Municipal Planning Tribunal

Home , Black River (Cape Town), Cape Town Open

REPORT TO: MUNICIPAL PLANNING TRIBUNAL

ITEM NO MPTNW 60920

WARD 57: APPLICATION FOR REZONING, APPROVAL OF COUNCIL AND DEVIATIONS FROM CITY POLICIES IN TERMS OF THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING BY- LAW, 2015: ERF 151832, 6 LIESBEECK PARKWAY (BOUNDED BY LIEBEECK PARKWAY AND OBSERVATORY ROADS), OBSERVATORY

Case ID 70396369 Case Officer JOY SAN GIORGIO Case Officer phone number 021 444 9538 District TABLE BAY Ward 57 Ward Councillor PADDY CHAPPLE Report date SEPTEMBER 2020 Acceptance date 27-03-2018 Pre-Feb 2020 MPBL Applicable legislation amendment 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Property description Erf No 151832, Observatory Property address 6 Liesbeeck Parkway (bounded by Liesbeeck Parkway and Observatory Roads) Application components / It is proposed to redevelop the property to description accommodate a mixed use development of 150 000m² comprising

 Shops and Restaurants (retail uses),  Offices,  Dwelling units (approximately 20% of the total floor space will be residential and of that approximately 20% will be allotted to inclusionary housing),  a Hotel and Places of Instruction (and associated uses).

The proposal will entail the construction of retaining structures so that roads and habitable spaces are raised above the 1:100 year flood plain. 5

Application components / It is intended for buildings to range in height from description 15.39m to 45.56m above base level.

The initial phase of the development proposal will ential partial construction of the Berkley Road extension, which in future phases will be further extended to provide access from Berkley Road to Malta Road/Leisbeek Parkway.

The Liesbeek Canal on the eastern boundary of the site will be rehabilitated into a river course, while the ‘old’ Liesbeek River Channel on the western boundary of the site will largely be filled, landscaped and accommodate a vegetated stormwater swale. Site extent 14.843ha Current zoning Open Space 3: Private Open Space Current land use  Open Space (comprising a golf course with ancillary uses such as a driving range and golf shop),  Conference Facilities  Restaurants  Occasional use – this will be applied for on an ad hoc basis Overlay zone applicable None PHRA or SAHRA heritage None Public participation outcome The application was advertised and 180 objections summary were received. The objections are summarised in 4.1 below. Recommended decision Approval in part & Approval  Refusal Refusal in part

2. BACKGROUND FACTS 2.1. The property has been used for recreational purposes for a number of decades. It was previously owned by South African Rail Commuter Corporation/TRANSNET Limited and was used as a recreation club for their staff. Subsequent thereto, the property was leased to Liesbeek Leisure Properties (Pty) Ltd from 2000 for a period of 75 years. The lease at the time permitted the use for recreational purposes to continue or any commercial activity as approved by the City of Cape Town.

The company was subsequently sold while the land was still in the ownership of TRANSNET. TRANSNET later sold the land to the Liesbeek Leisure Properties Pty Ltd, (later became Liesbeek Leisure Properties Trust).

2.2. In 1999 an application was submitted in which it was requested that certain land uses considered to be non-conforming be confirmed. The following land uses were confirmed as non-conforming, having existed on the property since the 1930’s 6

2.3 The golf driving range was supported with the provision of a mashie (9-hole golf course. An application was submitted and eventually approved to accommodate the latter mentioned golf course. A golf shop also exists on the property as an appurtenant use to the golf course. While an application was submitted and approved to extend the golf course to an 18-hole golf course, that application lapsed as it was not acted on. However, the 9-hole golf course is used as an 18-hole course by double up play.

2.4 Although events have been hosted occasionally on the property, each event that is not permitted as of right, required a separate land use permission. An application was later submitted and approved in 2011 to host events for a temporary period of 5 years. That permission has since lapsed

While the property continues to host events, each application requires land use approval to accommodate each event, hence the ad hoc submission and approval of Occasional use applications for specific events.

2.5 Although the MPBL amendments came into effect on the 03 February 2020, the transitional arrangements make provision for an application that was accepted prior to the commencement date of the now amended MPBL to be processed and considered in accordance with the MPBL that pre-dated 03 February 2020. It is for this reason that this application refers to base level as the datum from which height is determined.

2.6 After the application was circulated to branches for comment, certain clarification was requested from the applicant and the applicant subsequently provided further information regarding building designs, treatment of facades etc., which was not material to warrant re-advertising the application. The information submitted by the applicant in response to comments received from commenting branches is attached as Annexure G1 and forms part of the applicant’s response to comments/objections received.

2.7 The application is subject to a EIA process and an Environmental Authorisation that is attached as Annexure C11 was issued on 20 August 2020.

3. SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S MOTIVATION

3.1. The applicant’s motivation of the proposed development (see Annexure C) may be summarised as follows:

 Historically the use of the site has been limited.  The property is positioned in a floodplain.  Various studies have now been undertaken to establish the feasibility of developing the site.  The property is strategically located.  The property is located close to employment opportunities, amenities and social facilities.  The redevelopment of the site is an opportunity address some of the socio-economic disparities that exist.  The development will not be an exclusive enclave but must provide opportunities across the socio-economic spectrum.  There is an opportunity to provide inclusionary housing on-site  Developing the site as knuckle can reinforce surrounding corridors.  The property is located close to public transport routes.  For this reason, land use intensification of the site should be encouraged.  Development of the site will result in opportunities for rehabilitation of sensitive ecological areas and therefore the functions that it serves.  The proposal places great emphasis on the rehabilitation of portions of the site.  The development will also promote the ecological connectivity of the site which will allow it to remain connected to the wider open space system. 8

 The canalisation of the river has negative implications for the environmental sustainability, heritage significance and public amenity.  The best way to celebrate the Liesbeek River is to ensure that it is rehabilitated.  While the site often floods, redevelopment thereof will have an insignificant impact in the vicinity of the property.  The developer will incur the cost of the construction of a portion of the Berkley Road extension which will be off-set against the development levy.  The construction of Berkley Road extension will have a significant benefit to the area.  The abutting erf 26423 will be redeveloped and compliment to the proposed River Club development.  The property is presently isolated given barriers that abut onto the property.  The proposal is to make the site commercially viable.  The proposal will make the site a destination place.  The development will result in the site being a gateway into the Two Rivers Urban Park (TRUP).  The proposal will be an asset to the area.  The development complies with the principles of the MPBL in that it will result in: o Increased densities; o Reduced travel distances and is close to public transport; o Rehabilitation of ecosystems; o Enhance the heritage value of the site; o Generate employment and access to economic opportunities; o Diversification of housing types; o Optimal use of the service infrastructure; o Becoming a destination place.  The proposal largely complies with various provincial and city policies.

Comment on City policy  Deviations are being sought from certain policies.  Permission is being sought to o obstruct the free flow of the 20-year flood line, o permit development within the 50 year flood plain, o permit stormwater flows for 20 year and 50 year intervals for a development of greater than 50 000m2 not be reduced as required.

Surface water hydrology  The proposal will not have an impact on flood levels.  The proposal will incorporate a system of swales to attenuate and treat the flow of stormwater.  Additionally, it must be noted that large storm event result in runoff from the property well in advance of peak flows of the Black River during those instances.  Despite the negligible impact on the development on flood levels, the deviation from the policy as mentioned is required. 9

 The Hydrology Study included understanding the impact of changes to the Liesbeek Canal – as far possible any changes to have minimal impact on wetlands.  Additionally, PRASA should not be permitted to close any overland flooding routes that accommodate overflow.  The bridge extension to Berkley Road should be designed to have limited to no impact on water levels.

Biodiversity  The proposed development is acceptable from an ecological perspective as it addresses key concerns.  Terrestrial ecosystems have been highly altered and natural ecosystems are degraded given the long history of manipulation including channelization, diversion, etc.  Findings of the Biodiversity impacts report indicate that the filling of the site will have a minimal impact on the Raapenberg wetland flood level.  The canalized Liesbeek River will be rehabilitated.  The rehabilitation thereof will create an unlined vegetated channel, and the river will function as a natural river to support the biodiversity and general aquatic ecosystem.  The rehabilitation of the canalized river will see the creation of vegetated swales and isconsidered suitable for the colonization thereof by the western leopard toad.  This an acceptable use of this space with little negative biodiversity and ecological impacts.

Visual implications  The visibility of the site is dependent on the point from which the site is viewed.  In some instances, obstructions impede views to the site.  Existing suburbs and denseness of development in those suburbs will also determine the likelihood of viewing the site from various perspectives.  Those likely to view the site/development will include residents, passers- by such as motorists/pedestrians and visitors to surrounding properties.  The distance to the property will also determine the visibleness of the site/development.  It is accepted that the site will be highly visible from various points given the magnitude of the development.  The proposal is consistent with development in the surrounding area and cityscape.  The proposal can be argued to be sensitive to the surrounding degraded environment given the rehabilitation that will occur as a consequence.  It is accepted that the degree of visual intrusion that will occur during the construction phase will be of medium significance – some mitigating measures may reduce this impact.  The operational phase of the site will result in an altered sense of place.  Views of Devils Peak from the M5 and surrounding vantage points will be impacted on given the scale of buildings proposed.  Views of the site will change given the proposed development. 10

 Various mitigating measures will be imposed to reduce the impact of visual intrusion.  Development that has occurred around the site created an island effect given the open space nature of the site.  The development will result in a dense development of the site and an opportunity to transform a smaller extent of the site to private open space for the general public.  The cumulative impact is considered to be of medium impact.  While mitigating measures cover various phases of the development, it is accepted that the development will have a significant visual impact upon completion.  The impact will essentially result from the fact the site is presently an open space within the cityscape.  The visual impacts will therefore be pronounced; the experience of which will be subjective.

Heritage  The site has a complex history.  Early inhabitants to the property used it for farming.  The arrival of European brought about conflict that resulted in the local people being excluded from the use of the land.  A series of land transfers saw part of the uses across the area change to include a reformatory, hospital, continued farming in parts and the eventual transfer to permit parts to be used for sporting purposes.  The property was used by the South African rail services as a recreational club which is now the River Club.  Marshlands existed at the confluence of the rivers and the Royal Observatory occupied space on higher land.  The Liesbeek River is a significant cultural symbolic and historical feature.  An informal crossing existed across the property going into the hinterland – no trace of this road exists any longer.  The site is a green open (recreational) space which is experienced by the Black-Liesbeek River corridor.  The South African Astronomical Observatory (SAAO) has some historic significance in the area.  Visibility to the SAAO is obstructed by a row of trees and other development in the surrounds that obstruct views.  The Two Rivers Urban Park (TRUP) comprises a number of historic elements.  TRUP covers a large extent with ranging uses and areas of significance.  The property is regarded by some to be environmentally, ecologically, historical and topographical significance.  Two developments will transform perceptions of the floodplain i.e. the development of Erf 26423 and the Berkley Road extension each abut onto the site.  A number of design related interventions must occur: o The Liesbeek Canal should be rehabilitated so that it can be experienced as part of the river floodplain. o Development should respond to the low hill along the edge of the site with the SAAO. 11

o The pre-1952 river course is neither desirable nor is it possible, however its presence should be reflected in any future development. o A substantial setback must be provided from the river to enable one to imagine a river crossing along the west bank of the Black River should be incorporated into the development. A feature must be incorporated which supports the celebration of the pre- colonial status thereof. o Certain guidelines have been offered in respect of the design indicators to inform the form of development on the site. o Views from the SAAO to Signal Hill are almost non-existent and therefore not considered necessary to retain.  Archaeological monitoring will occur during the construction phase of development.  The buildings on-site have no heritage significance.  The loss of these structures will have little to no impact on heritage.  The sense of place experienced in the area will be radically transformed by the proposal and other development in the surrounds.  The northern end of the River Club site is the likely location of a pre- colonial river crossing and where future commemorative installations can occur.  The site has limited aspects of heritage significance.  The Liesbeek River corridor is one heritage feature that will be enhanced.  A riverine pedestrian friendly buffer positioned along the old and new river courses will enhance the space and views to other features on and around the site.  At the confluence of the Black and Liesbeek Rivers a green/open space zone could be created as this is also the point where a commemorative area can be created.

Socio-economic  The development will offer a number of key socio-economic benefits which include increase in investment, employment, state revenue and housing.  Property values will also be enhanced as a consequence of the development.  Assuming that the development will increase attractiveness to investors, the development may result in gentrification.  The development may act as catalyst for the development of the Two Rivers Urban Park.  Development in the surrounding area, comprising mixed use, dense development will occur in the vicinity regardless of the proposal.  The nature of the impact of the proposal will largely be dependent on the quality of life surrounding residents experience/have.  The socio-economic benefits of the development to the local and wider area may outweigh the impacts.

Urban Design Indicators/Recommendation  A number of factors will inform the urban design indicators for the site.  These include scale, height, gateways, connectivity spatial systems, heritage significance and will inform the built form across the site. 12

 Spatial recommendations seek to retain the site’s sense of place, enhance views across the site each of which will contribute toward a coherent urban form.  Emphasis will be placed on public spaces.  Pedestrian access to rivers and through the site will be maintained.  Commercial and other activities will enhance safety across the site.  Urban design, heritage and environmental perspectives encourage the removal of the concrete canal structures along the Liesbeek River.  The reintroduction of planted banks and widening the river course will create a natural river like environment.  The built form will therefore be important in preserving the historic value of the reinstated river.  The ecology of the area will be greatly improved.  Special places will be created along the river course for pedestrians/the public.  The heritage and cultural significance of the Liesbeek River must be respected.

Development proposal  Approximately 150 000m2 of mixed use development is proposed.  The proposal will comprise two precincts of 65 000m2 and 85 000m2 in extent.  Building heights in each precinct is proposed to vary from 16m – 45m above base level in one precinct and 27m – 46m in height above base level in the other.  In each instance basement parking will be provided in superbasements.  The existing site access will be retained.  Additional accesses will be created via Liesbeek Parkway and Berkley Road.  The riverine habitat will be reinstated and will include a buffer of approximately 25 – 40m in extent.  The riverine buffer will extend along the Liesbeek River to merge with the confluence of the Black River.  The old Liesbeek River channel on the western boundary of the site will be filled to create a vegetated stormwater swale.  The development of the site will be phased.  Precinct 1 and 2 will comprise consecutive phases of development.  Phase 1 will also comprise the construction of a portion of the Berkley Road extension.  Phase 3 will comprise the remainder of the Berkley Road extension.  The proposal includes the rezoning of the property to Subdivisional Area.  The subdivisional area will comprise General Business zoned portions comprising GB3 and GB7 sub-zones.  Portions of the site will also be zoned for OS3 purposes.  An open space system will be retained across the site.  High quality landscaping will also be introduced.  NMT paths will meander through the site.  Various uses will be accommodated within the development comprising Shops, Offices, Restaurants, Hotels, conference facilities, Places of Instruction and residential uses.  Various road upgrades will occur in the vicinity of the property. 13

 The built form on the site will likely mimic the built form found in the area.  Buildings will have varied form but harmonious.  Building forms and facades will be varied, articulated and of differing scales.  The buildings will be centred around a pedestrian access.  Buildings of varying heights and landscaped spaces will emphasize gateways and significant locations.  Parking for each of the precincts will be provided on two levels.  Limited excavation will occur.  Parking is designed to enable conversion thereof at a later stage.  Rehabilitated river edges and connectivity will be used to enhance public access and amenity in relation to the water features, the canal and Raapenberg Wetlands.  Irrigation and soft landscaping will be installed on common areas.  Alternate sources of irrigation will be incorporated in the development.  An EIA has that is accompanied by various specialist studies was undertaken and its outcome will inform the development on the property.

Engineering services  The site is situated within an urban area.  Any connections to the bulk service infrastructure will be to the developers account.

 Water o No upgrades to the service infrastructure is required. o It appears that sufficient capacity exists. o Detailed modelling will confirm at the time when flow demand to buildings is clarified. o Various measures will be introduced and explored to ensure water re-use across the site. o Abstraction and grey-water recycling is being considered. o Water demand and management will be required to ensure efficient use of this resource. o Alternate sources of water will be used for irrigation.

 Sewage o The property catchment is connected to the Raapenberg Pump Station that in turn is connected to the Athlone Waste Water Treatment Works. o It is anticipated that a new direct connection will be required as the existing connection does not have sufficient capacity. o Link connections will have to be installed to supply the site.

 Electricity o Various interventions will be employed to ensure a sustainable supply of energy to the site. o A bulk mains supply will be provided on-site. o Solar panels will also be used. o Sufficient capacity exists in the City’s demand supply to accommodate the development. 14

 Stormwater o A detailed stormwater management plan will be required. o The site has no known connection to the municipal stormwater network; rather water drains overland into the canal and rivers. o Swales will treat water before entering the river and provide additional storage capacity as well as improve the quality of waterways downstream. o Based on City policy relating to Floodplain and River Management no development can occur below the 1:20 floodplain which affects much of the site. o Finished floor levels will be situated above 1:100 year flood levels. o Stormwater flows will be managed with an egress on eastern portion of the site to reduce impact of flooding. o In addition to swales, the stormwater system will also be supported by the provision of a piped drainage network. o Bioretension swales provide a process of filtration and slowing down of stormwater runoff. o Ponds will be accommodated across the site to reduce the eroding effects of stormwater. o As far as possible, the velocity of stormwater flow will be reduced to avoid the corrosive effect of stormwater run-off. o Sustainable urban drainage systems will be used to reduce the impact of new and existing developments in respect of existing surface water drainage discharge.

 Transport o Primary access and egress point into and from the property will be via Berkley Road extension and Liesbeek Parkway. o The existing access is taken across an abutting property, Erf 26483. o The right of way across that property will be retained. o Various modelling scenarios were employed to understand likely traffic patterns. o In the modelling scenarios other prospective developments in the vicinity were also taken into consideration. o The conclusion was that the road network has sufficient carrying capacity to accommodate the proposed development. o Anticipated increased use of public transport is believed will result in very similar traffic patterns to that experienced presently. o Various upgrades to existing intersections and link roads will need to be constructed to accommodate the development. o Public transport services available in the immediate area will need to be enhanced and possibly new services introduced. o NMT facilities leading to public transport should be provided. o Golden Arrow Bus Service (GABS) routes existing along Liesbeek Parkway albeit that no stops are accommodated. o Station Road accommodates GABS and stops. o No MyCiti stops exist along Liesbeek Parkway. o The closest MyCiti busstop is more than 1km, too far to consider acceptable for the development. 15

o Improving access of each GABS and MyCiti routes to the site must be explored and these may be developed in accordance with the needs of each precinct as it is developed. o NMT routes to and on the site will need to be improved given the increased pedestrian traffic that will traverse the site. o Approximately 4800 parking bays will be provided on the property. o The minimum parking requirements were applied. o There will be a shortfall of 1048 parking bays, given the number of parking bays that will be provided. o Travel Demand Measures should be employed to minimize reliance on private motor vehicles. o Use of private motor vehicles should also be monitored.

Motivation for the development of the site  The site is strategically located given its proximity to the CBD, Paarden Eiland and its accessibility to the metro south-east.  The location of the site relative to the Main Road corridor, Voortrekker Road corridor and Klipfontein Road corridor means it can be a generator of people economic activity.  The property is therefore located at a point of high accessibility.  Development on the property will therefore not be dependent on the support of the local community only.  The convergence of various access points at this location makes the site ideal for the development proposal.  International precedent exists to show that corridors such as this could integrate cities.  The site is also well located in relation to the public transport network.

 The degraded nature of the property presents the opportunity for rehabilitation of the ecological functioning thereof.  Despite the proposed development, the site will remain connected to the wider open space system.  From a biodiversity and aquatic ecosystems perspective, the proposal will have a positive impact.

 Flooding of the site has occurred frequently as a result of inadequate drainage system which have not been maintained or has failed structurally.  Impacts that result from filling is negligible.

 Berkley Road extension will remove spatial barriers that impede physical linkages between western and eastern portions of TRUP.  The new road will enhance access to the site.  The development of the site could be catalytic and could become a destination place as well as a gateway into TRUP.  The site is strategically located in relation to employment opportunities and social amenities amongst others.  It is intended that at least 20% (about 30 000m2) of the floor space will be used for housing, while 20% (about 6000m2) of that will be inclusionary housing.  The development of the site therefore may not be an exclusive enclave. 16

The proposal  The proposal will see the property rezoned to subdivisional area comprising General Business and Open Space 3. Additionally, the ground level will be raised by 5.7m and 5.9m in precincts 1 and 2 respectively.  The proposal also includes deviations from City policy.  The proposal is the first range of applications that are submitted.  The development will be phased.  SDPs will include details relating to land uses, floor space, parking, floor space, etc.

Motivation for approval  The proposal is policy compliant.  It satisfies the requirements of the MPBL.  The proposal will have no impact on the public at large and will minimally impact on the SAAO.  The proposal will deliver significant socio-economic benefits.  The mixed use development will promote the vision of live, work, play.  Given the location, mixed use development in this location is considered appropriate.  The proposal will not have adverse impacts on engineering services.  The development will see increased surveillance introduced on the site.  Contrary to general perception, flooding on the site will not lead to added flooding in the immediate surrounds.  The changes to the canalized river will enhance awareness of the experience of the river.  The findings of the EIA revealed that the development is acceptable  Traffic impacts will be minimized as a consequence of the road upgrades that will occur.  Conditions will be imposed that will help to manage the process of development of the site.  The requirements of SPLUMA and LUPA are complied with.  For reasons stated the proposal has considerable merit and should be approved.

4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Applicable Dates / Comments Notice in the media (s81)  14-09-2018 Notice to a person (s82)  10-09-2018

Notice to Community organization (s83)  10-09-2018 Notice to Ward Councillor (s83)  10-09-2018 Notice of no objection (s84) Notice to Provincial Government (s86)

Advertising Notice to an Organ of State (s87) Public meeting On-site display  13-09-2018 166 objections, 18 late objections (17 late Objections  me objections (submitted 16 – 18 Outco October 2018 have been 17

condoned. 1 late objection submitted 5 January 2019 has not been condoned.) Objection petition Support / No objection  1 letter of no objection Comments Ward Councillor response

Summary of objections / comments/ support received 4.1 Objections / comments that were received and the applicant’s response are contained in Annexures E1/2 and G1/2 respectively. The main issues that were raised as part of the objections to the development include:

 Process/Legal  Ownership details  Site context  Non-compliance with policy  Heritage Impacts  Traffic and Transport related impacts (including parking, access and NMT)  Visual impact  Ecological impacts/impacts on biodiversity  Impact on sense of place  Impact on service infrastructure  Impact on flooding  Construction impacts  Air pollution  Noise pollution  Waste pollution  Property values  Loss of open space/public space  Food security  Socio-economic impacts  Impact on tourism  Issues of public good  Provision of social/affordable/inclusionary housing  Other developments in the area

Summary of applicant’s response to public participation 4.2 Objections / comments received and the applicant’s response thereto in respect of the application are summarised in the table below.

ISSUE / CONCERN APPLICANT’S RESPONSE DEPARTMENT COMMENT A. PROCESS / LEGAL B. 1. The proposal for development is devoid of It is not Council’s responsibility to distribute The letter of notification, sent by registered post, sufficient detail for an informed decision copies of the application documents to limits the volume of information that can be to be made (the notification does not I&APs. Rather, the notice distributed to I&APs dispatched. The letter of notification affords contain any of the key documents clearly stated that the full application was parties the opportunity to view the application referred to in the motivation). available for inspection at the District documentation in full, if so desired. This method Manager’s office. of notification is standard practice and applies to all applications advertised. The letter of The application documents submitted to notification directed interested where they could Council are comprehensive and provide view the application in full. sufficient information for an informed decision to be made. 2. The notification appears to be a The case officer requested that the applicant The application, when advertised, usually motivation for the development rather prepare a brief summary document outlining contains information submitted by the applicant than a report for decision making. the application submitted / development for perusal during the advertising period. That proposal / motivating factors, which was duly information includes the applicant’s motivation. supplied. It is our understanding that this In this instance a significantly abbreviated version document was distributed to I&APs as part of of the motivation was furnished given the the notification so as to provide further voluminous nature of the motivation supplied by information on the development proposal. It the applicant. The information contained in the appears as though some I&APs have notice was therefore intended to provide misconstrued the document distributed as interested and affected parties to comment on part of the notification as being prepared by the proposal and make a decision to go and the CoCT case officer. That document was view the full application. not prepared by the case officer, nor does it represent the report for decision making (as claimed).. 3. It is not clear on what basis the City of The CoCT is not proposing the deviation from The deviation from the Table Bay District Plan is Cape Town is proposing a deviation from the Table Bay District Plan. Rather, the one of the submissions made in this application. the Table Bay District Plan. applicant has applied for (and motivated) the deviation as part of a composite planning 19

application to be assessed by the CoCT. Refer also to item D.3.1.

4. Application for rezoning of the River Club There is no statutory impediment to submitting No impediment exists in the Municipal Planning site is considered premature for inter alia a land use application prior to the NHRA and By-Law that requires the submission of a land use the following reasons: NEMA processes commencing. Delays in the application after the submission and or NEMA process beyond the control of the conclusion of a Heritage and/or Environmental  Heritage Western Cape are conducting applicant have resulted in the land use Impact Assessment. While it is acknowledged a separate, heritage-based, assessment application being submitted first. Each that the outcome of either impact assessment of the site. Until that assessment is process runs parallel and each have different may impact on the land use submission nothing in complete, the CoCT will be unable to criteria to consider. The one is not altogether law prohibits the Municipal Planning Tribunal from conduct a proper assessment of the dependent on the other, but all decision and making a decision on the application even if development proposal. conditions have to be complied with before Heritage Western Cape and the Department of  HWC has placed the site under a development can proceed. The CoCT Environment and Development Planning have provisional protection in terms of internal heritage and environmental not made a decision on the two mentioned section 29 of the NHRA. Any decision on departments make their own assessment and impact assessments. the land use application for the River impose their own conditions, in addition to Club should be contingent on the those of other authorities, including HWC and In this instance the applicant elected to pend outcome of this process. DEA&DP. the land use application until there is an outcome  A Basic Assessment is required in terms on the application for environmental of NEMA. Any decision on the land use authorisation of which a decision was issued on application for the River Club should be 20 August 2020. contingent on the outcome of this process. 5. Making a decision on the land use It is up to the CoCT whether or not to make a See point 4 above. planning application prior to the decision on the application prior to the submission and/or assessment of other assessment of the other required statutory required statutory procedures (e.g. in procedures, taking into account the terms of NEMA, NHRA) will mean that the requirement of PAJA and due process and decision will be taken prematurely and will public participation. Each government therefore be open to review under the sphere must make its own decision in its Promotion of Administrative Justice Act sphere of authority. A decision of one (PAJA). authority and the conditions it imposes may differ from another authority’s decision (the owner / developer is required to comply will all). 20

6. The land use planning application process Public participation in relation to land use Public participation must comply with the (in terms of the MPBL) limits citizenry planning applications (including the one provisions of the Municipal Planning By-Law. In participation and therefore pursuing a submitted in connection with the River Club) this instances the minimum requirements of decision on the application will be in is conducted by the CoCT in accordance advertising i.e. advertising in the newspaper, by contravention of section 4 of the with the provisions of the MPBL. The public the serving of notices and the display of on-site Municipal Services Act. participation process outlined in the MPBL notices, have all been fulfilled. meets the requirements of public participation, as outlined in the Municipal Any additional advertising, such as notices Systems Act (the objector incorrectly placed in community newspapers, are additional references the Municipal Services Act), and in measures that are not a legal requirement. compliance with PAJA and the Constitution. 7. Developments of this scale should have Refer to item A.6 above. See comment in 6 above. far greater levels of public engagement (e.g. an exhibition of the of the vision; interactive engagements to work through the issues of NIMBY’s etc.). 8. From the proposal it would appear that all The comments emanating from the public Comments on the application made during the previous objections in the parallel public processes associated with the NHRA and advertising of the EIA and HIA were directed to processes have fallen on deaf ears. The NEMA statutory procedures were noted and those authorities for input in those processes. developers have ignored all of the considered. The project team believes that constructive comments regarding the proposal presented presents the most appropriate development in the area that suitable development solution for the site would benefit the wider community. having gone through adaptations and revisions to its plans over the course the last 4 years, taking into consideration a number of the comments made.. 9. Why is this proposal not being considered Despite the fact that the River Club is located The LSDF being generated as a consequence of in relation to the guidelines emanating within TRUP, the River Club planning the review of the TRUP Contextual Framework, is a from the TRUP LSDF process? This application has been submitted prior to the separate process to this application. While the development should not be considered in TRUP LSDF being finalised. There are two property forms part of the TRUP area, the LSDF is isolation from that process. primary reasons for this: still in draft and therefore has no status. Additionally, the Section 99(5) of the MPBL: No  the time frame for the TRUP LSDF is uncertain; and decision required to be made in terms of this  as a private development initiative on By-Law may be delayed pending the privately owned land, the proponent is creation of a policy to guide decision- permitted to making on the matter”. 21

submit a planning application in terms of the legislation.

The comment submitted by CoCT TDA: Urban Planning & Mechanisms confirms this stance:

“As the River Club site is privately owned, the developer was not obliged to wait for the completion of the TRUP LSDF (March 2019).” 10. Why is the timing of the rezoning The HWC process in relation to section 29 of The two applications are subject to different commenting period only until 15 October the NHRA and the MBPL application process legislation firstly and secondly, as stated in 4 2018 when the outcome of the NHRA are separate processes with separate public above, a decision can be made on the LUMS appeal tribunal regarding HWC’s decision participation / commenting periods. These application even if there is no outcome on the to provisionally protect the River Club as a statutory processes are not required, by law, EIA and HIA. Grade II heritage site will only be known to be run simultaneously, nor do they need to on 18 October 2018? More time is required be complementary in any way. to comment on this development proposal. The outcome of the NHRA appeal tribunal to HWC’s decision to provisionally protect the site was not concluded at the hearing on 18 October 2018, but was finally heard on 27 November 2018 and a site visit by the tribunal took place on 5 December 2018, where after the tribunal will consider the matter and make it finding known to the MEC, who will then make a final decision as to whether the appeal is to succeed or not. This appeal process in no way impacts on the rezoning process. IA&P were provided time to independently participate in both processes. 11. The development proposal requires The application identifies all applicable The Department concurs with the applicant’s subverting a number of developmental, legislation and/or policy (at least in relation to response water, floodplain and river basin the MPBL), and where applicable motivation agreements, but it will also most likely has been made for deviations to occur. violate a number of other national and international principles, including the It is not clear what “national and following sections of the Constitution: international” principles have been “violated” 22

as none are specified. However, with specific  Section 152; reference to the sections of the Constitution:  Section 24;

 Section 25.  Section 152:

Section 152 contemplates the promotion The proposal also appears to be in of social and economic development and conflict with section 4 of the National encourages the involvement of local Water Act. communities in matters. The development proposal and the public participation process is compliant with the provisions of the MPBL.

 Section 24: Section 24 contemplates impacts relating to the environment. There is a full NEMA process underway.

 Section 25: Section 25 deals with property rights. The site is private property and the applicants are lawfully dealing with their property in accordance with legislation and the Constitution.

With regards the National Water Act, application has been made in compliance with Section 40 of the National Water Act for the appropriate water use licences (based on the water uses identified by the environmental consultants on the project team). 12. To allow the natural floodplain to remain The application addresses the requirements The Department concurs with the applicant’s in extant as a protected heritage area is of the applicable legislation contemplated response. the constitutional right of the citizens of by the Constitution (specifically Section 24). this country. The Constitution is not specific with regards to “natural floodplains remaining in extant as a 23

protected heritage area”. Rather, the Constitution balances the right of development and environmental protection. Section 24 speaks of environmental protection through reasonable legislative and other measures that “secure ecological and sustainable development and use of natural resources, while promoting justifiable economic and social development”. The NEMA process to be undertaken will test adherence to the balancing of these rights. 13. When will the EIA currently being The Draft Basic Assessment Report (DBAR) That question is not material for the purpose of undertaken be made available for further cannot be submitted to DEA&DP until HWC considering the land use application. comment? have provided comment on the Draft HIA (whilst HWC has stated that it is competent to comment, notwithstanding the pending Section 29 NHRA appeal, it has not responded to DEA&DP’s request that it is willing to do so until such time as the section 29 NHRA appeal process has been concluded).

Assuming that HWC submit final comment on the HIA in the first quarter 2019, the environmental consultants on the project team (SRK) can submit the application for Environmental Authorisation immediately thereafter, which means the public commenting period on the NEMA process may occur in April / May 2019 (provisional). 14. The proposal is inconsistent with the This statement is refuted. Refer to sub-section The application is assessed in terms of the SPLUMA principles of SPLUMA, particularly the 12.3.2 of the motivation report. principles in point 6, of this report below. principle of ‘spatial justice’. 15. The display notice erected to inform the The display notice read as follows: The notice referred to the official allotment i.e. public refers to an Observatory erf and Cape Town, while also referencing Observatory not a Cape Town erf. This error requires re- being the property suburb. The on-site notice 24

advertising of the application in fact deals Erf 151832 Observatory, 6 Liesbeek Parkway correctly identifies the property by referring to the with the subject property, as the public (bounded by Liesbeek Parkway and Erf number and physical address as listed in the may be deemed to be misinformed. If the Observatory Roads), Cape Town advert. application is not re-advertised the application could be taken on legal This is considered an adequate description of review. the subject property and in no way misleads the public. Moreover, the display notice was erected in 3 positions in relation to the subject property.

The description, along with the positioning of the display notices, left no doubt as to which property was being referred to. C. OWNERSHIP 1. The Liesbeek Leisure Property Trust is in This statement is refuted. The transaction to The Department concurs with the applicant’s receipt of public land previously owned purchase the land from Transnet is legal and response. by the Transnet Pension Fund, and the remains valid. 2014 sale of the land should be questioned by government. This is a highly sensitive area environmentally, culturally and historically and should not be privately held. The morality of the proposed development is therefore questionable. D. SITE CONTEXT 25

1. The River Club site falls within an identified Noted and agreed. An integrated planning Various studies have been undertaken and floodplain and any proposed and design approach has been followed for where necessary, their findings have been made development should be handled carefully this project. An experienced, multi-disciplinary conditions of approval for the environmental (and limited where necessary). project team consisting of specialists in a authorisation. Furthermore, relevant Council variety of fields (including stormwater department were consulted and recommended hydrology and freshwater ecology) has been conditions to mitigate the impact of the engaged in on-going work on the development. development proposal over a significant period of time. Regular meetings were convened between members of the project team during the design process so that information from their respective specialist studies could inform the design of the development proposal. The result was an iterative design process whereby the development proposal was reviewed and refined before arriving at the final proposal presented in the planning application. 2. Any development on the site should be: It is believed that the application has taken The proposal included the submission of a HIA these aspects into account and it is and EIA that had to address the requirements of a. respectful of the significant cultural contended that the proposal submitted the NHRA and NEMA. The environmental history of the site; represents a sustainable balance between authorisation that was issued has adequate b. protect the natural environment environmental needs, heritage needs and conditions to deal with these issues. associated with the site; and optimal urban development. c. preserve the site’s important sense of place.. 3. The site forms part of the Two Rivers Urban The River Club site is but a fraction of TRUP. Park (TRUP), which has great potential to TRUP is approximately 300 ha in extent, facilitate “social inclusivity and cultural whereas the River Club site measures 14.8 ha, recognition”. which translates to 0,05 % of the total extent of TRUP. Thus, it is important to maintain a sense of perspective.

The proposed development cannot solve all of TRUP’s issues, nor will it be compliant with all of the objectives of the TRUP initiative. However, it is believed that the development 26

will add significant value to TRUP in the following ways:

 the land will be publicly accessible, including recreation spaces associated with the rehabilitated riverine edges and ‘eco-corridor’, which in turn will connect into the wider TRUP;  ‘inclusionary housing’ is proposed, which will serve to integrate the development to the wider community (refer to responses contained under item G below);  the Draft HIA recommends the setting aside of a portion of land as a place of remembrance / celebration, where local heritage on this land can be recognised and memorialised;  the site is the western gateway into TRUP and the development will assist to establish TRUP as a place of metropolitan significance;  the development will assist to cross- subsidise the Berkley Road extension, which is regarded by the CoCT as a key road network upgrade, and which will also assist to integrate the eastern and western precincts within TRUP (i.e. reduce the barrier effect of the Black River);  the development will assist with the implementation / upgrade of civil engineering services, which will increase services capacity (and in tun assist with further development within TRUP); and  the development will result in substantial income for the CoCT in the form of rates and taxes, which can be used to 27

implement other development projects within TRUP. 4. The site is part of an important green At a conceptual level the site forms part of an While the site will be developed, part of the corridor formed by the Liesbeek River that extensive open space system that stretches development includes open space. The stretches from Kirstenbosch Gardens to from Table Bay to False Bay (north to south) continuity of the open space system therefore will the confluence of the Black River. and Devil’s Peak to Stellenbosch Farms (west not be lost. Development of this land will destroy the to east). In reality, however, the site forms part contiguous green character of the area. of an open space system that is much more localised, extending from the River Club, at the most northern point, southwards, where it terminates at the King David Mowbray Golf Course (this localised open space system is essentially the TRUP).

This localised green open space system contains campus style development (e.g. Observatory and Valkenberg). These institutions illustrate that development can be accommodated within TRUP, provided that pockets of green space and ecological connectivity are retained (as per the development proposal). 5. The fact that a site is located in close The location of the site in relation to public Criteria are presented in various City policies that proximity to major transport routes and transport facilities is not the only motivating promote development of land. However, this facilities is not a reason in itself for the land factor contained in the motivation report must be weighed against a number of factors to be rezoned and developed. If the (refer to section 9 of the motivation report). that all comprise criteria that determine whether same reasoning is applied, the However, given the CoCT’s promotion of TOD or not a proposal such as this can be supported. Rondebosch Common may as well be (e.g. MSDF; Transit Oriented Development The location of the site in relation to public developed. Strategic Framework) it is a major factor in transport is not the only criterion that will relation to this site. determine the appropriateness of the development, but it is still an important The CoCT’s Urban Mechanisms & Planning consideration. Branch has confirmed this by commenting:

“The River Club proposal is an excellent means of facilitating and contextualising the 28

principles and strategies identified in the CoCT Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Strategic Framework (2016).”

The example of Rondebosch Common is not contextually appropriate for the following reasons:

 it is publicly owned land (the River Club is privately owned);  it is identified as “Protected and Conserved Areas (Core 1)” on the CoCT’s Biodiveristy Network plan, as contained in the MSDF (refer to Annexure A) (the River Club site is not identified as having any biodiversity / conservation features); and  it is not located in close proximity to public transport facilities. 6. The River Club site is a significant open It is recognised that the site is currently part of The site is part of an open space system and space and “green lung” and natural a larger open space system. This open space portions of the site will be retained as open floodplain within a densifying city, and it system plays an important role as: space. should be preserved for enjoyment as  a structuring element of the city (whereby public open space for future generations it forms part of the “green open space” as the suburbs around it densify. system); and  a floodplain of the Black River and old Liesbeek River.

Notwithstanding the site’s current role in the open space system, it does not necessarily mean to say that development of the site should be precluded, with motivating factors for development provided in section 9 of the motivation report. 7. The scale of the proposed commercial The scale of the development represents an The scale of the proposed development is development is out of proportion with the urban vision for the site that is consistent with contextually appropriate and the surrounding residential character and public land use the strategies, guidelines and principles 29

of the surrounding area (including contained in the MSDF and TOD Strategic developments can hardly be described as Valkenberg Hospital, SAAO, Hartleyvale Framework (2016). “residential”. etc.). While the relationship of SAAO, Valkenberg Hospital and Hartleyvale with the surrounding landscape may be slightly altered following the introduction of the development, the surrounding public institutions will remain intact and will no doubt adapt to the change in character of the landscape (it is even believed that these institutions will become more celebrated as a result of the development). 8. This site (in particular its relationship with Refer to item C.3 above. the broader TRUP area) offers an opportunity for a use more sensitive to that proposed. 30

9. There is a presumption that the Berkley It is acknowledged that the implementation The Department concurs with the applicant’s Road extension and the proposed SKA of these interventions is based on response. developments will be built. Both of these assumptions. The assumption of the Berkley proposals have yet to be evaluated and Road extension being implemented is made cannot be used as arguments for further with a relative degree of confidence development on this site. because this road link has long been on the CoCT’s road network plan (refer to sub- section 6.5.2 of the motivation report). Officials from CoCT’s road network planning department (e.g. Messrs Tony Vieira and Mark Pinder) have confirmed in correspondence that this road link is indeed a key project in the CoCT’s road network plan and will be implemented should the necessary funding become available.

The situation with the SKA development on Rem. Erf 26423 Cape Town has, however, changed slightly since the submission of the application. The application, as well as the Draft HIA, included the SKA development as an assumption on the basis of the public tender for the proposed development of an 3-4 storey building. However, this tender was not pursued and as a result the final HIA (that is to be submitted) has been revised to take this into account. Nevertheless, as development was previously contemplated for the SAAO site is it not unreasonable to argue that it is still a possibility in the future 10. The lower ground in this part of the sub- The applicant acknowledges that this site falls The site is part of an open space system and metro area remains undeveloped. These within the floodplain on land that has, in portions of the site will be retained as open space undeveloped ‘river valleys’ are essential relatively recent history, been used as open and the issues related to storm water for maintaining a sense of openness, for space for private recreation purposes. management will be addressed through celebrating the history of the sites within Nevertheless, the application puts forward a conditions that will be imposed. them, as a recreational open space, and different vision for the site and the onus is now 31

as part of the broader flooding and on the CoCT (and other decision-making stormwater resilience of this part of the authorities) to decide, in the context of city. Development of any scale would current planning policy and with the severely harm this character. assistance of independent specialist studies, Development of the scale proposed as to what future development, if any, can would destroy it. occur on the site. E. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH POLICY D.1 General 1. The development proposal is entirely This is incorrect. Comprehensive details of The Department concurs with the applicant’s devoid of details pertaining to City of how the development proposal complies with response. Cape Town policy. CoCT / WCPG policies is provided in section 3 of the motivation report.

2. It is concerning that this development Land use / development related policies are The “PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT” section of this requires so many deviations from CoCT created for the purpose of providing generic report explains the reasons for the policies. Why would these deviations be guidance on how and where development recommendation to support the proposals considered by the CoCT knowing that can and cannot occur. However, deviations including the reasons for deviating from the these policies were produced after much from policy can be obtained on a site-by-site relevant policies. research and careful planning by highly basis should sufficient motivation be provided qualified professionals? To overrule these for such deviations. Indeed, certain policies would be retrogressive. These deviations from policy are required in order to policies were in place when the achieve development of the River Club site developer purchased the land and they as proposed, and in each instance sufficient must work within the existing regulations if motivation for the deviations has been they wish to develop their property. provided. D.2 Municipal Spatial Development Framework 1. The application generally goes against This is incorrect. The development proposal is This is a sweeping statement and no details are the principles of the MSDF. generally compliant with the principles, provided regarding the MSDF principles in strategies and policies contained in the MSDF, question. as demonstrated in sub-section 3.4 of the motivation report. 32

2. The MSDF map entitled “precautionary It is acknowledged that the site falls within the While it is acknowledged that the site falls within a areas reflecting natural and man-made 1:100-year flood line shown in the floodplain, further lower level policies elucidate potential development constraints” “precautionary areas reflecting natural and this issue. Having said this, it must be noted that reinforces that the site is within the flood man-made potential development development within a flood prone area is not line. Policy 21.1 states that “existing constraints” map contained in the MSDF. precluded entirely, provided that mitigating developments in these area may require Notwithstanding, the following should be measures are put in place. The Department’s mitigation measures and limits on further noted: view is that the proposed conditions of approval enhancement of development rights.” A are adequate to deal with this concern.  The site is not identified as a “flood prone substantial amount of land is being raised area” on the “precautionary areas to flood-proof the proposed reflecting natural and man-made development, but the concern is that in potential development constraints” map terms of the justifiable precautionary contained in the MSDF (refer to approach, this may not be appropriate Annexure A of the applicant’s response); given the site’s valley bottom, floodplain  The surface water hydrology report characteristics. (Annexure H attached to the motivation report) demonstrates that raising the level of the site above the 1:100 floodplain will not have any detrimental effect on flood levels impacting on neighbouring properties; and  Application has been submitted to deviate from the CoCT Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy in order to permit development within the floodplain. 3. The MSDF gives guidance to appropriate The following maps contained in the MSDF do The MSDF identifies the property as being located development within the inner urban core, not preclude development on this site: within the urban inner core. Other guidance is including along transport corridors. Not in offered with respect to the location of the site and a flood plain or inside a heritage park.  the consolidated spatial plan concept; principles that should be taken into consideration  areas of high agricultural significance; when assessing the appropriateness of  biodiversity network; development within the urban inner core. This will  precautionary areas reflecting natural and be discussed further in the assessment of the man-made potential development application in point 6 below. constraints; 33

 heritage resources (the site is only earmarked as a “proposed heritage area”).

Refer to the various maps contained in Annexure A attached hereto. D.3 Table Bay District Plan 1. The proposal is contrary to the Table Bay The role of the site as an “open space” and Even though the site is shown in the District Plan District Plan. To deviate from the District “buffer area”, as identified in the Table Bay as part of the City’s open space system, the site is Plan is extremely irregular and should not District Plan, is a consequence of 3 also located in the area designated in the MSDF be taken lightly. What justifies this interrelated factors, viz.: as “urban inner core” where intensification of deviation? development is encouraged. The District Plan  Over the past 80 years or so, the site has precedes the MSDF and where there is been utilised as a place of recreation inconsistency between the District Plan and the (initially by the South African Railways & MSDF, the MSDF takes precedence. Harbours (SAR&H) as the Liesbeeck Park Recreation Club; and more recently as a golfing facility, “The River Club”);  It forms part of the floodplain of the Black River and old Liesbeeck River; and  It forms part of the TRUP, which is earmarked as park of metropolitan significance in Cape Town, displaying features of cultural, heritage and ecological quality.

Notwithstanding, the proposed development represents a paradigm shift in the way development of the site is considered. Whereas the Table Bay District Plan does not consider the site developable, the project team believes that the site is indeed developable, with the major motivating factors being:

 Raising the level of the site above the 1:100 floodplain will not have any detrimental 34

effect on flood levels impacting on neighbouring properties (as demonstrated in the surface water hydrology report, attached as Annexure H to the motivation report);  The CoCT’s desire to develop the Berkley Road extension, which will in turn provide enhanced access opportunities onto the site.  The desire for TRUP to become a dense, mixed use and mixed tenure environment.

2. If the local area Spatial Development Plan It is our understanding that the CoCT has Section 99(5) of the MPBL states that “No (e.g. the Table Bay District Plan) is out of embarked on a process of updating the decision required to be made in terms of this date or requires updating, the City of various District Plans, including the Table Bay By-Law may be delayed pending the Cape Town is at liberty to initiate a District Plan. This process is currently in the creation of a policy to guide decision- process to revise such plans (and in doing early stages. Further, the TRUP LSDF, run in making on the matter”. so involve a range of stakeholders as part tandem by the WCG and the CoCT, is of a public participation process). The currently being undertaken and will result in revision of such plans would be preferable new development initiatives and planning rather than allowing a deviation in order guidelines for the TRUP local area. to accommodate a single development. Notwithstanding, it should be noted that the owner of the River Club (or indeed any owner of privately-owned land) is not compelled to patiently wait for updated spatial planning policies to be promulgated prior to submitting the required statutory applications to realise development scheme proposals. Therefore, the correct procedure in this instance is to apply for a deviation from the Table Bay District Plan. 3. The motivation report argues that the The potential introduction of Berkley Road is The Department concurs with the applicant’s implementation of Berkley Road is reason just one of the motivating factors put forward response. for deviating from the open space for the proposed deviation; there are various designation in the District Plan. However, motivating factors that need to be the District Plan has always shown the considered (refer to sub-section 12.2.3(a), as Berkley Road extension, therefore it well as section 9, of the motivation report). cannot necessarily be deducted that its implementation will change the designation from open space. 36

4. The motivation report argues that the The proposed SKA development is just one of The Department concurs with the applicant’s implementation of the SKA development the motivating factors put forward for the response. is reason for deviating from the open proposed deviation; there are various space designation in the District Plan. motivating factors that need to be However, the SKA should be seen to be considered (refer to sub-section 12.2.3(a), as part of the governmental cluster of users well as section 9, of the motivation report). of this node. Further, the scale of the SKA development (8 000 m²) versus the River Club (150 000 m²) is not comparable.

5. This specific area is identified in the District Refer to item D.3.1 above. Even though the site is shown in the District Plan as Plan as “open space” and should be kept part of the City’s open space system, the site is also as such. This kind of policy is required to located in the area designated in the MSDF as ensure that exploitative developers do not “urban inner core” where intensification of place profits above the future benefits of development is encouraged. The District Plan the environment and community as a precedes the MSDF and where there is whole. inconsistency between the District Plan and the MSDF, the MSDF takes precedence.

6. The “open space”, “Core 2” and “buffer” Refer to item D.3.1 above. Refer to D.5 above status in the District Plan implies that development on this site should be avoided. The proposed development is therefore directly contravening the CoCT’s own spatial vision and approved development intent. 37

7. TRUP is a declared park and the “open Refer to item D.3.1 above. space” categorisation in the Table Bay District plan was set in place to preserve this park. Only minor deviations from this categorisation should be considered for the sake of preserving this park and making it more sustainable. Deviations that are destructive to the park cannot be supported. 8 The designations of “Core 2” and “Buffer The areas designated “Core 2” are The Department concurs with the applicant’s 1” were introduced as protection associated with the rivers. These areas will not response. measures for flood water management be developed (as per the proposed river and biodiversity. buffer setbacks), but will instead be rehabilitated.

The area designated “Buffer 1” falls adjacent to the proposed Berkley Road extension. It is submitted that this designation is inaccurate as this area shows no signs of any remnant natural vegetation. D.4 Tall Building Policy 38

1. The plans show a lack of understanding of An analysis of the development in relation to How the proposed development contextually the surrounding environment and do not the Tall Building Policy is provided in sub- relates to the built form in the immediate environs conform with the CoCT’s own guidelines section 3.12 of the motivation report. The is just but one consideration when determining that new buildings should be of a similar following aspects should be noted: the desirability of the proposed development. scale to the surrounding buildings that are The applicant has adequately motivated why the  The surrounding tall buildings (e.g. Black characteristic of the heritage of the area. development is desirable. River Parkway, PRASA warehouses and Premier Food buildings and silos) are identified as contextual informants for development at the River Club.

 Despite the current site character (e.g. open space), a number of factors point to this piece of land being more urban in character, including the following:

- terrestrial and natural ecosystems associated with the site are considered degraded; - development on the site would have an insignificant effect on flooding in the vicinity of the site; - residual heritage and visual impacts can be reduced to tolerable levels through effective implementation of detailed design and the stipulated mitigation measures; - development of the site as proposed will result in significant social, economic and ecological benefits; and - the COCT’s Urban Investment & Development: Urban Integration Department regards this site as the Western Gateway into the broader TRUP area.

