The Simon’s Town Civic Association, the Glencairn Action Group and the Far South Peninsula Community Forum are opposing the proposed development of a Rotary Retirement Village on remainder ERF61 Simon’s Town (in Glen Road, Glencairn.) They are calling for the support of residents in the South Peninsula who object to further development in the area with the current inadequate infra-structure and who do not wish to see “sound planning legislation is weakened”.
Further to our letter emailed to you on 18th June updating you on the status of the Proposed Rotary Development ERF61.
Just to clarify what has happened to date. Two processes have been completed: the Basic Assessment Report and the Final Basic Assessment Report (BAR). The Final BAR has been sent to the Department of the Environment and is awaiting a decision for Environmental Authorisation.
The next process that needs YOUR response is an application made by the developer to the City of Cape Town applying for :
An amendment to the Cape Town Spatial Development Framework and Simon’s Town Structure Plan, rezoning, subdivision, conditional use, consent and departures: proposed Rotary Retirement Village – remainder ERF61 Simon’s Town – Application number 223127
In order to assist residents in their response we attach a template letter, which you may use to respond and object to this application for amendments to planning legislation and departures.
1) Please complete the details shown in red at the bottom of the letter, which include: Name, Address, Erf Number and Telephone Contact number, and Date.
The ERF number has been specifically requested by the City.
2) Please email this letter to the City of Cape to email address: firstname.lastname@example.org
or fax 021 710 8283.
3) The deadline for the letter to reach the City is 1st July 2013.
Please forward this email onto your neighbours and friends, so they too can participate in this exercise. Please urge them to add their details to this email distribution list so they can be kept informed.
Their details should be emailed to Louise de Waal at: email@example.com
If you have any queries please call: 021 782 3446
Simon’s Town Civic Association
Glencairn Action Group
Far South Peninsula Community Forum
Resident’s letter template:
By email: firstname.lastname@example.org
By Fax: 021 710 8283
City of Cape Town
Economic, Environmental & Spatial Planning
Department of Planning & Building Development Management
3 Victoria Road
Private Bag X5
Application Number: 223127
APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CAPE TOWN SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
AND SIMON’S TOWN STRUCTURE PLAN, REZONING, SUBDIVISION, CONDITIONAL USE,
CONSENT AND DEPARTURES: REMAINDER ERF 61 SIMON’S TOWN –
I would like to object strongly to this application to the City of Cape Town, which calls for a total of 10 amendments / departures from existing planning legislation and regulations. The fact that so many amendments are required is a clear indication that this development is inappropriate in its purpose, design, and location. I feel strongly that these amendments should not even be considered by the City, because if approved, such wide ranging amendments would undermine the very foundations of our planning legislation/regulations, many of which have undergone a public participation process. Every amendment or departure approved by the City means sound planning legislation is weakened.
There is suitable land, much closer to transport and shops, within the urban edge to provide for a retirement village. Why then consider breaching so many plans and regulations to develop on land outside the urban edge? Any amendment to the urban edge will create a dangerous precedent and opens potential doors to further inappropriate developments. This will not only result in exacerbation of the existing chronic traffic & transport issues on the Peninsula, but will also expand the concrete jungle for future generations in areas that have specifically been designated as either nature areas, rural areas or open space. This also flies in the face of the National Environmental Management Act, Section 2, stating:
“The environment is held in public trust for the people, the beneficial use of environmental resources must serve the public interest and the environment must be protected as the people’s common heritage.”
It is also noted that one of the departures is to raise the ground levels by 1.5 m, which implies concerns relating to groundwater levels and potential flooding.
We, as the public, must be able to rely on the City to retain the integrity of the planning process and uphold their own legislation to prevent the floodgates being opened to such inappropriate developments.
Furthermore, applications such as these make a complete mockery of planning legislation, if the City would give it any serious consideration. I would sincerely hope the City hears our objections to this application and categorically turns the application down.
Contact Telephone Number