Erf 275 Clifton (Kloof Rd), House Bailes

SUBMISSION IN RESPECT OF THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN’S LAND USE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT’S REPORT DATED 19 SEPTEMBER 2011 TO THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN’S GOOD HOPE SUBCOUNCIL MEETING TO BE HELD ON 17 OCTOBER 2011 AT 2-00 PM BY THE CAMPS BAY RATEPAYERS AND RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION (CBRRA)

_________________________________________________________________________

PROPERTY : REMAINDER ERF 275 CLIFTON, 157 KLOOF ROAD, CLIFTON, CAPE.

APPLICATION NO. : 161811

FILE REFERENCE LM 4555

DISTRICT : TABLE BAY

SUBCOUNCIL : GOOD HOPE NO. 16

WARD : 54

WARD COUNCILLOR : B. SCHAFER

ATTENTION : CLLR. TAKI AMIRA, MARIUS COETZEE, BEN SCHOEMANN AND GREG SEPTEMBER

17 OCTOBER 2011

Dear Sirs,

THE ABOVE APPLICATION FOR DEPARTURES IN TERMS OF THE LAND USE PLANNING ORDINANCE 15/1985 AND COUNCIL’S CONSENT IN TERMS OF THE CAPE TOWN ZONING SCHEME REGULATIONS :

1. In terms of a letter dated 7 October, 2011 from The Good Hope Sub Council, the Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association (CBRRA) has been granted permission for an interview and accordingly comments on the Planner’s Report dated 19 September2011 as follows :

1.1 Background

This matter is of extreme importance as it embraces many key issues in respect of Council planning procedures and specifically addresses the attempts by the Applicant to retroactively legally rectify previously illegally constructed works – something to which the Good Hope Sub-Council has been strongly opposed in the past and at present.

The Applicant persistently attempts to contend in his documents that this is perfectly permissable practice, but your Sub-Council is well aware that this is a regrettably deceptive practice by Applicants to steamroller contentious and illegal designs through because , once built, it is exceedingly difficult to get the illegal works demolished.

CBRRA sincerely hopes that this will become a watershed case which will send out a clear message that the above back door type of plan passing by the submission and acceptance of subsequent rider plans is simply not acceptable.

1.2 CBBRA”S responses to the City’s LUM Department’s above report (referred to by paragraph numbers) are as follows :

1.2.1 Para 3.1

The report notes “that the structures mentioned have already been built.”.

This fact is completely ignored in the Applicant’s response.

Paras. 3.2 and 3.3

This application has already been rejected in principle by the City and the relevant Provincial Government Minister, who is now “functus officio” in this regard and has ruled that he cannot legally reverse his decision.

The Applicant has recently forcefully attempted to persuade CBBRA to withdraw its letter of objection, which CBBRA adamantly refuses to do.

This is because the whole principle of the title deed prevention of the construction of structures of any sort within the building setback line was re-established as law in the eyes of the authorities as a direct result of the recent Harrison Judgement in the case of CBRRA vs the City of Cape Town and others, and, having won that case, CBRRA is not going to reverse its hard – won contention, which this application so drastically wishes to change.

The City has requested the Applicant to secure the steep loose earth covered banks between the illegal stuctures on the western boundary and the street below as it contended that the construction of the foundations to the illegal structures loosened the bank’s earth. There has therefore been an ongoing danger of an earth collapse onto Kloof Road resulting in possible harm to passers – by and traffic. A collapse of this nature has already happened on the adjacent site, resulting in the extensive need for Gabion retaining walls.

The Applicant’s response , according to the City, was that he would execute such consolidation / support if the City passed this application – which the City is not prepared to do.

Whereas this side-issue is not the concern of CBRRA, it hereby gives notice to the City that this specific matter has been known and unsolved for over a year now and it calls upon the City to rectify the possible ongoing danger o the public.

