Mptnw260321c

1276

2 1277

Disclaimer

Please note: This e-mail and its contents are subject to a disclaimer which can be viewed at http://www.woolworths.co.za/disclaimer. This Disclaimer forms part of the content of this email in terms of section 11 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act, 25 of 2002. Should you be unable to access the link please e-mail [email protected] and a copy of the disclaimer will be e-mailed to you. NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not intend to waive confidentiality or privilege. Use of this email is prohibited when received in error.

3 1278 1279 1280

Sibonelesihle Shabalala

From: Jason Maule Sent: Monday, 31 August 2020 12:46 To: Comments_Objections Blaauwberg Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Objection to Case ID 70494419

Erf 38599 21 Canary Crescent Sunridge

We would by this document lodge our objection to the land use application Case ID 70494419 The proposed land use application is out of context with the surrounding area. The erven to which this application refers is surrounded by single residential properties.

1. Property Values of Neighbouring Properties

The City in accepting this application failed to consider section 7 of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act. You will find the relevant section below. The proposed building would not be permitted should the land use application be successful as the buildings would be objectionable and would derogate from the value of the neighbouring properties. By accepting this application, the City has wasted the time of the local community and erred in its reading of the National Building Regulations & Building Act.

Section 7 of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act Reads: Approval by local authorities in respect of erection of buildings (1) If a local authority, having considered a recommendation referred to in section 6 (1) (a)- (a) is satisfied that the application in question complies with the requirements of this Act and any other applicable law, it shall grant its approval in respect thereof; [Para. (a) substituted by s. 4 (a) of Act 62 of 1989.] (b) (i) is not so satisfied; or (ii) is satisfied that the building to which the application in question relates- (aa) is to be erected in such manner or will be of such nature or appearance that- (aaa) the area in which it is to be erected will probably or in fact be disfigured thereby; (bbb) it will probably or in fact be unsightly or objectionable. (ccc) it will probably or in fact derogate from the value of adjoining or neighbouring properties;

2. Adherence to Policy

The application incorrectly claims that this application adheres to current policy. The applicant makes false and misleading statements within this application. We would remind the City that the omitting of critical details in an application and misleading the City in an application is an offence in terms of the MPBL and would demand that the City takes the required action against the applicant.

2.1 In sections 5.2,6 and 8 of the application the applicant makes the claim ‘The Site is located within the Urban Inner Core Spatial Transformation Area’ in which the MSDF calls for the land use intensification’ This is an incorrect claim as the application site only partially within the Urban Inner Core with the boundary cutting across the middle of the property. Indeed, it must be noted that Canary Crescent falls outside the Urban Inner Core. It is incorrect of the applicant to claim the site is within the Urban Inner Core. The applicant cannot claim to be compliant with the MSDF and has misled the City with this claim. 2.2 The applicant makes the claim is section 5.1 ‘the area is well served by most necessary amenities and facilities, including hospitals, schools, shops’ had the applicant and the case worker taken the time to read the Blaauwberg District plan 2012 they would have found the following: 1 1281

‘Public provision of facilities such as schools, sports fields, clinics etc. has to date been limited.’

It is fair to say that the applicant has again misled the city with this claim. The City’s position is that amenities are limited. The City cannot therefore accept an application that makes claims contrary to those agreed in the Blaauwberg District Plan. The Applicant in section 6 misleads the City with the claim that the application is compliant with the MSDF and suggest that his would allow between 4 – 15 story’s. This is incorrect we have addressed the incorrect claim around this property not being within the Urban Inner Core. In addition, the applicant has omitted key elements of the Management Strategy for Blaauwberg Road and the Blaauwberg District Plan. These documents give clear guidance as to the height of buildings that should be supported. It must be noted that the MSDF refers to both the Management Strategy and the Blaauwberg District Plan 2012 as the detailed plans to be used to guide development decision.

2.2.1 The Blaauwberg District Plan states in Section 6.2.1 Support densification along Blaauwberg Road in terms of proposals contained in the Blaauwberg Road Management Strategy (1999) and any future reviews of this policy. Support mixed use development along Blaauwberg Road with average building heights of 3-5 storeys.

It goes on to guide planners to the Blaauwberg Road Management Strategy as the existing framework. 2.2.2 Management Strategy for Blaauwberg Road does not allow buildings with a height of four story’s in any other roads apart from Blaauaberg Road and average of 3 – 5 Story’s (Mixed Use Development) and two story’s in Arum Road and North Road. It then refers to group housing restricted to two story’s in the areas from Arum Road and North Road to Raats Drive. It does not support four story buildings on the property in question.

We can only conclude that the proposed buildings cannot be supported by either the Blaauwberg District Plan, the Management Strategy for Blaauwberg Road or the MSDF

2.3 TOD (Transport Orientated Development Strategic Framework) The Applicant makes the claim ‘this is defined as increasing density and / or densification to support Transport Orientated Development (TOD) objectives’ This is a true statement but cannot be used correctly in this application. This development would be against TOD objectives. The best case that the applicant has put forward to be TOD compliant is that this property is close to public transport. This does not make this application TOD compliant. The proposal allows for parking where TOD principles call for vehicle use to be discouraged. The property is in an area away from work opportunities and as such encourages longer travel distances to work. This application would see more traffic congestion as residents have to travel out of the area for work opportunities and as such it is against TOD principles and not policy compliant. 2.4 Tall Building Policy The is a stark contrast between the proposed buildings and the existing single-story dwellings in the area. This would make this development non-compliant with the Tall Building Policy

3. Incorrect Advertising The applicant repeatedly makes the claim that this application is policy compliant. The property is not within the Urban Inner Core, not policy compliant with the Blaauberg District Plan, Management Strategy for Blaauwberg Road, Transport Orientated Development Strategy, The Tall Building Policy and there is not compliant with the MSDF. The Blaauwberg District Plan insists that non policy compliant applications must be advertised as non-compliant. The Blaauwberg District Plan states: Should a deviation from policy be determined to be necessary, this should be advertised as part of the land use application

Given the that this application falls outside of council policy/s this application must be advertised as such and should feature the justification for this deviation. The Municipal Planning Tribunal cannot approve an application that is not compliant with council policy unless it is correctly advertised and justified. Guidance for this is found in Act No. 16 of 2013: Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 2013

2 1282 (1)A Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision in terms of this Act or any other law relating to land development, may not make a decision which is inconsistent with a municipal spatial development framework. (2) Subject to section 42, a Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision, may depart from the provisions of a municipal spatial development framework only if site- specific circumstances justify a departure from the provisions of such municipal spatial development framework.

This application must be advertised as non-compliant. The rights of the local community and all objectors have been infringed by the application.

4. Infrastructure This City of Cape Town has documented in the Blaauwberg District Plan the infrastructure deficiencies with the area where this property is situated. Whilst the applicant misleads the City with the claim the area is well served by most necessary amenities’ this is indeed false. The Blaawberg District Plan points to a lake of amenities such as schools, health care facilities and work opportunities. It must be noted that this property is on land that was destined to house a school and as such this application is taking a scarce local amenity whilst claiming that this area is well served by schools.

The Blaauwberg District Plan also points to critical infrastructure limitations. The area has aging water, electricity, and sewage infrastructure. We see regular pipe burst due to a lack of investment. The Potsdam Waste Water Works has for years discharged non-compliant effluent into the Diep river, Table Bay Nature Reserve and Milnerton Lagoon. The main sewer lines to the Potsdam Waste Water Plant are collapsing and in need of repair. We see regular sewer pump failure resulting in raw sewage pumping into the Table Bay Nature Reserve and our beaches

5. NEMA (National Environmental Management Act) NEMA clearly states than any development must be sustainable and cannot damage the environment. The Potsdam Waste Water Plant is not able to cope with current demand and is currently polluting the Diep River, Table Bay Nature Reserve and Milnerton Lagoon. This development will add to this pollution and as such is not sustainable.

