For Public Comment, Planning Application, Planning Applications 2013

Council approves application for rezoning of Portion 1 of Cape Farm 1387 at 21 Avondrust Circle in Noordhoek

 

ISSUED 20 AUGUST 2014

STATEMENT BY THE CITY’S MAYORAL COMMITTEE MEMBER FOR ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SPATIAL PLANNING, COUNCILLOR JOHAN VAN DER MERWE

 

Council approves application for rezoning of Portion 1 of Cape Farm 1387 at 21 Avondrust Circle in Noordhoek

 

The City of Cape Town must engage with its residents so as to foster an inclusive society which openly addresses issues relating to our integrated development. Equally, the City must offer fair opportunity to residents who wish to interact with the City’s available land use policies.

 

This is why the integrity of due process is of paramount importance.

The below narrative outlines the progression of an application for the rezoning of Portion 1 of Cape Town 1387 at 21 Avondrust Circle in Noordhoek, with the intention to construct a local restaurant.

 

The procedures outlined were followed to the letter of the law. They prescribe an articulated system of checks and balances that ensure fair consideration of all interests:

  • The application for the rezoning of Portion 1 of Cape Farm 1387 at 21 Avondrust Circle in Noordhoek was received by the City of Cape Town on 16 October 2012.
  • The legally designated process of public participation was enacted through advertised invitation for public comment on 12 April 2013, for a 30-day period.
  • On 12 February 2014, the application was considered by the Spatial Planning, Environment and Land Use Management (SPELUM) Committee who agreed to perform a site inspection.
  • On 12 March 2014, SPELUM resolved to recommend to the Mayoral Committee that the application be refused in terms of Section 16 of the Land Use Planning Ordinance (15 of 1985).
  • On 20 May 2014, the report was considered by the Mayoral Committee, who similarly determined to visit the site in question.
  • This visit took place on 10 June 2014.
  • On 17 June 2014, the application was reconsidered by the Mayoral Committee who resolved to recommend that the item be approved, subject to additional conditions, which were agreed to by the applicant.
  • On 25 June 2014 an assessment report, which included motivations from the applicant as well as the objector, was brought before Council. The matter was referred back on the basis of indications of externally validated information having become available. With the legally qualified public input having been concluded, the relevance and procedural implications of any subsequent submission or input (including the reasons for not bringing the information to bear during the formal opportunity) had to be assessed before the matter could be finalised.
  • An externally requisitioned report was received and processed. Its contents held no implications for the designated decision-making body and were thus not promulgated for further consideration. Administrative fairness dictates that this matter, therefore, be presented before Full Council without delay.

 

These steps hold due regard for the equal opportunity of response that each party is privy to. It champions the principles of fair administrative action and legal compliance within the relevant laws, thereby upholding the legal framework within which planning applications are considered.

 

Kind regards,

 

Jean-Marie de Waal

Senior Media Liaison

 

6th Floor, Media City building
Tel: 021 444 8203

Cell: 082 835 1911

Fax: 0862012732
Jean-Marie.DeWaal@capetown.gov.za

default.aspx.gif

Tags:

11 Responses to “Council approves application for rezoning of Portion 1 of Cape Farm 1387 at 21 Avondrust Circle in Noordhoek”

  1. On August 20, 2014 at 16:03 suzanne morton responded with... #

    We are busy checking with Cape Nature – to see if the same “owner” ie of Slip Slops… had a permit to cut the milkwood trees – as has been done at Slip Slops.

    This decision is tragic for Noordhoek and our environment of peace and tranquility- which is the attraction of the valley – among others. Its obvious council can not and will not honour their own zoning plans – there is not much integrity in that.
    Out of curiousity – what was the price and what will be the price?

  2. On August 20, 2014 at 17:43 M.Billington responded with... #

    Who called for and who provided the “externally requisitioned report”?
    Is this report available for examination?
    To what extent was the developer involved?
    It is amazing that after so many reasons for refusal an external person or persons can sweep away public opinion and real concerns for the environment, traffic problems and Section 16 of the Land Use Planning Ordinance, such that the Mayoral Committe see no problems with the application.

  3. On August 20, 2014 at 19:51 Patrick responded with... #

    It seems to me that the city council has completely lost the plot here… How can they possibly approve this application when so many real and credible objections have been raised?