 The impact on the “heritage” should not be overstated in this context. While the 39

area is historic, the heritage significance that derives from that history has no manifestation on site: there is no archaeology present, no pre-colonial shell middens and no evidence of the VOC barricades and defences, or of historic agricultural activities. The heritage value of the place (site) is the knowledge we have about it.

D.5 MPBL 1. The primary uses for the Open Space 3: The proposed development represents a Even though the site has an Open Space 3 Special Open Space zone are “open paradigm shift in the way development of the Zoning, the fact that the MPBL makes provision for space, private road and environmental site is considered. Whereas the current zoning land to be rezoned from one zone to another conservation use”. The potential consent does not convey any development rights, the means that the zoning of a particular piece of uses are, for example, “plant nursery, project team believes that the site is indeed land is never intended to limit in perpetuity the cemetery, urban agriculture, cultural and developable. Refer to item D.3.1 above, as development rights to what is indicated in the social ceremonies etc.”. The land is clearly well as section 9 of the motivation report. Development Management Scheme. The site is and specifically earmarked and intended also located in the area designated in the MSDF for relatively low-key and low-impact The development proposal includes a as “urban inner core” where intensification of activities and uses. These uses are also in significant area of land (± 5 ha) that will development is encouraged. line with the spatial vision for this land. remain zoned Open Space 3: Special Open Space (and therefore undevelopable). 2. The additional zoning rights will not be It is proposed that the edges of the site (e.g. The development proposal is contextually compatible with the adjacent adjacent to the rivers) will remain zoned appropriate and desirable and the proposed environmentally sensitive land. Open Space 3: Special Open Space and will conditions are adequate to mitigate any therefore be undevelopable. These areas of negative impact. the site will allow for ecological connectivity beyond the site boundaries. 40

3. The development will negatively impact The applicant believes that the development The “PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT” addresses the on the existing rights of the public and is proposal does meet the adjudication criteria application in relation to the Section 99 criteria. undesirable. It therefore does not meet set out in section 99 of the MPBL, as the adjudication criteria set out in section demonstrated in sub-section 12.2 of the 99 of the MPBL. motivation report. D.6 Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy 1. The applicant should be making public its The arguments pertaining to why the The applicant’s motivation is considered sufficient arguments as to why this policy (as well as deviations from the Management of Urban the Floodplain and River Corridor Stormwater Impacts Policy and Floodplain Management Policy) does not apply and River Corridor Management Policy are before making an application to rezone. contained in the motivation report, which was available for inspection at the District Manager’s office during the public participation period.

Further motivation for deviations from these policies is provided in the response to comments received from CoCT department’s / branches. It is trusted that this response document will be made available to the public when the application goes to the Municipal Planning Tribunal for decision. 2. The Management of Urban Stormwater The Management of Urban Stormwater The condition calling for the development and Impacts Policy states: Impacts policy is intended to minimise the approval of a storm water management plan will undesirable impacts of stormwater runoff adequately address this concern. “The deleterious impacts of urbanisation from developed areas by introducing Water on receiving waters, that is rivers, streams, Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) principles to wetlands, groundwater and coastal urban planning and stormwater waters, are a worldwide phenomenon. management. To this end the proposed Such impacts include: development will manage water quality and  Declining water quality; quantity. The development has requested a  Diminishing groundwater recharge and deviation from the policy’s requirement to quality; attenuate runoff from large RI storm events  Degradation of stream channels; such as the 1:100-year Recurrence Interval  Increased overbank flooding; event.  Floodplain expansion; 41

 Loss of ecosystem integrity and The surface water hydrology report (refer to function; Annexure H of the motivation report) finds  Loss of biodiversity.” that the impact of the development will be negligible on flooding, but notes that the City These impacts and losses mentioned will need to deviate from its “Floodplain and above will be the price paid for the sake River Corridor Management Policy” which is a of developer’s profit. policy that applies rules based on “typical” development scenarios (which, for a variety of hydraulic and hydrological reasons, this proposed development may be considered an exception). 3. The CoCT SUDS requirement is not Sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) Refer to D.6.2 above and the section of this report explained or shown in the application. and water sensitive urban design (WSUD) are dealing with “PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT”. mechanisms used to reduce the potential impact of new and existing developments with respect to surface water drainage discharges.

The entire development makes use of SUDS and WSUD principles. Some interventions that are earmarked for implementation include:

 Protecting and improving the water quality of water draining from the proposed development through the use of bioswales;  Attempting to restore the urban water balance by maximising the reuse of stormwater, recycled water and grey water;  Integrating stormwater treatment into the landscaping component so that it offers multiple beneficial uses such as water quality treatment and wildlife habitat (e.g. birds); and 42

 Reducing peak flows and runoff simultaneously providing for infiltration and groundwater recharge. 4. Cannot support the requested deviation Agreed. There is no intention to deviate from from the “24-hour extended detention of the policy in relation to the 1-year Recurrence the 1-year recurrence interval, 24 h storm Interval, 24 h storm event. event in a greenfield development greater than 50 000 m²”. This deviation is not satisfactorily motivated. It could potentially cause major flooding further downstream. 5. Cannot support the requested deviation Flooding is likely to occur – regardless of the from the “24-hour extended detention of proposed development – for any Recurrence the 10-year recurrence interval, 24 h storm Interval flood greater than the 1:2 event- event in a greenfield development years. Attenuating on site will have no greater than 50 000 m²”. This deviation is advantage in reducing flooding and no not satisfactorily motivated. It could impact on flooding downstream. It would be potentially cause major flooding further better to discharge the runoff sooner as it downstream. rather than attenuating on site (the latter 6. Cannot support the requested deviation could increase flooding downstream, from the “24-hour extended detention of although this impact would also be the 50-year recurrence interval, 24 h storm negligible). event in a greenfield development greater than 50 000 m²”. This deviation is not satisfactorily motivated. It could potentially cause major flooding further downstream. D.7 Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy 1. To rezone this land requires too many The hydrology and hydraulics for the current Refer to D.6.2 above and the section of this report deviations from accepted standards for situation with or without a proposed River dealing with “PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT”. building in a floodplain. This indicates Club development has been studied in detail enormous risk to surrounding properties by the independent surface water hydrology and the safety of citizens. specialist (refer to Annexure H of the motivation report).

The CoCT Stormwater Management & Catchment Planning department has accepted that, given the current situation, the proposed development will not significantly increase local flood risk, and as such an application to deviate from the CoCT Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy cannot be opposed by the CoCT Stormwater Management & Catchment Planning. 2. How can a deviation from the Floodplain The River Club site is considered an Refer to D.6.2 above and the section of this report and River Corridor Management Policy be appropriate location for development for the dealing with “PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT”. justified if only based on the claimed need following reasons: for development in what is clearly an  It is a highly accessible site located within inappropriate location? close proximity to agglomerated places of work such as the CBD and Paarden Eiland, and also has relatively good accessibility to the metropolitan south-east.

 The location of the River Club at the knuckle of the Main Road corridor, the Voortrekker Road corridor and the Klipfontein Road corridor means that it can be a generator of people and economic activity that supports and reinforces these corridors (in particular the Voortrekker Road corridor).

 The site is well located in relation to public transport services, and is therefore an excellent means of facilitating and contextualising the principles and strategies identified in the CoCT Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Strategic Framework (2016).

 It is located at the western gateway into the TRUP. A ‘gateway’ in planning / urban design terms is an important entry point into a place, and they can play a key role in identifying distinct areas (e.g. TRUP). In the case of the River Club, the gateway symbolises a “live, work, play” urban environment. 3. It is not certain what is meant by “develop The notice distributed to I&APs contained an Refer to D.6.2 above and the section of this report / obstruct the ‘free of’ water within the 20- error and should have read: dealing with “PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT”. year floodplain and infill within the 50-year floodplain”? What exactly does this mean “Deviation from the Floodplain and River and what are the implications? Corridor Management Policy (2009) seeking permission to develop/ obstruct the free flow of water within the 20-year floodplain and infill within the 50-year floodplain.”

The policy, in principle, does not normally make provision for filling / developing within the 1:20-year floodplain. However, there are examples of where it has been allowed based on studies like the one undertaken for this proposed development (i.e. the surface water hydrology report attached as Annexure H to the motivation report). 4. Filling in the 1:50 year floodplain goes The policy, in principle, does not normally Refer to D.6.2 above and the section of this report against policy and should not be allowed. make provision for filling / developing within dealing with “PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT”. the 1:20-year floodplain. However, there are examples of where it has been allowed based on studies like the one undertaken for this proposed development (i.e. the surface water hydrology report attached as Annexure H to the motivation report).

The deviation should be considered together with the associated benefits which:

 rehabilitation of the Liesbeeck Canal;  treatment of municipal stormwater discharging into the old Liesbeek River channel, which will be converted into a vegetated stormwater swale system;  the numerous other development benefits which are noted elsewhere in the response (e.g. refer to item D.5.2 below). D.8 Urban Design Policy 1. The Urban Design Policy requires A conceptual illustration and explanation of A response to the built form is offered in the environmental resources, green open how the green open spaces on the site will PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT below. It must also be space systems and ecologically sensitive link into TRUP and the surrounding spaces is noted that the detail associated with interface areas to be protected and enhanced. provided in sub-section 9.4 of the motivation conditions with opens spaces with buildings will The built form of the proposal does not report. be provided at a later stage of the process of sufficiently acknowledge the unique developing the site. characteristics of the context and More detail relating to the system of hard and therefore does not comply with this policy soft spaces on the site can be more fully statement. detailed in subsequent applications (e.g. approval of future Precinct Plans, Character Plans and SDPs).

Also refer to item D.4.1 above. D.9 TRUP Contextual Framework and Phase 1 Environmental Management Plan (2003) 1. The Contextual Framework and Phase 1 It is acknowledged that the current The TRUP LSDF is still a draft and cannot be taken Environmental Management Plan (2003) development proposal for the River Club is into account when assessing the development was put in place to guide the not consistent with a number of the principles proposal. implementation of TRUP in partnership with and guidelines outlined in the TRUPCF. the CoCT. Many years of consultation Notwithstanding, it should be noted that the went into formulating the Development TRUP LSDF, run in tandem by the WCG and Framework. All this work threatens to be the CoCT, is expected to be completed in wasted. March 2019 and will result in new development initiatives and planning guidelines for the TRUP area (including the River Club site). D.10 TRUP Local Spatial Development Framework (2018) 46

1. The development is contrary to the The TRUP LSDF has not yet been finalised by The TRUP LSDF is still a draft and cannot be taken current TRUP policy and vision that the CoCT and currently has no statutory into account when assessing the development stakeholders aim to achieve. The proposal status. proposal. ignores the Draft Manifesto and the upgraded guide to the future of TRUP. 2. Stakeholders in the TRUP LSDF process Refer to item D.10.1 above. The Department concurs with the applicant’s have explored an alternative vision for the response. River Club site, which shows less The owner of the River Club site is a development on the site than what is stakeholder in the TRUP LSDF process, and yet proposed. they have not been afforded the opportunity to either comment on the alternative vision for the site, nor have they been given the opportunity to motivate why the site should be developed as proposed (at least in the LSDF process). As such, the term ‘stakeholders’ should be considered with caution in this context. F. COMMENTS RELATING TO POTENTIAL IMPACT E.1 General 1. This development is substantial and will A development of this scale will naturally It is acknowledged that the development will affect many communities in this area, result in change to surrounding areas and impact on the recipient community. This is especially Observatory and Hartleyvale may result in negative impacts on the addressed in further detail in the “PROPOSAL communities currently living there. However, ASSESSMENT”. development of this site is considered appropriate (refer to item D.7.2 above). 2. The proposed rezoning and development Cities are dynamic. Changes occur in line The Department concurs with the applicant’s represents a significant and a dramatic with complex spatial developments. In response. deviation from the original intention for this particular, the pace of urbanization has land. This is considered highly undesirable posed significant challenges to a city such as and an eroding of the rights of the Cape Town, including the increasing surrounding residents of Observatory who demands of rising populations in terms of always had legitimate expectations of access to land, housing and urban services. what may and may not be developed on In addition, citizens are demanding more the site. walkable and transit-friendly neighbourhoods 47

and in general are looking for higher quality urban places in which to live, work, and play.

The recent introduction of policies such as the Densification Policy, Urban Design Policy and TOD Strategic Framework indicates that the CoCT recognises the need to make Cape Town a more urban, liveable city for its citizens.

The River Club development embraces an urban model of development whereby mixed use, high density development is combined with enhanced access to public transport services, economic opportunities and natural spaces. 3. The proposed land uses, layout, bulk and Impacts on the receiving environment will be The property is separated from immediate scale of the development is markedly out assessed in the Basic Assessment Report surrounding properties by Liesbeek Parkway, land of keeping with the receiving environment (BAR), which will be assessed by DEA&DP zoned for open space purposes and and it will have a highly negative impact during the statutory NEMA process. (unconstructed) roads reserve and rivers. on the urban functionality. Properties nearby are used for either residential (single and high density residential) and non- residential (business, industry, educational) development.

The built form in the vicinity is also varied. Properties in the vicinity of the subject property are zoned for Open Space, Mixed Use, General Residential and Community Zone purposes.

The fact that the development proposal differs in height to some extent from buildings in the vicinity does not make it undesirable. The specialist studies that were undertaken, including a visual impact assessment and the proposed conditions 48

informed by the specialist studies will mitigate the impact of the development on the receiving environment. 4. The long-term loss and cost to the general The impact of a loss of open space to society The property has long since had controlled public, as well as the damage to the will be considered in the statutory NEMA access (i.e. limited access) to the general public. open space system, far outweighs any process. Much of the land has accommodated a driving benefit that the developer / applicant has range with other appurtenant uses and tried to motivate. However, the following should be noted: conference facilities, amongst others. While it also accommodates bird hides, it the property

has always had not have unfettered public  The majority of the site is not currently access freely accessible to the public (i.e. the right of admission is reserved, and trespassers can be prosecuted);  It is currently understood that lawned areas of the site are transformed from an ecological perspective (although may still have value to faunal species, notably the WLT);  Although open, the site landscape is of a modified natural character surrounded by a built-up urban environment;  The proponent proposes to implement ecological setbacks at the interfaces with freshwater environments and the site, and rehabilitate these areas; and  Publicly accessible open spaces (including the set-backs) are included in the development proposal. 5. Ad hoc development in Observatory is Other development in Observatory is not the This development proposal must be assessed on already having negative impacts on concern of the owner / developer of the River its merits. people and the environment and these Club. need to be addressed before more development is improved or else the situation will worsen. D.2 Heritage Impact 49

HIA / Process 1. The River Club site is rich in heritage This is disputed. The Draft HIA covers a wide Issues dealing with heritage are addressed in the resources, not all of which have been range of heritage related aspects, including “PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT” and conditions adequately captured in the HIA reports a substantial section on the pre-colonial imposed when the environmental authorisation conducted thus far. In particular, there is a history of the site. was issued. lack of attention given to the history of First Nations People who resided in the area. 2. The HIA is in contrast with the TRUP The two studies do not contrast. They merely The Department concurs with the applicant’s Baseline Heritage Study compiled by regard the heritage significance of this site in response. Melanie Atwell (prepared for N&M a different light (heritage studies are Associates on behalf of Provincial subjective). Government of the Western Cape). While the area is historic, the heritage significance that derives from that history has no manifestation on site: there is no archaeology present, no pre-colonial shell middens and no evidence of the VOC barricades and defences, or of historic agricultural activities. The heritage value of the place (site) is the knowledge we have about it.

Nevertheless, the site and its immediate context is assessed to be historically significant in the Draft HIA: the Liesbeek River and floodplain are of some ecological importance, and the topography of the area remains, and it is acknowledged that people experience cultural value from the character, history, and awareness of the historical importance of the site, as well as the ecology of the lower reaches of the Liesbeek River.

The character of the site will be transformed by the development. This transformation is of 50

significant visual impact but is assessed by the heritage consultants to be of relatively low heritage significance: whether the site is developed or otherwise, it will always have a history, which in the case of the River Club is intangible, not manifested on the ground, and cannot be destroyed by physical changes. Furthermore, the site is located in a significantly transformed floodplain, is degraded and will be further transformed by the future development of the Berkley Road extension. 3. A HIA is required in terms of section 38 of Noted. The Draft HIA has been prepared for The Department concurs with the applicant’s the NHRA. the purpose of the section 38(8) application response. in terms of the NHRA (the Draft HIA was issued for public comment on 25 January 2018 as part of NHRA section 38 process). However, the report has not yet been submitted to HWC on the grounds that it is unclear how the section 38 process can proceed prior to the section 29 process being concluded (letters have been sent to HWC requesting guidance on the continuation of the section 38 application in parallel with the section 29 process, however no response has been forthcoming). Cultural Landscape 4. The development will have a substantially The character of the site will be transformed The Department concurs with the applicant’s adverse impact on the tangible (e.g. by the development. This transformation is of response in so far as issues related to heritage are natural environment, cultural landscape) significant visual impact but is assessed by the concerned. and intangible (e.g. pre-colonial history) heritage consultants to be of relatively low heritage at the site. heritage significance: whether the site is developed or otherwise, it will always have a history, which in the case of the River Club is intangible, not manifested on the ground, and cannot be destroyed by physical 51

changes. Furthermore, the site is located in a significantly transformed floodplain, is degraded and will be further transformed by the future development of the Berkley Road extension.

Although the development will lead to adverse impacts on aspects of heritage (which cannot be entirely mitigated) a very considerable heritage benefit is anticipated from enhancing and restoring the Liesbeek River corridor. Ultimately the various decision- making bodies will need to consider whether to authorise the project, which brings significant social (including amenity), economic, ecological and heritage benefits, but which will lead to what the heritage specialists regard as adverse but tolerable sacrificial heritage and visual impacts.

Refer also to items D.2.6, D.2.7, D.2.8, D.2.11 and D.2.13 below. 5. This is a heritage site and commercialising At this stage this site does not have statutory Although the site is not protected heritage site it is disrespectful to our people. protection as a heritage site, with the and the provisional protection expired in April following being pertinent: 2020, heritage issues are addressed in the “PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT” and conditions  Although HWC took the decision to imposed when the environmental authorisation provisionally protect the property as a was issued. Grade II heritage resource (in terms of section 29 of the NHRA), this decision is currently on appeal and a decision is expected in early 2019.

 The “heritage resources” map contained in the MSDF identifies the site as a “proposed heritage area” (as opposed to a “heritage area”).

 The site does not fall within a deemed Heritage Protection Overlay Area, as per item 159 of the DMS.

Notwithstanding, an application in terms of section 38 of the NHRA is required and it is anticipated that this process will commence in early 2019.

It must be mentioned that the site is already “commercialised” as it is used as a golf course, conference facility and restaurants (and ancillary uses). 6. The proposed development will While the area is historic, the heritage Refer to D.2.5 above negatively impact on the significant significance that derives from that history has cultural landscape (including the no manifestation on site: there is no adjacent SAAO – a Grade 1 heritage site archaeology present, no pre-colonial shell – and Valkenberg Hospital). middens and no evidence of the VOC barricades and defences, or of historic agricultural activities. The heritage value of the place (site) is to knowledge what we know about it.

Nevertheless, the site and its immediate context is assessed to be historically significant: the Liesbeek River and floodplain are of some ecological importance, and the topography of the area remains, and it is acknowledged that people experience cultural value from the character, history, and awareness of the historical importance of the site, as well as the ecology of the lower reaches of the Liesbeek River. 7. The Liesbeek River Corridor and river The Draft HIA acknowledges the significance Refer to D.2.5 above confluence is a strong and discernible of the Black and Liesbeek rivers in the element in the cultural landscape, and as landscape, as well as the important of the 53

such holds high heritage significance in its confluence. However, HIA regards the site own merits. (inclusive of the floodplain and river courses) to be much degraded, to the point of waste- land. In this context, the project team, including the heritage specialists, see an opportunity to re-establish the Liesbeek River as:

 a river of significance;  a valuable ecological system;  an historical symbol;  an intrinsic component of the landscape;  a public amenity; and  a positive and symbiotic neighbour to the Raapenberg Wetland & Bird Sanctuary, as well as the SAAO hill.

These “gains” are regarded as sufficient mitigation to outweigh any negative impact the development may have on the cultural landscape. SAAO 8. The Draft HIA does not give adequate The significance of the SAAO is outlined in Refer to D.2.5 above attention, or indeed respect, to the detail in sub-section 6.3 of the Draft HIA, and potential impact of development on the the topography of the hill that the SAAO SAAO, which is an identified heritage occupies, including natural and built resource. components are assessed to be the only heritage indicator (i.e. criteria for decision making) of heights and scale of the development, specifically that the development steps back from the SAAO (partly achieved by rehabilitating the Liesbeek Canal), and be restricted to an appropriate height, “echoing the shape established by the banks, trees and buildings of the Observatory and lower than the height 54

of the trees”. According to the heritage specialists, these indicators have been achieved.

Nevertheless, and noting the national significance of the SAAO, residual impacts of the proposed development on the historical significance are assessed in the Basic Assessment Report (BAR) to be of high significance following the implementation of mitigation. This impact will be assessed by DEA&DP during the assessment associated with the statutory NEMA process.

9. The historical views for the SAAO The SAAO campus is well screened by the Refer to D.2.5 above (established in 1820 as the Royal fairly dense collection of trees surrounding the Observatory) and its sense of history will campus, particularly on its western side facing be lost as a result of the development. the River Club. Lions Head, Signal Hill and Devils Peak remain visible, but the view has to be sought from vantage points below the trees, and is clearly not of any importance in the day-to-day operation of the SAAO (indeed, these vistas have not been of importance for a long time, especially considering the mid-day gun on Signal Hill has been electronically triggered for most of the 20th century).

Therefore the Draft HIA concludes that the line of sight between the SAAO and Signal Hill is of no current relevance (although it is historically interesting). 10. The proposed new buildings alongside the Refer to item D.2.8 above. Refer to D.2.5 above. Furthermore, the findings of SAAO are higher than the historical dome the visual impact assessment and the proposed on the hill, thereby undermining the conditions adequately deals with this concern. heritage significance of the SAAO. 55

First Nations 11. The First Nations heritage of the site needs The significance of the site as a part of the Refer to D.2.5 above to be upheld floodplain and early landscape of pre- colonial transhumance use, colonial settlement and agriculture, and contestation is recognised and acknowledged in the HIA. However, the HIA also regards the site (inclusive of the floodplain and river courses) to be much spoiled, to the point of waste-land.

The development is considered as an opportunity to establish a place of celebration / memorialisation for the recording early historic events, including the indigenous First Nations peoples’ struggle. Indeed, the developer has committed to ensuring that a commemorative area and/or celebratory marker of the history of contestation be established on the site. 12. This site is the cremation / burial ground of There is no archaeological evidence, at this The Department concurs with the applicant’s the early Quena (Otentottu). stage, that the site is a burial ground (an response. archaeological survey shows that much of the land that makes up the site has been subject to considerable disturbance and has very little archaeological potential).

However, should any significant archaeological materials be encountered during earthworks, these must be reported to the project team archaeologist and HWC for further investigations. 13. This was an important meeting place and Sub-section 8.3 of the Draft HIA does Refer to D.2.5 above. river crossing site for the Khoi people. acknowledge the pre-colonial crossing of the Black River by the indigenous people and 56

their cattle. In this respect, the Draft HIA states:

“…a substantial setback from the river bank be left to enable an imagined river-crossing of the indigenous people and that this land be set aside for the siting of some form of identification and celebration of that pre- colonial history…This space should also be acknowledged in the design of the road network and in the shaping of the built-form over-looking this space.”

The developer has committed to ensuring that such a place be established on the site (refer also to item D.2.11 above). River Club 15. The River Club and surrounding grounds The site accommodates a complex of Refer to D.2.5 above. have been a historical landmark in Cape buildings built from the mid-1930s (the main Town since 1939. building has a foundation-stone dated 1939), a number of trees, a grassed driving range and a ‘mashie’ course for golfers. The HIA is of the view that none of the existing fabric of the site holds enough significance to be taken into account when devising heritage- related design indicators or to be regarded as factors or criteria in decision-making. 16. The development would destroy the Refer to item D.2.15 above. Refer to D.2.5 above landmark quality and heritage of the site.

17. The buildings are older than 60 years old Noted. A section 34 application in terms of The findings of the heritage specialist in the and is a heritage building. HWC is required the NHRA (i.e. to permit demolition of the revised layout concept 2 that was submitted as to give their permission for them to be existing buildings) will be submitted to HWC in part of the application for environmental demolished; something they have not yet due course. indicated that the existing buildings on the site done. could be demolished and this is indicated in the 57

environmental authorization issued on 20 August 2020. D.3 Traffic and Transport Impact Traffic Congestion 1. The development will lead to an increase The future traffic operations on the Certain road upgrades will occur in conjunction in traffic congestion and exacerbate the surrounding road network were analysed in with the development in order to accommodate already congested roads around the River the TIA (refer to Annexure T of the motivation the proposal. Club. report). While traffic generated by the development will contribute to traffic congestion in the surrounding area, the TIA concluded that the development can be accommodated with the implementation or provision of the recommended infrastructure as proposed (refer to section 9 of the TIA). In addition, future improvements to public transport and non-motorised transport facilities in the area will further assist in alleviating the traffic congestion in the area. 2. The Liesbeek Parkway is not sustainable or The TIA recommends that Liesbeek Parkway As mentioned above, certain road upgrades will constructed in a manner to withstand be upgraded in order to accommodate be required to accommodate the development increased traffic flow, and would suffer future traffic volumes (refer to section 9 of the proposed. severely by the increased infrastructure TIA, which is attached as Annexure T to the and development. motivation report).

(It is important to note that the dualling of Liesbeek Parkway south of Station Road is already required with existing traffic and is not triggered by the development, but is rather considered as a “backlog upgrade” which is due even prior to development of the River Club.) 58

3. On pg. 62 of the TIA it is stated: The traffic model indicated that certain links According to the TIA, it is anticipated that the on the current network with current (2017) proposed precinct 1 only of the proposal, will “…the transport modelling results have traffic are at capacity and operating at have very little impact on the traffic network demonstrated that the present road extended (> 1 hour) peak periods. The beyond the congestion presently experienced. capacity in the study area is unable to completion of the Berkley extension with This is referenced on page 63 of that report. accommodate existing traffic current traffic relief the traffic on certain links demand…gives rise to prolonged (Liesbeek Parkway) but increase the traffic on Page 62 of the same report however indicates congestion and ever extending peak others (Malta Road). The model predicts that that were the in the long term to further support periods.” the Precinct 1 traffic added to the extended the development road upgrades will be required.

Berkley Road and upgraded Liesbeek On pg. 63 it is stated Precinct 1 will have Parkway, will not have significant higher traffic “a marginal impact of the surrounding conditions than the existing traffic on the road network”. This statement is rejected extended network without these upgrades. It and disingenuous given the TIA must also be borne in mind that an increased acknowledges on pg. 62 of the TIA that public transport modal shift is predicted by the roads can’t even cope with the the model towards 2032 which will reduce existing traffic. private vehicle usage. 4. On pg. 62 of the TIA it is stated: It is true that network upgrades (such as The Department concurs with the applicant’s Berkley extension or dualling of Liesbeek response. “…the present road capacity in the study Parkway) will improve latent demand. area is unable to accommodate existing However, Berkley Road extension is not traffic demand.” dedicated purely to the development but the

initial extension to the main access will be a This implies that any network (capacity) first phase in the completion of the ‘missing’ improvements will be taken up by the Berkley link. The extension of Berkley Road latent, metropolitan demand in the peak through to Malta Road is considered part of period. Because there are potential ‘backlog’ road infrastructure and the City is freeway linkages to the ‘missing’ Berkley keen to address this backlog but was Road connection, it will not be possible to prevented to do so in the past by funding dedicate this link purely to the limitations. The River Club development offers development and its completion will have an opportunity to complete a substantial a most significant impact on surrounding portion of certain outstanding ‘backlog’ road areas of Observatory, Salt River etc. infrastructure which will prioritize City funds to complete Berkley Road extension and other upgrades required. 59

5. Traffic congestion is not only restricted to The future traffic operations on Liesbeek the AM peak hour (as implied in the TIA). Parkway, specifically at the intersection of There is also severe congestion during the Liesbeek Parkway and Station Road, were PM peak hour (Station Road / Liesbeek analysed using Signalised and Unsignalised Parkway intersection in particular). Intersection Design and Research Aid software package (SIDRA) during the AM and PM peak hours for the year 2025. The analysis showed that the intersection without the development traffic would require the intersection to be upgraded purely due to compound growth of background traffic.

Refer also to item D.3.1 above. 6. It is strange that the TIA includes no traffic This is not true. The TIA does include an analysis This is one of the key intersections in the immediate analysis of the Station Road / Liesbeek of the Station Road / Liesbeek Parkway vicinity of the property which is referred to in the Parkway intersection. This is where the intersection. TIA. worst traffic congestion occurs. The TIA is thus flawed. Refer to item D.3.1 above.

7. The area already struggles to Events are sporadic and are part of any As already stated, the proposal if approved, will accommodate large concurrent events urban environment. The fact is these facilities require certain road infrastructure upgrades. at the River Club and the Hartleyvale have been part of the urban fabric for sports facilities (and these are an order of decades and the occasional impact to magnitude smaller than the proposed residents is not new or unknown. Regardless, development). the TIA has demonstrated that the proposed development could be accommodated provided the implementation of the recommended infrastructure upgrades occurs. 8. Calculations show that there will be This is an extrapolation and is not necessarily The Department concurs with the applicant’s approximately 4 650 people living / true. Regardless, the TIA has demonstrated response. working in this precinct (21 buildings, 155 that the proposed development could be floors, 30 people per floor). This means accommodated provided the there will be 4 650 motor vehicles coming implementation of the recommended and going each day. infrastructure upgrades occurs. 60

9. The development is described in the The term “destination place” should not be The Department concurs with the applicant’s motivation as a “destination”, which by taken to imply that everyone who visits the response. nature generate traffic rather than River Club will do so by motor vehicle. The reducing traffic. term is rather used in the context by which it is presented in the MSDF: “landmarks or locations that form a significant point or area of attraction contributing to the unique identity of Cape Town.”

Notwithstanding, it is recognised that the nature of the development and the uses proposed will generate a significant amount of peak period trips. However, these trips have been analysed in the TIA, which has concluded that the proposed development could be accommodated provided the implementation of the recommended infrastructure upgrades occurs. 10. A development like this should take The reality of Black River Office Park is that it is When undertaking a traffic study, the number of cognisance of the realities of Black River an extremely successful development. There vehicle trips over a certain period on the Office Park, which generates significant is a misperception that traffic along Liesbeek surrounding roads was taken into consideration additional private car traffic onto the Parkway is as a result of “too much when formulating the TIA, having regard to already congested road network in development”. However, the reality is that proposed location of the main vehicle entrance Observatory. Liesbeek Parkway cannot currently onto the property from Liesbeek Parkway. accommodate traffic volumes because it has not been upgraded in line with existing urban development (refer to item D.3.2 above). 11. The development is predominantly made The trip generation has been analysed in the The Department concurs with the applicant’s up of commercial uses, which are all high TIA, which has concluded that the proposed response. vehicle trip generating uses, which will development could be accommodated cause major traffic congestion. provided the implementation of the recommended infrastructure upgrades occurs. Road & Infrastructure Upgrades 61

12. It appears that there is no real plan with Berkeley Road extension is an approved road The application is assessed based on the two respect to Berkley Road, or even a scheme (refer to item C.9 above). The land phases of development proposed. Each phase requirement that this road must be vests in the CoCT, who view the extension as will have different requirements / demands on implemented as a 4-lane road (i.e. the full an important infrastructure project. The the service infrastructure. The developer will be Berkley Road extension may or may not owner / developer of the River Club proposes responsible for the construction of one lane of the happen). This is not acceptable and to offset their development contributions by Berkley Road extension to accommodate the should the MPT approve the application constructing a bridge over the Black River, development. The Development Contribution then it must be a condition of approval and extending Berkley Road to the River Club paid by the applicant will also serve to contribute that Berkley Road extension (with 4-lanes) development site, only (refer to sub-section toward the cost of construction of, amongst must be implemented prior to any 6.5.2 of the motivation report). others, this road. Road improvements will have to development on the River Club site. be made as demand requires. Implementation of the Berkley Road extension (even only Phase 1 as outlined in sub-section 6.5.2 of the motivation report) is likely to have a significant positive impact on TRUP by allowing for pedestrian and vehicle movement across the Black River at a local scale. Building this portion of Berkley Road extension will also enable the redevelopment of the River Club to take place, which will be a significant generator for public transport systems located close to the site (including the proposed TRUP Public and NMT transport corridor to the south of the site on Station Road).

The owner / developer is currently in consultation with CoCT TDA to jointly fund the full extension of Berkley Road, a major infrastructure project which the proposed development would facilitate. This extension would have a positive impact on the regional mobility by virtue of the connectivity between the Black River Parkway and M5, and Liesbeek Parkway / Malta Road and improve connectivity from Maitland to Salt River 62

through to Woodstock from a new east-west link into Albert Road with additional capacity. This will result in reduced reliance on the Settlers Way interchange for access between Maitland and Salt River. 13. Should the Berkley Road extension be Phase 1 of the Berkley Road extension (bridge The Department concurs with the applicant’s considered to be both necessary and over the Black River and extension to the response. desirable, the CoCT must not enter into River Club development only) will be offset by any cross-subsidisation of costs in Development Contributions payable by the exchange for the granting of developer to the CoCT. development rights on the site. At this stage it is anticipated that the funding for and construction of the remainder of the extension (including the bridge over the original course of the Liesbeek River) will be the responsibility of the CoCT. Notwithstanding, the owner / developer is currently engaging the CoCT to determine if a commitment to build this infrastructure can be achieved, and if a funding model can be agreed upon. 14. The proposal to link the development with Refer to items D.3.12 and D.3.13 above. A certain extent of development may be Berkley Road and the M5 is intended as a permitted initially. However in order for the later development, which may never be development to be built in its entirety, road built. improvements such as the Berkley Road extension will be required. 15. The metropolitan-level, strategic Apart from the SIDRA analysis, a VISIM micro Modelling and various responses to road approach to transportation analysis simulation was modelled to confirm the improvements used suggest that the proposal demonstrates that the completion of the queuing and intersection capacity is sufficient could be accommodated with the Berkley Road link simply allows latent for the estimated traffic. The micro simulation improvements proposed. The TIA was circulated traffic demand to choose an alternative indicated that similar peak periods as to our Transport Department who had sight of the route to and from the City via Malta Road. predicted by the EMME model, is expected proposal and did not object to the development The SIDRA traffic analysis does not during peak traffic conditions. Furthermore, proposal. consider the full impact of traffic the addition of longer turning lanes at certain operations on an area wide level (i.e. intersections was also confirmed by the micro congestion and queues at one simulation. Finally, the detailed intersection intersection will affect an adjacent upgrades are in process of finalization 63

intersection and SIDRA therefore cannot through a PMT-process with thorough review accurately represent the likely future of the TIA parameters to ensure that the traffic impact). ultimate infrastructure will be sufficient for the long-term demand taking into account the Consequently, the chosen road network expected modal shift towards public upgrades may neither be to the benefit of transport. the proposed development, nor the existing land uses in the immediate proximity. 16. It is disturbing to note that the TIA The proposed calming measures will only be The Department concurs with the applicant’s proposed traffic calming measures to be required before the extension of Berkley Road response. implemented along the internal link road through to Malta Road. The EMME Traffic (i.e. between Liesbeek Parkway and model showed that if unrestricted through Berkley Road extension) so as to prevent traffic will be allowed on the internal link road “rat running” through the development. through the development, the road will be Such deterrents will prevent the operating at capacity because of ‘rat distribution of vehicles and force them running’ due to the latent demand for a link onto Liesbeek Parkway, which will in turn between the M5 and Liesbeek Parkway. cause further congestion along this road. Therefore, to protect access to the development, measures should be applied to a certain degree to limit through traffic on the internal link road. The EMME Model also showed that once Berkley Road is extended through to Malta Road, then only development traffic will use the internal link road and no measures to prevent through traffic will be required. 17. Given the traffic congestion surrounding Noted and agreed. The TIA recommends The City is aware of the need to upgrade, for the site, it is critical that the surrounding various road infrastructure upgrades be example the portion of Liesbeek Parkway that road network should be upgraded, undertaken in order to accommodate future merges into one lane in the vicinity of the including the introduction of additional traffic volumes (refer to section 9 of the TIA, property. Assessment of road networks and need transport links and traffic lights. which is attached as Annexure T to the for system upgrades is therefore an on-going motivation report). process. 18. The upgrades recommended in the TIA The EMME traffic model showed that the The Department concurs with the applicant’s are likely to be wholly inadequate to deal traffic conditions for the 2017 traffic and the response. with the change in traffic and the impact 2032 traffic on the improved network are 64

on Observatory would be significant (e.g. similar with respect to peak periods and peak Station road does not have much period congestion levels. The proposed opportunity for increased capacity). The improvements which include development new proposed roads will do little to relieve specific improvements (Improvement of traffic congestion, but will rather certain intersections, partial extension of exacerbate it further. Berkley Road and dualling of a portion of Liesbeek Parkway) and City backlog network improvements (further extension of Berkley Road, dualling of remainder portions of Liesbeek Parkway and upgrading of intersections) will be capable of accommodating the traffic demand at acceptable service levels. The expansion of the public transport facilities will result in a modal shift with resultant reduction in private vehicles during peak periods. 19. The proposed Malta Road – Berkley Road It is true that road network changes could The Department concurs with the applicant’s link may simply transfer the congestion cause reduced traffic on certain links and response. currently experienced in Observatory / increased traffic on other links. However, the Salt River elsewhere. proposed network improvements intend to accommodate the expected long-term traffic at acceptable service levels. 20. Cannot support the extensive wide Berkley Road extension forms part of the The Berkley Road extension has been planned for highways and service roads. CoCT’s road network plan (refer to sub- some years and is intended to be constructed. section 6.5.2 of the motivation report). Public Transport 21. It is considered necessary that a reliable The TIA investigates a future MyCiTi bus route As the demand increases and use intensification and safe public transport facility such as to service the development and shows that occurs, the likelihood of introducing MyCiti buses the MyCiTi bus route be extended to serve there is potential for a MyCiTi feeder route routes increases. Threshold demand for public this area as an alternative to the existing extension (Route 102) from Salt River Station transport such as this is best accommodated rail and Golden Arrow public transport (Spencer Road) into Malta Road, Liesbeek where use intensification occurs. Given this the services. Parkway, Station Road, Observatory Station proposal may ultimately justify the provision of and linking with Main Road (future D12 Trunk further MyCiti services. route) should demand justifies this extension. This proposal has been discussed with CoCT 65

TDA and should be investigated further when required.

(Refer to sub-section 11.1.2 of the TIA and/or sub-section 8.6.1 of the motivation report.) 22. Concern that inadequate planning has This is incorrect. The TIA has investigated The Department concurs with the applicant’s gone into public transport servicing the potential future public transport services in response. site. The developer, in partnership with the relation to the site (refer to sub-section 11.1.2 CoCT, should take steps to improve the of the TIA and/or sub-section 8.6.1 of the public transport links surrounding the site. motivation report).

Concrete proposals for public transport upgrades will be investigated in conjunction with CoCT TDA should approval be granted and the project proceeds further. 23. There is no doubting the ability of public The TIA has investigated potential future The Department concurs with the applicant’s transport to reduce the impact of private public transport services in relation to the site response. vehicles, however there is little or no (refer to sub-section 11.1.2 of the TIA and/or motivation for this in the TIA (i.e. there sub-section 8.6.1 of the motivation report). does not appear to be any dedicated bus lanes and the Berkley Road extension The preliminary planning of the extension of appears to be a private road link without Berkley Road extension and the dualling of any potential to carry public transport). Liesbeek parkway north of Station Road is currently guided by a PMT-process. It is envisaged that the cross section for Berkley Road extension and Liesbeek parkway dualling will allow for feeder bus routes accommodated on priority lanes. These routes will link railway stations in the area to the larger TRUP initiative. In the short term, the routes could follow the private link road through the development but ultimately run along Berkley Road extension and Liesbeek Parkway (both public roads). 66

24. The nearest railway station is Observatory Actual walking distance from Observatory The Department concurs with the applicant’s Station, which is so far away that few Station (to the Liesbeek Road entrance of the response. people would care to use it. Likewise, development) is approximately 820 m, while Koeberg Station is equally far and much the actual walking distance from Koeberg more hazardous from a personal safety Station (to the Berkley Road extension point of view. entrance) is approximately 850 m. So while these distances are outside of the ideal 500 m distance, they are still regarded as being within acceptable walking distance.

Should the proximity of the development increase ridership on the rail network, as anticipated, there is the potential that, in turn, the rail station precincts themselves will be further enhanced (i.e. an increase in passenger numbers can result in more commercial opportunities within the station precinct, which in turn can lead to rejuvenation of the station precinct). The net result is the improved liveability of the community, both for those who already live in the community and those who come to visit it for the amenities offered by the rejuvenated precinct. 25. Even though the TIA concedes that there It is acknowledged that there will need to be It is acknowledged that public transport provision are no reasonable public transport a vast improvement in public transport presently is not at its best and as a consequence services in the area, an assumption of 39% services themselves (particularly PRASA the uptake of public transport is not at the of all development trips are assumed to services) should the assumed take up in desirable optimal levels. Additionally, proximity to be public transport trips. This would public transport trips be achieved. However, public transport at present is not within appear to be overly optimistic without this is an ideal to which the project subscribes, acceptable distances. The consequence of significant public encouragement, or and the CoCT is making concerted efforts to development, such as that proposed, is that it further public transport infrastructure improve the public transport network results in and will likely result in, the introduction of upgrades. throughout the city (in line with its TOD informal taxi routes which may have a catalytic strategy). effect. It is noted that the transport branch that

considered the findings of the TIA had no objection to the proposal. 26. The motivation that the development will Refer to item D.3.25 above. The Department concurs with the applicant’s support public transport is a theoretical response. argument that has not been The River Club development, as part of the substantiated. TRUP initiative, has made provision for accessibility to public transport by incorporating public transport transfer opportunities along Berkley Road extension and along Liesbeek Parkway adjacent to the site as well as internal stopping points within the development. Parking 27. 5 849 parking bays (as per the TIA) will The parking calculations, as presented in the Parking basements will accommodate parking take an inordinate amount of space (80 TIA, as preliminary and does not represent the bays. 000 – 100 000 m²). This is a lot of parking. final parking to be constructed. Nevertheless, it is anticipated that a significant amount of While it is acknowledged that a high number of parking will be provided at the River Club. This parking bays will be provided on-site, the scale of parking will be in line with market norms and the development will largely determine the standards. number of parking bays that is provided. Notwithstanding the fact that the property abuts At this stage it is anticipated that all parking onto both a PT1 and PT2 area, the site itself will be located below new ground level in requires that the standard parking ratio is applied. parking areas that will read as basements on Were the property located in a PT1 or PT2 area the ground (not technically basements, as either lower parking ratio would have been per the definition in the DMS). applied or zero parking would have been required. 28. The availability of parking will be reduced The development will be sufficiently serviced The shortfall of parking on the property is not due to this development (in addition to by parking so as to ensure that patrons do not significant. Additionally, shared parking is the impact of sporting events at need to park offsite in surrounding promoted. While the large majority of parking Hartleyvale), particularly in Cambridge neighbourhoods. proposed will be provided for the non-residential Road. component, the two activities are therefore able to share parking given the different parking patterns that will arise. NMT 68

29. The developer / applicant has failed to The proposed transport related upgrades Any road improvements must take NMT into show that the development won’t along Liesbeek Parkway will include upgrades consideration. The existing intersections where severely impact cyclists using the cycle to existing NMT facilities to ensure that the NMT and cars meet in the vicinity of the property path along the Liesbeek Parkway, which is needs of pedestrians and cyclists are satisfied. are signalised. This allows the issue of conflict to a very popular route. be addressed in part. 30. Additional traffic along Liesbeek Parkway This is not necessarily true. Refer to item D.3.29 Liesbeek Parkway close to the property has a will result in an even more unsafe above. walking and cycling path that is used often. environment for cyclists / pedestrians. These paths are accommodated out of the road way. Beyond this the normal rules apply in respect of cyclists. 31. The developers should do an in-depth Noted. Upgrades to existing NMT facilities / Given the existing NMT routes that existing the analysis of the impact the development new NMT routes will be given strong attention vicinity of the property, any road improvements will have on cycle commuters, including during the detailed design phase of the will have to take this into consideration. The an investigation of how cyclists will safely project. continued provision of NMT routes/facilities cross the various intersections in the therefore will have to be included in any future vicinity of the River Club. road improvements. Access 32. It is not clear why the existing access from The existing access from Observatory Road The Department concurs with the applicant’s Observatory Road will not be used. will be discontinued because the intersection response. spacing between this entrance and the Observatory Road / Liesbeek Parkway is insufficient to accommodate a development of the size of the River Club. 33. Access to and through the development The proposed link road through the The proposal indicates the intention to register a is not clarified and may at any time be development will remain in private ownership servitude right of way across the site in favour of changed depending on the needs of the for the simple reason that the road will be the general public to enable the public to use developer. If access is to be permanently easier to maintain this way. Permanent the internal private road. As correctly stated by improved, then CoCT should request a access to the public across this link can be the applicant, it also enables the applicant’s subdivision and alienation of land of any ensured through the registration of a public client to maintain the road relieving the city of road / transport routes through the right of way access servitude. the burden to do so. development.

D.4 Visual Impact 69

1. The mass and height of the proposed Visual character is descriptive and non- However, given the proposed scale and location development will destroy the current evaluative, which implies that it is based on of the development being setback from existing visual openness and beauty that this defined attributes that are neither positive nor roads plus the width of the existing roads green corridor affords. negative, and the Draft VIA (refer to contribute to softening the visual aspects of the Annexure J of the motivation report) proposed development. This issue is addressed reiterates that the character of the site is that further in “PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT”. of an “isolated” transition landscape.

The Draft VIA acknowledges that the visual quality of the overall area is largely ascribable to the built-up urban environment with an island of green open space, that the rivers provide interest in the landscape thereby enhancing the visual quality, and that the remarkable views of Devils Peak in the west contribute to the visual quality of the area; but that there are elements that detract from visual quality in the study area, notably the derelict and industrial land to the north and the M5 freeway to the east. Furthermore, the VIA assesses that the sense of place of the study area is strongly influenced by the rivers, and an “island” of green open space in a highly developed and evolving urban environment of mixed land use.

Based on a detailed assessment of the visual exposure of the site, the visual impact on sense of place and visual intrusion (i.e. views through the site) are assessed in the VIA to be local in extent. Further, and based on an assessment of the (relatively poor) visual quality of the site, (relatively high) visual absorption capacity of the surrounding environment (the cityscape), but (conservatively assumed, fairly high) sensitivity 70

of receptors to changes in sense of place and visual intrusion, the intensity of these two impacts is assessed to be reduced to medium with the implementation of key design mitigation measures (i.e. that social functions – in this case, sense of place and views - will be significantly affected at a local scale, but will continue albeit in a modified way).

Aspects of the development (i.e. visual and heritage mitigation) seek to retain the sense of place of the site and reduce visual intrusion by, for example, retaining visual links, and restoring the Liesbeek River corridor.

VIAs require a large degree of professional, often subjective judgment. This is more difficult for a project such as the River Club development, which is located in the midst of a wholly transformed urban environment on land well located for development, but which has remained undeveloped and conferred a natural sense of place to surrounding (urban) receptors.

2. The deviation from the current height Refer to item D.4.1 above. There is no general height restriction in restrictions in the Observatory and Observatory, except what is provided for on surrounding suburban areas poses an specific properties which varies according to the enormous threat to the visual space and development rights of each property. landscape, which will not only create visual pollution but will also directly The context of the site is surrounded by land zoned oppose the Victorian heritage of the area. for Mixed Use, Community Zone and General Residential purposes and these properties have different permissible building height.

3. The site plays a role as a place of visual Refer to item D.4.1 above. This aspect is not completely lost as the proposed relief in contrast to the surrounding higher development makes provision for open space. . density urban land uses. This role is threatened by the development. 4. The proposed land uses, layout, bulk and Refer to item D.4.1 above. The scale of the proposed development is scale of the development is markedly out contextually appropriate and this aspect is further of keeping with the receiving environment addressed in “PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT”. and it will have a highly negative impact on the visual context. The plans indicate that the proposed buildings are overscaled; it will cause a visual disturbance when compared against the existing environment. 5. The proposed dualling of Liesbeek The dualling of Liesbeek Parkway is not The Department concurs with the applicant’s parkway will have a detrimental impact expected to have a major visual impact on response.. on the highly attractive existing riverine the existing riverine corridor. corridor along the Liesbeek River along this stretch. Only a very narrow strip of It is important to note that the dualling of greenery will be retained along the bank Liesbeek Parkway south of Station Road is of the river, and will destroy the natural already required with existing traffic and is not ambience and general enjoyment of this triggered by the development, but is rather river edge. considered as a “backlog upgrade” which is due even prior to development of the River Club. 72

6. The proposal to raise the building platform Retaining structures to will constructed to a The Black River Business Park is located at least in the order of 3 – 5 m above existing height of more between 3 m – 5 m to ensure 150m at its closest point to the property. The ground level will impact on the ambience that the habitable floor space is raised above nearest Observatory enclave is located of the area, particularly on the Liesbeek the 1-100 year floodline. These retaining approximately 170m away. The scale and River side. Observatory will become the structures all relate to the outside wall of the heights of buildings at this point will have a limited “back end” of the development and will “super basements”. Earth will be compacted impact on the residential enclave referred to. be cast in shadow. against these retaining structures, effectively Much of the residential suburb, portions of which creating a new ground level on the site. abut onto Hartleyvale while being in excess of 150m away will still be situated a significant Buildings will have well-articulated, active distance away from the development and as a edges and will in no way turn their back on consequence will have very little to no shadow any of the surrounding properties or adjacent impacts on the residential suburb. Buildings neighbourhoods. This will be ensured in proposed closest to Liesbeek Parkway and subsequent applications (e.g. SDP, Precinct Station Road will lower than those located Plans, Landscape Masterplan etc.). toward the northern end of the site. 7. Buildings in this type of neighbourhood The visual specialist maintains that the The Department concurs with the applicant’s should be limited to a height of 6 storeys development would not be inconsistent with response. (or at most 8 storeys), which is 20 to 25 m. the cityscape of the surrounding built up area Any higher and the buildings will be out of (including tall buildings, business/office parks character with the surrounding area. and industrial type land uses), but nevertheless that significant, but acceptable, residual impacts on sense of place and visual intrusion are anticipated (as demonstrated by the visual simulations provided in the Draft VIA, refer to Annexure J of the motivation report).

