THEEWATERSKLOOF SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK ––– VOLUME II CHAPTER 17: GREYTON The revised Greyton Structure Plan (June 2000) has been approved in terms of the Land Use CHAPTER 17 GREYTON Planning Ordinance, 1985 (Ordinance 15 of 1985) as a Section 4(6) structure plan and sets out development guidelines, strategies, policies and proposals for the town. 17.1 BACKGROUND It should be noted that the policies, guidelines and proposals contained in the approved Greyton Structure Plan have been re-assessed, substantially changed and / or amended where necessary.. The relevant sections have been incorporated into this revised SDF document. GREYTON AT A GLANCE Table 17.17.2222 lists the updates, amendments and/or replacements that were made in respect of the existing Greyton Structure Plan. Total Population ± 5266 people Role and function Agricultural service centre; “life-style”village Rank order of town Rural node; 3rd order town Greyton Structure Greyton Greyton Structure Greyton Structure Replacement SDF Comparative locational advantage Tourism destination Plan (2000) Structure Plan Plan (2000): To Plan ((2000):2000): Section In The TWK paragraph Historic precinct (2000) be substantially Paragraph SDF (2010) reference to Paragraph changedchangedoror references to similar Country town character Reference omitted in TWK sections retained content Natural setting SDF (2010) and / or amended Tourism accommodation. in TWK SDF 2010 Economic base Agriculture, tourism Section C: Policy Framework Growth Potential Ranked 89 for 131 towns in the Western Cape Planning 6 √ TTTABLE 17.117.1:::: GGGREYTON AT A GLANCE Approach The Vision 6.1 √ 17.5.1 Planning 6.2 √ 17.5.3 Principles Greyton’s function within the municipal context is that of a rural village. Goals 6.3 √ 17.8.1– Greyton has established itself as a popular “life-style” village and popular property 17.8.7 investment destination. The unique characteristics of Greyton include: The Structure 6.4 √ 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 Plan: Implications The Product 6.5 √ 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 • Greyton as a tourism destination; PHASE 2: DEVELOPMENT POLICY • The historic precinct and rural character of the village; SECTION D: METHODOLOGY • The pristine natural setting. Spatial Framework 7 √ 17.4 - 17.5 Design Concept 7.1 √ 17.4 – 17.5 Structuring 7.2 √ 17.4 – 17.5 The protection of Greyton’s country village character was the overriding goal that Elements underpinned all land use and development proposals according to the revised Greyton Design Principles 7.3 √ 17.5.3 Local Structure Plan (Approved 2000). This approach will inform the proposals of the Land Use 7.4 √ Revised Theewaterskloof Spatial Development Framework. The challenge will be to Management Approach 7.4.1 √ √ 17.8 retain the unique rural and historic character of the town while meeting the Policy 8 √ Chapter 11 requirements for densification. Formulation Landscape and 8.1 √ Townscape Conservation 17.2 THE REVISED GREYTON STRUCTURE PLAN (((2000(20002000)))) AND THE TTTHEEWATERSKLOOFTHEEWATERSKLOOF Policy MUNICIPAL SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK Urban Sprawl 8.1.1 √ Developable 8.1.2 √ Areas FEBRUARY 2012 URBAN DYNAMICS WESTERN CAPE 171717-17 ---1 THEEWATERSKLOOF SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK ––– VOLUME II CHAPTER 17: GREYTON Greyton Structure Greyton Greyton Structure Greyton Structure Replacement SDF Greyton Structure Greyton Greyton Structure Greyton Structure Replacement SDF Plan (2000) Structure Plan Plan (2000): To Plan ((2000):2000): Section In The TWK paragraph Plan (2000) Structure Plan Plan (2000): To Plan ((2000):2000): Section In The TWK paragraph (2000) be substantially Paragraph SDF (2010) reference to (2000) be substantially Paragraph SDF (2010) reference to Paragraph changedchangedoror references to similar Paragraph changedchangedoror references to similar Reference omitted in TWK sections retained content Reference omitted in TWK sections retained content SDF (2010) and / or amended SDF (2010) and / or amended in TWK SDF 2010 in TWK SDF 2010 Elements of the 8.1.3 √ Development Natural Policy Landscape Community needs 8.4.1 √ Visual Impact 8.1.4 √ Decent Civic 8.4.2 √ Village Character 8.1.5 √ Environments – Cultural Multipurpose Use 8.4.3 √ Landscape Light Industrial 8.5 √ Old Town Plan 8.1.6 √ Development 1854 Policy Architectural 8.1.7 √ Light Industrial 8.5.1 √ Design Development Views and Focal 8.1.8 √ Land use 8.5.2 √ Points allocation Historic Precincts 8.1.9 √ 17.8.10 and Employment 8.5.3 √ Annexure B Opportunities General 8.1.10 √ Conservation of 8.6 √ Residential 8.2 √ the Natural Development Environment Policy Conservation 8.6.1. √ Housing Needs 8.2.1 √ Education and 8.6.2 √ Land Reservation 8.2.2 √ recreation Residential 8.2.3 √ facilities Design: Historic Greyton Nature 8.6.3 √ Old Town Plan Reserve (1854) Flood line 8.6.4 √ Efficient Urban 8.2.4 √ Management Structure Water Supply and 