Whose interest does Ward Councillor Jacques Weber really represent?

From: Chris Willemse

Subject: Re: Item 58/10/15 on the Council Agenda for WEDNESDAY

Date: 29 October 2015 at 8:31:07 AM SAST

To: Jacques Weber

Hi Jacques

You continue to be patronising whilst ducking the actual questions asked: Who supported this scheme and on which of the myriad versions thereof? 

Please note that this question will not go away and will remain an albatross around your neck until you answer it satisfactorily.

Of course, the item was "approved" by all the very compliant DA councillors looking after their jobs. The reality, of course, is that it was approved by your boss, the mayor, a long time ago.

If, as you state, the communities' (note plural) feedback and comments were conveyed to the City, and here I presume it was for consideration (you're most obtuse with this statement), then can it be taken that not a single point that we raised was worthy of consideration? The implication is that the vast and deep institutional knowledge of such communities (and individuals highly placed in the development industry) is really not worth anything.

It is quite mind-blowing that you now urge the communities to "make use of the multiple ongoing public participation opportunities which remain as part of this project", when not a single input to date has been considered by the so-called City property specialists. You make a most fatuous comment in this regard and it shows the lack of respect you have for your voters. 

I think that you will find that the voters will remember this next year: The people whose trust you have abused in this matter will not forget your betrayal.

However, there is a good chance that this matter will be decided by the WC High Court prior to elections. If the Court finds fault with this process, which you have so eagerly supported, to the detriment of your electorate, will you resign as a councillor?

Cheers

Chris

From: Jacques Weber  

Subject: Re: Item 58/10/15 on the Council Agenda for WEDNESDAY

Date: 28 October 2015 at 4:13:29 AM SAST

To:  Chris Willemse

Dear Chris

You email is acknowledged.

I must restate that I do not ignore your feedback and comments which have been conveyed, together with those of other residents and organisations, to the City on this development.

The item was approved today by DA led council by 125 votes to 62.

May I conclude by urging you and likeminded organisations to make use of the multiple ongoing public participation opportunities which remain as part of this project.

Regards

Cllr. Jacques Weber

Ward 54 – Atlantic Seaboard

Porfolio Member:  Transport For Cape Town (TCT)

Cell: 076 520 7550

Fax:  086 202 8742 

Email: jacques.weber@capetown.gov.za

From: Chris Willemse

Subject: Re: Item 58/10/15 on the Council Agenda for WEDNESDAY

Date: 27 October 2015 at 10:04:42 PM SAST

To: Jacques Weber

Hi Jacques

I'm afraid your response raises more questions than answers and appears more of a spin exercise than a meaningful response to genuine civic concern on the part of the electorate that voted for you.

Firstly, please name any of the Civic Based Organisations (CBO's) in your ward which have supported this proposal. In fact, please name any organisation that categorically supported the proposal - and which particular machination of the proposal it was in the first instance.

You will find that your dismissive and rather petulant remark that "(you) have to consider the comments and views, formal and informal, of all those in my ward and not just those of one organisation or individual" is neither helpful nor truthful. You (and various City officials) were requested to supply minutes of meetings you purportedly held with "stakeholders", and which apparently formed your positive attitude toward this unacceptable development, but nothing was forthcoming.

Insofar as the city-wide perspective is concerned, the CBRRA and other organisations attended every meeting held to discuss this proposal and observed that there was no support from the community, either by groupings or by individuals. In fact, quite the opposite. Or is the political spin going to be that, because many people didn't actively respond to the "public participation" process, it follows that they support it?

You have avoided actually stating your position on the matter, which leaves your entire response with the so-called "elephant in the room" problem. I can assure you that every CBO in your ward (and across the city) is following this e-mail trail, so it would be of assistance to all if you could simply state your position. If, of course, it is your position that it is in the "city-wide" interests to sell off scarce and precious public land for private development and profit, then you have nailed your colours to the mast, so to speak - and you will be judged accordingly.

Please don't try to fob off active and concerned communities with pacifying comments like  the "first of many steps which also require public participation". It is clear to all how "public participation" processes are dealt with by the City. You conceded as much at the last CBRRA meeting you attended.

