Mount Prospect Retirement Estate – Feedback

A meeting was held this week between the CRRA land use committee and  residents who neighbour the proposed Mount Prospect Retirement Estate. This was in response to the ‘Open House’ meeting on 21 July which was arranged by the developer/professional team involved with the project. The CRRA is in the process of responding to the final Basic Assessment Report as presented by Sillito Consulting – a copy of our response to the original report in October 2015 can be accessed

Mount-Prospect-banner-1024x246

COMMENT AND REPRESENTATIONS ON THE DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT
REPORT (DBAR) FOR A PROPOSED RETIREMENT VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
ON ERVEN 2641 AND 2643, MOUNT PROSPECT, SITUATED TO THE NORTH
AND TO THE WEST, RESPECTIVELY, OF PAGASVLEI ROAD AND OF OLIVE
CLOSE, CONSTANTIA, CITY OF CAPE TOWN
DEA AND DP REFERENCE: 16/3/3/6/7/1/A6/16/2268/15
SEC REFERENCE: NUMBER 015055
HWC CASE: 15031706AS0422E
HWC Case Officer: Andrew September
___________________________________________________________________________________
PREPARED AT THE REQUEST OF THE CONSTANTIA PROPERTY OWNERS’
ASSOCIATION (CPOA)
22nd October 2015
by
FABI O TODESCHINI B. Arch. (Cape Town), M. Arch (Penna), M.C.P (Penna.),
MCIA, MSAIA, MUDISA, MAHAP, Pr Arch, TRP.SA,
 55 Dorp Street, Bo-Kaap, Cape Town 8001, South Africa.
email: fabiodesigncape@gmail.com
Architect
City Planner Urban Designer
Heritage Practitioner 084 257 2981
___________________________________________________________________________________
2
1. INTRODUCTION
On the 14th October 2015 I was approached by the Constantia Property Owners’
Association (CPOA) to provide professional services in, and advice on, the matter at
hand. Consequently, I have registered with ‘Sillitò Environmental Consulting’ (SEC – the
Environmental Assessment Practitioners (EAP)), the authors of the DBAR, as a planning
professional representing the CPOA.
1 Figure 1 shows the site in question in context, as it
exists. Figure 2 shows the proposed developments, as they appear in Appendix B of the
Draft Basic Assessment Report of September 2015 in context.
2
Figure 1: Aerial Photograph showing the site in context as at April 2015, courtesy GoogleEarth.
Figure 2: The Proposed Group Housing Development superimposed on the context, courtesy Appendix B
to the DBAR and GoogleEarth background (same background image as Figure 1).

1. My e-mail of the 14th October 2015 to Colleen McCreadie: colleen@environmentalconsultants.co.za.
2. Downloaded from the EAP website on the 15th October 2015. See:
www.environmentalconsultants.co.za
3
I submit that a comparison of the ‘before’ and ‘after’, represented by figures 1 and 2,
comes as a shock to any reasonable reader. The comparison strongly suggest that all is
not well with this proposal. That is why I have acceeded to the request of the CPOA.
I record that I have no interest in the matters at hand other than long-term professional
public-good interest. Since the late 1980s I have provided professional services to a range
of persons and organizations, including the City of Cape Town (CoCT), to do with
developments and heritage resources in the Constantia-Tokai Valley (I was part of the
professional team that produced the Growth Management and Development Plan for the
Constantia-Tokai Valley at the beginning of the 1990’s). On different occasions, I have
been a consultant to the Table Mountain National Park (a World Heritage Site), and
made representations to their management on various matters. I continue to be involved
with colleagues in the Western Cape Provincial Government, the CPOA and other
NGOs regarding the motivation for National Heritage Site (and potential World Heritage
Site) status for the Historic Farms of the Constantia-Tokai Valley and of others located
elsewhere in the Western Cape. I have acted as advisor to the the National Heritage
Resources Authority on various matters, including on the Cape Winelands Cultural
Landscapes, which comprise parts of the Constantia-Tokai Valley.
Because I do have serious problems with the development proposals, since evidence and
logic point to them not being in the longer-term public interest in my view, I have to
advance comment, criticism and make representations.
In all reasonableness, I submit and will argue in this brief report that the quantum of
developments proposed is quite simply and logically impossible to reconcile with the
statement “