Conclusion The applicant makes that claim that this application is compliant with City of Cape Town policy. In so doing the applicant misleads the City. The property is not even within the Inner Urban Core, yet the applicant claims that it is. This application does not comply to TOD principles or the tall building policy. The development is not supported by the Blaauwberg District Plan or the Management Strategy for Blaauwberg Road. The proposed buildings are out of context and will be objectionable and as such any future planning application will not comply to the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act. Should this development proceed it will increase pollution and contravenes NEMA. The applicant has infringed the rights of the local community by wrongfully advertising this application. We call on the City of Cape Town to not support this application

-- Mr Jason Maule [email protected] 27 Zeeland Crescent Cape Town, Western Cape 7441

3 1283 1284 1285 MPBL - LUh,I 17 CITY OF CAPE TOWN DEVELOPMENT NT ISIXEKO SASEKAPA STAD KAAPSTAD

OBJECr ION, COMMENT OR REPRESENTATION to an application received bythe city (MPBL)) (prescribed form in terms of section 90 of the City of Cape Town Municipal Planning By-Law, 2015

o{ Cape Town M unicipal Planning By-law, 201 5 (MPBL) lf you wish to object, comment or provide representation in terms of section 90 of the City this form to ensure the objection, comment or towards a land use application being considered by the city you will be required to complete representation rs valid useofthisforrndoesnotiimitanysupplementarydocumentationthatyoumaywishtobringtotheattentionofthedecisionauthority. All documentsyouwishtosubmitfoiconsiderationtythedecisionautho;ityshouldbeattachedandsui:mittedsimultaneouslywiththis{orm

please complete/tickthe appropriate boxes below, provide a motivation/explanation o{your answer, attach any suppiementary documentationtc this form and submit itto the relevant email address as specified in the notice.

Subjecttosectiong0(7) oftheMpBLyoursubmissionmayappearonapublicagenda lntermsofsectiong2oftheMPBLyoursubmissionwill be referred to the applicant to allow for a response to the City SECTION A: APPI-ICATION DETAILS

Case lD 7A454419 Subject erl number

Street address of the subject property 21 Canary Cresent Sunridge

How did you become aware of the application? l_.l Rug,.r*,eci lener vra post I o,.'.,.u' ,.,o-u." I_l No*rpoo., I c,tt ol Cap''e Town website [}' o,h"r, please specify SECTION B: DECLARATION BYAFFECTED PARTY OR PARTIES/ PROPERTY OWNERS

lri resriact of the aforementioned application, l/we the registered owner(s) or resident(s) of the underrnentioned premises, formally: f oo,.., l_l c.r,r,,,,,,,n, .,, l-l Ptcvtc'.'epreserr:airor, lf the activity is currently in operation, how does the activity affect you? LJ62L rvr OferaL tovl

Thedecision-makerwill usesection99(3) of the MPBLtodeterminethedesirabilityof theapplication Should you wish to align your submission with the above-rnentioned criteria please visit the City website to peruse the MPBL. Reason for ob.jection, comment or representation must include: l. Your interest in the application. ll. Effect the application will have on you, your property or the area. lll. Any aspect of the application that is considered to be inconsistent witlr policy, and how. lV. What impact the development has on your property. #ffirc

Are you objecling io ihe whole applir-att!2lr I r,r onlv ec-rl-a!tt? M lf rn part, provide more details below: AJo C\LL ?Pv\.^\ 1Qce..k-wo\o\y 5q I ,o:Y- l\-)o cle-rJraLrcz,tko,-, W bJvnot,L/ /b-{cl"'^ \ r.v-re-5 wc'uld you support '.lre app,licatiorr if partrcL:lar ccr,ciriions were imposed? E{-l lf so, state the reason and Such condition(s) must be reasonable and relate to the application at hand in terms of section 100 of the MPBL conditions below: ( v1"1, 5R\ 2-pr,^ttt^\ - r^at c 6,1 i) r/r ur r^ I O. l$O c)*.ei.;taU. r:r. \< cs.* [Orrr^^ c)et 7 bu.\01,, I i^.s

i:e{ . ro : Jal ', -.;

Section l2O(11) of the MPBLprovidesthata person may make a requesttothe1286 Municipal PlanningTribunal (MPT) to make an oral submission. For such requestto be considered it must comply with the following requirements:

1. Must be a written request emailed to the following address: [email protected]. 2. Adequate reasons must be given for such request. 3 The request rnust be received at the above-mentioned address at leastfive days before the MPT rneeting where the application(s) will be considered, or closer to the meetlng if good cause is shown.

To assist you in deciding whether you would like to make such request, go to the following web link to view the MPT meeting dates: '..j+ rL Ltl!:-!rL,1j= ;r I,,. l, i I

You will be able to view MPT meeting dates, agendas and reporls using erf numbers, physical addresses and case lD' Requestor to note that you will be required to identify when the application to which you wish to make oral submission on, will appear on the Tribunal agenda in order for you to submitthe request in time as per the above requirement.

SECTION C: SIGNATORIES DETAILS

Full name and surname \ t.-.' a, -7 Erf nurnber q Postal z\ crogg (*! Email address for correspondence* \ t.^ \tr,tg v!.tc.r\ '{C) t/u\ r l{ this farm is submrtted u-sin g a dif{erent emai/ ackjre-s,s tharr the one stated abov-6, then note only communicate with you usif g the email address fram which the torm was received Contact number grA s

Method and date of notification

The date of noti{ication is determined asfollows: if the notificatjon is provided - (a) orally,itisthedateo{oralcommunication; (b) byhand,itisthedateofdeliveryorcollection; (c) byregisteredpost,itisregardeCasthefoufthdayafterthedatestampeduponthereceiptforregistrationissuedbythepostofficewhich accepted the notice; or (d) byemail orfax,itisthedatethattheemail orfaxissent,

lnterpretation Act lto 33 of '1 ?57 section 4

(4) Reckoningofnumberofdays. Whenanyparticularnumberofdaysisprescribedforthedoingofanyact.or{oranyotherpurpose,thesame shallbe reckoned exclusive of tlrefirstand inclusive of the lastday, unlessthe last day happenstofallon a Sunday oron any public holiday, in which case the time sha ll be re ckoned exclusive otthe first d ay a nd exclusive also of every su clr Sunday o r public holiday.

Asanexample,ifthedateofnotificarionislOctober,thenthefirstdayofcalculationofthe2'1 dayappeal periodwillbe2Octoberandthe2lst daywculdbe22Odober lf22OaoberiseitheraSundayorapublicholiday,thentheclosingdatewillthene>:tfollowingdaythatisnoteither a Sunday ora publicholiday

l\< i.d . r. 0) !02 / 2'fr? lJ 'a 1287 1288 1289

X Street Commitee Member

See attached Objection Points

N O 1290

Angelika Weyers 9671 9 Darter Road, Sunridge, Table View, 7441 [email protected]

083 444 5349 26.08.2020 1291

Objection reasons for proposed application for rezoning, subdivision, regulation departure and SDP approval in terms of the Cape Town Municipal Planning By-Law: Erf 38599, Milnerton, 21 Canary Crescent, Sunridge

To Point I. My interest in the application;

I own and reside at a property in Darter Road. The application, if approved, will negatively impact the already failing infrastructure in the immediate area and surrounds. It will negatively impact the living conditions for myself, my family and my neighbours, and it will decrease the value of my property.

To Points II. Effect the application will have on me, my property or the area, III. Any aspect of the application that is considered to be inconsistent with policy, and how, and IV. What impact the development has on my property;

1. Our roads (Circle Road, North Road, Gie Road, Raats Drive and adjoining streets) are already overloaded and failing due to heavier traffic than planned for.

o Bottom compacting layer coming through the asphalt everywhere o Serious cracks of 2m and longer appearing everywhere o Middle of the road splitting open o Numerous potholes forming regularly, even large sinkholes

2. The sewage system in the area is already overloaded due to densification complexes that were approved to be built on Gie Road, Circle Road, North Road, Study Road, Briza Road, Arum Road.

o Sewage overflows in the roads at times o Potsdam sewage works is totally overloaded and spills into the lagoon regularly and the city is aware of this o Same sewage plant is handling Parklands densification and Table View

o Gie Road, Circle Road, North Road, Study Road, Jansen Road, Briza Road, Arum Road o It flows out at every serious rain or storm and overflows into the roads

4. This voluntary City process of densification in Table View, Flamingo Vlei, Sunridge, West Riding has seen crime increases that are impossible to comprehend.

o The area has seen a massive demographic population rise in the last 5 years o Street corner invasions by unemployed individuals is uncontrollable. These individuals loiter, urinate and defecate against boundary walls, litter, and taint the image of a suburban, residential area 1292

o Table View SAPS is inundated with cases and not able to cope o SAPS already cannot cope with the number of issues resulting from this increase in population, how will they cope with even more residents and potential cases? This area should have remained, as intended, a single dwelling population, not an area with large complexes that have been irresponsibly and inconsiderately approved and developed already

5. Changing the zoning to the next category will

o destroy the character of this suburb o allow for multiple 4-storey high developments to emerge, thereby destroying the existing, already failing, infrastructure o result in the destruction and disappearance of lawns, green spaces and trees from our area o result in the destruction and disappearance of walkways or sidewalks o result in a further influx of residents and vehicles, which will add to the existing traffic congestion o lower the value of properties in the area

This area should NOT be considered for rezoning to GR2.