Which brings me to the final point. You claim that you remain committed to working with the CBRRA, however you have steadfastly avoided attending it's monthly Manco meetings. The minutes reveal that the last meeting attended by you was 08 June 2015. The CBRRA will be addressing a complaint to Ald Qually regarding your less than acceptable record in this regard. Or, perhaps you only want to work with CBO's on your own terms?

It is your choice how you go forward - but you can't have it both ways. And beware of #DA/deLille/greedydevelopersmustfall…… It might be surprisingly effective, as recent SA history has shown.

The CBRRA awaits your direct response on how you intend to deal with, and vote on, this matter tomorrow.

Cheers

Chris 

cnwillemse@gmail.com

0836536363

From: Jacques Weber [mailto:Jacques.Weber@capetown.gov.za]
Sent: 27 October 2015 06:09 PM
To: Chris Willemse <cnwillemse@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Item 58/10/15 on the Council Agenda for WEDNESDAY

Dear Chris

Please note that I do not access my emails until late afternoon as I am generally on dealing with service delivery issues or in meetings during the day. 

Your concern is hereby acknowledged.

It’s my responsibility to take into account views expressed during the extensive formal public participation process, and I can assure you that your organisation’s comments have been properly considered. At the same time, as councillor I have to consider the comments and views, formal and informal, of all those in my ward and not just those of one organisation or individual. Further to that, I (and the City) must evaluate the city-wide perspective in coming to a decision.

Please be reminded that this decision, if approved by council, is the first of many steps which also require public participation.

I reassure you that I remain committed to working with your organisation in the best interests of all the residents of our beautiful city.

Kind Regards

Cllr Jacques Weber 

WARD 54 - Atlantic Seaboard

Cell:   076 520 7550

jacques.weber@capetown.gov.za

From: Chris Willemse <cnwillemse@gmail.com>
Sent: 27 October 2015 05:38 PM
To: Jacques Weber
Subject: Re: Item 58/10/15 on the Council Agenda for WEDNESDAY

Hi Jacques

It is now 17h35 and there has been no response from you regarding this critical matter.

Please respond by return.

Cheers

Chris 

cnwillemse@gmail.com
0836536363

On 27 Oct 2015, at 9:48 AM, Chris Willemse <cnwillemse@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Jacques

It has been brought to the CBRRA's attention that this item is on the Council agenda for tomorrow.

It is, again, beyond belief that yet another machination of this unacceptable development has been tabled without any reference to the I&AP's - although purportedly based on inputs received. This is simply not how public participation works and speaks to a process that is merely working to a previously decided outcome.

Any right-thinking person will immediately realise that this is so lacking in transparency - and such a pathetic attempt to circumvent due process - that it must be rejected with the contempt that it deserves.

You are the public representative for the area and the CBRRA, as the registered civic based organisation for this precinct, hereby demands that you ensure that this item is withdrawn from the agenda until such time as this new "vision" is properly workshopped through the relevant channels with all I&AP's. Your failure to do so will reflect poorly upon you in the community that elected you in the first place. 

It is safely assumed that other CBO's in your Ward (and beyond) agree with the CBRRA's position in this matter - although time constraints have prevented proper consultation.

In the alternative, please respond by return that you do not feel bound by the reasonable expectations of your electorate but rather by the DA party leadership and it's Development Industry backers.

The CBRRA awaits your urgent response.

Cheers

Chris 

Clifton Development comments

POSTED FROM FACEBOOK Hugh Sorrell

I do not think that my memory is at fault here, but if this development is where I think it is going to be, there are going to be massive health problems.

This is below the Victoria Road and that was until the mid-fifties a major rubbish dump for Cape Town. Whilst I appreciate that there has been a passage of time, there is still likely to be a real risk of methane gas seeping into the properties from the remainder of the rot down process from the remaining rubbish. At that time, there was no distinction between the types of rubbish and separation according to longevity.

Given that there is still a rotting process, probably, going on (I may be wromg-architects comment??), that is also likely to lead to subsidence, unless there are fairly stringent conditions imposed on the foundations, reinforced steel concrete rafts. But then this is probably beyond the ken of the current new leaders. 

However, the advisers in the planning departments should be well aware of this and if they alerted the "representatives" of the people of this fact, one has to wonder what induced these "representatives" (and to what extent) to give permission.