Para. 3.4

Is important to note here that the Applicant has omitted in his response to inform Sub-Council that, when the original plans for this project were passed by the City, the pool was designed to be situated along the south boundary of the property, at right angles to the western street boundary, with only about a metre or so of one end of the narrow pool

projecting into the building setback area. (The City should not have passed this).

During the construction period, the Applicant took it upon himself to accept his Architects’ suggestion to relocate the pool into the illegal building setback area and he built the new pool design and its massive structural support system illegally in the building setback area over a period of six months until he was stopped by the City – without having submitted any rider plans beforehand.

The Applicant has continually pleadsed that he is not guilty of a transgression because nobody told him that what he was doing was illegal. He most certain;y would have found out if he had submitted his rider plans before commencement of the construction of the pool and its huge supports and not after completing same.

In any event, this is a naïve and legally unacceptable claim and the Applicant should be having recourse to his Design Consultants for any costs he may now be involved in if this was the case.

Of significance here is the statement in the report that :

“Notwithstanding the said notice and submission of a land use submission, building work on

the subject property continued unabated with the dwelling house ...... being completed”.

Also :

“Given the illegal building work and the substantial deviations from the approved plans, no occupancy certificate has been issued for the dwelling house”. It seems that the Council is still waiting for rider plans to accurately reflect what has been built.

Furthermore, CBRRA has learned that, notwithstanding this, the Applicant is currently

seemingly illegally occupying the completed premises.

All this is absolutely unacceptable to CBRRA and so it should be to the City.

CBBRA asks what the City intends doing about all the above as well as rejecting this application.

Para 4.

The “unique hanging gardens” only came into existence as a panic measure once the pool design was introduced and caused he huge sheer vertical face which now exists..

The removal of the obtrusive and overpowering illegal structures and the reversion of the design to the originally passed Architects’ plans will, in CBRRA’s opinion, immeasurably enhance the overall street façade.

CBRRA reminds the Sub-Council that , in is objection, it has also asked that proper landscaping to the value of at least R500 000 be executed in suitable positions to mask whatever is finally constructed along the west elevation of the building in whatever form it finally takes.

The Applicant has stated that “...... the dwelling house is not easily viewed”.

This is an incorrect statement. The further distance from which this complex is viewed, the more its unsympathetic and overpowering massing can be seen and, as agreed by the Council, it doe have an overall adverse effect on the surrounding environment (see also0 para 7.16).

The fact that the illegal structures do not support the dwelling is irrelevant, but will be an advantage when the illegal structures are demolished.

Para 5.2

The so-called “support” from adjacent land owners is a somewhat hollow claim seeing that many of their letters of no – objection were identically worded and the Applicant had obviously campaigned for their support.

CBRRA’s stance in matters like this must have the general public in mind and the Council’s and the Provincial Government’s support of its objection totally vindicates its objection.

Para 6.

The report’s response that the proposal does not involve any significant environmental implications seems to be completely contradicted by its paras. 5.3, 7, 8, and 9.

Paras. 7, 8,and 9

CBRRA is in full agreement with all the extremely negative statements made by the City Officials in their report in these paragraphs and hereby confirms it’s unqualified support for the City’s response which it sincerely hopes will be adopted by your Sub-Council.

Para 7.15

CBRRA views the content of this paragraph in respect of a portion of the dwelling house contravening the 5m Proclaimed Main Road Setback, with renewed and increased alarm . It is of the opinion that the statement herein typifies exactly everything that is wrong about this highly flawed design and application. It is yet another cogent reason why this application should be rejected by your Sub-Council. The response from the Provincial Department of Transport and Public Works speaks for itself and should be emulated by your Sub-Council in your adjudication of this application. .

2. Conclusion

For the above reasons, CBRRA hereby calls upon your Sub-Council and the City to completely reject all aspects of this application. In addition, CBRRA trusts that the City and the Provincial Government will oppose any legal challenges which may be made by the Applicant should your Sub-Council reject this flawed application as requested by CBRRA.