6. Allowing the request for the boundary walls to now be 2m from the street will:

o remove green spaces o remove trees o make the sidewalks narrower and dangerous o increase the flow of storm water into the overloaded storm water drains in the area

Building lines to remain as originally set. No departures should be allowed.

7. Approval of the site development plan should not be considered at all as the development is non-contextual, unsightly and greatly exceeds the accepted densification of 50 units per ha.

8. Furthermore, I deem it unacceptable that this application was initially handled without following the correct protocol of informing all residents in the area of the application, thereby not providing all residents the fair opportunity to object. A petition, and more, was required to ensure the correct process was eventually followed.

Due to above-mentioned reasons I ABSOLUTELY OBJECT TO THE WHOLE APPLICATION. 1293

:.'IFBL-lLlt!'1 17

CITY OF CAPE TOWN B EVE LCI PTCI E F*T T\'}AT{Afr E M E N T ISIXEKO SASI.KAPA 5T,4D KAAPSTAD

GBJECTION, eCnfiMENT GR REPRESEhITATEON to an application received bythe City if:i6:icfiL:eiri fcrm in ierms oi sefiion 90 of l|re City oi rJape-iovir: I'lrrniripal Planning By'l;:w,2C15 {ii4fiil}j

tlri:; to tire cbleciicn, {oi'rr;rertt o: tlaerds a ia:lC use applicarion being con-sider*rJ L,y tlre City vou u;iii i;e required tc ccmpie.le iorn =rl-sure i !pr esenlai-icir as,",aiid.

this -,rcrm anci :rLmil it tc; the re icvant em;ii adrJrsss ,rs sr;e.:i{l:d irr ihr.- notice.

Sui:jecttosecticag0{7}oitf.relulPBLyor.:rsul--"nissionmayairrlrarcr'};oi.:hirra3en:la. lniermssf scclichg2nitheMPBLyoursubn:issionri/!llra

SECTIOI{ A: AFFLICATION DETAILS

C;:e lD 7*4A4419 Sr,l'ie,* ari

-: Lr :t r : d,l r,::s o' :f r c s' b; e :1 prLal-rertly 1 Canary CresCent Sunttdg€

Hc'r; dicj ilou bcccrlrr3 awa!r'e of the a1-.plicar!*n? [l R"si.:*r"d iclter via iros: l]l onsite irolir:e lll ru"*rtu""t I Ciry cf Cape Town ur*bsite Cther. piease :;pe:iiy t+ il-b -

9ECTION B: DECLARATION BYAFFECTED PARTY OR TARTIESI PkOPERTYOWNERS

tn re{,ect cf the aforementionei apFlic3tior,, l/irye lhc r.rgisrerea cwneiis) or residen(s) of the urlCermeniioneci prenrises, ibt,niilly: f72 Ohjen lent oli l-l Fr^vi.lc renresenta:ron Kl llccmn i i il the aitir;ity is currenriy in cperation, lrorr ,Jr:es the ecilvitlr atfect you?

Tlre decisicn maker,,.riil use sectien 99(3) cl the tr{PEL to determine thc ciasrrat:iiiiy cr ihc applitntion- Should vcu wisii to ;i!gn your srlbmission u,ith ths abcve-irrentioneti criteria please r;isii the Ciry rve[sit* ii-a perijse rhe i\"4PSL. Reascn fcr abjeciii:n, coinrrj€nt a)r r:p.esi:.!.iir.-r i rnust ii-rcii:i:ie: l. "/our ii:t*rest in ihe appiicarinn. ll. E#ect the appiicaticrr rqiil irave on yc'i-i, ynur prapefly or the orea. lil. Any a5r*.a or rhe epniicati*n that is consiciered tc be ir-iccrrslsient vviih poiicy, anc; hovv iV. Whai irnpact thr: devel*prner'l lias o'"r '?o,,r prape.tl/. €4.*r-hc{[email protected]€.r4iht'€?N:r.'i-.,.'.::..

Are ycu objecting tc the whole aFpiipation lXl cr crnlV p;n at it: T lf in part, proviCe mcre cletails below

Vvbul,J i{ par-licular u-,ere imposeri? ]iou :uppcrt the applicatirn conclitions NEl Surh ccnditicn(:'t iri:si be reasonai:le anci relate tc tire ailplicat;cn at hand in icrnrs o{ section 1ilO cJ ihe IJPEI-. lf sc, j-.ale th* r*as*n ar:o'

pi0pose con.i iticfi -q tr€lCY/:

inia,rc * orr n:li:{ilrif 1294

Section 120(1 1i of ihe fvlPBL provides :hat a peflsor) may i:'rake e i"equesi:o rhe MLrnicipal Planning Tribunal (MPii to make an oraJ submission. f-or such reqiJesii, be considered ii must corng:iy with the tollowing requitements:

1. Must be a 'wriiien request ertrailed t* rhe fcllowing addr+ss: MFLcraihearinqsi$caseiqur*.gov.ea" ' 7.. Adequater re3sons inusi be grven for such request, 3. The re.tucsi rr!usl be received at the above-rnenrioneci acidi+ss at least five Cays before the N4!tri meeting where the applicaticrr(s) i.vill be consiciereci, or cl*ser io the meeting if good cause i: shr:,v;n.

tc;ssistyou in cleciriing wheiheryou woui.r likcia n.rake such reilL!esr-, gr: toih+ fcllc"uing vueb iink.,cview ihe hiPI mee:ir,g ciaies:

i r -.L ,li r.:tr/'ry,,= ap.r lr;,ry i r..I: , .t a.il l r.r r iWo? L ij ri r'.);2_U lionle&S- e -ll.f-c,,:r 1.

You vuill be a!:le tc viev; lglPT rneeting dates, agendas anci le;:cr- usiriq er{ numbers, phirgiasl adiresses arrC case lli- ileqiiesia. io ;llte r+rar yoli will be requii-eci to idenifiy when th- apirli.atiJ.i tc rvhicii you y/ish {o r,rake oiai siiL,rlission on, +;ill apoe ar +tr the Tril-rr-rnal a;+nr-la ii orcier tor )/cr! ic subfiit the rerlriest it-r time as per the above i'eqrirei'rreni.

SECTISN C: SiGNATQRIES DEr-4115 F;ll na:'r;e aild sl:rnam€ 4-inAx* rc SZz,slEr Erf n'imber Pcsl;l at'{riress FoBrrx Siae 1Fa.g,Uiru, 7 t*,77 En:ail addres:i f.:r correspcn cie ncci 0 P'*'d Pr arr:, Ga.CA"'ZA " litis iorqt is subnfiid,Jsirg re odilferc.ti Emali a.i{lrqss iiar.. fhe one:fated above- tner uote ihat tle Ct}. tv;Jl .lr:ii/ uLrfirruntaaie mih 1ou tisinEnE the en;ri ard;erg ihm whic& t'.e ii'rrr rras reieiye,j. Cirniar:t number 'As ,VEteiP Siqnatr'rre €ffi :-:--:l Ceil n:rmi:er w*= nar-- 7s,/*l<*,R.,o, FXTRACT FR$M TI-NE CITY OFO] CAFE TOWhI MI.}NICIPAL FS-AFCN'NS BY.LAW. 2015 9S Ohjectiontoanapplication ,1) A person +riro has i:earr invited to .omment or oLrject, ar ary persori in relpotlse to a publil ir;vitaticl to comment or object. *ay ebject ta, cotriment c'n .Ja rrake reI)rese nt.riiDrrs a:Jout liie appiicaticn iir accrricjariee wrlh this secti!il. 2; .+r-: ohjacticin, .orii-ncr,i.1l" r+pfe'3entatiLlll l.:ust be i,t at'1:11!j 3) A lat* objection, corniar€ril cr represetriation iviil nr.t Le .-:rtsidcrccj lrile:s tf:e City Man;ger coirurorres the late:;u'sntission in ternr: oi SUU5ULt Ut I r4j. 4) The City Manacer may ccririene tlre i.-.te sul;rrission o{ an objection, conlmerlt cr repre.s€ntaiiorl il gccci cause is sirorvn arC ccnsidoratirr, ,cIthe jate cbjecticn- colhillenl ar rsp:esentat:on dDr,ri.i !t.jt - {ai cau5e an urlreasonabl* clelay; cr- ib) prejucrce the puill;. inteiESt. 5i A p+i-son xho:ubmits an cbtecticr. caftrnent or ,=ilr--3serrtatioil rr-,ust pro.ricie cl the prasr:ril:r,:i ic'r"r'e - ' 1,ni srfficier:t detaii: of the .rpni!cation for it t+ i:* r'eaciil',. icier,rifiecil tlr) tl",eir fuii larle; {ci their address and othef contect detatls and the methoci by wnlc:r they rra'r be nctiiiecj; itji iheir,irtercst iir i.'.re aprlrlir:at:on; ie] ih€ reaso.r 'fr:,rtt-'eii objecticn,.cmmen! oi rel:rcserrratic.,n, ilciuciing ai teas!, (;i the &ffectihaithe application wiii have ontnem crthe area; {iii any aspect oi the appiicatlcn that is cons:ciercci to bc incc,nsi:tent +;itn poiic;,, ar,C hcw. 6i Aq objectitn. cnmmentor representatiDn lyhich does nrt mestlhe )Equireil'lenls of subse,Jiol) i5)n"lay i:e Cisregar.:ed. 7] iit= {il7 Manager m*y keep ihe !r"lioirn:il1p 1r4.i;iq;a;i uiicl€r sijbseciic,rls (sjih} ancj (S}iri coniiriential on gora cause shown. 8) f.Jo pers':rr rnay req uest the payiner-lt of monev or any Dther iorm r:i ccnside*rticn {r om tire !:DD iiia nt or a ny person involverl in I i.,e applicaticrr in rel:rn {or not subr:itting iJr} t)Lliection oi iri reillr jor su}:rnittinc ;; rrotice cf .ro cbieciion cr a sirppol1ive coonle *l

