For Public Comment, Planning Application, Planning Applications 2015

Application for removal of restrictive title condition, rezoning and departure- Erf 453 – Closing date for comments 5 February 2015

ERF 453, Village Lane

10 Responses to “Application for removal of restrictive title condition, rezoning and departure- Erf 453 – Closing date for comments 5 February 2015”

  1. On January 21, 2015 at 16:28 DC responded with... #

    Please confirm if an objection is to be submitted by NEAG, and other Community Based Organisations. I understand an EIA process has been conducted (and an authorisation issued), but this is primarily a land use matter and not a biodiversity one. Title Deed conditions imposed on previous approvals should not be amended to suit the commercial undersupply of parking in the original scheme. There will be significant visual impact from a new ‘sea’ of parking. The current situation of (illegal) weekend temporary vehicular ‘clutter’ in the Main Road is perhaps preferable to a permanent parking lot ?

  2. On January 24, 2015 at 09:08 Rory responded with... #

    From the NEAG secretary:
    There is a long history of community participation in the development of the Farm Village as a commercial node on originally zoned Public Open Space

    Through much Community involvement, the development was approved with strict conditions, including retaining Public Open Space with a Title Deed Restriction as well as land for a Community Hall.

    In September 2006 bulldozers illegally moved onto Public Open Space ( Erf 453) which resulted in both NEAG and the Noordhoek Conservancy having to enter a protracted legal battle to protect the historic and legal rights of Noordhoek residents which resulted in the Court ordering the demolition of the illegal parking lot.

    The current Application is requesting to re- Zone the land from Public Open Space to General Business 1 and to remove title and approval conditions to allow for a tarred parking area.

    General Business 1 Zoning gives these enhanced rights:

    The following use restrictions apply to property in this zone:
    (a) Primary uses are business premises, dwelling house, second dwelling, boarding house, flats, place of instruction, place of worship, institution, hospital, place of assembly, place of entertainment, hotel, conference facility, service trade, authority use, utility service, rooftop base telecommunication station, multiple parking garage, private road and open space.
    (b) Consent uses are adult shop, adult entertainment business, adult services, informal trading, expo centre, motor repair garage, warehouse, freestanding base telecommunication station, wind turbine infrastructure, transport use, helicopter landing pad and service station.

    Subzone GB1
    Maximum height above base level to top of roof 15,0 m
    Floor factor 1,5

    The businesses at the Farm Village need parking for their customers and are required to provide it.

    The question for the Noordhoek Community is whether giving up their hard earned right to Public Space is worth it, without any form of restitution or compensation?

    Have other alternatives been explored to create parking?

    Is this an appropriate Zoning given that by right a 15m building could be constructed
    on the site?

    The other big unanswered question is what has happened to the unencumbered donation of land to the Noordhoek Community?

    An application has been lodged which requires our comment before 5 February 2015

    The Noordhoek Community has finally been afforded the right of public participation and all residents are encouraged to comment.

  3. On January 25, 2015 at 17:01 DC responded with... #

    I believe a strong OBJECTION should be submitted and supported by all NHk residents.
    Has an audit been done of commercial space in the Village versus their permissible bulk ? Clearly too much development generating too much traffic/parking demand. The Scheme provides for required bays per table for restaurants, and bays per 100m2 of commercial.
    Rezoning of Public Open Space (and expunging Title Conditions) should be a NON STARTER … the new zoning applied for will be the thin end of the wedge.
    Why not a truly Public space such as Oranjezicht farm ? Grow organic vegetables for all the restaurants ?
    No more parking. No more commercial creep.

  4. On January 28, 2015 at 22:12 Andrea Marais responded with... #

    I am opposed to the request as it is too general and allows for commercial creep in the future. Leave rhe public space…no rezoning.

  5. On January 28, 2015 at 22:22 Erwin responded with... #

    No objection to rezoning for parking, but object to rezoning for business as that creates opportunity for future development without community commentary or objection. Suggestion is to firm up the rezoning and make it specific to the intentional use!

  6. On February 5, 2015 at 11:07 liz responded with... #

    where does one submit objections?

    • On February 5, 2015 at 11:15 Kathi Sales responded with... #

      Click on the City of Cape Town letter and the full application will be downloaded from our dropbox. The details you require are on page 2.

