rezoning, subdivision, removal of …khulaec.co.za/downloads/franschhoekfinal/18_appendix_e4...2.2....

REZONING,SUBDIVISION,REMOVALOFRESTRICTIONS&DEPARTUREAPPLICATIONS:ERF1692,RESERVOIRSTREETEAST,FRANSCHHOEK

ii

INDEX

ProjectSummary................................................................................................................................................................1

1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................................2

2. APPLICATIONS........................................................................................................................................................2

3. APPLICANT..............................................................................................................................................................2

4. PROPERTYDETAIL...................................................................................................................................................3

4.1. PropertyInformation...................................................................................................................................3

4.2. TitleDeedReview........................................................................................................................................3

4.3. SiteCharacteristics......................................................................................................................................3

4.3.1. TopographyandDrainage................................................................................................................3

4.3.2. ExistingVegetation...........................................................................................................................3

5. LOCALITYANDCONTEXT........................................................................................................................................3

5.1. Locality.........................................................................................................................................................3

5.2. SurroundingLandUseContext....................................................................................................................4

5.3. Access..........................................................................................................................................................5

6. DEVELOPMENTPROPOSAL....................................................................................................................................5

6.1. DesignDevelopment....................................................................................................................................5

6.2. SubdivisionProposal....................................................................................................................................7

6.3. ZoningSchemeRequirementsandDevelopmentRules..............................................................................7

6.3.1. SingleResidentialZone.....................................................................................................................7

6.3.2. GeneralResidentialZone..................................................................................................................7

6.3.3. DeparturesRequiredforPortion29.................................................................................................8



6.4. ProposedPhasing......................................................................................................................................10

6.5. DevelopmentofApartmentsfortheFranschhoekClaimants’Trust.........................................................10

6.6. BodyCorporate&HomeOwners’AssociationEstablishment..................................................................10

6.7. ConceptualSitePlan..................................................................................................................................10

6.8. LandscapingandOpenSpace....................................................................................................................10

6.9. AccessandParking....................................................................................................................................11

iii

6.10. RefuseRemoval.........................................................................................................................................11

7. SPECIALISTREPORTS............................................................................................................................................11

7.1. GLSEngineeringServicesReport...............................................................................................................11

7.2. APECEngineeringReport...........................................................................................................................11

7.3. TrafficImpactAssessmentandReport......................................................................................................12

7.4. HeritageAssessment.................................................................................................................................13

7.5. EnvironmentalBasicAssessmentReportandSpecialistStudies...............................................................13

7.5.1. BotanicalSensitivityScreening.......................................................................................................13

7.5.2. BasicAssessmentReportandProcess............................................................................................13

8. LEGISLATIVEENVIRONMENT................................................................................................................................13

8.1. TheStellenboschMunicipalitySpatialDevelopmentFramework,2012...................................................13

8.2. TheSouthAfricanNationalHeritageResourcesAct(NHRA),Act25of1999,andNationalEnvironmentalManagementAct(NEMA),Act107of1998......................................................................13

8.3. TheSpatialPlanningandPlanningandLandUseManagementAct(16of2013)andLandUsePlanningAct(3of2014).............................................................................................................................14

8.3.1. Section39(5)oftheLUPA...............................................................................................................14

8.3.2. Section47oftheSPLUMA..............................................................................................................14

9. MOTIVATION........................................................................................................................................................15

9.1. AlignmentwiththeStellenboschSpatialDevelopmentFramework,2012..........................................15

9.2. DesirabilityintermsoftheStellenboschMunicipalityLandUsePlanningBy-Law,2015....................15

9.3. HeritageandEnvironmentalResources...............................................................................................16

9.4. OtherMotivatingFactors.....................................................................................................................16

10. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................................17

iv

LISTOFFIGURES

Figure1 LocalityPlan...........................................................................................................................................4

Figure2 EastfacingstreetviewofReservoirStreetandsurroundingdevelopment...........................................4

Figure3 Grouphousingdevelopmenttothesouthoferf1692..........................................................................5