John Powell

Vice-Chairperson

For

CBRRA

Cc

MEC Anton Bredell

Provincial Government

Western Cape

what about the whales - letter

Dear Mr Lazarus

Thank you for e-mail and the concern that you have expressed regarding the disturbance of whales. There are general Regulations that nobody may approach whales closer than 300 m except on the authority of a permit.

However, permits have been issued to a regulated number of boats to undertake whale watching and they have their own set of rules. They have to adhere to strict permit conditions that spelled out clearly how to approach whales and how to behave when they do. They are allowed to approach whales at a slow speed up to 50 m where they must stop. From that position it is up to the whale to control the interaction. In some cases the whales out of their own choice approach right up to the boat. This interaction is allowed but under strict rules.

The first question would be thus if Top Billing was making use of an authorised whale watching boat or not.

I hope this response addresses your concern.

Yours sincerely

Herman Oosthuizen

Science manager

Branch: Oceans and Coasts

Department Of Environmental Affairs

>>> "david/hazel lazarus" 26/10/2011 1:51 AM >>>

Dear Mr Oosthuizen,

after trying to track down the correct person and department, I was referred to you by Mogamat Junat, Head of the Coastal Management Unit at Province's Dept of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

Last night the TV programme Top Billing was broadcast. One of their clips featured their guests being taken on a whale-watching trip in Hermanus. It was clear to viewers that the boat came very close to the mating whales: notwithstanding the fact that the TV camera may have been shooting on close-up, the angle of one of the guest's own camera showed her aiming downwards towards the whales.

As a civic-minded citizen and environmentalist, I am concerned that the impression has been created that whale-watching boat trips prohibit watching whales at close range - and, as a Kapenaar, I'm sure that there is a law forbidding that.

Would you please provide me with the relevant regulation determining the distance from the whales beyond which no boat may encroach. I will then contact the owner/producer of the company that produces Top Billing (Michael Moll of Entemol), discuss this with him and request him to correct the false impression in next week's programme.

If the law prohibits such close whale-watching and their sponsoring whale-watching company broke that law (maybe there is provision for exemption and they were given special permission by the authorities to do so), they should be taken to task for being highly irresponsible.

Entemol would similarly be irresponsible for not having obtained the necessary facts before the trip and ensuring that their sponsor didn't break the law. They should also have added into the script the information alerting viewers to the distance restriction, irrespective of whether they abided by that law or broke it, as it is of environmental interest and shows that South Africa cares about its marine life and the conservation thereof.

I look forward to your early reply.

Sincerely

David Lazarus

Vice-Chairperson

SFBRRA (Sea Point Fresnaye Bantry Bay Ratepayers & Residents Association)

Do you remember when...??

YOU REMEMBER WHEN...?

It took five minutes for the TV warm up?

Nearly everyone's Mum was at home when the kids got home from school?

Nobody owned a purebred dog?

When a shilling was a decent allowance?

You'd reach into a muddy gutter for a penny?

Your Mom wore stockings that came in two pieces?

All your male teachers wore ties and female teachers had their hair done every day and wore high heels?

You got your windshield cleaned, oil checked, and petrol pumped, without asking, all for free, every time? And you didn't pay for air?

Cereals had free toys hidden inside the box?

It was considered a great privilege to be taken out to dinner at a real restaurant with your parents? (Never happened to me !)

They threatened to keep kids back a year if they failed. . .and they did?

When a 57 Holden was everyone's dream car? No one ever asked where the car keys were because they were always in the car, in the ignition, and the doors were never locked?

Lying on your back in the grass with your friends and saying things like, "That cloud looks like a .... "

and playing footy with no adults to help kids with the rules of the game?

Stuff from the shop came without safety caps and hermetic seals because no one had yet tried to poison a perfect stranger?

And with all our progress, don't you just wish, just once, you could slip back in time and savour the slower pace, and share it with the children

of today?

When being sent to the principal's office was nothing compared to the fate that awaited the student at home? (Not so – a Principal once nearly cut me in half !)

Basically we were in fear for our lives, but it wasn't because of drive-by shootings, drugs, gangs, etc.

