Have your say: Draft market policy

Draft Market policy

Download the document ‹‹here››

1.       Problem Statement1.1     According to the Informal Economy study conducted in 2015, the informal sector contributes approximately R4.3 billion to the economy of Cape Town annually. Markets can make a significant contribution to the City of Cape Town’s informal economy.
1.2     The potential economic impact of markets is, however, compromised by the fact that markets are financially unviable, offer a narrow range of products and attract a limited customer base. Markets are in this state due to the following:(a)      There not currently being a clear distinction between “markets” and “events”, and the responsibilities of various directorates and departments in the City to manage and regulate such markets and/or events.
(b)      The lack of a coherent or strategic management model for markets.
(c)       Many markets operate in culturally homogeneous, lower income areas which limits the social and economic potential of the market experience. Consequently markets are often financially unviable, offer a narrow range of products, attract a limited customer base, lack a defined public purpose and are not realizing their potential to contribute to a sense of place.
(d)      Safety issues in certain markets.
(e)       The lack of vibrancy even though some markets enjoy locational advantages with the locational features and high income neighbourhoods they trade in.

2.     Purpose2.1       To provide a consistent set of guidelines to City departments for the management of markets on all City-owned and managed properties.
2.2       To provide market operators with a clear framework of the City’s process flow to obtain approval for markets or designation as a market operator, and the requirements, conditions, and guidelines for the operation of markets on City-owned land within the City of Cape Town.
2.3       To ensure that a consistent process exist for assessing market applications, and allocating permits/leases where applicable.

3.     Desired Outcomes3.1       To create a conducive and supportive environment for all the stakeholders involved in markets.
3.2       To enhance the economic, social and cultural value of markets within the City.
3.3       To establish a network of vibrant and dynamic markets that adds to Cape Town as a desirable location for business and place making.
3.4       To establish a clear and transparent set of processes for market management that does not add to the cost of doing business in Cape Town.
3.5       To recognize the importance of urban agriculture in promoting healthy lifestyles and encouraging local food production, distribution and consumption (refer to the City’s Urban Agriculture Policy and Food Systems Study).
3.6       To establish clear roles and responsibilities in terms of managing different types of markets.
3.7       To establish an unambiguous policy environment for markets.

4.     Strategic IntentThe Constitution (1996)4.1       Local governments have a constitutional directive to promote social and economic development. The Constitution also adds that when government conducts itself as an agent of socio-economic development, it should align its administrative and management methods to support such causes (Constitution of South Africa, 1996:89-90). The setting of regulations for informal trading is one of the responsibilities assigned to local governments by the Supreme law of the land.
Integrated Development Plan4.2       The Markets Policy supports the strategic focus areas of the City’s Integrated Development Plan to support the implementation of priority City policy frameworks such the Events Policy, Integrated Metropolitan Environmental Policy and others with regards to markets in the following ways:
Economic Growth Strategy
4.3       The policy draws its strategic thrust from the City’s Economic Growth Strategy, particularly with regards to the focus on: 

5.     Regulatory context
5.1       The following existing policies and by-laws are contextually relevant and have implications for the implementation of this policy: 