Figure4 Typicalsingleresidentialdwellings........................................................................................................6

Figure5 Architect’srenderingofapartmentbuildings........................................................................................6

Figure6 Typicalapartmentelevation..................................................................................................................6

Figure7 Extractfromthesubdivisionplan..........................................................................................................9

Figure8 ExtractfromtheStellenboschSpatialDevelopmentFramework........................................................13

LISTOFAPPENDICES

AppendixA Pre-ApplicationMeetingMinutes

AppendixB MunicipalApplicationForm

AppendixC FranschhoekClaimants’TrustPowerofAttorney

AppendixD SurreyHolmes(Pty)LtdResolution

AppendixE SurreyHolmes(Pty)LtdPowerofAttorney

AppendixF PropertyDiagram

AppendixG NotingSheet

AppendixH CopyoftheTitleDeed

AppendixJ Conveyancer’sCertificate

AppendixK NotificationofIntenttoDevelopApproval

AppendixL TopographicalSurvey

AppendixM BotanicalSensitivityScreeningReport

AppendixN StellenboschMunicipalityEnvironmentalSupportLetter

AppendixO SubdivisionPlan

AppendixP PhasingPlan

AppendixQ DeparturePlan

AppendixR ConceptualSitePlan

AppendixS TypicalLayoutsandElevations

AppendixT GLSServicesReport

v

AppendixU APECEngineeringServicesReport

AppendixV TrafficImpactAssessmentandReport

LISTOFPLANS

SubdivisionPlan ..............................................................................................................................................1692/02/01

PhasingPlan ..............................................................................................................................................1692/04/01

DeparturePlan ..............................................................................................................................................1692/05/01

ConceptualSitePlan........................................................................................................................................1692/09/01

REZONING,SUBDIVISION&REMOVALOFRESTRICTIONSAPPLICATIONS:ERF1692,RESERVOIRSTREETEAST,FRANSCHHOEK Page1of19

PROJECTSUMMARY

ObjectiveToobtaintownplanningapprovalforaphaseddevelopment,withresidentialandcommercialcomponents,ontheproperty.

DateSubmitted August2018

Property Erf1692,Franschhoek

Extent 1.9996ha(19996m2)

StreetAddress ReservoirStreetEast,Franschhoek

RegisteredOwner FranschhoekClaimants'Trust(representedbySurreyHolmes(Pty)Ltd)

ApplicantHeadlandPlanners(Pty)Ltd(seepowerofattorneydocuments,appendicesB,C&D)

PropertyDiagram S.G.no.706of2001(appendixF)

NotingSheet BI-7CB/X13(1605)(appendixG)

TitleDeed T60152/2008(appendixH)

RestrictiveTitleConditions Yes,seesection4.2.andtheconveyancer’scertificate(appendixJ)

ZoningScheme LUPOSection8ZoningScheme

Legislation StellenboschMunicipalityLandUsePlanningBy-Law,2015

Section of Legislation in terms ofwhichApplicationsaremade

• Section15(2)(a);• Section15(2)(b);• Section15(2)(d);and• Section15(2)(f).

CurrentZoning UndeterminedZone

CurrentLandUse Vacant

ProposedLandUses Singleresidentialdwellings,apartmentsandfuturebusinessuse.


REZONING,SUBDIVISION&REMOVALOFRESTRICTIONSAPPLICATIONS:ERF1692,RESERVOIRSTREETEAST,FRANSCHHOEK

“BONNESANTÉ”

1. INTRODUCTION

Erf1692(“theproperty”)wasgrantedtotheFranschhoekClaimants’Trust(“thetrust”)inalandclaimprocessthatwasconcludedin2007withtheregistrationofthepropertyinthenameofthetrust.

The property constitutes one of the few remaining land units with the potential for residential (or similar)developmentwithinthetownboundariesofFranschhoek.

SurreyHolmes(Pty)Ltdwasappointedtodevelopthepropertyonbehalfofthetrust,withtheintentiontobothrealisethefulldevelopmentpotentialofthepropertyandtoretainaportionofthesiteundertheownershipoftheclaimantsfortheirfutureincome.