The visual specialist acknowledges that residual visual impacts could be further mitigated through a reduction of building heights and bulk, but that due to the minimum amount of GLA required to make the development financially viable, further mitigation of visual impacts is not possible. 8. The illumination of the proposed site at The impact of illumination at night has been The Department concurs with the applicant’s night will impact on bird life and assessed in the Draft VIA (refer to sub-section response. 73

drastically alter the night time sense of the 6.2.3 of the report attached as Annexure J to space. the motivation report). The Draft VIA states:

The impact of altered sense of place and visual quality caused by light pollution at night is assessed to be of medium significance and with the implementation of mitigation, is reduced to low.

9. It is assumed that the “Lego block” type This is correct. The buildings shown in the The Department concurs with the applicant’s buildings shown in the motivation report motivation report (refer to Figures 3, 36, 37 & response. are to merely indicate where the various 38) are indicative and are used to show buildings may be positioned and does not potential height and massing. In no way do represent a perspective view of the these buildings represent the final proposed buildings. architectural detail. 10. The urban design / heritage / visual Refer to items D.2.8 and D.2.9 above. The specialist studies that were undertaken, specialists have inadequately assessed including a visual impact assessment and the the unacceptably high visual impact on proposed conditions informed by the specialist the SAAO complex. studies will mitigate the impact of the development on the receiving environment. 11. The tall buildings will cut off the visual link Refer to item D.2.9 above. Refer to D.4.10 above. between the SAAO Observatory and Signal Hill (this visual link has been in place for over 200 years and has was one of the primary reasons for locating the Observatory at this location). 12. The development concept looks crass Refer to item D.4.9 above. T Refer to D.4.10. and will no way add to the aesthetics of the area when viewed from either Observatory or from the M5 motorway. D.5 Ecological Impact General 1. The development will negatively impact The site is considered degraded and are of a The applicants have had to undertake an EIA in on the natural environment. low ecological integrity. Nevertheless, it is compliance with the NEMA regulations and acknowledged that various Critical environmental authorisation with conditions was Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) and Ecological 74

Support Areas (ESAs) exist adjacent to the subsequently issued. Furthermore, this aspect is site, viz.: addressed under “PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT”.

 the ‘old’ Liesbeek River and Liesbeek Canal are identified as “Protected and Conserved Areas (Core 1)” on the City of Cape Town Biodiversity Network;  the Raapenberg Wetland is listed as a CBA;  Wetlands on the banks of the ‘old’ Liesbeek River and Black River abutting the site are listed as Critical ESAs; and  wetlands located on the PRASA bank of the ‘old’ Liesbeek River and on the eastern bank of the Black River are listed as Other ESAs.

Potential impacts of the development on CBAs and ESAs will be assessed in the Basic Assessment Report as part of the statutory NEMA process. If significant impacts on these areas are identified the analysis of ecological impacts will be expanded to an appropriate scale to consider impacts on freshwater systems regionally.

It is emphasised that rehabilitation of the interfaces between the site and surrounding waterbodies is proposed, which is likely to enhance the ecological value of these interfaces. 2. Property developers are selfishly The impact of a loss of open space and the Refer to 1 above regarding concerns about developing valuable open space for environment to society will be considered in environmental impact. profit; this short-sited approach will be to the statutory NEMA process. the long-term detriment of the natural environment. It is expected that the proposed development will have residual impacts. 75

However, these impacts can be mitigated over time. Furthermore, development is expected to have a number of benefits, including inter alia:

 Rehabilitation of interfaces with freshwater systems and enhanced public access to these areas;  Enhanced aesthetic value of parts of the site;  Enhanced public access to the site (the site is not currently a public amenity) and Raapenburg Wetalnd & Bird Sanctuary;  The generation of employment and income;  Investment into the local economy;  Increased municipal income through rates and taxes;  Improved accessibility from the establishment of new links to existing motorised and non-motorised transport systems (e.g. Berkley Road extension);  Improved access to economic opportunities (particularly by connecting Berkley Road and Liesbeek Parkway);  Improved awareness of the heritage and cultural significance of the site by the introduction of a place of memorialisation / celebration; and  Densification close to the CBD and the generation of thresholds to support public transport and retail uses within TRUP, the nearby Main Road and Voortrekker Road corridors. Water Scarcity 76

3. Development of land situated within a The River Club site is not positioned over an The Department concurs with the applicant’s floodplain will exacerbate water scarcity identified aquifer (refer to an extract of the response. (by preventing seep into the groundwater MSDF, attached as Annexure A hereto). network). Stormwater at the River Club either:

a. infiltrates the earth and discharges into the Liesbeek and Black River; or b. runs-off into the Liesbeek and Black Rivers.

Since there is no aquifer beneath the site and there are no known significant abstractive users downstream of the site, it is not clear how development at this location will exacerbate water scarcity. 4. There is an urgent need to investigate The surface water hydrology report assesses The Department concurs with the applicant’s alternative and sustainable water sources the opportunity cost of not using the River response. for the future. To this end, we need to Club site for attenuation of runoff (refer to think about alternative ecological sub-section 4.5 of the surface water reserves (e.g. rivers, aquifers and hydrology report, which is attached as wetlands) that can assist to ensure water Annexure H to the motivation report). security in the future. It is apparent that the potential benefits of using the site for flood attenuation purposes would be negligible. Climate Change 5. Green areas like the River Club help to The “urban heat island” is a well-known The site edges accommodated a number of reduce temperatures (and at the same phenomenon, the effects of which are known trees, in particular in the vicinity closest to the time reduce the impact of temperature to be reduced through the establishment (or conference centre. Those trees were removed a increases resulting from climate change). retention) of tree canopies and (to a far lesser few years ago. The proposal is accompanied It is a valuable ‘green lung’ in Cape Town. extent) grassed areas. As the site currently by a landscape master plan and will require the Buildings and streets, on the other hand, consists almost entirely of grassed areas (and submission a landscape plan. conserve heat that gets released much not trees), and approximately 40% of the site slower into the atmosphere. will be remain “soft open space” (i.e. rehabilitated or landscaped, including the river buffers, eco corridor and parkland), the 77

impact of the proposed development on the “urban heat island effect” is expected to be negligible. 6. The City of Cape Town should start This is for consideration by CoCT. Assessment of development proposals of this scale complying with the United Nations’ do take into account environmental impact as standards on climate change, part of the response to climate change by environmental protection etc. “thinking globally and acting locally”. 7. As sea level rises we will need wetland Climate change and sea level rise factors The Department concurs with the applicant’s buffer capacity to soften the effect of were taken into consideration in the surface response. stormwater flooding (and not more hard water hydrology report (refer to Annexure H surfaces). of the motivation report).

Terrestrial Biodiversity 8. The area is habitat to terrestrial wildlife The faunal study, which is included as part of The Department concurs with the applicant’s such as birds, otters and endangered the biodiversity assessment (refer to Annexure response as this issue was adequately addressed amphibians. Cape Town should be I of the motivation report), found: in the application for environmental preserving spaces for these creatures, not authorisation.  29 indigenous mammal species might developing them. occur on the site. The conservation status of these species are all listed as being of Least Concern (LC), with only one species (African Clawless Otter) with a global (IUCN) and regional listing of Near Threatened (NT);  A total of 32 indigenous reptile species may occur on the River Club site. The conservation status of these reptiles are almost all listed as being of LC, except for the Cape Dwarf Chameleon, which currently is listed as Vulnerable (VU). This species has been recorded on the grounds of the adjacent SAAO, and might possibly also occur within the River Club site; 78

 A total of 8 indigenous amphibian species may potentially occur on the River Club site and immediate surroundings. The conservation status of these amphibians are almost all listed as being of LC, with the notable exception of the Western Leopard Toad, which is Endangered (EN). The faunal specialist noted that although the presence of an endangered species on the site does not trigger a fatal flaw response in respect of the development intentions, the prevalence of WLTs in this area does call for special considerations to adequately accommodate this species on this site (during both construction and operation phases).

Notwithstanding the above terrestrial ecosystems on the site have been assessed in the biodiversity assessment to be highly altered and affording very low levels of habitat quality.

Construction and operational phase site management measures for the protection of these species will be incorporated into the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) to be submitted as part of the NEMA statutory process. 9. One out four birds are endangered; one This is a generic statement that does not The Department concurs with the applicant’s out of 4 mammals are endangered; one relate to the site under investigation. Refer to response. out of three amphibians are endangered; item D.5.8 above. and six out of seven turtles are endangered. 79

10. The Western Leopard Toad population will The biodiversity assessment (refer to Annexure The Department concurs with the applicant’s undoubtedly be directly affected, and I of the motivation report) does acknowledge response as this issue was adequately addressed likely lost, should this land be developed. that the Western Leopard Toad represents the in the application for environmental most significant faunal concern in respect of authorisation. the proposed River Club development intentions. As such, various mitigation measures have been presented in the biodiversity assessment study in order to ensure the potential impacts on this species are reduced. The assessment finds that the impact on the Western Leopard Toad will be low should mitigation measures be implemented as recommended.

Construction and operational phase site management measures for the protection of this species will be incorporated into the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) to be submitted as part of the NEMA statutory process. 80

11. The River Club is a valuable wildlife site The biodiversity assessment (refer to Annexure The Department concurs with the applicant’s and habitat (i.e. valuable indigenous flora I of the motivation report) concludes the response as this issue was adequately addressed and fauna). following: in the application for environmental authorisation and a condition requiring implementation of the “…both terrestrial and natural ecosystems are biodiversity impact assessment was imposed considered degraded, having suffered a long when the environmental authorisation was issued. history of manipulation, including (in the case of aquatic ecosystems) variously, diversion, channelization, fragmentation and canalisation. Terrestrial ecosystems have been assessed by the faunal, avifaunal and botanical specialists as highly altered and affording very low levels of habitat quality. No indigenous flora of any concern was found on the site…”

The degraded nature of much of the River Club site means that its development does present opportunities for rehabilitation / remediation of ecological function, which is part of the development proposal.

It is important to note that the proposed development is subject to a Basic Assessment process in terms of NEMA, and any negative impacts associated with the natural environment will be considered and assessed, with appropriate mitigation measures recommended if necessary. 81

12. The area is identified as having important The terrestrial areas of the site were assessed The Department concurs with the applicant’s threatened terrestrial vegetation. An as part of the biodiversity assessment (refer to response as this issue was adequately addressed opportunity to rehabilitate this vegetation Annexure I of the motivation report). The site in the application for environmental authorisation may not necessarily happen and also was found to be highly disturbed from a and a condition requiring implementation of the may not be successful (if it is attempted). botanical perspective. However, the biodiversity impact assessment was imposed How this rehabilitation is investigated, botanical study did indicate that there is a when the environmental authorisation was issued. financed, measured and enforced should possibility that the owner / developer of the be made clear. River Club site could contribute to Renosterveld conservation by bringing fill of a shale nature onto the site. This recommendation will be assessed in the BAR and included in the EMPr if warranted. 13. The proposed development, particularly Terrestrial ecosystems have been assessed by The Department concurs with the applicant’s the construction phase, will have the avifaunal specialist (as part of the response as this issue was adequately addressed significant impacts on the avifauna within biodiversity assessment, refer to Annexure I of in the application for environmental authorisation the Raapenberg Bird Sanctuary. the motivation report), and these ecosystems and a condition requiring implementation of the were found to be highly altered and biodiversity impact assessment was imposed affording very low levels of habitat quality when the environmental authorisation was issued (“Apart from the open water there are now few habitat patches of value for birds.”)

The avifaunal specialist reports that the birds of greatest interest, and conservation significance, are waterbirds. As such, the Raapenberg wetlands have are identified as important from an avifaunal perspective, supporting mainly waterfowl.

14. The river is a functional ecological system. The biodiversity assessment (refer to Annexure The Department concurs with the applicant’s The natural course of the river and I of the motivation report) includes response as this issue was adequately addressed wetland provide valuable ecological assessments of the various waterbodies in the application for environmental authorisation services to create a liveable city. surrounding the site. All of the rivers and their and a condition requiring implementation of the associated riparian wetlands that pass along biodiversity impact assessment was imposed the site boundaries were assessed as highly when the environmental authorisation was issued. transformed from their natural condition, and associated with the following Present Ecological State (PES) (or condition) ratings:

 The Black River: PES Category F, indicative of a system that has undergone extreme changes from its natural condition.  The ‘old’ Liesbeek River channel: PES Category E, indicative of a system that has undergone a serious change from its natural condition.  The Liesbeek Canal: PES Category F, indicative of a canalised system that has lost almost all natural stream function.  The Raapenberg wetlands: PES Category C, featuring renosterveld vegetation, breeding habitat to endangered Western Leopard Toads and habitat to bird species (mainly Waterfowl).

It is evident from the biodiversity assessment that the Raapenberg wetlands (and connectivity thereto) is important from an ecological perspective. The impacts on this wetland and associated ecosystems has been carefully assessed in the biodiversity assessment (and DBAR). Construction and operational phase site management measures for the protection of the Raapenberg wetland (including associated Western Leopard Toad, vegetation and bird 83

species) will be incorporated into the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) to be submitted as part of the NEMA statutory process.

It is important to note that the ecology of the waterbodies surrounding the site cannot be considered in isolation when it comes to assessing ecological quality of the site as a whole. Factors such as ecological connectivity, ecosystem resilience and landscape rehabilitation need to be considered in relation to the site as a whole. In this light, it is important to emphasise the following extract from the biodiversity assessment:

“…from an ecological perspective, there would however be a very clear preference for selection of Alternative 1 (i.e. proposal presented for approval). This alternative hinges on the rehabilitation of the currently canalised reaches of the lower Liesbeek River, and the planned creation of an unlined vegetated channel, that has sufficient space to function as a natural river within a broad connecting riverine corridor, to establish adequate longitudinal and lateral linkages into natural areas of the site and the adjacent Raapenberg wetlands, and which would significantly improve faunal connectivity and toad migration routes across the site. Implementation of this alternative would, from a biodiversity and general aquatic ecosystems perspective, be 84

a positive impact, and its implementation is recommended.” 15. Over the past 20 years the Friends of the Despite a PES rating of Category E (refer to The Department concurs with the applicant’s Liesbeek have restored many of the item D.5.14 above), the biodiversity response as this issue was adequately addressed ecological functions of the river, and assessment (refer to Annexure I of the in the application for environmental authorisation despite a common perception that the motivation report) acknowledges that the and a condition requiring implementation of the river is polluted, it is in fact clean enough Liesbeek River “…has a high rehabilitation biodiversity impact assessment was imposed to support species as sensitive as crabs. potential, at least in its uncanalised reaches when the environmental authorisation was issued. and, downstream of the N2 crossing, in its reaches where riverine wetlands remain, including the Raapenberg wetlands.”

Loss and/or changes in wetland habitat quality and availability in the areas of the ‘old’ Liesbeek River channel is assessed in the biodiversity assessment (refer to sub-section 5.1.8 of the biodiversity assessment, attached as Annexure I to the motivation report). The significance of the impact on the ‘old’ Liesbeek River channel is assessed to be low following implementation of mitigation. 16. The rich and diverse biosphere is This site is not considered to be part of a “rich The Department concurs with the applicant’s dependent on the two rivers. and diverse biosphere” and is in fact highly response as this issue was adequately addressed disturbed. The two rivers abutting the site are in the application for environmental authorisation both in poor ecological condition. Refer to and a condition requiring implementation of the items D.5.8, D.5.11, D.5.12 and D.5.13 above. biodiversity impact assessment was imposed when the environmental authorisation was issued. The biodiversity assessment (refer to Annexure I of the motivation report) concludes that the implementation of the development and associated landscaping / rehabilitation will from a biodiversity and general aquatic ecosystems perspective, be a positive impact, and its implementation is recommended. Refer to item D.5.14 above. 85

17. There will be a negative impact on the This is refuted on the basis of the findings of The Department concurs with the applicant’s wetlands and floodplains. the biodiversity assessment (refer to Annexure response as this issue was adequately addressed I of the motivation report) and surface water in the application for environmental authorisation hydrology report (refer to Annexure H of the and a condition requiring implementation of the motivation report). biodiversity impact assessment was imposed when the environmental authorisation was issued. Refer to item D.5.14 above and item D.8.6 below. 18. This area contains an important remnant Sub-section 2.1.1 of surface water hydrology This issue was adequately addressed in the of what was once a major wetland. report (refer to Annexure H of the motivation application for environmental authorisation and report) provides an overview of the history of the recommendations the recommendations of the Salt River Catchment. Indeed, the the specialist have been included as conditions in Liesbeek and Black Rivers historically flowed the Environmental Authorisation and in the EMPr. into an extensive wetland in this part of Cape Town. However, the impact of urbanisation means that from approximately 1958 the extent of this wetland was significantly reduced. The last remnants of this wetland are now known as the ‘Raapenberg Wetlands’. The site itself contains no functioning ecological wetlands.

Construction and operational phase site management measures for the protection of the Raapenberg wetland (including associated bird species) will be incorporated into the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) to be submitted for approval as part of the NEMA statutory process. 19. The wetlands were first allowed to be Noted and agreed. The impacts of The Department concurs with the applicant’s destroyed by the creation of a canal to urbanisation on the wetlands associated with response as this issue was adequately addressed redirect the flow of the water. Historical this site cannot be reversed. What is in the application for environmental authorisation dumping of tones of soil on the premises important is how the ecology of this area is and a condition requiring implementation of the treated in the future. The biodiversity 86

has had further negative ecological assessment concludes that the proposed biodiversity impact assessment was imposed impacts on the wetlands. development represents a positive when the environmental authorisation was issued. intervention from a biodiversity and general aquatic ecosystems perspective. Refer to item D.5.14 above. 20. The wetland area is critical for slowing It is acknowledged that the Raapenberg The Department concurs with the applicant’s down river flow and aiding and refilling wetland plays an important role in the response as this issue was adequately addressed the aquifer, a critical potential water ecological functioning of the river. The in the application for environmental resource. impact of the proposed development on authorisation. flooding in the surrounding ecosystems is analysed in sub-section 4.4 of the surface water hydrology report (refer to Annexure H of the motivation report). Effectively, the analysis indicates little to no significant change in the performance of the wetland (as long as a recent intervention to dig an artificial channel into the Raapenberg wetland is reversed).

It should be noted that there is no aquifer associated with this site (refer to item D.5.3 above). 21. The development will increase the This is incorrect. Refer to item D.5.20 above. This issue was adequately addressed in the concreted surface, increase the river flow, application for environmental authorisation and reducing the infiltration and destroying It is important to emphasise that construction the recommendations the recommendations of the wetland. and operational phase site management the specialist have been included as conditions in measures for the protection of the the Environmental Authorisation and in the EMPr. Raapenberg wetland will be incorporated into the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) to be submitted for approval as part of the NEMA statutory process. 22. The developer will not undertake This is incorrect. Mitigation measures, This issue was adequately addressed in the meaningful rehabilitation and restoration including those associated with the application for environmental authorisation and of the river courses, as proposed. rehabilitation of the river courses, will be the recommendations the recommendations of included in the EMPr and conditions of 87

Environmental Authorisation associated with the specialist have been included as conditions in the statutory NEMA process would be legally the Environmental Authorisation and in the EMPr. binding on the owner / developer should the project be approved. 23. The impact of infilling the ‘old’ Liesbeek The impact of infilling the ‘old’ Liesbeek River This issue was adequately addressed in the River channel requires thorough channel is assessed in sub-section 5.1.8 of the application for environmental authorisation and investigation and more detail is needed. biodiversity assessment (attached as the recommendations of the specialist have Annexure I to the motivation report). The been included as conditions in the Environmental significance of the impact on the ‘old’ Authorisation and in the EMPr. Liesbeek River channel is assessed to be low following implementation of mitigation. 24. Cannot support the ‘old’ Liesbeek river Refer to items D.5.14 and D.5.23 above. This issue was adequately addressed in the being infilled. This should instead be application for environmental authorisation and rehabilitated into a natural ecosystem adequate conditions were imposed when the and wetland. environmental authorisation was granted. 25. Concepts regarding the incorporation of It is proposed to utilise a system of vegetated The Department concurs with the applicant’s vegetated swales into the plan are swales on the perimeter of the site underlain response. rudimentary and suggest that little by a formalised piped drainage network. This thought has been put into arresting runoff will ensure that all stormwater runoff will be and potentially contaminated surface treated by the swales prior to entry into the wash into the adjacent rivers. river (refer to the civil engineering report, attached as Annexure Q to the motivation report). The detailed nature of these vegetated swales will be provided in the detailed landscape drawings to be provided in subsequent approvals required (e.g. SDP and Precinct Plans). 26. The ‘old’ Liesbeek River channel is It is acknowledged that the ‘old’ Liesbeek The Department concurs with the applicant’s protected in perpetuity, as per the CoCT’s River channel is identified as “Protected and response. Biodiversity Network. Conserved Areas (Core 1)” on the CoCT’s Biodiversity Network plan, as contained in the MSDF (refer to Annexure A attached hereto).

The desired land use outcome for “Critical Natural Areas” (including ‘protected areas’), as contained in the ‘land use guidelines’ 88

listed in Table 9 of the MSDF, is “enhance and connect the critical natural assets that support the city and regional environment and ecology”. The proposal for the site, including the proposal to infill the ‘old’ Liesbeek River and transform it into a vegetated stormwater swale, has been assessed by the biodiversity assessment to be positive impact from a biodiversity and general aquatic ecosystems perspective. Refer to item D.5.14 above. 27. No consideration has been given to the Requirements for maintenance of the rivers This issue was adequately addressed in the future maintenance of the rehabilitated have not yet been established. However, it is application for environmental authorisation and river systems. Rehabilitation is supported, expected that these requirements will be the recommendations of the specialist have but only if done so in a sustainable way. included in the EMPr and conditions of been included as conditions in the Environmental Environmental Authorisation associated with Authorisation and in the EMPr. the statutory NEMA process, as well as potentially in conditions of approval in any land use approvals, and these would be legally binding on the owner / developer should the project be approved. 28. Rehabilitation of the Liesbeek Canal Three development alternatives are This issue was adequately addressed in the cannot be used to justify the removal of essentially being investigated as part of the application for environmental authorisation and the ‘old’ Liesbeek River. Basic Assessment process in terms of NEMA, the recommendations of the specialist have viz.: been included as conditions in the Environmental Authorisation and in the EMPr. Alternative 1:

Whereby the ‘old’ Liesbeek River channel to the west of the property is infilled, development is setback from the existing Liesbeek Canal, which would be rehabilitated to function as a natural watercourse.

Alternative 2:

Whereby the development is setback from the ‘old’ Liesbeek River channel, which is to be retained in its current state, and the Liesbeek Canal is also retained in its current state (but the setback to this river is less than proposed in Alternative 1). Alternative 3:

The “No-Go Alternative” whereby commercial recreation and conferencing would continue on the property, and no rehabilitation of watercourses would take place by the developer

Following in-depth analysis, the biodiversity assessment (refer to Annexure I of the motivation report) found Alternative 1 to be preferable from an ecological perspective.

Further, the Draft HIA contends that the proposed rehabilitation of the canalised section of the Liesbeek River will create a “sense of river-ness” and engender conditions favourable to creating biodiversity and engendering natural qualities, and that this action will result in a powerful positive contribution to the overall commemoration of the Liesbeek River and enhance and celebrate its symbolic significance. For this reason the Draft HIA, too, favours the implementation of Alternative 1. 29. It is false to claim the ‘old’ Liesbeek River The biodiversity assessment (refer to Annexure This issue was adequately addressed in the has been non-functional considering that I of the motivation report) acknowledges that application for environmental authorisation and for many years the connecting pipe the pipe connecting the ‘old’ Liesbeek River the recommendations of the specialist have underneath Observatory Road was channel to the canal has been blocked for been included as conditions in the Environmental blocked. many years. This factor has been considered Authorisation and in the EMPr. 90

in the assessment and does not change the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report.

Refer to item D.5.14 above. 30. Changing the course of a river to make it Refer to item D.5.28 above. This issue was adequately addressed in the flow according to how developers see fit application for environmental authorisation and makes a mockery of environmental best the recommendations of the specialist have been practice. included as conditions in the Environmental Authorisation and in the EMPr. Movement Corridors 31. Berkley Road extension (if and when built) Noted and agreed. The biodiversity The logistics behind how the extension of Berkley must be raised on a long bridge to allow assessment (refer to Annexure I of the Road will be constructed will be informed by water and wildlife to pass freely. motivation report) recommends the following specialists who will be involved in the construction mitigation measure with respect to the thereof at the time it takes place. Berkley Road extension:

“The section of road to be constructed must highlight, on plan, requirements to ensure adequate faunal connectivity through the structure, by allowing bridging (if over open channel) or a series of wide, high culverts, with overhead grids for lighting, to connect into the open channel downstream.”

Construction and operational phase site management measures, such as above, will be incorporated into the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) to be submitted for approval as part of the NEMA statutory process. 32. The two buildings (marked bldg. 21 and The positioning of these buildings has not The development of any buildings along the bldg. 22 in Figure 40 of the motivation been identified as an issue in the biodiversity water’s edge or close to river will have to be report) are proposed to be erected on a assessment (refer to Annexure I of the buffered in some way. The position of buildings piece of land that should be preserved for motivation report). has not be finalised as yet and will have to be a corridor between the subject site / river 91

confluence and the land to the north of The freshwater ecosystems assessment informed by the width of embankments to Berkley Road extension. (included as part of Annexure I of the suitably buffer them from rivers. motivation report) supports the ecological buffer of 20 m between the top of bank of the Black River and the nearest hardened development edge.

A similar buffer would be assumed for the Black River on its northern (right hand) bank, but this lies outside of the present site (i.e. is to the north of Berkley Road extension). Biodiversity Impact Assessment 33. Disagree with many of the findings of the The independent freshwater ecologist, Dr Liz This issue was adequately addressed in the fresh water ecologist, including: Day of the Freshwater Consulting Group, has application for environmental authorisation and over 22 years’ experience in freshwater a condition requiring implementation of the  The rivers (and other adjacent land) are ecosystems, specialising in urban wetlands biodiversity impact assessment was imposed not ecologically significant; and watercourses, particularly in the City of when the environmental authorisation was issued.  The site is a “highly disturbed Cape Town. The competency of Dr Day environment”; and should not come into question, and the  The canal is a “generally sterile aquatic findings contained in the biodiversity ecosystem”. assessment relating to freshwater ecosystems

are implicitly trusted. There is a significant body of evidence that directly attest to the variety of fauna and flora found in the area. 34. There is a worrying trend of underreporting This is incorrect, as highlighted below: Refer to 33 above. of occurrence of species in the area:  Lythrum salicira (Purple Loosestrife): The  Lythrum salicira (Purple Loosetrife) is a biodiversity assessment (refer to Annexure I Category 1a Invasive Plant Species (if of the motivation report) acknowledges bulk earthowrks go ahead as proposed the presence of this alien specied. Box 3.1 there is a significant risk of dispersing this of the report (pg. 19) provides a fact sheet dangerous species and this could have and control methods relating to this a significant risk on the water ways species. In the event of construction around the site and further afield); disturbance, however, the species would dislodge downstream into the Salt River canal and although undesirable, this 92

 Sandelia capensis (Cape Kurper) is an would not be considered a significant endemic fish specieis that occurs in the threat to the Liesbeek or Black River canalised section of the Liesbeek River; systems.  Moreaea aristata, a Critically  Sandelia capensis (Cape Kurper): Dr. Liz Endangered vegation species (this is Day is of the opinion that it is unlikely that the only known flowering location in the this fish species occurs in the canalised city where this is found); and section of the Liesbeek River, which is not  A variety of bird species that occur at considered an important breeding the Raapenberg Bird Sanctuary. habitat. In the event that it does occur in the channelised sections of the river, it would benefit from the measures proposed to rehabilitate the Liebeek Canal into a congruent river channel as this species is not considered as sensitive to habitat change as the Galaxias zebratus (discussed in biodiversity assessment, refer to Annexure I of the motivation report).  Moreaea aristate: The botanical study conducted by Coastec (included as Appendix A to the biodiversity assessment) identifies this species as endemic to the adjacent SAAO site (its last known location in Cape Town). The botanical study concludes that the long-term security of this species is likely assured, provided acceptable conservation measures are introduced on the SAAO site. The species does not occur on the River Club site.  Bird species occurring at the Raapenberg Bird Sanctuary: the avifaunal study conducted by Dr A.J. Williams (included as Appendix D to the biodiversity assessment) assess the bird life in the area and the impact of the development thereon. 93

D.6 Impact on ‘Sense of Place’ 1. The development will have a substantial The following is extracted from the VIA Although the proposal will no doubt change the adverse impact on the sense of place of conducted in relation to the proposed sense of place experienced, the view that the the area. development (refer to Annexure J of the change in the sense of place will be negative is motivation report): subjective.

The proposed development is located in the midst of a wholly transformed urban environment, but has remained underdeveloped, conferring a more “natural” sense of place to surrounding (urban) receptors.

The development will change the character of the site from an underdeveloped green open space to a highly developed site. Although the River Club site is surrounded by urban development, due to the size of the proposed development, its location at the confluence of the Liesbeek River and Black River, and long-term status as a green open space, the change in character to a highly developed site may be experienced as a strong visual contrast for surrounding (urban) receptors and frequent visitors to the area.

Loss of sense of place is expected since the development and the change in the state of the site is mostly incongruent with the current 94

nature of the site (i.e. green open space) and use of the site (i.e. recreation).

The VIA concludes:

Receptor perceptions are also important: for some, retention of the open space might be critical to retaining the sense of place; for others, urban development, especially if celebrated by iconic structures, may be valued. The development could both alter sense of place and, at the same time, deliver a functional development with interesting structures with their own visual appeal.

Residual impacts of the proposed development on the ‘sense of place’ are to be assessed in the Basic Assessment Report (BAR) to be of high significance and with the implementation of mitigation, is reduced to medium. This impact will be assessed by DEA&DP during the assessment associated with the statutory NEMA process. 2. Turning this existing piece of land, with all The statement that the development will be This statement is subjective and there is no of its natural and human heritage “architecturally dull” is misplaced. The project universal agreement on what constitute potential, into another inappropriate high- team architects, Vivid Architects, is an award architecturally acceptable development. density development with a bunch of winning architectural firm that is responsible architecturally dull office and apartment for some of the most innovative buildings in blocks is without merit. South Africa (and Africa). Their architecture is widely considered as timeless, elegant and well proportioned. Further, Vivid Architects is committed to a sustainable built environment and encourages clients to consider achieving a minimum Green Building Council (GBCSA) 4 star or best practice rating for their buildings. 95

The buildings shown in the motivation report (refer to Figures 3, 36, 37 & 38) are indicative and are used to show potential height and massing. In no way do these buildings represent the final architectural detail. 3. Observatory is so loved because of the It is contended that the River Club site is The property is located on the edges of the ‘village’ feel it offers. The development sufficiently removed from the historic suburb suburb of Observatory. It is situated would detract wholly from the current look of Observatory and will have negligible approximately 150 – 170m away from the nearest and feel of Observatory. impact on the current character of that area. developed properties. The river and Liesbeek Rather, the conceptual layout and massing of Parkway serve as buffers between the site and the proposed development responds to Observatory. The elements and components that design informants such as Black River may give it a sense of a village feel is located to Parkway, the PRASA yard warehouses and the west of the Observatory railway line where a the forthcoming Berkley Road extension, sense of “village-ness” is more prevalent. while also responding to the historical SAAO site (the heights and massing in Precinct 1 are lower than in Precinct 2) and the surrounding rivers (green open spaces have been retained for connectivity, view corridors etc.). 4. This development is enormous in scale. Cape Town is currently embracing The scale of the development is contextually Like all other developments continuing to development principles encapsulated by appropriate as explained in the “PROPOSAL rise into the sky, no consideration is given densification and TOD in an attempt to make ASSESSMENT” Section of this report. to the historical scale of the area and is the city more urban and efficient. The result is being ruined for future generations. buildings of a greater scale than what are perceived as ‘acceptable’ to the current generation that are accustomed to a suburban living environment. Cities are dynamic and change according to complex patterns of spatial development and societal needs.

It is strongly believed that the proposed development strikes a balance between retaining the environmental / heritage 96

integrity of the site and development objectives.

5. The area and its surrounds, including the Refer to items D.2.6, D.2.7, D.2.8 and D.6.1 This statement is subjective and neither evidence river precinct, the SAAO and the above. nor the nature of harm is explained. Valkenberg Hospital will be irreparably harmed by this development. 6. The amount of parking proposed will only Only very limited parking will be provided Much of the parking proposed will be provided at serve to sterilise large tracts of land. around buildings at grade. The vast majority basement level and therefore will not be visible to of parking will be provided in ‘super passers-by. basement’ structures below the proposed development precincts. D.7 Impact on Infrastructure 1. The development will result in increased The CoCT’s Water & Sanitation Department The Department concurs with the applicant’s water usage, which is a scarce resource in has confirmed, via an official letter, that the response. Cape Town. bulk water network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed development: 2. It is noted that the existing waste water The CoCT Water & Sanitation Branch have Existing capacity challenges in the network has treatment capacity cannot handle the indicated that the Athlone WWTW is at been acknowledged by the applicant. Capacity additional flow expected from the capacity, however wastewater flows can be has been accommodated within the proposal. development. This must be adequately diverted to Cape Flats WWTW via Cape Flats dealt with before any development 3 bulk sewer and therefore confirmed that commences. sufficient bulk treatment capacity exists.

The project team civil engineer is aware of the existing constraints in connection with the CoCT sewage network. The development will therefore require a sewer storage facility and pump station on-site. This pump station will be owned and operated by the owner / developer of the River Club. 3. The development will put strain on the The CoCT Water & Sanitation Branch have The Department concurs with the applicant’s Municipal sewerage system. indicated that the Athlone WWTW is at response. capacity, however wastewater flows can be diverted to Cape Flats WWTW via Cape Flats 97

3 bulk sewer and therefore confirmed that sufficient bulk treatment capacity exists.

Furthermore, the River Club development will be constructing a sewage holding tank and pump station to attenuate sewage and will only pump into the municipal system during off peak times.

Refer also to item D.7.2 above. 4. The development will put strain on the Since the River Club is bounded by the The deviation of stormwater into the water ways Municipal stormwater drainage system. Liesbeek and Black Rivers (and is in essence will obviate this impact. an “island”), the stormwater from the site will discharge directly into the Black and Liesbeck Rivers and does enter the municipal stormwater drainage system (a Water Use Licence has been applied for in terms of the National Water Act). Therefore, the stormwater generated on the site will not put strain on the municipal system.

The effect of the discharge of stormwater into the Black and Liesbeeck Rivers has been dealt with in detail in surface water hydrology report (refer to Annexure H of the motivation report). 5. Densification needs infrastructural support. A Development Contribution (DC) will A condition requiring a development contribution There needs to be an infrastructure fund. become payable prior to any development to l be payable by the applicant/developer has on this site (as with any application of this been recommended. nature). The CoCT ultimately decides how the DC will be allocated in the budget, but it is expected that much of the DC will be spent on local infrastructure (i.e. within TRUP). 6. The development will take away services The provision of bulk services to the remainder The property forms part of the TRUP precinct. capacity from publicly owned land in of TRUP has been considered in the CoCT’s TRUP and will therefore threaten the assessment of spare capacity availability to 98

viability of future development within the River Club. In addition, it is important to It is the norm that the development of a property TRUP. As such, the CoCT should not note that River Club is part of the TRUP usually feeds into bulk services. Any shortfall in provide any bulk services capacity to the development. capacity in bulk service provision must be River Club and rather require that the addressed in the development proposal. As with River Club development be self-sufficient. Further, a significant DC (in the order of any other development the developer will have approximately R60 million) is payable by the to contribute toward services and service proponent with respect to the development provision. of the site. This payment will ensure that any upgrades to the bulk infrastructure that are required to be made by CoCT are possible and avoid bulk infrastructure constraints future to nearby developments. Refer to item D.7.5 above. D.8 Floodwater Impact 1. The entire site falls below the 1:100-year The civil engineers on the project team, After consultation with the City’s Catchment floodline. The River Club regularly floods. Aurecon, have assessed the impacts of the Management Department it was confirmed that This flooding cannot be engineered away, development on the floodplain and river the modelling undertaken by the applicant or else the flooding will just occur courses. A detailed 2D modelling study was reveals that the level of flooding will not be somewhere else. undertaken at the request of the CoCT’s significantly different to that already Stormwater Department. It has been experienced. concluded that the development will have negligible additional impact on flooding in the area should the River Club site be developed as proposed (refer to the stormwater hydrology report attached as Annexure H to the motivation report). The CoCT’s Stormwater Management & Catchment Planning have endorsed the findings of the surface water hydrology report (refer to item D.8.11 above).

Further, it is important to note that impacts on the receiving environment will be assessed in the Basic Assessment Report (BAR), which will be assessed by DEA&DP during the statutory NEMA process. 99

2. Where are the hydrological reports A comprehensive surface water hydrology Reports from Hydrology specialists were included motivating for this development? assessment was undertaken by an with the proposal. independent specialist. This report is attached as Annexure H to the motivation report. 3. The question of who bears the cost of The Basic Assessment process in terms of Technical reports and the proposal damage to property and life (and NEMA, and any negative impacts associated assessment address similar issues raised in the resulting insurance claims) as a result of with the natural environment will be policy. more intensive flooding (as a considered and assessed, with appropriate consequence of the development) needs mitigation measures recommended if clarifying. What are the legal implications necessary. for the CoCT / River Club developers? Legal principles would apply with regard to proving of any causal link, contributory negligence, risk mitigation and insurable risk assessments, bearing in mind that Aurecon (the project team engineers) have assessed that the development on the site would have an insignificant effect on flooding in the vicinity of the site (refer to the surface water hydrology report, attached as Annexure H to the motivation report).

Also refer to items D2.2, D3.1 and D8.11. 4. Building in the floodplain would create a Council is obliged to treat each application The Department concurs with the applicant’s dangerous precedent for possible similar for development on its own individual merits. response. developments in the future. The restrictions Moreover, precedent is not part of the criteria on such developments were made not for deciding development applications in only to protect the rivers but also to Cape Town (as per Section 99 of the MPBL). prevent damage to surrounding It is important to note that the proposed properties. development is subject to a Basic Assessment process in terms of NEMA, and any negative impacts associated with the natural environment will be considered and assessed, with appropriate mitigation measures recommended if necessary. 100

5. Increased flooding as a result of The Raapenberg Wetland was found by the The Department concurs with the applicant’s development will have a detrimental biodiversity assessment (refer to Annexure I of response. impact on ecology (e.g. fauna and flora). the motivation report) to be the most sensitive ecosystem in relation to the site.

The impact of the proposed development on flooding in the Raapenberg Wetlands is analysed in sub-section 4.4 of the surface water hydrology report (refer to Annexure H of the motivation report). The analysis indicates little to no significant change in the performance of the wetland (as long as a recent intervention to dig an artificial channel into the Raapenberg Wetland is reversed). 6. The developer is only trying to protect their This is incorrect. The surface water hydrology The Department concurs with the applicant’s site from the impact of flooding and does report assesses the impact of flooding on a response. not take into account properties further broad area surrounding the site (approximate afield that are also at risk of flooding. area between the Table Bay coastline and Where is the risk analysis report? the Liesbeek Parkway / N2 interchange, refer to sub-section 4.2.4 of the surface water hydrology report attached as Annexure I to the motivation report). 7. No report has been done on the The civil engineers on the project team, The comments from the Catchment displacement of ground water. How is this Aurecon, have assessed the impacts of the Management Department indicate that flooding going to affect the water table? development on the floodplain and river events that will loccur as a result of the proposed courses. It has been concluded that the development will not be significantly different development will have negligible additional from that which is presently experienced. impact on flooding in the area should the River Club site be developed as proposed (refer to the stormwater hydrology report attached as Annexure H to the motivation report).

Further, it is important to note that impacts on the receiving environment will be assessed in the Basic Assessment Report (BAR), which will 101

be assessed by DEA&DP during the statutory NEMA process.

8. Houses in this area are already prone to There is no evidence to suggest that this The Department concurs with the applicant’s damp issues / structural damage as a development will raise the water table to response. result of the high water table. This such a degree that it will impact on homes development is going to compound the structurally. problem. 9. The stormwater hydrology report relies on This is incorrect. The stormwater hydrology The Department concurs with the applicant’s old, outdated data and statistics. It takes report made use of extensive modelling with response. no account of very real climate change both HEC-RAS and PCSWMM 2D (as well as issues. Where is the report on the effect of data captured in relation to seven relevant climate change on weather patterns and studies) in order to determine the impact that the unpredictability of flood events going the development will have on local flooding. forward? In addition, climate change considerations have been taken into account (refer to sub- section 2.1.5 of the surface water hydrology report attached as Annexure H to the motivation report). 10. If the figure of 1:100-year flood is to be This is inconsequential. The stormwater The Department concurs with the applicant’s relied on, time wise we are due for hydrology report finds that there will be response. another major flood. negligible change in the maximum extent of inundation for the 100-year flood and 50-year flood following development (refer to sub- section 4.2.4 of the surface water hydrology report attached as Annexure H to the motivation report). 11. “Negligible” flooding impact is unlikely. The CoCT’s Stormwater Management & The Department concurs with the applicant’s Catchment Planning comment on the response. application includes the following statement:

“The hydrology and hydraulics for the current situation with or without a proposed River Club development have been studied in detail. It is accepted that, given the current situation, the proposed development will not significantly increase local flood risk. As such 102

an application to deviate from the CoCT Floodplain policy cannot be opposed by this office.”

This is taken as the validation and endorsement of the findings, recommendations and conclusions of the surface water hydrology report. 12. The alteration of the flooding This is incorrect. The stormwater hydrology The changes proposed to the existing Liesbeek characteristics of the river system (e.g. the report finds that there will be negligible River and the decanalising of the Liesbeek River flow, water levels etc.) as a result of change in the maximum extent of inundation Canal are measures proposed to mitigate development, and the added future for the 100-year flood and 50-year flood in the against flooding or the effect of flooding so that impact of sea level rise, will detrimentally Paarden Eiland area following development flooding is not compounded beyond that impact on Paarden Eiland (which is (refer to Figures B7 and B8 of the surface presently experienced. serviced by a My CiTi and therefore rife for water hydrology report attached as future intensification). Annexure H to the motivation report).

13. Development of this land will have a Limited residential properties are affected in negative impact on property upstream, the 1:20 year event (and not in other specifically 1 & 2 Ossain road, Observatory Recurrence Intervals). The impacts on these (Figure B6 contained in Annexure H: properties can be addressed through minor Hydrology Report shows that this property adjustments to the kerb height to ensure the will be flooded during a 20-year flood flooding remains in the road (Standard Major should the site be developed, while it will Flood flow path). This will be investigated not be if the site is not developed). further to determine the best means of addressing the effect on these few properties.

14. Who will keep the water ways clear to It is anticipated that all maintenance The applicant will be required to maintain green prevent flooding? (The canal was built for associated with the green spaces on and spaces presently within the bounds of the that express purpose, and now it is immediately adjacent to the site (e.g. the property that may be zoned for OS3 purposes. proposed to deconstruct it.) rehabilitated Liesbeek Canal and infilled ‘old’ River clearing while a requirement of the City Liesbeek River), including the clearance of may potentially see an agreement reached water ways, will be undertaken by the owner between the developer and the City to achieve / developer of the River Club. This however this end. will be subject to further negotiations and 103

potentially a service level agreement between the CoCT and the owner / developer of the River Club. 15. Severe winter flooding happens far more This is noted in the surface water hydrology The Department concurs with the objector. frequently than once in 100 years. report (refer to Annexure H of the motivation However, conditions of approval are report): recommended in order to ensure that the proposed development does not exacerbate “The recurrence interval of a storm event flooding. does not imply that it occurs on a regular basis. A five-year storm does not take place once every five years – it could happen 5 years in a row and then not again for the next 20 years.”

Notwithstanding, this does not change the conclusion in the surface water hydrology report: that there will be negligible additional impact on flooding in the area should the River Club site be developed as proposed. 16. An independent investigation into the The surface water hydrology report The Department concurs with the applicant’s flooding is necessary. conducted is comprehensive, taking into response. account the findings of 7 previous studies conducted in relation to flooding in this area. Further, the CoCT’s Stormwater Management & Catchment Planning have endorsed the findings of the surface water hydrology report. It is therefore considered unnecessary to conduct a further independent investigation. 17. During winter downpours, certain places Noted and agreed. The surface water The Department concurs with the objector. in Observatory are prone to flooding, hydrology report corroborates this However, conditions of approval are namely: information. This flooding occurs currently, recommended in order to ensure that the without any development on the River Club proposed development does not exacerbate  Station Road between the bridge and site. What the surface water hydrology report flooding. intersection; finds, however, is that there will be negligible 104

 Ossian Street (an access road for lower additional impact on flooding in the area Observatory); should the River Club site be developed as  Firs Street (leads to Black River Business proposed. Park);  Link Road (between Fir Street and Liesbeek Parkway that services Black River Business Park);  Liesbeek Parkway / Station Road intersection;  Hartelyvale Sports Grounds;  Malta Park Sports Fields. 18. The aging sewage system in Observatory Refer to item D.7.4 above. The relevant department has indicated that while means that the ability for stormwater to capacity at the Athlone WWTW is at capacity, the drain is impacted. Cape Flats WWTW still has capacity – the development will be diverted accordingly. Any upgrades made to the Athlone WWTW will see the necessary changes made.

Waste water treatment facility capacity does exist. The development will be directed accordingly.

In addition provision will also be made on-site. 19. The stormwater hydrology reports do not This is refuted. The surface water hydrology The Department concurs with the applicant’s show how extensive infilling of the River report is comprehensive in its scope. Further, response. Club site will cause vulnerabilities towards the CoCT’s Stormwater Management & more frequent high flood levels, impacting Catchment Planning have endorsed the the natural environment, use of the park findings of the surface water hydrology report and the use of existing rail and road (refer to item D.8.11 above). transport. D.9 Construction Impact 1. There will be a huge disruption on Construction will be managed in terms of an While the impact of construction is residents during the construction period approved Construction Environmental acknowledged, this is usually managed so that (including traffic congestion; increase in Management Programme (CEMPr) and impacts are minimised as much as possible. dust; increase in river silt; increase in noise subject to oversight by an Environmental Further any associated disruption as a pollution). consequence of the proposal is finite. 105

Control Officer. Disturbance caused by construction will be temporary.

D.10 Air Pollution 1. The development will result in an increase The proposed development is in an urban There is no evidence indicating that whatever air in air pollution as a result of increased area where high levels of activity already pollution that will occur as a result of this traffic. occur. development will be noticeable given that the site is located in an urban area air pollution is a reality. 2. The loss of green space will exacerbate air An increase in air pollution as a result of the Refer to D.10.1 above pollution. loss of open space may have occurred were there many trees on the site and these were all removed. This is however not the case (refer to item D5.5 above). D.11 Noise Pollution 1. The development will result in an increase The proposed development is in an urban The development will result in the same types of in noise pollution as a result of increased area where high levels of activity already urban noises already experienced. traffic. occur. D.12 Waste Pollution 1. Any development adjacent to the It is not true to say that the development will The Department concurs with the applicant’s Liesbeek River is likely to exacerbate the exacerbate the pollution of the surrounding response. already acute pollution and all efforts to water bodies. SUDS principles will be mitigate this situation must be a perquisite incorporated in all aspects of the for approval. development’s drainage system. It is envisaged that a series of swales / bio swales will treat and attenuate runoff during frequent events. Further, it is anticipated that all maintenance associated with the green spaces on and immediately adjacent to the site (e.g. the rehabilitated Liesbeek Canal and infilled ‘old’ Liesbeek River) will be undertaken by the owner / developer of the River Club (it is the owner / developer’s best interests to keep the natural areas free of 106

pollution as these elements will be a major drawcard of the development). D.13 Property Value 1. The development will significantly change There is no evidence that property values will No evidence has been provided to support this Observatory, to the point where existing be affected. Value is not necessarily a contention. New, infill development has proven residents are likely to move out of the function of externalities (e.g. traffic to have the opposite effect when it is located suburb. The development will lead to a congestion etc.), but rather a function of within existing established areas. decrease in property values in quality. The proposal is for high quality Observatory as a result of various impacts development (including high quality urban (e.g. traffic congestion, noise pollution, design / landscaping interventions) of high degradation of the natural environment). market value. It is likely that the degradation we see in Slat River will creep into Observatory. 2. Who will be responsible for the high Refer to item D13.1 above. There is no evidence that there is a relationship insurance costs and increase in property between high insurance costs and the proposed insurance premiums? development.

D.14 Loss of Green Open Space / Public Space 1. The development will destroy green open The site currently plays a limited role in While a golf course and associated activities space that is used for recreational accommodating people seeking recreational dominate, the property is also used for purposes. open space. Yes, it accommodates people conferencing and a small range of other uses. with an interest in golf, as well as a handful of The site is therefore used by a select few. The bird watchers. But people generally do not development of the site will see a higher level of visit the site to run, walk, cycle or play games. use inviting a wider range of people from various Given that the site is privately owned, it is not socio-economic backgrounds to the site. It must a given that the use will be converted for also be noted that the site is privately owned. It other recreational use in order to was previously leased for a 99 year period to a accommodate the needs of TRUP or the private entity, (that lease having commenced in wider community. Active use of the site for the late 1980’s/early 1990’s) recreation is ultimately at the discretion of the owners (i.e. the right of admission is reserved).

It is argued that the development proposal will in fact enhance the site for recreational purposes. 107

2. The proposed transformation of this land It is argued that the proposal does, in fact, The Department concurs with the applicant’s does not serve to expand public space. serve to expand the open space system that response. is accessible to the public (when compared to the current situation), with the following factors being particularly pertinent:

 Currently, the River Club is an isolated tranche of land owing to barriers such as the M5 motorway, the Black River, the Liesbeek Canal and inhospitable surrounding land uses (particularly the inwardly orientated institutions of the SAAO and Valkenberg Hospital to the east / south-east, as well as the PRASA railyard to the north).

 The site is privately owned and commercially operated, which further restricts access to and through the site.

 The site currently plays a limited role in accommodating people seeking recreational open space. However, the proposal will rehabilitate the surrounding water courses and make them more accessible and aesthetically pleasing for visitors to the site (there will be cycle paths and running paths along both river courses, as well as in the ‘eco-corridor connecting the two river courses).

 Besides enhanced accessibility through the movement system, one of primary ways in which the River Club can become more accessible to the public is through a change in land use (i.e. the character of the development). While the existing land use at the River Club is open to the public, 108

it remains isolated both in terms of access and land use, and does not generate the number or diversity of people necessary to truly integrate the River Club into the surrounding urban environment. This means that only a limited number of people get to experience the character of the place (the rivers, the landscape, the views toward Devil’s Peak etc.).

 As the western gateway into TRUP, the River Club should be attracting people into the area. Moreover, it should have the necessary activities and amenities to make people stay for significant periods of time so as to allow them to draw utility from the landscape and to experience the essence of the place: walk along the river, watch birds in the wetland, look at the views towards Devil’s Peak. The current land uses of the site do not facilitate this desired role.

