BARBAROSSA RESIDENTS’
GROUP
P.O. Box 702, Constantia, 7848
P.O. Box 702, Constantia, 7848
Planning
and Building Development Management Dept
City
of Cape Town
South
Peninsula Area.
May 2015
May 2015
Dear
Sirs/Mesdames
Re: Application for rezoning, departures and approval: Erf 2071 Constantia, corner of Doordrift and Spaanschemat River Roads.
Case ID 70182724
Our
group is comprised of residents of a section of Constantia bordered by the
following roads: Doordrift Road, Spaanschemat River Road, Kendal Road and the
M3. We take an active interest in community and city-wide affairs; we are
recognized as a civic organization by the City of Cape Town; our members liaise
with and have served on the Constantia Property Owners’ Association of which
many of us are also members; we belong to the Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance
and are represented on the Ward 62 Committee.
As
is evident from our area, this application is of great interest to our members.
We
have, over the years, taken part in public participation around the various
applications as regards erf 2071. We have examined this latest application and
object to it on the following grounds:
1. Rezoning
would be an unacceptable and dangerous change in this area, which will most
likely result in irreparable damage to the appearance and nature of Constantia
1.1
The
applicant asks for Local Business Zone 2 (LB2). This zone provides for far too
broad and disruptive a range of activities, both primary uses and consent uses, the latter which
extend as far as “sale of alcoholic beverages”, “service station’,
“supermarket”, “place of entertainment” and the like. No matter that the
applicant asks for “Business Premises (furniture showroom and sales)”, the
underlying zoning would remain the highly inappropriate LB2, with all its
inherent threats to the fabric of Constantia.
1.2
In
all, rezoning per se (even LB1) is complete overkill for this property,
situated where it is – in the sensitive fabric of residential Constantia. The precedent
of this rezoning, if granted, contains the potential for vast changes through Constantia,
which is indeed a special place, valued for its unique ambience and for its
importance to local residential stock, local recreation and local and overseas
tourism.
1.3
Should
this rezoning application be successful, it would open the gates for other such
applications along visible routes and the attractive green, low-key ambience of
this area would rapidly change to that of Gabriel Road, Plumstead and Tokai
Road below the M3.
1.4
Other
remedies are available for this applicant, viz. within the existing zoning. He
went ahead and refurbished this site (illegally diverging from the residential
plans that he had had approved by the City) at his own expense, without permission
for anything other than residential usage, let alone rezoning to LB2. He cannot
now claim hardship.
2. This application
is contrary to the tenets of the recently completed Cape Town Spatial
Development Framework (SDF)
2.1
Erf
2071 is not on an activity route, nor on a development route, nor at a development node.
2.2
It
is certainly not within the zone of one kilometre from the Main Road, where the
SDF declares that development should be clustered. (The application document
erroneously tries to suggest that it is, in the map provided with point 5.1,
which is unacceptable.)
3. This application is contrary to the more detailed
guidelines of the SDF’s Southern District Plan (SDP)
3.1 It does not “Promote the multi-layer
movement network of the Main Road Corridor, focusing on commercial development
...”
3.2
With its own danger and the dangers it
brings of ongoing rezoning, it is contrary to the following points within the
specific Bishopscourt -Constantia - Tokai sub-district development guidelines:
3.2.1
“To not be a recognized city growth area”
3.2.2
“The vision supports and encourages bona fide, low impact, working from home
practices”
3.2.3
“No expansion in the extent of existing commercial areas should be permitted”
3.2.4
Growth in “existing village (local) nodes” is only mentioned in the SDP in the
context of “small-scale, low impact sub-division and second dwellings”.
4. This application is a far cry from the controlled allowances listed in the Constantia Triangle Local Structure Plan (CTLSP)
4.1 This CTLSP was initiated by the City of Cape Town itself, when it facilitated the land swop to prevent a rezoning on Constantia Main Road, on the other side of Constantia Village, going forward. The express purpose of the CTLSP is stated as follows: “The primary object of this Structure Plan is to … prevent the spread of commercialism into the residential fabric of the area”. Permitting this rezoning would go directly against this aim. It would create a precedent that would be hard to control, as other property owners sought, as this one does, to gain commercial value from a residential erf.