1.1. Pre-applicationConsultation

Apre-applicationmeetingwasheldwiththeMunicipalitywheretheproposeddevelopmentlayoutwasaccepted“in-principle”bytheMunicipalplanners.

ThedesignincludesawiderroadreserveagainstthenorthernboundarywithFranscheHoekEstatetoactasalandscapedbuffer.Thiswasanoutcomeofearlierdiscussionswiththeestatemanagementastotheirinputtotheproposeddevelopment.

Acopyofthepre-applicationmeetingminutesisattachedasappendixA.

2. APPLICATIONS

Thefollowinglanduseapplicationsareherebysubmittedinordertofacilitatethedevelopmentofthepropertyasenvisaged:

2.1. Rezoning of the property in terms of the StellenboschMunicipality LandUse Planning By-Law, 2015,

section15(2)(a) from“undetermined”tosubdivisionalareaoverlayzoneforsingleresidential,general

residential,generalbusiness,privateopenspaceandprivateroads;

2.2. SubdivisionofthepropertyintermsoftheStellenboschMunicipalityLandUsePlanningBy-Law,2015,

section15(2)(d)into35portions;

2.3. Aremovalofrestrictionsapplicationintermsofsection15(2)(f)oftheStellenboschMunicipalLandUse

PlanningBy-law,2015,toremoveconditionA.6.containedindeedoftitleno.T60152/2008;and

2.4. Permanentdepartureapplicationsintermsofsection15(2)(b)oftheStellenboschMunicipalLandUse

PlanningBy-law,2015;section6.3refers.

AdulycompletedandsignedapplicationformisattachedasappendixB.

3. APPLICANT

HeadlandPlanners(Pty)LtdhavebeendulyappointedbySurreyHolmes(Pty)Ltd,onbehalfoftheFranschhoekClaimants’Trust,tosubmittherequiredlanduseapplicationsontheirbehalf.

Signed powers of attorney and a resolution letter, from the registered property owners and the appointeddeveloper,areattachedasappendicesC,DandErespectively.


4. PROPERTYDETAIL

4.1. PropertyInformation

PropertyNumber Erf1692,Franschhoek

PropertyDiagram 706/2001(appendixF)

NotingSheet BI-7CB/X13(1605)(appendixG)

TitleDeed T60152/2008(appendixH)

RestrictiveConditions Yes(seesection4.2andappendixJ)

Extent 1,99976ha

RegisteredOwner TheFranschhoekClaimants’Trust

CurrentZoning UndeterminedZone

CurrentLandUse Vacant,unutilised

AnyUnauthorisedBuildingWork/LandUse No

SubjecttotheNEMA Yes,parallelapplicationunderway.

SubjecttotheNHRA No,seeattachedNIDapproval(appendixK)

4.2. TitleDeedReview

Asinglecondition(conditionA.6onpage3ofTitleDeedno.T60152/2008),pertainingtoservituderightofwayinfavouroftheGovernment,wasfoundduringtheconveyancer’sscrutinyofthetitledeedthatholdstheproperty.Theconditionstates:

“Thatageneral rightofway fromandto theadjoiningCrown landover thewholeof the landhereby

grantedisreservedinfavouroftheGovernment.”

Aconveyancer’scertificatehasbeenprovidedasappendixJtothisreport.

4.3. SiteCharacteristics

4.3.1. TopographyandDrainage

AtopographicalsurveywasundertakenbyNeilWoodinSurveys.Thesurveydeterminedthatthesite slopes gently from east to west offering excellent drainage over the entire site towardsReservoirStreetatthenorthwesterncorner.SeeappendixL.

4.3.2. ExistingVegetation

ThepropertyunderwentabotanicalsensitivityscreeningbybotanistRossCTurnerbecausetheproperty contains Swartland Alluvial Fynbos (SAF) typical of the area. The outcomes of hisassessmentarediscussedinsection8.5.2andhisreportisattachedasappendixM.