Our parents and grandparents were a much bigger threat! But we survived because their love was greater than the threat.

Send this on to someone who can still remember Enid Blyton, Just William,

Secret Seven, Biggles, the Lone Ranger, Phantom, Superman,

Roy and Dale and Trigger, Gene Autry, ITMA, Take it from here, Much Binding in the Marsh, The Goon Show, Deanna Durban, Shirley Temple..

As well as summers filled with bike rides, cricket games, Hula Hoops, monkey bars, foefie slides, visits to the beach and "conversation" lollies.

Didn't that feel good, just to go back and say, "Yeah, I remember that"?

I am sharing this with you today because it ended with a double dare to pass it on. To remember what a double dare is, read on.

And remember that the perfect age is somewhere between old enough to know better and too young to care. After all, it is never too late to have a second childhood !

How many of these do you remember?

Lolly cigarettes

Pogo sticks, marbles,

Home milk delivery in glass bottles with aluminium tops

Newsreels and singing God Save the King before movies

Sandshoes

Buying vegetables from the Sammy cart

Telephone numbers with letter prefixes....(ABD 601).

33, 45 and 78 RPM records for gramaphones

Hi-Fi's

Metal ice cubes trays with levers

Mimeograph paper

Cork pop guns

Drive ins

Valiants and the ‘48 Chevy

Washtub wringers

Reel-To-Reel wire and tape recorders

Houses made of cards

Meccano Sets and Lionel and Hornby Trains

Raleigh bicycles

That awful pink slab of bubble gum

Penny lollies

3s&6pence a gallon petrol

Lead toy soldiers

Silkworms

Kites

Ching – Chang - Cha

Do you remember a time when...

Decisions were made by going "eeny-meeny-miney-moe"?

"Race issue" meant arguing about who ran the fastest?

It wasn't odd to have two or three "Best Friends"?

Saturday morning cartoons weren't 30-minute commercials for action figures?

Swopping comics at the Saturday morning bioscopes.

Elizabeth Taylor in National Velvet

Spinning around, getting dizzy, and falling down was a cause for giggles?

The worst embarrassment was being picked last for a team?

Playing cards in the spokes transformed any bike into a motorcycle?

Taking drugs meant orange-flavored chewable aspirin?

Water balloons were the ultimate weapon?

If you can remember most or all of these, then you have lived!

Bus stop shelters in Camps Bay

Below follows some communication about concerned residents and CBRRA Manco communication with Council regarding the MyCiti Bus route that is proposed for Camps Bay:

Hi Marius

Thank you for managing this process.

CBRRA appreciates the efforts made by the IRT personnel in addressing Gary Leih's concerns and we can report that he is satisfied with the outcome thus far.

Of course, this process has now generated considerable general public concern and Cllr Amira's comments wrt the public participation process are endorsed by this Association.

However, Cllr Schafer is currently engaging with the relevant officials on certain specific issues and we await her feedback on this matter.

Cheers

Chris

Friday, October 07, 2011 10:58 AM

Many thanks for addressing this matter, Tom.

Kind regards / Vriendelike groete/ Ngombulelo omkhulu

Marius Coetsee

Manager: Good Hope Sub-council (16)

From: Tom Pressinger

Sent: 07 October 2011 10:32 AM

Dear Marius

I have responded to Mr Gary Leih personally and we will be modifying the bus stop plans to ensure that the impact on the landscaped area is minimised. We will no longer be erecting a full shelter and this will be replaced by a platform and pole arrangement. The revised plans will be shown to Mr Leih before any further work commences.

There was public communication about the construction programme for the feeder stops in the news media roughly eight weeks ago and the plans for individual stops have been available for public scrutiny on the MyCiTi website ( i.e. at http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/MyCiti/Pages/Routes.aspx ) and in public libraries. A notice of intent to commence construction work was posted in the letter boxes of nearby residences by the contractor. In future, we will ensure that a notice is distributed to all property owners and residents in the immediate surrounding area at least one month prior to the commencement of construction.