6.     Policy parameters
6.1       This policy is applicable to:
6.2       This policy is not applicable to: 

7.     Policy Directives
General principles
7.1       The City supports the operation of sustainable markets within the City that reflect the lifestyle and cultural diversity of the area, enhance tourism and the social and economic well-being of City of Cape Town residents and visitors.
7.2       Permits are not required for markets on private land. However, events based markets on privately owned land that impact on City services requires approval through the Special Events Committee (SPEVCO) process – as determined by the City of Cape Town Events By-Law and Events Policy.
7.3       To ensure a focused and coordinated approach to the management of market spaces, the City will endeavor to appoint a market operator to manage each market operating on City-owned and City managed property.
7.4       In the appointment of market operators, appropriate consideration will be given to:
7.5       The City will focus its initiatives in support of markets on its roles as:
7.6       Where markets are located on City-owned and managed property, the City may, from time to time and through a public tender process, advertise for expression of interest from interested parties to manage the market(s) in question.
7.7       Market operators must enter into an agreement with the City, outlining the rights and responsibilities of the market operator, and the support to be provided by the City.
7.8       The City encourages proactive identification of City-owned land and buildings for markets and will establish a mechanism through which such opportunities could be brought to its attention, and could potentially be included in future requests for interest from market operators.
7.9       When an individual or organization proposes a space for a new market, the party does not automatically assume the role of a market operator. The appointment of the market operator must still go through the relevant tender process.
7.10    Market operators on new sites will have to enter into an agreement with the City, outlining the rights and responsibilities of the market operator, and the support to be provided by the City.
7.11    Before the City initiates the process of identifying and appointing a market operator for a new market space, the City must:
Roles and responsibilities of market operators
7.12    Market operators may respond to requests for interest from the City for the operation of markets on City-owned property.
7.13    Market operators will assume responsibility for:
7.14    Within 12 months of commencing operations at a particular market, market operators must provide the City with annual financial reports detailing the number and type of stalls, fees collected, site maintenance performed and any donations made or benefits accrued to non-profit organizations within the local community.
Roles and responsibilities of the City
7.15    The City will provide a dedicated intermediary between market operators and the City to be the liaison between the two parties while simultaneously fulfilling the role of monitoring and evaluating the market.  
7.16    The City will inform existing traders operating in markets on City-owned or managed property about the changes in the City’s approach to markets, and provide a three months’ notice period to align with the procedure standards of this policy.
7.17    Where markets operate on City property, the City may invest in appropriate supporting infrastructure subject to available Capital budget, Council approval and case by case necessity. The City may also partner with the private sector in providing such infrastructure. 
7.18    The City will develop criteria to assess the performance of markets within three months of the finalization of the policy. These criteria will be included in the agreements with market operators and will be used to review the performance of markets, at appropriate times, to ensure their sustainability and viability.
7.19    All markets will be subject to regular inspections at least once per quarter by authorized City Officials to ensure compliance with the provisions of this policy, the Occupational Health and Safety Act and other relevant legal and policy frameworks.
7.20    The City will manage all public participation processes in relation to markets on City-owned and managed property and will be responsive to inputs and requests from the community.
7.21    To support the contribution of markets to the informal economy, the City will:
Process for the appointment of market operators
7.22    The City will put out an expression of interest advertising for a market operator.
7.23    Interested parties will be expected to complete an application form to apply for the market operator position accompanied by a proposition of how the interested party envisions to make the market successful.
7.24    If the application is successful, the applicant may be required to enter into an agreement with City, which will include an annual permitting fee. 
7.25    Persons wishing to propose a regular market on City-owned or managed property City should complete a market proposition form identifying the property suggested for the market, and outlining why it is proposed for a market.
7.26    The department responsible for Economic Development will assess the proposal against predetermined criteria in the first round of consideration.
7.27    Should the proposal meet the criteria in the first round of considerations, it will be then be tabled to a committee who will determine whether further investigation into the feasibility of the market should commence.
7.28    Following the recommendations from the committee either a suggestion will be rejected or a feasibility study will be conducted to determine the sustainability of the proposed market.
7.29    Should the proposed market be found sustainable and/or viable the City will conduct appropriate public participation to determine the desirability of a market in the proposed space.
7.30    If the City is satisfied that the market is/ could be supported by the affected community, it will put out an expression of interest advertising for a market operator.
7.31    Interested parties will be expected to complete an application form to apply for the market operator position.
7.32    If the application is successful, the applicant may be required to enter into an agreement with City, which will include an annual permitting fee.
Rules pertaining to markets
7.33    The permissions/ plans required by different market typologies are summarised in Annexure A.
7.34    All vendors, including food vendors must comply with all applicable City policies, Labour Laws and all other applicable laws.
7.35    The sale of alcohol and/or drugs within the grounds of the market is prohibited.
7.36    In addition to the rules in 7.34 and 7.35 above, the following rules will apply to Farmers’ and Food Markets: 

8.     Implementation programme
8.1       This policy will be implemented transversally by all departments across the municipality and in partnership with other spheres of government.
8.2       Details on the responsibility for various policy directives and the timeframes for implementation will be summarized in the implementation plan.  

9.     Monitoring, evaluation and review
9.1       Appropriate performance criteria in relation to this policy will be developed in consultation with the Executive and reported on as part of the business planning and SDBIP framework.
9.2       The policy will be reviewed within two years of its approval by Council.

(a) Opportunity City: Creating an enabling environment for economic growth and job creation, and to provide help to those who need it most.

(b) Well Run City: Traders rely on the consistent provision of services to support their operations, easy accessibility to markets, and clear trading processes and regulations.

(c)  Caring City: To ensure that markets are not underperforming and sustainable in the long-term to contribute to the informal economy of Cape Town

(a) coordinating local development programmes to enhance the informal economy;

(b) implementing a sector growth strategy focused on developing markets that moves beyond trading to include other forms of informal entrepreneurship;

(c)  sectoral development and trade promotion for markets in the Cape Town metro; and

(d) the promotion of Cape Town as a destination for tourist.