5. LOCALITYANDCONTEXT

5.1. Locality

ThesiteislocatedinthenortheasternresidentialareaofFranschhoek,approximately1kmnortheastoftheHuguenotMemorialMuseuminReservoirStreet,northofLambrechtsRoad.Figure1refers.


Figure1:LocalityPlan (source:PlanetGIS)

5.2. SurroundingLandUseContext

Thearea’scontextistypicallyresidentialincontrastwiththetourism(guesthouses)typeusesfoundinmuchofthetown.SmallersingleresidentialdwellingslineReservoirStreet’ssouthernside(seefigure2)andtothenorthisFranscheHoekEstate,whichconsistsoflargersingledwellingproperties.

Figure2:EastfacingstreetviewofReservoirStreetandsurroundingdevelopment

Oppositethesiteatitseasternboundaryisasmallgrouphousingdevelopmentconsistingof18unitsnotdissimilarinsizetotheproposedsingleresidentialproperties.Seefigure3.


Figure3:Grouphousingdevelopmenttothesouthoferf1692

LikemuchofFranschhoek,thesiteiseasilyaccessiblefromtheMainRoad,thetouristcorridorandroutewest,andalsoontoLambrechtsRoadthemajorregionalroutetotheeast.

5.3. Access

AccesstothepropertyisdirectlyfromReservoirStreet;futureaccesstothedevelopmentwilltakeplaceinaccordancewiththeattachedsubdivisionplan(appendixO).

6. DEVELOPMENTPROPOSAL

6.1. DesignDevelopment

Anumberoffiltershavebeenappliedtothelayoutdesigninordertoachievethemostacceptablefinalproposal.TheinitialdiscussionswereheldwiththeMunicipalityintheformofapre-applicationmeetingheldwiththetownplannersandurbandesigndepartment.Furthermore,theneighbouringFranscheHoekEstatewasconsultedfortheirinputtothedevelopment.

Theresultinanumberofcul-de-sacs,orientatingthesingleresidentialsitesonacontained“playcourt”or“woonerf”styleareathatservesbothasvehicularaccessforresidentsaswellasahardopenspaceforchildrentoplay.SeeappendixOandfigure4.

Theparticipationindesignhasalsoresultedinawiderroadalongthenorthernboundaryoftheproperty.Theroadreserveneednotbe13mwide,however,theprovisionofalandscapedbufferingedgebetweentheneighbouringresidentialestateandthedevelopmentwasdeterminedtobeaconsideratepartofthedesignreasoning.Additionally,allparkingonthegeneralresidentialsiteshasbeenlocatedsothatitisnotvisibletotheneighbours.

Architecturaldesignhasbeendeliberatelyinkeepingwiththelocalcharacterandthisconceptbridgestothedesignofthegeneralresidentialbuildingsonthegeneralresidentialportions,29-31.Theapartmentbuildings are designed to resemble larger residential dwellings, being only 2 stories tall and utilisingpitched“house-type”roofs.SeeappendixS,typicallayoutsandelevationsandfigures4,5&6.

Erf1692


Measures have been taken to calm traffic on the internal roads by means of raised paving at theintersectionsofthecul-de-sacsandthemainaccessroad.Thiswillensurethesafetyofusersofthecul-de-sacsashardprivateopenspaces.

Figure4:Typicalsingleresidentialdwellings

Figure5:Architectsrenderingoftheapartments


Figure6:Typicalapartmentelevation

6.2. SubdivisionProposal

Itisproposedtorezonethepropertyfromundeterminedzonetosubdivisionalareaoverlayzone,tomakeprovisionfor:

• 28singleresidentialerven,ranginginsizefrom189m2to311m2;• 3 general residential erven for apartments of which one is to be developed for the Franschhoek

Claimant’sTrust;• ageneralbusinesserfof908m2forafuturebusinessuse;• 2privateopenspaceportions(1321m2combined);and• privateroads.

Asubdivisionplan(appendixO)hasbeenpreparedandisextractedinfigure4.

6.3. ZoningSchemeRequirementsandDevelopmentRules

Threedifferentzoningtypesareutilisedfortheproposeddevelopment,being;singleresidentialzone,generalresidentialzoneandprivateopenspace.Thefourthlanduseisprivateroads,whichformstheremainderoftheproperty.

