gray Rutherford whose single-minded drive and enthusiasm alone saved Belvidere Estate.  He did so by resisting all sorts of commercial pressures and by insisting upon the sensitively-controlled, heritage preservation style of development.  It was this that attracted us all, to this special place during the 25 years which have elapsed since Gray started his crusade in earnest in 1987. 

His vision appealed to all kindred spirits with a feeling for this nook.  1987 was the pivotal year for Belvidere Estate.   It was in that year, that Gray Rutherford convinced Carl Schepping of BOE’s property company of the merits of his ideas.   BOE then established a new company to which Mike Meterlerkamp, leading the shareholders, including Duthie family members, sold the farmland, we now know as Belvidere Estate. 

Now, in 2012, we remember that 25 years ago in 1987, Gray Rutherford as a churchwarden played a leading role in the restoration of the old Belvidere Church.  Simultaneously, as a designer and motivator, he took the lead in launching and guiding the development of Belvidere Estate, by financier BOE and Civil Engineering Contractor Clifford Harris. 

Having bought our stand during the first week of public selling in December 1987, we were always acutely aware of our good fortune to be able to see Gray Rutherford in action, thus bringing his vision into reality for the benefit of the new community we had joined. 

During the preparations in 1989 for building our cottage, it was in early 1990 that we saw at first hand how hard Gray worked to achieve a balance between so many conflicting interests, among the wide variety of preferences, of individual owners and their freely chosen architects. 

In an article we came across in TIME magazine around the mid 90’s, Gray Rutherford’s realized dream of Belvidere Estate was hailed by TIME as an internationally outstanding example of how heritage, conservation and development should and could be reconciled.  

25 years after he first welcomed us to Belvidere Estate, we salute Gray Rutherford and thank him for delivering his vision.  Long may his aesthetic values be respected.

Pixie and Mick Roberts   

Public Open Space given way by the Chairman of the HOA

Open Space - Given away by HOA 

Open Space - As it should be  

Ok, so this is hard to believe….

In May 2014, a homeowner objects to 2 other home owners annexing open space as private garden and is then given the run around by the HOA until December (yes, 7 months!) when the Chairman of the HOA, Brian Sears, says:

“I think that the properties on either side, have tastefully created gardens which add to the value of Thesen Islands and are not in any way obtrusive. I have therefore instructed Wiekie Smit not to trim the hedges any further. It is regrettable that you have decided not to accept my decision and that you now intend taking the matter further, whatever that may mean.”

So here is how it works: If you want to take over some open space adjoining your property just do it is a way that pleases the Chairman of the HOA and he will give you the OK to keep it.

And how is this for an interesting exchange between the Chairman and the Home Owner:

 Owner: “In terms of your statement that my properties might not comply 100% with the guidelines and constitution and that you will send officials to inspect them, let me reiterate my commitment to making myself available and my intention to rectify matters which are non compliant. I do however trust that the intention is for the rules to be applied consistently for everybody on the islands and that the intention is not to use the rules as a tool to bully me into letting this matter go.”

 Chairman: “I have no intention of trying to bully you. I vaguely recall that there is an issue with your P Island home, that was communicated to you some time back. I have asked Wiekie to go through the correspondence to check. If there is something outstanding, I will forward it to you.”

 It just happened to be raised at meeting discussing the home owner’s objection…

Then, on December 19, 2014, the home owner writes to the HOA:

“It is clear from your mail that you have decided to set aside my request for the reinstatement of the land portions to their legally defined land use and for the status quo to remain.

At this juncture I have been advised to request the following information:
1) On what provisions of the constitution and on what legal authority have you based your decision to change a regulated land use and deny the members of the association access to the POS land?
2) Does the TIHOA intend applying for a rezoning of these land portions to ensure compliance with the municipal approvals, will the land be sold to the neighbours and has their levy been proportionally larger for enclosing public land and using it for private use ?
3) May I please have a copy of the design review panels decision to allow both neighbours to remove their boundary fences?

He then, on January 21, 2015 (one month later)  gets a reply that the Design Review Panel has inspected the annexed open space and they will be reverting to him.

Should the Design Review Panel be answering the questions in his letter? Of course not, they have nothing to do with it. It is just the HOA kicking the can down the road, as they have done for 9 months.

Open Space is simply what is: It is open space owned by the home owners for all home owners to enjoy. Not something that can be given away to individual home owners on the whim of the Chairman of the HOA.

And what does the home owner have to wrestle with the HOA to get them to enforce the Constitution of Thesen Islands?   For 9 months, so far, with  no success. Is this the type of governance that we should get on Thesen Islands?    