sr-itmtiiiiiq a noti.e cf iic objeciic* ijr a S,.liri}f|1iv€ a*lrixei:t. lCi Subseciions{li)atd(?) dcnaiprohi5ift[3rerq:ip,rl{rrr;rtn+cfie;'ir;l]ndeaakenearl.ir€itoil-litigatefheimpactofthedeveic;pment conternplai;d in tlie appiication 1 i ] A persotr w'rto c::ntravenes subsections {ii} or (9) i: llitiltr an ,:ifri:ce and upoi'i canvictioit is iiahle tc tl"ie penaities conteirpiated rn secticns'1 33(2) and 133{lii.

Method and date of notification

Tiie rialeaf notiflcation i5 Ceier rnirrrd a: foilcws: iithe irotific;ti*:r is ;-.rnrri<1ei - {ai rrally, it isthe date c{ aral comm uni.at jon; ib I hy hano ,ii is the claie ol deiil,ary or colle cticft; ir,i by registered post, ii is rega reled as the {crr r1h da}, aiter iirg rjr,t* ;tr npe(.i ripcn the "eceiot ior reg istrztion issued 5y the post of+ice which acccpted rh€ n*1ice; *i id) i:y e nra ii ar fax, ir is thG Cate that ihc e rrail crfrrx is se rrt,

lntcrprctationAct I'lo 33 o{ 1957 sertian4

wLi.:h case tl.r* tir:re sral) be :'eckonrd oxclusive cf ti-re iirst,jay anci exclusive a ica oi eueru sucir S': i:Cay c r pr,rl--iic.rcii,Jav.

As :n cxa ml:le, if tlre d rte oi notificatian is i {]dcirer, then the first C ay cf c*lculatiorr oithe 21 ciay app"" 1 O*r'ocl rtili be 2 Cctot er and tlre 2l st *ay'scuidbe22O;trL:er. l{?2,Sctclerisei{haraSrrnciayalacubii;-l,olitJ;y,tircniheclosi;rg;j;tewilltlrenextfciiavinlday:hati53oteither a Srinday cra publicl:elicay. 1295

Objection reasons for proposed application for rezoning, subdivision, regulation departure and SDP approval in terms of the Cape Town Municipal Planning By‐Law: Erf 38599, Milnerton, 21 Canary Crescent, Sunridge

To Point I. My interest in the application; I own a property in Palomino Road Tableview 7441. The application, if approved, will negatively impact the already failing infrastructure in the immediate area and surrounds. It will negatively impact the living conditions for myself, my family and my neighbours, and it will decrease the value of my property.

1. Our roads (Circle Road, North Road, Gie Road, Raats Drive and adjoining streets) are already overloaded and failing due to heavier traffic than planned for. o Bottom compacting layer coming through the asphalt everywhere  Serious cracks of 2m and longer appearing everywhere  Middle of the road splitting open  Numerous potholes forming regularly, even large sinkholes

2. The sewage system in the area is already overloaded due to densification complexes that were approved to be built on Gie Road, Circle Road, North Road, Study Road, Briza Road, Arum Road.  Sewage overflows in the roads at times  Potsdam sewage works is totally overloaded and spills into the lagoon regularly and the city is aware of this Same sewage plant is handling Parklands densification and Table View

3. The storm water drain system in the area is overloaded and floods over in the streets regularly. I have had numerous floods in my own property due to this, with the latest flood having water levels reaching up to 50cm!  The storm water drain system is old and not maintained correctly, resulting in regular pipe bursts and days of repair and traffic inconvenience for surrounding areas.  Gie Road, Circle Road, North Road, Study Road, Jansen Road, Briza Road, Arum Road  It flows out at every serious rain or storm and overflows into the roads

4. This voluntary City process of densification in Table View, Flamingo Vlei, Sunridge, West Riding has seen crime increases that are impossible to comprehend.  The area has seen a massive demographic population rise in the last 5 years  Street corner invasions by unemployed individuals is uncontrollable.  These individuals loiter, urinate and defecate against boundary walls, litter, and taint the image of a suburban, residential area  Table View SAPS is inundated with cases and not able to cope  SAPS already cannot cope with the number of issues resulting from this increase in population, how will they cope with even more residents and potential cases?  This area should have remained, as intended, a single dwelling population, not an area with large complexes that have been irresponsibly and inconsiderately approved and developed already

5. Changing the Zoning from CO1 to GR2 will definitely 1296

 destroy the character of this suburb  allow for multiple 4‐storey high or higher developments to emerge, thereby destroying the existing, already failing, infrastructure  result in the destruction and disappearance of lawns, green spaces and trees from our area  result in the destruction and disappearance of walkways or sidewalks  result in a further influx of residents and vehicles, which will add to the existing traffic congestion  lower the value of properties in the area  This area should NOT be considered for rezoning to GR2.

6. Allowing the request for the boundary walls to now be 2m from the street will: o remove green spaces  remove trees  make the sidewalks narrower and dangerous  increase the flow of storm water into the overloaded storm water drains in the area  Building lines to remain as originally set. No departures should be allowed.

7. Approval of the site development plan should not be considered at all as the development is non‐contextual, unsightly and greatly exceeds the accepted densification of 50 units per ha.

Furthermore, I deem it unacceptable that this application was initially handled without following the correct protocol of informing all residents in the area of the application, thereby not providing all residents the fair opportunity to object. A petition, and more, was required to ensure the correct process was eventually followed.

Due to above-mentioned reasons I ABSOLUTELY OBJECT TO THE WHOLE APPLICATION. 1297 1298 1299

Scanned by CamScanner 1300

Scanned by CamScanner 1301

Addendum to Objection Case ID 70494419

Section B Notes

▪ There has been no approval of a site development plan. ▪ This erf must not be rezoned to GR2 as this is meant for single dwellings only and not for flats. ▪ Table View do not need more flats in our area but more schools is needed. ▪ The density is dangerously high – approximately 124 units/hectare (international norm = 50 units / hectare) ▪ No recent traffic assessment has been done – there are already 2 schools and one pre- school / aftercare facility in the immediate area. Traffic is already an existing problem. ▪ This building will definitely bring down the value of existing property in the area (devaluation).

1302 1303 1304 1305

GREATER TABLE VIEW ACTION FORUM

(Non-Profit Organisation No. APP-16/244140)

PO BOX 37170 CHEMPET 7442

Objection Case ID 70494419 Wednesday, August 26, 2020 Erf 38599 21 Canary Crescent Sunridge By e-mail: [email protected]

1. Property Values of Neighbouring Properties

1306

2. Adherence to Policy

2.1 In sections 5.2,6 and 8 of the application the applicant makes the claim ‘The Site is located within the Urban Inner Core Spatial Transformation Area’ in which the MSDF calls for the land use intensification’ This is an incorrect claim we refer to Figure 1 this shows the part of the map for the Urban Inner Core and clearly shows the application site only partially within the Urban Inner Core with the boundary cutting across the middle of the property. Indeed, it must be noted that Canary Crescent falls outside the Urban Inner Core. It is incorrect of the applicant to claim the site is within the Urban Inner Core. The applicant cannot claim to be compliant with the MSDF and has misled the City with this claim.