InlightoftheforthcomingStellenboschZoningSchemeBy-Law(expectedJanuary2019),thedeparturesapplied for are done so with the new scheme regulations in mind. Therefore, wherever possible,departures from the current zoning scheme should be compared to the new scheme parametersbecausethesewilleffectivelynegatethecertaindeparturesinthefuture.

6.3.1. SingleResidentialZone

Thepermittedusesare:

• Primaryrights:DwellingHouse,and

• UsespermittedwithCouncil’sspecialconsent:Educationalbuilding,placesofpublicworship.


Theparametersofthezoningschemeintermsofdevelopmentrulesareindicatedinthefollowingtable:

StreetBoundaryBuildingLine 4,6m

CommonBoundaryBuildingLine 2,3m(1,2mforsiteslessthan18mwide)

RearBuildingLine 3,0m

Coverage 30%

Height Twostoriesabovethegroundlevel

Note:Alldwellinghousesaretobeconstructedwiththezoningschemeparametersinmind.Nodeparturesarethereforenecessitatedforportions1–28.

6.3.2. GeneralResidentialZone

Thepermittedusesare:

• Primaryrights:Blocksofflatsorotherresidentialbuildings,dwellings,dwellinghouses,tenements;and

• Uses permitted with Council’s special consent: Institutional buildings, places of public worship, grouphousing.

Portions29and30lieinthezoningscheme’sgeneralresidentialzone4,forsiteslargerthan2000m2.Portion31fallsbelowtheminimumsizerequirementof1000m2andthereforearegulationdepartureisrequiredfortheproperty.Theparametersofthezoningschemeintermsofdevelopmentrulesare indicated inthefollowingtableanddeparturesindicatedonthedepartureplanattachedasappendixQ:

DevelopmentRule Parameter Compliance/Departure

StreetBoundaryBuildingLine

7.6mor16mfromthecentreofastreetwhichislessthan16mwidth

Portion29:10.9m Nodeparture

Portion30:Seesection6.3.4.


LateralorRearBoundaryBuildingLine

4.6morhalftheheightofthebuilding.




Coverage 25% Portion29:31% departure

Portion30:28% departure

Portion31:37% departure

FloorFactor Portions29&30:0.75

Portion31:0.4

Portion29:0.62(2336m2)nodeparture

Portion30:0.55(1345m2)nodeparture

Portion31:0.74(±342m2)departure

MinimumStreetFront 15m Portion29:13m departure

Portion30:108m nodeparture

Portion31:18m nodeparture

Height Portions29&30:unlimited

Portion31:2storeys

Twostoreys(±7.9m) nodeparture

Parking 1bayperdwellingunit Portion29:39bays(26units)nodeparture

Portion30:23bays(16units)nodeparture

Portion31:6bays(4units)nodeparture

6.3.3. DeparturesRequiredforPortion29


• 3mand2.8minlieuof4.6mfromthenorthernandeasterncommonboundarieswitherven2850and2835,respectively,forbuildingC;

• 2.8mand3.1minlieuof4.6mfromtheeasternandsoutherncommonboundarywitherf2835forbuildingD;

• 3.1mand3.3minlieuof4.6mfromthesoutherncommonboundarieswitherf2835forbuildingE;• 3minlieuof4.6mfromthesoutherncommonboundarywitherf2835forbuildingF.


• Departurefromprovision8.5.1oftheFranschhoekZoningSchemetopermitabuildingtobeconstructedonageneralresidentialsiteabuttingastreetwithawidthof8,5minlieuof12,5m.

• 4.7minlieuof7.6mfromtheReservoirStreetBoundary• 3.9minlieuof7.6mfromtheRuedeViestreetboundary• 4.7minlieuof11.7mfromthestreetboundaryofRuedeViefortheportionthatislessthan16mwide• 3.8minlieuof4.6mfromthewesterncommonboundarywitherf1693,forbuildingC.