Why does the HOA not want to say to the home owners concerned: "The ground that you have now made into a private garden is not yours, unfortunately. It is open space and belongs to the home owners. You need to remove your plants, shrubs, gates and fences back to within the boundaries of your property. Thank you." ?

What is right is right. The HOA needs to do the right thing. 

AGM 29 December 2014 - A short report and some comments

The following is based on my notes and recollections so it is not completely accurate.

There were about 120 owners present with about 50 proxies, about 40 in the favour of the Chairman, Brian Sears. So effectively, the Chairman controlled about 25% of the votes.         

The main discussion issue, initiated by Max Diethelm (E18), was the finances of the HOA. Members were unhappy that the budget had been over spent (about R500,000); that money was spent inappropriately in some cases, and that the income from the one time one year levy payment from new owners was not earmarked for infrastructure maintenance as was intended. 

The long and the short of it was that not enough money was collected to both run the Islands and build up reserves for infrastructure maintenance.

Owners voted for a 15% increase in the levy from 1 February 2015 to fund a infrastructure maintenance fund. This would run for period of five years. The 15% increase would be based on each homeowner’s levy and shown as a separate amount on each invoice. This would be called and “additional levy”.

From next year's budget, the funds collected from the one time, one year levy payment from new owners as well as the interest earned on the money in the fund would be added to this fund. It could be not be added immediately as the following year's budget has already been drawn up with this money already planned to be spent elsewhere.

I think the benefit of this long discussion on the finances was the homeowners making a point that the trustees should exercise closer control on the expenditures. We owe Max Diethlem a vote of thanks for his widely circulated detailed analysis of the finances, which must have taken many hours, as this was the catalyst for the discussion.     

The plan to build houses in the Parkland was not discussed as it was not on the agenda, aside from a reference by the chairman that owners were not in favor of this. He defended the decision to spend R108,000 on the plan saying it was necessary to put something on the table for the homeowners to discuss. He said that in hindsight the decision could be criticized. In an attempt to put a positive spin on this, the chairman said the plan produced could be used as a starting point for the upgrading of the Parkland. He then called for volunteers to serve on a committee to discuss ways of implementing the upgrading. About four or five volunteers were selected.

Various homeowners in their questions made negative comments about this expenditure, with some references to building homes in the remediated contamination area. This was not challenged by either the trustees or Chris Mulder who was sitting in the audience.

The issue of protecting the Parkland from future commercial or residential development was raised. A special AGM will be called in the middle of the year where a vote will be taken to present to homeowners an amendment to the Constitution that will require a two thirds majority of homeowner’s agreement before commercial or residential development will be allowed in the Parkland. There was discussion at making this a 90% majority but it appears that that this was not passed. It was a bit confusing as to what actually was passed.

I think that this is pretty much a moot point as it is now back out in the open that the whole Parkland is a remediated contamination area. I cannot see future trustees having the appetite for proposing that the Homeowners Association start digging in the Parkland. This, of course, would disturb the contamination which has been buried under “clean” soil as part of the remediation plan drawn up by the consultants, Arcus Gibb, and executed by the Thesen Islands Development Company.  

There were 7 members standing for election is trustees. Here is a rundown of who they were and their backgrounds from my notes.

 Mike Barber - elected

Renovating a house on Leeward Island. He retired in 2009 from Franki, geotechnical contractors. With an engineering background, he served for two years on the infrastructure committee. He is lived on Thesen Islands since 2012. He was not present at the meeting.  

Bill Cooper - elected

Retired chemical engineer with an MBA. Been living on Thesen Islands for 10 years. Also on Leeward Island. Judging from the questions he asked, he has a good grip on numbers.

Lester Day - elected

An accountant by profession, he was previously co-opted onto the Board of Trustees. Worked for Barloworld Caterpillar Division. Also worked for big Caterpillar dealer in Amsterdam.

Johan Jacobs - not elected

Worked for 17 years for SAP software and later as an independent consultant. Now living on Thesen Islands permanently.

Marielle Renssen - not elected

Writer and editor. Involved in the Blue Flag program. The environment is her passion.

Brian Sears - reelected

Trustee standing for reelection

Hendri van der Merwe - reelected

Trustee standing for reelection

I think that newly elected Trustees will have a positive effect on the running of Thesen Islands. Overall, I think we have a strong group of Trustees to take Thesen Islands forward.  

The meeting was conducted is a positive atmosphere. Everyone who wanted to speak was given time to do so. Questions that were asked were mostly answered to the satisfaction of the questioner. The Chairman deserves credit for running the meeting well and keeping it moving.  It ran for about 3 hours.

I think that the majority of owners felt l that it was a positive and worthwhile AGM, although with the removal of the aborted parkland development from the agenda, some hard questions were not asked.