(a) City of Cape Town Informal Trading Policy;

(b) Events Policy ;

(c)  Events By-Law;

(d) Urban Agriculture Policy; and

(e)  The Integrated Metropolitan Environmental Policy.

(a) Formal and informal traders that trade at public markets on City-owned properties within the City of Cape Town municipal area.

(b) All applications for markets within the City of Cape Town City area that require a lease or permit for use of land and buildings as prescribed in the Municipal Asset Transfer Regulations.

(a) Festivals and ‘one-off’ community based events and fundraisers which are held less than three times a year (this includes: annual markets, night markets and fetes). 

(b) Trading activity in a designated public place by a group of formal or informal traders for less than 12 months. 

(a) Leveraging relationships with the City’s existing area-based strategic partners in the relevant area (for example: the entities established in Special Ratings Areas);

(b) Commitments from market operators to manage markets in an environmentally sustainable manner (for example: by promoting environmentally friendly packaging and bagging, responsible waste management and recycling);

(c)  Commitments from market operators to encourage the sale of locally designed and manufactured goods;

(d) Commitments from market operators to encourage and promote participation by local producers who wish to sell local farm produce and food products; and

(e)  Commitments from market operators to support the entrepreneurial development of the stallholders in the markets for which they are responsible.

(f)    Enabling Regulator: Creating an enabling regulatory environment (including appropriate policies and by-laws) for informal trading and markets, and establishing efficient procedures.

(g)  Facilitator: Connecting traders to relevant resources that complement their preferences.

(h)  Promoter: Actively promoting markets as platforms for economic activity and entrepreneurship.

(i)    Implementer: Facilitating markets by implementing the Markets Policy and accompanying procedures.

Existing markets

New markets

(a)  conduct feasibility assessments to determine the viability, durability and sustainability of a market in the identified space; and

(b) engage with surrounding community on the desirability of operating a market in the identified space. 

(a) The recruitment of stallholders in an open, transparent and fair process;

(b) Managing the applications for relevant trading permits for all stallholders;

(c)  Entering into formal agreements with all stallholders outlining the rights and responsibilities of both the market operator and the stallholder;

(d) Ensuring the adequate financial management of the market;  

(e)  Obtaining public liability insurance;

(f)    Maintaining safety and security at the site and developing a safety plan where applicable;

(g)  Cleaning and maintenance of the site and related facilities (such as ablution facilities) and developing a waste management plan where applicable; and

(h)  Ensuring minimum disruption of traffic and development traffic management plans where applicable.

(a) Conclude the appointment of market operators in a speedy and efficient manner;

(b) Fast-track trading permit applications from market operators;

(c)  Establish discounted rates for trading permits in markets on City-owned or managed land;

(d) Ensure that stallholders are informed about the City’s programmes in support of small businesses; and

(e)  Provide market operators with economic research and intelligence.

Existing markets

New markets

Required permissions/ plans

General rules

Rules for Farmers’ and Food Markets

(a) The sale of live animals or birds is prohibited;

(b) All stall holders must label their produce or include signage at their stall to indicate the location of the farm/area where the produce was grown or sourced.

CCT Renaming Committee: Naming of the ARTHUR SHEPHARD Little Glen Nature Reserve

CBRRA has reached 152 votes in favour of this adjustment to the name.

A request has been made by the community of Camps Bay and the friends and family of the late Arthur Shephard, to rename the Little Glen Nature Reserve in Camps Bay to the Arthur Shephard Little Glen Nature Reserve. Arthur Shephard in his personal capacity and mostly at his own expense, both financial and time wise, coordinated the transformation of the Little Glen Nature Reserve from a run down unsafe public space to an area that is well landscaped, secure and a community attraction, particularly for children. He achieved this with the cooperation of the community, volunteers and, particularly, City Parks, City of Cape Town. The CBRRA would like to propose the re-naming ceremony to take place through the planting of a tree and installation of a bench with a plaque in Arthur Shephard’s honour.According to the Chairperson of the City's Naming Committee, Councillor Brett Herron, in terms of Council's Naming Policy, names are considered if they are seen to enrich cultural diversity, commemorate historical events or celebrate Cape Town's rich and diverse biosphere. We believe that through his dedication over years to transform the Little Glen Nature Reserve, Arthur Shephard has caused more than just a celebration of Cape Town’s rich and diverse biosphere.At two public gatherings, the community of Camps Bay and the various civic groupings (Camps Bay Watch, Camps Bay Business Forum, Camps Bay Community Security Initiative and the Camps Bay Police Forum) firmly endorsed this proposal. We request permission from the City of Cape Town to officially change the name. We also seek the support from the City of Cape Town to donate a tree in his honour, which we would respectfully consult his widow, Paulene for preference. The CBRRA and community of Camps Bay look forward to a positive reply.
Cast your votes ‹‹here››