Figure 1 2.2 The applicant makes the claim is section 5.1 ‘the area is well served by most necessary amenities and facilities, including hospitals, schools, shops’ had the applicant and the case worker taken the time to read the Blaauwberg District plan 2012 they would have found the following:

‘Public provision of facilities such as schools, sports fields, clinics etc. has to date been limited.’

The Applicant in section 6 misleads the City with the claim that the application is compliant with the MSDF and suggest that his would allow between 4 – 15 story’s. This is incorrect we have addressed the incorrect claim around this property not being within the Urban Inner Core. In addition, the applicant has omitted key elements of the Management Strategy for Blaauwberg Road and the Blaauwberg District Plan. These documents give clear guidance as to the height of buildings that should be supported. It must be noted that the MSDF refers to both the Management Strategy and the Blaauwberg District Plan 2012 as the detailed plans to be used to guide development decision.

We can only conclude that the proposed buildings cannot be supported by either the Blaauwberg District Plan, the Management Strategy for Blaauwberg Road or the MSDF

Orientated Development Strategy, The Tall Building Policy and there is not compliant with the MSDF. The Blaauwberg District Plan insists that non policy compliant applications must be advertised as non-compliant. The Blaauwberg District Plan states:

Should a deviation from policy be determined to be necessary, this should be advertised as part of the land use application

(1)A Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision in terms of this Act or any other law relating to land development, may not make a decision which is inconsistent with a municipal spatial development framework.

(2) Subject to section 42, a Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision, may depart from the provisions of a municipal spatial development framework only if site-specific circumstances justify a departure from the provisions of such municipal spatial development framework.

This application must be advertised as non-compliant. The rights of the local community and all objectors have been infringed by the application.

and is currently polluting the Diep River, Table Bay Nature Reserve and Milnerton Lagoon. This development will add to this pollution and as such is not sustainable.

Kind Regards

David Ayres 072 377 6802 Greater Table View Action Forum (Planning & Biodiversity) Non-Profit Organization No. 16/244140-NPO

1310

Sibonelesihle Shabalala

From: Nicolaas Loubser Sent: Friday, 28 August 2020 20:52 To: Comments_Objections Blaauwberg Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Objection to Case ID 70494419

Erf 38599 21 Canary Crescent Sunridge

1. Property Values of Neighbouring Properties

2. Adherence to Policy

‘Public provision of facilities such as schools, sports fields, clinics etc. has to date been limited.’

We can only conclude that the proposed buildings cannot be supported by either the Blaauwberg District Plan, the Management Strategy for Blaauwberg Road or the MSDF

2 1312 (1)A Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision in terms of this Act or any other law relating to land development, may not make a decision which is inconsistent with a municipal spatial development framework. (2) Subject to section 42, a Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision, may depart from the provisions of a municipal spatial development framework only if site- specific circumstances justify a departure from the provisions of such municipal spatial development framework.

This application must be advertised as non-compliant. The rights of the local community and all objectors have been infringed by the application.

-- Mr Nicolaas Loubser [email protected] Blaauwberg rd Table view, WC 7441

3 1313

Sibonelesihle Shabalala

From: Charlotte Keuris Sent: Friday, 28 August 2020 20:52 To: Comments_Objections Blaauwberg Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Objection to Case ID 70494419

Erf 38599 21 Canary Crescent Sunridge

1. Property Values of Neighbouring Properties

2. Adherence to Policy

‘Public provision of facilities such as schools, sports fields, clinics etc. has to date been limited.’

We can only conclude that the proposed buildings cannot be supported by either the Blaauwberg District Plan, the Management Strategy for Blaauwberg Road or the MSDF

2 1315 (1)A Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision in terms of this Act or any other law relating to land development, may not make a decision which is inconsistent with a municipal spatial development framework. (2) Subject to section 42, a Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision, may depart from the provisions of a municipal spatial development framework only if site- specific circumstances justify a departure from the provisions of such municipal spatial development framework.

This application must be advertised as non-compliant. The rights of the local community and all objectors have been infringed by the application.

-- Ms Charlotte Keuris [email protected] 50 Cherrywood close Parklands, Western Cape 7441

3 1316

Sibonelesihle Shabalala

From: Dylan Keyser Sent: Friday, 28 August 2020 20:53 To: Comments_Objections Blaauwberg Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Objection to Case ID 70494419

Erf 38599 21 Canary Crescent Sunridge

1. Property Values of Neighbouring Properties

2. Adherence to Policy

‘Public provision of facilities such as schools, sports fields, clinics etc. has to date been limited.’

We can only conclude that the proposed buildings cannot be supported by either the Blaauwberg District Plan, the Management Strategy for Blaauwberg Road or the MSDF

2 1318 (1)A Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision in terms of this Act or any other law relating to land development, may not make a decision which is inconsistent with a municipal spatial development framework. (2) Subject to section 42, a Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision, may depart from the provisions of a municipal spatial development framework only if site- specific circumstances justify a departure from the provisions of such municipal spatial development framework.

This application must be advertised as non-compliant. The rights of the local community and all objectors have been infringed by the application.

-- Mr Dylan Keyser [email protected] 50 Cherrywood close Parklands, Western Cape 7441

3 1319

Sibonelesihle Shabalala

From: Amy Jones Sent: Friday, 28 August 2020 21:03 To: Comments_Objections Blaauwberg Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Objection to Case ID 70494419

Erf 38599 21 Canary Crescent Sunridge

1. Property Values of Neighbouring Properties

2. Adherence to Policy

‘Public provision of facilities such as schools, sports fields, clinics etc. has to date been limited.’

We can only conclude that the proposed buildings cannot be supported by either the Blaauwberg District Plan, the Management Strategy for Blaauwberg Road or the MSDF

2 1321 (1)A Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision in terms of this Act or any other law relating to land development, may not make a decision which is inconsistent with a municipal spatial development framework. (2) Subject to section 42, a Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision, may depart from the provisions of a municipal spatial development framework only if site- specific circumstances justify a departure from the provisions of such municipal spatial development framework.

This application must be advertised as non-compliant. The rights of the local community and all objectors have been infringed by the application.

-- Ms Amy Jones [email protected] 6 circle road Cape Town , Western province e 744-

3 1322

Sibonelesihle Shabalala

From: Janet Butler Sent: Friday, 28 August 2020 21:23 To: Comments_Objections Blaauwberg Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Objection to Case ID 70494419

Erf 38599 21 Canary Crescent Sunridge

1. Property Values of Neighbouring Properties

2. Adherence to Policy

‘Public provision of facilities such as schools, sports fields, clinics etc. has to date been limited.’

We can only conclude that the proposed buildings cannot be supported by either the Blaauwberg District Plan, the Management Strategy for Blaauwberg Road or the MSDF

2 1324 (1)A Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision in terms of this Act or any other law relating to land development, may not make a decision which is inconsistent with a municipal spatial development framework. (2) Subject to section 42, a Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision, may depart from the provisions of a municipal spatial development framework only if site- specific circumstances justify a departure from the provisions of such municipal spatial development framework.

This application must be advertised as non-compliant. The rights of the local community and all objectors have been infringed by the application.