[t]he intention is to maintain the site’s historic buildings, mature trees, formal
garden, riverine precinct and open space character”, which appears at Section 4 of the
Executive Summary (page 4) of the Heritage Impact Assessment report.3
In particular, I
submit that the proposed developments would not, and could not, “maintain the site’s
… open space character”: which character is absolutely central to the agricultural and
green spatial ‘pivot-linking’, ‘hinge-feature’ of the site, when considered at a number of
scales of experience. In fact, the HIA concedes that the above intention is not achievable
if the proposed developments were implemented: “this is the only impact that cannot be
avoided or mitigated through careful design”.4 Yes, some historic buildings would be
kept, as would some of the surviving trees and a narrow central green band of space,
more-or-less on axis with, and to the front of, the old Manor House. But the open space
character of the site as a whole and how it visually and experientially links the vineyards
of Groot Constantia to the north with the Green Belt to the south would be lost! A close
examination of figure 3 shows this to be true, as will be further argued in the appropriate
section of this report.
In my view, the developments proposed are inappropriate from heritage, environmental,
landscape and planning/urban design points of view.

3. Bridget O’Donoughue, Heritage Impact Assessment (Draft 2), Mount Prospect Proposed Development, 2015.
4. Ibid.
4
Figure 3: The Site in its Broader Setting, courtesy GoogleEarth. The site is marked with a red dot.
The balance of the report is structured as follows: Section 2 deals with the background
and some overarching and broader-setting issues raised by any development proposals
for the site; Section 3 identifies and discusses the core issues raised by the specific
development proposals and provides some comments and representations thereon;
Section 4 draws some conclusions and recommendations at this stage of the process.
Naturally, the CPOA and I, as an independent professional expert, reserve the rights to
comment further and make other representations on this matter in due course.
5
2. BACKGROUND AND SOME OVERARCHING AND BROADERSETTING
ISSUES RAISED BY ANY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
FOR THE SITE IN QUESTION5
“I took Negley Parson, the world famous traveller and author, along the
Rhodes Drive when he was my guest at the Cape shortly before Hitler’s war.
… We stopped above Hohenhort and looked at the vista of the Vale of
Constantia still, then, the unaltered ancient farms of the Cape.
Parson declared the view to be ‘amongst the greatest in the world’. He said
‘a view to be superb must contain the seeds of a promise of pleasure to come.
Now look — we have the chestnuts and oaks in the foreground with their
promise of shade. Then the sweep of the vineyards — a promise of wine and
table grapes. There are the vleis with their racing yachts and beyond again the
beaches of the bay — fishing, swimming. Finally the lure of the blue
mountains on the distant horizon — adventure. What more could nature at
its richest promise?
Parson is dead … So we have lost an international advocate for saving
something of Constantia’s valleys.
But there is still time.” 6
A few selected figures taken from the Constantia-Tokai Valley Growth Management and
Development Plan Final Report (CTVGMDPFR) and from the more recent Inventory of
Tangible Heritage Resources in the Constantia-Tokai Valley (ITHRCTV) will help profile some
of the core issues in this matter, in my view,7
as they are my starting points.
Figures 4 and 5: The Organising Concept and the Preferred Metropolitan Framework, respectively, from
the CTVGMDPFR. The red square appearing on figure 5 locates the site in question.
The dominant rural/arcadian character of the Constantia-Tokai Valley (and its subvalleys,
as astutely pointed out by Negley Parson decades ago) continues to be derived
from the interplay of Wilderness, Forested and Rural Agricultural Domains, as well as by
the Riverine Open Spaces, Green Belts and Scenic (and other) Routes that exist (figure