• Departurefromprovision8.3.1oftheZoningSchemetopermitportion31tobe459m2inlieuof1000m2;• Departurefromprovision8.5.1oftheZoningSchemetopermitabuildingtobeconstructedonageneral

residentialsiteabuttingastreetwithawidthof8,5minlieuof12,5m;• 7minlieuof11.7mfromtheRuedeViestreetboundary;• 3.3minlieuof4.6mfromthesoutherncommonboundarywithportion30;• 2.1minlieuof4.6mfromthenortherncommonboundarywithportion33;• 3.4minlieuof4.6mfromthewesterncommonboundarywitherf1693.

Itshouldbebenotedthatthemajorityoftherequireddeparturesareinternalofthedevelopmentandwillthereforehavelittletonoimpactontheneighbouringproperties.


Figure7:Extractfromtheproposedsubdivisionplan(appendixO)


6.4. ProposedPhasing

Thesubdivisionanddevelopmentwillbephasedinaccordancewiththeproposedphasingplan,attachedasappendixP,asfollows:

• Phase1:Portions1–5&30,33&34(privateopenspace)andthemaincirculationroad(RuedeVie)toprovideaccesstothegeneralresidentialsites.- 5singleresidentialdwellings;and- 16apartments

• Phase2:Portions6–16&31(claimants’property)andthefirstcul-de-sac(Rued’Espoir);- 11singleresidentialdwellings;and- 4apartments

• Phase3:Portions17–23andthesecondcul-de-sac(RuedePaix);- 7singleresidentialdwellings

• Phase4:Portions24–28andthefinalcul-de-sac(RuedelaSanté);- 5singleresidentialdwellings

• Phase5:Portion29(thelargegeneralresidentialsite);- 30apartments

• Phase6:Portion32(thegeneralbusinesssite)- FuturebusinessGLA,tobeappliedaccordingtothezoningschemeregulations.

6.5. DevelopmentofApartmentsfortheFranschhoekClaimants’Trust

Inaccordancewiththedevelopmentagreementbetweentheownersoftheproperty,theFranschhoekClaimants’Trust(“theTrust”),andSurreyHolmes(Pty)Ltd,thefirstportiontobedevelopedwillbetheapartmentstobeownedbytheTrustandmanagedbythehomeowners’association.

Furtherdevelopmentofthesitewilltakeplaceinaccordancewiththeproposeddevelopmentphasing,seesection6.4,“Phase2”.

6.6. BodyCorporate&HomeOwners’AssociationEstablishment

TwoseparateBodyCorporatesareestablishedtomanagethetwogeneralresidentialsites.Inaddition,thesingleresidentialpropertieswillberunbyahomeowners’association.Thesemanagementbodieswill belong to a principal property owners’ associationwhichwill deal with allmatters pertaining tomaintenanceandmanagementofthedevelopment.

The constitutions of the variousmanagement bodies are being prepared andwill be provided to theMunicipalityuponcompletion.

6.7. ConceptualSitePlan

An indicatory siteplanhasbeenprepared to show the layoutof thegeneral residential sitesand theproposedlandscapingandcirculation.ThesiteplanisattachedasappendixR.

6.8. LandscapingandOpenSpace

Twoportionsofopenspaceareprovided,portions33and34,amountingto±1320m2.Thisareawillbeusedforlandscapingandopenspacefortheuseofresidents.A2.5mwidepedestrianfootpathisprovidedonthesiteasawalkingpathandiskeptwideenoughtobewheelchairfriendly.Portion33willalsoprovideafunctionalroleasastormwaterdetentionpond.


Hard private open space has proven desirable as an addition to green open space in developments.Consequently,thelayoutincludescul-de-sacsthatprovidesafeplayingandmovementspaceinfrontofthesingledwellings.Landscapingistobeindigenousandwatersensitive.SeeappendixR.

6.9. AccessandParking

AccessfortheresidentialcomponentwillbeviaasecureaccessroadfromReservoirStreetoppositeLillieRoad. Access will be secured with a boom and security guard andmanaged in accordance with thehomeowners’associationconstitution.AccesstothebusinesscomponentisfromReservoirStreet.

