The dispute surrounding the removal of a 112-year-old home in Parkview remains ongoing, following a site meeting where the property owner presented documentation to counter claims of unlawful demolition and forged permits.

The meeting, held on January 27, was attended by the owner, Razeen Moosa, representatives of the Parkview Residents’ Association (PRA), and the Rosebank Killarney Gazette. It followed public allegations that the historic structure had been illegally demolished without the required approvals.

At the meeting, the owner shared email correspondence, approved plans, and engineering reports, which he says demonstrate that renovation and alteration approvals were legally issued, and that he had engaged with both the Provincial Heritage Resources Authority Gauteng (PHRAG) and the City of Johannesburg through the correct channels prior to, and following, a partial structural collapse on site.

Read more: Parkview residents outraged as 112-year-old heritage home is illegally demolished

According to the owner, the work undertaken was not an intentional demolition, but a response to serious safety concerns after the structure became unstable. He said engineering assessments confirmed that the house’s original foundations were cracked and structurally unsound, resulting in the collapse of walls and rendering the building unsafe for occupation.

The owner stressed that his intention was never to demolish the entire heritage home, but to address a dangerous situation that posed a risk to his family. He added that original elements of the house, including structural frames, have been retained where possible.

Engineering reports state that the existing footings and stone plinth walls were unsuitable for continued construction, citing extensive cracking, collapsible soil conditions, and non-compliant roof support. The reports conclude that the structure could not be made safe or compliant with building regulations without substantial rebuilding.

While the owner acknowledged that no formal demolition permit was issued after the collapse, he maintains that authorities were aware of the site conditions and that no stop-work orders were issued at the time.

He said guidance was received from professionals and officials following the incident, and that actions taken were based on safety considerations, rather than an attempt to bypass heritage regulations.

Also read: Zoo Lake swimming pool reopens at last, welcoming the community back to the water

Representatives of PRA said residents had raised concerns because they were unaware of the approvals, and had not seen heritage permits displayed on the boundary wall, as required during public participation periods.

They stated that they had acted on information provided to them by city departments and PHRAG, including indications that a permit was under investigation. The association maintained that it intended to seek clarity on behalf of residents, not to accuse the owner of wrongdoing.

The association requested copies of approvals and reports to enable them to report back accurately to residents. While the owner allowed documents to be viewed on site, he declined to hand over copies at that stage, stating that these were private documents relating to his property.

The owner said he remains committed to transparency and co-operation with all authorities, adding that he hopes the release of documentation will allow for constructive engagement around heritage preservation, while ensuring safety and compliance going forward.

Follow us on our Whatsapp channel, Facebook, X, Instagram and TikTok for the latest updates and inspiration!