    One has to question the integrity of the officials and the process. I would also like to know who the external requisitioned report is and what it’s findings were.

    Very disappointing to say the least.

  4. On August 20, 2014 at 19:52 Desney Hughes responded with... #

    I’m absolutely astounded that this has been approved! Noordhoek Main Road is extremely busy & dangerous . The traffic congestion on the corner of Chapmans Peak Drive & Avonrust Circle is going to be a nightmare, especially in peak season.

  5. On August 20, 2014 at 19:59 Desney Hughes responded with... #

    I’m absolutely astounded that this ha been approved. Noordhoek main road is extremely busy and dangerous. The traffic congestion on the corner of Chapman’s Peak drive and Avonrust circle is going to be a nightmare, especially in peak season.

  6. On August 21, 2014 at 08:52 Rob Mousley responded with... #

    The statement says that due process was followed, but doesn’t state the reasons for council coming its decision.

    Is it not possible to demand the reasons? And if they’re not satisfactory to have the decision overturned?

    They can’t just approve the bloody thing and not say why.

  7. On August 21, 2014 at 17:20 Ursula responded with... #

    oh no!

  8. On August 22, 2014 at 06:00 Rory Sales responded with... #

    This Council approval highlights a far bigger issues.

    The issue of Public Participation and the apparent lack of responsiveness by public servants – elected or appointed.
    We get treated as if our voices and willingness to help are mere irritations to our elected and appointed Public Servants. The DA led Cape Town is no different in this regard to the rest of the country.
    The way the Chapmans Peak Restaurant application has been dealt with is but a small example of the lack of responsive government that is at odds with the first tenet of the SA Constitution which is to have (and I quote) “ a democratic government, to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness.”

    Making secret decisions in DA or ANC Caucus meetings which affect the lives of Cape Town residents and at odds with their wishes, is an insult and makes a mockery of our Constitution.
    Why did the planning officials and Mayoral Office promoted this application, although it goes against it’s own District Plan, against it’s own Spatial Planning Environment and Land Use Management Committee decision, the two DA Councilors whose Wards are most affected by it and let us not forget the residents who will be most affected by it?

    A statement made by the Mayor to the Cape Times that “ not a single person voted against the application” is duplicitous. Many may not be aware that the political Parties have Caucus meetings before meetings to decide how to vote on a particular issue. They may not know that individual Party rules do not allow Councillors to vote in the interests of those that elected them but only to that of the Party. Councillors have to vote on Party lines.

    What is very telling is the style and nuanced different content of the two press releases issued by the MayCo member for Economic,Environmental and Spatial Planning (Councillor Johan van der Merwe). It shows a tick box mentality.

    It is telling us : We have gone through the motions required by Law therefore no one should criticizes our decision. The huge flaw in this approach is pretending to be open and responsive is not the same as being so. Our Constitution requires our Public Officials to be our Servants not our Masters

    The Mayors office admits to have had direct dealings with the restaurant applicant to decide on acceptable conditions to allow an approval to go through. This unfair collusion as at no time were objectors allowed a chance to respond.

  9. On August 22, 2014 at 09:14 phil mason responded with... #

    What is there left that can be done? The City seem determined to flout their own rules.
    I would like to know why.

    Perhaps a boycott of Slip Slops by all locals might at least bring home to the owner
    the likely response to his new venture.( Its a crap restaurant anyway and if the new place follows the same pattern it does not augur well for the welcome to tourists coming over Chapman’s Peak).

    Or perhaps a protest outside on a busy Sunday in the summer.

    From what I have heard the staff might have a few things to say about the working
    atmosphere . Not exactly a Rainbow Nation in there.

  10. On September 3, 2014 at 20:22 Gloria Badin Owens responded with... #

    Its the wrong decision, for so many reasons.
    I am stunned and find it hard to comprehend such shortsightedness.
    The unique atmosphere and beauty of Noordhoek will be forever lost.
    Satisfying greed is all that matters.

  11. On November 11, 2014 at 20:38 Frankie responded with... #

    was searching for property in Noordhoek to start a business I think this area has a lot of potential and growth when I Found quite a few articles on this piece of land what is the fuss about its called progress ….

Add your response

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com