4.1 This CTLSP was initiated by the City of Cape Town itself, when it facilitated the land swop to prevent a rezoning on Constantia Main Road, on the other side of Constantia Village, going forward. The express purpose of the CTLSP is stated as follows: “The primary object of this Structure Plan is to … prevent the spread of commercialism into the residential fabric of the area”. Permitting this rezoning would go directly against this aim. It would create a precedent that would be hard to control, as other property owners sought, as this one does, to gain commercial value from a residential erf.
5.
The
traffic problems that such rezoning would bring are unacceptable
5.1 Deliveries by large vehicles: The applicant attempts to claim that his deliveries are few, on page 9 he says once a month, and on page 14 he says twice a month. What could the actual truth be? We attach pictures taken by a neighbour of the applicant's large delivery vehicles holding up traffic at a corner. These were last submitted about 18 months ago, when several residents delivered affidavits as required by the City, attesting to how this illegal business affected them.
5.1 Deliveries by large vehicles: The applicant attempts to claim that his deliveries are few, on page 9 he says once a month, and on page 14 he says twice a month. What could the actual truth be? We attach pictures taken by a neighbour of the applicant's large delivery vehicles holding up traffic at a corner. These were last submitted about 18 months ago, when several residents delivered affidavits as required by the City, attesting to how this illegal business affected them.
5.2 Expecting customers to slow down and turn in to
erf 2071 at that point close to the intersection is unwise as regards traffic safety.
6. The roads and
traffic authorities do not seem to have
provided a report approving this application
6.1 In 2009 The Western Cape Department
for Transport and Public Works objected to the last application made for erf
2071, as follows:
“No indication is given … as to any
Road Widening Schemes on either of the two PDRs involved
Clearly the 5 m Building Line of both
PDRs is encroached upon …
It would appear … that the on site
parking provision is inadequate, this Branch objects to this Temporary
Departure proposal”
7. The provision of a mere six on-site parking
bays instead of the requisite 16 is unacceptable
7.1 Customers would be likely to seek
parking elsewhere such as in the nearby residential streets
7.2 The
likelihood that they would seek other parking spots would be compounded by the
difficulty of ingress and egress to the site situated as it is near an
intersection
7.3 Looking
to use parking at Constantia Village, or on the rugby club’s non-commercial parking is not
acceptable. All parking should be provided on-site.
7.4 The
inadequate set-back of the parking (requested by the applicant) would create
further difficulties for delivery vehicles attempting to access the site.
7.5 The
applicant admits that the garage is largely for storage of pots etc, not
vehicles.
7.6 Where would the occupant of the so-called
residential section park?
8. There does not appear to be a Record of Decision from Heritage Western Cape
relating to this application
8.1 The absence of such a Record was listed by the City Planners in their 'Reasons for recommendation of refusal' to the applicant's last application, in 2009.
8.1 The absence of such a Record was listed by the City Planners in their 'Reasons for recommendation of refusal' to the applicant's last application, in 2009.
Evidently because of the age of this
building this Record should be provided.
9. Numerous unacceptable details mar this
application
9.1 For example: there is no proper
commitment to a permanent residential presence.
9.2 Appealing to other irregular, if
not illegal, inadequate parking for other furniture showrooms smacks of
desperation and evokes the response “Do two wrongs make a right?”
9.3 Comparing the residential area
around Cavendish Square to that around Constantia Village is ludicrous.
9.4 References to Constantia's long-ago
'commercial past' are similarly ludicrous.
9.5 The applicant conveniently ignores
the servitude held by the Constantia Property Owners' Association over the
Constantia Village site, which is in itself proof of the efforts made on Constantia's behalf to
prevent its being degraded away from the scenic, tourism-attractive destination
it still is.
9.6
The applicant makes no apologies for his illegal building works and
illegal land use over the years. Does this fill any authority or any neighbour
with confidence about how he will act in the future?
Approving this application for rezoning
to Local Business Zone 2 or any business zone would be extremely deleterious to
the immediate residential area and for the future of Constantia as a whole. In
terms of the Land Use Planning Ordinance of 1985 and of the CTZS, it would
therefore certainly not be desirable, and not for the General Good. There is no
dispute that Constantia is a very special place, of value to a wider audience
than only its residents, instead it is vitally important also to those who
enjoy its scenic beauty, natural ambience and non-commercialized aspect for
recreation and for tourism opportunities. We respectfully ask the City not to
allow such rezoning, as the consequences would be far-reaching and
irreversible.
Sincerely
M. WALDRON, CHAIRPERSON