Like what was underneath, what rotten processes have gone on?

Council Agenda to vote on Clifton Developoment

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN 28 OCTOBER 2015

ITEM NUMBER: C 5811 0115

RECOMMENDATION FROM THE EXECUTIVE MAYOR: 20 OCTOBER 2015

MC 75/10/15 CONSIDERATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION AND

PUBLIC INPUT PERTAINING TO IN-PRINCIPLE APPROVAL

FOR THE SALE, AND THE GRANTING OF RIGHTS TO USE,

CONTROL AND MANAGE (LEASE) CERTAIN PORTIONS OF

LAND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL

OPPORTUNITIES, AN UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE,

RETAIL FACILITIES AND USES ANCILLARY TO THESE

FACILITIES ON PORTIONS OF ERF 468, CLIFTON, A

PORTION OF REMAINDER ERF 148 CLIFTON, A PORTION OF

REMAINDER ERF 345 CLIFTON, AND A PORTION OF

REMAINDER ERF 4 CAMPS BAY, BY WAY OF A COMPETITIVE

TENDER PROCESS IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED

CLIFTON PRECINCT UPGRADE PROJECT, AND FURTHER TO

CONSIDER THE INTEGRATION OF ERVEN 188 AND 189,

CAMPS BAY, COMPRISING THE CAMPS BAY SPORTS CLUB

AS PART OF THE BROADER DEVELOPMENT VISION FOR THIS

AREA

The Mayco Member for Community Services & Special Projects, Ald.

8 Walker, proposed that recommendation (f) as set out in the report

on the agenda , be amended to read as follows :

(f) the Director: Property Management be authorized to sign off the

amended urban design vision in accordance with the

recommendations above, and to commence with drafting the

tender documents.

The above proposal was duly supported .

It is RECOMMENDED that:

(a) Council notes the extensive public participation processes

conducted by the administration between 22 January 2015 and

2 April 2015, and also the additional public participation

process between 2 June 2015 and 5 October 2015 regarding

Council 's intention to sell and grant rights to use, control and

manage (lease) the "subject properties" within the Clifton

precinct;

(b) as a result of the public participation process certain

amendments have been introduced in the urban design vision,

providing inter alia for:

• the existing space at the beach recreational node at

Maiden's Cove to be expanded to include portions of the

sports field currently leased from the City by Camps Bay

High School in order to create the opportunity for a

multi-use beach recreational node thereby maximising

the public value of the site;

• A related public participation process be initiated

that focuses on upgrading and redeveioping the

existing sports fields in Camps Bay for shared future use

by the Camps Bay High School and the current users,

and;

• The establishment of a residential component on the

current parking area to the entrance of Maiden's Cove.

(c) as a further response to the public request for inclusionary

housing and improved community integration, a special fund will

be established by the City whereby a portion of the sale/lease

proceeds paid by developers will be pooled in order to fund near

inner-city inclusionary housing projects.

(d) the developer of the subject properties will be required to

contribute to certain upgrades within the area including the

current pedestrian access routes (in conjunction with the

City's Legal Services Department

(e) Council reaffirms the in-principle approval granted on 29 May

2015, to proceed with the sale and the granting of rights to use,

control and manage (lease) the "subject properties" by way of a

competitive tender process

(f) the Director: Property Management be authorised to sign off the

amended urban design vision in accordance with the

recommendations above , and to commence with drafting the

tender documents.

CITY OF CAPE TOWN

ISIXEKO SASEKAPA

STAD KAAPSTAD

Clifton proposed development

From: Neil Eybers 

<Neil.Eybers@capetown.gov.za>>

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:14:51 +0000

To: Len Swimmer 

Cc: Chris Willemse <cnwillemse@gmail.com<mailto:cnwillemse@gmail.com>>,

'Chris Hudson' , Sandy Geffen , Helet Merkling , 'Marguerite Bond-Smith' , Graham Noble , 'George Sieraha' 

Subject: RE: Clifton development and the Caves area

Good Morning Mr Swimmer

After your request for these comments to be made available, I informed

the various departments who had commented and some departments expressed

concern that their comments were being made available to the public at

this stage.