-- Ms Janet Butler [email protected] Barbados way, south break Muizenberg, Cape Town 7945

3 1325 MPBL - LUM 17 MANAGEMENT CITY OF CAPE TOWN DEVELOPMENT ISIXEKO SASEKAPA STAD KAAPSTAD

coMMENT oR REPRESENTATIoN to an apprication received bvthe citv oBJECTION, pranning Bv-Law, 2015 (MPBL)) [rIJr**J i"ri',^llri, of secriorr 90 o{ the city of cape rown Municipal or to comptere this form to ensure the obiection, comment l-.r_?I'J i"^r":i".':ff1:ffJ;. il,P;r"J;i;5r"i [vin" City you wiil be required representation is valid All useofthisformdoesnotlimitanysupplementarydocumentationthatyoumaywishtobringtotheattentionofthedecisionauthorityb" attach"1 and submitted simultaneously with this form' documents you wish tc uun,,nirlo', consicieration ty thu J".irron urthoiity.hould of your answer, attach any supplementary documentationto please cornplete/tickthe apprL,priate boxes below, provide a motivation/explanation .eievantemarl notice. this form and submit itto the address as specified inthe lntermsofsectiong2oftheMPBLyoursubmissionwll be sub.lecttosectiong0(7)oftheMpBLyoursubmissionmayappearonapublicagenda refeired to the applicant to allow for a response to the City' SECTION A: APPLICATIO&I DETAILS

Case lD 19 Subject erl number 38599

Street address of the subject pl'operty

How did you becorne aware of the application? ,rt . ,-,,,.r-r N"rvspi]L,er c 'r Capt c'v\'r'r v":[,:r'-r" rrrrL_ll_[-l Hc1rirr,4,c Erer rd r,,..:.: [-l ,r,::,ce l-l [l ffi o,u", pl,:asc spe,:rl\ I sECTION B: DECLARATION BYAFFECTED PARry OR PARTIES/ PROPERry OWNERS premises, ln respect of the aforementioned application, l/we the registereci owner(s) or resident(s) of the undermentioned formally ffi orl"o []l ao.*"n,o" l, I Providerepreientation lf the activity is currently in operation, how does the activinT affect you?

r"ab Curf re.^t\1 \t^. g> f *- c"trevr -

The decision-maker will use section 99(3) of the MPBLto determine the desirability of the appiication. Should you wish to align your submission with the above-mentioned criteria please visit the City website to peruse the MPBL' Reason for objection, comment or representation must include: I Your interest in the appiication. ll. Effect the application will have on you, your property or the area. lll. Any aspect of the application that is considered to be inconsistent with policy, and how. lV. What impact the development has on your property'

6eo (.o50^, h, dby chc'n 5

you objecling to the whole application onlV part of itZ ff in part, provide more details below Are E "r [l ttj \rra€- ogo qB- L Z-aun'rn \2e CIC;1., '.a.b rta^ ovwt bcrst &Y {b.^.t on\Y bc- 61 s.-flk Would you supportthe application if particular conditions were imposed? i 00 of the MPBL If so, state the reason and such condition(s) must be reasonable and relate to the appiication at hand in terms of section propose conditions below: -\t4<15 $ O-aWd c)-use\o?ry 3 .A UB-rZN.a,r7 @5 q5L\ a'^LY -l..?c'\ ,.t Anetiec ar: O? !Q2./2A2Q 1326 Municipal PlanningTribunal(MPT)to make an oral Section 120(11lof the MFBLprovidesthata person maymake a requesrtothe requirements: submission. For such requestto be considered it must comply with t['e following

1. Must be a written request emailed to the following address: MPT.oralhearinos@caoetqwn 2. Adequate reasons must be given for such request' d the MPT meeting where the a pplication(s) will 3. The req uest m ust be receivJd at the ab ove-mentioned add ress at least five ays before be considered, or closer to the meeting if good cause is shown

y:1, 1r, ej lrltrr,t ,', 1,,:',her i,:r1 :ri:t,:Lrilrr!rl i.::t,gotothefollowingweblinktoviewtheMPTmeetingdates:

ll I L\, 1 l( r-4. 1.1 I I i:I1t:i ,ir,, ll'lf.rir'.Ir-:rr 'i : 'rr-i 'I you will be able to view MPT meeting dates, agendas and reports using erf numbers, physical addresses and case lD' on, will appear on Requestor to note that you will be re-quired to;dentify when the application to which you wish to make oral submission the Tribunal agenda in order for you to submitthe request in time as per the above requirement.

SECTION C: SIGNATORIES DETAILS

Full name and surname -t-^l^\.. Eff number 6 Z\ Lre \lra-c'-lhL Email address for correspondence* lr'. \L.-.. . tf tltisform is submrtted using a differeit email addressthanthe ane stated abave,:'i- note thatthe Ciry will ttnly communicate wtth you usng the email address from which the farm was received

Contact number Signature Cell number c>-r3 Sctaoo1 Date r g o \A Lo Lo EXTRACT FROM THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN MUNICIPAL PLANNING BY-LAW 2015 90 Objectiontoanapplication 1) A person who has been invited to comment or ob.1ect, or any person in response to a public invitation to comment or obiect, may object to, comment on or make representations about the application in accordance with this section 2) An objection, comment or representation must be in writing 3) A late objection, comment or representation wrll not be considered unless the City Manager condones the late submission in terrns of subsection (4) 4) The City Manager may condone the late su[:mission of an ob.jection, comment or representation if good cause is shown and consideration of the late objection, comment or representation wou ld not - (a) cause an unreasonable delay; or (b) prejudice the public interest. 5) A person who submits an objection, comment or representation must provide on the prescribed iorm - (a) sufficlent details of the application for it to be readily identified; (o) their {ull name: (c) their address and other contact details and the method by which they may be notified; (d) their jnterest in the application; (e) the reasonfortheirobjection,commentorrepresentation, including atleast- (i) the effect that the appiication will have on them or the area; (ii) any aspect o{the application that is considered to be inconslstent with policy, and how 6) An objection, comment or representation which does not meet tlre requirements of subsection (5) may be disregarded 7) The City Manager may keep the information provided under subsections (5)(b) and (5Xc) confidentiaI on good cause shown 8) No person may request the payment of money or any other form of consideration from the applicant or any person involved in the application in return for not submitting an objection or in return for submitting a notice of no objection or a suppoftive comrnent 9) No person may offer a person payment of money or any other form of consideration in return for not submifting an objection or for submitting a notice of no objection or a supportive comrnent 10) Subsections(8) and(?) donotprohibittherequestforortheoffertounclertakemeasurestomitigatetheimpactofthedevelopment contemplated in the application 11) Apersonwhocontravenessubsections(8) or(9)isguiltyanoffenceanduponconvictionisliabletotliepenaltiescontemplatedin sections 1 33(2) and 1 33(3)-

Method and date of notification

The date of notification is determined asfollows: if the notification is provided - (a) orally,itisthedateoforaicommunication; (b) by hand ,it is the date of d elivery or colleaion; (.) byregisteredpost,itisregardedasthe{ourthdayafterthedatestampeduponthereceiptforregistrationissuedbythepostofficewhich accepted the notice; or (d) byemail orfax,itisthedatethattheemail orfaxissent,

lnterpretation Act No33 of 1957 section 4

(4) Reckoningof numberof days,-Whenanypar-ticularnumberofdaysisprescrl[:,edforthecJoingof anyact,orforanyotherpurpose,thesame shall be reckonecl exclusive ofthefirstand inclusive ofthe lastday, unlessthe last day happensto fall on a Sunday oron any public holiday, in which casethetime shall be reckoned exclusive ofthefirst day and exclusive also ofevery such Sunday or public holiday

Asanexample,ifthedateof notificationisl October,thenthefirstdayo{calculationofthe2ldayappealperiodwillbe2Octoberandthe2lst will th e next foliowin g daythat is not either day would beZZAaaber. lf ZZeaaberis elthera Su nday or a pu blic ho liday, then the closing date a Sunday ora Public holidaY. t\a\e.na'1a'l)1102/2o)t) eor ta: 1r9t r 1327

R*as*ms €*r ObjectE&ffis

Compatibitity with surrounding uses

The proposed development as presented is not compatible with the immediate area, being the Circle Road and adjacent roads' -i-here are established complexes in the area which comprise of either Duplexes or single storey dwellings. Thjexception to this-is River Hamlet which has mixed flats and single storey dwellings. Having a larger erf space than that of the proposed site with less units. The River Hamlel complex is the largest complex in the area comprising of 388 units. A mix of 1 and 3 bed flats set out on 2 storeys with 2 bed single dwellings. lncludes parking for all units, 2 swimming pools, tennis and basketball courts, children's play area,laundry room and ample ground space. The densification process that is occurring in Gie and North Roads are predominantly 3 storeys and less units per square meter built on existing plots than what is being proposed for this development. lmpact on the external engineering services

The sewaEe system Ageing infrastructure is failing with the increase in densification leading to sewerage blockages. The Potsdam Sewage works is not designed to cany the current loads which lead to overflow into the Diep River system and down river through the vlei and Milnerton lagoon

The storm water drain system During this winter we have had big cold fronts bringing heavy rain leading to localised flooding. Noticeable was the intersection of Cross and Gie Road. lf the City of Gape Town want to have densification at what is being proposed here it would be advisable to ensure that the bulk infrastructure can carry the !oad" lmpact on safety, health and wellbeing of sur!'ounding community

The City of Cape Town's process of densification in the Sunridge area has experienced an exponential spike in crime/anti-social behaviour related incidents of house robberies, muggings and general vagrancy. We do not have a SAPS station large enough both in size and manpower to cope with the groMh in the crime rate. lt does not help that the Parklands Police station is not fully utilized.

