Rebosa believes Section 34 of the National Heritage Resources Act is outdated
The National Heritage Resources Act dates back to 1999, and gives power to the relevant Provincial Heritage Resources Authority (PHRA) to identify, manage, and assess heritage resources. Section 34 of this Act provides that no person may alter or demolish any structure older than 60 years without a permit from PHRA.
Whilst a +60-year-old home may have historical significance, these are few and far between, considering that in the 1960s, with significant population growth, two naturally occurring events were at play: an increase in the number of housing units built and the start of rapid urbanisation.
The two dominant architectural types at the time, be that from the 50s or 60s, were those that featured Art Deco interiors such as parquet flooring, and Matchbox homes, which were typically 40 sqm and made from low-grade clay brick with corrugated or asbestos roofing – in other words, the precursor to RDP houses.
This leads to a number of challenging questions, such as, without the building codes that exist today, how structurally sound are these types of homes? By how much has the suburb or the building itself deteriorated over time, thereby devaluing these properties?
But most importantly, what historical value do these properties have?
“This regulation is well-intentioned in its aim to preserve historically significant buildings,” says Rebosa chief executive, Jan le Roux. “However, in its current form, it increasingly acts as a blunt instrument, capturing a growing number of ordinary residential structures that do not hold heritage value but are nonetheless burdened by administrative and procedural delays.
In 1980, this regulation applied to homes built before 1920. By 2025, the same threshold includes structures built before 1965, many of which are neither unique nor historically significant, but simply aged. The continued use of this fixed threshold, without corresponding filters or relevance assessments, is misaligned with present-day needs and conditions”.
This is why Rebosa has formally approached the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture for a review of Section 34, providing specific recommendations:
- Reassessment of the age-based criterion: Replace or supplement the 60-year threshold with a more dynamic and relevance-based assessment, grounded in actual heritage significance.
- Periodic review mechanism: Introduce a legislative mechanism to ensure that age thresholds are periodically revisited and revised in line with the country’s evolving built environment.
- Streamlining approval processes: Develop differentiated approval pathways for properties with no proven or documented heritage value to reduce unnecessary regulatory delays.
- Stakeholder consultation: Engage organisations such as Rebosa, built environment professionals, and housing sector representatives in the legislative reform process to ensure holistic and practical policy-making.
The practical implications of an outdated regulation
Speaking in support of Rebosa’s application are Jonny Novik, CEO of Vered Estates, and Denese Zaslansky, CEO of FIRZT Realty group.
Novik refers to the Johannesburg suburb of Orange Grove as a case study. “Perfectly positioned in the heart of the “old” Northern Suburbs, Orange Grove is in desperate need of redevelopment. And, if it doesn’t happen very soon, it will pass the point of no return. Johannesburg cannot afford this. The city has to encourage and incentivise its redevelopment. To do this, the heritage status has to back out of the suburb altogether.”
He also makes the point that agents are also impacted “when sales collapse because of the heritage rules preventing demolition or significant alteration of very ordinary (usually old) properties for new development. I can provide many examples of houses that are crying out for redevelopment, but the application was blocked. The result? The property is now an eyesore.”
Zaslansky refers to similar suburbs established from 1949, where owners may wish to consider demolishing their single homestead to make way for three or four clusters, or to sell to developers in line with the higher building densities that municipalities are encouraging. “Many such plans never even get off the ground because of the red tape and time involved in trying to meet the current heritage restrictions or achieve an exemption.
“In addition, the legislation as it stands makes it much more difficult than necessary for the homes in many other suburbs of Johannesburg to be renovated or extended. Rejuvenation is good for a city because it prevents urban decay.”
Another point made by Rebosa, is that Section 34 restricts economic opportunity. “South Africa faces a critical shortage of affordable housing, alongside a pressing need to promote spatial transformation, stimulate development, and reduce systemic barriers to land use and urban regeneration,” says le Roux. “Outdated legislative thresholds such as this one unintentionally create red tape and regulatory bottlenecks that delay development, inflate project costs, and discourage investment in high-demand urban areas.
As a stakeholder committed to the responsible transformation of the property sector, Rebosa submits that reviewing and updating the 60-year criterion is not only justified but necessary. The regulation, in its current form, may unintentionally frustrate the very developmental and heritage goals it seeks to support.”