My colleagues¹ concerns stem from the fact that this is not a legislated

rezoning, or EIA process (with the requisite public participation

processes) and their comments were not intended for public consumption.

Please note that the comments received to date are based on a draft urban

design vision prepared by the City.  The urban design vision has been

amended subsequent to receiving the comments.

This vision will be used as the basis for a public tender seeking to

appoint a property developer who will be tasked with applying for the

development rights (which would require applications such as rezoning,

EIA, HIA, etc.).  During these processes, public and departmental

comments will again be required based on the legislated processes

involved.  These proposed development rights will in turn be based on the

urban design vision which have in your possession.

Kind regards

Neil D. Eybers

Project Manager: Development and Facilitation

Property Management Department

Finance Directorate

13th Floor, Civic Centre, Hertzog Boulevard

CAPE TOWN, 8000

Tel :  021 - 400 3605

Fax:  0866 244 702

Clifton proposed development

From: Len Swimmer [swimmer@telkomsa.net]

Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 4:47 PM

To: Neil Eybers

Cc: 'Chris Willemse'; 'Chris Hudson'; 'Sandy Geffen'; 'Helet Merkel';

'Marguerite Bond-Smith'; 'Graham Noble'; 'George Sieraha'; 'Helet

Merkling'

Subject: RE: Clifton development and the Caves area

Importance: High

Dear Mr. Eybers,

Please inform us whether circumstances now permit of a reply and that you

will forward to us the comments of the City Officials to this Development

as well as the Minutes of the various meetings held, as requested in

previous correspondence. If you are unable to do this, can we infer that

you have been prevented from doing so by some superior in the City, and

so transparency in this development is being stifled?

We look forward to your replies and still hopefully the requested

comments and Minutes as promised.

Kind Regards,

Len Swimmer

Deputy Chairman

Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance

021 790 0268

082 452 1799

CBRRA Comments to Neil Eybers CCT on Maidens Cove Development

05 October 2015

Mr Neil Eybers

City of Cape Town

Cape Town

Dear Mr Eybers

PROPOSED MAIDENS COVE VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT

As previously stated, the CBRRA continues to have serious concerns with regard to the manner in which this proposal is being driven, the lack of essential information which the City appears to be unwilling to furnish, the expanding scale and shifting parameters of the development since the initial public participation proposal earlier this year and the desirability, in the first instance, of developing an area that has been proclaimed as a scenic reserve and which forms an extension to the Table Mountain National Park (TMNP).

Again, even if this is part of the Mayor’s strategic development initiative, it is not in the public interest that political motivation for “better utilization” of City-owned land, with its narrow financial benefits for political agendas, be placed before reasoned town planning, environmental and public amenity considerations.

PROCESS AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

From the inception of this proposal - or at least when the public became aware of it - there appears to be an undue haste for this radical change to an area that is both sensitive in nature and precious to the environmental heritage of the area and the Table Mountain National Park in particular and the city of Cape Town as a whole.

The fact that no formal assessments as to the feasibility, viability, sustainability or desirability have been conducted indicates a proposal that is lacking in practicality but enjoying undue political backing. This is unacceptable as the political support speaks only to short-term financial benefit without the required technical, professional or public oversight that is so necessary to prevent the destruction of a rare and precious public amenity on the altar of political expediency.

With the wisdom of hindsight of the past few months, it has become patently clear that the City has not, in any way, taken public opinion, suggestions and proposals into account. There have been no responses to the various letters and submissions from the important stakeholders of Cape Town and the various revisions of the proposal have simply shown that the City is driven solely by its own vision, which, the various public meetings have shown, are certainly not shared by the public at large. Every single public meeting has indicated that the overwhelming majority of the citizens and ratepayers of Cape Town are not in favour of this proposal, even in its many forms and guises.

The City must accept that it is the custodian of a scarce and precious piece of land that is a proclaimed national monument and scenic reserve, an important sporting and recreation area, a sensitive botanical enclave and an a vital link between the mountain and coast. It is not merely a piece of land that is ripe for development and exploitation to satisfy the City’s financial budget.

It is unacceptable that the City pursues a course that will result in the expropriation of public land when the residents and ratepayers of the city are so vehemently opposed to such executive action.