5. I wish to indicate that I have included some of what appears in this section of this report in
representations made, on behalf of the CPOA, in other matters.
6. The Wanderer, The Cape Argus Newspaper, on the occasion of initial attempts to establish a Green Belt system in
Constantia, 22nd December 1965.
7. The author of this report also co-authored the said report with colleagues MLH Architects and Planners, Barrie
Gasson Town and Regional Planner and Piet Louw Architect City Planner, prepared for the then Local Council of
Constantia in 1992, which report was adopted by the then Local Authority. He also authored the Heritage
Inventory subsequently, having worked with local citizen groups, as well as with CoCT and SAHRA officials.
6
4), spatially removed to the west from the Main Road Urban Corridor and the Van Der
Stel Freeway (figure 5).
Figure 6: Visually Sensitive Areas, CTVGMDPFR. The red square appearing in the figure locates the site .
Figure 7: The Landscape Framework, CTVGMDPFR. The red square appearing in the figure locates the
site.
7
Figure 8: Scenic and Other Routes, CTVGMDPFR. The red square appearing in the figure locates the site.
Figure 9: Views, CTVGMDPFR. The red square appearing in the figure locates the site.
What is overwhelmingly clear from even a cursory scrutiny of figures 4 to 9, is that, inter
alia: the site in question is located in a very sensitive and exposed area of the ConstantiaTokai
Valley, right at the interface between internationally celebrated vineyard landscapes
8
and a significant component of the Greenbelt system of Constantia-Tokai, that which is
the head of the Pagasvlei stream and riverine corridor. A more careful examination of
figure 7, the Landscape Framework, clearly reveals this spatial characteristic which is
intrinsic and very significant.
Figure 10: Historic Farms of Constantia-Tokai Valley, ITHRCTV. The red dot appearing in the figure
locates the site.
Figure 10 (originally prepared by the author of this report in 2006 for a meeting of the
then SAHRA Council held in Kimberley, which adopted the farmlands as Grade I
heritage resources) shows the Historic Farms in the Constantia-Tokai Valley, inclusive of
the site in question. More recently, as mentioned in the HIA of the DBAR, the farms
have been Proviaionally Protected by SAHRA.
Since the construction of the Van Der Stel Freeway, the erosion of productive farmland
on some of the most fertile soil to be found in South Africa has been occasioned by
rampant suburban developments in the Constantia-Tokai Valley. Such developments
must be constrained by appropriate controls and, where permitted, minumum erf sizes
that have been put in place via Local Area Overlay Zoning that seeks to promote the
retention of historic farmlands and much forest tree and vegetative cover in arcadian
areas, while permitting smaller sites significantly further to the east, should be strictly
enforced (see figures 11 and 12).
The retention of character is essential from environmental, planning and heritage
perspectives, each governed by their own legislation, norms, controls and procedures.
9
Figure 11: Loss of Farmland and Spread of Suburbia: 1937-1990, CTVGMDPFR.
The cry of densification must be put in its rightful place and not be seen as a lever for
unjustified residential intensification in quite unsuitable places. This issue was dealt with
at length by myself and my colleague Prof. David Dewar when we responded, on behalf
of the CPOA, to the then advertised Draft District Plan H some years ago. We pointed
out that there were severe shortcomings in the way the draft District Plan had dealt with
the matter: see an extract of our comments appearing below.
“The unique character of many parts of the most special environments is under
constant threat; and there has been a gradual incremental deterioration over time of the
rural quality and character of many of these areas.
By far the biggest threats, however, are:
• Urban and suburban infill inconsistent with existing policy;
• Forms of intensification which need to be managed on a case by case basis, as
opposed to ‘as of right’ policies;
• Inadequate regulatory protection of character (which could be provided by
overlay zones).
The plan does pay lip service to the uniqueness of the special areas, both
rhetorically and in mapping.
Worryingly, the plan does nothing to regulate the pressures threatening to
undermine the quality of the place. Indeed, in … important ways, it potentially
increases these.
Firstly, the general tenor of the plan unproblematically promotes densification and
intensification everywhere. The plan in its present form can be used to encourage subdivision
on a massive scale. It must be stated in the strongest possible terms that this is
inappropriate in large parts of the metropole.
10
Secondly, the formulaic response to every large undeveloped land parcel in public
ownership is to make it available for residential infill. The issue of how the land
should be used is a structural one: each parcel is structurally different and requires
careful structural analysis.”
The plan identified clear principles for residential development, as informed by permitted
plot size and location (figure 12).
Figure 12: Housing Principles related to Erf size and Environmental Condition, CTVGMDPFR.
11
3. CORE ISSUES RAISED BY THE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSALS AND SOME COMMENTS AND REPRESENTATIONS
THEREON
3.1 Development Planning Issues
A significant, and high order, CoCT policy states:
“Cape Town is a unique historic city. It derives its character from
evidence of a layered and multi-faceted history, its dramatic scenic setting,
its historical townscapes and cultural landscapes, its cultural and heritage
diversity and the traditions and memories that arise from its past. The role of
the City is to coordinate the protection and enhancement of this unique
character. The protection of heritage sites and the traditions and memories
associated with them, are an important part of City management.”8
Such over-arching policy is further and specifically elaborated in declared CoCT South
Peninsula policy, as follows:
“Development that is considered undesirable within the Constantia Winelands
Cultural Landscape includes “sub-division and densification, high density residential
or commercial development, any alterations, additions or new structures unsympathetic
to protected buildings or the general character of the area …”,9
and the SPDSP
proposes to:10
• “… (b) Support viticulture production through restricting fragmentation and
encouraging consolidation, and where possible expanding agricultural development;
• (c) The character of these urban areas should in general not be subject to change.
This includes the maintenance of cultural landscapes.”11
This is elaborated for Constantia-Tokai in the operative District Plan,
12 where the Primary
Spatial Development Objectives stated are, inter alia:
“a. To maintain and enhance the unique sense of place and character of these valleys;
b. To maximise the productive, recreational, and tourism opportunities of the open space system,
particularly in respect of the ‘greenway system’, viticulture and horticulture, and limiting urban
intrusion;
c. To not be recognized as a city growth area.”
Moreover, as part of the Supporting Development Guidelines for the District, the following is
specifically stated:
“7. In the context of a growing and rapidly changing city, and accommodating associated new
demands and requirements, limited accommodation of retirement villages and smaller ‘lock-upand-go’
units / complexes should be considered. These should generally be limited to near the
existing village (local) nodes, but not along scenic routes or in historical areas.” Emphases
added by the author of this report.
That there is a need for retirement facilities in the Constantia-Tokai Valley is not