(Refer also to sub-sections 9.4 and 9.9 of the motivation report.) 3. The only recreational or non-commercial This is not entirely true. The ‘eco-corridor’ The Department concurs with the applicant’s use of the land is now consigned to the green space separating the 2 development response. river edges. precincts is substantial (the extent of the portion zoned OS3 will be approximately 4.9 ha) and will be appropriately landscaped to so that areas of lawn are included for recreational purposes. 4. The site forms a significant part of TRUP. Refer to item C.3 above. The property is one of the many properties within the Two Rivers Urban Park(TRUP). The area covers in excess of 200ha. The property comprises but a fraction of this extent. 109

5. None of the great cities of the world The proposal is to enhance the rivers This is a sweeping statement and considerations would let this happen. They have made (including appropriate buffer areas) for that must be taken into account when assessing their river areas into parkland for communal usage and enjoyment. Refer to a development of this nature are outlined in communal usage and enjoyment. item D.14.2. SPLUMA, LUPA and the MPBL. 6. Observatory is subject to high density It is acknowledged that dense urban areas The Department concurs with the applicant’s development and the loss of its open need public space as spaces for refuge. It is response. spaces. The development will introduce believed that the public space provided as people into the area without providing part of the proposal is adequate for this recreational space for their use. purpose. In addition, the site will allow for better linkages into TRUP. For example, the existing NMT infrastructure to the south of the site (i.e. along the Liesbeek River) will link into the site so as to allow for a seamless use of the entire open space system. The open space provided at the River Club, as well as the open space provided in the remainder of TRUP, is considered more than adequate to provide refuge to the growing population of the area. If these spaces do become marginally crowded in the future, then Cape Townians have the luxury of having Table Mountain National Park as an extensive publicly accessible open space for enjoyment. 110

8. More information is required on the Preliminary detail of these riverine corridor Access to rivers corridors, trails/pathways will riverine corridor spaces (e.g. how these spaces is provided in the sections shown in remain open to the general public. To achieve spaces function; how these spaces the Conceptual Landscape Masterplan this end, a public right way will be registered. connect into the surrounding green submitted as part of the application (refer to network; how will these spaces be Figure 43 of the motivation report). More maintained). A legal commitment to detail will be provided in the Landscape maintain the riverine corridor spaces as an Masterplan to be submitted as part of open, accessible, green space is required subsequent applications. (otherwise it can be reasonably predicted that in near future fences will go up, With regards to maintenance of these people will be excluded and/or there will spaces, requirements for maintenance of the be infrastructure decay). rivers have not yet been established. However, is anticipated that all maintenance associated with the green spaces on and immediately adjacent to the site (e.g. the rehabilitated Liesbeek Canal and infilled ‘old’ Liesbeek River), including the clearance of water ways, will be undertaken by the owner / developer of the River Club. This however will be subject to further negotiations and potentially a service level agreement between the CoCT and the owner / developer of the River Club.

It is expected that maintenance requirements of the open space areas will be included in the EMPr and conditions of Environmental Authorisation associated with the statutory NEMA process, as well as potentially in conditions of approval in any land use approvals, and these would be legally binding on the owner / developer should the project be approved. 9. In recent months, three open spaces in The closure of public open space in the This is not material to the proposed development. the neighbourhood (Maltapark / surrounding areas is unfortunate, but is not the 111

Hartleyvale) were closed without due concern of the owner / developer of the River consultation. This is a clear message from Club. the CoCT that development profits for a few matters more that the residents. 10. This green open space should be Noted and agreed. This is part of the The Department concurs with the objector and enhanced and celebrated. proposal. However, since the land is under this matter will be addressed at precinct plan private ownership, it needs to operate submission. commercially and the land cannot be transformed as an open space only. Development is required to make the project commercially viable. 11. Bldg. 21 and bldg. 22 (in Figure 40 of the This is not true. This space is 65 – 75 m in width The Department concurs with the applicant’s motivation report) should be removed and will at no point be completely covered by response. and instead built in the proposed east- shade. west ‘eco-corridor’, which is in a shadow zone and can never be a viable public open space. 12. The ‘old’ Liesbeek River can be reclaimed Noted and agreed. This is part of the proposal. The Department concurs with the objector and this and act as a public open space, which matter will be addressed at precinct plan as well will compensate for the loss of access to as SDP submission. Malta Park (which has been transferred by CoCT to a private owner / long-term lessee). 13. Several “green” areas have been Refer to items D.5.27 and D.8.15 above. Green spaces which forms part of the proposal suggested in the plan. Who will maintain located on the property will need to be them? maintained by the applicant’s client and future owners or owners association. 14. Will the general public have access to the Yes, the open spaces at the River Club will be The Department concurs with the applicant’s proposed “public” facilities and “public” accessible to all. However, because this is response. spaces. private property, there will be security in place and conduct rules will be in place to govern behaviour (same rules that are generally imposed in relation to shared open of spaces, for example no alcohol). 112

15. Public access to the riverine corridors is It is intended for the open space portions to As stated previously, public right access not guaranteed since much of the land is be subdivided off from the developable servitudes will be registered to enable access privately owned and can be regulated by portions and for these to retain a zoning of along river corridors and paths. the developer (unless this land is OS3. However, it is not intended to transfer this subdivided and returned to CoCT). land to CoCT as it is believed that these spaces can be better managed by the owner / developer in terms of security, aesthetics and maintenance. Refer to items D.5.27, D.8.15 and D.14.14 above. 16. A preserved park with an enhanced sense Refer to item D.14.10 above. The Department concurs with the applicant’s of place would have great potential to response. heal our city and contribute greatly towards facilitating social inclusivity and cultural integration. D.16 Food Security 1. The area has potential to be used for Farming on this land is not commercially No evidence is provided to support this statement farming, increasing our food security. viable and has not been considered by the or to show what type/scale of farming would be owner. Moreover, the soil is highly disturbed viable on the site. and is not currently suitable for farming purposes. D.17 Socio-economic Impact 1. The development will further exacerbate Gentrification occurs as a result of complex The development of the development of the site Apartheid spatial planning through the land use economics, and is a phenomenon proposes the provision of housing further gentrification of Salt River, with few that is evident in countries all over the world. accommodation as well as non-residential jobs of value being created. The socio-economic impact assessment accommodation. A portion of the housing prepared in relation to the proposed provided will comprise inclusionary housing. This development (refer to Annexure L of the will, to an extent contribute to reducing the motivation report) does identify gentrification economic divide. Business accommodated on as a potential negative impact resulting from the site will make provision for employment the development. However, this is impact is opportunities across the socio-economic rated as medium and is not assessed be spectrum. It is acknowledged that jobs within a significant in relation to the various positive certain income stream will likely dominate. impacts resulting from the development, including:

113

 rehabilitation of interfaces with freshwater systems and enhanced public access to these areas;  enhanced aesthetic value of parts of the site;  enhanced public access to the site (the site is not currently a public amenity) and Raapenburg Bird Sanctuary;  the generation of employment and income (project value of over R4 billion, with an estimated 5 000 jobs created during the construction phase and 630 permanent jobs created during the operational phase);  investment into the local economy;  increased municipal income;  improved accessibility from the establishment of new links to existing motorised and non-motorised transport systems;  improved access to economic opportunities (particularly by connecting Berkley Road and Liesbeek Parkway);  improved awareness of the heritage and cultural significance of the site by enhanced access to this land; and  densification close to the CBD and the generation of thresholds to support public transport and retail uses within TRUP, the nearby Main Road and Voortrekker Road corridors. 2. If the CoCT is intent on becoming an The River Club will be open and accessible to The Department concurs with the applicant’s ‘inclusive city’, how is this development people from all income brackets. Refer to response. being held to account in the ways in item G below. which it creates spaces that include and exclude people on the basis of money? 114

3. South Africa is oversubscribed with Approximately 22 000 m² of retail space is There is no evidence to support this statement. shopping centres (we are 6th in the world proposed, which equates to 15% of the total Need is not a relevant consideration when when it comes to this type of floor space. assessing land use applications. development). Cape Town has the opportunity to do something worthwhile The retail component will predominantly (but and appropriate on this land. The current not exclusively) support the requirements of proposal shows a lack of creativity. the people working and residing at the River Club (e.g. food & beverage and service There is currently a great mix of businesses related shops). These retail outlets will be in the area, the majority of which are positioned at the ‘ground floor’ interface to independent and no “chains”. These create active edges onto the streets and businesses are already struggling to open spaces. survive. Adding more shops and restaurants (including international A more niche lifestyle retail component brands) is going to introduce more focussing on sport will be located in Precinct competition and place increased 1. This will complement the envisaged pressure on existing businesses. recreational amenities of the development (e.g. cycling, running, outdoor sports etc).

It is therefore evident that there will not be a shopping centre at the River Club. 4. The people who really need housing will Although the majority of residential units will Although there is no indication of the rentals that not be able to afford the apartments be priced according to market dynamics, the will be payable for the inclusionary housing units, available for rent. proponent has committed to include a it is not an unreasonable assumption that it is likely component of “inclusionary housing” in the that the inclusionary units will not be affordable to development scheme. 20% of residential GLA the lowest income earners. will be for inclusionary housing, which equates to approximately 6 000 m² (or 140 units). All residential units will be rental units.

teachers, nurses, policemen etc.) earning between R6 000 – R18 000/month.

5. The school will not be a government There is currently a significant demand for Statements about who will benefit from the school, but a private one. Who does this private schooling in Cape Town and the proposed school are speculative as there is no really benefit? proposed school at the River Club will assist to information to indicate the likely beneficiaries. satisfy this demand.

The Western Cape Education Department has confirmed in their comment that “there are no plans in the foreseeable future to construct a new public school as part of the development”. 6. It is not clear whether the development An estimated 5 000 jobs will be created The Department concurs with the applicant’s will create new jobs or simply relocate during the construction phase and 630 response. existing jobs from other areas. permanent jobs created during the operational phase. It is very difficult to say if these jobs will be relocated from elsewhere. Regardless, it is anticipated that the development will generate substantial benefit for the local economy. 7. An economic study done in relation to the A study undertaken by Rode & associates The Department is not aware of the assumptions TRUP project revealed that the provision of concludes that the development at the River that underpinned the studies referred by the office space at the River Club (as Club will be sustained by growing commercial objector and the applicant and cannot neither proposed) could significantly distort the and latent residential demand, and will not refute nor concur with either the objector or the current market in Cape Town and lead to affect (divert) demand for existing applicant. However, it is likely that the studies significant underutilised office space in commercial and residential properties locally. referred to by the applicant and the objector other parts of the city. were done prior to COVID-19, and is likely that the properties dynamics have substantially changed since then. 8. The developer has made it clear that a This is the nature of the property development This issue is not a material consideration. return on investment of below 8% is not industry. viable. A return of above 8% can only be achieved at the expense of other developments (i.e. developing this land 116

will amount to a competitive advantage over other developments). 9. The residential component is not The socio-economic analysis does suggest Although the objector neither indicate the basis considered enough. The development is that demand for more affordable housing will on which this statement is made nor what would essentially a commercial development be greatest in this area, and this position is constitute “enough residential”, this department that will benefit the developer. understandable – Cape Town is in need of has no basis to question the quantum of well-located affordable housing. residential units proposed by the applicant.

A pertinent factor that needs to be noted is that the site is in private ownership and therefore any development on the site needs to be financially viable.

The site is strategically located, but requires a very large capital investment in bulk infrastructure before any commercial structures can be constructed. This includes raising the site above the 1:100 year floodline, installing wastewater, transport and electrical infrastructure. The proponent would want to recoup these costs through development of the site, but low-return development (such as social housing) does not cover costs. Affordable housing in combination with other development is more viable. Inclusionary housing will be provided to the extent that it is commercially feasible. D.18 Impact on Tourism 1. South Africa’s and Cape Town’s wealth is The site currently attracts a negligible number There is no evidence to prove that the proposed in its green areas and wildlife. A large of tourists (apart from those interested in golf). development will be less of a tourist attraction proportion of tourists that visit Cape Town The proposed development of this site will compared to the existing development. (and generate a large amount of income therefore have no discernible negative for the City) come here because we have impact on tourism and has the potential to natural places like TRUP and historical encourage more visitors to the area once landmarks like the Observatory. We must developed. 117

protect these assets because they generate money for the economy. G. THE ISSUE OF ‘PUBLIC GOOD’ 1. Preference must not be given to private It is in the public interest to inter alia: This is not a relevant consideration when assessing developers and their profits in favour of land use applications.  provide intense, mixed use development the “public good”. in close proximity to public transport;  improve the rates base of the City;  rehabilitate degraded river courses;  improve access to open space that is currently underutilised;  enhance the local and regional movement network;  promote employment and income generation;  make better use of underutilised land inside the urban edge; and  promote socio-economic integration through the provision of social housing. 2. The size of this development seems to be As with any commercial development, there Although any commercial development will have motivated by the need to make it is indeed a need to ensure that the to be financially viable, several specialist studies financially viable and not by the needs of development is financially viable. However, it dealing with environmental and heritage issues the general public or by any real concern is firmly believed that the proposal presented were undertaken and the developer will have to for the environment. represents a sustainable balance between comply with some of the findings of the specialist environmental needs, heritage needs and studies as per the conditions of environmental optimal urban development. authorisation. 3. Do not let commercial gain and greed Refer to item F.2 above. Refer to G.1 above steal the heart of our city. 4. It was delightful to read about the CoCT’s Refer to G.1 above reversal on the proposals for Maiden’s Cove. There are still CoCT officials that still want to do “the right thing”. It can be done again. 5. The notion that this particular area needs Refer to item F.2 above. preservation as it is an historic spiritual site and that its perceived development is 118

fuelled by commercial interests above all other is deeply unsympathetic to cultural and intellectual values. 6. There is an outcry all over the city with People are opposed to development for all Each application must be assessed on its merits. every new proposed development sorts of reasons, as is their prerogative in a wanting to change zoning in Cape Town. democratic society where participation is It is clear the people of Cape Town are encouraged. At the same time, developers opposed to every single development are allowed to make rezoning applications wanting to change the character of the and these applications should be considered city to the benefit of the rich. on merit in a balanced and fair manner. The motivation report submitted in connection with the River Club provides detailed reasons as to why development on this site should be considered. 7. The land should only be rezoned if there is It is not a requirement that the general public Each application submitted is assessed based on considerable support from the surrounding supports the proposed development. Rather, very specific considerations listed in the MPBL. and greater Cape Town community and the City of Cape Town needs to assess the Similarly, these considerations are taken into not because of profit motive of proposal and decide whether or not the account by the decision-maker when deciding developers who bought the land without development has sufficient merit to be on an application. development rights. approved. This assessment takes into consideration the views and comments expressed by I&AP’s in the public participation process. The development proposal has been revised and adapted over the last couple of years in an effort to achieve a balance of interests. 8. The proposed development represents a There are no “opportunities” for the The proposed development was assessed against perfect opportunity to create an eco- development of alternatives that are not various City policies and considerations in friendly and sustainable development feasible to the owner / developer. relevant legislation and it is the view of the which could include a large proportion of Nevertheless, the proposed development Department that the proposed development public housing. The development could includes a number of initiatives that are eco- does taken into account the principle of be self-sufficient, create its own electricity friendly and sustainable, such as: sustainability as discussed in “PROPOSAL and collect its own rainwater. It could ASSESSMENT”.  Green Star ratings for individual buildings promote pedestrians and bicycles and will be pursued for all office buildings; have recycling facilities.  Solar power generation will be used to supplement municipal supply; 119

 Sustainable storm water systems are being planned; and  A reduction in the reliance of private motor cars will be promoted and an emphasis will be placed on public and NMT transport. 9. Rezoning of open space should only be Development of the River Club will produce Public benefit is not only realized through the considered where there are clear public significant public benefit. Refer to item F.1 provision of public open space, but can be benefits. In this case rezoning is sought for above. realized in a number of ways that include public a private development, of principally facilities, employment opportunities, provision of offices and retail, for which there is no housing and upgrades to public infrastructure. clear public benefit. 10. The proposal includes no public facilities It is not the role of private developers to Whilst the objector is correct, the fact that the (including publicly accessible sports fields) provide public facilities. This is rather the role development proposal does not include the type or any other social facilities that will be of of government. The development will yield a of public facilities like sports field does not make it benefit to the majority of citizens. substantial income for the Municipality in less desirable. terms of rates to assist with the provision of public housing and service delivery in areas of need elsewhere in the city 11. If the developer is serious about The vast majority of the DC payable will be The Department concurs with the applicant’s “inclusivity” then it would be prepared to offset against the Berkley road extension, response. cross-subsidise an NMT bridge between which has been identified by CoCT TDA as a Observatory and Maitland Garden key road infrastructure upgrade (and Village, which would be a real therefore takes precedence over other improvement of bridging the divide in projects). society. 12. The development perpetuates the spatial Refer to items D17.1 and G2. The development is a mixed use which includes legacy of Apartheid. some inclusionary housing. General 1. No attention is given in the development This is erroneous. The proponent has The application indicates the intention to proposal to the likely inclusion of committed to include a component of accommodate inclusionary housing. affordable housing. “inclusionary housing” in the development scheme. 20% of residential GLA will be for inclusionary housing, which equates to approximately 6 000 m² (or 140 units). All residential units will be rental units. 120

Tenants in the inclusionary houses will be selected by the owner / developer on an application basis. However, at this stage it is envisaged that beneficiaries will be households of employed civil servants (e.g. teachers, nurses, policemen etc.) earning between R6 000 – R18 000/month. 2. The CoCT should consider this site as a If the proposed development is not The property is privately owned. The proposal way of pursuing its objectives of approved, then the following will be forgone: includes the provision of inclusionary housing. overcoming Apartheid spatial planning by  140 inclusionary housing units provided by only providing limited rights to construct the developer in perpetuity; social housing and associated facilities.  opportunity to rehabilitate the Liesbeek Canal into a natural river course;  opportunity to implement the Berkley Road extension (initially to service the River Club development, but ultimately to connect into Malta Road);  the opportunity creates a meaningful western gateway into TRUP;  significant investment into infrastructure services; and  opportunity to establish a place of remembrance / celebration, where local heritage such as First Nation related activities on this land can be recognised and memorialised. 3. There is potential to provide social housing An alternative with predominantly on the site in a way that will be less inclusionary housing was conceptualised by damaging to the natural environment as the owner / developer, however this opposed to the proposed development. alternative was found to be not commercially viable and so it was not pursued further. 121

4. The proposed development does not The provision of social housing closer to the appear to be serving what is most city centre is not the sole responsibility of the needed in Cape Town – social housing private sector. The private sector has a role to closer to the city. play (e.g. the River Club has committed to providing 140 inclusionary housing units), but government needs to be the sole driver of the provision of social housing. 5. The “inclusionary” housing amount is 20% Inclusionary housing will be provided to the of 20%, which translates into 4%. This is too extent that it is commercially feasible and low. economically sustainable to do so.

6. How is it being guaranteed that The owner / developer will not renege on the Conditioning the application to include “affordable housing” will be provided on commitment to supply 6 000 m² (or inclusionary housing will be important to ensure this site? There is nothing currently binding approximately 140 units) of inclusionary the provision thereof. the developers in this regard. Even an housing. The CoCT is able to entrench this official agreement would be seen by commitment by including this requirement as many as not likely to be upheld. a condition of approval in the land use approval (should it be granted), and this condition would be legally binding on the owner / developer should the project be approved. 7. There should be a mandatory inclusion of As stated, the CoCT is currently working on The Department concurs with the applicant’s on-site affordable or social housing, promulgating an inclusionary housing policy, response. calculated as a percentage of the total however as of this moment this policy is not in developable bulk (i.e. not just as a force. Notwithstanding, the owner / percentage of the residential developer of the River Club has recognised component). The CoCT is busy developing the need for inclusionary housing in Cape an inclusionary housing policy to this Town and has voluntarily included a effect, and challenge the CoCT to start reasonable number of inclusionary housing using projects of this scale as “pilot units in the scheme. projects” to test these principles. 8. What does the terms “inclusionary Refer to item G.1 above. housing” mean? Who are these units intended for? The definition is too broad and will allow the developer to get 122

around providing proper social housing for those who need it most.

9. Tower blocks of low-income housing have There will be no tower blocks of “low-income” In order for the inclusionary housing provided in proved disastrous elsewhere in the world housing. Instead, the inclusionary units will be the development to be meaningful, it must be (e.g. Pruitt-Igoe housing project in St Louis, integrated into the same blocks of integrated with the development and with other USA). apartments as the market residential units. In residential units. order to achieve this, the proponent is prepared to subsidise the rental in respect of the inclusionary housing units 10. No clarity is given to the following with Size of units: respect to the “inclusionary” units: Preliminary size of the inclusionary units is 35 m².  Size of the units;  Number of units; Number of units:  Affordability; Provision has been made for approximately  Form of tenure; 140 inclusionary units.  Percentage of the total investment into

the development. Affordability:

At this stage it is envisaged that beneficiaries will be households of employed civil servants (e.g. teachers, nurses, policemen etc.) earning between R6 000 – R18 000/month.

Form of tenure:

All residential units at the River Club will be leasehold.

Percentage of total investment:

The value of the inclusionary housing component has not yet been determined. Ndifuna Ukwazi 123

11. The value of the contribution towards The constitutional imperative that The Department is not aware of the basis of the inclusionary housing should be based on reasonableness underlie any, and every, objector’s statement on how the quantum of total bulk (and not merely on the bulk of spatial decision taken by the State, as per inclusionary housing should be calculated. the residential component) to ensure that sections 25 and 26 of the Constitution, was contributions for inclusionary housing arises confirmed by the Constitutional Court when it from both residential and commercial noted that “reasonable conduct pursuant to development. s26 [and likewise section 25(5)]…of the Constitution includes reasonableness of every step taken in the provision of adequate housing.”1 The State must, in line with the above, be reasonable in instances wherein the State approves an application on the condition that such approval is subject to the imposition of, and compliance with, a condition. It is therefore trite to say that, under the Constitution, not only must the State be reasonable in imposing the condition, but the content of that condition must be reasonable as well.

The reasonableness required from the State by the Constitution, in relation to approving applications, is overtly evident when one considers the LUPA, the SPLUMA and the MPBL. In terms of the LUPA “[w]hen a municipality approves a land use application subject to conditions, the conditions must be reasonable conditions.”2 In terms of the SPLUMA, a Municipal Planning Tribunal may “in the approval of any application, impose any reasonable conditions.”3 In terms of MPBL, “[t]he City, when granting an approval or

1 Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road, Berea Township and 197 Main Street, Johannesburg v City of Johannesburg and Others 2008 (3) SA 208 (CC) para 17. 2 Section 40 of the Western Cape Land Use and Planning Act, 2014 3 Section 40(7)(b) of the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013 124

making a determination…[regarding an application], may impose reasonable conditions.”4

The Constitution, as well as the abovementioned legislation, make it clear that reasonableness must be at the forefront when the state approves applications and imposes conditions. What then must be asked is whether both the proposed imposition of a condition and the content of that condition is reasonable. Ndifuna Ukwazi are implying that a condition of approval be imposed whereby the contribution towards inclusionary housing at the River Club be based on 20% of the entire bulk to be developed. It is argued that in this case that such a condition would be unreasonable.

A condition that requires more inclusionary housing units than what is financially viable for the owner / developer to uphold must comprehend its potential negative impact on the owner / developer. Any number in addition to the 140 inclusionary units to which the owner / developer has committed may cause the owner / developer to fall into debt. This may have the knock-on effect of negatively affecting the owner / developer’s ability to complete the project, which in turn may negatively impact their economic ability to pay, and further retain, its employees.

4 Section 100(1) of the City of Cape Town; Municipal Planning By-Law, 2015 125

A condition, the imposition of which could potentially see to a contributor of this country's economic growth and spatial development not only fall into debt and dissolve, but also lose its ability to remunerate and/or continue to employ citizens of this country, can never be regarded as being “reasonable”.

The contribution of 140 inclusionary housing units, to which the developer has committed to even prior to the submission of the application, is considered reasonable. 12. The mechanics of the inclusionary housing Affordability: contribution should be scrutinised and At this stage it is envisaged that beneficiaries enforced by the CoCT. An inclusionary will be households earning between R6 000 – housing contribution must be affordable, R18 000 / month. accessible by race and class, well-

located and secured in perpetuity. Accessibility:

At this stage it is envisaged that beneficiaries will be households of employed civil servants (e.g. teachers, nurses, policemen etc.)

Well located:

The River Club is extremely well located for the purposes of inclusionary housing.

Secured in perpetuity

The intention is for the inclusionary units to be provided in perpetuity. The CoCT is encouraged to include a condition of approval to reflect this.

126

H. SKA DEVELOPEMENT 1. The SKA development seems to be a red The proposed SKA development is an No submissions have been made for the herring. It is about 5% of the proposed informant to development on the River Club development of the SKA site, remainder portion magnitude of the River Club development site. The buildings in Precinct 1 which fall of Erf 26423. Given this, the ultimate vertical and suggested as 3 – 4 storeys, which is adjacent to the SKA site are of similar height envelope of buildings for that site, should it be much more in keeping with the character to the proposed SKA development (i.e. 5 developed, cannot be confirmed. of the area. storeys). I. PERCEPTIONS / MISINFORMED COMMENTS AND OBJECTIONS 1. Members of the TRUP group received, This comment is not relevant to the land use The adjudication of the HWC decision regarding from CoCT lawyers, 13 individual emails application submitted in terms of the MPBL. the protection order on the site, is adjudicated by containing information of appeals lodged However, for the purposes of clarification, the a separate authority. Land use applications by 2 Western Cape Government CoCT, the WC Department Transport & Public cannot be held in abeyance pending the Departments (i.e. Transport & Public Works Works and the WC Department of outcome of decisions on other legislation. and Cultural Affairs and Sport) against Environmental Affairs & Development HWCs protection of this site. Planning (amongst others) all submitted Despite the above, the provisional protection appeals with respect to HWCs decision to order lapsed in April 2020. 127

provisionally protect the River Club property in terms of section 29 of the NHRA.

2. In depth studies need to be conducted in An integrated planning and design approach The Department concurs with the applicant’s relation to this sensitive site before any has been followed for this project. An response. approvals are granted to commence experienced, multi-disciplinary project team development. consisting of specialists in a variety of fields has been engaged in ongoing work on the development proposal over a significant period of time. The land use application is informed by a Basic Assessment (BA) process in terms of the NEMA, as well as the associated specialist studies which accompany such a process. Many of these specialist studies were summarised in the motivation report submitted, with full copies attached for reference. 3. It is unfathomable how the EIA was The Basic Assessment (not EIA) has not yet The EIA process is adjudicated by the DEA&DP passed in this instance considering the been passed. Rather, this process is expected and is not subject to the MPBL. incredibly valuable ecological resource to commence in early 2019 once HWC is that will be destroyed. prepared to accept and comment on the Draft HIA (refer to item D.2.3 above). 128

4. The communication regarding the EIA has It is acknowledged that the NEMA process This is not a relevant consideration when assessing been poor, with insufficient notice and has thus far been haphazard, but this is land use applications. advertising given in relation to the scale of through no fault of the owner / developer. A the development. brief history:

 At project initiation the NEMA required that a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process would be required to be submitted to DEA&DP. To this end, initial notification of identified stakeholders, including Draft Scoping Report, was issued on 4 August 2016, and a revised Draft Scoping Report issued on 11 January 2017.

 However, the EIA Regulations were amended on 7 April 2017, which meant that a Basic Assessment process became applicable. The BA process is currently being undertaken by SRK Consulting, including the associated specialist studies (including heritage).

 Although compiled, the Draft Basic Assessment Report (DBAR) has not yet been submitted to DEA&DP because a comment on the Draft HIA has not yet been received from HWC (refer to item D.2.3 above), and such a comment is a prerequisite for the NEMA legislative process to proceed.

 Assuming that HWC accept the HIA, deliberate on, and submit final comment on the HIA in February / March 2019, SRK can submit the application for Environmental Authorisation in March 2019, and submit the Final BAR to DEA&DP 129

by end September 2019. DEA&DP must then issue a decision within 107 days of submission of the Final BAR (i.e. by mid- January 2020).

In summary, therefore, the Basic Assessment process in terms of NEMA has not yet commenced (and consequently public participation in connection with this process has not yet taken place).

5. It seems as though this land will not be This incorrect. Refer to item D.14.14 above. available to free public movement and non-motorised recreation.

6. The river has been cleaner than ever While the river may be cleaner than ever There is no evidence provided that the health of before due to concerned citizens and before, it is still not clean. The river was rated the river will be worse off as a direct result of this Friends of the Liesbeek working on the in a recent study undertaken by Blue Science development. River for the last 30 years. as a “Category D” in its reaches just upstream of the Black River (as measured at the Observatory Road crossing at the River Club entrance), and thus acts to dilute poor water quality in the Black River, at least downstream of its confluence. Low concentrations of dissolved oxygen primarily drove the “Category D” rating with respect to water quality, although orthophosphate concentrations have also been elevated historically in these reaches. Refer to sub- section 3.1.3 of the biodiversity assessment attached as Annexure I to the motivation report. 130

7. The practices of the CoCT regarding Firstly, the application is not a “TRUP” The application under consideration only relates development and densification do not proposal. Secondly, the application does to the redevelopment of the River Club site. The match their stated intent as these include an inclusionary housing component forward planning document that will inform developments favour the rich and of 140 units. Given that this is a private development of the TRUP is being reviewed. Any disregard the needs of the poor. development scheme on privately owned future development of the TRUP will therefore be Densification and development is land, this inclusionary housing component is informed by the outcome of the LSDF when welcomed where it supports the considered to be reasonable. finalised. integration of working class families within the inner suburbs of Cape Town, whereas the TRUP proposal seeks to exclude such families in favour of upper class developments that will do nothing for social cohesion.

8. 150 000 m² of exclusively rental stock will This comment is not substantiated. The owner There is no evidence to support this assertion. have an extremely detrimental effect on / developer will own the rental stock and will the surrounding neighbourhoods and ensure that management of the residential communities. component (including issues of maintenance) will be given utmost attention. 9. The decision by the HWC heritage council HWC have taken a decision to provisionally This is not a relevant consideration when assessing to grant protection to the area for 2 years protect the river Club site. In terms of section land use applications. is illogical. Permanent immunity from 29(1)(1) of the NHRA provisional protection is development should have been granted. for a maximum of 2 years.

Notwithstanding, the decision taken by HWC to provisionally protect the site is currently on appeal. 10. The development would destroy the This is a misinformed comment. The site is not The River Club is not used for school open space established community open space that is used by the Observatory Junior School in any activities. part of the Observatory Junior School. capacity. 11. The house is currently used as a This is a misinformed comment. No building at guesthouse which contributes to the value the River Club is used as a guest house. of the area and which has no negative impacts. 131

12. If this area is sold to a private owner there Section 99(2)(g) of the MPBL needs to be The property is already in private ownership. is no need for them to concern taken into consideration when the decision themselves with social and spatial justice. maker decides whether or not to approve an In terms of the assessment criteria of the application (and therefore the applicant application, the issues associated with social and needs to demonstrate compliance with the spatial justice are addressed in “PROPOSAL principles contained in LUPA and SPLUMA, ASSESSMENT”. which includes the principle of “spatial justice”). 13 The area would be better used to achieve This would be the case if the land were The property is not public land therefore the land spatial restitution for people who would publicly owned. However, the land is under owner cannot be compelled to use the land as be forced out of the area by private ownership and commercial suggested. gentrification or who currently live in considerations need to be taken into transition camps (e.g. those families living account. at Blikkiesdorp).

14. Mark Turok has sent out a detailed plan This is irrelevant. The owner / developer of the The proposal relates to the subject property and suggesting an alternative, nearby site on River Club, together with the project team, therefore must be assessed accordingly. The City which such a development would not be has conceptualised a development proposal can only have regard to the current proposal. deemed inappropriate. for the site. Since the River Club land is under private ownership, the owner / developer is permitted to submit development related applications for the site. 15. There has been talk of the SAAO This is all speculation and hearsay. It should approving the proposed development. be noted that the SAAO did not submit an This is simply not the case; in fact the objection to the application submitted in SAAO has described itself as having been terms of the MPBL (refer to Table 1). “brushed aside as an irrelevant factor in considering the impact of development of the River Club”. 16. This area is meant to be a conservation This is incorrect. No official CoCT contextual The existing approved Contextual Framework area according to contextual framework. framework identifies the River Club site for (CF) was approved in 2003. It identified the site conservation purposes. to be used for commercialised recreation. The CF is presently being reviewed. 17. The design of the buildings and building This is incorrect. Refer to item D.6.2 above. The detail of building designs will be addressed at methods used are of low aesthetical SDP submission. 132

value to benefit the developer and ruin the character of Cape Town.

18. There is plenty of available land nearby This is irrelevant. Refer to item I.14 above. The proposal relates to the subject property and (e.g. Wingfield) that is far more suitable therefore must be assessed accordingly. The City and already has the required zoning can only have regard for the proposal before rights, should there be a need for such a them. development as proposed. 19. A substantial body of knowledge has This is comment is unsubstantiated. been accumulated about the negative effects of shopping centres and other mega-developments on urban cohesion.

20. There is a glut of office space and high- This is irrelevant. The owner / developer has end commercial properties is Cape Town undertaken extensive market research and standing empty. have determined that there is significant demand for further commercial office space in this location (for example, the Black River Parkway offices have had a very low / non- existent vacancy rate for the past 10 years). 21. This kind of development is short sighted The CoCT and Western Cape Government The submission of an application and decision of and unintelligent. There needs to be a are currently in the process of finalising a an application cannot be withheld until the long-term view taken to decide the best Local Spatial Development Framework (LSDF) outcome of City policy. possible plan for this area. for TRUP.

Despite the fact that the River Club is located within TRUP, the River Club planning application has been submitted prior to the TRUP LSDF being finalised. There are two primary reasons for this:

 the time frame for the TRUP LSDF is uncertain; and  as a private development initiative on privately owned land, the proponent is permitted to submit a planning application in terms of the legislation. 133

22. Observatory and the surrounding suburbs This is speculation and hearsay. The owner / do not need additional development developer has undertaken extensive market (recent large and small scale residential research and have determined that there is developments have a very low significant demand for further commercial occupancy). office space, retail and residential development in this location. 23. The development will create a major This is incorrect. The surface water hydrology According to modelling mimicking flood events, flood risk and will cause definite damage report (refer to Annexure H of the motivation the proposal will not result in flooding that is to all the private and public properties report) concludes that the proposed significantly different from what is currently (and public infrastructure) in lower development would have an insignificant experienced. Observatory, including Valkenberg and effect on flooding in the vicinity of the River the SAAO. Club site. 24. Three hydrology reports could not agree The stormwater hydrology report (refer to The City’s Stormwater Management Department on the potential outcome of the of Annexure H of the motivation report) makes have indicated that they accept the findings of building on the floodplain. The fourth, by reference to previous studies conducted in the reports furnished. the potential developers, tries to collate relation to flooding in this part of Cape Town all the points of view, but when read and provides an assessment of the inherent carefully, contains a lot of “ifs”, “buts”, strengths and weaknesses in these studies. “maybes” and “possibly”. All very inconclusive. The surface water hydrology report undertaken by Aurecon is comprehensive in its scope. Further, the CoCT’s Stormwater Management & Catchment Planning have endorsed the findings of the surface water hydrology report (refer to item D.8.11 above). 25. The fact that the buildings will be built on The buildings will not be built on dykes. Rather The Department concurs with the applicant’s huge dykes indicates the developers are retaining structures will be built to create a response. very aware of the potential danger of “basement” structure for the parking of motor building on a floodplain. vehicles. These retaining structures will have a further purpose of raising the habitable floor space on the site above the 1:100 year flood line, which is a requirement of the CoCT Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy (2009). 134

26. The River Club development proposal to This is a misinformed comment. The CoCT “design and engineer” away any water have indeed engaged with professionals from “issues” through developing relationships the Netherlands in relation to the TRUP and aligning with the CoCT and the project. However, these Dutch specialists Netherlands speaks to a lack of have had no input into the River Club commitment to investing in local water development proposal. Indeed, the owner / management in academia, which is at developer of the River Club did not wish to the forefront of international best engage in workshops hosted by these practice. specialists as it was felt participating in such workshops would represent a conflict of interest.

27. The developers claim to be providing This is a misinformed comment. There is no affordable housing. The term “affordable” intention to sell any of the units at the River does not apply, if indeed the minimum Club. Rather, all units will be leasehold. 140 of selling price is R3 million as the developers the units will be available as “inclusionary have proposed. units”. Refer to item D.17.5 above. 28. If this specific application is allowed, it will Refer to item D.8.4 above. The property has been in private ownership for create an unacceptable precedent sometime, having been leased for a long lease where developers “grab land” for prior to the sale thereof. commercial interests, without taking the wishes of the community (or indeed the natural environment) into consideration. 29. A TRUP development framework, which The TRUP development framework referred to The TRUP Contextual Framework is presently under provided a great open space for this is the TRUP Contextual Framework and Phase review. area, was developed through public 1 Environmental Management Plan (2003). participation for many years, but is now Refer to item D.17.5 above. being ignored. 30. There is a concern that corruption may be This comment is speculation and is If the objector is aware of any incident of happening at the highest levels within the unsubstantiated. corruption, the matter should be referred to the CoCT. Developments like this get relevant authorities. approved because developers make donations to the DA, who in turn ensure people with a vested interest in 135

development help make important planning decisions.

31. It is assumed that the Malta Road – Phase 1 of the Berkley Road extension (bridge Part of the Berkley Road extension will be to the Berkley Road link is not going to be paid over the Black River and extension to the developers account. The cost thereof will be off- for by the River Club developer and so this River Club development only) will be offset by set against the Development Contribution cannot form part of the present proposal. Development Contributions payable by the payable by the developer. developer to the CoCT. This is a common arrangement in a development of this scale where public infrastructure upgrades occur as a result of private sector development initiatives. 32. The concept layout seems to be based on This is disputed. The River Club will be a mixed- Modernist planning theory. use, medium to high density development that will promote the vision of “Live, Work, Play”. The development will aspire to play a role in a future denser city by:

 Reducing the consumption of non- renewable fuels by lessening car dependence over the medium to long term (through the creation of a “Live, Work, Play” development in close proximity to communities the will both gain utility from the development and seek employment at the development);  Increasing population thresholds and mixed-use development, which will support the efficient functioning and viable provision of public transport services;  Promoting access to economic opportunities, public transport and open space amenities;  Reducing travel distances and times, as well as the associated costs; 136

 Generating sufficient consumers to generate the development of economic opportunities, social facilities and services in important economic corridors;  Enabling the cost-effective provision and optimal use of services infrastructure (the site is within the urban edge and can link in with existing services infrastructure within and surrounding the site);  Promoting diversification and choice of housing types and tenure options; and  Providing an opportunity for place-making and the creation of attractive and safe urban environments, particularly in proximity to the river banks. 33. Is it proposed that the various buildings will At this stage this is not the intention – the The submission at hand is the first level of the be sold off to separate developers to developer is intending to develop all buildings application process. Prior to the submission of design buildings to their own taste? and remain landlord thereof. However, this building plans, there will be more detailed plans may change depending on market that include precinct plans and SDPs, that will dynamics. also determine the exact footprint of all buildings.

Notwithstanding. It is important to note that the development (is likely to be subject to SDPs, Precinct Plans and guidelines (including architectural guidelines), which will all form part of subsequent approval processes. 34. The current zoning allows for a wide range This is not true. Firstly, the current zoning does The development of the site will be subject both of environmental protections over the not convey environmental protection but to the provisions of the base zone, as well as any land. Once the zoning has been rather limits development. Secondly, any land conditions of approval stemming from this amended, there will be no mechanisms to use approval or Environmental Authorisation application and further applications that may be protect this land. to be granted will come with a range of required. conditions of approval. These conditions will have statutory status and will need to be strictly adhered to in the future. 137

35. The rezoning will allow for the piecemeal This is incorrect. Future development of the development of the site, to the detriment site will be subject to compliance with an of the ecology and heritage of the site, as approved SDP, as well as detailed Precinct well as the wider community. Plans. 36. The various studies and reports for this While the specialist studies in relation to the No conflict of interest exists between the City and development are paid for by the application are indeed paid for by the the applicant/developer. The fact that the developer and taken at face value by the developer, each specialist appointed to developer paid for the specialist studies is the CoCT. For example, a number of studies undertake studies in relation to the Basic norm. were conducted in relation to flooding. It Assessment in terms of NEMA has a legal seems the developer and CoCT have requirement to remain independent in their settled on a report which supports the findings. idea of developing in the floodplain. This represents a conflict of interest. 37. The development is labelled “mixed use” This statement is contradictory. The range of The proposal submitted is to accommodate a however is primarily a commercial uses proposed constitutes a mixed use mixed use development given the range of land development, only 20% is residential, with development. uses that is being proposed. the remainder retail, restaurants, hotel and office. 38. The developer (and its professional team) This in incorrect. Members of the River Club was not willing to fully engage / professional team tried to engage various participate in the TRUP planning and parties. participation process. 39. If the open space alongside the river is The open space alongside the Liesbeek River taken away, then the opportunity to help is not being “taken away”. Refer to item D.14 the Liesbeek River become a healthy river above. again is lost. 40. The current zoning of the property is This comment is misinformed. The current “Open Space for Conservation” (with zoning of the property is Open Space 3: some concessions). Special Open Space and not Open Space 1: Environmental Conservation.

41. HWC noted the River Club site to be HWC has made a decision to provisionally The provisional protection order that was put on Grade II (Provincial Heritage Site) to protect the River Club as a Grade II heritage the River Club lapsed in April 2020. Grade I (same as SAAO). site. However, this decision is currently being 138

appealed. The site does not hold a Grade I status.

42. Strongly opposed to private developers This is incorrect. The application was circulated to the Catchment intruding into the floodplain and rivers Management Department who commented on without appropriate expertise and skilled the proposal indicating that they accepted the supervision. Current research on flooding findings of the studies relating to flooding. has been falsely stated. 43. The notification notes the building heights The notification states that building heights Building heights will be limited through a set of as 2 to 9 storeys above ‘base level’. But will range from ± 16m to ±46m (3 to 10 storeys) conditions. the architects have presented a 4 to 12 above base level. This information is still storey development. What are the facts? materially correct, with the latest conceptual designs indicating that the buildings will range from 16.3 m to 45.71 m (or 3 to 10 storeys in height above base level). 44. The confluence of the Liesbeek and Black The existing confluence of the Liesbeek and Rivers needs to be accessible to have any Black River is degraded, both environmentally spiritual and ceremonial heritage value. and aesthetically; it is an inhospitable place The proposal does not satisfy this, with to be. The development proposal intends to Berkley Road extension cutting off the relocate the confluence to the point where confluence. the rehabilitated Liesbeek Canal meets the Black River. It is further intended to establish a place of celebration / memorialisation at this “new” confluence for the recording of the indigenous First Nations peoples’ struggle. 45. Several elements of the EIA process have This is incorrect. Refer to item I.4 above. The NEMA process is subject to a different law and been flawed. adjudicated by a different authority. 46. No parking is shown on the development This is incorrect. At this stage it is anticipated While some surface parking will be provided, the plan / layout. It is therefore assumed that that all parking will be located below new vast majority of parking is proposed to be parking will be positioned in the open ground level in parking areas that will read as accommodated in a subterranean garage. space areas. basements on the ground (not technically basements, as per the definition in the DMS). 47. It is understood that the development The development plan / layout may be The approval currently sought is the first level. The plan / layout is subject to change. It can subject to minor changes. However, it is next step in the process will require greater detail. only be assumed that a worst case anticipated that any approval for rezoning Certain principles will be established through this will contain a condition of approval that 139

scenario will ultimately be tables and requires any future SDP to be “generally in process that will inform the next level of motivated. accordance” with the layout submitted as processes. part of the rezoning application. Future development of the site will be subject to compliance with an approved SDP, as well as detailed Precinct Plans. 48. The area around the SAAO needs to be as The operations manager at the SAAO, Mr. Conditions are recommended in order reduce dark as possible for astronomy. Dwarfing Eugene Lacky, has advised that no scientific light spillage emanating from the property. the Observatory site with nearby offices studies are currently conducted at the SAAO. and shops will diminish the SAAO’s impact If the weather permits, the SAAO opens for and increase light pollution. educational and outreach programs. However this only occurs about twice a month and has no scientific value. J. OTHER 1. A feral colony of cats live at the site and is It is suggested that the cats be relocated, fed on a daily basis; relocating them is not perhaps to the SPCA. an option. 2. All current ecosystem services the This is not a statutory requirement (and is an Liesbeek River provides should be fully unreasonable requirement). The biodiversity listed following a community survey from assessment (refer to Annexure I of the all river users, and these must be fully motivation report) is considered a described and detailed. These ecological comprehensive and accurate assessment of services (including potential ecological the biodiversity in relation to the site. services) should be made public so that it is obvious to everyone what will be lost should the development be allowed to go ahead. 3. The site is home to the only remaining The loss of the mashie golf course will be an “mashie” golf course in Cape Town. unfortunate consequence should the development go ahead. However, this golf course is currently underutilised and is not a sustainable land use on privately owned land. 4. Youth training of golf is losing any base. The loss of the golf facility will be an Does development come before our unfortunate consequence should the youth? development go ahead. However, this golf 140

facility is currently underutilised and is not a sustainable land use on privately owned land.

5. The current owners bought the land with Refer to item D.5.1 above. the current zoning rights in place and therefore their expectations should comply with this zoning. Should their intentions in purchasing the land be to develop it, they should have bought land with appropriate pre-existing zoning and not be granted permission to rezone land to prejudice citizens of Cape Town. 6. The authorities have consistently failed to The owners / developers are going through all act against transgressors who damage of the correct legislative procedures in the wetlands. Local government respect to the proposed changes to the river authorities are supposed to be the courses (i.e. NEMA and the National Water protectors of our natural resources; they Act). Any changes to be made will only be cannot be allowed to behave like done so following the receipt of the predators in cahoots with greedy necessary authorisations. developers. The perpetrators must be prosecuted. 7. The willingness of CoCT to bend and Council is obliged to treat each application disregard their own rules to benefit a for development on its own individual merits. private developer is completely unconscionable. 8. It is critical that an independent opinion is This is not a statutory requirement. However, obtained which provides a reasonable should one of the decision-making authorities estimate of the total profitability of any require such a study to be undertaken then proposed scheme to the developer they are welcome to the request this. (perhaps under various scenarios). This should then be made public. 9. The owner’s of this property have The current owners did indeed undertake previously destroyed part of the river work on the banks of the ‘old’ Liesbeek River banks without the necessary approval channel without the required authorisation and were caught doing so. What makes from DE&ADP. The owner had good intentions when undertaking the work and was not 141

CoCT think that the developers won’t aware that work on the river bank was not disregard the rules again? permissible in terms of the environmental legislation. The matter was resolved with DE&ADP and no further work has been undertaken. 10. There are many other brownfield areas in This is true, but these military sites are publicly This department can only have regard to the Cape Town that can be developed for owned land. proposal submitted for consideration. It is housing purposes, including some of therefore required that the application is Cape Town’s military bases with unused assessed on its own merit. bungalows. 11. Is the applicant / developer aware that There is no intention at this stage to undertake the Liesbeek and Black Rivers are polluted any recreational activities in the surrounding and cannot be used for recreational river courses. activities? 12. The CoCT should not approve a private The development will not only provide The proposal will be assessed in totality. Similarly, development simply because it provides inclusionary units, but will rather offer various decision-makers will therefore have regard to 150 “inclusionary housing” units. There are other substantial benefits, including: the overall impact of the application before other private sector developments that making a decision. can provide social housing with far less  rehabilitation of interfaces with freshwater impact on resources, open space, the systems and enhanced public access to environment and climate change these areas; resilience.  enhanced aesthetic value of parts of the site;  enhanced public access to the site (the site is not currently a public amenity) and Raapenburg Bird Sanctuary;  the generation of employment and income (project value of over R4 billion, with an estimated 5 000 jobs created during the construction phase and 630 permanent jobs created during the operational phase);  investment into the local economy;  increased municipal income;  improved accessibility from the establishment of new links to existing 142

motorised and non-motorised transport systems;  improved access to economic opportunities (particularly by connecting Berkley Road and Liesbeek Parkway);  improved awareness of the heritage and cultural significance of the site by enhanced access to this land; and  densification close to the CBD and the generation of thresholds to support public transport and retail uses within TRUP, the nearby Main Road and Voortrekker Road corridors. 13. There needs to be enhanced strategic The redevelopment of existing brownfield sites The City is presently undertaking the revision of planning and consideration of alternatives in Observatory, Mowbray etc. is already the existing Contextual Framework for the TRUP for this site (e.g. brownfield sites in occurring (this redevelopment is an area. The development of any other area in Observatory, Mowbray etc.) before any established characteristic of a functioning Observatory and its surroundings will follow new rezoning or development application urban land market). The development principles contained in various forward planning is approved. proposal for the redevelopment of the River documents approved by the City. Club seeks to re-imagine an underutilised site in a more urban Cape Town. It must be noted that no application can be held in abeyance pending development and approval of a policy. 14. Improving the urban fabric through Noted and agreed. It is strongly believed that strategic planning in response to an issue the development proposal for the River Club such as climate change, water security, is a strategic urban intervention that will add heritage and social well-being is essential value to the future prosperity of Cape Town. to the future prosperity, adaptability and resilience of Cape Town. K. POSITIVE COMMENTS / SUPPORT 1. In favour of the development, particularly Noted. the completion of the Berkley Road extension and rehabilitation of the Liesbeek Canal. 143

2. The notion that the golf driving range and Noted and agreed. mashie course is a necessary green open space is rejected. The facility is only accessed by those with an interest in golf and there are already far too many golf courses in the Southern Suburbs. 3. Support the Liesbeek Canal being Noted. rehabilitated into a natural river course.

4. The long-delayed construction of the Noted and agreed. Malta Road – Berkley Road link must be carried out as a matter of urgency, whether the River Club development goes ahead or not. 5. The extension of Berkley Road is a massive Noted and agreed. opportunity to make cycling into the CBD a viable option for many people living in Maitland, Thornton, Goodwood and beyond. As long as cycling infrastructure is considered in the design of this road, there is significant opportunity to improve access for many citizens.