___________________________________________________________________

From: Sandra Hustwick

Subject: RE: Renaming the Little Glen to the Arthur Shephard Little Glen Community Park

Date: 04 February 2016 

To: CBRRA, Justin Smit

Cc: Pauline McConney, David Curran, Julia Wood, Ronelle Clarke, Chris Willemse, Keith Angelo Hartnick, Dalton Gibbs

Dear Sir / Madam

I will happily support the renaming of the Little Glen Arthur Shephard nature reserve, if this is what the majority of local residents want, but rather not to ‘community park’.   Perhaps ‘community nature park’ or ‘community nature reserve’.  He has certainly helped to beautify the area.

Some additional thoughts on this matter ….

I think it’s important that the nature reserve / biodiversity aspect of the park not be substituted for a ‘community park’ in the usual sense of the word.    There are instances where ‘landscaping’ for a ‘community park’ can destroyed the local biodiversity and hence, the ecological richness afforded to the community (and of course the fauna) which previously added to the amenity.  Not to say that this is such a case.

We must teach our children awareness of nature and ecology and it’s important that all the principles for this be adhered to in any landscape planning / management of the area, and that kids understand sustainable landscaping.

In terms of the City’s biodiversity network, the Little Glen, should function as a ‘critical ecosystem support area’ and ‘other ecosystem support area.’  This is one of Camps Bay’s mountain to sea river corridors and must first and foremost function as a biodiversity area that children and residents can also enjoy, as an extension of the mountain habitat through the suburb, providing opportunities for kids to see porcupines, birds, rainfrogs, etc.


Some basic management principles could include (amongst others):

• Reinstate natural gradients on the edge of the river and its floodplain (rather than steep walled sides) for habitat creation and improved flood management;
• Water quality management
• Use only locally indigenous species in new landscaping interventions – ideally propagate them from local seeds and cuttings.
• Don’t over manicure the area. Keep it wild and natural as far as possible.
• Keep certain areas free from trampling (for the Cape Rain frog habitat), i.e. don’t create too many paths or trim trees up with bare trunks;
• Allow tree canopies to extend to the ground (for roosting / nesting bird safety / chicks) and to keep the tree root zone moist in summer;
• Allow leaf litter on the ground;  
• Preferably don’t use irrigation (long term) in order to retain the original geohydrological regime for the locally indigenous species;
• Allow shrubs and bushes to grow in their natural shapes for faunal habitat.

Certain landscaping actions can run contrary to the needs of biodiversity and river management if not informed carefully by sound riparian ecological practices.  For example, if kikuyu lawn is not carefully contained to a small area,  it can invade the surrounding indigenous vegetation over time, eventually resulting in loss of habitat and species.  Walled river edges / building into flood river plains can increase flow velocity, exacerbating streambed scouring, and exacerbating downstream and upstream flooding (as occurred in this river).

Equally, public access for pedestrians should not be in the hands of local gatekeepers holding the keys to ‘gated’ public space, who sometimes deny access to the public.  Public access must always be freely available for pedestrians from the adjoining roads.  This has been an issue in the Little Glen.

There should ideally be a Little Glen Management Plan for this area to ensure appropriate biodiversity principles and river management principles are adhered to in any landscaping initiatives.  The area requires management as a “sensitive natural area” in terms of the types of parks City Parks is managing.  It cannot be managed only as a community park which may have different objectives not necessarily compatible with the biodiversity functions of the area.

The community could be involved in biodiversity management and some environmental interpretive signage could be erected to promote awareness of habitat types of the Peninsula Granite fynbos vegetation type and its related faunal species.

Naturally, the stone pines, stone paths and steps, and old community Halls are also important elements of the cultural landscape and community functioning of the area and should be conserved as part of the overall Management Plan.  Or the Management Plan could be part of the Blinkwater River Maintenance and Management Plan.

Kind regards
Sandy


Sandy Hustwick
Principal Environmental Professional
Environmental and Heritage Management (Table Bay District)


___________________________________________________________________

From: Chris Willemse

Subject: Re: Renaming the Little Glen to the Arthur Shephard Little Glen Community Park

Date: 04 February 2016 

To: Sandra Sandra Hustwick

Hi Sandy

Thank you for your valuable insights which we will take on board.