Kind regards

Tom Pressinger

IRT Infrastructure and Development

021 4009141

From: Marius Coetsee

Sent: 30 September 2011 03:46 PM

Hi Tom

The emails below refer.

Your urgent comments on the enquiry from Mr Chris Willemse will be appreciated.

Kind regards / Vriendelike groete/ Ngombulelo omkhulu

Marius Coetsee

Manager: Good Hope Sub-council (16)

From: Gershwin Fortune

Sent: 30 September 2011 03:40 PM

Hi Tom

Pls advise

Gershwin Fortune

Manager: IRT System Planning & Modelling

From: Vivienne Sasman

Sent: 30 September 2011 03:04 PM

To: Gershwin Fortune

Cc: Marius Coetsee; Lucille Muller

Subject: FW: CBRRA Bus stop shelter 1 Atholl Rd

Good day Gershwin, please see correspondence from Mr Willemse and inform us who is the official responsible for the construction of the MyCiTi bus shelter.

Kind regards / Vriendelike groete/ Ngombulelo omkhulu

Vivienne Sasman

Admin Assistant

Good Hope Subcouncil 16

From: Chris Willemse [mailto:cnwillemse@gmail.com]

Sent: 30 September 2011 01:22 PM

To: Marius Coetsee

Cc: Vivienne Sasman; leihsathome@googlemail.com

Subject: CBRRA Bus stop shelter 1 Atholl Rd

Hi Marius

CBRRA has received a complaint from the owner at 1 Atholl Rd (cnr Geneva Drive), Mr Gary Leih, regarding the construction of a MyCiTi bus stop shelter on the verge at the above address.

It appears as if there was no consultation with the residents nor any prior notice given by the Authorities. Further, expensive landscaping paid for by Mr Leih, and agreed to by the City, has been destroyed. Please could you advise both Mr Leih and CBRRA as to how to properly address this matter.

Cheers

Chris

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

11 October 2011

Thanks John,

Could I please ask that whilst this matter is being further debated, that the powers-that- be instruct the workers to cease the trench digging outside my property, pending further evaluation?

many thanks,

Paul

Paul is absolutely correct.

The IRT must be asked to relocate the bus stop further down Camps Bay Drive to free up the stop street which handles the huge daily flow of traffic from Cape Town to Hout Bay.

I also agree that Argyle Road is physically not able to handle the large busses and two traffic lanes - one parked even if on one side only).

Can Chris, Beverley and Marga (the route is also in her constituency) pursue these matters please? I would suggest that Beverley and Marga wait until after our CBRRA Manco meeting before attempting to resolve the route, because, what happens if people do not agree which what they think and agree is a solution ?! Here must be a massive public participation process here. I suggest that after our meeting, Manco and our two Councillors request an interview with the Director of the IRT whoever he may be.

Cheers,

John

Dear John and Beverley,

Thanks for the email replies. My thoughts are as follows:

1. Camps Bay Drive is a busy road - used by those returning from town to both Camps Bay, Llundudno / Hout Bay and beyond. It is no wider than most "internal roads" within Camps Bay.

2. In summer, the road is largely gridlocked in the direction towards thew beach front.

3. We already have countless "City sightseeing buses" that contribute to further congestion along the route. Fortunately, they do not stop on CBD.

4. Placing a bus stop before Houghton Road (as is being processed currently) will only aggravate the traffic situation, not improve it, since many cars coming down Camps Bay Drive actually turn down Houghton to go on to Llundudno and Hout Bay / beyond. Taxis, with all their faults, are not reasonably compared to a large bus as regards traffic congestion.

5. If the route is to be used, the bus stop would be more efficiently placed beyond Houghton Road, perhaps opposite Houghton Steps, so as not to choke off the free flow of traffic wishing to turn left at Houghton from CBD. Common sense, in my opinion....Anyone who appreciates normal traffic flow surely would agree.