The proposed Development has on its boundary 1) Circle Road Primary and High School which is in the process of being expanded from temporary class rooms to separate brick buildings. 2) Rising Stars Academy which is in the process of expanding from a crdche into a Primary and High School. 1328

3) There are 2other established Creches in Circle Road adjacent to Eagle Crescent and the other in Eagle Crescent

It is ludicrous that a Development of such a nature can be allowed to proceed considering that the land should be trtilised for Education purposes which would better serve the community which is in dire heed of schools to serve the already expanding population of the area reaching as far as Dunoon. lmpact on the biophysical environment

The closest biophysical environment is the Table Bay Nature Reserve of which the Diep River System is part of. Which is impacted from the overloaded Potsdam system. Traffic impacts, part

Our roads (Circle Road, North Road, Gie Road, Cross Road and adjoining roads) are already overloaded and failing due to heavier traffic that planned for. Leading to the breakdown of the existing road sr.lnfaces and peak hour congestion. The tVIy Citi Bus feeder route runs down Cross Road and into Gie Road North bound. During peak hours the busses are full by the time they reach these stops going to the Wood Station hence people must wait for the next bus. The My Citi Busfeeder route stop situated onWood Drive is 1km walking distance from the proposed development not the 750m (aprox) stated in the proposal The My Citi Trunk Bus stop at Circle East does not provide a feeder facility to the area. The Wood Station further up Blaauwberg Road at the Flamingo Centre provides the service. There is no Golden Arrow Bus service for the Sunridge area along Gie Road. The Golden Arrow Bus stop is on Blaauwberg Road opposite Boy De Goed Circle. There are no designated Taxi stops along Gie Road in proxirnity to the proposed development. People will have to walk to Blaauwberg Road for this service. The M5 (Koeberg Road) can only be accessed via Gie Road which feeds into Blaauwberg Road. Access to Wood Drive is via Circle Road and Merlot Road. Contextual relevance:

The proposal submitted in February has photographs of the proposed site. lt must be noted that these photographs were taken prior to 2A$ when the 1"t proposal was sent out for comment. From their photographs it is easy for people to imagine a large scale development on the erf that does not indicate the actual boundaries of the erf. Please see the photographic reports herein attached of the site as it currently stands as of mid-July and August 2O2O. Site views both from ground level and aerial views. What can be seen is that no one from the applicants has been back to area to ensure that what they are submitting is with in contextual relevance. 1329 lf the Flandorp Fami!y Trust and Plan Trust Development are wanting to develop the land then they must portray it in its accuracy in line with the current set out of the land in question. Copy and pasting from a proposal from 2015 shows how little regard they have for the residents of the area.

The Socio-economic impact

This proposed development will have anything but a positive impact on the area once the building work is completed and the Flandorp's and Plan Trust have got their money and left the area. lt is always known that when construction takes place the developer brings in labour that they have in their employ and little if any work will be available for the unemployed person walking in off the street. They would be against the National Building Regulations and other related Building institutions rules that they would have to abide by. My assumption is that because this proposal has been so long in the making that they already have all the various trades lined up for the work leaving the local community or-rt of the supply chain for providing services. 1330

! ! t ..r-.aa i, r. .r ; E *ri. $rq.t-? '- ': -5'i^'i. I

t :f l.

. tl,

t-. -:t:,tr] rf,- ti -l Lt'-'1j 1331

Arialviews of proposed site July 29 2020

Rising Stars Academy Creche, Primary & High School 1332

South East View

East view with the Diep River System, Blaauwberg Road in the back ground 1333

ERF 38599 2L Canary Crescent Sunridge 19 July & 1 August 2020

East view off Canary Crescent as of 19 July 2020

School boundarv fence

Proposed residents entrance

South View from Canary Crescent as of 19 Julv 2020

School boundarvfence 1334

Figiire 6; Vieff+d ironr Eugle Fc,;d,l'lo,-r,titr! itorthj 1335

As per February 2020 submission

Fr'*ure i,' Viewed fr+at Eagle f;'oad il.rL1A.u?!, sgLJIh't 1336

As per February 2020 submission

FtqtJ[.e 3; Viewed frorr Gifci+ .84,?d lioDf,i,,r:g rvesf.l 1337

View South West from Gie Road as per 1 August 2020 (Rising Stars on left side

As per Februarv 2020 submission

ir-.,i.fi;/]rJ Flgrre 4,, [,i+we,J f19,111 ._i;9 !ri+*f ., ryesfj 1338

Rising Stars Academy Circle Road as of l August 2020

Rising Stars Academv Circle Road as of l Ausust 2020

R'srNGsrArq#gEq 1339

Creche and complex on right 19 July 2020

As per February 2020 submission

Fiqure 9l tleneral Re-qidentif,l dev'elopment Brl Erver] 1lE0i - 11814

Plav area as of 1-9 Julv 2020 As oer Februarv 2020 submission 1340 1341

-F'rF -'l As of 1- August 2020

As per February 2020 submission

Fttt['re 1f.t: rl,ersrsl Ee-(idgntisl ,:l9l e,iop$leni r:ti EiVen '! 5l25 - i57 J2

As of 19 July 2O2O 1342 1343

Sibonelesihle Shabalala

From: Heather Kensley Sent: Friday, 28 August 2020 22:19 To: Comments_Objections Blaauwberg Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Objection to Case ID 70494419

Erf 38599 21 Canary Crescent Sunridge

1. Property Values of Neighbouring Properties

2. Adherence to Policy

‘Public provision of facilities such as schools, sports fields, clinics etc. has to date been limited.’

We can only conclude that the proposed buildings cannot be supported by either the Blaauwberg District Plan, the Management Strategy for Blaauwberg Road or the MSDF

2 1345 (1)A Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision in terms of this Act or any other law relating to land development, may not make a decision which is inconsistent with a municipal spatial development framework. (2) Subject to section 42, a Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision, may depart from the provisions of a municipal spatial development framework only if site- specific circumstances justify a departure from the provisions of such municipal spatial development framework.

This application must be advertised as non-compliant. The rights of the local community and all objectors have been infringed by the application.

-- Mrs Heather Kensley [email protected] 21 Cross Road Table View, Western Cape 7441

3 1346

Sibonelesihle Shabalala

From: Mandy Evard Sent: Friday, 28 August 2020 22:53 To: Comments_Objections Blaauwberg Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Objection to Case ID 70494419

Erf 38599 21 Canary Crescent Sunridge

1. Property Values of Neighbouring Properties

2. Adherence to Policy

‘Public provision of facilities such as schools, sports fields, clinics etc. has to date been limited.’

We can only conclude that the proposed buildings cannot be supported by either the Blaauwberg District Plan, the Management Strategy for Blaauwberg Road or the MSDF

2 1348 (1)A Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision in terms of this Act or any other law relating to land development, may not make a decision which is inconsistent with a municipal spatial development framework. (2) Subject to section 42, a Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision, may depart from the provisions of a municipal spatial development framework only if site- specific circumstances justify a departure from the provisions of such municipal spatial development framework.

This application must be advertised as non-compliant. The rights of the local community and all objectors have been infringed by the application.

-- Mrs Mandy Evard [email protected] 4 Hunter street Tableview Cape Town, 55 7441

3 1349

Sibonelesihle Shabalala

From: Warren Jackson Sent: Friday, 28 August 2020 23:14 To: Comments_Objections Blaauwberg Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Objection to Case ID 70494419

Erf 38599 21 Canary Crescent Sunridge

1. Property Values of Neighbouring Properties

2. Adherence to Policy

‘Public provision of facilities such as schools, sports fields, clinics etc. has to date been limited.’

We can only conclude that the proposed buildings cannot be supported by either the Blaauwberg District Plan, the Management Strategy for Blaauwberg Road or the MSDF

2 1351 (1)A Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision in terms of this Act or any other law relating to land development, may not make a decision which is inconsistent with a municipal spatial development framework. (2) Subject to section 42, a Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision, may depart from the provisions of a municipal spatial development framework only if site- specific circumstances justify a departure from the provisions of such municipal spatial development framework.

This application must be advertised as non-compliant. The rights of the local community and all objectors have been infringed by the application.