Cheers

Chris

___________________________________________________________________

From: Dalton Gibbs

Subject: RE: Renaming the Little Glen to the Arthur Shephard Little Glen Community Park

Date: 04 February 2016 at 4:44:38 PM SAST

To: Sandra Hustwick 

Hi All

I am not integrally involved with this topic but would like to point out that as part of the City biodiversity network the area should preferably carry the term” Conservation Area” in its title. This helps to delineate the site as an area with biodiversity attributes, compared to an urban park which has infrastructure which is primarily built in nature. The area is thus not called a “nature reserve”, a title which is linked to a formal and legal proclamation Examples of such “Conservation Areas” elsewhere in the City are: Glen Cairn Wetlands, Princess Vlei, Die Oog, Rondebosch Common which  have “Conservation Area” in the site title.

Regards,

Dalton Gibbs

Regional Manager South

___________________________________________________________________

From: "Janette Hodgkinson" 

Subject: Renaming The Little Glen Proposal CBW Sector 1

Date: 17 February 2016 at 9:01:59 AM SAST

To: "'Chris Willemse'" , "'CBRRA'" , "Ian Merrington", "Mark Myerson", "Bernard Schafer"

Dear Chris

I have read your CBRRA email about the proposal to rename The Little Glen, and as a follow up to my telephone call to you, I would like to clarify:

At the time of your writing said email to the entire CBRRA data base, CBW had not endorsed the proposal.

As Sector Head for Sector 1, I know that we have not had a meeting to discuss, nor have we yet asked our members, volunteers and management.

Therefore I feel that it was not acceptable that you stated that CBW firmly endorsed the idea. There may very well be members of CBW who feel it is a wonderful idea, but that does not mean that we as an organisation have endorsed it yet.

Due process has therefore not been carried out, and to be correct and fair to our members, we should have a chance to first discuss this and make a decision as an organisation before you make such a statement  on our behalf.

Whilst I cannot comment overall for CBW, I feel that once we have discussed as an organisation, we can let you know whether Camps Bay Watch - or certainly Sector 1, have endorsed the proposal with their support. Until then I feel that the statement should be retracted and respectfully request that you do same.

Thanking you & kind regards

Janette Hodgkinson

Begin forwarded message:

From: Janette

Subject: Objection to renaming the Little Glen to the Arthur Shephard Little Glen Community Park

Date: 15 February 2016 at 5:13:24 PM SAST

To: "'CBRRA'"

Cc: Various

Dear all

My personal objection to any renaming of The Little Glen:

As a resident of Camps Bay and having lived here for more than 40 years, I have a very fond attachment to The Little Glen, and many wonderful memories of attending Brownies, Girl Guides, have enjoyed walks and picnics through the Little Glen, and still enjoy it to this day. My sons are lucky enough to have participated in The First Camps Bay Cubs Pack while dearly remembered Anne Hill was the Pack Leader, and they now attend First Camps Bay Scouts which is a thriving troop. Anne served the cubs and scouts for about 40 years in this glen and the scouts have had the longest association with The Little Glen.

Dog walkers traverse the area, and I and my children and many others have and will enjoy it as a beautiful part of Camps Bay for many years to come.

I would imagine that The Little Glen is affectionately and officially known as such because its smaller than The (Big) Glen.

Arthur Shepherd and a team  has done a terrific job making this public open space more beautiful, and together with collaboration from nearby residents, for donations and fundraising, the Little Glen is much improved in many ways including safety, beautification, planting  and landscaping. I am thankful to Arthur and all those other people who helped him achieve this, some of whom are cc’d herein, such as Terry Chicken, Arthur’s wife Pauline, Bernard Schafer, neighbours to The Little Glen, and parents, members, and friends of Scouts and Cubs over the years.

The CBHS rugby team apparently carried down the stone furniture which was donated by a Rontree resident and another lady in Rontree over a period of several months systematically developed the upper part of The Little Glen at her own cost with her own labour.  There was also rebuilding of stone steps;

1.   Strathearn flight by Scouts

2.   Ronald flight x 2 by Bernard Schafer

3.   Willesden flight by Arthur Shepherd

I am happy to stand corrected, and for anyone else to add to the numerous contributors and donors as Im sure there are many many more who contributed.

I believe that Bernard Schafer as Chair of the Camps Bay Community Police Forum, started and initiated The Little Glen Clean Up Project as it was then called, in August  2009. This was done with the help of a group of keen residents including Arthur who came on board to help I recall from about May 2010. However a great many good people have impacted favourably on our community over the years  and many more will follow. After the next 5 or 10 years there may be another community member or members who might have done as much work, would we then campaign to rename the Little Glen all over again?