6. Furthermore, whilst I respect that you were kind enough to reply to my email and "don't make the rules", I fail to see how adverts in a community newspaper (which I may or may not read) constitute adequate notification of anything. When an individual wishes to apply for a building departure several hundred metres from my house, and often not in my line of sight, I get a registered letter mailed to me for potential objection, not an ad in a community newspaper. Obviously, the residents of Argyle and Tree roads are more avid readers of the Atlantic Sun, than am I.

7. I find it somewhat amusing that trenches are being dug right up to my (newly painted) boundary wall, even before the final routing is established, given the objections raised by residents of Argyle and Tree Roads. I don't have the time to canvas opinion from my neighbours, but would be very surprised if they were delighted by the prospect, if indeed they are even aware of the proposed bus route.

I realise my email is probably futile, but I may well seek legal opinion regarding the process

Dr Paul J Skoll, FRCS, FCS(SA)Plast

Hi Everyone

I am meeting with the Director of the IRT and concur with Argyle Residents that Argyle and Tree Rd are not the most appropriate options for the IRT route. Please wait for feedback from my meeting before any action or email flurry takes place. I would like to attempt to resolve this first with city officials before residents take any further action.

Regards,

Cllr. Beverley Schafer

Ward 54 ( Atlantic Seaboard)

Thanks Chris.

The road is now being carved up as I write this.

It would seem to be somewhat counter productive to proceed before the route has been finalised - twice the work and cost if this needs to be "undone", should the penny finally drop that the siting outside my house, only metres from the Houghton Road turn-off, will choke off the free flow of traffic heading towards Hout Bay, where-as there is a perfectly appropriate potential site for a bus stop opposite the Houghton Steps green belt, beyond the turn-off. Anyone with even the vaguest idea of traffic flow in the area could not argue this fact. Perhaps Ms Schafer or other decision makers could do a site inspection as a matter of urgency, to limit the need for a further waste of money.

Kind regards

Dr Paul J Skoll, FRCS, FCS(SA)Plast

Hi Paul

Cllr Beverley Schafer is currently in talks with the IRT officials.

I'm sure she will respond to your request soonest.

Cheers

Chris Willemse

Dear Paul,

Yes indeed this is a new bus stop on the new rapid transport network which is being opened between town and Camps Bay as well as via Sea Point to Hout Bay..

This is one of the very many new routes which, in the next year or two will transform Cape Town’s public transport system into a first world facility. When this particular route opens, you will be able to take a bus from your doorstep to the airport and back, amongst many other extended destinations and it will greatly relieve traffic congestion on our roads and fuel, carbon emissions etc. with most cars currently only having one person in them.

You would have seen full details of this route as an attachment to the 23 June 2011 Atlantic Sun (I have a copy) and that would have been the time to comment / object as all this was much advertised in all the newspapers. .

At No 92 Camps Bay Drive, I am almost as affected as you are, but I understand the need and will not object to this initiative. We simply cannot have the amount of underutilised cars on our roads as we do at present and, unless an initiative such as this is implemented now, Cape Town will be in traffic gridlock within the decade. The Council is to be congratulated for this and the sooner Capetonians start using it the better.

The Camps Bay loop will start at the Civic Centre as do most routes, comes over Kloof Nek, down Camps Bay Drive, past your and my houses and down to Victoria Road, It then turns up Argyle Road, Lower Tree Road, left up Geneva Drive and back over the Nek via the upper part of Camps Bay Drive again.

This route was obviously chosen to be as central and within walking distance from both sides of all those in Camps Bay who wish to catch it and there will be 20 bus stops such as this going up near you below Kloof Nek along the above route.

As there will be no lay-bye where the bus stop near you next to Houghton Road will be, the bus will simply stop in Camps Bay Drive, as do all taxis and people will have to wait as they do for taxis as the bus is too big to pass, the road is too narrow (6m for two lanes) for passing and there is a blind corner right there. Lower down in Camps Bay Drive may be too close to the next stop.