The City is reminded of the ruling in the recent matter of the Camps Bay Bowling Club vs The City of Cape Town and 2 others (Case No: 7981/2015), where the Court was highly critical of the City’s attitude toward its constitutional duties regarding the disposal of public open spaces.

THE PRESERVATION OF MAIDENS COVE

It is common cause that the Maidens Cove area is considered as an historic heritage site by so many of the people of Cape Town, especially the previously disadvantaged.

This proposal clearly indicates that members of the public using this facility will now have to utilize the paid parking facilities and carry their picnic and beach necessities a considerable distance to Maidens Cove, which is both onerous and discriminatory.

Further, the City has been at pains to claim that the public access to Maidens Cove will remain. This purported undertaking is highly questionable, as not only will vehicular access to the area be curtailed - with a private cost-based option as the only alternative – the mere fact that this proposal envisions 34 bungalows, probably costing about R45m each, constructed along the perimeter of the public picnic and recreation area, does not bode well for the continued existence of this historic public amenity. Simply put, it is extremely unlikely that owners of such exclusive real estate will tolerate free public picnic facilities on their doorsteps for too long. That is just a fact of life, sadly.

In any event, the requirement of integrated urban inclusivity is unsustainable in this proposal.

LACK OF SHARED INFORMATION BY THE CITY

This has certainly been amongst the most worrying aspects of the entire process.

Repeated requests for information have been routinely ignored or summarily dismissed by the City. At the public meeting held at the Civic Centre on 19 September 2015, the City’s Mr David Marais twice refused to answer the very simple question of how this proposal came into existence in the first instance.

A request to have the reports of the various City line departments has also fallen on deaf ears. In any event, the alleged manipulation of these reports, to suit the Mayor’s requirements, needs independent investigation by, inter alia, the Public Protector.

The CBRRA has, as with other stakeholders, requested information that should have been freely shared by the City with the public. These lists are well documented and, in the main, unanswered.

IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

The CBRRA considers it reckless of the City to embark upon the sale of this land without having done the various statutory assessments (traffic, environmental, heritage etc) that would be required to complete the rezoning and other land use requirements necessary for the realization of the City’s proposal.

The City’s stock response to this problem has been that it will be the potential buyer’s responsibility to attend to these matters – and that if such assessments show that the proposal is unsuitable, then the sale will be void.

It is almost incredible that the City would expose its residents and ratepayers to such a controversial and emotional process that may simply come to naught and shows the sense of disregard that the Mayor has for the citizens of Cape Town.

Indeed, if the City are genuinely following an inclusive public participation process, then such assessments should be considered vital to the public being in a position to make meaningful inputs. The City’s modus operandi reveals that it is intent on only meeting the barest minimum requirement of a selective “box ticking” exercise, if that.

VALUE OF LAND

The problematic selling off of public land without development rights has been dealt with previously and remains a major stumbling block in the minds of the citizens of Cape Town.

Suffice to say; the City’s unwillingness to incur the relatively small expense of these assessments, which will increase the value of the land by many hundreds of millions of rand if successful, is both irrational and legally challengeable.

PROCUREMENT POLICY

Stauch Vorster Architects (SVA), as the design professionals, appear to have prepared their initial proposal prior to the City having decided to embark upon this purported public participation process. This is troubling from an administrative point and needs to be clarified.

BOTANICAL IMPACT

The City has made much of the biodiversity study that identified the Strandveld areas and the manner in which this small area would be protected. Whilst this may be laudable, it has ignored the Southern Coastal Forest that exists on most of the proposed site. This is unacceptable and will render any executive decision in this regard as legally suspect.

ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL

The purported public participation process has produced many alternative proposals for the land, from leaving the land as is, to upgrading to a marine coastal park that preserves the unique Cape floral kingdom and onto a limited bungalow area extension. It is imperative that such a public participation process includes for various options and the “do nothing” alternative. It is again patently clear that the City has failed to even basically consider a proper approach to this matter and, as such, renders the whole process as falling to fail legally.

As previously stated, the CBRRA proposes that an environmentally friendly alternative be put forward. This option could well contain financial benefit for the City and its ratepayers – along the lines of the Green Point Biodiversity Park.