I personally feel that it would be a tragedy to rename the Little Glen after anybody. There is no doubt that Arthur should be remembered for all his selfless work, and perhaps a plaque, or a bench, and a tree planting in his honour would be a lovely idea, but to rename an entire glen, I feel is over the top,  and inappropriate. In addition I feel that even with a name change, the new suggestion is so long that everyone in Camps Bay would probably still call it The Little Glen for ease and out of habit and therefore all the red tape involved in getting this passed by City of Cape Town would be pointless.

Renaming The Little Glen may cause controversy and debate between Camps Residents and Arthur’s good name remembered less affectionately, depending on how many people are not in favour. There are too many other people who have in the past and shall hopefully in the future, be involved in this and other projects, to justify naming our Little Glen after one person.

I feel we should leave well alone and allow Arthur’s memory to be  a peaceful and uncontroversial one.

Yours sincerely

Janette Hodgkinson

From: "terry.chicken" 

Subject: Re: Objection to renaming the Little Glen to the Arthur Shephard Little Glen Community Park

Date: 15 February 2016 at 5:28:04 PM SAST

To: Janette Hodgkinson 

Cc: Various

I agree with Jannete.

Little Glen should keep its name. My family have been in and around tbe area for over 100yrs now and its The Little Glen.

Please don't bring Arthurs name up for debate. He is and was amazing. He was however only involved here for a short period of time.

He would never have wanted The Little Glen to be named after himself for his selfless service.

Let Arthur rest in peace.

Terry Chicken

From: Mark Myerson 

Subject: Re: Objection to renaming the Little Glen to the Arthur Shephard Little Glen Community Park

Date: 16 February 2016 at 8:28:10 AM SAST

To: Janette 

Cc: various

Janette thanks for taking the time to be the voice for those not in favour of renaming the Little Glen. From a personal point of view I agree and support your view. 

Regards 

Mark

Begin forwarded message:

From: Carole Elliott 

Subject: Re: Objection to renaming the Little Glen to the Arthur Shephard Little Glen Community Park

Date: 16 February 2016 at 11:16:29 AM SAST

To: Mark Myerson

Cc: Various

Hello,

We agree with both Janette and Mark.

Carole and Mike Elliott

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Carlos Litved"

Subject: Re: Objection to renaming the Little Glen to the Arthur Shephard Little Glen Community Park

Date: 16 February 2016 at 11:53:51 AM SAST

To: "Carole Elliott", "Mark Myerson"

Cc: Various

Me too ... I agree ... As much as we all loved Arthur ... Janette is correct – Carlos.

From: Sandra Hustwick 

Subject: RE: Objection to renaming the Little Glen to the Arthur Shephard Little Glen Community Park

Date: 16 February 2016 at 12:19:58 PM SAST

To: terry.chicken, Janette Hodgkinson 

Cc: Various

I agree with the sentiments expressed too.  Kind regards Sandy

Begin forwarded message:

From: Helen Phillips

Subject: Re: Objection to renaming the Little Glen to the Arthur Shephard Little Glen Community Park

Date: 16 February 2016 at 11:27:39 PM SAST

To: Janette

Cc: Various

Hi - I agree with Janette - it will always be The Little Glen - a bench in memory of Arthur is a great idea.

Helen Phillips 

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Bernard"

Subject: RE: Objection to renaming the Little Glen to the Arthur Shephard Little Glen Community Park

Date: 17 February 2016 at 5:23:07 AM SAST

To: "'Mark Myerson'" , "'Janette'" 

Cc: Various

Reply-To:

Ditto - having seen many responses to this email below from Janette, agreeing with her standpoint, as well as having received many emails independently direct to myself with similar sentiment, I have to say I agree.

Having worked side by side with Arthur on much of this project, I am only too aware of the great effort he made and dedication he had to his role in this project.  My personal feeling towards renaming anything with people's names however has been sent to local gov. before when roads and bridges were being renamed etc. and has nothing therefore to do with Arthur but rather the principle in general.

Added to that is the strong logic of all the points raised by those that have shared their thinking with me to the end that the LG name should remain as is - unchanged.

Last but not least - the controversy that is bound to erupt when any existing place is renamed may very well detract from the otherwise "perfect" memory we have of Arthur and his contribution.  Recent city controversial issues have attracted sentiment and outcry from far afield - e.g. Clifton Development - where folk living miles away have weighed in on the issues at hand or decision being presented - rightly or wrongly so - they demand unrelenting scrutiny and may not share our knowledge or love for Arthur as a person.

Already it is clear that CB is not in unison or one-minded on this issue (let alone the rest of Cape Town who will feel entitled to an opinion) and I for one would not want to see Arthur's memory or legacy torn in two.