I have had an equally negative comment from people in Argyle Road who have asked why the route cannot go up Strathmore Road - the answer here being that the other roads in the area are too steep and too sharply curved for the big busses to get there and in any event that road is a dead end !

Should you wish to contact the Council about this matter, please email and copy to CBRRA.

Kind regards,

John Powell

Vice Chairperson

CBRRA

Hi,

Building continues. No response from anyone thus far.

Kind regards

Dr Paul J Skoll, FRCS, FCS(SA)Plast

Hi,

I wonder if I might ask a question:

I live at 80 Camps Bay Drive, and have done so since 2004. I arrived home today, to see some council type work (digging trenches) in front of my house adjacent to my boundary wall (on the pavement).

I enquired as to what this was about, and was told that a bus stop is being "built" in this location. No prior advice or word from council on the matter. In additiom, it seems a stange place to site a bus stop, since it is only a few metres from the Houghton road intersection

My questions:

1. Is this legal?

2. Do I have any means of objecting?

Please advise....

Thanks very much,

Kind regards

Dr Paul J Skoll, FRCS, FCS(SA)Plast

Plastic Surgeon

City’s New Cell Mast Draft Policy

City’s New Cell Mast Draft Policy

Thanks to all who sent in their comments on the 'Draft Telecommunication Infrastructure Policy'. By all accounts, the responses were so numerous that the City has requested that the public stop sending them in. Due to the fact that applications for Cellular Infrastructure are still presently being lodged with the City, we have received the following suggestion from EMRSA (the group that was mandated by a number of associations to represent their interests on this issue).

Dear Cell Mast Objectors,

Thank you for sending in your comments/objections on our City’s New Cell Mast Draft Policy.

Apparently they have received an overwhelming amount in.

In the light of this we are now appealing to our Councillors to put a suspension on the placement of all Cell Masts in our City until this policy is finalized and implemented.

Please help us in this regard by writing to your Councillors about this.

Ward Councillor details can be found here: www.capetown.gov.za/en/CouncilOnline/Pages/ViewCouncillors.aspx

Thanking you!

Best regards

Miriam Agnew

www.emrsa.co.za

A copy of our letter:

Call To Suspend Cell Mast Applications Until Telecommunication Policy Is Finalized and Implemented

Our city recently had the Draft Telecommunication Infrastructure Policy out for comment and received an overwhelming number of objections and comments from the public. In the light of this I am appealing to you our Councilor to assist us in calling for a suspension to be put on all Cell Mast Applications until this policy is finalized and implemented. Communities are now strongly opposing Cell Masts throughout Cape Town - in Durbanville, Constantia, Bishopscourt, Hout Bay, Simonstown, Milnerton, Fish Hoek, Somerset West, Plumstead, Rondebosch East, Khayelitsha, Helderberg and Camps Bay. Connecting, sharing resources and information as people are doing nationally and internationally. The voice of the people of Cape Town must not be ignored when new policy is considered. Please hear our concern and support us.

Princess Vlei Good News

Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance

Princess Vlei - GOOD NEWS!

Philip Bam, Graham Noble, Kelvin Cochrane & myself were present at the Spatial Planning, Environment and Land Use Management Committee meeting yesterday to hear SPELUM unanimously refuse the Developer’s application to develop a shopping centre on Princess Vlei. The matter will now go to Province for the final word. A big thanks to Graham, Philip and Kelvin who all have worked long and hard to get this victory today. We shall therefore now provide the City with our development proposals for Princess Vlei, which includes a Commemoration hall to the Khoisan people and an auditorium – something along the lines of Rondevlei. With the above in mind, we’ll be inviting Mayor Patricia de Lille to No.10, Bottom Road, Grassy Park on the 12th November 13:00 to keep her in the loop and get her support for our development ideas. In addition, we intend to organize a Memorial/Celebration Service on Princess Vlei the following Saturday 19th November 10:00, when the Khoisan in full regalia will rededicate the land of their ancestors and give thanks.

Regards

Len