144

A. Western Cape Government: Road Network Management

No. Summary of Comments Received Response 1 The development of this property cannot be treated in isolation Noted. It is requested that the scope of the comment pertain to from the Two Rivers Urban Park (TRUP) proposal, of which this traffic and transport aspects relation to the current development property forms the north-western section. proposal for the River Club, and does not include aspects relating to the wider TRUP. However, as the phased development of the River Club is likely to commence before TRUP’s development scope is finalised, the comment provided is only on the traffic issues to do with the River Club development (and in no way insinuates support or otherwise of the TRUP proposal). 2 Vehicular access to the River Club requires, inter alia, the The proposed Liesbeeck Parkway / Malta Road / Berkley Road upgrading of Berkley Road (PMR 149) / Black River Parkway (PTR extension intersection is a 4-legged intersection to facilitate access 2/1) / Lisebeek Parkway (PMR 137), all of which must be to the PRASA depot. designed so as to give access to the PRASA depot north of the River Club. 3 This branch is the Road Authority for Black River Parkway (PTR All planning / design aspects impacting on the Black River Parkway 2/1) and as such will need to be involved in any and all design will be submitted to the WCPG Road Network Management for aspects affecting the upgrades to the Black River Parkway (PTR approval. 2/1) / Berkley Road (PMR 149) interchange. 4 The CoCT is the Road Authority for all other Proclaimed Roads All planning / design aspects impacting on Berkley Road, Lisebeek involved viz. Berkley Road (PMR 149), Lisebeek Parkway (PMR Parkway and Settler’s Way will be submitted to CoCT for approval. 137) and Settler’s Way (PMR144). 3 Based upon the assumption that adequate road reserves, with The ultimate road geometry and associated building lines are within their associated 5m building lines, will be available for the final the proposed road reserves. dualled road cross-sections, the approval required from this branch in terms of section 17 of the Roads Ordinance (Ordinance 19 of 1976) will be a formality. 4 It must be noted that no money has been budgeted by this It is the intention of the CoCT to complete the planning of all road branch for expenditure on Proclaimed Roads in this area. upgrading required for accommodating the TRUP initiative. The programme will be planned to suit available budgets and budget requirements will be made available to the WCPG as applicable. 145

5 This branch offers no objection to the necessary legal processes The development bulk applied for is 150 000 m². The conditions being put in place permitting the proposed development, on imposed by CoCT traffic engineering branch will be part of the condition that: approval. Approval will be obtained from the WCPG for all impacts on Black River Parkway (refer to item A.4 above). Budget will be a. The development of Precinct 1 does not exceed a bulk of available for the necessary infrastructure upgrades prior to the 65 000 m² and that of Precinct 2 does not exceed 85 000 m²; release of the bulk. b. That the requirements, conditions and recommendations imposed by the CoCT traffic engineering branch are adhered to; c. This branch’s design directorate must be involved in all planning / design discussions with respect to the upgrade of the Black River Parkway (PTR 2/1) / Berkley Road (PMR 149) interchange, and the geometrics, materials and signalisation design plans of this interchange are submitted to this branch’s design directorate for final approval; and d. The CoCT ensures that the necessary finance is available for the required phased road infrastructure upgrades, prior to approving this development and releasing the required bulk. 6. This branch’s comment does not take any environmental issues Environmental impacts associated with the proposed development associated with the application (e.g. flood lines, riverine are being assessed in connection with the Basic Assessment Report rehabilitation etc.) into account. (BAR) to be submitted as part of the statutory NEMA process.

B. Western Cape Government: Physical Resource Planning and Property Management

No. Summary of Comments Response 1 From an educational provisioning perspective, this department Noted. has no objection towards the application.

2 It is noted that the development makes provision for a “Place of Noted. The preliminary proposal presented in the motivation report Instruction”. While this department is in support of the provision does make provision for a “place of instruction”, which will be in the made for educational facilities, there are no plans in the form of a private school (should the owner / developer successfully foreseeable future to construct a new public school as part of conclude a deal with a private school operator). In any event, the the development, but would encourage the private uptake proposed zone(s) will contain a basket of rights within which a thereof. variety of land uses are permitted. 146

3 It would be recommended that the proposal make provision for The preliminary proposal presented in the motivation report does pre-school facilities as part of the mixed-use concept. make provision for a “place of instruction”, however this will be in the form of either a private primary school or private high school, or both (refer to item B.1 above).

At this stage, pre-school facilities are not envisaged. However, it is conceivable that future offices located on the site will contain daycare / creche facilities for children of pre-school going age. C. City of Cape Town TDA: Environmental Management (Heritage Assessment)

No. Summary of Comments Response 1 EMD (Heritage) believes that more emphasis should be placed Cultural landscape: on the level of significance of the following two subject areas: Noted. Refer to item C.2 below. Cultural landscape: The SAAO: Under “7.3 Conclusions” on pg. 50-51 of the Draft HIA regarding significances, the document states: Noted. The significance of the SAAO is outlined in detail in Section 6.3 of the Draft HIA. It is therefore believed that the Draft HIA “We regard the River Club site and its surrounds to be of very recognises the national heritage significance of the SAAO. Refer high environmental/ also to item C.2 below. topographical/ecological and historical significance both as the flood plain of the Liesbeek River and as the site of the early confrontations between indigenous peoples and settlers.”

EMD (Heritage) agrees with the statement regarding these very high levels of significances and will similarly use it to measure the potential impacts thereon by the proposed development and related activities.

The SAAO:

The SAAO campus comprises heritage buildings and spaces associated with the early 19th century establishment of the Royal 147

Observatory, and has been graded a Grade I site by SAHRA. The entire SAAO site is of the highest (National) importance in terms of its heritage significance. Further, the campus is of international scientific significance and has been the subject of a UNESCO World Heritage Site report. 2 Further to the Draft HIA’s proposed heritage-related design Noted. The Draft HIA will be revised. Notwithstanding, the following indicators (criteria for decision making), EMD (Heritage) would should be noted: like to see more emphasis added to: Pre-1952 river course: a. the three bullet points which relate to the “pre-1952 river

course”; South of the site, the Liesbeek River floodplain is relatively narrow, b. design indicators intending to guide development in more but has both ecological value and public amenity as a more natural prescriptive detail, including heights, scale and density; and and accessible corridor. Immediately south of the site the river has c. the SAAO. been diverted into an ecologically sterile canalised reach that flows

to the east of the site. The public movement corridor along the river The cultural landscape, of which the pre-1952 river course is an also terminates here. The artificial channel merges with the Black integral part, as well as the SAAO site, are of a very high level of River immediately northeast of the site. heritage significance and the proposed development’s heights,

scale and density would certainly also impact on any relative The original course of the river is located to the west of the site, was levels of significance. infilled (~1952), dredged (~1990), and is now fed by backwaters of the Black River and stormwater, and is ecologically degraded. The site forms an artificial island between the old and new reaches of the Liesbeek River in a transformed landscape.

Nevertheless, the infilled and dredged remnant of the pre-1952 course of the Liesbeek River is acknowledged to have historical significance in its currently degraded state. Indeed, the river is assessed to be the primary physical and symbolic heritage resource in proximity to the site, and that the river must be celebrated and enhanced – a key criterion for decision making.

By rehabilitating the canalised reach of the Liesbeek River to the east of the site, providing an ecologically viable floodplain, and extending the public movement corridor along the river through the site, the riverine corridor as a historical, topographical and ecological determinant of the current urban townscape is 148

extended, reinforced, recreated, and restored. Furthermore, the public amenity derived from the river is enhanced, and by drawing the public into this area, opportunities arise to communicate the historical significance of the river.

The heritage impacts of the loss of the modified, but previously natural course of the river, are assessed to be completely (more than) offset by the restoration of the Liesbeek Canal.

The SAAO and design indicators:

The significance of the SAAO is outlined in detail in Section 6.3 of the Draft HIA, and the topography of the hill that the SAAO occupies, including natural and built components are assessed to be the only heritage indicator (i.e. criteria for decision making) of heights and scale of the development, specifically that the development steps back from the SAAO (partly achieved by restoring the Liesbeek Canal), and be restricted to an appropriate height, “echoing the shape established by the banks, trees and buildings of the Observatory and lower than the height of the trees”. According to the heritage specialists, these indicators have been achieved.

The site as it forms part of a cultural landscape:

While the area is historic, the heritage significance that derives from that history has no manifestation on site: there is no archaeology present, no pre-colonial shell middens and no evidence of the VOC barricades and defences, or of historic agricultural activities. The heritage value of the place (site) is the knowledge we have about it. 149

The character of the site will be transformed by the development. This transformation is of significant visual impact but is assessed by the heritage consultants to be of relatively low heritage significance: whether the site is developed or otherwise, it will always have a history, which in the case of the River Club is intangible, not manifested on the ground, and cannot be destroyed by physical changes. Furthermore, the site is located in a significantly transformed floodplain, is degraded and will be further transformed by the future development of the Berkley Road extension.

Summary:

In summary, although the development leads to adverse impacts on aspects of heritage (which cannot be entirely mitigated) a very considerable heritage benefit is anticipated from enhancing and restoring the Liesbeek River corridor. Ultimately the various decision- making bodies will need to consider whether to authorise the project, which brings significant social (including amenity), economic, ecological and heritage benefits, but which will lead to what the heritage specialists regard as adverse but tolerable sacrificial heritage and visual impacts. 150

3 Comments on Alternative 1: The comments are noted. The project team responds as follows:

 The impact on the level of significance of the cultural Bullet point 1: landscape will be very high in terms of the level of physical

and visual change on the environmental / topographical / The character of the site will be transformed by the development. ecological and historical significance of the area by the This transformation, although of significant visual impact, is assessed proposed heights, scale and density. by the heritage consultants to be of relatively low heritage  This negative impact on the significance of a heritage significance in the context of the already significantly transformed resource will also carry over to the SAAO site for the same floodplain, the degraded and transformed nature of the river and reasons of the suggested heights, scale and density. site, and the inevitable future development of the Berkley Road extension.  Mitigation might be in the form of reducing the proposed

build heights and density as well as a reduction in hard Based on a detailed assessment of the visual exposure of the site, surface areas. the visual impact on sense of place and visual intrusion are assessed  Stepping back and away from the SAAO site in terms of to be local in extent; and based on an assessment of the visual height and relative proximity with the aim of creating a more quality of the site, visual absorption capacity of the surrounding sensitive relationship between the two sites and establishing of environment, and sensitivity of receptors, the intensity of these two historic view lines might also be implemented through impacts is assessed to be reduced to “medium” with the development layout adaption. implementation of key design mitigation measures.

 Infilling of the old Liesbeek River channel and remodelling of Aspects of the development (i.e. visual and heritage mitigation) this channel into a vegetated stormwater swale will also seek to retain or restore the sense of place of the site and reduce impact negatively on the high level of significance of the visual intrusion by, for example, retaining visual links, and restoring cultural landscape. the Liesbeek River corridor.  The old Liesbeek River channel forms an integral part of the environmental / topographical / ecological and historical Alternative 1 provides green (and landscaped) open space. significance and current status of the area. Removing the old Currently, during parts of the year, the (western) channel of the Liesbeek River channel’s ability to be perceived as a historical Liesbeek River can be visually unappealing. For Alternative 1, the watercourse and thereby severing its role in the story line of shift of Precinct 1 towards the western channel unlocks more open the cultural landscape will surely impact negatively on the space along the eastern channel, which has the potential to significance of that resource. This might be mitigated by the become a visual and social amenity to the public if rehabilitated inclusion of a watercourse of sorts within the proposed ‘park- correctly. Furthermore, the ecological corridor for Alternative 1 is like’ pedestrian and cycle path ‘transformed riverine corridor’. marginally wider than for Alternative 2, thereby increasing the green visual corridor across the site. Therefore, while negative visual impacts have been assessed, it is not inconceivable that aesthetic 151

improvements to the site will be generated by the project should Alternative 1 be approved.

Bullet point 2:

A significant impact on the historical character of the SAAO is assessed in the HIA and Basic Assessment Report (BAR).

Bullet point 3:

It is acknowledged that visual impacts could be further reduced by reducing the scale of the development, but this is not possible given considerations of commercial viability. Furthermore, the heritage specialists argue a reduction in scale of the development will not necessarily reduce the significance of heritage impacts: and, for example, that the general height of the southern precinct is immaterial to the impact on the historical, environmental or topographical significances of the site.

Bullet point 4:

Noting the minimum GLA required to render the development financially viable, the development is setback as far as possible from the SAAO (this was a key consideration in the evolution of the preferred development proposal).

Bullet points 5 & 6:

Although transformed and degraded from its original state, the course of the Liesbeek River is acknowledged to have historical significance. Indeed, the river is assessed to be the primary physical and symbolic heritage resource in immediate proximity to the site.

By rehabilitating the canalised reach of the Liesbeek River to the east of the site, and extending the public movement corridor along 152

the river through the site, the riverine corridor is reinforced. Furthermore, the public amenity derived from the river is enhanced, and by drawing the public into this area, opportunities arise to communicate the historical significance of the river to the public.

The heritage impacts of the loss of the much modified, but previously natural course of the river, are assessed to be completely offset by the restoration of the Liesbeek River in the current alignment of the 1952 canal.

4 Comments on Alternative 2: While this opinion is noted, the heritage specialists do not concur as Alternative 2 does not allow for a significant setback from the SAAO Alternative 2 will have a similar level of impact as Alternative 1, (increasing the intensity of impacts on the SAAO). except that Alternative 2 will impact less on the cultural landscape. This will be as a result of the proposed upgrading of the old Liesbeek River channel and retention of the canal as a man-made structure (i.e. the existing watercourses will remain largely unchanged). 5 Comments on Alternative 3: Found to be not financially viable by the owner / developer.

The reduction in proposed floor area (to approx. 110 000 m²) impacts less on the cultural landscape and to a lesser degree on the SAAO than do Alternatives 1 & 2. 6 Comments on Alternative 4: Found to be not financially viable by the owner / developer.

The reduction in proposed floor area (to approx. 102 000 m²) will result in a similar impact on heritage significance as Alternative 3. 153

7 The level of intensity of the impacts on heritage resources (as The HIA has been, and will be (it is currently only in draft form), described in the Draft HIA) might be better understood through informed by a VIA. Traffic has little bearing on heritage impacts, per the availability of appropriate studies in the form of, for se. example, visual and traffic impact assessments. 8 A peer review of the Draft HIA, if not undertaken already, could The owner / developer has appointed a team of highly respected also add value to the process (as well as the development as a and locally experienced, independent heritage consultants to whole). undertake the HIA. These consultants have produced an independent study, which will meet the requirements of HWC. 9 EMD (Heritage) is not opposed to redevelopment of the River Refer to item C.2 above. Refer to item C.3 above in relation to Club site. However, EMD (Heritage) believes that the level of Alternative 1. significance of, in particular, the cultural landscape and the SAAO site will be compromised or reduced by the proposed development, and that mitigating measures should be considered in order to reduce the negative impact. 10 The following is extracted from the Draft VIA with regards to Visual character is descriptive and non-evaluative, which implies visual character of the River Club site and surrounding context that it is based on defined attributes that are neither positive nor (section 4.2 of the VIA): negative, and SRK reiterates that the character of the site is that of an “isolated” transition landscape. “Although most of the area surrounding the site can be described as a substantially developed landscape (highly The VIA goes on to acknowledge that the visual quality of the transformed landscaped), the site and the immediate surrounds overall area is largely ascribable to the built-up urban environment can be defined as an isolated transitional landscape associated with an island of green open space, that the rivers provide interest in with the interface between highly developed urban area and the landscape thereby enhancing the visual quality, and that the modified natural elements.” remarkable views of Devils Peak in the west contribute to the visual quality of the area; but that there are elements that detract from EMD (Heritage) is not in agreement with the above statement, visual quality in the study area, notably the derelict and industrial and believe a more appropriate description has been provided land to the north and the M5 freeway to the east. Furthermore, the by the Cape Institute of Architects (dated 8 February 2018 in VIA assesses that the sense of place of the study area is strongly response to a presentation given by Dr. Townsend) as follows: influenced by the rivers, and an “island” of green open space in a highly developed and evolving urban environment of mixed land “The site functions as an important urban threshold, use. characterised by the openness of the area and the network of watercourses crossing it. This character sets in contrast to the The baseline for the site reported in the VIA is therefore not urban fabric that surrounds it, and makes, along with the inconsistent with the description provided by the Cape Institute of extended context, a unique place within the city. Many of the Architects (which presumably also refers to the broader TRUP area – buildings and uses that are already located ‘between the rivers’ 154

are located here precisely because of the threshold quality the “Many of the buildings… between the rivers…” and the site’s “formal area offers. layout and scale”).

The proposed development does not acknowledge the unique and symbolic “threshold role” that the site plays, both in its formal layout, scale, and in the uses that are being proposed. Having to raise the site by 3m or more to achieve an acceptable height above the flood water level further exacerbates the concern that the development would be an invasion of this significance.” 11 The Draft VIA assesses the impact of the “altered sense of place Based on a detailed assessment of the visual exposure of the site, caused by the change in character of the site” (section 6.2.1 of the visual impact on sense of place and visual intrusion (i.e. views the Draft VIA) to be of high significance, but to be reduced to through the site) are assessed to be local in extent. Further, and medium significance with the implementation of mitigation. based on an assessment of the (relatively poor) visual quality of the site, (relatively high) visual absorption capacity of the surrounding EMD (Heritage) agrees that the impact of the proposal on the environment (the cityscape), but (conservatively assumed, fairly “altered sense of place caused by the change in character of high) sensitivity of receptors to changes in sense of place and visual the site” will be high. However, EMD (Heritage) do not believe intrusion, the intensity of these two impacts is assessed to be that the impact will be reduced to medium during the reduced to “medium” with the implementation of key design operational phase, but instead will remain high (largely due to mitigation measures (i.e. that social functions – in this case, sense of the proposed bulk and heights). place and views - will be significantly affected at a local scale, but will continue albeit in a modified way).

155

In many respects, the visual impact is pronounced, but not inconsistent with a cityscape. However, the sense of place impact is more difficult to assess and mitigate. Receptor perceptions are important: for some, retention of the open space might be critical to retaining the sense of place; for others, the current state of the site may appear harsh and degraded, and urban development, especially if celebrated by iconic structures, may be valued. 12 The Draft VIA assesses the impact of the “visual intrusion” Refer to item C.10 above. (section 6.2.2 of the Draft VIA) to be of high significance, but to be reduced to medium significance with the implementation of mitigation.

EMD (Heritage) agrees that the impact of the proposal on the “visual intrusion” will be high. However, EMD (Heritage) do not believe that the impact will be reduced to medium during the operational phase, but instead will remain high (largely due to the proposed bulk and heights). 13 The Draft VIA assesses the impact of the “cumulative impact” It is acknowledged that the River Club development will add to the (section 6.3 of the Draft VIA) to be of medium significance with cumulative visual impact of high-density developments in the area the implementation of mitigation. However, EMD (Heritage) and the related loss of green open space in the city. However, in the believe the cumulative impact of the proposed development to context of the River Club, it is an “island” of open space which is not be high significance. public and is poorly utilised (i.e. is only really used by people with an interest in golf), in a highly developed and evolving urban environment.

Noting the unavailability of suitable development sites in close proximity to the site and CBD (and therefore the anticipated limited scale of future development immediately adjacent to the site), and acknowledging the potential benefits of the transformation of currently poor quality private open space at the site to a high quality, green (albeit smaller) open space accessible the general public (which offsets impacts), the net cumulative impact of the development is conservatively assessed to be medium (negative).

156

14 The Draft VIA concludes: The simulated views are not intended to be artistic impressions of the proposed development, but are intended to indicate the position In many respects, the visual impact is pronounced, but not and built mass of the development in the landscape. The simulations inconsistent with a cityscape. However, the sense of place are of unattractive block buildings with no redeeming architectural impact is more significant and difficult to mitigate. Receptor features or vegetation and landscaping which could (would) perceptions are also important: for some, retention of the open mitigate impacts further. space might be critical to retaining the sense of place; for others, urban development, especially if celebrated by iconic The visual specialist maintains that the development would not be structures, may be valued. The development could both alter inconsistent with the cityscape of the surrounding built up area sense of place and, at the same time, deliver a functional (including tall buildings, business/office parks and industrial type land development with interesting structures with their own visual uses), but nevertheless that significant, but acceptable, residual appeal.” impacts on sense of place and visual intrusion are anticipated (as demonstrated by the visual simulations). EMD (Heritage) agrees that the visual impact is pronounced. However, EDM (Heritage) is not supportive of the conclusion The visual specialist acknowledges that residual visual impacts could that which describes the proposal as being “not inconsistent be further mitigated through a reduction of building heights and with a cityscape”. EMD (Heritage) is of the opinion that the bulk, but that due to the minimum amount of GLA required to make cityscape of Cape Town, as depicted in the ‘before’ and ‘after’ the development financially viable, further mitigation of visual figures contained in the Draft VIA, clearly shows a significant impacts is not possible and pronounced change and impact from a visual perspective. EMD (Heritage) is of the opinion that this impact can be mitigated by reducing bulk and heights. 157

15 EMD (Hertiage) analysis of the proposal in relation to the CoCT An analysis of the development in relation to the Tall Building Policy is Tall Building Policy is as follows: provided in sub-section 3.12 of the motivation report. The following aspects should be noted:  P6 of the Tall Building Policy (“Assessment on merit within the building’s unique context”) states:  The surrounding tall buildings (e.g. Black River Parkway, PRASA warehouses and Premier Food buildings and silos) are not used as “Approval of the height of a tall building should not be seen precedent for tall buildings in this location, but are rather as a precedent for other applications in the same area. The identified as contextual informants. final height that is approved will depend on the tall building’s  Despite the current site character (e.g. open space), a number of motivation towards an appropriate location, response to the factors point to this piece of land being more urban in character context and its compliance with the Tall Building Assessment (refer to item C.21 below). criteria.”  The impact on the “cultural landscape” should not be overstated  Specifically, criteria 2 (relationship to physical context) and in this context (refer to item C.2 above). criteria 3 (relationship to historic and cultural context) are not

met by the proposal. EMD (Heritage) considers the proposed

heights to be incongruent with the significance of the historical and cultural context and that mitigation would be in the form of reduced building heights. 16 EMD (Heritage) believes that points 6.11.1 – 6.11.4 of the It is argued that residual visual and heritage impacts are anticipated Environmental Strategy for the City of Cape Town (Policy 46612) as a result of any development on this site (i.e. cannot be prevented are not fully complied with by the proposal in that the full by reducing the scale and bulk of the development). These impacts significance of the unique sense of place and cultural have been mitigated and minimised to the extent possible given the landscape is not acknowledged sufficiently by the current minimum GLA required to render the development commercially development, which impacts overtly negatively on these values. viable.

Current mitigation is by means of reconfiguring the Liesbeek Furthermore, a considerable heritage benefit is anticipated from the Canal and landscaped green open areas, but instead the bulk restoration of the Liesbeek River corridor as a public, green amenity. and heights of the proposed structures (and resultant built In addtion, development of the site provides an opportunity to forms) should be reduced in order to present a more sensitive celebrate the sites and surrounding area’s history, and educate the alignment with the cultural landscape and sense of place. public (e.g. The development is considered as an opportunity to establish a place of celebration / memorialisation for the recording of the indigenous First Nations peoples’ struggle. Indeed, the developer has committed to ensuring that such a place be established on the site.)

158

Although the SAAO and landscape are of high historical significance, their scenic value and tourism potential are fairly low in the current context. Nevertheless, significant residual impacts of the heritage landscape, SAAO, sense of place and views of / through the site are assessed and reported on.

Therefore, although aspects of the development are compliant with the Environmental and Cultural Heritage Strategies, the owner / developer acknowledges that full compliance is not possible with regards to the current development proposal. 17 Section 8.4 of the Environmental Strategy for the City of Cape Refer to item C.2 above. Town (Policy 46612) endorses the CoCT’s Cultural Heritage Strategy (2005) as being a guide for heritage decision-making. Specifically, the following “polices of principle” (as contained in the CoCT Cultural Heritage Strategy) should be noted:

 Policy 3: Authenticity;  Policy 5: Context and scale; and  Policy 7: Cultural landscapes.

EMD (Heritage) believes that the proposed development does not conserve sufficiently the historical and cultural value and significance of the cultural landscape of the area. The importance of historic and existing spatial context are not recognised in the proposed development in its current form, which could be mitigated by a reduction in bulk and heights. 18 Provide clarity as to the meaning and implications of a A Sudivisional Area zoning is essentially an overlay zoning that allows “Subdivisional Area” and how such relates to when a Site for the subject property to be subdivided into smaller individual Development Plan will be required by the CoCT (and the portions. A subdivision plan has not been submitted as part of the resultant request for comment by EMD). composite application, but will follow should the current application be approved. [Does the current motivation report constitute a conceptual layout which speaks to bulk, building heights and general layout Once block subdivisions of various land parcels have been or is the report proposing to fix bulk and height as depicted?] approved, then each individual land parcel will receive a deemed zoning in terms of the subdivision plan (e.g. certain land parcels will be zoned General Business, others will be zoned Open Space 3 etc.). 159

The images / plans contained in the current application do not constitute the SDP. Rather an SDP will be submitted with subsequent applications (potentially the subdivision application). 19 The application is not supported in totality by EMD (Heritage) as Ultimately the various decision-making bodies will need to consider the proposal does not align with current approved CoCT policy whether to authorise the project, which brings significant economic and strategies, namely CoCT Tall Building Policy, Environmental and ecological benefits, but which will lead to residual heritage and Strategy and Cultural Heritage Strategy. visual impacts.

Notwithstanding, EMD (Heritage) is not opposed to the Furthermore, the heritage specialists have assessed that the redevelopment of the River Club site and proposed layout, but restoration of the Liesbeek riverine corridor, the landscaping is not supportive of the proposed bulk or heights, which should improvements to the old pre-1952 river course and the provision of be reduced significantly in order for synthesis with and the wide green ecological connector between these two elements recognition of the areas recognised and valued heritage of the topography will result in considerable improvements and resources, cultural landscape and unique sense of place to be increases in heritage significance and amenity value to the site achieved. C. City of Cape Town TDA: Environmental Management (Environmental Assessment)

No. Summary of Comments Response 20 The point of departure used by EMD (Environmental) is that the Noted and agreed. The application reflects this desire. site should be developed in a way that provides for “live, work, play” (as envisaged by the applicant), but at the same time enhances the site’s opportunities that are currently underutilised (e.g. recreational and ecological opportunities). 160

21 Given that the site: The owner / developer, in consultation with the project team, did consider the merits of less development on the site, which would a. falls within a floodplain (including the ‘high hazard zone’ have resulted in the majority of the site remaining open space. and ‘the 1:20 year flood line); However, a development of higher intensity / density became b. is a strategic green open space linkage; preferable once it became clear that: c. falls within a sensitive cultural landscape with a unique sense of place; and a. terrestrial and natural ecosystems associated with the site are d. the current OS3 zoning only permits very limit development considered degraded; rights b. development on the site would have an insignificant effect on flooding in the vicinity of the site; EMD (Environmental) envisage the creation of a park-like c. residual heritage and visual impacts can be reduced to environment with buildings in it, rather that the creation of tolerable levels through effective implementation of detailed building complexes with park / open spaces around it (i.e. the design and the stipulated mitigation measures; and creation of an urban village and not an office park). d. development of the site as proposed will result in significant social, economic and ecological benefits; e. the COCT’s Urban Investment & Development: Urban Integration Department regards this site as the Western Gateway into the broader TRUP area.

In light of the above factors, the project team believes that a half- hearted approach to development on this site will not be beneficial. Rather, this site should be considered for more urban development that will maintain a balance between urban development, environmental sustainability, the preservation / celebration of heritage resources and enhanced socio-economic benefit. 22 The applications submitted should only be supported where a Refer to item C.18 above. good balance is reached between the extra development rights sought and the benefits accrued to the total receiving environment with regards to ecology, heritage and social benefits (housing and recreation).

[While EMD (Environment) supports the benefits to be gained from upgrading of the landscaped spaces, rehabilitation of the river courses, the provision of publicly accessible recreational areas etc., the concern remains that the scale, bulk and footprints proposed for the building component are excessive 161

within the receiving environmental context when considering that the site is zoned OS3 and is entirely within a floodplain.

23 In terms of context, the following is noted: Noted and agreed. The application reflects these aspects.

a. From a freshwater ecology point of view, the interface between the site and Liesbeek Canal, Liesbeek River and Black River (including the confluence area) has ecological value and provides opportunities to rehabilitate and incorporate these ecological areas into the development. b. The majority of the site has not botanical value. c. The construction of Berkley Road extension remains critical. 24 As a precinct with the broader TRUP site, the development The spatial and environmental context of TRUP is not monotonous proposal should respond to spatial and environmental context and therefore different urban interventions should be applied for of TRUP (with regards to intensity and scale of uses, different contextual locations within TRUP. This site, for example, is infrastructure, transport, parking etc.). regarded as “the Western Gateway into the broader TRUP area” that has potential to be a “catalytic and urban regeneration project within the inner-city…” (quoted from CoCT’s Urban Planning & Mechanisms Branch). In other words, this site can be considered for more intensive land use and development. 25 EMD (Environmental) supports the following aspects in relation Noted and agreed. All of these features are included as part of the to development of the site: proposed development.

a. The infilling and landscaping of the remnant “natural” channel of the Liesbeek River (this loss is considered ecologically acceptable). b. The wide vegetated landscape area associated with the reconfigured “natural” channel of the Liesbeek River. c. The intention to rehabilitate the Liesbeek Canal to recreate a natural river corridor. This river should have a minimum of buffer of 30m to allow for natural flooding and river functions. d. The creation of a cycling / pedestrian pathway alongside the river wall with a lawned buffer of at least 15m wide that serves as a recreational space. 162

e. The development of an ‘eco-corridor’ to allow for east-west connectivity across the site. f. The provision of at least 2 culverts underneath Berkley Road extension.

26 EMD (Environmental) makes the following suggestions in relation a. The requirement to integrate Renosterveld habitat into ecological to the development proposal: setbacks and corridors may be included in the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) for the proposed development. a. Mitigation measures for rehabilitation of terrestrial renosterveld habitat on the on the site (including Berkley b. The landscaping plan proposed for the proposed stormwater Road extension). swale has been developed in close consultation with the b. A vegetated buffer be implemented along the length of the freshwater ecologist. The proposal is to setback extensively from stormwater swale (i.e. the remnant “natural” channel of the the to-be-rehabilitated Liesbeek Canal, and a buffer from the Liesbeek River) be a minimum of 10m on either side of the infilled stormwater swale is not considered necessary from an swale. ecological perspective. c. The stormwater swale must have sufficient ponding area c. Noted and agreed. The application is compliant with this which retain water in the summer months to support WLT requirement. breeding (there should be a minimum of 2 such ponds with d. The landscaping plan proposed for the stormwater swale has diameters of a minimum of 10m). been developed in close consultation with the freshwater d. The stormwater swale should be landscaped with gently ecologist. The stormwater swale will be landscaped with sloping sloping sides (1:5 or less steep) and planted with appropriate slides of ~1:4, and other than areas specifically dedicated to WLT indigenous wetland vegetation. refuge and breeding, will be mostly grassed. e. Recreational and other pathways in the open space network must be separated from ecological spaces. e. Although specific and detailed mitigation is proposed to reduce f. Toad exclusion barriers must be erected to prevent toad potential WLT mortalities in recreational areas (including access to high risk zones such as roads. pathways), the proposal is to integrate these areas as far as g. The creation of additional green open buffer areas along possible. the northern and southern site boundaries (minimum of 10m f. Noted and agreed. The application is compliant with this wide to be planted with patches of renosterveld). requirement. h. The ‘eco-corridor’ through the site should be a minimum width of 100m (varying in width). g. Noted and agreed. The application is compliant with this i. Construction should only take place in the months January requirement (with the exception of a single choke-point at the to July as the WLT’s breed during July – October and the north-western corner of the development). toadlets leave the water and migrate until end December. h. The recreational buffer area separating Precinct 1 and Precinct 2 will have a minimum width of 65m, and has been assessed by the freshwater ecologist and herpetologist to serve its ecological purpose at this width. It is not possible to widen this corridor given 163

commercial viability considerations and restrictions of the bulk and heights of buildings at the development.

i. Detailed recommendations for construction sequencing have been recommended by the freshwater ecologist and herpetologist and have been incorporated into the EMPr for the proposed development. 27 Consideration must be given to the site’s role in the larger open It is recognised that the site is currently part of a larger structuring space and river system and the need for quality future open open space system. This open space system plays an important role spaces. For instance, is development of the land in the best as: interest of the CoCT given the following:  a structuring element of the city (whereby it forms part of the a. the expected increase in population into the area (an CoCT “green open space” system); and in general);  a floodplain of the Black River and old Liesbeek River. b. the need for public space to support the densifying Voortrekker Road Corridor and CBD; and Notwithstanding the site’s current role in the open space system, it c. the need for public parks (including recreation and does not necessarily mean to say that development of the site biodiversity areas) that are accessible to the general public. should be precluded. Regarding the specific points raised:

a. The site currently plays a limited role in accommodating people seeking recreational open space. Yes, it accommodates people with an interest in golf, as well as a handful of bird watchers. But people generally do not visit the site to run, walk, cycle or play games. Given that the site is privately owned, it is not a given that the use will be converted for other recreational use in order to accommodate the needs of a growing population in the future. Active use of the site for recreation is ultimately at the discretion of the owners (i.e. the right of admission is reserved).

b. It is acknowledged that dense urban areas need public space as spaces for refuge. It is believed that the public space provided as part of the proposal is adequate for this purpose. In addition, the site will allow for better linkages into TRUP. For example, the existing NMT infrastructure to the south of the site (i.e. along the Liesbeek River) will link into the site so as to allow for a seamless use of the entire open space system. The open space provided at the River Club, as well as the open space provided in the remainder of TRUP, is considered more than 164

adequate to provide refuge to the growing population of the area. If these spaces do become marginally crowded in the future, then Cape Townians have the luxury of having Table Mountain National Park as an extensive publicly accessible open space for enjoyment.

c. The open spaces at the River Club will be publicly accessible. In fact, the Raapenberg Wetland & Bird Sanctuary will become even more accessible following development of the site. 28 One cannot ignore the provisions of the Table Bay District Plan The role of the site as an “open space” and “buffer area”, as (2012) where the role of this site for ‘open space’ and ‘buffer identified in the Table Bay District Plan, is a consequence of 3 areas’ is acknowledged. interrelated factors, viz.:

 Over the past 80 years or so, the site has been utilised as a place of recreation (initially by the South African Railways & Harbours (SAR&H) as the Liesbeek Park Recreation Club; and more recently as a golfing facility, “The River Club”);  It forms part of the floodplain of the Black River and old Liesbeek River; and  It forms part of the TRUP, which is earmarked as park of metropolitan significance in Cape Town, displaying features of cultural, heritage and ecological quality.

 Raising the level of the site above the 1:100 floodplain will not have any detrimental effect on flood levels impacting on neighbouring properties (as demonstrated in the surface water hydrology report, attached as Annexure H to the motivation report);  The CoCT’s desire to develop the Berkley Road extension, which will in turn provide enhanced access opportunities onto the site.  The desire for TRUP to become a dense, mixed-use and mixed tenure environment. 165

As outlined in sub-section 3.5 of the motivation report, despite the need to deviate from the Table Bay District Plan, it should be noted that the MSDF identifies the land as “urban inner core” and therefore supersedes the Table Bay District Plan according to the “consistency principles and post-2012 amendments” as contained in Technical Supplement D: Regulatory Requirements and Informants of the MSDF. 29 The cumulative loss of Public Open Space in the wider context It is important to emphasise that the River Club site does not of TRUP must be addressed and quantified. Further, the constitute “public open space”, but is rather private open space opportunity loss of Public Open Space for the broader that is zoned “Open Space 3: Special Open Space. Active use of population must be addressed. the site for recreation is therefore ultimately at the discretion of the owners (i.e. the right of admission is reserved).

The River Club development will add to the cumulative visual impact of high-density developments in the area and the related loss of green open space in the city. However, there is an opportunity to convert the transformed private open space at the site to higher quality, more accessible (albeit smaller) open space for the general public (also refer to item C.24 above).

30 Open spaces and buffers need to be accommodated in the The current application is for rezoning and deviations from certain open space web for the site, and sufficient setbacks from hard policy (i.e. essentially to establish the ‘in principle’ concept of surfacing and buildings to these areas are required. Details of development on this site). More detailed proposals (e.g. SDP, areas of soft and hard landscaping and built upon needs to be Precinct Plans and Landscape Masterplan) will be submitted for shown. The interface of development with these areas and the approval as part of subsequent MPBL applications. opportunities that arise from these spaces needs to be carefully spelled out. 31 It is important that the remnant public open space area at the The current application is for rezoning and deviations from certain River Club reads as green / soft space for recreational and policy (i.e. essentially to establish the ‘in principle’ concept of ecological purposes. If the site is to be filled to 7m a.m.s.l. with development on this site). More detailed proposals (e.g. SDP, parking in ‘basements’ below, how will the green landscaping 166

and tree planting (as shown in the landscape concept for the Precinct Plans and Landscape Masterplan) will be submitted for site) be implemented? Some initial concepts for greening and approval as part of subsequent MPBL applications. landscaping and how the open spaces will be operated and maintained should be outlined. 32 A better balance between the natural environment and the Refer to item C.31 above. built form needs to be shown (i.e. how to enhance and integrate the green web throughout the two precincts themselves as a structuring element). 33 The open space web on this site should furthermore be planned A conceptual illustration and explanation of how the green open to show how it links into TRUP and surrounding open spaces, in spaces on the site will link into TRUP and the surrounding spaces is order to demonstrate the network / continuous system of hard provided in sub-section 9.4 of the motivation report. and soft spaces, functional continuity and visual legibility. More detail relating to the system of hard and soft spaces on the site can be more fully detailed in subsequent applications (e.g. approval of future Precinct Plans, Character Plans and SDPs) (or as per the requirements outlined in item C.36). 34 EMD (Environmental) suggests that the cumulative impacts of The Surface Water Hydrology report, prepared by Aurecon, deals in water flows and possible flooding stemming from future detail with the River Club and TRUP proposals. developments within the entire TRUP (including PRASA and NRF proposals) be addressed. 35 It should be demonstrated how the services to be provided are Although the proposal is for a development that will, by nature, sustainable (e.g. construction materials, energy, grey water use, involve consumptive use of resources, the following aspects of the waste etc.). Regarding implementation of green technology development relate to sustainable land development practices and and creating a sustainable development, how does the current processes: proposal respond to international best practice.  rehabilitation of interfaces between the site and freshwater ecosystems is proposed;  adoption of sustainable approaches to service provision as far as possible and in line with the City and Provincial requirements, including: - grey water re-use (where feasible); - solar power generation (to supplement municipal supply);  Green Star ratings will most likely be pursued for all office buildings;  SUDS and sustainable storm water systems; 167

 a reduction in the reliance of private motor cars will be promoted and an emphasis will be placed on public and NMT transport; and  the location of the development adjacent to surface water resources creates the opportunity for surface (and groundwater) abstraction.

It is considered that the development proposal will respond well to international best practice with regards to sustainable practice. 36 The CoCT Management of Stormwater Impacts Policy requires SUDS principles will be incorporated in all aspects of the new developments above a certain size to use SUDS principles development’s drainage system. It is envisaged that a series of in their design to manage their stormwater run-off on-site. swales / bio swales will treat and attenuate runoff during frequent events. The site aims to integrate the drainage within the site’s open spaces and lead to a green corridor that will be formed by the rehabilitated Liesbeek River offering amenity and supporting biodiversity. 37 It should be demonstrated how stormwater will be managed to Refer to DRW 112405-SW contained in Annexure Q of the motivation be integrated with other spatial elements such as parks, playing report, which demonstrates how stormwater will be integrated into fields, green roofs and public open space (hard and soft) and open space. Further detail will be provided once all aspects of the landscaped areas (in line with current international thinking). development are finalized.

38 How does the proposal contribute towards the development of This development will contribute to the development of a resilient a resilient city capable of withstanding climate change? city through addressing, inter alia, the following:

 Provision of economic opportunities for a spectrum of society;  Provision of affordable housing;  Provision of accessible, attractive and safe recreational spaces; and  Provision and promotion of public transport facilities;  Rehabilitation of existing river courses and wetlands and associated improvement in ecological functioning;  Education of society about the environmental benefits of natural systems – including wetlands on mitigating the impact of climate change.

With regards to flooding, all development will be raised above the 1:100-year floodline. Further, the surface water hydrology study (refer 168

to Annexure H of the motivation report) confirms that the proposed development would have an insignificant effect on flooding in the vicinity of the existing River Club site. 39 EMD (Environmental) requires detailed precinct plans before the Noted. Refer to item C.30 above. submission of Site Development Plans showing the open space web and network throughout the entire site, including:

 interface with buildings;  circulation areas; and  linkages to surrounding sites. 40 A detailed river corridor management plan (as per the Noted. It is not yet know what the CoCT’s requirements for the river requirements of Catchment Planning) is required. corridor management plan are. However, these requirements will be ascertained following further engagement. 41 A Landscape Masterplan and associated landscape guidelines Noted. Refer to item C.30 above. is required. 42 A Demolition, Construction (CEMP) and Operational Noted. Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) will be required as part of the final documentation. Search and rescue for WLT’s A comprehensive EMPr has been compiled for the development, must be included in the CEMP. including the management of aspects of construction (incorporating demolition of existing structures), and operational management and maintenance. D. City of Cape Town TDA: Urban Planning & Mechanisms

No. Summary of Comments Response 1 As the River Club site is privately owned, the developer was not Noted and agreed. obliged to wait for the completion of the TRUP LSDF (March 2019). 2 CoCT Urban Planning & Mechanism, along with Urban Design, Noted. give “in principle” support to the development proposal and regard it as the formalisation of the Western Gateway into the broader TRUP area, as well as a first phase implementation of the TRUP LSDF. The “in principle” support is given on condition that the issues relating to buildability (e.g. cultural/heritage; environment/biodiversity; fresh water/water quality; flood modelling etc.) are adequately dealt with. 169

3 Support is also given to the critical and strategic importance of Noted and agreed. this project as a “catalytic and urban regeneration project within the inner-city and that has a primary role in re-configuring the Apartheid City”. 4 In principle support is given to the proposed deviation of the The current application is for rezoning and deviations from certain Table Bay District Plan. However, the proposal “has not policy (i.e. essentially to establish the ‘in principle’ concept of adequately addressed these issues in the Table Bay District Plan” development on this site). More detailed proposals (e.g. SDP, and it is suggested that the policy guidance should be taken Precinct Plans and Landscape Masterplan) will be submitted for into account in the design of the layout. approval as part of subsequent MPBL applications, and these proposals will demonstrate compliance with all relevant policy. 5 The River Club proposal is not consistent with a number of It is acknowledged that the current development proposal for the principles and guidelines within the Two Rivers Park Contextual River Club is not consistent with a number of the principles and Framework Policy (2003). Notwithstanding, the TRUP LSDF (2019) guidelines outlined in the TRUPCF (2003). Nevertheless, it should be will supersede the Two Rivers Park Contextual Framework Policy noted that the TRUP LSDF, run in tandem by the WCG and the CoCT, (2003) and therefore non-compliance with the Two Rivers Park is currently being Contextual Framework Policy (2003) should not be an issue. undertaken and will result in new development initiatives and planning guidelines for the TRUP area. 6 The River Club proposal is an excellent means of facilitating and Noted. Refer to item D.6 above. contextualising the principles and strategies identified in the CoCT Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Strategic Framework (2016).

While the proposal does not deviate from the TOD Strategic Strategy, the proposal should still “adequately address these issues in the TOD Strategic Framework” and it is suggested that the policy guidance should be taken into account in the design of the layout when further Precinct Plans and SDPs are submitted. 7 The proposal does not currently deviate from the provisions of Noted. Refer to item D.6 above. the Urban Design Policy (2013), however, future Precinct Plans, Character Plans and SDPs need to take this policy into account. 8 The proposal does not currently deviate from the provisions of Noted. Refer to item D.6 above. the Safer Cities Guidelines, however, future Precinct Plans, Character Plans and SDPs need to take this policy into account. 9 The proposal does not currently deviate from the provisions of Noted. Refer to item D.6 above. the Tall Buildings Policy (2013), however, future Precinct Plans, 170

Character Plans and SDPs need to take this policy into account as it is triggered through the rezoning application. Future applications associated with the Precinct Plans, SDPs and Character Areas may need to include visual impact assessments, wind studies and shadow studies. 10 Take cognisance of the TRUP Synthesised Technical Report Noted. This document has been requested from CoCT. However, it (available 1 October 2018) before submitting Precinct Plans. has not yet been forthcoming (it is our understanding that this document it still being revised and is not yet available for public review). D. City of Cape Town TDA: Urban Design

No. Summary of Comments Response 11 “In principle” support is given to the development on condition Noted. that additional submission of smaller scale plans (e.g. Precinct Plans, Character Plans and SDPs) will be submitted prior to approval of construction.

12 The following principles must be applied when compiling the Noted. Refer to item C.30 above. smaller scale plans:

a. The bulk allocation must remain at the approximate 150 000 m²; b. Precinct Plans for both Precinct 1 and Precinct 2 will need to be submitted as a next step prior to SDPs or building plans; c. The two precincts must be further broken down into Character Areas that should indicate maximum preferred heights (to allow for transferable latent bulk if required); and d. The bulk allocation for Precinct 1 and Precinct 2 may not be transferred between themselves. 171

13 The Precinct Plans and Character Areas parameters must Noted. Refer to item C.30 above. include:

a. The height of buildings along Berkley Road extension (northern edge of Precinct 2) should be bulked higher than the southern edge facing the ‘eco-corridor’; b. Precinct gateways and entrances could contain more appropriately located bulk in order to emphasise hierarchy of spaces; c. Buildings on prominent corners and edges could contain more appropriately located bulk; d. The internal streets may require building bulk setbacks to facilitate natural light penetration; and e. Some appropriately located sites shall be designated as “foreground buildings” and may have slightly more bulk than “background buildings”. 14 A non-negotiable condition in any TRUP related development It is anticipated that excess parking could ultimately be converted approval should be that an agreed proportion of on-site, off- to other uses as public transport services improves. This will be street development parking that are more than the final demonstrated in the required SDP / Precinct Plans submission. approved TRUP parking ratios should be designed to be “re- purposed”. 15 Parking provision at any TRUP related development must be Following discussions with officials from CoCT Urban Design, it is subject to a 5-year review. understood that such a review (should it be made a requirement) will not require any reduction in approved parking, but would rather relate to additional parking requirements. 16 Locations for future public transport service links should be Existing and future public transport provision is detailed in sub- provided (these could be interim ‘community services’ that are section 8.6.1 of the motivation report. later replaced by fully fledged MyCiTi routes). The public transport routes could initially run through the development (before extension of Berkley Road) but some will eventually extend along Berkley Road. The routes will be developed on demand and suitable boarding points will be integrated with the final design inside and adjacent to the site. 17 An NMT plan will be required with SDP submissions that detail The linking of NMT facilities servicing the TRUP initiative with the links into the existing network (connectivity is paramount to internal NMT facilities provided at the River Club is currently being ensure that the development links into the receiving 172

environment rather that remaining an isolated island). This plan conceptualised with the TDA for the Berkley Road extension Project must note all flood lines so as to be cognisant of sustainability. Management Team.

18 The River Club should be seen as a public destination and a Entire open spaces at the River Club (e.g. the ‘eco-corridor’) will not future “biodiversity park” should be incorporated into the open be planted with indigenous vegetation so that areas of lawn can be space network. included for recreational purposes. However, it is anticipated that future landscaping will include areas of indigenous vegetation as part of a balanced landscaped environment.

Refer to item C.30. 19 Where ‘super-basements’ are proposed, the structures should Noted. Refer to item C.30. be wrapped rather than using mere landscaping for interface mitigation. 20 Partial flood-water storage may be proposed on site if A series of stormwater swales is proposed in lieu of the existing ‘old’ engineering reports indicate this possible. If detention ponds are Liesbeek River channel. These will be appropriately detailed on the included, the following must be demonstrated: Landscape Masterplan to be submitted as part of subsequent applications (refer to item C.30).  Where and how these ponds fit into the Landscape

Masterplan; and The inclusion of additional detention ponds on site may be  The downstream mitigation of detaining water on site. considered. As indicated in the various studies relating to the River Club and TRUP, attenuation on the site is of little benefit downstream. Refer to the surface water hydrology report prepared by Aurecon (attached as Annexure H to the motivation report). 21 The maximisation and alignment of visual corridors must be Noted. Refer to item C.30. considered, with the result that building heights may have to be lowered along these corridors. 22 The height and bulk of buildings needs to be carefully Noted. Refer to item C.30. considered so as to avoid conditions that cause a “walled development response”. 23 The road grids need to be explored in more detail as they may Noted. Refer to item C.30. be too rigid and not informed by the natural context. 24 Gateway features are currently missing. The River Club Noted. Refer to item C.30. development will be the gateway to the wider TRUP area and the development proposal needs to ensure that interfaces promote this. 173

25 Berkley Road extension should be regarded as the main through Noted. This is the current thinking, as shown in Figure 3 in the route, allowing Liesbeek Parkway to tie into it as a lower order motivation report. route. 26 The landscaping and built form interfaces need to be expressed Noted. Refer to item C.30. and shown in more detail in the Precinct Plans and other subsequent plan submissions.

27 Housing typologies at the River Club need to be varied in Noted. Refer to item C.30. typology and nature so as to allow for choice.

D. City of Cape Town TDA: Landscape Architecture

No. Summary of Comments Response 28 A Landscape Masterplan and landscape guidelines must be Noted. Refer to item C.30. submitted with the Precinct Plans. 29 The Landscape Masterplan should include the following: Noted. Refer to item C.30.

a. Highlight public facilities and their association with the public realm; b. An indication of how the development edge (including both buildings and hard landscaping) relates to and respect the river (i.e. rehabilitated Liesbeek Canal); c. The widths of setbacks and ecological corridors (these should align with the specialist recommendations); d. The location of the pre-colonial memorial, what the design intent is for this memorial and how the development will respond to it; e. An indication of the landscaping intent for the: - ecological corridor; - the rivers (i.e. rehabilitated Liesbeek Canal); - the bio-swale system; - recreational areas; and - hard landscaped public areas. f. Indication of the surrounding context (i.e. abutting properties) and how these relate; g. Cross sections as indicated, which must include: 174

- how planting is used to mitigate the scale of the buildings; - relationship between the NMT routes and the internal roads; - relationship between the NMT routes and the watercourses; - the nature of the vegetated stormwater swale; - a demonstration that the rehabilitated Liesbeek Canal, vegetated stormwater swale and ‘eco-corridor’ will match the experience of the Raapenberg Wetland & Bird Sanctuary; - the relationship between Berkley Road / green space / buildings / internal roads / buildings / ecological corridor; - how the courtyards between buildings will feel (ratio between vertical and horizontal) and be treated (use of courtyards, shadows, reduction of scale etc.); - how level changes as a result of raising the development above the 100-year floodline will be dealt with and how pedestrian movement and accessibility will be facilitated in relation to this raising; - culverts and other interventions to allow for proper ecological functioning. E. City of Cape Town TDA: Stormwater and Catchment Planning

No. Summary of Comments Response 30 The hydrology and hydraulics for the current situation with or Noted. This is taken as the validation and endorsement of the without a proposed River Club development have been studied findings, recommendations and conclusions of the surface water in detail. It is accepted that, given the current situation, the hydrology report prepared by Aurecon (refer to Annexure H of the proposed development will not significantly increase local flood motivation report). risk. As such an application to deviate from the CCT Floodplain policy cannot be opposed by this office. 31 The application would have to include a detailed river corridor Refer to item C.40 above. plan. Such plan will have to be submitted and approved by this office before further applications can be supported. 175

32 The CCT Floodplain policy does not allow the SW branch to Noted. It is not yet clear which CoCT official / department will approve development below the 1:50 year floodline. As the provide final authorisation with respect to this requested policy proposed development is below the 1:20 year floodline, deviation. permission to develop will have to come from higher authority than this office. 33 Deviations from the Stormwater Impacts Policy requirement to When detailed modelling is undertaken as part of the Stormwater attenuate larger order storm event runoff from the site can be Management Plan this will be tested and demonstrated. supported if such attenuation can be proven to be pointless It is requested that CoCT support such deviations if attenuation can given the location of the site. be proven to be pointless given the location of the site. 34 Requests to deviate from water quality requirements (24h This is accepted. The development will make use of swales to detention of 1y RP 24h event) are not supported. treated water quality to the required standard.

