News
from the Hout Bay Residents’ Association
PO
Box 27031, Hout Bay, 7872
rahb@houtbay.org.za Dec 04
NEW
APPLICATIONS
Erf 1492, Franciscus House, Main Rd (opp. Disa River Bridge): proposed subdivision of 1.57 ha property into
16 residential erven, one public open space (404 sq.m), two private open spaces
(632 +299 = 931 sq.m) and private road.
While the minimum erf size of 650 sq.m is adhered to, the proposal does
not comply with the 3.5 units per hectare requirement of the Zoning
Scheme. Departures are required on
internal and external street and rear building lines. The client “Amber Mountain Investments 27” is being represented
by First Plan Town & Regional Planners.
Details are available at the HB Library or the SPA in Plumstead. Any objections are to be sent to Mr. M.
Barnes, Urban and Environmental Services, SPA, Private Bag X5, Plumstead 7801
or fax 710-8283 (tel. 710-8202) or email moosa.barnes@capetown.gov.za
. Deadline for comment is 12
December 2004.
Erf
3976, 2 Pondocherry Ave (owner Mrs V Harris): proposed
subdivision into two erven of 920 and 785 sq.m. Details are available from, and any objections should be sent to
Mr. M. Barnes, Urban and Environmental Services, SPA, Private Bag X5, Plumstead
7801 or fax 710-8283 (tel. 710-8202) or email moosa.barnes@capetown.gov.za
. Deadline for comment is 31
January 2005.
In 1987 the then Divisional Council of the Cape approved an application to subdivide the original farm, Wolvekrantz (erf 1481), into three sections: the top section was given to the Council and later included in the Table Mountain Nature Reserve (formally CPNP); the lower section was rezoned to allow 16 residential erven and the middle section, which is erf 1556, remained rural. This rural erf along with the erven in the bottom section had a title deed restriction put on it to prevent subdivision. The proponent claims this was put on erroneously and has successfully had this removed in a court of law and is now applying to have erf 1556 rezoned for development.
However, whether this ‘no-subdivision’ clause was put in erroneously or not, the positioning of this rural erf was in line with policies of the Metropolitan Spatial Development Framework, which recognised the need for buffer zones between the CPPNE and urban development. With the release of the Peninsula Urban Edge Study this need for buffer zones has been reiterated and definite policies put in place. The Urban Edge was demarcated in the area around the existing urban development and therefore erf 1556 falls completely outside the Urban Edge. Moreover more than half of it falls within the Cape peninsular Protected Natural Environment. Policy 15 of the Urban Edge Study says “All areas outside the Urban Edge should be considered as National Park, Protected Natural Environments or considered for declaration of Limited Development Areas in terms of the Environment Conservation Act, 1989”
According to the Urban Edge Study, erf 1556 falls within the area known as the NON-URBAN ZONE (NUZ). This is a corridor of no less than 300m wide beyond the Urban Edge within which policies are prescribed for non-urban development. This is “to establish controls for an area of transition so as to manage and protect rural areas adjoining the edge”. The policies for the NUZ, which are the same for the wilderness areas, prescribe that only limited forms of development are permitted where desirable and appropriate. The similar A, B and C scenarios presented to us in the Environmental reports are therefore nothing like what is envisioned in a NUZ and contravene all the policies laid down in the Peninsula Urban edge Study and the Metropolitan Spatial Development Framework. We cannot stress enough the importance of maintaining the integrity of the Urban Edge. The City Council is following a policy of densification within the urban areas, as recommended by the Urban Edge Study, in order to protect our areas outside the Urban Edge. Therefore it would make a mockery of all the excellent policies laid down to protect our natural areas if residential development was allowed there. It is our opinion that the Council in 1987 laid down the rural erf of 1556 as a buffer or transitional zone between the protected natural areas and the new urban development and that, due to policies not being in place yet, the no-subdivision restriction was deliberately put there. We would like to point out that the proponent has already benefited from this original subdivision.
In conclusion, therefore, we cannot in any way support this application for rezoning and subdivision as it goes against every policy laid down by the Urban Edge Study and other developmental frameworks and would seriously threaten the integrity of the Urban Edge and our natural areas.
%%%%%
Since this will be the last “Hout
and About” for 2004, the Hout Bay Residents' Association Executive
Committee and I, wish to thank all those who have given of their time to
supporting the efforts of the RAHB and we wish the Community of Hout Bay a
restful, secure and joyous festive season and a prosperous New Year.
Chairperson, Residents’ Assoc of Hout Bay
Tel 790-0268 lens@telkomsa.net
MEMBERSHIP:
(R50
per couple, R30 per individual)
Forms from Chairperson or Library or
rahb@houtbay.org.za
[Dec 2004]