The Final Word: Design Review Panel's response to my criticism of the approval of the Wall

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.”