(Note: The applicant did not request or apply to deviate from this water quality requirement. The CoCT is simply stating that when the Stormwater Management Plan is undertaken it should not deviate from the stormwater quality requirement. This is thus akin to a condition of approval.)

176

F. City of Cape Town TDA: TIA & Development Control

No. Summary of Comments Response 35 Transport has no objection to the proposed development The following is confirmed: subject to inter alia the following conditions: a. The proposed intersection of Liesbeek Parkway / Malta Road a. That the proposed road infrastructure & intersections as / Berkley Road extension will be Option 2 (as per the TIA) to recommended in the TIA is implemented and that Malta / accommodate access to PRASA. Berkley / Liesbeeck intersection will be design option 2. b. That the developer is responsible for all design and b. All upgrades on municipal roads will be to full municipal construction costs to implement the road upgrades to full standards to extent as guided by the CoCT TDA Project municipal standards which includes blacktop, kerbing Management Team. sidewalks, street lighting, ducts, pedestrian crossings, stormwater infrastructure, traffic signals, lane markings and c. Detailed engineering detailed drawings will be prepared, and signage. a corresponding cost estimate will be provided as part of the c. Detailed civil engineering plans are provided for the road approval process. upgrades along with the associated costs. d. A comprehensive traffic accommodation plan for the d. The traffic accommodation during construction will be part of construction phases is submitted for approval by the the detailed engineering drawings submitted for approval. relevant departments within Council prior to commencement of any works and the cost of e. The escape routes are all above the 1:100-year flood line. accommodating traffic is for the developer’s cost. Although “basement” parking is located below the 1:100- e. Ensure that no trapped low points are created with the year flood line, the entrances to “basements” have been geometric design of all roads, parking areas and overland designed to be above the 1:100-year flood line. escape routes.

177

G. City of Cape Town: Recreation and Parks

No. Summary of Comments Response 36 In principle support for the development proposal, subject to a. Future development applications will provide more details on the following conditions: population density proposed at the River Club, which will provide an indication of the additional demand to be placed a. Future development applications should include an on the existing social and sporting facilities. assessment of the existing social and sporting facilities and

their capacity to accommodate the additional demand b. Noted. Refer to item C.30 above. resulting from the River Club development.

b. Detailed landscape plans must be submitted with future c. It is anticipated that all maintenance associated with the applications. In addition to standard requirements, the plans green spaces on and immediately adjacent to the site (e.g. should clearly illustrate the functionality of the green spaces. the rehabilitated Liesbeek Canal and infilled ‘old’ Liesbeek c. Maintenance responsibilities of the green spaces must be River) will be undertaken by the owner / developer of the River clearly defined on the Landscape Masterplan and/or in the Club. This however will be subject to further negotiations and landscape guidelines. potentially a service level agreement between the CoCT and the owner / developer of the River Club.

H. City of Cape Town: Water & Sanitation

No. Summary of Comments Response 37 No infrastructure under the control of CoCT’s Bulk Water Branch We understand that this comment means that no Bulk Water exits in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development. pipelines are affected by the development in terms of bulk pipes that have to be relocated to facilitate development.

(Note to reader: This comment is a favourable comment and does not imply there is not bulk water capacity but that bulk mains are not affected.) 38 The nearest municipal sewer connection is the 1050 mm Noted. The owner / developer is aware of this constraint and diameter main in Observatory Road, which is not able to therefore is proposing discharge at the 1050 mm main at Station accommodate the proposed development. Road and that such discharge will occur during off peak times (as agreed with CoCT).

39 The water network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the Noted. proposed development. 178

40 The sewer network does not have sufficient capacity upstream The owner / developer has already made provision for a sewer of the 1050 mm bulk sewer from Station Road. The development storage facility and pump station in the design concept and it is will therefore require a sewer storage facility and pump station accepted that these facilities will be required as part of the on-site. The Athlone WWTW is at capacity but flows can be development diverted to Cape Flats WWTW via Cape Flats 3 bulk sewer.

41 The Water & Sanitation department has no objection to the The owner / developer is committed to paying the development proposed development provided the following conditions are contribution that is levied by CoCT and has already accounted adhered to: for this cost in the development budget.

The applicant agrees to relocate any water and sewer a. A development contribution is payable; and infrastructure that may be discovered. The applicant has b. The applicant is responsible for the relocating of any water reviewed the existing services plans supplied by the CoCT and and sewer infrastructure that may traverse the erf there are no services traversing the site. However should services boundaries at their own cost. be discovered during development that are not reflected on the as-built plans applicant agrees to relocate these at their own cost. 42 Various technical requirements are listed, relating to inter alia: Noted. The owner / developer agrees to incorporate the various technical requirements stipulated by the CoCT.  metered connections;

 design of the sewer storage, pump-station and rising main; and  water and sewer infrastructure installation.

I. City of Cape Town: Electricity

No. Summary of Comments Response 43 The existing authorised capacity to this development area is 400 The 400 A capacity is based on the CoCT’s existing LV network to A. The estimated requirement for the River Club (Phase 1 and the current River Club Building; to our mind this supply would be Phase 2) is 10 MVA. There is currently sufficient capacity to useful only inasmuch as it could be used for a “Builder’s Supply” if supply the anticipated load. needed in the short term.

The 10-MVA available on the existing Bulk MV Network will be more than sufficient for Phase 1 of the development, or a combination of Phases 1 and 2. The final rating of the Mains Supply Connection/s is dependent on a number of factors, including: 179

 overall building area; and  occupational usage of areas.

The final rating will also be influenced by such factors as PV Systems which can offset the maximum demand ratings under favourable conditions. 44 Due to the development utilising all spare capacity a new This requirement is unreasonable. The CoCT will be using this Step- 132/11 kV Main Switching Station on the new development site Down Sub-Station site for a very large geographic area, including along Observatory Road measuring 80 m x 80 m is required. This the broader TRUP development (which is far larger than the River new switching station will only be operational within 3 years after Club property). This MV Step-Down Sub-Station will comprise an the land has been subdivided and zoned and transferred to the Industrial Scale Switching Yard that will be highly visible and CoCT, and development thereof will be subject to available detrimental to the aesthetic of the proposed development. funds. 45 Additional substations (besides the Main Switching Station) will Noted. There will be no public roads internal to the site. However, be required in locations approved by this department. These right of way servitudes in favour of the CoCT can be registered for properties shall be directly accessible from public road and shall access purposes (to be confirmed in subsequent subdivision not be traversed by any other services. Basement substation application to be submitted). Refer also to item C.30. sites are not allowed. Sites required can take the form of a combination of the following:

 Multiple outdoor substations on 5 m x 4 m freestanding sites; and  Multiple outdoor substations on 20 m x 14 m freestanding sites.

These substation sites shall be appropriately subdivided and zoned in the subdivision plan to be approved. 46 The existing Liesbeek Park substation on Rem. Erf 26423 is to be It is not clear what existing substation is being referred to. subdivided off from the parent erf, registered and transferred to Regardless, this is an unreasonable requirement as Rem. Erf 26423 the CoCT at the applicant’s cost. belongs to a third party owner. 47 Other comments are made relating to inter alia the following: Noted. Refer to item C.30.

 phasing plans;  SDPs;  installation of the electricity reticulation network;  installation of street lighting; and 180

 solar power generation.

J. City of Cape Town: Asset Management and Maintenance

No. Summary of Comments Response 48 That the developer / owner be responsible for a payment of Noted. development contributions. The current total (based on proposed uses) is R67 197 615. However, a separate Services Agreement can be entered into with the CoCT with respect to Roads and Transport in lieu of development contributions. K. City of Cape Town: Solid Waste Management

No. Summary of Comments Response 49 No objection to the application, subject conditions. Noted.

181

4.3 The applicant provided further points of clarity, see Annexure G2 attached, in response to branch comments received. In particular, they wanted to demonstrate their responses to Spatial Planning, Urban Design and Landscaping. Their comment is as follows:  The proposal is consistent with the draft TRUP LSDF.  The draft TRUP LSDF reflects the future intended development of the area.  Despite certain statements made about the TRUP Contextual Framework (2003), said policy does not have legal status; it merely offers guidance.  Certain information provided will be provided at precinct plan stage.  Further design refinement will be required.  Various proposals are made to include the First Nations people’s heritage and cultural values in the development given their connection to the site.  The First Nations Report is therefore an important design informant to the proposal.  Two precincts comprising 60 000m2 and 90 000m2 of development is proposed.  The built form in precinct 2 will in particular be informed by client needs, in this instance.  Sustainable green ratings will be adhered to.  Gateway buildings will be located along Berkley Road comprising a school and offices.  The rehabilitation of the river largely informs the landscaping philosophy of the proposal.  A landscape master plan is provided to address landscaping across the site.  The property will be subdivided into three portions, two portions comprising General Business zones and one comprising an Open Space zone.  There will be a significant dependence on public transport.  An internal road will be retained as private road albeit that a public right of way will be registered across the site.  Open space and NMT routes on-site will connect with that external to the development.  Various road improvements will be necessitated as a consequence of the proposal.  The approval of the rezoning will see further submissions made to the City in pursuance to enable the development.

4.4 Further branch comments/responses to additional information furnished, see Annexure F2 attached:

4.4.1 Spatial planning and Urban Design:  The proposal is supported.  They believe that the ecological role of the site should be enhanced, this element must be incorporated into the redevelopment of the site.  The open space should be open to the general public.  Ideally a multipurpose metropolitan park should be established with high quality public open space.  Urban design guidelines should inform the overall design of the site.  The proposal must meet the objectives of the TOD strategy among others.  Said department has various requirements that must be met and will be imposed as conditions.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 178 of 277 182

4.5.2 Asset Management and Maintenance indicated their no objection to the proposal. They indicate their reuqirements which will be imposed as conditions.

4.5.3 CSRM state the following in the response:  Catchment Stormwater and River Management are largely satisfied with work done by the applicant’s consultant team.  The Stormwater policy prohibits exercising development rights in a high hazard zone and 1:50 year floodline.  The old Liesbeek River has a polishing effect for stormwater coming from Observatory.  The proposal to fill in the old Liesbeek River will further degrade the river and adversely impact on the river ecology. This proposal therefore should not be supported.  A buffer of at least 40m should be provided from the river.  Further submissions will enable additional opportunities for input on the proposed development.  Practical interventions to prevent flooding of the SAAO and mitigation measures against other properties should be undertaken.  On-site attenuation will likely be counterproductive.

4.5.4 The Recreation and Parks department supports the proposal albeit that greater level of detail will be required. A landscape master plan must be furnished as that provided is inadequate.

4.5.5 TIA and Development Control indicate their no objection to the proposal stating that their previous requirements still stand.

4.5.6 Environment and Heritage Resources Management state:  They oppose the application in its current form as the submission for a rezoning is considered incomplete - more detail is required.  They do not oppose some development on the site beyond what the OS3 zoning permits.  Any development must not detract from the conservation functioning of the Liesbeek River, Black River and Raapenberg Bird Sanctuary.  Any development must include the submission of a SDP.  It is premature to support the floor factor as proposed as more detailed information must be furnished.  The infilling of the Liesbeek River is opposed.  The rehabilitation of the Liesbeek canal and Lis supported.

5. BACKGROUND TO PROPOSAL

Description of the area / surrounding land uses 5.1. The property is located within close proximity to major routes such as Main Road, the N2 and M5.

The area has diverse land uses comprising various types of

 residential accommodation comprising mainly Dwelling Houses, Flats, two storey walk-ups and row houses and also guest accommodation;

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 179 of 277 183

 Institutional uses such as rehabilitation centres and homes offering transition for those leaving rehabilitation centres, places of learning, medical research are located in the nearby suburb;  business premises such as office and other business activities opposite Liesbeek Parkway to the west, also to the north-west toward Salt River and to the north-east toward Maitland, amongst others, and  institutions such as the Alexandra Institute treating mental conditions, drug rehabilitation centres. Valkenberg West and Valkenberg East which accommodates a range of medical facilities, amongst others. Proposed Berkley M5 Road extension

PRASA Land

Liesbeek Parkway

THE PROPERTY Alexandra Institute

SAAO

Maitland Garden village

Valkenberg West

Valkenberg East

Property context 1 SKA site

The immediate surrounding properties are zoned for General Residential (comprising mainly dwelling houses but also includes Flats), Mixed Use (comprising a range of business uses on the opposite Liesbeek Parkway in the Black River Business Park, to the north-west and then also to the north-east toward Maitland), Community Zone and Open Space purposes.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 180 of 277 184 Proposed Berkley Road extension

MU2 GR4

OS2

MU2 THE PROPERTY CO2

CO1

MU2 CO1 OS3

SAAO OS2 GR2/4

GR2/4 CO2

Surrounding property zones

Property description 5.2 The property is located within the Two Rivers Urban Park (TRUP). The TRUP extends more or less to the - North just beyond the Berkley Road extension, along the M5 to Annexure Road; - East along Alexandra Road and includes Vincent Pallotti hospital; - South along the N2/Settlers Way and - To the east along Willow, Ossian and Firs Roads.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 181 of 277 185

Proposed Berkley Road ext

The property

TRUP boundary

Location of property within TRUP

The property is located to the south of the proposed Berkley Road extension, at the north-west point of the TRUP.

5.3 The property is bounded by Liesbeek Parkway and the Liesbeek River to the west, remainder Erf 26423 and Observatory Road to the south, the Liesbeek River canal, SAAO and Black River to the east and the proposed Berkley Road extension and PRASA land to the north. The property is landlocked. A right of way is registered across remainder Erf 26423 in favour of the property for it to gain access via Observatory Road.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 182 of 277 186

Black River

Liesbeek M5 Parkway

THE PROPERTY

Black River Canalised Business Liesbeek Park River SAAO

SKA site

Observatory Road Property Context 2 Canalised Liesbeek River Liesbeek River

THE PROPERTY

SAAO

Observatory Road

Existing property access SKA site Right of way

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 183 of 277 187

Much of the property is located within a floodplain and is prone to regular flooding. [Most of the property is situated below the 1:50yr, 1:20yr and 1:10yr floodplains. A small component is located above the 1:100yr floodplain.] While the property accommodates a certain range of uses, it has an existing flood warning system to alert staff and patrons alike in the event of flooding.

A range of uses such as a golf driving range, mashie golf course and ancillary uses are accommodated on the property. It further also accommodates conferencing activities and is used to accommodate events such as music concerts, weddings, etc from time to time.

A further range of uses are accommodated on the property - the full suite of uses is described in point 2 (Background) of this report.

Proposed development 5.4 It is proposed to rezone the property to accommodate a mixed use development comprising 150 000m² of floor space (bulk). Shops, Restaurants, Offices, a Hotel, Place of Instruction (and associated uses), amongst others. It is also proposed to provide residential accommodation which will comprise approximately 20% of the total floor space of the proposal. A portion of the residential accommodation will be reserved for inclusionary housing. The inclusionary housing will equate to approximately 4% of the overall floor space.

Building heights will range from approximately 15m to approximately 46m (2 to 9 storeys) above base level. The proposal will entail the construction of retaining structures so that roads and habitable spaces are raised above the 1:100 year flood plain. The application includes the intention to accommodate retaining structures exceeding the permissible height of 2.0m. [While the ground floor is not being raised, earth will be positioned alongside the first and second storeys or first, second and third storeys so that habitable spaces are raised above the 1:100 year floodplain. In most, if not all instances, ground floor will be used to accommodate parking.]

The development proposed will necessitate the construction of the Berkley Road extension. The applicant will incur the cost of a portion of the construction of Berkley Road while the City will be responsible for the construction of the remainder.

It is also proposed to decanalise the Liesbeek River canal on the eastern boundary of the property to rehabilitate it into a river course. It is proposed to fill and landscape the ‘old’ Liesbeek River channel on the western boundary of the property for it to serve as a vegetated stormwater swale to hold flood waters.

The application is accompanied by applications to permit the

 Rezoning of the property;  Raise the level of the ground above the 1:100 year floodplain so that development can take place and  The deviation from the o Table Bay District Plan to permit development within an area demarcated as open space; o Floodplain and River Management Corridor and the Management of Urban Stormwater policies to permit the development in a floodplain,

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 184 of 277 188

to fill the Liesbeek River and decanalise the Liesbeek River canal permitting a development exceeding 50 000m2 in extent.

A full list of the applications applied for is contained in Annexure A attached.

6. PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT

Criteria for deciding application

6.1. Consideration of criteria in terms of Section 99(1): 6.1.1. Compliance with the requirements of the MPBL  Compliance with the requirements of the MPBL have been met.

The application proposes the rezoning of the property to a subdivisional area. The rezoning to subdivisional area is ordinarily accompanied by a subdivision plan illustrating each zone, sub-zone and the extent of each. This application was accompanied by a plan showing the extent of the open space and general business zones – the subzones was not denoted on the subdivision plan. The information submitted is therefore sufficient to enable consideration of this application, as advertised, even though a detailed subdivisional area plan showing the portions and their corresponding sub-zones will be submitted at the time of precinct plan submission.

The application motivation makes references to the possibility of fewer parking bays being provided than what is required given the range uses and the extent of each use in relation to parking requirements as stipulated in in terms of Item 137 of the DMS. Given the level of detail provided at this stage of the application, no application for a parking departure was submitted, and any such application will be submitted and processed accordingly should the total number of parking bays provided not meet the minimum required in terms of the DMS.

 All the applications in respect of this proposal have been processed and advertised in accordance with applicable laws.

As legally required, the application was advertised in the newspaper, by registered and additionally an on-site notice was displayed. As an additional measure, which is not a legal requirement, the application was also advertised in community newspapers. There is no legal requirement for a public meeting to be held.

The application process yielded a total of 166 letters of objections, 1 letter of no objection and 18 late objections. All the late objections, apart from one, was submitted between 16 – 18 October 2018. Given this, 17 late objections were condoned. These late objections accompanied those referred to the applicant for comment. One late objection was submitted on the 05 January 2019. This late objection was not condoned given as it was submitted in excess of two months late. Notwithstanding this, the issues raised by the late objection was

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 185 of 277 189

addressed by the applicant in their response to objections as other objectors raise the same issues.

An amendment to the extent of the portions that will be reserved for General Business and Open Space 3 (OS3) has been made. The portion zoned for OS3 has been reduced by almost 1865m2. It equates to a variance of less than 1% from that originally indicated. The difference in the drop in the portion zoned for OS3 does not warrant the re-advertising of the application as the reduced extent is not considered to be significant within the context. Additionally, while the actual portion of land zoned for OS3 was finite in extent, the extent and portions of the property that will be landscaped and therefore present as being open space will be much greater than the variance mentioned above. This aspect is discussed further in point 6.3(f) below.

Objectors appear to misunderstand the process of notification. They state that

o insufficient information has been furnished; o the departmental report was not attached to the letter of notification; o the City is proposing the deviation from City policy; o the application is premature as neither the HIA nor the EIA has been adjudicated; o because the HIA and EIA has not been adjudicated the rights of the public is compromised given the land use application now under consideration; o greater levels of public engagement are required for developments of this scale; o the submission suggests that the HIA and EIA objections were disregarded; o the application should be informed by the draft TRUP LSDF; o the application has a different closing date to the HIA process; o the proposal contravenes the National Water Act; o the proposal does not satisfy the SPLUMA principles and o the on-site notice did not make reference to the property.

Each of the above points are addressed in the table contained in Section 4.2 of this report.

It must be noted that the proposal required an HIA and EIA in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act and National Environmental Management Act, respectively. The HIA is included in the EIA process, HWC therefore becoming a commenting party in the EIA process to DEA&DP. Even though an Environmental Authorisation was issued on 20 August 2020, there is no requirement in law that each of these processes have to be advertised simultaneously or in one advert.

 The proposal was not the subject of an administrative penalty.

6.1.2 Compliance or consistence with the municipal spatial development framework The site (shown by the arrow on the diagram below) is located within the “Urban Inner Core” and within an integration zone. The metro-south east integration zone is one of two integrations zones that is targeted to receive public investment to promote spatial transformation within the city. Nearby, the north-east is the Voortrekker Road corridor, the second integration zone.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 186 of 277 190

THE PROPERTY

The emphasis in the MSDF is on “inward growth” within the “existing built urban footprint.”

This is discussed further in point 6.2 below.

6.1.3 Consideration in terms of Section 99(3) of the desirability of the following criteria: The application is desirable as it facilitates

 local economic opportunities and job-creation;  the mixed use development proposed will not be dissimilar to the range of uses found in the immediate vicinity of the property.  A component of residential, a portion of which will comprise inclusionary house, is also proposed.  The proposal will see a more efficient use of the city’s service infrastructure.  Heritage elements around and on the site must be acknowledged through design and as per the conditions imposed when the environmental authorisation was issued.  The unique biophysical elements of the site will see the rehabilitation of degraded habitats and increased opportunity for the public at large to enjoy the use of the property.  The proposal will facilitate the continuation of NMT facilities on the property and within the development.  Conditions to mitigate the impact of the development are recommended.

6.1.4 Would approval of the application have the effect of granting the property the development rules of the next subzone within a zone? No, as the it is proposed to rezone the property to enable the development thereof.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 187 of 277 191

I am satisfied that the decision making criteria in Section 99(1) have been complied with.

I am satisfied that the considerations in Section 99(3) have been assessed and that the proposed land use is desirable.

6.2 Consideration of criteria in terms of Section 99(2):

6.2.1 Integrated Development Plan 2017-2022 The IDP informs the City’s key strategies being the opportunity city, safe city, caring city, inclusive city and well-run city. The inclusive city focuses on economic opportunities, safety of its citizens and integration of communities. Focusing development to attain inclusivity aids in achieving at least three of the strategic objectives. Incorporating all five objectives in a development is key.

Eleven priorities stem from the five strategic objectives of the City. These include but are not limited to, positioning Cape Town to be a globally competitive business city, economic inclusion, resource efficiency, safe communities, dense and transit oriented urban growth, efficient and integrated transport systems, building integrated communities. These priorities are elevated in significance as a transversal approach to the planning of developments of this nature and scale is required to ensure the development is sustainable. Interdependencies between disciplines highlight the importance in achieving a successful development.

The inclusive and opportunity city is achieved through economic inclusion. Job and income creation provides the opportunity for an improved quality of life which in turn once again feeds into and stimulates economic growth. The proposal provides an opportunity to simultaneously bring investment into the city and once more stimulate job creation. In the instance of this submission, inclusivity is further enhanced through the provision of a small component of inclusionary housing within the proposal. (This is expounded on further on in this report.)

The benefit of the development must also be extended to the wider Cape Town through the agglomeration of a mix of land uses, the location and level of density. These qualities contribute toward the spatial transformation of the City. The IDP encourages spatial transformation by employing the use of Transit Orient Development Strategy (TOD) principles that encourage new development to positively influence the urban form and be positioned around existing and planned public transport links. Such development must be sufficiently dense to promote the use of public transport in conjunction with reduced parking ratios.

The proposed dense mixed use development located in such a highly favourable location and between train stations, with other modes of public transport further endeavours to incorporate the principles mentioned.

6.2.2 Economic Growth, 2013 and Social Development Strategies Cape Town is experiencing rapid urbanisation and increased population growth. This places significant strain on the existing service infrastructure, the economy and consequently the need for jobs.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 188 of 277 192

Many of the City’s citizens are separated from the city’s economic hubs which are located significant distances away from places of residence. Location of new developments within established areas must therefore be encouraged as they improve access to opportunities and amenities as well as offer opportunity to contain urban sprawl. This, in turn, limits the cost associated with the provision of additional services as is usually associated with new developments on the periphery of the City.

Where existing communities are located great distances from amenities, places of employment, etc. high levels of congestion and lengthy commuting times are experienced. Expanding its BRT system and focusing on public transport will provide greater accessibility to various opportunities within the greater city area. Greater thresholds are required to justify or cover the cost of such service provision. Intensification, densification and diversification of uses become the cornerstone to this end.

Proposed road improvements arising from this development will benefit both the recipient and wider communities as it will connect the east and west. Investment such as that proposed may also, in the long term, result in investment in public transport resulting in further benefits to the recipient community and wider Cape Town.

The property is located between two train stations. Just beyond that access is offered to other modes of transport. The development therefore will have a favourable impact on the area both in the short and long term.

The site will continue to have private open space that will be maintained by the developer. Pedestrian walkways along the river’s edge will continue to be provided. The elements of open space will offer the opportunity for the public to have continued access to the river’s edge.

6.2.3 Integrated Human Settlement Framework (IHSF) While the Integrated Human Settlement Framework relates to the City’s provision of housing, it acknowledges the need to change the way in which housing is provided in the city by the City. One of the core programmes of the IHSF influencing is fostering partnerships as one of the key requirements to achieve the City’s medium to long term goals.

The property has not been identified in the policy for housing provision or as a catalytic project. While the location of the site is strategic, the primary intention of the development is not housing provision. Notwithstanding this, it is proposed that 20% of the floor space (about 30 000m2) will be reserved for housing provision of which 20% (about 6000m2, i.e. approximately 4% of the overall floor space of development) be reserved for inclusionary housing. The City has not sought to establish a partnership with the relevant developer for the provision of housing. Neither has said developer entered into discussions with the City’s housing department regarding inclusionary housing provision.

6.2.4 Transport Orientated Development Strategic Framework, 2017 TOD seeks to change, stimulate and develop the built environment in such a way that movement patterns of people and goods optimize urban efficiencies and create social equity as economic development is promoted.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 189 of 277 193

TOD principles require that

 Public transport cost to commuters and the provision thereof must be reduced;  Development should be located strategically to make it equally accessible socially and economically;  Level of service must be efficient to reduce trip distances and dependence on private motor vehicles;  Land use development must be intensified and densified to achieve the desired form, and  mix of uses in the right location to make it accessible, affordable and ensure the efficient use of public transport.

At a metropolitan level TOD should try to consolidate the relationship between land use and travel patterns across the City. It must therefore be used as a tool to inform the ideal location of new development. Various role players have a collective contribution to make to achieve the TOD vision. Additionally, it should seek to integrate different communities.

Although the current OS3 zoning generally limits development to active or passive recreation and open spaces, the proposal must be assessed against the likelihood of the status thereof changing to a developable site. The Environmental Authorisation issued permits the development of the site. To this end, consideration must be given to the context of the proposed development that presently exists in its surrounds with its associated desired development/threshold outcomes. Furthermore, the property forms of the metro south east integration zone.

It is accepted that land development attracts trips with varying characteristics depending on the location. A public transport network plan (the Integrated Public Transport Network i.e. IPTN) intended to guide public transport intervention was approved by the city. It encourages a strategic approach to public transport improvements. Development scenarios must adhere to the core principles of sustainable development that ensures that public transport movement is affordable, accessible and efficient. The IPTN therefore was devised to direct TODC principles by simultaneously promoting public transport provision with sufficient thresholds to promote the use and reduce the cost thereof to end users while also promoting intense, more sustainable levels of development.

IPTN identified locations that are under resourced in previously disadvantaged areas where public transport intervention must be made. These interventions are aimed at connecting such communities with places of opportunity. The current IPTN was approved in 2017 and is in the process of being implemented. It is however under constant review to refine the plan to improve connectivity between the disadvantaged and places of opportunity.

While the property or area in question is not amongst those identified for public transport upgrade, it is acknowledged that the development may impact future planning and highlight the need for public transport provision in this area. The fact that the property falls within an integration zone (discussed further below) may provide further impetus for Liesbeek Parkway and Berkley Road extension to be identified as suitable for road based public transport investment/intervention.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 190 of 277 194

According to the TODC (Transit Oriented Development Comprehensive) when assessing the property against Transit Accessible Precincts (TAPs) criteria, the property should see no residential development while non-residential activities is encouraged to not exceed 5000m2. However, this in itself is not an end state because of the dynamic nature of cities and how they are transformed.

TAPs has regard for the location of the site given proximity to existing and proposed public transport facilities. In this instance, neither Liesbeek Parkway nor Berkley Road or any of the surrounding roads within 500m of the site, are earmarked for public transport upgrades. Having said this, and as stated above, developments of this nature generally tend to serve as catalysts and may therefore cause a re-evaluation of the IPTN, which is presently under review so that the roll-out of public transport may be re-considered within the context of the dynamic nature of the city.

The City’s Transport Planning Department indicating no objection to the proposals and the TIA which addresses the matter of private and public transport and related access arrangements to the site. Therefore, the existing network and future civil engineering and infra-structure interventions would likely meet any public transport needs, especially given the proposal that at least 40% of vehicle trips to the development will be dependent on public transport. (This is discussed further in point 6.3 g) below.)

TOD comprehensive is viewed as the desired end state of urban form to address the public transport inefficiencies. New land use and transport interventions must support the desired end state notwithstanding the IPTN and TAPs. The objective of TOD comprehensive is to

 Reduce travel distances by intensifying, diversifying urban development close to public transport;  Optimise bi-directional flows by promoting an appropriate mix of land uses and from near high order public transport corridors  Generate a greater level of seats by promoting an appropriate mix of land uses within district and local nodes.

Notwithstanding the above, the property forms part of the metro south-east where trip attracting land uses comprising both social and economic opportunities should be located. It should ideally be dominated by residential development. The metro south-east forms part of one of two integration zones that must be prioritized based on their public transport links that must be stablished between existing and emerging urban nodes. Integration zones are areas identified to best transform the spatial structure of the City and therefore promote integration. These areas are earmarked to receive targeted funding where catalytic projects that will facilitate TOD opportunities must be encouraged.

The proposed density as well overall design supports the principles in the City’s Transport Orientated Development Strategic Framework (TOD) as the development:

 is high density mixed use with more than double the density threshold for the provision of viable public transport system.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 191 of 277 195

 is located close to existing and planned public transport stations and stops, which includes a 10 minutes or less walk/cycle to train stations and future integrated public transport network routes. (IPTN).  has reduced parking ratios and which encourages the use of public transport.  Is designed to discourage the use of motor vehicles in support of other modes of transport (walking, bicycles/scooters, trains, buses and trains).  promotes walking through design that prioritizes surveillance thereby creating a safe neighborhood.  has both trip generating and trip attracting land uses by virtue of it being mixed use-high density.  reduces travel distances by intensifying and diversifying urban development close to public transport systems  represents appropriate land use mix, residential development and social and economic activity at, and between, urban nodes along higher-order transport corridors  is a departure from low density single use developments that perpetuates the legacy of the apartheid spatial planning system.  represents a good example of compact and livable human settlement planning that meaningfully signals the City’s intent to curb urban sprawl.

6.2.5 Cape Town Spatial Development Framework, 2018(MSDF) At the outset, the Section 9(4) of the MPBL states that,

“The municipal spatial development framework does not confer or take away rights.”

Instead, the Section 3(3) of the MPBL explains that the purposes of the City’s spatial development frameworks include –

“(a) providing a longer-term spatial depiction of the desired form and structure of the geographic area to which it applies; (b) providing land use management guidelines regarding the appropriate nature, form, scale and location of development; (c) contributing to spatial co-ordination; (d) guiding investment and planning of municipal departments and where appropriate other spheres of government; (e) guiding investment for the private sector; (f) reflecting relevant provisions of strategies adopted by the Municipal Council; and (g) guiding decision making on applications.

Additionally, the Section 9(5) of the MPBL states that,

“If there is a conflict between the municipal spatial development framework and a district spatial development framework or local spatial development framework, the municipal spatial development framework prevails over other development frameworks to the extent of the conflict.”

As mentioned, the property is located in the urban inner core. The proposals are consistent with the MSDF for the following reasons:

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 192 of 277 196

The MSDF identifies four Spatial Transformation Areas (STAs), the urban inner core is one of the spatial transformation areas. Here public investment and growth must be prioritised.

Spatial transformation and resource allocation should be anchored in the principles established in transit oriented development (TOD) supported by various policies and strategies which aim to intensify, densify and diversify land uses. An efficient transport system that integrates all communities is an imperative in achieving the abovementioned goals. The City’s capital budget therefore must be aligned to achieve these ends.

The City is committed to spatially transform and integrate the city through targeted investment. The urban inner core is where spatial transformation must be encouraged, amongst others.

The property is located within the urban inner core though being identified as being located outside of the urban footprint. [The urban footprint in this instance is considered to be the total spatial extent of existing urban development (p.100).] The urban inner core represents the priority development and investment area of the City. It is here where infrastructure needs to be upgraded and intensification of land use should be supported.

The City must focus spatial priorities on inward growth to promote the urban economy, sustained job creation which will in turn have a knock-on effect.

Additionally, the MSDF identifies three "Integration Zones" which, amongst others, promotes both public and private investment to transform Cape Town's spatial landscape through establishing effective transport links, linking economic opportunities and settlement patterns and to invest in infrastructure and catalytic urban development projects. One of these is the Metro South-East Integration Zone - the Two Rivers Urban Park sits within the Metro South-East Integration Zone.

The objectives for the MSEIZ include -

 Compact, efficient developments that integrate the City;  Public transport restructuring must occur in conformance with TOD principles to unlock growth and promote development in appropriate locations; TRUP is identified as one of these areas;  Public-private sector working alongside each other to achieve investment into infrastructure, amongst others is also acknowledged as important.

The proposal will be located on Liesbeek Parkway and is positioned between Observatory, Koeberg, Salt River and Maitland train stations. Bus and taxi routes are located further afield. The intended development of the TRUP and the strategic identification of this precinct may stimulate improved and focussed public transport links into the area.

In addition to the above, the property is borders river corridors and wetlands and is located below the 1:100 year floodplain. It acknowledges the need for a balance between development and environmental protection.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 193 of 277 197

Additionally, the property was protected in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act and therefore would have been considered to be amongst the critical natural assets in terms of the MSDF. That protection status however lapsed in April 2020.

The applications will ensure a development that is compatible with the wider receiving urban context given the general residential and mixed use zones located in the vicinity and the related range of uses. Some open space components will be retained as part of the proposal.

Besides the uses mentioned, the proposal includes an element of inclusionary housing. The MSDF defines affordable and inclusionary housing as a:

“Policy directive and approach that seeks to leverage the development application process for new residential or commercial developments to secure the construction and perpetual availability of affordable housing in an integrated manner.”

The MSDF in turn defines affordable housing as “Traditionally affordable housing refers to housing with prices or values below the overall open market value which targets below-average incomes. In this MSDF affordable housing refers to the household income brackets of R3501-R18000 per month, and is inclusive of social, G.A.P, and inclusionary housing. It also refers to residential units valued at R500 000 or less.”

The MSDF sees Spatial transformation as reversing the impact of previous apartheid spatial planning by encouraging more opportunities for people who were previously disadvantaged to be located in areas that are “highly connected” and where public sector investment will be focused.

While an inclusionary housing element will comprise a small component of development, focused public sector investment into public transport facilities could serve to widen the accessibility of the site by improving public transport connections between previously disadvantaged communities and this proposal. Additionally, the proposed development is located in close proximity to established public transport, employment and commercial development opportunities and other amenities.

6.2.6 Table Bay District Plan, 2012 The property is located within the metropolitan node in Sub-district 3 of the Table Bay District Plan. The proposal seeks to deviate from the Table Bay District Plan (TBDP)which identifies the Two Rivers Urban Park as a multipurpose metropolitan urban park. It is designated as buffer 1 and core 2. It is regarded to be a precautionary area given the location of the site within a floodplain. A precautionary area are those areas that may pose a risk or have limited capacity for development.

[Buffer 1 areas are generally farmlands and natural vegetated sites, amongst others. It could accommodate utility services. These properties usually do not form part of core areas. Core 2 areas are generally ecological areas and areas that offer ecological support. In this instance it accommodates water bodies and rivers.]

The TBDP argues that such facilities as TRUP should be rehabilitated and upgraded. It should be used for passive and active recreation based on the Open Space 3

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 194 of 277 198

zoning. According to the TBDP a limited range of development could be encouraged such as residential, some institutional uses and appurtenant limited commercial development. Public access should be permitted along the edges of the site where appropriate. As far as possible mountain to sea linkages must be retained as well as maintaining access to the waters edge.

As is evidenced from the preceding comment, the district plan does not accord with the MSDF. The district plan was approved in 2012 while the MSDF was amended and approved in 2018. For this reason, district plans are presently being reviewed to ensure consistency with the MSDF. The review of district plans are still the initial stages of review.

The MSDF requires that lower order policies are consistent with the findings thereof. This principle is reiterated in the district plan. All lower level policies are informed by the higher order policies. The MSDF states that where lower order spatial plans conflict with the MSDF, the findings of the MSDF must take precedence.

When assessing deviations for the district plan regard must be had for compliance with the PSDF and the MSDF (previously the CTSDF). If the proposal conforms with these policies, then consideration must further be given to whether the proposal

 conforms with overall goals for local area policy;  gives effect to the general compatibility or appropriateness with the surrounding urban landscape;  impacts on safety, health and well-being of the local community;  is likely to have unacceptable environmental impacts;  be informed by any new information that may warrant a different development and  is appropriately located within context at this point i.e. have regard to growth informants, for example such as bulk service infrastructure availability amongst others.

A number of these issues are pertinent to the assessment of the application and will be discussed further in the assessment of the departmental report.

6.2.7 Environmental Strategy, 2017 and Cultural Heritage Strategy While it is acknowledged that the development will continue within an urban area the impacts on the natural environment and cultural heritage should be minimized and managed.

The Environmental Strategy (ES) argues that the natural environment is held in trust for all. Access to natural open spaces has been inequitable over the years. Developments should therefore not hamper or impede equitable access to the environment. Changes in land use in terms of potential impacts should be minimized or mitigated.

The ES argues that the City’s heritage assets comprise both natural and cultural (which includes both tangible and intangible) heritage. Each of these should be recognized, protected and promoted. It contributes toward a strong sense of place. It also holds economic benefit to the City. Given the city’s diverse cultures the city’s heritage should be celebrated. Any changes in land use should be sensitive and as

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 195 of 277 199

far as possible not adversely impact on the natural/cultural heritage. Where adverse impacts cannot be avoided, interventions should be employed to minimize/reduce impacts so that positive impacts are pronounced and maximized.

The Cultural and Heritage Strategy identifies heritage resources as “any place or object of cultural significance” which can be both tangible objects but may also comprise intangible heritage such as “traditions, oral history, ritual, ceremonies, language, popular memory and indigenous knowledge systems”. Both places and objects of cultural significance are considered to be important because they connect society through memory to a sense of social and individual identity. Heritage resources are important because they allow future generations to understand past struggles and developments that shaped history and society. The protection of heritage resources has the ability to play a significant role in social and economic upliftment of the people.

The property is located in a cultural environment that some may regard to be of environmental significance, yet others will argue is environmentally degraded. This is evident in comments from the applicant and objectors.

The river corridors are home to various species of fauna and flora. While some of the spaces may be degraded, it does not by implication mean that they cannot be transformed through intervention measures that restore the environments.

The proposals include the intention to develop approximately two-thirds of the site and to retain approximately one-third as open space within the larger open space. The open space will provide a public right of way for the general public to have access to the river in the form of pedestrian walkways and cycle paths.

While it is acknowledged that the property includes elements of heritage significances, these are to be incorporated into the proposal by various means, such as, memorializing the history by means of story boards that tell of past experiences and the provision of architectural elements such as an amphi-theatre in the shape of an indigenous kraal, spaces that enable, display of traditional crafts, amongst others.

6.2.8 TRUP Contextual Framework (CF), 2003 The TRUP Contextual Framework (CF) was approved in 2003. It was devised to guide development within TRUP. The CF encourages the property to be used for commercialised recreation which would include a limited extent of development that would mimic existing buildings on the property. It did not discount the likelihood of further development but acknowledges that the further development of the site should be subject to guidance offered by the Stormwater and the Catchment Management departments.

While the CF remains in force, it is presently under review. In accordance with the Section 99(5) of the MPBL consideration of the application cannot be held in abeyance while awaiting policy approval.

[It must further be noted that no reference is made to the draft policy due to its status.]

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 196 of 277 200

6.2.9 Floodplain and river corridor management policy, 2009 (FRCM) The application includes the intention to deviate from the mentioned policy. It is proposed to permit the obstruction of the free flow of water in a 1:20 year flood plain and to provide fill below the 1:50 year floodplain. This deviation is required as it is proposed to develop the property as well as to fill the Liesbeek River.

Generally, the aim of this policy is to manage the flow of water in the floodplains and river corridors and to avoid high risk floods or hazard zones. High hazard zones are areas where the ability for vehicles to wade through flood waters is impacted and where the stability of buildings/structures is compromised by flooding. It is also linked to the frequency of flood events. The policy asserts that no development should take place in high hazard zones.

Within the context of the proposals, this now includes the placement of buildings within the floodplains and river corridors and filling of the Liesbeek River. Based on this, the applicant undertook a hydrology study. The environmental authorisation process undertaken concludes that it supports development within the floodplains and river corridors and the filling of the Liesbeek River.

On the other hand, based on the guidance in the applicable policy, the custodian City department only supports development within the floodplains and river corridors while it does not support the filling of the Liesbeek River According to the policy, areas above the 1:50 year floodplain could permit a certain very limited extent of development (development meaning any man-made change to property) – see the table below. All development should ideally be located above the 1:100 year floodplain though. In instances where development is permitted in floodplains, development methodologies must be employed to reduce flood risks to people and properties. Permitted development must therefore be designed in accordance with best practice methods and conditions as set out in the policy. Any development near to watercourses must anticipate a degree of flood risk in particular when below the 1:100 year floodplain. To this end the proposal acknowledges some flood level rise.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 197 of 277 201

FRCM assessment framework for proposals

Development permitted between the 1:50 year and 1:100 year flood levels is subject to certain conditions. Any habitable space must be flood proofed and certain compensatory measures must be instituted to address flooding – these measures must be undertaken by the applicant to safeguard properties impacted by flood

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 198 of 277 202

level rise as a consequence of the proposal (whether these properties presently experience flooding or not presently). This view is reiterated by CSRM.

Elsewhere, the policy states that habitable spaces should ideally be accommodated above the 1:100 year floodplain. The proposal intends providing all habitable space above the 1:100 year floodplain. Super box-like structures will be placed on the land to accommodate parking that will raise the levels of habitable floors above the 1:100 year floodplain.

FRCM assessment for proposals

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 199 of 277 203

The abovementioned tables show that in addition to infrastructure, parking could be accommodated in areas between the 1:20 and 1:50 year floodplain, amongst others. The property is located within the 1:50, 1:20 and 1:10 floodplain. The super structures that will serve as the plinths on which buildings will be erected although the superstructures will comprise only parking.

Although the hydrology study suggests that the development will not cause a significant rise in flood waters, entrance levels to parking areas will be located above the 1:100 year flood plain. This may obviate the need for any flood warning system.

Watercourses/wetlands and their riparian landscapes must be buffered from impacts of development. Buffer zones for watercourses and wetlands must range between 10m and 40m, depending on their significance of the watercourse and whether they have been canalised. Buffer zones must be adjusted to accommodate wetlands. It is intended for buildings to adhere to the suggested 10 – 40m buffer zone. Of importance and what cannot be revealed at this juncture are the interface activities between watercourses and the proposal. [To this end, the Urban Design Policy guidelines must be employed.]

The policy encourages that buffer zones should be protected so that the ecology of such areas and watercourses are not compromised. Upon confirming the exact placement of buildings the appropriate buffer zones and their widths across the site could then be confirmed. However, CSRM has yet to approve these. Where ecological buffers are accommodated on the site, servitudes may need to be registered in favour of the City. Importantly, the hydrology study does not confirm the placement of buildings. The CSRM has indicated that there is no reason to refute the findings of the study. However, the placement of buildings must be revealed for any concerns regarding the findings of said study to be allayed while simultaneously confirming the findings of their studies. The final determination of building placements, buffer areas and widths (comprising the watercourses with associated wetlands, ecological buffer, aesthetic treatment of any interface area and the building that will abut onto the watercourse), and the appropriateness of each of these, amongst others, is still to be confirmed. CSRM’s response to the proposed buffer zones will be confirmed at a subsequent stage of the application process. Conditions are proposed as part of the recommendation.

With regard to the filling of the Liesbeek River, CSRM did have regard to the hydrology study which states, amongst others, that the filtration function is not significant and that filling the River will enhance its ecological effects. CSRM holds a different opinion in that that department argues the River holds an important filtration function while filling will also adversely impact and change the existing ecology around the river. Additionally, CSRM maintains that the River holds important historical and cultural significance. This aspect is addressed in the paragraph referring to “Impact on Heritage”. Last, it must be noted that the Liesbeek River falls beyond the cadastral boundary of the site. CSRM as the custodians of land on behalf of the City, is required to endorse this proposal. Therefore, filling of the River is not supported.

6.2.10 Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy, 2009 The application proposes the deviation from the

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 200 of 277 204

 24hr extended detention of the 1-year recurrence interval for a 24hours storm event relating to the quantity and rate of run-off;  up to 10 year recurrence interval to be reduced to pre-development level in respect of quality, quantity and rate of run-off and  up to 50 year recurrence interval peak flow to be reduced to existing development level in respect of quality, quantity and rate of run-off.

Generally, these three points relate to the volume of stormwater run-off and the quality of the water.

The applicant’s hydrology study concludes in favour of this deviation and the environmental authorization concludes similarly.

On the other hand, the custodian CSRM department merely agrees with the deviation from attenuating water within a 24hr flood event on-site for an extended period but it does not support the aspects relating to (b) and (c) above.

The applicant argues that attenuation of stormwater adds no value as surrounding sites are flooded even during low storm events and it makes no difference given the proximity to the sea i.e. water will be released quickly into the sea. CSRM argues that releasing directly into the sea is more effective than attenuation. However, CSRM argues that properties downstream must be safeguarded form the impacts of flooding.

In addition to the above, and based on water quality considerations, the policy states that watercourses and wetlands are considered to be an integral part of the City’s biodiversity network and they play an important role in recreational and economic activities. Principles guiding design of urban areas that are water sensitive to address the impacts of urban development is known as Water Sensitive Design (WSUD).

WSUD acknowledges that the primary reason for the deterioration of urban water is due to disruption of the natural water cycle which does not permit absorption and quality improvement to runoff through filtration, for example. Also the increased amount of impervious surfaces contributes toward increased runoff which is concentrated and often accelerated. The stormwater often runs into canals and drainage systems and is not absorbed through natural processes.

For these reasons, developments must employ Sustainable Urban Design Systems (SUDS). This will either maintain or mimic natural water processes to minimise the impacts of urbanization on water quality and quantity. These measures are referred to as Best Management Practices (BMPs). They comprise

 structured controls such as infiltration devices, bioretension cells, constructed wetland and detention ponds, amongst others and  Non-structured controls which are institutional and pollution prevention practices designed to reduce or prevent pollutants from entering stormwater runoff and to reduce the volume of stormwater and management thereof.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 201 of 277 205

The policy states that in many instances multiple measures could be employed to achieve water quality and quantity of an acceptable standard because these measures seek to arrest pollutants and improve the quality of natural water assets as part of the stormwater system of the City. Furthermore, measures employed must ensure that long-term impacts are averted and communities, present and future, are not adversely affected. CSRM states that the provision of stormwater master planning for developments such as that proposed is therefore important.

Given the above, the applicant states that various measures will be employed to minimize impacts of stormwater runoff and on hydrological processes. These include permeable paving, stormwater infiltration, the use of stormwater detention through the use of bioretention areas and reconstructed wetlands, source control. Accordingly, the applicant argues that deviation from policy relating the water quality and quantity requirements as listed in the table contained can be supported.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 202 of 277 206

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 203 of 277 207

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 204 of 277 208

As already stated, the applicants are not required to have a series of detention ponds to detain water on-site. As is understood the proximity of the property to the sea means that flood water should be permitted to enter the water ways so that it reaches the ocean quickly – this has been supported by CSRM. It is considered better for flood water to reach the ocean quickly so that the rise in flood water is as minimal as possible. Measures however must be employed to minimize the impacts of flood level rise on downstream properties. The measures employed and how it will be effected must be contained in a Stormwater Management Plan.

At the outset, development of the site must ensure, as a matter of course, that best management practice (BMP), which is an international standard, is employed with respect to water quality and reduced levels of run-off. These would need to be demonstrated and accompany said study.

However, the proposal to deviate from policy requirements in respect of water quality seeks to obviate the requirement to satisfy BMP. For this reasons, this deviation is opposed by CSRM.

In response, the applicant acknowledges this and that water quality standards in (b) and (c) above must be adhered to. Therefore, related measures employed must be the satisfaction of the mentioned department. This will have to accompany the precinct plan submission.

The CSRM Department has indicated that the findings of the applicant’s hydrology study in respect of flood level rise as a consequence of the proposal, is accepted. The detail surrounding this will be furnished and contained in a Stormwater Management Plan. However, aspects related to water quality is not supported..

6.2.11 Tall Buildings Policy, 2013 In terms of the Tall Buildings Policy a building is considered a tall building when:

o It is assessed in relation to its context, and is distinctly taller than surrounding buildings; o A tall building is considered to be taller than 35.0m and is located along a higher order street; and o A tall building is considered to be 1.5 times higher than the permissible height the permitted in the base zone.

According to the abovementioned criteria, some of the proposed building heights will be tall buildings given building heights in the prevailing landscape. Some buildings will conform to building heights found in the area. An agglomeration of factors will influence heights, such as

- the location of buildings in relation to the prevailing landscape, - proximity to the river’s edge, - proximity to heritage buildings/areas, - location in relation to the site edges

Taller buildings and the positioning will have to comply with the policy as well as the urban design policy, the MSDF, TOD strategy, amongst others. This information will need to be submitted at the time of SDP submission.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 205 of 277 209

6.2.12 Urban Design Policy, 2013 The detail of the proposal must give effect to the Urban Design Policy. The scale and level of the development proposal is such that the ability to show detail and therefore illustrate principles is restricted. More detail will be provided at the point of submission of SDPs. The application therefore will be conditioned accordingly.

Principles such as

- overlooking public spaces, - building built closer to edges of an erf to frame public spaces - access to amenities on-site - intensification of the use of land,

must be employed as the detail of the overall design unfolds.

Notwithstanding the preceding point, it is proposed that the lower levels of the building will compromise parking only. In terms of developing sites, it is encouraged that levels that are at grade are in fact used as active edges to offer not only interest to the passer-by but provide eyes onto the public domain. Active edges at grade also offer passers-by an element of safety/security.