It is suggested that an interdisciplinary team of consultants be commissioned to prepare a proposal that considers the land in an environmentally sensitive manner with an emphasis of access to this land and the adjoining coastal waters by all citizens of, and visitors to, Cape Town.

Such a team should comprise an architectural and urban design component, assisted by a heritage practitioner and an environmental/landscape designer.

Any such proposal should have had, as its departure point, the basic question as to what do the citizens of Cape Town require or need. For the City to attempt to railroad a scheme through the system that is both financially and socially exclusive – and non beneficial to its citizens - is clearly contemptible.

It is essential that the City indicate to the residents and ratepayers of Cape Town that it is not simply attempting to maximize profits at public expense by selling off limited and finite assets to cover unsustainable operating costs and promote insensitive and ill-advised development. It is even more important that the City rids itself of the perception that it shows undue favour to the enrichment of wealthy developers at the cost of precious amenities that, once gone, can never be replaced.

If the City, as custodian of a very sensitive and protected parcel of public space cannot be trusted to ensure its survival, then who can?

Kind regards

CHRIS WILLEMSE

CHAIRPERSON

Calling on support for Camps Bay Continental shop and Hussar Grill due to roadworks

Due to the ongoing roadworks in Camps Bay Drive, two of our community's most favoured shops and restaurants are feeling the 'trapped' location more harshly than what could be imagined. The Hussar Grill and Camps Bay Continental - Inspired Convenience, are both suffering a severe loss of customers since the several months of roadworks have blocked access to them.

We as the community call on everyone to support these patrons as they are very highly rated amongst everyone who regularly shops and dines there.

The local Camps Bay Continental Food Market  an inspired local convenience store, on the corner of Camps Bay Drive and Totnes Road has embarked on bringing upmarket convenience shopping, a bakery and deli to our doorstep over the last 5 years. Now we as a community need to assist them to survive the roadworks!

Tel 021 4385538  -  Open all day, every day from 09h00 - 21h00!

They are on Twitter - make sure to follow their feed:
https://twitter.com/cb_continental

Don’t forget to hashtag this favourite CBC with related posts and photos on Instagram, Facebook and Twitter! #CampsBaysMostLovedShop

Also make sure to like their Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/campsbaycontinental?ref=hl

Voted the Best Restaurant in Camps Bay according to TripAdvisor 2014, The Hussar Grill Camps Bay is situated on the corner of Camps Bay Drive and Totnes Road. Slightly bigger than most other Hussar Grills, it offers a distinct dining experience in a setting that is reminiscent of old-school dining complete with dark wood finishings, banquet-style seating and wooden wine crates. In winter a fireplace adds to the relaxed, cozy ambience.

Tel 021 4380151 -  hussargrillcb@telkomsa.net
Trading Hours
Monday - Thursday: 18h00 - 22h30
Friday & Saturday: 18h00 - 23h00
Sunday: 12h00 - 22h30

They are on Instagram, make sure to follow their feed:
https://instagram.com/thehussargrill/

Also make sure to like their Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/The-Hussar-Grill-Camps-Bay-381583468614738/

A convenient map has been created by Hussar Grill to find them easily on the alternate route:

Speeding and reckless driving Ravensteyn Road

From: Ian Bowker [mailto:Ian.Bowker@capetown.gov.za]
Sent: 12 October 2015 09:08
Subject: RE: Camps Bay drive update 8 October 2015

Good morning all

I received, in very quick succession, two complaints about speeding and reckless driving after my last update. These come from people in Ravensteyn Road and Hove road where we have provided detours to provide better access. It is again the difficult situation of not being able to please everyone all of the time.

The majority of people using these detours are Camps Bay residents as there is no reason for people passing through to use these roads. As with my request for people to adhere to the reduced speed limit signs inside the construction areas, I request that people also respect that the detours are through residential areas and that speeds should not be exceeding 40km/h in these areas.

Please can you put an urgent plea out to all residents just to take it easy and drive carefully. The roads are narrow and winding. The difference between 60km/h and 30km/h through a 1km or less detour is only a matter of 30 seconds, which will be lost when you hit the stop/go or the next traffic light. It is really not worth endangering people and property to get there 30 seconds earlier.