8. CoCT, The Integrated Metropolitan Environmental Policy (IMEP): Cultural Heritage Strategy, 2005.
9. CoCT SPDSP, 2012, p.80.
10. Ibid, pp. 122-123.
11. Passim.
12. Cape Town SDF: Southern District, Sub-District 2: Bishopscourt – Constantia – Tokai, 2011.
12
contested.13 However, the development guidelines clearly imply that the site in
question is not the appropriate location: it is far from an existing village node and it is
in an historical area.
Additionally, in terms of the Constantia Tokai Local Area Overlay Zoning:
• Erf 2641 is within an area where the minimum subdivision permitted is 8000
square meters; while
• Erf 2643 is within a ‘no further subdivision’ area.
14
I submit and make representations that these declared constraints to development
type (residential) and intensity are there for very good reason, as has been set out in
Section 2 of this report: they can not and should not be ignored! Rather, they must be
seen as providing clear constraints to development intensity.
Surely it is evident to any reasonable person that visually and experientially, the site in
question is, and should in the public interest continue to be, part of the open space green
belt system that links the Groot Constantia vineyards to the north with the Pagasvlei
riverine green belt to the south (see figure 13).
Figure 13: Existing view of portion of the site in question from Pagasvlei Road (author’s photograph,
October 2015).
As stated in the Introduction to this report, I submit that any reasonable person
comparing figures 1 and 2 (the ‘before’ and ‘after’ aerial views) is struck by the
unreasonably intense proposed development coverage of the site as compared to any
other sub-area within its context, including the suburban patterns in the vicinity.
In the discipline of urban design, which deals extensively with the physical grain, pattern,