Parking of vehicles at lower levels result in sterile edges that are generally not encouraged. In the instance, the ability to respond to such design informants as recommended by the policy is hindered by the location of the property within a floodplain located below the 1:100 year floodplain. The applicant therefore has elected to introduce landscaping along the edges of buildings all of which will accommodate parking on the lower 1 to 2 levels. It is intended to introduce earth against the outer walls of parking levels to enable landscaping to be provided. This measure is intended to mitigated against the impacts that will result as a consequence of providing parking at the lower levels. (This element is discussed further in 6.3.b below.)

The policy also encourages floor-to-ceiling heights that promote later conversion of parking levels to habitable space. As public transport improvements are made it is anticipated that the demand for public transport will increase over time resulting in the decrease use of and need for the private motor vehicle. In this instance such measures will not be possible since parking levels are proposed to be positioned below the 1:100 year floodplain.

6.2.13 Densification Policy It is proposed to develop the site with a mixed use development including residential accommodation. (The proposal will see 45du/ha being provided.) Densification of the City is vital in terms of social, economic and environmental sustainability.

Densification ensures the gradual restructuring of the City which will contribute toward a more efficient city structure and built form.

The proposal is consistent with this policy’s objectives for the following reasons:

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 206 of 277 210

 It ensures the optimal and efficient use of infrastructure, services, facilities and land.  It will enhance the built environment.  The scale of the proposal is appropriate in the immediate context.  It provides a mix of land uses, opportunities and integrated living environments.  It contributes to place-making and the development of attractive safe urban environment.

6.2.14 Parking Policy The proposal must give effect to the guidance offered in the City’s Parking Policy. The property is located in a standard parking area. The applicant indicated that reduced parking is intended so that a departure would be required. The applicant proposes to address this at a later stage in accordance with the level of detail that will unfold. My department agrees with this approach, noting that any such application will be processed in terms of the MPBL.

6.3 Consideration in terms of Section 99(3) of the desirability of the following criteria a) Socio -economic impact The proposal will provide investment into the area and could be catalytic and stimulate further economic opportunities. The proposal will provide employment opportunities in the short and long term and during and after construction.

On a smaller scale the proposal will also offer a limited number of residential opportunities with access to various opportunities. The proposal includes the intention to accommodate a small component of inclusionary housing that is proposed to comprise about 4% of the overall development although total residential accommodation will be about 20%. The provision of inclusionary housing will provide some previously disadvantaged people with access to opportunities in on the site and in the wider area although the provision of business uses on the site will also provide access to economic opportunities.

Employment opportunities created will have an indirect, positive social impact as a consequence of employment that will be created and the opportunity for employment that will result.

The rehabilitation and upgrade of the open space components of the development seek to broaden access, in comparison to what currently happens, to improved recreation and open space for a wider variety of people. b) Compatibility with surrounding uses b.1) Compatibility with surrounding land uses and zones Various actions are required in order to implement and enable the aims of TOD to be achieved.

It is proposed to accommodate approximately 150 000m2 of development. The development of the site will occur in two phases or precincts. These phases/precincts are intended to accommodate the following range of activities with associated floor space as mentioned below:

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 207 of 277 211

The property is located in a locale comprising properties with varying land uses and zones. As is evident from the illustration below the nearby suburbs of Observatory and Maitland comprise properties zoned for General Residential, Mixed Use, Open Space and Community Zones are located.

The Raapenberg Residential business property bird sanctuary activities

Residential Business SAAO activities

Figure relating to range of Zones found in Observatory

It is also evident that portions of Maitland comprise properties zoned for Single Residential purposes.

The range of uses located in the vicinity comprise offices, retail activities, residential accommodation, educational and recreational activities, factories, medical related uses, amongst others. Similarly, Salt River, to the north-west of the property, also comprises business activities including mainly retail activities with some offices and industry related uses.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 208 of 277 212

Residential Business Industrial activities

The property Raapenberg bird sanctuary

Industrial

Institution SAAO

Residential

Figure relating to range of zones found in Maitland

Some recreational activities/open space also surround the property.

The range of uses proposed to be accommodated within the development will therefore compliment that found in the surrounding area.

As mentioned earlier the property is located in one of two integration zones identified where investment and development must be encouraged. (The second integration zone is the Voortrekker Road corridor.) The proposal is catalytic in nature and targets development within the metro south-east, a strategic location situated between established urban nodes.

The proposed buildings on the site will be more visible to the SAAO than that presently experienced. Of concern is the likely impact of light pollution on the SAAO being an observatory.

According to the applicant the functioning of the SAAO has changed overtime. It is presently not used for astronomical research. Part of the reason for this is the increased amount of light pollution experienced given the location within a densely populated urban setting. The proposal will therefore not alter this situation.

It is also intended to accommodate 6000m2 or 4% of residential uses with a component of inclusionary housing. This equates to approximately 140 dwelling unit available as rental stock. Although the applicant acknowledges the strategic site location of the strategic the number/percentage of inclusionary housing stock is low when compared against overall floor space/development rights sought. Related aspects are addressed elsewhere in this report. However, the intention to provide affordable/inclusionary housing is commensurate with the spatial transformation agenda of the various city policies, strategies and similar types of recent mixed use developments approved. The application will consequently be conditioned.

b.2) Built form compatibility Sense of place no doubt will be impacted. The existing open space landscape will be altered by the proposal although the proposal may create a new sense of place

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 209 of 277 213

due to the proposed built form comprising building heights, stepping of buildings, roofscape, skylines and recreation spaces.

The prevailing architectural vernacular is varied. Building heights range from single storeys of about 3.0m to multi-storeys of approximately 20m to 30m in height. Further afield in Salt River the highest buildings are generally approximately 15m in height, the only exception being Premier foods where the silo bins and abutting offices are approximately 49m and 36m respectively.

PRASA ±4 - M5 Business 15m high Park ±21m high

SAAO ± 4-15m Black River high Business Park – ±18 – 24m high

Residential precinct ± 4m 14m high

Building heights in the vicinity of the property

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 210 of 277 214

Building heights in residential south of Black River Business Park ±4 – 14m

Black River Business Park buildings heights approximately 23m

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 211 of 277 215

Black River Business Park buildings heights approximately 18m – 21m

Building heights on PRASA land approximately 15 - 18m

Buildings heights of building is M5 business park approximately 21m

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 212 of 277 216

Premier foods building heights in Salt River approximately 36m (bins about 49m)

The proposal refers to accommodating buildings ranging in height from about 15m to about 46m in height above base level. Lower buildings are largely proposed to be accommodated near to the existing entrance of the property. Buildings to be located along the Liesbeek Parkway extent of the property will gradually rise as one moves toward Salt River i.e. the northern extent of the property. Buildings located along Berkley Road extension are proposed to be the highest on the site. Buildings oriented toward the SAAO are proposed to range in height from about 11m to about 33m (the 33m high building being positioned closer to Berkley Road extension). These buildings will be located in Precinct 1 and will be bounded by the link road to the west, rehabilitated Liesbeek River and SAAO to the north, the SKA site (Erf 26423) to the east and Liesbeek Parkway to the south.

The initial submission suggested a certain built form. After the applicant responded to branch comments received, it was suggested that the built form will largely remain the same with certain aspects that would change.

Original submission – precinct 1

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 213 of 277 217

Suggested change to building form – precinct 1

Building heights toward the SAAO are also proposed to be lowered. Building heights experienced along Liesbeek Parkway are similar to that originally proposed. It will appear that buildings are disaggregated to a greater degree. Planting will be provided between buildings. As the proposal enters the final design stages it is imperative that cognisance is taken of the significance of the SAAO being a national heritage site. Some views to the SAAO may be retained even if through view corridors. These will be addressed at the Precinct Plan stage.

BERKLEY ROAD EXT Original submission – precinct 2

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 214 of 277 218

BERKLEY ROAD EXT

Suggested change to building form – precinct 2

As is evident from the illustrations above, the building massing for precinct 2 has changed from that originally presented. Originally buildings were markedly more disaggregated than that now presented. View lines across the site appear to be somewhat reduced from the original submission. Other design interventions may need to be employed to explore alternate types of massing and form. Whether alternate forms can be explored is uncertain as the applicant has indicated that their desired anchor tenant has largely influenced the change in building massing. While this may be the case, other design interventions could potentially be employed to ensure a better/improved built form.

Buildings along Berkley Road extension are proposed to be about 46m high in certain instances and will define the public realm/edges of the site and overlook the public domain. This may be commensurate with the future prominence of Berkley Road as a main thoroughfare.

Building heights across the site are varied which lends interest to the urban landscape. This is encouraged.

The extent to which views across the site can be preserved is debatable noting that the property is located within an urban environment. Buildings in the instance of both precincts 1 and 2 will be located on a plinth estimated at about 2 storeys high that will accommodate parking. A third plinth accommodated in precinct 2 is the smaller of the three plinths given the link road that gives access to the property Berkley Road.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 215 of 277 219

Existing ground level FIRST FLOOR/2ND STOREY Retaining wall / plinth GROUND FLOOR/1ST STOREY

The massing as depicted above will be placed on top of each plinth changing the landscape significantly from that presently experienced and the sense of place. The plinths will be masked by placing mounds of earth against retaining walls to reduce the height of structures that otherwise would be very imposing blank facades. The provision of earth mounds or berms provides the opportunity to landscape these spaces. While the landscaping will not reduce its prominence, it is an attempt to present it as more appealing aesthetically.

The Urban Design department has indicated no objection to the proposal. They indicated the need to adhere to requirements related to various city policies which will need to be demonstrated for each precinct and applied at SDP stage. The precinct plan will need to be accompanied by relevant studies.

c) Impact on the external engineering services The application was circulated to various service branches. These departments largely have no objection subject to meeting certain requirements.

The Electricity Department has indicated that sufficient capacity exists to accommodate the proposal. However, the proposal will use all spare electricity capacity; for this reason, an electrical substation must be provided on-site.

The consequent impact of the development must not compromise electrical supply to the area. This must be considered within the context of the fact that many properties that feed off the existing supply that have as yet not fully taken up existing rights – capacity must therefore be available in the event of those rights being taken up in full. For this reason, an electrical substation must be provided on-site as is required by the Department: Utility Services (Electricity).

However, the applicant has expressed an opposition to this requirement stating that the latter department confirmed that sufficient capacity exists to accommodate the proposal. However, the proposal will take up all existing available electrical supply. Further, since the development seeks additional rights, the requirement for the provision of the electrical substation will compensate of the take-up of electrical supply attributable to that no longer available to the area.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 216 of 277 220

The electrical substation required will not come on line for a few years. In the process of planning for electrical service provision, said department must anticipate likely demand where existing rights may be taken up. This is important to ensure economic development is not scuppered due to the lack of planning. The Department: Utility Services (Electricity) requires that the electrical substation is provided on-site and that the land is ceded to the City upon the provision of said facility.

According to Bulk Services Water and Sanitation there is no City of Cape Town bulk water connection near the site. Having said this, the City has sufficient water bulk services capacity to accommodate the development. While sufficient water reticulation exists, the relevant department has indicated that the developer will need to provide additional provision for firefighting. The water supply/provision will need to be provided to said department’s approval.

The sewer reticulation will see an initial connection being provided on the property that the developer will have to maintain. Sufficient storage capacity must be ensured so that discharge can be undertaken later in the day (possibly at night) when demand has dissipated. While the site should discharge to the Athlone Water Works Treatment plant, no spare capacity exists. In order to accommodate the demand generated by the proposal said department has indicated that it is possible to provisionally connect to the Cape Flats catchment area. Upon upgrading the Athlone Water Works Treatment plant the property could then be connected there. The relevant department has indicated that the developer was advised that a service level agreement is required. The services level agreement will outline the responsibilities of the developer in respect of upgrades and timing of phasing with associated connections.

The Catchment, Stormwater and River Management Department (CSRM) has indicated that they accept the findings of the hydrology study. The study indicates that while flooding will increase, the increased flood levels are deemed not to be significant and are within acceptable levels. The deviation from the Floodplain and River Corridor Policy is not opposed. They do believe that negative impacts must be mitigated against. Notwithstanding this, the placement of buildings as well as the extent with associated degree of fill must confirm the findings of impact studies undertaken. The submission of any precinct plan must therefore reinforce the findings of the hydrology and hydraulic study undertaken.

It is believed that run-off from the site will have no impact on flood levels as small stormwater events will be attenuated in a series of swales while large stormwater events peak flows off the site approximately 1 – 3 hours before peak flows in the adjacent rivers. As is understood, the CSRM department has indicated that it is not averse to the measures given the proximity of the property to the sea to which water will escape.

Escape routes for the development during flooding will be accommodated via Berkley Road toward the M5. An escape route over Liesbeek Parkway cannot be considered as the level of the culvert at that point is too low.

The Floodplain and River Corridor Policy however does not permit development below the 1:50 year floodplain. Said policy promote development above the 1:100 year floodplain. Various measures are proposed to safeguard buildings and life to

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 217 of 277 221

ensure development can be accommodated, noting that no habitable spaces will be accommodated below the 1:100 year floodplain. This is explained in detail in preceding sections and is further supported by various studies undertaken during the environmental assessment process and the resultant ROD concludes that the development can be supported.

The development of the site and measures proposed to mitigate against flood level rise will see bio-retention areas, vegetated swales and reconstructed wetlands incorporated into the landscaping. This will ensure that holding a limited amount of run-off from the development is accommodated on-site. These measures must be incorporated into the development as landscaped elements. Buffer zones that will abut onto the rivers also present an opportunity to accommodate flood waters.

PRASA land located to the north of the property, also holds some flood waters. The applicant has indicated that these areas of detention should be retained. Land owned by another entity to assist with addressing flooding on land other than the particular development site (it was suggested that PRASA land possibly be considered to hold some flood waters) cannot be considered as a measure to address the requirements of the proposal. In fact, the Management of Stormwater Impacts Policy expressly states this. Any amelioratory measures employed by the applicant/developer (such as bioretention areas, vegetated swales and reconstructed wetlands) cannot be provided on the abutting City land without the permission of the competent department. Said permission is still to be obtained. Said permission may also include the leasing of City land to achieve measures proposed. However, this would have to be addressed at the Precinct Plan stage.

The studies undertaken suggest that the present rise in flood water is compounded by blockages that occur at the pipe to the weir at the crossing of the railway bridge along the Black River. According to the CSRM blockages that occur are not intentional and could just as easily be unblocked. It will therefore require regular maintenance by the City to ensure that this problem does not further compound flooding.

Flooding events are likely to increase significantly in the vicinity of the property. The most significant level of flooding will impact the South African Astronomical Observatory (SAAO). The rise in flood waters will likely impact a few buildings positioned closest to that boundary with the Liesbeek River canal. While these buildings are located within a floodplain one of them have some heritage significance and should be protected. In order to compensate for the impacts of flooding it is proposed that the berm along the western boundary of the SAAO (i.e. with the Liesbeek River canal) should be raised by between 0.7m and 1.2m. The applicant states that the existing berm was constructed without the permission of the CSRM and that the developer will not assume the responsibility for the raising of the berm. However, responsibility for raising the berm cannot be placed on that land owner to safeguard their property against the development now being proposed. The applicant has suggested that the developer will flood proof the one building that has heritage significance while the remaining two buildings should be dismantled and removed. However, contrary to the applicant’s suggestion this cannot be imposed on the SAAO. Rather, should other structures require flood proofing, this will be to the account of the developer.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 218 of 277 222

The CSRM indicates that they are not able to support the deviation from the policy relating to the filling of the old Liesbeek River to accommodate a swale on said land to compensate for flood waters stemming from the development proposed. The old Liesbeek River acts as a filtration system for stormwater coming from Observatory. Additionally, it the Liesbeek River is accommodated beyond the site boundary. Any measures proposed off-site to respond to stormwater retention as suggested will require the permission of the competent department i.e. Catchment Stormwater and River Management Department. Said department has indicated their opposition to this proposal. The applicant would have to pursue alternative measures in consultation with the relevant department.

Various requirements specified by the service departments in respect of engineering services will be imposed as conditions of this application. d) Impact on safety, health and well-being of the surrounding community The property is located within a floodplain as described in 5.3 above. Development within the floodplain will displace flood waters. As mentioned earlier, based on modelling the level of flood water rise as a consequence of the proposal is marginal and is therefore deemed to be within acceptable limits. This finding was accepted and confirmed by the CSRM.

The above impact does not change the manner in which flooding is dealt with. For example, Hartleyvale will be affected by the marginal rise in flood waters. This however does not present a concern. At present in the event of flooding no sporting events take place on the property. The status quo, it is believed, will remain as the sportsfield is rendered unusable during flooding in any event. While Liesbeek Parkway may already experience flooding, the applicant has indicated that signage will need to be displayed along Liesbeek Parkway alerting motorists to possible flooding. Since minimal change will occur as a result of the proposed development, no amelioratory measures are proposed.

In other instances, the marginal rise in water may result in some action/response. During flooding, floodwater spills over onto the roadway. The rise in floodwaters as a result of the proposal will result in additional waters escaping to Liesbeek Parkway. The applicant suggests that warning signs will need to be included along the roadway to inform motorists of the likelihood of flooding during winter months. The applicant suggests that the road may need to be raised marginally as well. CSRM have said that practical measures should be pursued to prevent flooding of Liesbeek Parkway. Amelioratory measures are proposed in consultation with the relevant department.

One residential property was identified as being affected by flooding as a consequence of the proposal. The developer has indicated that it will bear the burden of any amelioratory measures.

Other properties affected by the rise in flood waters and which already experience flooding, should not be worse off inspite of the rise in floodwater being considered acceptable. A number of properties, in the vicinity, including the subject property, were developed prior to the determination of the consequence of flooding and the City approving policies relating to stormwater and floodplains. These properties have existing rights by way of approved buildings.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 219 of 277 223

Under these circumstances, the onus cannot be placed on those properties to safeguard themselves against the rise in flood levels due to the proposal. The owner/developer acknowledged the need in one instance to intercede to mitigate against flood impacts. The developer cannot place the burden on the affected properties to safeguard themselves against the consequence of flood level rise, albeit marginal, as a consequence of the proposal. Rather the owner/developer should seek to mitigate against such impacts. This may include securing insurances in any eventuality of impacts associated with flooding.

The rise in flood water, it is argued will have the greatest impact close to the property and impact the SAAO. A portion of the SAAO site (located to the east of the property, see figure 5 above) is located below the 1:50 year floodplain. At least 3 buildings located along the edge of the site with the Liesbeek River canal will be impacted by the proposed development.

SAAO The property

Figure showing 3 buildings positioned below the 1:50 year floodplain

Buildings 1, 2 and 3 as illustrated above, are all located within the floodplain and as a consequence will be affected by flooding. Building 3 is considered to have heritage value. Modelling undertaken indicated that flood water will rise enough to cause damage to, at the very least, building 1. However, all three buildings should be protected and flood proofed.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 220 of 277 224

In order to protect these building, it is suggested that the berm, located along the western edge of the SAAO property should be raised by 0.7m to 1.2m. The berm height could increase to as high as between 3.13m to 4.8m.

However, in order to achieve this outcome, the SAAO must consent to the raising of the berm located on the SAAO site.

The applicant has also indicated that they could flood proof one of the affected buildings while the others could be relocated.

As previously stated, the owner/developer must provide flood proofing of the buildings mentioned. The SAAO cannot be compelled to move buildings due to worsened flood levels resulting from the development. It is however unclear from the study provided what the threshold of the development must be before the impacts mentioned will be experienced. A stormwater management plan will be need to be commissioned that may elucidate this point.

The applicant has indicated that two of the three buildings on the SAAO properties are prefabricated structures. All three buildings appear to exist for longer than 30 years. Each was therefore constructed prior to the existence of current city policy relating to floodplains. The applicant has suggested that the prefabricated structures should be relocated to above the 1:100 year floodplain while the remaining heritage building could receive a floodgate to protect it against flooding. It is imperative that the applicant ensure that the affected properties consent to the measures they propose. Further should the affected property owner not agree for the two structures to move, the developer must seek alternate means to safeguard those buildings. The burden is placed on the developer as the proposal sees flood waters rising, the effect of which will be experienced on said property.

The application will be conditioned accordingly. Further, the applicant will have to incur the cost of raising the berm only after receiving the consent of the affected party or institute other flood proofing measures as agreed to by the property owner, in consultation with the Director: Catchment, Stormwater and River Management.

The development must also have regard to the impact of flooding on prospective occupants of the site. The parking levels will be positioned below the 1:100 year flood plain. The risk to cars and potentially life will be addressed by positioning the entrance to parking levels and habitable spaces above the 1:100 year flood levels. This is intended to reduce the likelihood of these levels flooding. The applicant has also stated that the basements will be designed to accommodate infiltration. Warning systems that presently exist may have to be retained to protect occupants of the site. e) Impact on heritage The property is located in a proposed heritage protection overlay zone. While no application is required in terms of the DMS to accommodate the proposal, an HIA was submitted to Heritage Western Cape (HWC) for consideration given the size of the property and scale of the development. A submission was also made to the Department of Environment and Development Planning (DEADP) who have adjudicated the submission.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 221 of 277 225

HWC issued a protection order over the property. While it prohibited the development of the site, that protection order lapsed on the 20 April 2020.

The Liesbeek River, confluence of the Liesbeek River and Black River, is a significant of the property. The significance of the Liesbeek River dates back to pre-colonical times having been used for the Khoikhoi for cattle grazing, the confluence with the Black River. It also gave access to area beyond the Black River and the Liesbeek River and was an area of conflict after the Cape was colonised. The property therefore holds cultural significance to the Khoikhoi/First Nations people.

For reasons stated, the Liesbeek River holds cultural significance. Given this, amongst other reasons, the proposal to infill the Old Liesbeek River is not supported.

This is refuted by the applicant.

It must also be noted that the Department of Environment and Development Planning (DEA&DP) have approved this component of the application. Inspite of this, the relevant city department has also opposed this component of the application for reasons stated in 6.3 d) above and 6.3 f) below.

It is proposed to decanalise the Liesbeek River canal and rehabilitate the banks to restore it as far as possible to a natural river system with associated riverine habitat. The area at the confluence of the Liesbeek and Black Rivers should be an area of open space being the point at which an informal bridge was located serving as a crossing toward the east historically. The intention therefore to decanalise the Liesbeek River canal could be incorporated into the memorializing in this vicinity of the site.

The SAAO to the immediate east of the property was declared a grade 1 national heritage site for its scientific significance. The manner in which the proposal interfaces with the SAAO is also important given the heritage status thereof. The positioning of generous buffer zones and planting along the eastern edges of the site could minimize the impact of the proposal on this national heritage site. As part of the response by the applicant to objections, additional information was provided to elucidate some of the intentions of the proposal. Amongst these includes an indication that an increased buffer and lower buildings along that edge will be accommodated. It is acknowledged that views across to the SAAO will be impacted. The proposed increase buffer zone and lowered building heights may serve to reduce such impacts. This sentiment, amongst others, have also been expressed in the Environmental Authorisation.

The TBDP encourages heritage resources to be incorporated into a development such as this. In instances where development is proposed, heritage resources should be optimised. It could serve as a tool to integrate communities. Where heritage resources exist, view corridors to the heritage resource should be provided. As far as possible heritage resources should be commemorated by creating places of memory. The river’s edge and the manner in which the Liesbeek River will be memorialised must become a destination place to draw people to other heritage features.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 222 of 277 226

The City’s Environment and Heritage Resources Department indicated no objection to the redevelopment of the site although the proposal as presented is opposed. The reasons for this is that it is not considered to be consistent with, amongst others, the Heritage Strategy stating that it does not sufficiently protect and preserve the sense of place, the cultural and heritage elements of the site and its surroundings.

The applicant responded by providing more detail relating to -  Lowed building heights fronting onto the SAAO;  Greater buffer and therefore distance between buildings and the SAAO;  Greater level of integration of the link road through the site;  Incorporating various elements or ways in which the First Nation history is memorialised;  The bulk of the site being open space to create a park-like setting;

The proposed decanalising of the Liesbeek River canal and associated landscaping should be accompanied by massing and bulk of a lesser scale than that proposed. Greater levels of openness could be encouraged to preserve the cultural history of the site. The visual impact of the development is pronounced. This is particularly so when considering the intention to raise the level of the ground by 3.0m and more to raise habitable spaces of buildings above the floodplain. The filling in of the Liesbeek River also removes an element of the cultural landscape.

It is acknowledged that the development of the site will change the landscape and therefore alter the sense of place that is experienced regardless of the scale of development, (see point b) above. Having said this, the proposal seeks to have a development form and bulk that exceeds that experienced in the surrounding area. Therefore, consideration must be given to the most appropriate built form for the site.

In this regard, the City’s Environment and Heritage Resources Department’s suggestion referring to exploring the no-go option or development within the permissible zoning parameters is not admissible since the submitted application has to be assessed on its merits. [Development alternatives are ordinarily considered and submitted with EIA and HIA submission so that nothing precludes the no-go option and development within permissible rights as necessary components of the NEMA and NHRA processes. This consideration is therefore beyond the ambit of this submission]

While some elements of the application furnished when responding to branch comments addressed some concerns, it is acknowledged that the detailed design such as building heights, position of higher buildings in relation to public spaces, etc. of the proposal requires further assessment. The detail is still to be submitted for consideration and consequently the applicant will be required to provide a greater level of detail at a later stage. Therefore, the manner in which the proposal responds to the cultural and heritage elements on and around the property will need to be demonstrated as these features must be celebrated and not overshadowed by the proposal. The need to raise habitable spaces above the ground and the need to mitigate the impacts of possible blank facades (the parking levels), the ability for the development not to have a looking presence over heritage site such as the SAAO, is limited. The landscaping along the common boundary with the SAAO will mitigate this concern. The EA addresses this component.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 223 of 277 227

f) Impact on the biophysical environment As explained earlier, the property abuts onto two rivers and has ostensibly been used as an open space for many decades despite its location within an urban area. It has served as attenuation during periods of flooding for some time now. In the early 1900’s the property was used as a recreational club with limited development to support that function. Much of the land remains open space and has been mainly used for golfing and golfing activities.

The proposal includes the intention for a portion of the development to retain the site’s OS3 zoning. The advertised application along with the accompanying subdivisional plan referred to an extent of approximately 51700m2 of land that would be zoned for Open Space 3 (OS3).

The applicant, while not amending the application submission but rather responding to branch comments, indicated that this extent would in fact be smaller i.e. 49835m2 – this extent relates to land that will be zoned for OS3 purposes. Elsewhere in the response to branch comments the applicant states that in fact 109 520m2 will be open space. This will include land zoned for OS3 and General Business purposes.

Reference is made to an extent of 109 520m2 being open space. It is unclear what is being referred to in this instance. It must be noted that the EA issued incorporates components of into the development that extends beyond the property boundary. It is therefore unclear whether the additional extent referred to relates to the property and landscaping elements within the business precincts or whether the addition extent in fact incudes City land.

The landscaping of the site will extend beyond those portions proposed to be zoned for OS3 purposes. Portions of the property comprising precinct 1 and 2 will also be landscaped. It is therefore conceivable that landscaping that will ultimately be undertaken will possibly see the greening of more than 5ha.

The reduction in the extent of land indicated as being zoned for public open space by almost 1865m2 is not considered significant. It equates to a variance of less than 1% from that originally indicated, and mentioned previously. The application will be conditioned accordingly to limit the extent of OS3 to the minimum figure indicated above. It must be noted that since the extent of the buffer that must be provided along the old Liesbeek River must be increased, the actual extent of the portion zoned for OS3 may in fact increase.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 224 of 277 228

The Recreation and Parks department indicated a no objection to the proposal having had site of the original submission and supplementary information. They require the submission of a master landscape plan – the information furnished is conceptual in nature and does not provide sufficient detail to be considered to be a master landscape plan. The application will be conditioned accordingly.

The Liesbeek River to the east of the property still exists in its natural state while to the west of the site it has been canalised. Canalising the river alters the state of the rivers’ natural processes and does not allow for infiltration or riverine habitats to form. The proposal includes the intention to decanalise the river. The decanalised river will see river banks being created. A buffer zone, in accordance with City policy, will be provided along the river’s edge. Buffer zones are generally provided to protect riverine habitats and as far as possible reduce the polluting and other negative effects of developments. The width of buffer zones is suggested to be between 10 – 40m depending on the significance of the river system – in this instance is it proposed to be 40m. Wetlands may result in additional buffer strips required. These widths specify the minimum – buffer zones may therefore be greater. The width of the buffer

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 225 of 277 229

zone will be determined by the importance or sensitivity of the river and its associated habitat.

Buffer zones protect aquatic life. The buffer zones are important as they provide corridors for fauna and flora to thrive. Buffer zones could become areas used for recreational activity. They could comprise pedestrian walkways and cycle paths. Pedestrian walkways and cycle paths will be provided – the general public will be able to access the site and enjoy the benefit of such facilities. The creation of these paths will enable a wider range of people to have access to the open space than that presently experienced. A public right of way must be registered in favour of the general public across the site to enable this to happen.

1 At least a /3 of the development will comprise open space. In addition to buffer zones, water features, as mentioned above, will also be incorporated into the development. These will be areas where flood waters can be captured during high levels of flooding though water will be directed toward the Black River to drain toward the ocean. During dry periods these spaces will continue to form part of the landscaping within the development.

Amongst the landscaped spaces within the development, open spaces must be included as places where the past is memorialised. This is particularly important to the First Nations people whose ancestors used the land for grazing, as an access point into the interior. It is also the point where skirmishes occurred. They were dispossessed of the land upon colonialization. Keeping areas around the Liesbeek River open as well as at the confluence of the Liesbeek and Black Rivers will be important as places to commemorate past events. Development of the site therefore must be sensitive to this and offer spaces of memorialisation.

New planting will have to be provided to ensure that riverbeds and riverine habitats are preserved despite the development.

Filling in of the old Liesbeek River course is opposed by the CSRM as mentioned earlier on. This will change the ecology of the landscape impacting the biota in the vicinity. In addition to the river having certain historic importance, CSRM states that the old Liesbeek River channel that abuts onto the Liesbeek Parkway is the last remains of the old Liesbeek River. They believe that any further development or proposal that will further degrade the old Liesbeek River channel should not be supported.

However, the applicant believes that the polishing effect referred to by CSRM will not be lost as the new planting will enable filtration and removal of pollutants. The applicant argues that infilling of the river will offer an opportunity for new planting and result in a rehabilitated space. Notwithstanding the applicant’s comments, the proposal assumes that the infilling of the river is a fait accompli and will be supported. An alternate has not been considered but will need to be addressed at the Precinct Plan stage.

In response to this concern, the applicant indicates that if a buffer larger than 10m is required or if infilling of the river is not permitted, the rehabilitation of the canal will be lost. Alternates to that proposed must be considered and presented to the CSRM department. As state earlier said department opposes the loss of the existing Liesbeek River given its present function. Additionally, it must be noted that the

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 226 of 277 230

infilled river will act as one of the swales to the development. The river however is accommodated off-site and not on the property. Notwithstanding the EA issued, the mandated department therefore would have to consent to the measures now being proposed.

The CSRM has expressed a concern that the development will result in the loss of an opportunity to rehabilitate the open space.

The Catchment Management policies do not address the infilling of rivers outright but addresses the water quality and detention of water. A certain degree of filling is proposed to provide landscaped edges. The infilling will not raise the level. The findings of the hydrology study have been accepted by the Catchment, Stormwater and River Management department.

Buffer zones range in extent from 10 – 40m and is determined by the competent department i.e. Catchment, Stormwater and River Management. The submission of an SDP will be accompanied by information in the form of Stormwater Management Plan and Landscape plan. CSRM will comment on said submission at that juncture.

As part of the development proposal, the wildlife on, and stemming from, the riverine habitats and river habitat is noted and therefore the process of construction must be sensitive to this. As far as possible impacts of the development during construction should be minimised – the habitat should therefore be protected. A construction phase environmental management plan (CEMP) will need to be provided which must demonstrate how habitats will be protected.

The applicant will be required to incorporate the sporting, walking, running and cycle paths into the landscaped areas and provide a landscape plan for consideration by this department. The application will be conditioned accordingly. g) Traffic impacts, parking, access and other transport related considerations The property is bounded by Liesbeek Parkway which provides access to -

 Malta, Albert and Voortrekker roads in a north-westerly direction;  N2, M5 and N1 in a southerly direction and  Station Road that in turn gives access to Nelson Mandela Boulevard and the CT city centre.

The site presently takes access from Observatory Road and gains access via a servitude right of way across remainder Erf 26423. While the servitude right of way will remain in place, it is proposed to provide access from Liesbeek Parkway.

The Department: Transport and Public Works has no objection to the proposal although various road upgrades are required, including;

 Liesbeek Parkway,  Malta Road,  Berkley Road,  Black River Parkway, and  Settlers Way (N2).

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 227 of 277 231

These are all proclaimed Main Roads each of which will be impacted by the proposal. Given the status of these roads the Department: Transport and Public Works (DTPW) will need to be involved in the design of roads. Additionally, the upgrade of certain roads has not been budgeted for by the DTPW and consequently, the City has to ensure that provision is made for said road upgrades. The DTPW also has certain requirements that must be met that will be imposed as conditions to this application. The owner/developer will incur the cost of road upgrades required as a consequence of the proposal. While a development contribution (DC) has been levied for improvements to engineering services, it is anticipated that the cost to road improvements as a consequence of the proposal will likely exceed the DC levied and as a consequence the cost of road improvements may be off-set against the DC charged.

With regard to the provision of parking, the different uses may generate a need for 5849 bays. As is evident from the figures above, it is proposed to accommodate 4801 parking bays on-site.

The development will comprise two phases. Phase 1 will comprise approximately 1829 parking bays while phase 2 will comprise 2972 parking bays. A shortfall of 1048 parking bays will exist.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 228 of 277 232

The property is located within a standard parking area and therefore parking must be calculated based on the upper limit of parking provision. Notwithstanding the shortfall of parking, no parking departure has been applied for. A parking departure can only be applied for when the detail of parking and those aspects required to enable access to parking is provided. The detail of the parking layout, access areas and carriage-way-crossings are still to be provided. The detail of aspects of the proposal will be assessed at the time of submission which may be subject to further MPBL processes including public participation.

Various mechanisms can be employed to compensate for the shortfall of parking such as shared parking. The MPBL encourages shared parking. Since the proposal will see reduced parking ratio’s, shared parking may be possible given the provision of residential accommodation on-site, other uses where the hours of operation may not overlap and the proximity and accessibility to public transport. In those instances, the opportunity for shared parking exists. That requirement must be encouraged and potentially conditioned accordingly.

[At the time of the submission the property was not located in or near to any PT zones. However, in March 2020 the area to the north of the subject property was designated a PT2 zone while the area to the west was designated a PT1 zone.]

It is also proposed that almost 40% of the proposal trip generation is ascribed to accessibility to public transport. As mentioned earlier, even though the site is located within a 500m of two train stations, the walking distance to the train stations is greater. These walking distances must respond to the need of the weakest users i.e. the elderly, disabled and children.

Liesbeek Parkway is not an IRT or BRT route, further there are no plans for it to be established as an IRT or BRT route. These routes have already been determined. The role out of the current IPTN routes is currently underway/in process. Having said this the IPTN is presently under review and consideration may be given to the benefits of developments of this nature. The location of the site within an integration zone, may also serve as impetus to focus attention on improving access of the site and it surrounds to public transport.

The table below indicates findings from the TIA. According to the TIA Golden Arrow Bus Services (GABS) services are situated close to the site. Upon assessing the information based on the City’s viewer, GABS services are in fact located along Main Road Observatory and Station Road – no bus stops appear to be located between

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 229 of 277 233

Observatory Station and Liesbeek Parkway. It is therefore unclear how the proximity to GABS bus services was determined in the TIA as this service, [according to the City’s information and checking on bus timetables] appears to be defunct. The location of GABS routes is therefore much further than the suggested 2 minutes. GABS routes are located along Voortrekker Road and also Canon Road in Maitland and extend along Berkley Road toward Ndabeni Circle and toward Voortrekker from Berkley Road. The shortest walking distances to bus stops are approximately 15mins from the property when heading toward Maitland.

The nearest MyCiti route is located in Salt River along Albert/Spencer Roads. Mini- bus taxi stops are more accessible with them having more sporadic stops.

Observatory, Salt River, Koeberg and Maitland train stations are located nearest to the site.

Proximity to train stations

Mini-bus taxi routes evolve more organically responding quickly to the needs of commuters. Presently mini-bus taxis travel along Station Road, which is located just

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 230 of 277 234

metres away from the property. As mini-bus taxi routes are established it may serve as a catalyst to establish a BRT or IRT route on/along Liesbeek Parkway as demand quickly rises.

Consideration may need to be given by the applicant to accommodate embayments for mini-bus taxis to permit commuters to board and disembark. It appears that no provision has been made to accommodate such a facility. The potential may exist to accommodate these on the shoulder of roadways both internal to the development as well as to be incorporated into road improvements around the site as is needed.

While the City’s IPTN does not indicate the intention to accommodate a BRT along Liesbeek Parkway, the IPTN is presently under review providing the opportunity for consideration to incorporate routes along Liesbeek Parkway in future planning.

Phase 1 of the development, comprising approximately 65000m2 of floor space, will require the construction of a portion of Berkley Road extension to ensure access to Maitland and onto the M5. Berkley Road extension will need to be constructed given existing capacity constraints. It is understood that the extension of Berkley Road has been anticipated for some time. Traffic generated by the proposal will further compound traffic congestion.

For this reason, the developer has acknowledged the need for the construction of Berkley Road and will incur the cost of the construction of a portion thereof so as not to compromise the development. This portion of road must be constructed prior to the completion of phase 1 of the development.

The City may align the construction of the remainder of Berkley Road simultaneous with the developer to complete the whole of the construction thereof to minimise impacts on traffic movement. Other road improvements have been outlined in the TIA which the Director: Transport Forward Planning (Transport Planning) has accepted and requires to be implemented in accordance with the TIA. The application has been conditioned accordingly.

The Link Road that will be constructed through the development between Berkley Road and Liesbeek Parkway will limit access to the development only initially. This will be done to ensure that sufficient capacity exists to accommodate the development. Access control measures will be removed later when the full extent of the Berkley Road extension is constructed. It is anticipated that traffic stemming from outside the development will mainly by-pass Link Road and use a more direct route via Malta onto Berkley to either access the M5 or Maitland. A right of way will be registered in favour of the general public to permit access across the site by the general public.

In addition to the above, surrounding intersections will also need upgrades, including

 Station Road and Liesbeek Parkway – changes to traffic signals;  Liesbeek Parkway and Link Road – access onto the property from Liesbeek Parkway;

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 231 of 277 235

 Berkley Road and the M5 – single lane (in each direction) access from the property via Link Road onto Berkley Road and the M5. Various improvements will be required to said intersection.

In addition, Liesbeek Parkway would need to be widened to enable two lanes in both directions. This only exists for a short distance in the vicinity of the intersection of the site.

While the owner/developer will largely be responsible for incurring the cost of road improvements required as a consequence of the proposal. The extension of Berkley Road will in part be constructed and paid for by the owner/developer. The cost thereof will be off-set against the development contribution as this improvement to the road infrastructure has long since been planned by the City.

For Phase 2 further improvements will be needed to the Berkley Road extension to accommodate the additional floor space and vehicle trips. As mentioned above, while the developer will assume the cost of construction of a portion of Berkley Road, the City will be responsible for the remainder thereof. The necessary service level agreements will be entered into. Therefore, a portion of the DC may be off-set against such cost.

In the longer term other road improvements will be required in surrounding roads as well as the N2 and Station Roads.

Existing NMT facilities are provided along Liesbeek Parkway up to Observatory Road. While it is intended to provide both pedestrian routes and bicycle paths internal to the development, existing pedestrian and cycle paths external to the development should be integrated with the development. According to the proposal this is intended together with the provision of facilities where bicycles can be secured internal to the development to encourage the use of bicycles.

The application was advertised to the City Transport Planning Department and the Asset Management and Maintenance (Roads) Department. Both departments issued their no objection to the application. They each issued certain requirements to accommodate the development. These include various road improvements as mentioned in the TIA. These requirements will be imposed as conditions of approval to the application. h) Conditions that can mitigate any adverse impacts of the proposed land uses Conditions will be imposed relating to, amongst others -

 Built form addressing, specifically, the interface of buildings at grade and in relation to the public realm.  Maximum floor area with a register that accompany future submissions that keep a record of floor space development.  The provision of a landscape master plan and landscape plan dealing with planting, hard surfacing, in relation to structuring elements like pedestrian walk ways, running and cycle tracks. The location and design details relating to public spaces and vehicular movement. The detail would need to be addressed at SDP stage.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 232 of 277 236

 A transport plan showing the provision of roads, pedestrian sidewalks, cycle paths and the provision of public transport collection points internal to the development and on the perimeter of the development.  A stormwater master plan is required to address stormwater run-off and flood management and how this will be dealt with in detail.  Development contributions.  Service provision prior to registering the subdivision.  Servitudes to be registered in favour of the general public.

6.4 Impact on existing rights (other than the right to be protected against trade competition) The application submission comprises three components i.e.

 Rezoning to Subdivision area  Raising of the ground and  Deviation from policy.

These will each be addressed in turn.

6.4.1 Appropriateness of the rezoning of the property to subdivisional area The current OS3 zoning permits only open space and environmental conservation as of right. Uses such as Places of Assembly, Places of Entertainment, Place of instruction, tourist facilities, environmental facilities and plant nurseries, amongst others are permitted with Consent in the mentioned zone. As mentioned earlier the property is located within the metro-south east where mixed use intensification is encouraged. The rezoning of the property will enable the redevelopment in accordance with this demarcation in terms of the MSDF.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 233 of 277 237

Precinct 2

GB7 OS3

GB6

OS3

GB3 Precinct 1

OS3 GB7

GB6

It is proposed to rezone much of the property to a General Business use zone. In accordance with the abovementioned illustration it is intended that approximately 98 500m2 of the property is zoned for GB3, GB6, GB7 while OS3 zoning will be retained for about 49 835m2 of the property.

The subdivision plan provided does not define the extent of each sub-zone, the extent for each should have been furnished with the submission. An application will

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 234 of 277 238

need to accompany the precinct plan showing the relevant detail of each sub-zone as advertised and applied for.

The prevailing zonings in the area and properties in the vicinity of the subject property comprise GR2, GR4, MU2, OS2, CO1 and CO2. To the east of the M5 properties are zoned for MU1, GB1, GR4, CO1, CO2 and SR1. The development envelope for the General Residential, General Business and Mixed Use zones for each of the properties is indicated in the table below.

Table of rights for surrounding zones: Sub-zoning Coverage Floor factor Maximum height above base level to top of roof GR2 60% 1,0 15,0 m GR4 60% 1,5 24,0 m GB1 100% 1,5 15,0 m MU1 75% 1,5 15,0 m MU2 100% 4,0 25,0 m

Sub-zoning Street building line and common building line Points on a building above base level up to 10,0 over 10,0 over 25,0 m and up to 38,0 over 38,0 m m m and up m to 25,0 m GB1 0,0 m 4,5 m (0,0 m N/a N/a for common boundary)

Sub-zoning Street building line and common building line Points on a building above base level up to 10,0m over 10,0 m and up over 25,0 m and up to 38,0 m to 25,0 m MU1 0,0 m 4,5 m N/a MU2 0,0 m 4,5 m N/a

As is evident from the tables above, and when compared with the tables below, the only point of overlap or similarity exists between the MU2 and GB3 sub-zones. One could argue that the GR4 sub-zone is largely comparable given the permissible building heights, floor factor and to some extent coverage. This zone only differs from the aforementioned two zones in that it does not permit non-residential uses apart from a shop comprising a limited extent.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 235 of 277 239

Table of rights for proposed zones Sub-zoning Coverage Floor factor Maximum height above base level to top of roof GB3 100% 2,0 25,0 m GB6 100% 6,0 38,0 m GB7 100% 12,0 60,0 m

Sub- Street building line and common building line zoning Points on a building above base level up to over 10,0 m and over 25,0 m and over 38,0 m 10,0 m up to 25,0 m up to 38,0 m GB3 0,0 m 4,5 m (0,0 m for N/a N/a common boundary) GB6 0,0 m 0,0 m (H minus 25,0 m) N/a divided by 2 (0,0 m for common boundary) GB7 0,0 m 0,0 m 0,0 m (H minus 38,0 m) divided by 2 (0,0 m for common boundary)

The GB3, GB6 and GB7 sub-zones will be unique to this property and this context. While, as stated the GB3 zone is comparable with the MU2 zone, it too will be unique to this location. Many properties in the vicinity of the subject property have not been developed to the full extent of their rights. Many buildings do not exceed a height of 15m, some extending to 18.0m while the “taller” buildings that are much lesser in number, in the vicinity are approximately 24m in height. As is evident from the table above properties in the vicinity are zoned for GB1 and MU1 and properties zoned for MU2 purposes are permitted to have 100% coverage but are not permitted to exceed a height of 15.0m and 25.0m each, respectively. The GB3 zoning is very similar is not opposed.

The proposed GB6 and GB7 zones is proposed to be accommodated in both precinct 1 and precinct 2. A third sub-zone, GB3, is proposed to be accommodated in precinct 1, see below.

Cape Town CBD could be argued to the economic hub of Cape Town metropolitan area. This area uniquely accommodates tall buildings with greater areas of floors space and a wide range of uses. The vertical and horizontal intensification of uses and development is unique to this location when compared against the wider metropole. While other CBDs such as Claremont and Bellville experience zones of lesser intensity, and as a consequence, are not comparable to Cape Town CBD in respect of the presence or prevalence of GB6 and GB7 zones. Claremont CBD is generally characterised by GB5 and MU2 zones while Bellville CBD mainly has GB4, LB1 sub-zones. One property in Bellville CBD has a GB6 zone which exists as an anomaly amongst the latter mentioned zones. Other than this only four other instances exist in the Cape Town metropolitan area where a GB7 is located which are exceptions being:

 One appears to be a zoning conversion error;

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 236 of 277 240

 One is located in an industrial area, and  The remaining two are both located in or on the fringe of CBD areas.

The property is not located

 near or on the edge of a CBD or for that matter near to or on the edge of Cape Town CBD;  near properties where developments with a similar built form exists, or  in an area of transition where the stepping of buildings create a buffer between areas.

Therefore, the rezoning of the property to a GB7 zone could be argued to be undesirable. It is located on the back of Main and Lower Main Roads – each of the latter being linear corridors that should be greater levels of intensification. They are established corridors with associated support infrastructure such as established public transport routes, amongst others. The rezoning to GB7 is an anomaly with this context especially given the floor factor of 12.0 and maximum permissible height of 60.0m. While it is proposed in this instance to accommodate buildings of up to 46.0m in height above base level even said height is excessive given the prevailing landscape. Therefore, the proposed 46.0m buildings height as proposed will be peculiar to this location. Much the same can be said for the GB6 zoning proposed as well. In planning the principle generally is that existing nodes and corridors are generally reinforced through processes of intensification. This property is not located in or near a CBD that may justify the zoning proposed for reasons stated earlier. While the desire may be to accommodate signature buildings in certain instances on the site to create a renewed sense of place, this can easily be achieved with buildings not higher than 38.0m given the prevailing landscape. This may therefore justify the GB6 zoning especially since additional height above 25.0m can only be achieve through a rezoning application. It however acknowledged, as stated above, that even the GB6 sub-zone will be peculiar in this context. A precinct plan submission will be required to give effect to the built form within the context that is proposed. It will afford departments the opportunity to give further input where needed.

The location of the property on Liesbeek Parkway as the one boundary and Berkley Road as the other, will justify taller buildings along these edges. The intention to accommodate taller buildings along portions of Liesbeek Parkway and Berkley Road may be understood given the significance of these roads. Additionally, taller buildings will frame public spaces. However, having said this, other factors such as

 the historic significance of the SAAO and the need for view lines to be preserved across the site to view these buildings;  the significance of the Liesbeek River and need to respect the heritage importance that it holds for certain cultures and communities, and  provide views to the mountain

will influence the final form of buildings on the property.

Properties in the area are generally not developed to their maximum permissible rights. While some properties may, as a consequence of this proposal, be developed further, they will still not reach building heights, or floor factors as proposed.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 237 of 277 241

Heights shown on illustrations further also denote height above base level. Two different heights are indicated being the height to the uppermost habitable space and height to the top of roof according to illustrations contained in the motivation, see note below.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 238 of 277 242

Figure denoting building height from 1st habitable floor to the top of roof

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 239 of 277 243

Services will be provided on top of the roof. Heights between highest habitable spaces (i.e. top floor) and roof height vary from 1.1m to 6.6m. (The figure in black illustrating the heights from top of highest habitable floor to top of roof height. Any height exceeding 2.4m enables the opportunity for additional floors to be inserted beyond that proposed.)

m 6.6

m 3m 6.6 6.

1.1m

5.4m Berkley Rd ext Rd Berkley

4.6m

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 240 of 277 244

5.0m

5.9m

5.9m 5.9m 5.9m

5.9m .9m 2

It is unclear why such significant differences exist between top of habitable floor and top of roof height. In fact, such a significant difference in height further supports the argument that building heights to top of roof could be lowered. Generous roof heights as proposed supports the argument that building heights can in fact be lowered.

As described above in point b) buildings will be placed on plinths. Mounds of earth will be placed alongside what may otherwise appear to be large blank facades with heights of 5.7m and 5.9m. The mounds of earth offer the opportunity for landscaping. The earth mounds will appear to the raise the level of the landscape. The openness

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 241 of 277 245

presently experienced, one accepts will change and therefore will no longer be experienced. The presence of the earth mounds will raise the level of the landscape. Added to this the presence of buildings taller than that presently will be significant. Providing 38m high buildings within this context will be unique to this location. As mentioned earlier building heights in the immediate context is considerably lower. A single taller building exists further field and is not experienced in the vicinity of the property. The provision of buildings at 38m in height therefore will adequately fulfil the function of enabling signature buildings on the property at a gateway point traveling along Berkley or Malta Roads. These will also serve a landmark function and therefore a renewed sense of place.

A base level certificate was furnished. Additionally, illustrations provided show base levels for each precinct. A building footprint on which the base levels were determined must be used as the basis for the building envelope in each instance. The base level certificate provided makes reference to a building envelope for the determination of height. Building heights in this instance will be determined from the calculated base level.

While precinct 1 has a superblock on which buildings will be placed and served as the basis for the determination of that base level it is unclear how this determination was made for precinct 2. Precinct 2 appears to have 2 super structures that will accommodate parking. The base level in that instance must be determined for each superstructure separately. Heights of buildings therefore can only be determined based on that. In the absence of a correct base level certificate for precinct 2 any future submission will require height to be determined based on existing ground level as is required in terms of the amended MPBL that came into effect on the 3 February 2020.

Portions of the property that will retain the OS3 zoning will be landscaped and comprise buffers to river corridors and wetlands. These spaces will need to be registered in favour of the general public to enable access to the water’s edge and for people to enjoy these spaces. Given the heritage significance of the Liesbeek River, access to the river and also to the point at the confluence of the Black and Liesbeek Rivers is important in respecting the heritage value of these spaces to others. As stated previously, a right of way in favour of the public will be registered. This will enable a greater number of people to use the space than is presently experienced.

