I received a response from Hugh Bosman, Chairman of
the Design Review Panel, for which I thank him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To read my criticism, go to my post: My response to the TI Design Review Panel's letter to the trustees defending the approval of the wall by clicking on this link:
http://thesenislandernews.blogspot.co.za/2016/12/my-response-to-ti-design-review-panels.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadly, Hugh has since resigned his position. It is
a big loss to the Design Review Panel and the home owners of Thesen Islands.
Hugh is enthusiastic, responsive and open to debate. He gave a lot of his time
and was committed to doing a good job for Thesen Islands. Here is his letter, with my comments:
Dear Ken
Thank you
for the opportunity to comment ahead of your next blog. By way of an
introduction allow me to make a few general comments.
The first
is that the Design Review Panel (DRP) is the one portfolio that retains a
significant amount of institutional knowledge. This is due to the ongoing
involvement, almost from inception, of the professionals on the committee.
Needless to say, this knowledge materially adds to consistency in decision
making.
The second
is that the DRP, because of its composition, has in-built checks and balances
and there is often rigorous but constructive debate.
Thirdly,
you will be aware that the TIHOA Constitution 9.1 states that "The broad
concepts (my highlights) of the DESIGN GUIDELINES constitute an
integral part of this CONSTITUTION and may not be changed. Minor amendments may
be made from time to time by the TRUSTEES in consultation with the Design Review
Panel. With this in mind the Guiding Principles that we have developed within
the DRP states, among other things, that "The DRP will continuously review
aspects of the Design Guidelines to ensure they are relevant, practical, and in
accordance with modern practice. Proposals for change must be true to the
overall original Design Guidelines, the Thesen Islands Constitution, the Cape
Colonial design criteria, and the New Urbanist principles."
My comment: Yes, I am. See my letter.
Fourthly,
the DRP is not charged with ensuring compliance to the Design
Guidelines other than when reviewing plan submissions. This notwithstanding,
the DRP is trying to assist the TIHOA in ensuring that all erven have approved
as-built plans on record.
My comment: Does not the reviewing of plans and seeing
that they comply with the Guidelines ensure compliance?
Fifth,
most of your concerns stated in your letter of in respect of the Design
Guidelines refer to the wall at P76. We feel that we have dealt with this
adequately. The DRP is extremely sensitive to the issue of walls on Thesen
Islands and to anything that could change to overall "look and feel"
of Thesen Islands. You will know that the DRP faces objections and challenges
almost every month. In my short involvement with the DRP the committee has not
once shirked its responsibility to take tough and unpopular decisions. It will
continue to do so knowing that it cannot satisfy everyone all the time.
My comment: The wall is not the major issue. At the beginning
of my letter I wrote: “The approval of the street facing wall at P76 is
more than merely a wall at one house. It is a watershed event that marks a
turning point of Thesen Islands.”
Sixth, I
think it is impractical to roll back any of the Design Guideline revisions. It
would cause enormous confusion and unhappiness out of proportion to the P76
wall. In retrospect the decision to permit the wall may not have been correct
but we also do not think we can now approach that homeowner to ask them to
break down the wall.
My comment: I wrote: “The
Chairman of the Design Review Panel.... cites a number of these “Revision Oct
2013” changes in defending the approval of the wall at P76. So it
can be said, the wall is a result of the “Revision Oct 2013” changes made to
the Design Guidelines.”
So if the changes
resulted in the approval of the wall, and this decision “may not have been
correct” surely those changes should be rolled back?
I have never
suggested that he wall should be broken down, but I can understand that
sentiment.
Finally,
Edu Lohann comes in for a great deal of criticism in your previous letter. I
appreciate that you have every right to disagree with the decisions of the DRP.
However, my experience with Edu is that he has a very good understanding of the
Design Guidelines, applies them to the very best of his ability without fear or
favour, and interrogates every submission in the greatest detail.
My comment: Edu Lohann, as Chairman
of the Design Review Panel, signed the letter defending the approval of the
wall. My letter is my response to his argument. No more than that.
I have
reviewed some of the changes to the Design Guidelines. From April 2014 to
December 2016 there were 10 minor amendments. Most of these refer to the
details governing shade sails, blinds and pergolas; the use of luxaflex;
veranda enclosures and balustrades. Separate entrances for boats have been
allowed providing a gate matching the picket fence is installed. One amendment
clarifies minor elements against a major building form. Since then the DRP has
also introduced, through the trustees, a clarifying amendment about wall
heights. The DRP will continue to consider further minor amendments (a new
luxaflex-type product is currently on trial and will be introduced if it meets
some basic design Guideline requirements). However these are rigorously debated
and are not put to the trustees without careful thought.
My comment: My letter refers to the
changes called “Revision Oct
2013”. These are the Guidelines on the HOA website, as of August 4, 2017. I
look forward to the updated Guidelines being on the website.
As regards
the changes called called “Revision Oct 2013”, I have checked the
minutes of the trustee meeting of October 2013 and the changes were correctly
dealt with and minuted. These changes were then sent to the Knysna Municipality
for their ratification.
From our
face-to-face discussions in your offices I know that we are fundamentally on
the same page in terms of what we desire for Thesen Islands. That includes not
changing the essence of the Design Guidelines, trying to apply them as rigidly
as possible, and, at all times ensuring that the "look and feel" of
the Islands remains as it was originally intended. There have been some
historical slips and we are aware of these. In most cases these were not
sanctioned by the DRP. We are, through the moratorium period on penalties,
trying to get to a point where we have approved as-built plans for every erf.
This may mean that we have to compromise where things were allegedly allowed in
the past as we can now not achieve 100% compliance.
I trust
that this response meets with your approval and that you understand where the
DRP stands on the issues raised by you. We welcome further discussion should
you wish to comment further.
Regards,
Hugh
My comment: The Design Review Panel
is not the Border Patrol with home owners and their architects trying to slip
plans through undetected. Home owners (and
their architects) should understand the need for the Guidelines and comply with
them. Then when the plans are examined they will mostly be approved. And if
they are not approved, listen to the reason(s) why without rancour, and correct
them.
As I said when I was selling stands
on Thesen islands, “It is not a buffet of rules, you cannot pick and choose
which rules you want to abide by. You have to abide by them all.”