13. I know this from personal investigation, as I have had to place my wife in frail-care recently.
14. This is acknowledged on page 12 of the HIA and elsewhere in the DBAR.
13
morphology, typology, cadastral rhythm (and so on) of the very tissue of settlements, this
is referred to as a jump in the ‘grain’ and ‘pattern’, for which there must be a reason,
because, inter alia, this is bound to occasion changes in the physical character of the
place. To my knowledge, no planning, or any other reason for such drastic ‘jump’ in the
grain and pattern of the proposed development, in contrast to those surrounding it, is
advanced anywhere in the DBAR. Nor is any solid reason offered for the change of
character that the proposed developments would undoubtedly occasion (see figures 14
and 15, reproduced from the Visual Impact Assessment Report, part of the HIA of the
DBAR).
Figure 14: Reproduction of figure appearing on page 80 of the HIA, part of the DBAR.
Figure 15: Reproduction of figure appearing on page 80 of the HIA, part of the DBAR.
The proposal relative to rezoning the site to ‘Group Housing’ in turn raises a whole
bunch of sub-issues. The most significant is that this form of residential development,
that is far more intense than is the norm in suburban developments, should never be
located in very significant areas adjacent to agricultural and rural landscapes, or bounding
the urban edge (all conditions that prevail in this case): that is clear international best
practice. The inescapable inference is that this clearly ‘foreign’ grain and pattern of
proposed development would be a pre-requisite for the proposed retirement village to
operate as a viable economic entity: this a private not a public interest. Why should this
be permitted, when it flies in the face of, and flouts, all the relevant rules and norms,
including specific planning ones as they relate to the particular sub-area of ConstantiaTokai
where the proposal is framed?
As also pointed out in the introduction, specifically drawn attention to in Section 2 and
reinforced in the Primary Spatial Development Objectives of the District Plan (quoted on page
11 of this report), the rural, open character of the site would be changed and lost, if the
development proposals were to be permitted, and, this would be entirely counter the
specific development objective of the City of Cape Town District Plan, which is: “to
14
maintain and enhance the unique sense of place and character of these valleys.” I submit
and make representations that the damage that would result from the proposed
development is unequivocally demonstrated if one takes note of the existing character
displayed by the images appearing in figures 1 and 13, on the one hand, and close
scrutiny of the proposals as shown in figure 2 and the already quoted statement
appearing in the HIA, “this [the loss of the site’s pivotal open space, rural character] is …[an] impact that cannot be avoided or mitigated through careful design” (this author’s
emphasis added), on the other.
In sum then, and in terms of international best practice, a cascade of City of Cape
Town planning policies in force, as well as clear and well-established planning
development objectives and instruments of development control in place, the
development proposals should not be approved because they are not in the public
interest and, since:
• The site is not an appropriate location for a retirement village as, by no
stretch of imagination is it near an existing village node and it is in an
historic area;
• The proposed rezoning of the site in question to General Residential or
‘Group Housing’ from single dwelling residential (which would result in
nearly 60 dwellings and attendant other facilities on a site where but a
handful of dwellings, at most, are permitted in terms of current
development controls) is patently a subterfuge to ‘duck under the normally
prevailing law’ and/or ‘change the rules of the game’. Such rezoning
would be utterly inappropriate and unacceptable in the public interest, yet
without it, the development proposals would be a non-starter.
3.2 Heritage Resources Management Issues
In 2006, by a SAHRA Council decision, the site was given a Grade I level of significance.
More recently, SAHRA has Provisionally Protected the area of the Historic Farms of
Constantia-Tokai within which the site falls. As acknowledged in the HIA, International
Charters point to the appropriate protection of such sites as a matter of best practice:15
This Charter acknowledges the contribution of setting to the significance of heritage
buildings, sites and areas. The setting of a heritage resource is defined as the immediate
and extended environment that is part of, or contributes to, its significance and
distinctive character. Beyond the physical and visual aspects, the setting includes
interaction with the natural environment, past or present social or spiritual practices,
customs, traditional knowledge, use or activities and other forms of intangible cultural
heritage aspects that created and form the space as well as the current and dynamic
cultural, social and economic context. Heritage resources of various scales, including
individual buildings or designed spaces, historic cities or urban landscapes, landscapes,
seascapes, cultural routes and archaeological sites, derive their significance and distinctive
character from their perceived social and spiritual, historic, artistic, aesthetic, natural,
scientific, or other cultural values. They also derive their significance and distinctive
character from their meaningful relationships with their physical, visual, spiritual and
other cultural context and settings. These relationships can be the result of a conscious