The property will be subdivided into three portions, i.e. two portions comprise mixed use activities including mainly business activity with some residential activity. The third portion will be zoned for Open Space 3 purposes.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 242 of 277 246

Figure illustrating Subdivision and rezoning proposed

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 243 of 277 247

The portion zoned for OS3 purposes will comprise pedestrian paths, walking and cycle paths and must give access to the general public. As mentioned previously, despite the subdivision into the portions mentioned, the property will comprise a public right way that will enable vehicular access across the site between Liesbeek Parkway and Berkley Road extension in addition to given access to the public across the open space. While a 1/3 of the property will accommodate the OS3 zoning, some spaces comprising the general business zoning will comprise planting and hard and soft landscaping to give as much as is possible of this space too to greening.

A subdivision plan must be submitted illustrating the exact cadastral extent of each of the portions mentioned as well as indicating the zoning of each portion. That subdivision plan will have to be the subject of a subdivision application that will be considered at the time of submission. The application will be conditioned accordingly.

6.4.2 Retaining structures exceeding 2.0m above EGL It is proposed to accommodate retaining structures above 2.0m in order to ensure that habitable spaces are positioned above the 1:100 year floodplain. For reasons mentioned in 6.2.9 above habitable spaces must be raised above the 1:100 year floodplain. For this reason, the application includes the intention to accommodate retaining structures of 5.7m and 5.9m exceeding the permissible height of retaining structures by 3.7m and 3.9m for precinct 1 and precinct 2 respectively.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 244 of 277 248

Inset

Habitable Ground spaces floor

Figure showing ground floor and the point at which habitable spaces raised above 1:100 year floodplain

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 245 of 277 249

Sections are provided to illustrate how the retaining structures will be positioned on a relatively flat landscape. In this instance the retaining structures will hold back earth imported onto the site from elsewhere and do not arise from excavating the site. The structures are in fact rectangular “boxes” that will be placed on the landscape to raise the level of habitable floors as mentioned above. The profile provided below illustrates this point.

6.4.3 Deviation from City Policy The details relating to the deviation from various City policy are discussed in 6.2.9, 6.2.10, 6.3 c) and 6.3 f) above. These are supported as mentioned except where water quality is impacted that will arise as a consequence of filling the Liesbeek River for reasons stated in the latter sections of this report as well as 6.3 e) of this report.

6.5 Other considerations prescribed in relevant national or provincial legislation The Land Use Planning Act of 2014 and the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act of 2013 require that land development must have regard for certain principles/guidelines when development is considered. These relate, in essence to

 Spatial justice;  Sustainability principles;  Efficiency;  Spatial resilience and  Good administration,

among others.

6.5.1 SPLUMA and LUPA principles

6.5.1.1 Spatial Justice The proposal addresses this aspect as it provides inclusionary housing and business and economic opportunities. Spatial justice also finds expression in that development will be -

 Significantly different to that presently permitted,  Located within an established setting,  Located close to a wide range of opportunities, and  Accessible to various public transport modes.

One of the reasons that SPLUMA was enacted was to give effect to the government's constitutional obligations to, amongst others, redress apartheid spatial planning through spatial transformation. In doing so, the aim is to improve equitable access to land, provide access to adequate housing (including equitable spatial patterns and sustainable human settlements), and facilitate sustainable development. As a result, the Section 7 of SPLUMA establishes five development principles related to spatial justice, spatial sustainability, efficiency, spatial resilience and good administration. The LUPA reiterates these principles.

Within the context of the City’s constitutional municipal planning obligations, spatial transformation finds expression in the MSDF and subordinate policies. These are explained in preceding paragraphs. In the MSDF policy statement no. 3 a guideline

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 246 of 277 250

is to support inclusionary housing in well-located areas. The MSDF defines inclusionary housing and affordable housing as:

Inclusionary housing: ‘Policy directive and approach that seeks to leverage the development application process for new residential or commercial developments to secure the construction and perpetual availability of affordable housing in an integrated manner. (See also Affordable Housing)’

Affordable housing: ‘Traditionally affordable housing refers to housing with prices or values below the overall open market value which targets below-average incomes. In this MSDF affordable housing refers to the household income brackets of R3 501 – R18 000 per month, and is inclusive of social, GAP, and inclusionary housing. It also refers to residential units valued at R500 000 or less.’

Changes to the National Housing Code have increased the upper limit of the Finance-Linked Individual Subsidy Programme (FLISP) to R22 000 monthly household income. The FLISP programme provides access to a subsidy for first time home buyers. Thus this guideline aligns the affordable housing income bracket with FLISP to be a monthly household income of R3 501 – R22 000.

Other than the above, there is no current City policy to guide the provision, allocation and enforcement of inclusionary or affordable housing within private developments although the MSDF and IDP talk to its provision typically in public sector developments. In this regard, the City has in the recent past approved a number of applications within proximity to the development site containing housing including at the Salt River station, Pine Road, Brickfield Road, Observatory. Other similar types of proposals in these areas are also currently being considered.

Various recent City development approvals in relative close proximity to the development site have imposed conditions relating to the imposition of affordable / inclusionary housing on-site within private sector developments where such conditions were seen as reasonable and rational based on the Section 100(1) of the MPBL. Other than this section, the MPBL and DMS are silent on the issue of inclusionary or affordable housing.

With regard to the application in hand, significant development rights are sought while the property is suitably located accessible to public transport and economic and social opportunities to promote spatial justice. The various infra-structure upgrades will enhance this through improved access to and from areas further afield that form part of the metro-south east.

The inclusion of affordable or inclusionary housing units within the development was discussed with the applicant in early application interactions with City officials. In response, the developer proposed a limited amount of affordable housing units (4% being approximately 6000m2 of the total floor space) based on economic viability of the current proposal. Inspite of this department’s desire to propose a condition requiring a larger percentage of affordable housing, the rationale or reasonableness cannot be clearly ascertained. Further, the imposition of such a condition could negatively impact on the financial viability of the project. As a result, the proposal is considered to be adequate and contributes to the broader spatial justice objective within this highly favourable location for reasons explained above.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 247 of 277 251

6.5.1.2 Sustainability and Efficiency The proposal is considered to meet this principle to the extent that it is spatially compact and limits urban sprawl. The development is proposed within an existing established urban setting. The cost of the outlay of service infrastructure is reduced considerably because of the location of the site within an existing urban area. Various infra-structure upgrades are proposed to further integrate the development into the immediate and surrounding area. This will also facilitate accessibility to opportunities within the immediate and wider City.

6.5.1.3 Spatial resilience The site is currently largely used as an open space with recreation and ecological systems. Despite the proposal to develop the site with mixed uses and multi-storey buildings it also retains and upgrades approximately 33% of the current site with open space and ecological components. In fact, various amelioratory measures will aim to assist in integrating the development into the much larger open space and ecological systems within an established urban setting. Similarly, heritage elements associated with the history of the site are proposed to be memorialised in various ways within the development.

6.5.1.4 Good administration All required applications have been made including deviation from certain policies. These applications have followed due process and have been widely advertised as explained in preceding paragraphs.

Relevant government departments have provided the required inputs while the DEA&DP and HWC have considered applications within their competencies. The development will be subject to the related decisions and conditions imposed.

In the instance of this application, development will follow the package of plans process and it will be phased. Other applications that may be required will be administered and processed in terms of the MPBL, including possible further public participation. Justification for these deviations have been explained and are supported.

I am satisfied that the requirements in Section 99(3) of the MPBL have been complied with.

7 REASONS FOR DECISION

7.1 The reasons for the recommended decisions for approval of the applications for the rezoning from an Open Space 3 to a General Business, GB3 and GB6 and Approval of Council may be summarized as follows:

 The application complies with Sections 99(1) – (3) of the MPBL.  The application complies with the MSDF as the property is within the urban inner core where development is encouraged. The applications will result in intensification and diversification of the land uses and densification.  Densification and intensification of land contributes to the restructuring of the City and ensures better utilization of the service infrastructure.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 248 of 277 252

 The proposals and applications will have positive economic and social impacts due to the mix of business, commercial and residential land uses.  The applications and proposals are desirable.  The proposals will be compatible with the surrounding area and will not significantly adversely impact on the character of the area. The mixed use development is suitably located being surrounded by residential, business and industrial uses.  The site is appropriately located and accessible to various modes of transport, economic opportunities and social facilities and amenities.  The proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on rights of the surrounding properties or general community.  The applications and proposals will not adversely affect heritage resources. Heritage components will be incorporated into the development.  Various transport, civil engineering and infra-structure improvements will be implemented in support of the re-development of the site.  The reduced parking ratio is considered rational as the site is located within close proximity to a public transport corridor. Reduced parking provision ensures improved thresholds for public transport use.  The proposals and applications satisfy LUPA and SPLUMA principles.

7.2 The reasons to deviate from the following policies –

7.2.1 the Table Bay District Plan,

7.2.2 the Floodplain and River corridor management policy, 2009 (FRCM) to permit the obstruction of the free flow of water in a 1:20 year flood plain and to provide fill below the 1:50 year floodplain in order to develop the property, and

7.2.3 the Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy, 2009 to permit the 24hr extended detention of the 1-year recurrence interval for a 24hours storm event relating to the quantity and rate of run-off,

may be summarised as follows:

 The proposals comply with the MSDF which encourages development within the urban inner core.  The proposals will result in intensification of the use of the land and densification of the land in a favourable location close to social and economic opportunities.  The development of the land will create employment opportunities.  Various technical studies undertaken as part of the separate environmental authorization process provide technical explanations which address the similar issues raised in the policy.

7.3 The reasons for the refusal of the rezoning from an Open Space 3 to a General Business, GB7 may be summarized as follows:

 The proposed General Business, GB7 rezoning will result in development which is out of context with regard to the height and floor factor.  The increased height is not undesirable within its context.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 249 of 277 253

7.4 The reasons for not supporting the deviation from the following policies relating to -

7.4.1 the Floodplain and River corridor management policy, 2009 (FRCM) to permit the filling of the Liesbeek River, and

7.4.2 the Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy, 2009 to permit the up to 10 year recurrence interval to be reduced to pre-development level in respect of quality, quantity and rate of run-off and the up to 50 year recurrence interval peak flow to be reduced to existing development level in respect of quality, quantity and rate of run-off,

may be summarized as follows:

 The hydrology study relating to this aspect is not supported,  Filling of the Liesbeek River will result in its filtration function being lost,  Ecology relating to the River will be adversely affected,  Water quality will be negatively impacted, and  Its historical and cultural significance will be adversely impacted.

8 RECOMMENDATION

In view of the above, it is recommended that:

8.1 The application for the rezoning of the property from an Open Space 3: OS3 zone to a Subdivisional Area comprising General Business, sub-zones GB3 and GB6 and Open Space, Sub-zone OS3 in respect of Erf 151832, 6 Liesbeek Parkway Observatory be approved in terms of section 98(b) of the Municipal Planning By-Law subject to conditions contained in Annexure A1 and A2 attached.

8.2 The application for the Approval of Council to permit retaining structures to be 3.7m in precinct 1 and 3.9m in precinct 2 in lieu of 2.0m in respect of Erf 151832, 6 Liesbeek Parkway Observatory be approved in terms of section 98(b) of the Municipal Planning By-Law subject to conditions contained in Annexure A1 and A2 attached.

8.3 The deviations from -

8.3.1 the Table Bay District Plan, 8.3.2 the Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy (2009), and 8.3.3 the Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy (2009)

in respect of Erf 151832, 6 Liesbeek Parkway Observatory be supported in terms of section 98(d) of the Municipal Planning By-Law.

8.4 The application for the rezoning of the property from an Open Space 3: OS3 zone to a Subdivisional Area accommodating a General Business Sub-zone GB7 in respect of Erf 151832, 6 Liesbeek Parkway Observatory be refused in terms of section 98(c) of the Municipal Planning By-Law.

8.5 The deviations from -

8.5.1 the Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy (2009), and

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 250 of 277 254

8.5.2 the Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy (2009)

in respect of Erf 151832, 6 Liesbeek Parkway Observatory not be supported in terms of section 98(d) of the Municipal Planning By-Law.

ANNEXURES

Annexure A Application details and approval conditions to be imposed Annexure B1 Locality plan Annexure B2 Public participation map / Extent of advertising Annexure C1 Motivation Annexure C2 Urban Design Framework Annexure C3 Environmental Authorisation Annexure C4 Environmental impact assessment Annexure C5 Environmental Management programme Annexure C6 Biodiversity Impact Study Annexure C7 Botanical Impact Study Annexure C8a HIA draft 2018 as advertised with LUMS application, Annexure C8b HIA Final July 2019 Annexure C8c HIA Supplementary info Dec 2019 Annexure C8d HIA final comment March 2020 Annexure C9 VIA Annexure C10 TIA Annexure C11 Geotechnical report Annexure C12 Hydrology Report Annexure C13 Stormwater Management Strategy Report Annexure C14 Socio-economic Impact Assessment Annexure C15 Civil Engineering report Annexure C16 Electrical services report Annexure C17: Base levels Annexure D1 Concept subdivisional area plan Annexure D2 Conceptual landscape plan Annexure E Objections / comments received Annexure F1 Internal departmental comments (Sept 2018) Annexure F2 Internal departmental comments (December 2019) Annexure G1 Applicant’s response to objections /comments/support received Annexure G2 Further response by the applicant to branch comments Annexure H Conveyancer’s certificate Annexure I Title deed Annexure J List of objectors / comment parties / late objection

______

Registered Planner

Name: SACPLAN NO:

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 251 of 277 255

______

Section Head District Manager

Name: Gregory September Name: Marx Mupariwa

Tel no: 021 400 6447 Tel no: 021 400 6443

Date: 4 September 2020 Date: 4 September

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 252 of 277 256 Annexure A: Application details and approval conditions to be imposed

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 253 of 277 257

ANNEXURE A1

REF: Case ID: 70396369

In this annexure: “City” means the City of Cape Town “The owner” means the registered owner of the property “The property” means Erf 151832, 6 Liesbeek Parkway Observatory “By-law” and “Development Management Scheme” has the meaning assigned thereto by the City of Cape Town Municipal Planning Bylaw, 2015 “Item” refers to the relevant section in the Development Management Scheme “Commissioner: TDA” means Commissioner: Transport and Urban Development Authority or his/her delegatee. “Director: DM” means Director: Development Management or his/her delegatee.

1. REZONING GRANTED IN TERMS OF SECTION 98(b) OF THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING BY- LAW:

1.1. Rezoning of the property from Open Space 3: Private Open Space zone to a Subdivisional Area (i.e. general business and open space zones).

2. APPROVAL GRANTED IN TERMS OF SECTION 98(b) OF THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING BY- LAW:

2.1. To permit the Approval of Council in terms of Item 126 of the DMS to enable retaining structures to be constructed to a height of more than the permitted 2.0m above the existing level of the ground in lieu of 2.0m.

3. DEVIATIONS FROM THE FOLLOWING CITY POLICIES SUPPORTED IN TERMS OF SECTION 98(d) OF THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING BY-LAW:

3.1. With respect to the Table Bay District Plan in order to permit urban development on land designated as “open space”, “core 2” and “buffer 1”.

3.2. With respect to the Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy (2009) to develop/ obstruct the free of water within the 20-year and 50-year floodplain (excluding the in-filling of the Liesbeek River).

3.3. With respect to the Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy (2009) to enable deviation from the annexure table requiring 24hour extended detention of the 1-year Recurrence Interval, 24h storm event in a greenfield development greater than 50 000m2.

4. REZONING REFUSED IN TERMS OF SECTION 98(c) OF THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING BY- LAW:

4.1. Rezoning of the property from Open Space 3: Private Open Space zone to a Subdivisional Area (General Business, Sub-zone GB7).

5. DEVIATIONS FROM CITY POLICY IS NOT SUPPORTED IN TERMS OF SECTION 98(d) OF THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING BY-LAW RELATING TO:

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 254 of 277 258

5.1. The Floodplain and River Corridor Management Policy (2009) the in-filling of the Liesbeek River.

5.2. The Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy (2009) seeking deviations from:

5.2.1. The requirement to improve the quality of run-off relating to the annexure table requiring up to 10-year Recurrence Interval peak flow to be reduced to pre-development level in a greenfield development greater than 50 000m2, and 5.2.2. The requirement to improve the quality of run-off relating annexure table requiring up to 50-year Recurrence Interval peak flow to be reduced to existing development levels in a greenfield development greater than 50 000m2.

6 CONDITIONS IMPOSED IN TERM OF SECTION 100 OF THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING BY- LAW:

6.1 The property shall accommodate two precincts (Precinct 1 and Precinct 2) comprising areas designated for General Business purposes and the overall combined floor space for the two precincts shall not exceed 150 000m2.

6.1.1 Precinct 1 shall not exceed a floor space of 60 000m2 and Precinct 2 shall not exceed a floor space of 90 000m2.

Subdivision 6.2 The subdivision plan required pursuant to in 6.1 above, shall –

6.2.1 Accompany the precinct plan submissions, 6.2.2 Be in accordance with the indicative subdivision plan attached in Annexure D1 attached, and 6.2.3 Be to the prior approval of the delegated authority (Development Management).

6.3 The submission of a subdivision plan clearly identifying the

a. Cadastral boundary of the site and each portion b. Extent if each portion c. Zone of each portion including the sub-zone as approved herein d. Servitude right of ways registered in favour of the general public e. Services.

6.3.1 The subdivision plan shall show the subdivision of the property into three portions comprising:

 Portion 1 being 48361m2 in extent,  Portion 2 being 49148m2 in extent, and  Portion 3 being 49835m2 in extent.

6.3.1.1 Portion 3 of the subdivision shall be zoned for Open Space 3: Special Open Space purposes and shall be a minimum of 49835m2 in extent.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 255 of 277 259

6.3.1.2 Portion 3 shall comprise servitude rights of way registered in favour the general public and shall be to the satisfaction of the delegated authority (Development Management).

6.3.2 A servitude right of way to permit the general public access across any internal private roads shall be registered prior to the first occupancy certificate being issued for the portion 2 in accordance with the Annexure D1.

6.3.3 Subject to the prior approval of the delegated authority (Development Management), servitude rights of way to permit the general public access across any internal private roads shall be registered for portions 1 and 3.

6.3.4

Development Framework 6.4 Prior to any development, the applicant/owner/developer shall prepare and submit a development framework for the property detailing the development of the site.

6.4.1 The development framework mentioned in 6.4 above shall be informed by the HIA/EIA and principles established in the Urban Design Study, Visual Impact Assessment, Hydrology Study (which may be amended to meet further requirements of relevant City departments).

6.4.2 The development framework shall, furthermore, include –

 The two precincts mentioned in condition 6.2.  Overall site design;  Spatial distribution of land uses within each precinct;  Phasing of development across the site;  Vehicular movement and access arrangements;  NMT movement and linkages to NMT routes external to the development  Areas of historic significance with specific regard to areas on the property where the history of the property will be memorialised;  Public and private spaces;  Open spaces with associated linkages external to the development;  Edges of the site.  Character precincts identified in the HIA/EIA, Visual Impact Study and Urban Design Study.

6.4.3 The development framework shall be to the approval of the delegated authority (Development Management).

Precinct Plans 6.5 Each character precinct referred to in 6.4.2 above shall

6.5.1 Ensure that buildings located along Berkley Road extension shall be higher than those located along the southern edge of the eco-corridor identified in the EIA.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 256 of 277 260

6.5.2 Have regard for the heights of buildings and display a hierarchy of spaces, demonstrate the treatment of corners and edges, internal roads and building being stepped to accommodate light penetration.

6.5.3 Identify appropriate locations where foreground and background buildings are to be situated.

6.6 Prior to the submission of site development plans, Precinct plans shall be submitted for each precinct and shall include –

6.6.1 Urban design and development guidelines for the entire development in general accordance with 6.4 above.

6.6.2 The design of each precinct shall show –

 The extent of each precinct;  Character areas;  Appropriately located bulk, including for example: - hierarchy of spaces; - light penetration; and - foreground and background buildings;  Visual/view corridors;  Road / built form interfaces;  Any boundary treatments  Floor space ratio per precinct,  Land use mix,  Number of parking bays,  Gateway buildings;  Landscaping interventions.  NMT;  Maximum heights building heights measured from base level;  Floor space per precinct;  Ranges of uses having regard to the permissible floor space;  The number of parking bays provided;  Public, semi-public and private spaces  Interface conditions with the public realm having specific regard to the Urban Design policy demonstrating compliance with the principles contained therein;  Holding areas for public transport stops.

6.6.3 The Precinct plans shall be to the approval by the delegated authority (Development Management).

6.7 In respect of Precinct 1: 6.7.1 Building heights shall ensure that the lowest buildings observe the heritage indicators in relation to the SAAO (Erf 26493 – to the east of the property).

6.7.2 East/west pedestrian access into the retail component shall be open-to-the-sky and shall permit public access that links to the wider NMT network and surrounds.

6.7.3 Gateway buildings shall be reflected in height and architectural treatment.

6.7.4 Buildings shall be designed to interface with the surroundings.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 257 of 277 261

6.8 In respect of Precinct 2: 6.8.1 The built form shall be separated to a greater degree than that proposed with greater levels of articulation to break up the monolithic form still experienced.

6.8.2 Highest buildings are to respond to the higher order Berkley Road. The height, mass, and bulk of buildings needs to be carefully considered to avoid conditions that may cause a ‘walled development response’.

6.9 Each precinct plan and all subsequent site development plans shall be accompanied by a bulk registered detailing

 Floor space per land use within each precinct utilised and residual available;  Overall floor space for the property utilised and residual available;  Parking provision per precinct required and that constructed.

6.10 The floor space allocated per precinct shall not be transferable between precincts.

6.11 The area proposed as OS3 on Erf151832, and the remaining full development area shall be registered as a public right of way servitude in perpetuity.

6.12 The proposed link road alignment and form shall be designed to further reduce the negative visual impact on the “sense of place” experienced so as not to detract from the public and NMT users’ experience, especially within and adjacent to, the ecological corridors.

6.13 Traffic circles provided on the property shall endeavour to accommodate a NMT prioritised environment which will facilitate the accessibility of the OS3 as part of the NMT route.

6.14 Detailed design of any vehicular or pedestrian control measures introduced on the property shall accompany the SDP for each phase.

Site Development Plan 6.15 Site Development Plans (SDP) shall be submitted for each individual development within the Precinct Plans and Character Areas and with the corresponding Landscape SDP Plans.

6.16 All SDP’s shall be accordance with the development framework and precinct plans.

6.17 The base level indicated for buildings and structures shown on each SDP shall accord with that indicated in Annexure C17.

Land uses 6.18 The land uses accommodated on-site shall be limited to

 Business Premises (Shops, Offices, Restaurants)  Flats (including a minimum of 6000m2 of inclusionary house)  Hotel  Place of entertainment (gym, conference facility, events pavilion)  Place of Instruction  Parking appurtenant to the abovementioned uses and

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 258 of 277 262

 Ancillary uses appurtenant to uses accommodated on the property.

6.19 Notwithstanding the provisions of the DMS, coverage on the property (after subdivision) shall not exceed 35%.

6.20 The provision of inclusionary housing shall be interspersed with the open market dwelling units and other activities.

6.21 Housing typologies within the River Club shall be varied in typology and nature.

6.22 With respect to the overall maintenance and management responsibilities for the property, the applicant/owner/developer shall enter into any necessary agreements with the City prior to issuance of any occupancy certificate/s.

Landscape plan 6.23 A master landscape plan, drafted by a suitably qualified landscape architect, shall be included in the development framework referred to above. Furthermore, the master landscape plan shall -

6.23.1 Conform to the associated guidelines and principles set out in the landscape guidelines accompanying this application and shall be generally in accordance with the landscape concept plan submitted.

6.23.2 The master landscape plan shall detail  Planting, terrestrial and riverine amongst others that will be removed, retained, transplanted and new planting;  The provision of buffer areas along the river/canal edges;  Servitude rights of way;  Hard and soft landscaping  Areas of historic significance and the memorialising the history of the site  Street furniture  Lighting and light fixtures across the site  Provision of attenuation measures (including vegetated swales, bioretention areas, source control, etc.) which shall have regard to the stormwater flood management plan referred to below  NMT routes comprising pedestrian and cycle paths, amongst others and links to existing NMT routes and networks;  NMT routes shall have connections with existing, and  A plan for the phased development of the site.  Flood attenuation measures

6.23.3 The master landscape plan referred to in above shall be to the satisfaction of the delegated authority (Development Management).

6.23.4 A detailed landscape plan shall accompany each precinct plan which shall be generally in accordance with the master landscape plan and shall be to the satisfaction of the delegated authority (Development Management).

6.23.5 All corresponding and adjacent open spaces details of the development area shall correspond, and be integrated, with the City of Cape Town’s open space in addition

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 259 of 277 263

to having regard to the streets, pedestrian walkways, amongst others and shall be to the satisfaction of the delegated authority (Development Management).

6.23.6 An open space register shall be submitted with each application submitted with each precinct plan showing

6.23.6.1 Hard and soft landscaping 6.23.6.2 Ecological areas 6.23.6.3 Space of active play and 6.23.6.4 Heritage spaces.

6.24 The developer/owner shall be responsible for implementation of the approved master landscape plan and landscape plans (including all costs) in accordance with the landscape phasing plan.

6.25 The applicant shall ensure the maintenance and upkeep of the riverine habitat in respect of portions of the Liesbeek River canal that has been decanalised.

6.26 The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with implementation of landscaping.

6.27 The applicant/owner/developer shall submit a Construction Phase Environmental Management Plan prior to commencement of construction demonstrating how habitats will be protected during the construction phase of the development to the apprpoval of the delegated authority (Development Management) in consultation with the Directors: Environment and Heritage Resources Management and Catchment Stormwater and River Management.

6.28 All habitable spaces shall be provided above the 1:100 year floodplain in accordance with various City policies.

Catchment and Stormwater Management 6.29 A Stormwater Management Plan for the property shall be submitted for the approval of the delegated authority (Development Management) in consultation with the Director: Catchment Stormwater and River Management in accordance with their requirements which may include further studies or modelling to be undertaken.

6.30 The developer/owner shall ensure that the necessary measures in mitigation of impacts as a consequence of flood level rise, including any necessary insurances, to safeguard properties affected by flood level rise as a consequence of this submission.

6.30.1 Any measures proposed in mitigation of the submission, shall be to the approval of the delegated authority (Development Management) in consultation with the Director: Catchment, Stormwater and River Management.

6.31 Buildings on the South African Astronomical Observatory shall be flood proofed where necessary and in consultation with that land owner and shall be to the approval of the delegated authority (Development Management) in consultation with the Director: Catchment Stormwater and River Management.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 260 of 277 264

6.31.1 Unless determined otherwise by the delegated authority (Development Management), the flood proofing mentioned inn 6.31 above shall be implemented prior to the issuing of the first occupancy certificate for the development proposed and shall be to the owner/developers account.

6.32 The applicant/owner/developer shall provide a detailed river corridor management plan (as per requirements of Catchment Stormwater and River Management).

6.32.1 The plan referred to in 6.32 above, shall show measures to enhance water quality and restoration of water flows to the natural Liesbeek River, in addition to the management of the quality of the stormwater discharging into the Liesbeek River.

6.32.2 The plan shall be submitted simultaneously with the submission of the Stormwater Management Plan.

6.32.3 Any implementation measures referred to in 6.32.1 and 6.32.2 shall be to the account of the owner/developer.

6.33 The proposed upgrade of the Liesbeek River Canal on the eastern side of the property shall be subject to detailed Construction and Operational Environmental Management Plans (including plans, elevations and sections) for the design and management of the future rehabilitated environment to the approval of the delegated authority (Development Management) in consultation with the Director: Catchment Stormwater and River Management.

6.34 The rehabilitation of the canalised section of the eastern Liesbeek River shall accord with international best practice trends and is not to be regarded as a substitution of habitat for filling in the historic Liesbeek River channel.

6.35 A report drafted by a suitably qualified professionally registered engineer shall accompany the first SDP submission and shall demonstrate that all (proposed) new and existing structures on the property, on the unsubdivided remainder Erf 151832, can withstand the forces and effects of floodwaters to the satisfaction of the delegated authority (Development Management) in consultation with the Director: Water and Waste (Catchment Stormwater and River Management).

6.36 The determination of the buffer width along each river and riparian landscape shall be to the satisfaction of the Director: Development Management in consultation with the Director: Water and Waste (Catchment, Stormwater River Management).

6.37 Flood attenuation measures for the development as proposed and contained in the Hydrologic Study or any revision or amendment thereof that may be required resulting from this approval, including but not limited to alternate measures to filing in of the Liesbeek River, shall be approved by the Catchment Stormwater and River Management.

6.38 Upon the advice of the Director: Catchment, Stormwater and River Management, should it be so deemed necessary by said department, flood warning systems shall be installed and to the developer/owner/ home owner’s association’s account.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 261 of 277 265

Transport 6.39 The proposed road infrastructure and intersections as recommended in the TIA is implemented and that Malta/ Berkley / Liesbeeck intersection shall be design option 2 as indicated in the TIA drafted by Aurecon.

6.40 Improvements to Liesbeek Parkway to prevent flooding of the Liesbeek Parkway shall be implemented to the owner/developer’s account and shall be to the approval of the Director: Road Infrastructure and Management and Director: Transport Forward Planning (Transport Planning).

6.41 Detailed civil engineering plans shall provide for the road upgrades along with the associated costs which shall be to the developer/owners account.

6.42 The proposed Public Transport routes and infrastructure facilities shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Director: Transport Forward Planning (Transport Planning).

6.43 No trapped low points are created with the geometric design of all roads, parking areas and overland escape routes.

6.44 The developer shall be responsible for the reinstatement of all damaged municipal infrastructure after completion of the construction work to the full municipal standards.

6.45 At least 4801 parking bays shall be provided on the property where precinct 1 shall accommodate 1829 parking bays and precinct 2 shall accommodate 2972 parking bays.

6.46 Shared parking shall be encouraged.

6.47 In the event that parking is provided above the 1:100 year floodplain provision shall be made for future conversion thereof to enable the conversions to habitable space in the future.

6.48 Signage shall be displayed along Liesbeek Parkway and any other road identified by Director: Catchment, Stormwater and River Management and/or Director: Transport Forward Planning (Transport Planning) warning motorists of the likelihood of flooding.

6.49 Provision shall be made internal to the development for shared parking to occur between businesses and residential uses to prevent the underutilisation of parking.

6.50 Provision shall be made internal the development for holding area to accommodate stop and drop facilities internal to the development to the approval of the Director: Transport Forward Planning (Transport Planning).

6.51 Prior to the approval of a site development plan, any further permissions and approvals of Heritage Western Cape and/or the Department of Environment and Development Planning shall be obtained.

Note: 1. In accordance with the Item 136 of the development management scheme, the submission of any further land use applications whether as a consequence of

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 262 of 277 266

conditions imposed or not shall be subject to further comment and may be subject further conditions to ensure the appropriate development of the property. 2. The conditions of the Provincial Administration: Western Cape (Department of Transport) shall be adhered to. 3. The requirements of the Director: Asset Management and Maintenance. 4. Various requirements of the National Water Act must be complied with in order to provide for certain water uses. 5. The requirements of various service branches in respect of water and sanitation, water and sewer, solid waste and electrical connections to the site. 6. These conditions shall be read in conjunction with the Record of Decision as submitted by the Heritage Western Cape dated January 2012 attached as Annexure I. 7. In respect of the subdivision: The conditions referred to be shall relate only to the subdivision of the consolidated property into portions 2 and 3. The further subdivision of portions 2 and 3 shall necessitate circulation to branches for comment and further service related conditions in respect of the subdivisions to be imposed. 8. A home owners’ association constitution shall be submitted after the further subdivision of each superblock for approval the approval of the Director: Development Management.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 263 of 277 267

A2. SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS

1 CONDITIONS IMPOSED IN TERMS OF SECTION 100 OF THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING BY- LAW 2015 WHICH MUST BE COMPLIED WITH AT THE COST OF THE DEVELOPER AND TO THE SATISFACTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE COUNCIL PRIOR TO THE TRANSFER OR SEPARATE REGISTRATION IN THE DEEDS REGISTRY OF ANY LAND UNIT ARISING FROM THIS SUBDIVISION APPROVAL:

2. CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE: Once conditions of subdivision have been met the applicant must apply for a subdivision clearance certificate and such application must be accompanied by the original survey diagrams and/or general plan approved by the Office of the Surveyor General.

3. RATES CLEARANCE: Applications for rates clearance to the City Treasurer for the individual portions of the subdivision must be accompanied by the subdivision clearance certificates. In the case where servitudes are created the Powers of Attorney to pass transfer must be submitted to this office and the clearance certificates will be endorsed on those documents. The rates clearances will be endorsed on the same documents. In terms of Section 137 of the Municipal Planning By-Law, the City Treasurer will not issue a rate’s clearance for any portion of this subdivision until such time as he is supplied with proof of compliance with the conditions of subdivision (i.e. the subdivision clearance certificate). Documents to be lodged on 4th Floor Podium: Enquiries: (021) 400 2965

4. ELECTRICITY:

NB: The following electricity conditions must be complied with unless such requirements are waived in writing by the Director: Electricity Services or his/her delegatee:

4.1 The existing authorised capacity to the development area shall be deemed to not exceed 400 A.

4.2 The estimated bulk capacity as specified for this development in order to supply phase 1 and phase 2 shall not exceed 7 MVA.

4.3 A new 132/11 kV Main Switching station on the development site along Observatory Road measuring 40m by 40m shall be provided. This new Main Switching station will only be operational within 3 years after the land is sub-divided and zoned and shall be transferred to the City free of charge and shall be subject to the availability of funds.

4.4 A master site development plan, indicating the phasing with proposed dates of the development plans of the individual sites, shall be provided. Note that the electricity infrastructure serving each erf shall not be dedicated to that site alone. Infrastructure such as substation sites may be required to serve a wider area or future phases of the project as well as other adjacent projects.

4.5 Individual site development plans are required prior to or concurrently with subdivision applications for each phase and shall not be provided after subdivision.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 264 of 277 268

4.6 A Shared-Network Charge and the connection fee, as well as specific conditions of supply shall be applicable to this development before subdivision clearance may be given.

4.7 Additional substation sites besides the Main Switching Station will be required in locations approved by this department. These properties shall be directly accessible from public road and shall not be traversed by any other services. Basement substation sites is not permitted. Sites required may take the form of a combination of the following:

 Multiple outdoor substations on 5 m x 4 m free-standing sites and  Multiple substation buildings on 20 m x 14 m free-standing sites.

These substations shall be appropriately subdivided and zoned in the sub-division plan approved by the Surveyor General as well as transferred to the City free of charge.

4.8 The electricity reticulation network shall be installed in the public road reserve with a sidewalk width sufficiently wide to accommodate the electricity network required. Special attention will be required where high voltage cables are to be accommodated. An electrical servitude of sufficient shall be registered to the satisfaction of the Director: Utility Services (Electricity).

4.9 Where road widening is required that affects installed electricity infrastructure, these services will be relocated at the applicants’ expense. Electrical wayleaves must be applied for from our Drawing and Records Centre office.

4.10 The Applicant shall provide and install in an approved manner and at his own cost all pipe ducts required across roads and access ways for electricity cables for both internal services and future bulk services. The position of each of these duct crossings shall be permanently marked on the kerb edge.

4.11 The applicant shall provide, at his own cost, the internal electrical reticulation and street lighting networks serving the specific subdivision. To this end, the applicant shall appoint a consulting electrical engineering practitioner registered with ECSA to carry out the design and to supervise the installation of the internal electrical reticulation and street lighting networks to City of Cape Town standards and specifications. On completion, the electrical reticulation and street lighting networks shall be handed over to the Department for operation and maintenance.

4.12 Electricity distribution and street lighting infrastructure in private roads will not be taken over by the City but will remain the responsibility of the property owner.

4.13 The existing Liesbeek Park substation on erf 26423-RE is to be subdivided off from the parent erf, registered and transferred to the City at the applicant’s cost. 4.14 Solar power generation per erf will be limited and thus be dependent on final supply arrangement to either 25% or 75% of the erf’s notified maximum demand. Application for each solar installation must be made to the Electricity Generation and Distribution department for approval.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 265 of 277 269

4.15 Any one solar plant on an erf exceeding 1 MVA will require a generating license from the National Electricity Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) as a condition prior to the City approving the installation.

5 SOLID WASTE 5.1 The various requirements of solid waste shall be adhered in accordance with their requirements and standards for the different phases of development and shall be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Director: Utility Services (Solid Waste Management).

6 WATER AND SANITATION 6.1 Development contributions are payable as per the DC policy, to be qualified by the Reticulation Regional Operations Manager.

6.2 A maximum of 161/s will be accommodated prior to the upgrade of 1050mm and 1350mm bulk sewers.

6.3 All costs relating to service connections, alteration to or provision of new water meter and sewerage services shall be to the account of the applicant/owner/developer.

6.4 A construction programme to be provided by the developer/owner with the submission of civil services design drawings. Engagement of the City operation staff on the construction programme prior to submission will assist in operational decisions.

6.5 All link services to be in place prior to any building//dwelling being occupied.

6.6 Evidence of water saving measures implemented will have to be shown prior to occupation.

6.7 Emergency measures to prevent sewer spillage is required.

6.8 Measures to mitigate the impact flooding of the civil infrastructure.

Additional Technical Requirements 6.9 Water and Sanitation municipal service designs to be designed according to Departmental Service Standards and be approved prior to construction.

6.10 Application must be made for any new water metered connections to the Reticulation Regional Operation Manager.

6.11 The water and sewer capacities allocated according to this document, if not taken up, shall not be reserved beyond the lesser of 5 years or the approved development period.

6.12 Services infrastructure is subject to quality control during construction and testing prior to approval.

General/ Disclaimer Information provided is based on best available data. The flows and pressures provided in this comment are theoretical and not measured.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 266 of 277 270

7 ROADS AND STORMWATER: (Enquiry Marissa Adams 400 6424) 7.1 The developer/owner shall be responsible for the payment of development contribution toward the provision of bulk civil engineering services, in accordance with Council’s policies. An overall figure calculated from the proposed uses in the report calculates to R73 612 448,06. This figure will be refined when future applications are submitted which contain more detail. In the absence of detail, the residential component was calculated as flats less than 100m2 each. Ancillary was added to GB use.

7.2 The development contribution levy figure shall be subject to an annual escalation equal to the construction price adjustment (CPA) from civil engineering services and the amount payable will be the amount calculated at the time that the infrastructure is implemented or the development contribution is paid.

7.3 A separate Services Agreement with the City shall be entered into for the installation of bulk municipal services with respect to Roads and Transport in lieu of development contributions. The upgrade to roads shall be to the approval of the satisfaction of the Director: Development Management in consultation with the Director: Asset Management and Maintenance (Roads and Transport Planning).

7.4 The maximum permissible floors space/GLA in terms of the proposal shall be restricted to:

 Retail 20 700m2  Office 59 600m2  Restaurant 9 200m2  Residential 31 900m2  Hotel 8 200m2  Gym 4 100m2  Ancillary 4 100m2  Conference 1 200m  Events pavilion 1 000m2  Place of Instruction 10 000m2

7.5 Any increase in units or floor space shall require an additional development contribution which shall be calculated by the Manager: Asset Management and Maintenance or the department to who the development contribution is applicable. 7.6 Prior to the completion of precinct 1 of development the portion of Berkley Road extension traversing the M5 shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Directors: Asset Management and Maintenance and Transport Planning.

7.7 Development contributions are payable

- Prior to the approval of any building plans or - Prior to transfer, whichever comes first and

shall be to the approval of the Director: Asset Management and Maintenance.

7.8 The proposed NMT facilities/routes shall be provided to the approval to the Directors: Asset Management and Maintenance and TDA: Universal Access and NMT.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 267 of 277 271

7.9 The developer/owner shall be responsible for all design and construction costs to implement the road upgrades to full municipal standards, including blacktop, kerbing, sidewalks, street lighting, ducts, pedestrian crossing, stormwater infrastructure and signals.

7.10 Detailed engineering services plans, prepared by a registered Civil Engineering Professional shall be submitted for approval by the Director: Asset Management and Maintenance or relevant service department prior to building plan approval and prior to commencement of any works. All services shall comply with the “Minimum Standards of Civil Engineering Services in Townships (as amended) document”. The Engineer shall monitor all construction activities and maintain an adequate level of supervision of the works. Upon completion an prior to Transfer Clearance (Section 137 clearance), the services shall be inspected by Council. The Engineer shall provide a completion certificate as well as all construction test results required in terms of SANS.

7.11 All services shall be handed over to /inspected by the Director: Asset Management and Maintenance or relevant service department, on completion of works and a completion certificate shall be obtained prior to the transfer of individual erven.

7.12 On completion of the Engineering Services the developer/owner shall supply the Council with a 12 month maintenance guarantee equal to 5% of the value of the infrastructure constructed.

7.13 A fully descriptive site development plan indicating parking, traffic flow, various land use areas, refuse collection, etc. shall be submitted prior to subdivision clearance being issued.

7.14 Splays shall be provided at intersections/accesses and that sight triangles be achieved, free of obstructions (landscaping, electrical/telecommunications, etc).

7.15 A comprehensive traffic accommodation plan for the construction phases be approved by the relevant departments within Council prior to commencement of any works and the cost of accommodating traffic be for the developer’s cost.

7.16 Detailed services plans of al services (access layout, traffic circulation, parking, refuse, civil services, etc.) be submitted to the Director: Asset Management and Maintenance and Transport Planning and any other relevant department responsible for the provision of service infrastructure, for approval prior to commence of any works. All municipal services must comply with the “Minimum Standards of Civil Engineering Services in Townships” document.

7.17 The Owner/developer at their cost provide all the required internal and link engineering services to the satisfaction of the Director: Asset Management and Maintenance prior to transfer of individual units or utilisation of buildings. 7.18 All engineering services shall comply with the standards and policies of Council and services be in accordance with the approved site development plan / subdivision plans.

7.19 Where municipal services traverse private properties or fall outside a public road reserve, a 3.0m wide servitude shall be registered in favour of the Council and shall

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 268 of 277 272

be to the developer/owner’s account.

7.20 The owner/developer shall be responsible for all costs incurred in respect of the upgrading, extension, deviations, connection or removal of any engineering services arising from the development.

7.21 All stormwater run-off shall be managed in accordance with an approved stormwater management plan and the management pan shall conform to the overall master planning of the area. Further comments shall be obtained from the Director: Catchment Stormwater and River Management in respect hereof.

7.22 The final design of the decanalised river shall be to the approval of the Director: Catchment Stormwater and River Management.

7.23 The geometric design of roads, parking areas and overland escape routes shall ensure that no trapped low points are created.

7.24 A property owner’s association shall be established which addresses maintenance of all internal services as well as the swale, if approved, and the banks of the riverine corridor, if approved. This maintenance plan relating to the swale and the banks, either of which or if both are approved, to be provided to the City for its records, (the record of which shall be retained by the Director: Catchment Stormwater and River Management). The river (ex-Canal) being part of the City’s Stormwater system shall be maintained by the City or if otherwise required by the competent department, excluding the banks.

8 STREET NUMBERING: 8.1 Copies of the diagrams or General Plan shall be submitted to the Street Numbering /GIS Section when approved by the Surveyor General. The street numbers shall be noted on the said copies of the diagrams or General Plan.

9 GIS / DATA CAPTURE: 9.1 An electronic copy (in either dxf, shp or dwg format) of the Surveyor General’s Diagram must be submitted to Council’s GIS Section after the Surveyor General approves the survey records.

10.0 The abovementioned conditions shall be applicable to the subdivision, unless determined otherwise by the delegated authority (Development Management).

Note: This information can also be e-mailed to [email protected]. Copy of the email must be attached to diagram clearance documentation. A copy of the e-mail shall be attached to diagram clearance documentation.

Note: Any further subdivisions may be subject to further services and related technical requirements.

MUNICIPAL SERVICES

Note: The owner shall be responsible for all the costs incurred in respect of the upgrading, extension, deviation or removal of any existing stormwater, sewerage, electricity or

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 269 of 277 273

other services or works whether on the property of the Council or any other body, whether public or private, which may be requested by the Council or any other body having the authority so to require as a result of the development of the property concerned and for any connection costs in respect of such services or works.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 270 of 277 274

APPENDIX 1

IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS IN RESPECT OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, ESSENTIAL TO EFFECT REGISTRATION AND/OR TRANSFER OF SUBDIVIDED PORTIONS

In addition to the conditions of approval listed in Annexure A, the following further processes and standard administrative requirements are to be noted and complied with in full timeously.

Further processes

1 Generally, the further processes following subdivision approval involve the following sequence of events:

 Actual site surveying and preparation of a survey diagram or General Plan by the owner / applicant’s appointed land surveyor  Submission to and approval by the Surveyor General (SG) of the diagram or General Plan  Once services infrastructure have been installed and all conditions of subdivision have been complied with, upon application, subdivision clearance certification issued by Council in terms of Section 137 of the MPBL.  Once Section 137 subdivision clearance issued, upon application, rates clearance certification issued by the City Treasurer in terms of Section 118 of the Municipal Systems Act, No 32 of 2000  Supported by the above clearances, conveyancer application to the Registrar of Deeds for separate registration and/or transfer of newly subdivided portions  Upon individual registration, building plan approval, followed by construction, subsequent building completion certification by Council and eventual occupation

2 Kindly note, the subdivision approval in the accompanying decision letter will lapse unless separate registration of at least one land unit is effected in the Deed’s office within 5 years of the date of Council’s final notification letter of this approval (which letter will follow in due course), unless extension of the validity thereof has been granted by the Director: Development Management in terms of Section 137 of the MPBL prior to such lapsing.

3 After final Council notification of this subdivision approval, the SG will require preparation of a diagram or General Plan (illustrating any servitudes where applicable) of the newly created land unit(s) for its approval. Such diagram or General Plan is to be prepared by a land surveyor appointed by the owner / applicant. The owner / applicant or its surveyor is required to liaise directly with the SG in this regard. Upon approval thereof, the SG will indicate by means of an endorsement the date and reference number of this subdivision approval on the back of the diagram(s) of the newly created erven or on the front of the General Plan, whichever are applicable.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 271 of 277 275

4 Upon or prior to submission to the SG office of such diagram(s) or General Plan for approval, an electronic copy thereof must be e-mailed to the Senior GIS technician in the district Planning office where the approval was issued at the relevant address reflected below. Proof of such e-mail transmission must accompany any subdivision clearance application or building plan submission to the Planning & Building Development Management Department, whichever may occur first.

District e-mail address Table Bay [email protected] Blaauwberg [email protected] Northern [email protected] Tygerberg [email protected] Helderberg [email protected] Mitchell’s Plan / [email protected] Khayelitsha Cape Flats [email protected] Southern [email protected]

5 Once the diagram(s) or a General Plan has been approved by the SG and all the conditions of subdivision have been met by the developer, application may be made by the owner (or his appointed conveyancing attorney) to the Director: Development Management at your nearest district Planning office for subdivision clearance certification in terms of Section 137 of the MPBL. Such application must be accompanied by the following:

 Completed and signed application form  Information sheet (partially completed)  Draft Power of Attorney (where necessary)  SG approved General Plan / diagram(s) (original)  Copy of original Council approval letter (including conditions of approval and approved plan of subdivision)  Application fee / payment receipt  Proof of e-mail transmission of electronic copy of General Plan / diagram to the district Senior GIS technician  Any other supporting evidence necessary to substantiate condition compliance

Where servitudes are to be created as part of the subdivision or there is a requirement for a Home / Property Owners’ Association to be established of which new owners are required to be members, a copy of the draft Power of Attorney to pass registration / transfer must be submitted to the Director : Development Management as part of the above application.

6 Required to effect registration and/or transfer, a rates clearance certificate in terms of Section 118 of the Municipal Systems Act, No 32 of 2000 may only be applied for to the City Treasurer once the Director : Development Management has certified that all conditions of subdivision have been complied with to its satisfaction, as per the aforegoing paragraphs. Such applications for rates clearance certificates must therefore be accompanied by the above subdivision clearance (condition compliance) certificate in terms of Section 137 of the MPBL.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 272 of 277 276

7 The Registrar of Deeds will not permit registration of individual portion(s) or servitude area(s) and/or transfer of such new land unit(s) unless the City Treasurer has issued the above rates clearance certificate in terms of Section 118 of the Municipal Systems Act, No 32 of 2000 in respect of such land unit(s).

Geographic Information System (GIS) data capturing standards

8 In drawing up the General Plan or diagram(s) relating to this subdivision, the land surveyor must create the following seperate layers in ESRI .shp or .dxf electronic file format in order for the data to reflect spatially correct:

Layer name Content TITLE Title information, including any endorsements and references NOTES All noted information, both from the owner / surveyor and SG PARENT_PROPLINES Parent property lines PARENT_PROPNUM Parent erf number (or portion number) PROPLINES New portion boundaries PROPANNO New erf numbers SERVLINES Servitude polygons SERVANNO Servitude type STREET_NAMES Road centre lines with street names STREET_NUMBERS Points with street numbers C0MPLEX BOUNDARIES Where applicable, polygon with complex name (mention whether gated or not and if so, where gates are) SUBURB Polygon with suburb name, where new suburb / township extension created ESTATE Where applicable, polygon with estate name (mention whether gated or not and if so, where gates are)

9 Such drawing of the approved subdivision must include the following information:

 property boundaries  co-ordinates  parent erf number(s)  newly allocated erf number(s)  approved street name(s), including whether public or private  approved street number(s) and/or unit numbers (if applicable)  complex name (in case of a complex development, eg group housing or flats)  suburb name (in case of creation of a new suburb / township)

No additional information other than that described above may be included with the different layers / features. Should it be necessary to include any additional information with the diagram / General Plan, such information may not be included with any of the layers described above, but should rather be included in any other separately named layer.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 273 of 277 277

10 It is important that each portion / servitude boundary is complete and forms a closed polygon, ie the line endpoints must touch each other (eg no undershoots or overshoots). In addition, each property number anchor must be located within the respective property’s boundaries. Kindly also note, split remainders are not permitted and except for a single remainder, each cadastral unit should have a separate erf number.

In addition to being geo-referenced and in WGS 1984 Geographic Coordinate System, the drawing must be completed using real world coordinates based on the City of Cape Town Standard as follows:

 Datum : Hartebeeshoek WGS 84  Projection : Transverse Mercator  False easting : 0.00000000  False northing : 0.00000000  Central meridian : 19.00000000  Scale factor : 1.00000000  Origin latitude : 0.00000000  Linear unit : Metre

11 The above electronic data must be delivered (preferably by e-mail to the address supplied above) to the Senior GIS technician in the district Planning office where the subdivision approval was issued in standard dxf or shapefile format. If the data is to be supplied in shapefile format, then separate shapefiles are required for street names and numbers.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 274 of 277 278 Annexure B

Locality map / Extent of advertising

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 275 of 277 279

LOCALITY

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 276 of 277 280

EXTENT OF ADVERTISING

The extent of public participation shown above must be read in conjunction with notices served and placed in the press.

MPT Report Template – 8 June 2017 Page 277 of 277