I do however feel that Arthur's contribution should be memorialised in some special way and therefore fully support the idea of a memorial object (bench, tree, table bearing a remembrance plaque etc) - in addition even a memorial garden bearing his name - the obvious choice would be the fantastic garden he created almost single-handedly on the land between First Crescent and Finchley.  This land has no name yet (and therefore does not fall foul to the renaming saga) and a memorial  sign could be erected detailing Arthur's full contribution to the area as a whole including this area and reference to the Little Glen and his special contribution to that ongoing project.

Alternatively a memorial garden area within the Little Glen itself.  These options would be something unique that would bear Arthur's name and only his name, rather than having a long clumsy sharing of names to try and reach compromise on the difficult task of renaming the Little Glen as a whole.

Bernard

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Hodgkinson, Peter" 

Subject: RE: Objection to renaming the Little Glen to the Arthur Shephard Little Glen Community Park

Date: 17 February 2016 at 9:05:51 AM SAST

To: Helen Phillips , Janette 

Cc: Various

Hi All,

Having lived in the area for many years and seen Arthurs efforts in greening this area of Camps Bay, Little Glen and corner of Finchley and First Cresent, his huge contribution is enjoyed by the whole community.

I agree with the suggestion to place a permanent bench complete with plaque (under a tree to be planted) on the green space, at the corner of Finchley and First Cresent in his memory. Arthur spend many hours reshaping this corner into what it is today and it would certainly be a fitting tribute to him.

I do not however support the renaming of the Little Glen or any other area in any one persons name.

Regards

Peter Hodgkinson Pr Eng

Managing Director

From: "terry.chicken" 

Subject: Re: Objection to renaming the Little Glen to the Arthur Shephard Little Glen Community Park

Date: 17 February 2016 at 9:07:33 AM SAST

To: Bernard Schäfer

Cc: Various

I feel Bernard has a practical solution on the subject and that the little park next to his house in 1st Cresent would be a fantastic place to name after Arthur.

On 17 Feb 2016, at 11:07 AM, Mark Myerson  wrote:

I couldn't agree more.

Regards

Mark

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Zaan Claassens 

Subject: Re: Objection to renaming the Little Glen to the Arthur Shephard Little Glen Community Park

Date: 17 February 2016 at 11:48:38 AM SAST

To: Mark Myerson 

Cc: Various

Brilliant solution Bernard!

Begin forwarded message:

From:

Subject: Re: Objection to renaming the Little Glen to the Arthur Shephard Little Glen Community Park

Date: 17 February 2016 at 12:02:38 PM SAST

To: "Zaan Claasens","Mark Myerson" 

Cc: Various

Dear Bernard

Thank you for the great suggestion and lovely email and I agree with all your sentiments.

I think this is a healthy happy dialogue that is producing good ideas and opinions. 

Janette

Sent via my BlackBerry

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Jill Leslie

Subject: RE: Objection to renaming the Little Glen to the Arthur Shephard Little Glen Community Park

Date: 19 February 2016 at 11:07:48 AM SAST

To: "'Zaan Claassens'", "'Mark Myerson'"

Cc: Various

Fully agree with all sentiments expressed. The Little Glen is the Little Glen, the garden idea of Bernard is much better.

Jill Leslie.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Janette 

Subject: RE: Objection to renaming the Little Glen to the Arthur Shephard Little Glen Community Park

Date: 21 February 2016 at 11:38:19 PM SAST

To: "'CBRRA'"

Cc: "Various

Dear Janette,

Please see that this gets to the necessary parties.

We concur with your and Bernard’s sentiments.

A beautiful bench in Arthurs name for an incredible man is most fitting but not a rename of the Little Glen

Kind Regards

Michele and Colin Harvey

Begin forwarded message:

From: Cara Kahn 

Subject: Re: Objection to renaming the Little Glen to the Arthur Shephard Little Glen Community Park

Date: 22 February 2016 at 7:54:21 AM SAST

To: Janette 

Cc: Various

I agree with Janette and Bernard 

Let's keep the little Glen , the little Glen

Regards Cara 

Finchley road 

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Dave's Plumbing" 

Subject: RE: [!! SPAM] RE: Objection to renaming the Little Glen to any name

Date: 05 March 2016 at 12:56:46 PM SAST

To: "'Jill Leslie'", "'Janette'" , "'CBRRA'", Bernard

Cc: Various

To Whom it may concern,

After much thought and originally sentimentally agreeing to the Little Glen name change I feel in the best interests of the community, what’s left of it in Camps Bay, it would be the wrong decision to change the Little Glen to any name. I am not as attached to the name of the Little Glen as many others are but it has been a part of my life as I have lived on the slopes of it all my life. To me it’s always been “The Glen” and always will be.