15. ICOMOS Xi’an Declaration on the Conservation of the Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas,
October 2005.
15
and planned creative act, spiritual belief, historical events, use or a cumulative and
organic process over time through cultural traditions. Change to the setting of heritage
structures, sites and areas should be managed to retain cultural significance and
distinctive character. Managing change to the setting of heritage structures, sites and
areas need not necessarily prevent or obstruct change.
Moreover, I suggest and submit that it is desirable and in the public interest to disagree
with Henry Aikman’s opinion that the Mount Prospect site does not warrant inclusion in
the Historic Farmlands of Constantia-Tokai and to refute it utterly.
16 Because of
overwhelming evidence embodied in the historical trajectory of the site in its setting and
the surviving tangible features thereof, the site was and should be included in the Grade I
Historic Farms of Constantia-Tokai. At the time that I prepared the Inventory of Tangible
Heritage Resources of the Constantia-Tokai Valley, both CoCT and SAHRA officials were part
of the decision to propose the Historic Farms of Constantia as Grade I heritage
resources, as were a number of local resident workgroups who made contributions at
workshops held in the process. I share the view of the SAHRA Council and of their
CEO that the site is a part of the said Historic Farmlands. There were, and continue to
be, many cogent reasons for arriving at this view of the level of heritage significance of
the site in question, including:
• Its exemplary rural cultural landscape character and spatial ‘hinge’ and connecting
position between the bounding Groot Constantia vineyard landscape to the north
and the Paggasvlei extensive Green Belt landscapes to the south;
• The fact that the surviving Mount Prospect complex of structures in its setting is
the sole remaining example of a celebrated and high-order Victorian Manor
House and associated agricultural structures and werf (a mill and some other
structures have not survived) in the Constantia-Tokai Valley;
• That it is in terms of international best practice.
I further submit without prejudice that, if for whatever reason the site should not
continue to be a part of the Historic Farms of Constantia-Tokai, with a Grade I level of
significance and part of the SAHRA Provisionally Protected Central Area of the
mentioned Historic Farms (a ‘core heritage area’), then it will be inevitable that the site in
question will a part of the ‘buffer zone’ to the remaining ‘core heritage area’ that will be
required in terms of any Conservation Management Plan. So, in any event, whether part
of a core heritage area or a buffer to it (irrespective of whether such area in the future is
to be a National Heritage Site or even a World Heritage Site) any proposed development
of the site in question will have to conform with Provincial, National and even
International best practice, due to its context. I submit that this clearly precludes
approval of the proposed developments.
Also, The HIA makes at least two brief references to matters that, in my view, are then
not sufficiently pursued as part of the heritage assessment:
• A descendant of the Porter family owned and utilized Mount Prospect;
• There is evidence of older, thatch roofing to an existing structure on site.
Surely, in order to properly propose the appropriate level of heritage significance of the
surviving resources on the site in question more information on these matters would
have been essential in the HIA? Moreover, I submit that there is significant missing
heritage research in the HIA because the identity of the architect of the Mount Prospect

