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
No comments:
Post a Comment