Parkingwillbeprovidedatthezoningschemerequirementof2bayspersingleresidentialdwelling,atleast 1 bay per apartment and 1 bay per 25m2 of businessGLA. See tabulated parking requirementshereunder.Therefore,nodeparturefromtheparkingrequirementsissought.

Parking

SingleResidential2bays/unit): 56bays

Apartments(1bay/unit): 58bays

Offices(1bay/25m2): 15bays

Total: 129bays

6.10. RefuseRemoval

Arefuseroomistobeprovidedoneachofthegeneralresidentialsitesforthecentralcollectionofrefuse.Theroadsaredesignedinsuchawaytoallowthe28residentialunitstobeservicedbyeitheraprivaterefuseremovalcontractoroftheMunicipalrefuseremovalvehicles.

7. SPECIALISTREPORTS

7.1. GLSEngineeringServicesReport

GLSConsultingwascommissionedtoprepareanengineeringservicesreportinrespectofthecapacityofexistingmunicipal services for the proposed development. The findings and recommendations of theservicesreportaresummarisedasfollows(seeappendixT):

• Network upgrades to the existing water services network are recommended to improve networkconveyanceandtoimprovepressureatthehigherpointsofthedevelopment;

• The sewer network has sufficient capacity to accommodate theproposeddevelopment, however,invertlevelsofthemainoutfallsewershouldbesurveyedtoconfirmthesparecapacity;

• Thedevelopermaybeliablefordevelopmentcontributionsforbulkwaterandsewerinfrastructure.

7.2. APECEngineeringReport

AsupplementaryengineeringreportwasprovidedbyRiaanSwiegersofAPECconsultingengineers.Thereportdealswith civil and structural engineering componentsof thedevelopmentandmaybe foundattachedasappendixU.TherecommendationsofAPEC’sreportareasfollows:

• All structures will comply to the applicable SANS standards and National Building Regulationsrequirements;

• Midblockterracingwillbeusedtoobviateanyneedforstairsorrampstotheproposeddwellingunitsonportions1–28,andtocounteractthegentleslopeofthesite;

• Cul-de-sacsprovide“playcourt”pedestriancontrolledfacilitiesandthereforspeedlimitsof30km/hand20km/harerecommendedforthemainaccessroadandcul-de-sacsrespectively;


• Stormwater is tobe retained in thestormwaterpondprovidedonportion33 in thenorthwesterncornerofthesite;

• Sufficient Municipal water supply and sewer treatment capacity is available to support thedevelopment;

• Refuse removal is to be via refuse rooms in the general residential developments and kerb-sidecollectionforthe28singleresidentialunits;

• Firehydrantswillbeplacedwithin90mofanybuildingonthedevelopmenttocomplywithSANSfiremitigationstandards;

• Certainwaternetworkupgradesarerequiredbythelocalauthorityandwillneedtobeimplemented;

• Apressureboostingstationwillneedtobeprovidedforthegeneralresidentialsiteonportion29inordertosupplythetopfloorswithsufficientpressure;

• SewerinfrastructuremaybeprovidedintheinternalroadreservesandconnectedtotheMunicipalSewermain,whichhascapacitytohandlethedevelopment’seffluent.AnyexternalsewerupgradesarerecommendedtoremainunderthecontroloftheMunicipalityutilisingdevelopmentcontributionspaidbyprivatedevelopers;

• Harvestingofrainandgreywaterinproposed,intostoragetanksonthevariouspropertiesproposed.Managementofstormwaterrunoffat thesource(roof level)will reducerunoffpeaks, leadingtoagenerallymoresustainableandlessimpactfuldevelopmentintermsofstormwater;

• Internalstreetswillbetreatedwitha2.5mwidepedestrianwalkingpaththatiswheelchairfriendly;

• All electrical and communication ducting will be installed by the appointed civil engineeringcontractor;

• Onewheelie bin per 2 apartments is recommended for the general residential sites, and a singlewheeliebinforweeklyrefuseremovalisrecommendedforthesingledwellingunits;

• A2.1mhighelectrifiedfenceisrecommendedtosatisfysafetyandsecurityrequirements;

• Nounmanageable impacts on thebuilt environment are expected as a result of the rezoning andsubdivisionofthepropertyandthereforeMunicipalapprovalisrecommended.