-- Mr Warren Jackson [email protected] 18 Avocet street Cape Town, Western Cape 7441

3 1352

Sibonelesihle Shabalala

From: Soraya Davids Sent: Friday, 28 August 2020 23:34 To: Comments_Objections Blaauwberg Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Objection to Case ID 70494419

Erf 38599 21 Canary Crescent Sunridge

1. Property Values of Neighbouring Properties

2. Adherence to Policy

‘Public provision of facilities such as schools, sports fields, clinics etc. has to date been limited.’

We can only conclude that the proposed buildings cannot be supported by either the Blaauwberg District Plan, the Management Strategy for Blaauwberg Road or the MSDF

2 1354 (1)A Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision in terms of this Act or any other law relating to land development, may not make a decision which is inconsistent with a municipal spatial development framework. (2) Subject to section 42, a Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision, may depart from the provisions of a municipal spatial development framework only if site- specific circumstances justify a departure from the provisions of such municipal spatial development framework.

This application must be advertised as non-compliant. The rights of the local community and all objectors have been infringed by the application.

-- Ms Soraya Davids [email protected] 3 Highland Close Tableview Cape Town , Western Cape 7441

3 1355

Sibonelesihle Shabalala

From: Lorraine Byl Sent: Friday, 28 August 2020 23:51 To: Comments_Objections Blaauwberg Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Objection to Case ID 70494419

Erf 38599 21 Canary Crescent Sunridge

1. Property Values of Neighbouring Properties

2. Adherence to Policy

‘Public provision of facilities such as schools, sports fields, clinics etc. has to date been limited.’

We can only conclude that the proposed buildings cannot be supported by either the Blaauwberg District Plan, the Management Strategy for Blaauwberg Road or the MSDF

2 1357 (1)A Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision in terms of this Act or any other law relating to land development, may not make a decision which is inconsistent with a municipal spatial development framework. (2) Subject to section 42, a Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision, may depart from the provisions of a municipal spatial development framework only if site- specific circumstances justify a departure from the provisions of such municipal spatial development framework.

This application must be advertised as non-compliant. The rights of the local community and all objectors have been infringed by the application.

-- Mrs Lorraine Byl [email protected] 80 Heron Cove Gie Rd Tableview Cape Town, Western 7441

3 1358

Sibonelesihle Shabalala

From: Sven Freimanis Sent: Saturday, 29 August 2020 05:53 To: Comments_Objections Blaauwberg Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Objection to Case ID 70494419

Erf 38599 21 Canary Crescent Sunridge

1. Property Values of Neighbouring Properties

2. Adherence to Policy

‘Public provision of facilities such as schools, sports fields, clinics etc. has to date been limited.’

We can only conclude that the proposed buildings cannot be supported by either the Blaauwberg District Plan, the Management Strategy for Blaauwberg Road or the MSDF

2 1360 (1)A Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision in terms of this Act or any other law relating to land development, may not make a decision which is inconsistent with a municipal spatial development framework. (2) Subject to section 42, a Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision, may depart from the provisions of a municipal spatial development framework only if site- specific circumstances justify a departure from the provisions of such municipal spatial development framework.

This application must be advertised as non-compliant. The rights of the local community and all objectors have been infringed by the application.

-- Mr Sven Freimanis [email protected] Heron Cove Cape Town , Western Cape 7441

3 1361

Sibonelesihle Shabalala

From: Quinton Van der Westhuizen Sent: Saturday, 29 August 2020 07:07 To: Comments_Objections Blaauwberg Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Objection to Case ID 70494419

Erf 38599 21 Canary Crescent Sunridge

1. Property Values of Neighbouring Properties

2. Adherence to Policy

‘Public provision of facilities such as schools, sports fields, clinics etc. has to date been limited.’

We can only conclude that the proposed buildings cannot be supported by either the Blaauwberg District Plan, the Management Strategy for Blaauwberg Road or the MSDF

2 1363 (1)A Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision in terms of this Act or any other law relating to land development, may not make a decision which is inconsistent with a municipal spatial development framework. (2) Subject to section 42, a Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision, may depart from the provisions of a municipal spatial development framework only if site- specific circumstances justify a departure from the provisions of such municipal spatial development framework.

This application must be advertised as non-compliant. The rights of the local community and all objectors have been infringed by the application.

-- Mr Quinton Van der Westhuizen [email protected] Table view Cape Town , Western cape 7441

3 1364

Sibonelesihle Shabalala

From: Fern Shaw Sent: Saturday, 29 August 2020 07:45 To: Comments_Objections Blaauwberg Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Objection to Case ID 70494419

Erf 38599 21 Canary Crescent Sunridge

1. Property Values of Neighbouring Properties

2. Adherence to Policy

‘Public provision of facilities such as schools, sports fields, clinics etc. has to date been limited.’

We can only conclude that the proposed buildings cannot be supported by either the Blaauwberg District Plan, the Management Strategy for Blaauwberg Road or the MSDF

2 1366 (1)A Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision in terms of this Act or any other law relating to land development, may not make a decision which is inconsistent with a municipal spatial development framework. (2) Subject to section 42, a Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision, may depart from the provisions of a municipal spatial development framework only if site- specific circumstances justify a departure from the provisions of such municipal spatial development framework.

This application must be advertised as non-compliant. The rights of the local community and all objectors have been infringed by the application.

-- Mrs Fern Shaw [email protected] Unit 7 Bateleur Place Table View-4, Western Cape 7441

3 1367

Sibonelesihle Shabalala

From: Jeanine Groenewald Sent: Saturday, 29 August 2020 07:41 To: Comments_Objections Blaauwberg Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Objection to Case ID 70494419

Erf 38599 21 Canary Crescent Sunridge

1. Property Values of Neighbouring Properties

2. Adherence to Policy

‘Public provision of facilities such as schools, sports fields, clinics etc. has to date been limited.’

We can only conclude that the proposed buildings cannot be supported by either the Blaauwberg District Plan, the Management Strategy for Blaauwberg Road or the MSDF

2 1369 (1)A Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision in terms of this Act or any other law relating to land development, may not make a decision which is inconsistent with a municipal spatial development framework. (2) Subject to section 42, a Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision, may depart from the provisions of a municipal spatial development framework only if site- specific circumstances justify a departure from the provisions of such municipal spatial development framework.

This application must be advertised as non-compliant. The rights of the local community and all objectors have been infringed by the application.

-- Ms Jeanine Groenewald [email protected] 23 Wood Drive Table View, Western cape 7441

3 1370

Sibonelesihle Shabalala

From: Karine wang Sent: Saturday, 29 August 2020 08:42 To: Comments_Objections Blaauwberg Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Objection to Case ID 70494419

Erf 38599 21 Canary Crescent Sunridge

1. Property Values of Neighbouring Properties

2. Adherence to Policy

‘Public provision of facilities such as schools, sports fields, clinics etc. has to date been limited.’

We can only conclude that the proposed buildings cannot be supported by either the Blaauwberg District Plan, the Management Strategy for Blaauwberg Road or the MSDF

2 1372 (1)A Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision in terms of this Act or any other law relating to land development, may not make a decision which is inconsistent with a municipal spatial development framework. (2) Subject to section 42, a Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision, may depart from the provisions of a municipal spatial development framework only if site- specific circumstances justify a departure from the provisions of such municipal spatial development framework.

This application must be advertised as non-compliant. The rights of the local community and all objectors have been infringed by the application.

-- Ms Karine wang [email protected] 4 tantallion close west beach, western cape 7441

3 1373

Sibonelesihle Shabalala

From: Marie Enslin Sent: Saturday, 29 August 2020 08:57 To: Comments_Objections Blaauwberg Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Objection to Case ID 70494419

Erf 38599 21 Canary Crescent Sunridge

1. Property Values of Neighbouring Properties

2. Adherence to Policy

‘Public provision of facilities such as schools, sports fields, clinics etc. has to date been limited.’

We can only conclude that the proposed buildings cannot be supported by either the Blaauwberg District Plan, the Management Strategy for Blaauwberg Road or the MSDF

2 1375 (1)A Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision in terms of this Act or any other law relating to land development, may not make a decision which is inconsistent with a municipal spatial development framework. (2) Subject to section 42, a Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority required or mandated to make a land development decision, may depart from the provisions of a municipal spatial development framework only if site- specific circumstances justify a departure from the provisions of such municipal spatial development framework.

This application must be advertised as non-compliant. The rights of the local community and all objectors have been infringed by the application.

-- Mrs Marie Enslin [email protected] 9 Richmond Road West Beach Cape Town, Western Cape 7441