16. Appearing on page 20 of the HIA.
16
Manor House has not been established and, the then client/owner for whom the
complex was designed and built remains a mystery. Surely, this is information that is
essential and necessary before significant heritage resources management decisions about
the site in question are taken? I submit and make representations to the effect that it is
incumbent on the applicant to provide this information flowing from more in-depth
research.
In the light of the foregoing, I submit and make representations to the effect that the
suggested Grade 3 level of significance proposed for the site in the HIA is questionable
and is not sufficiently informed by international best practice, is incomplete and does not
accord with strong evidence that points to a higher, cumulative level of heritage resource
significance of the site.
Moreover, I have here to draw attention to the fact that the DBAR does acknowledge
the following among the heritage and visual impacts the proposed developments would
occasion:
17
• “Intrusion onto the open space that creates a view corridor connecting the
greenbelt to the south, across the Pagasvlei streetscape and northwards to the
homestead complex on the site;
• Loss of mature trees;
• Intrusion onto / loss of the riverine precinct comprising wetland A;
• A loss of the rural character of the site … ;
• Visual intrusion on local residents;
• Visual intrusion on important vistas along scenic routes and corridors;
• Visual intrusion on heritage resources; Visual intrusion of lighting at night; and
• Loss of sense of place within the Constantia valley.”
I strongly suggest and make representations that the above are not impacts that can be
mitigated.
Therefore, as a consequence of the foregoing, I suggest and make representations
to the effect that, in terms of a cascade of heritage resources management
considerations, including absent information that would have an effect on the
appropriate Grading of the resources and the site in question, the development
proposals should not be approved because they are inappropriate, would occasion
severe damage to, and unwarranted intrusions on, exemplary heritage resources.

17. DBAR, p. 13.
17
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATIONS
In the circumstances of the foregoing, we (the CPOA and I as their expert
representative) conclude that:
• The developments proposed are inappropriate from heritage, environmental,
landscape and planning/urban design points of view and should not be approved;
• The existing development control measures embodied in the Local Area Overlay
Zoning, which is currently operative (in terms of the new City of Cape Town
Municipal Planning By- Law (2015)), be strictly adhered to and the application for
rezoning of the site in question to General Residential or Group Housing not be
approved;
• Because the matter of the appropriate Grading of the heritage resources involved is
in question and, because the site is Provisionally Protected by SAHRA, yet there is
no comment from SAHRA in the HIA, consideration of the application be
suspended until such time as:
o Comments are sought and obtained from SAHRA; and
o The comments are seriously taken into account and dealt with in a revised HIA
and EIA in terms of NEMA;
• Irrespective of whether the site in question remains a part of the Protected Historic
Farm or not, because it will either be part of a ‘core heritage area’ or part of a ‘buffer
heritage area’, the application not be approved because it is inappropriate;
• While the proposed development does trigger Section 38 of the NHRA, yet Section
38(8) renders HWC a commenting rather than a decision-making authority, HWC
procedures/requirements under Section 38(1), (2), (3) and (8) must be adhered to
fully. Consequently, we are copying this report to HWC, as this is our comment in
terms of the NHRA. We are also copying to SAHRA, since the site forms part of
the Historic Farms of Constantia-Tokai that were graded Grade I in 2006 and
Provisionally Protected in 2015;
• Our comments and representations must be included in any HIA and EIA, and we
require that we be present and represented when the responsible HWC committee
(the IA Committee) considers the matter;
• All comments made by IAPs on the DBAR be made public;
• Amended development proposals, if framed, be made available to IAPs in due
course for further comment; and
• Appropriate and required EIA be carried out after amended development proposals
are lodged with the CoCT and an application is made in terms of LUPA (Act 3 of
2014) and the provisions of the City of Cape Town Municipal Planning By- Law
(2015), as well as with HWC and SAHRA in terms of the NHRA.
The CPOA and I reserve our rights to make further comment and representations in
these matters, including providing comment to HWC, to the CoCT and to SAHRA on
matters to do with the Grade I Historic Farms of Constantia-Tokai.

 

Leave A Comment