    • On February 5, 2015 at 12:00 Kathi Sales responded with... #

      The e-mail address is incorrect on the letter, should read

  7. On February 5, 2015 at 11:16 liz responded with... #


    I would like to strongly oppose the re-building of a tar car-park at the Noordhoek Farm Village.
    My reasons are as follows
    – the Farm Village during peak season is fully booked, and will not lose business if there is no car park.
    – alternatives could be sought, e.g. Improving public transport to and from Noordhoek. This would allow for a longer term and more sustainable solution to traffic issues in Noordhoek which will only increase with population growth over time. It would also serve the numerous employees who work in Noordhoek and are strapped by the currently poor public transport to the area. This would further reduce traffic throughout the South Peninsula e.g. Local residents would be able to conveniently get transport to Fish Hoek Beach, Kalk Bay etc if it were provided on a regular basis. It would also reduce pollution and our carbon foot print.
    – local residents could be encouraged to use bicycles or their feet to get to the Farm Village. Perhaps bicycle lanes could be instituted. This could also be an opportunity for a small business to supply local transport in the village e.g. In a rickshaw service
    – an extensive car park is being built at Sun Valley Mall, and people could potentially park here and catch a bus or taxi. The building of this second mall will also increase traffic volumes to the area, another incentive to improve public transport in the area.
    – the area proposed to be paved for a carpark used to be an organic vegetable garden. This could serve the residents of Noordhoek a whole better in terms of providing good food and a more biodiverse ecology rather than a paved area that would benefit only the business owners and the customers of the Noordhoek farm village. A complaint on the Noordhoek Community Forum facebook page states that one customer had twice chosen to eat elsewhere because of the parking situation. Evidently they are privileged enough to have the choice to go elsewhere, the Noordhoek Farm Village is hardly losing clientele, and there are at least 3 other restaurants to choose from in the Valley. The proposed car park would benefit a few already privileged people and businesses already very successful, but would it really be of benefit to the residents of Noordhoek and surrounds? To the contrary I think it would lead to the increase in traffic volumes to the area an inconvenience to local residents.
    – Noordhoek residents and visitors are attracted to the rural character and green spaces and beauty available here. Adding a carpark will detract from that and set a precedent for further urbanisation of this previously agricultural area.

    Please do not allow for the re-zoning of this area for the purposes of building another carpark for privileged customers to park in, and instead improve local public transport.

    Yours sincerely

    Elizabeth Kruger

  8. On February 16, 2015 at 14:46 Kathi Sales responded with... #

    NEAG’s comments:

    The Director: Land Management: Region 2
    Western Cape Government Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
    Utilitas Building,
    6th Floor,
    1 Dorp Street
    Cape Town


    For Attention : Ms Hilda Heyward

    04 February 2015

    -Application Number 70155756 : Proposed removal of a restrictive Title Condition, amendment of a condition, Rezoning and departure: Erf 453 Chapman’s Peak, Village Lane Noordhoek , in terms of Section3(6) of the Removal of Restrictions Act 1967 (Act 84 of 1967) and in terms of Sections 15,17,42 of the Land Use Planning Ordinance of 1985 and the Cape Town Zoning Scheme Regulations

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    -Removal of a restrictive title condition that “The property may only be used as Open Space for public purposes.”

    NEAG objects to the removal of this restriction and would instead recommend that it be changed to:

    “The property may only be used as Open Space and parking for Public Purposes”

    The original mother Erf 272 from which this portion was sub-divided was zoned Public Open Space although privately owned. Given that the majority of the rest of the subdivisions resulted in a Hotel, residential houses, restaurants and other commercial space, the Local Authority, in mitigation against this loss of open space to the community, placed this condition as one of the pillars of protection against further commercial development of the site.

    The island nature of the Farm Village development and the lack of planning of sufficient on site parking has meant it is common cause that there has been insufficient parking for patrons. Other possibilities exist to create this parking space but they have not been presented in this application as alternatives. Erf 453 may present the best offsite parking opportunity for the Commercial Erven in the Village. A compromise position which prevents commercial over exploitation of the site and preserves a part of the site’s heritage as Open Space is to use the revised restrictive title condition as proposed above.

    NEAG supports an amendment of a condition to allow the construction of a surfaced car park but with the proviso that a restrictive title condition similar to the one we propose be registered.

    We would recommend that a permeable surface material be used instead of tar to assist in dispersing water run off.

    -Rezoning of the property from Open Space Zone 3 to General Business Subzone GB1 to permit open space and parking

    NEAG objects to the rezoning to GB1 and recommends that this be altered to Transport Zone 2: Public Road and Public Parking (TR2) which specifically provides for an Erf to be used as an off site parking area and restricts the site to this use only. This would tie in perfectly with the stated intention of the Applicant and provide reassurance to the Noordhoek Community that the site would remain an integral part of the Farm Village development. It also then continues to be a Public Space (albeit privately owned) which then also maintains its original Heritage. The argument that TR2 Zoning refers only to land owned by the local authority is not valid . Ownership in itself does not define land usage, the Zoning scheme does.

    A specific Zoning in the CTZS for the specific uses requested (Open space and parking only and privately owned) does not seem to be available. An alternate approach may be justified. In the CTZS on page 20 :

    “Special use
    3.2.8 A special use is a use not defined or provided for in this zoning scheme, and may be so classified and permitted in any zone with the approval of Council.

    3.2.9 All special uses so approved shall be listed in Annexure A. “

    We suggest that the use of an Erf 453 as an Open Space and as a Parking area (and nothing else) does not fit into the existing scheme regulations and thus can be described as a “special use”.
    This could be achieved by perhaps maintaining the OS 3 Zoning but with the added use of parking
    formally approved by the City of Cape Town.