The contractor is not responsible for driver behaviour. They have a duty to put up signs and make it safe, but if people ignore the signs, there is nothing they can do. The contractor is not law enforcement. What will happen though, is if there is an incident inside the construction area, is that the contractor may legally be forced to stop work while there is a Labour Department investigation. The detours may be closed and the completion may be delayed.

Please, help me get the message out there to drive a bit slower.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Ian Bowker

Head: Pavement Materials and Rehabilitation

17^th Floor, Civic Centre

12 Hertzog Blvd, Cape town

Tel: 021 400 2985

Fax to email: 0862012585

Email: ian.bowker@capetown.gov.za

Ravensteyn and Fiskaal section opened 22 September

From: Ian Bowker
Sent: 08 October 2015 03:55 PM
Subject: Camps Bay drive update 8 October 2015

Good afternoon

As promised, herewith an update on progress.

The section between Ravensteyn and Fiskaal was opened to public two-way traffic on the evening of 22 September, a day earlier than we had hoped for. I think this has helped a lot. It was a great effort by the contractor to get this done when they did and I have thanked them for doing this.

The final asphalt surfacing on the bulk (Geneva to Rontree) has started. They hope to have all the asphalt completed on this section by the end of October 2015. In addition to this I have asked the contractor (at Byron’s request) to try to prioritise the section between Geneva and Fiskaal in order to remove the stop/go and take away the need to detour via Prima and Ravensteyn to get to Fiskaal. They said it was something they could try to do. I will try to give an update next week again as to how this is progressing.

Most of the issues causing the delays in the section between Rontree and Houghton have now been sorted out and we are aiming to have the entire road open by the end of November 2015. Unfortunately, the Rontree to Houghton section will be the last to be completed. The current traffic accommodation status quo will remain until completion (i.e. stop/go between Rontree and Hove, one way towards Houghton from Hove and detour via Hove from Houghton to get to Rontree)

Regardless of which sections may be opened earlier for residents, the detour signs at Geneva will remain in place until the entire road is opened again.

We have a few concerns regarding safety on site, especially when opening road sections slightly early (before all work is completed) to accommodate resident access. It has been noted that there is a lot of speeding on the section between Ravensteyn and Fiskaal. This was noted as a concern by the contractor when I asked if they could open other sections earlier too. It was also reported as a problem by the external safety auditor. We still have to do a fair amount of cleaning of the site and all the street light cables and street lights still need to be installed along the full length. This means that there will still be work taking place along the sections of road that we are trying to open early.

Please, for everybody’s safety, respect that workers on the side of the road are in danger and adhere to the 40 km/h speed limits through the construction sites. We really want to avoid a tragedy on this site. Please, again, adhere to, or go slower than the 40km/h construction speed limit signs.     

Thanks again for your continued understanding throughout this project.

Kind regards,

Ian Bowker

Head: Pavement Materials and Rehabilitation

17^th Floor, Civic Centre

12 Hertzog Blvd, Cape town

Tel: 021 400 2985

Fax to email: 0862012585

Email: ian.bowker@capetown.gov.za

Speeding in Ravensteyn Road & Horak Avenue

From: "Welz, Eric" 

Subject: RE: Roadworks update - speeding in Ravensteyn Road & Horak Avenue

Date: 09 October 2015 at 10:22:04 AM SAST

To: Ian Bowker

Cc: Paul Oliver , Erin Whare

Dear Mr Bowker

Ian forwarded me your email regarding the roadworks update. Thanks for this information and I’m glad that great progress had made been made with resurfacing Geneva drive.

I stay at 23 Ravensteyn Road and I share your concern about speeding in this area (and the building site in general), there are some vehicles that drive at speeds in excess of 80 km/h and many of the MyCiti buses also are driving in excess of 40km/h (particularly at the Prima bus stop because the road is straight and downhill). The situation has deteriorated since access has been provided to Fiskaal Avenue via Ravensteyn Road/Horak Avenue.

Would it be possible for Traffic Officers to visit the area on a random basis between 4pm-6pm to enforce the speeding limits please before a worker or pedestrian gets killed or seriously injured.

I’ve cc’d Paul Oliver and Erin Whare so that this matter can be investigate further by them as well.

Many thanks

Eric Welz