8.6.5 √ Complimentary 8.2.5 √ Quality Land Uses Open Space Policy 8.7 √ CBD Development 8.3 √ Linked System 8.7.1 √ Policy Range of Open 8.7.2 √ Consolidation 8.3.1 √ Spaces Structuring 8.3.2 √ Trees 8.7.3 √ Elements PHASE 3: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS SECTION E: PROPOSALS Streetscapes 8.3.3 √ Spatial 9 √ √ 17.6 Accessibility 8.3.4 √ Requirements Parking 8.3.5 √ Population 9.1 √ √ 17.6 Window of 8.3.6 √ Growth Greyton ProJections Public and 8.4 √ Land Use Needs 9.2 √ √ 17.6 17.6 Community Residential 10 √ √ 17.6/17.9.4 Facility Development FEBRUARY 2012 URBAN DYNAMICS WESTERN CAPE 171717-17 ---2 THEEWATERSKLOOF SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK ––– VOLUME II CHAPTER 17: GREYTON Greyton Structure Greyton Greyton Structure Greyton Structure Replacement SDF Greyton Structure Greyton Greyton Structure Greyton Structure Replacement SDF Plan (2000) Structure Plan Plan (2000): To Plan ((2000):2000): Section In The TWK paragraph Plan (2000) Structure Plan Plan (2000): To Plan ((2000):2000): Section In The TWK paragraph (2000) be substantially Paragraph SDF (2010) reference to (2000) be substantially Paragraph SDF (2010) reference to Paragraph changedchangedoror references to similar Paragraph changedchangedoror references to similar Reference omitted in TWK sections retained content Reference omitted in TWK sections retained content SDF (2010) and / or amended SDF (2010) and / or amended in TWK SDF 2010 in TWK SDF 2010 Residential 10.1 √ √ 17.6/17.9.4 Environmental 12.3.1 √ 17.9 Demand Input assessment Densities 10.2 √ √ 17.6; 17.9.2(ii) Integrated 12.3.2 √ 17.9 Density Structure 10.2.1 √ 17.9.2(ii) Environmental High Density 10.2.2 √ 17.9.2(ii) Management Plan Medium Density 10.2.3 √ 17.9.2(ii) Environmental 12.3.3 √ 17.9 Low Density 10.2.4 √ 17.9.2(ii) management Plan Re-subdivision 10.3 √ Conservation 12.3.4 √ 17.8.1 Problems and 10.3.1 √ Enlargement Issues Conservation: 13 √ 17.8.10 and Resubdivision 10.3.2 √ √ 17.9.2(iii) Townscape of Old Annexure B Principles for Town Plan (1854) Implementation Central Business 11 √ √ 17.8.6 Maintaining “Folk” 13.1 17.9.10(iii) and District (CBD) Architecture: Annexure B Background 11.1 √ √ 17.8.6 Guidelines Principles for 11.2 √ √ 17.8.6 Conservation 13.2 √ 17.9(ii) and Creating Overlay Zone Annexure B responsive Positioning of 13.3 √17.9.13 and Environments Buildings Annexure B Structural 11.3 √ √ 17.8.6 Land Use Control: 13.4 √17.9.14 and Elements Guidelines Annexure B The design 11.4 √ √ 17.8.6 Development 13.5 √17.9.15 and Concecpt Control Annexure B The CBD 11.5 √ √ 17.8.6 Guidelines Development Developable 14 Guidelines Areas: Guidelines Conservation: 12 √ √ Planning Area I: 14.1 no proposals for Landscape and Krige Road Area the area Natural Planning Area H: 14.2 √ 17.9.16 (i) Environment Between (Vlei Background 12.1 √ √ Street and Gobos Urban Edge 12.2 √ 17.4, 17.7, River) 17.8.1 Planning Area F 14.3 no proposals for Requirements 12.2.1 √ 17.4, 17.7, the area 17.8.1 Planning Area F 14.4 √ 17.9.16 (ii) Development 12.2.2 √ 17.4, 17.7, Planning Area E 14.5 no proposals for Pressure 17.8.1 the area Guidelines for 12.2.3 √ 17.4, 17.7, Planning Area G 14.6 √ 17.9.16(iii) Implementation 17.8.1 Public and 15 √ 17.9.8 Conservation 12.3 √ 17.4, 17.7, Community Management 17.8.1 facilities Sport and 15.1 √ 17.9.3 FEBRUARY 2012 URBAN DYNAMICS WESTERN CAPE 171717-17 ---3 THEEWATERSKLOOF SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK ––– VOLUME II CHAPTER 17: GREYTON Greyton Structure Greyton Greyton Structure Greyton Structure Replacement SDF • Facilitate a balance between conservation of the natural and manmade Plan (2000) Structure Plan Plan (2000): To Plan ((2000):2000): Section In The TWK paragraph environment, the (historic) sense of place and the need to accommodate (2000) be substantially Paragraph SDF (2010) reference to (2000) be substantially Paragraph SDF (2010) reference to sustainable development and economic growth. Paragraph changedchangedoror references to similar Reference omitted in TWK sections retained content • A growing demand for commercial and tourism development. SDF (2010) and / or amended in TWK SDF 2010 Infrastructure Backlog Recreation Schools 15.2 √ 17.9.4 • Subsidised housing backlog: 160 (Housing database, 2009) Dumping Site 15.3 √ Municpal 15.4 √ Workshop Light Industry 16 √ 17.9.7 Infrastructure 17 √ 17.9.9 Services 17.4 BIOPHYSICIAL INFORMANTS AND CONSTRAINTS Tourism 18 √ 17.9.11/ 4.6 Development There are intact patches of relatively well connected Central Rûens Shale Renosterveld Role of Tourism 18.1 √ 17.9.11/ 4.6 (having a “critically endangered” ecosystem status) within the urban edge – these areas Tourism 18.2 √ 17.9.11/ 4.6 Infrastructure are listed as Critical Biodiversity Areas. TABLE 17.2 THE REVISED GREYTON STRUCTURE PLAN (2000) AND THE THEEWATERSKLTHEEWATERSKLOOFOOF MUNICIPAL SSPATIALPATIAL DEVELOPMENT The Gobos River, which skirts the eastern boundary of Greyton, is an important FRAMEWORK ecological corridor.