    NEAG’s reasons for objecting to the rezoning of Erf 453 from Open Space 3 to General Business GB1 is as follows:

    Following is the extract from the CTZS defining the GB Zoning:

    The GB zones provide for general business activity and mixed-use development of a medium to high intensity. Different development rules apply to the different subzones of GB1-GB7, particularly with regard to permitted height and floor space; in order to accommodate variations of built form within the city. Very few restrictions relate to use because the aim is to encourage a range of uses, but industry is not permitted.
    Use of the property
    9.1.1 The following use restrictions apply to property in this zone:
    (a) Primary uses are business premises, dwelling house, second dwelling, boarding house, flats, place of instruction, place of worship, institution, hospital, place of assembly, place of entertainment, hotel, conference facility, service trade, authority use, utility service, rooftop base telecommunication station, multiple parking garage, private road and open space.
    (b) Consent uses are adult shop, adult entertainment business, adult services, informal trading, expo centre, motor repair garage, warehouse, freestanding base telecommunication station, wind turbine infrastructure, transport use, helicopter landing pad and service station.”

    The Applicant has requested a rezoning from Open Space 3 for the purposes of a parking area and open space only. This is a very limited enhancement of the owners present property rights and is supported by NEAG.

    GB 1 rights are extremely broad and represent a significant and materially relevant increase from OS 3 rights. No reasonable person would accept that such enhanced rights were necessary given the specific circumstances of this case.

    Should GB 1 status be approved, there would be no further requirement for Public consultation should the present and future owners of Erf 453 wish to exercise their Primary rights. They could be allowed to build a 15 meter building with any of the land uses as itemised in (a) above. This enhacement of land use rights and the exercising of them would have a significant deletorious effect on Noordhoek’s sense of place and thus have a negative effect on the Tourist economy.

    The use of a Site Development Plan to ensure that the site only be used for parking would provide little certainty as the present Site Development Plan for the Farm Village has failed to provide the safeguards that were written into that document. When Erf 453 was illegally converted by the owner as a parking area, the City failed to take concrete effective action in upholdng the Open Space Zoning, the Title Deed Restriction nor the Conditions of Approval. In the private Court action taken on by NEAG, the City as a co-respondent failed to attend Court and it’s absence was critically noted by Judge Davis. Further, it is acknowleged by officials that the present GLA exceeds that which was approved in the Conditions of approval for the Farm Village. Again no material action was taken to reign in these contraventions of the conditions of approval.This is the main reason why parking is needed on Erf 453.
    Additionally, a Community Hall site was donated as part of the conditions of approval. In the Site Development Plan it is stated and signed by the beneficial owner ( Mr J Wiley) that this site would be given to the Community of Noordhoek either directly or via the Local Authority at no cost to the Community. This has not taken place even though ± 20 years have elapsed. This further reinforces our argument that Site Development Plans are not a secure method of land use enforcement.

    An argument has been made that because the parking is required for business purposes, the only correct Zoning is GB 1 as this would allow for the rating of the property to be commensurate with its commercial use. NEAG understands that it is in all the residents of Cape Town’s best interests to protect and enhance our rates base. But it must not come at the cost of potentially damaging our longer term tourism interests.
    The solution whereby a TR 2 or Special Zoning is used instead of GB 1 should not preclude Erf 453 from being rated at the same nett amount. If there is no objection from the owners, the City could rate according to the normal commercial or vacant land formula as is generally used. The Nett amount relates to the market value and the applicable rate-in-the-rand and thus there is room for adjustment.

    Departures in terms of sections 9.1.2(k) (ii) and 18.1.2 to permit parking closer than 10m to a street boundary and to relax the 5m street boudary building line adjacent to a designated metropolitan road
    NEAG has no objection to these departures in the context of our previous comments

    General comments:

    In terms of the original development conditions, no approval of this process should be given before the completion of the previous stages of development – in other words, all outstanding matters should be dealt with. This should run as a concurrent process.
    These include the limiting of patron parking on the Noordhoek Main Road after the completion of the parking area on Erf 453 but allowing for a bus/taxi stop on both sides of the road. This is a safety issue as the verges are not safe parking areas and parking interferes with the safe passage and sight lines of traffic in this area.There are already “no parking” signs in place which are routinely ignored. Originally bollards were installed by the Roads Engineer to prevent dangerous parking but as vandalism and damage has occurred, they have not been replaced by the City.

    Limiting access through the gate onto the Noordhoek Main Road with a timed access point for staff and general public would assist in reducing parking on the verge. Access through an existing entrance at the corner of Village Lane and Noordhoek Main Road on to Erf 453 is available. This was an original condition of approval.

    Yours sincerely,

    Rory Sales

    (Secretary NEAG) – on behalf of the NEAG Executive Committee

Add your response

WP Facebook Auto Publish Powered By :