I think naming any park or road after anyone in this country will always cause division so let’s leave the name intact. Having firsthand experience of having my grandfather, Jack Muller, having a park named after him in Bellville I feel as much as a family find it a wonderful honour the time will come when the name will come up for changing as the community changes and this can and will cause heartache for the remaining members of family. I would rather suggest a plaque with all the names of those who have helped and sponsored being erected somewhere in the Glen itself.

Yours faithfully,

Dave Gruneberg

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Dr Mark Vella ND" 

Subject: RE: Objection to renaming the Little Glen to the Arthur Shephard Little Glen Community Park

Date: 06 March 2016 at 7:50:33 PM SAST

To: Various

Hello all

The Camps Bay Business Forum/ Camps Bay Improvement District has taken note of the circulating emails around the request to rename the Little Glen in memory of Arthur Shepard

We have taken note of the marked preference that his worthy contribution be honoured with a bench and plaque etc. Given that the CBBF/ CBIID were not as involved in the little Glen and had little interaction with Arthur whose reputation preceded him, we feel it is only best in this matter that we trust the more informed views of those stakeholders, and give support to these.

We feel that canvassing the CBBF/ CBID members would not give an educated opinion, and would tardy the process, given that our members were not as familiar with Arthurs effort

We particularly favour suggestions made by Bernard Schafer and would certainly like to see Arthurs memory honoured in this way.

Kind thanks,

Dr Mark Vella ND

Begin forwarded message:

From: "barbara" 

Subject: FW: Objection to renaming the Little Glen to any name

Date: 07 March 2016 at 2:36:20 PM SAST

To: "'Janette'" 

Cc: Various

Thanks for copying us in on this.  We also support a bench with a plaque dedicated to Arthur, as opposed to the re-naming of the Little Glen.

Kind regards & thanks

Barbara & Mark Thompson

Granger Bay Erf 1056

Dear Fellow Community members

I am sure you are aware of all the procedures regarding the B&C fields (Grange Bay Boulevard ) of the Green Point common and all the various presentation meetings that were held.  At no stage do I recall ever hearing that the option was to DISPOSE/SELL it – but it is so cleverly hidden in this advert that nobody would event know this advert is referring to the sale of the precious Public Open Space of the Green Point Common, a crown grant to the people of Cape Town. The council already tried to do something funny with this application and I made such a fuss that they are now following the ‘correct’ procedures :

I stopped it going through on the Sub-council meeting of 18 January – see below, this is what was on the agenda:

PROPOSED CLOSURE AND IN-PRINCIPLE APPROVAL FOR THE GRANTING OF LONG-TERM RIGHTS TO USE, CONTROL AND/OR MANAGE, BY WAY OF PUBLIC COMPETITION, CITY PROPERTY BEING PORTION 2 OF REMAINDER ERF 1056, GREEN POINT, SITUATED AT GRANGER BAY BOULEVARD, GREEN POINT, FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

See the explanation from our Councillor in his attempts to rectify the situation:

Hi Jenny

Please see the response sent from our Sub council to the planning department.   

Therefore this item has now been withdrawn and the correct process must run. 

Your request for comments was issued on 18 December, a few days before Christmas in the festive season. Council’s advertising policy as to Planning matters prohibits advertising in this period, and I would say that it should apply to Property matters as well, as many interested and affected persons are away on leave then. It so happened that I was on leave, as well as Ald. Qually and Cllr Weber.

2.     You requested me to circulate it to Ratepayers organisations, and I can assure you that the City would be making itself a target for legitimate criticism to do so in the heart of the festive season, especially in respect of a sensitive matter involving the area around the Cape Town Stadium. It might create the impression that the City deliberately advertises a potentially controversial matter during a holiday period to avoid negative publicity/comments.

3.     What is the purpose of circulating for comments to Ratepayers organisations an advertisement that appeared two months previously in the media and which now is way after the due date for comments? Why is it not circulated to all interested and affected parties during the same time period?

4.     You allowed councillors till 15 January to submit comments. However, the report was finalised and signed on 28 December already.

5.   In view of the above, Ald. Qually has ruled that the report in the matter be withdrawn from the 18 January Subcouncil agenda to allow sufficient time for submission of further comments.

Kind Regards 

Cllr Jacques Weber 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Please can you help us object to the SALE of this land – the original option was always to lease it.  See advert of  Cape Times of Friday (attached) they are now advertising the disposal with objections due by 22 February to saul.jacobs @capetown.gov.za. 

Thanks and regards

Jenny

_______________________

Jenny McQueen

GREEN POINT RATEPAYERS’ & RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION

Chairman

Newspaper article ‹‹here››