7.3. TrafficImpactAssessmentandReport

A traffic impact assessment (TIA) was prepared by Sturgeon Consulting Transport Engineers for thedevelopment.TheoutcomesandrecommendationsoftheTIA,whichareinsupportofthedevelopment,aresummarisedinthefollowingbulletpoints:

• Alloftheintersectionsincludedinthestudyareexpectedtooperateacceptablywiththeinclusionoftheproposeddevelopment;

• Noupgradesarerequiredtothesurroundingroadnetworkasaresultofgrowthinbackgroundtraffic;

• Theresidentialcomponentshouldbeaccessedby two lanes (one for residentsandthesecond forvisitors)andhaveasingleexitlane;

• Parkingistobeprovidedataratioof2baysperdwellinghouse,1.25baysperapartmentand1bayper25m2fortheofficecomponent;and

• NopublictransportorNon-MotorisedTransport(NMT)improvementsarerequired.


Thetransportengineershaveapprovedthedevelopmentfromatrafficimpactpointofview.However,theyrecommendthattheaccesspointsthatareproposedareapprovedbytheMunicipalitypriortothecommencementofconstruction.TheTIAisattachedasappendixV.

7.4. HeritageAssessment

ANotificationofIntenttoDevelop(NID)applicationwassubmittedtothecompetentauthority(HeritageWesternCape)byaregisteredheritagepractitioner.TheNIDwasapprovedbytheauthoritywhostatedthattherewasnoreasontobelievethatanyheritageresourceswouldbeimpacteduponasaresultofthedevelopment.AcopyoftheNIDapprovalisattachedasappendixJ.

7.5. EnvironmentalBasicAssessmentReportandSpecialistStudies

7.5.1. BotanicalSensitivityScreening

Ross Turner has prepared the botanical sensitivity screening to inform the basic assessmentprocess.Hisspecialist report isattachedasappendixMandhisconclusionsaresummarisedasfollows:

• Thesitecontains“moderatelydisturbed”vegetationoftheSwartlandAlluviumFynbos(SAF)and BolandGranite Fynbos. Both ofwhich are representedwell in formally conserved SAFareas;

• Theminimumsizeforaportionoflandcontainingconservation-worthyplanspeciesisintherangeof4-15hectares,renderingthesitetoosmallandtooclosetourbandevelopmentforacontrolledburningregime;

• If given conservation status, the vegetation would be prone to fragmentation given thesurroundingdevelopment;

Any biodiversity corridor in the critical biodiversity area (CBA) would have needed to beestablished±16yearsagotohavecounteractedurbanandviticulturalsprawl.

7.5.2. BasicAssessmentReportandProcess

Abasicassessmentprocesswasrequiredbythecompetentauthority,whichwillrunconcurrentlywiththelanduseapplicationprocess.

During the environmental pre-application participation process, Stellenbosch Municipality hassupportedthedevelopment.TheirletterisattachedasappendixN,seesection8.2.

8. LEGISLATIVEENVIRONMENT

8.1. TheStellenboschMunicipalitySpatialDevelopmentFramework,2012

TheprinciplesoftheSpatialDevelopmentFramework(SDF)forthegreaterStellenboschareaprovideaguidelinetosustainabledevelopment,thefutureurbanformandurbangrowthintheregion.

Developmentprinciples includetheconceptof interconnectednessbetweenregionalnodes,economicgrowthandtheoptimisationoflanduse.Theyalsocovertheresponsibilityoftheareatobecustodiansofnatural resources (thearea’s strongagricultural andenvironmental assets) and theheritageof theregion,containingsomeoftheoldestfarmsinSouthAfrica.

DuetotheseverehousingshortagethatisexperiencedintheMunicipalityasawhole,muchattentionisgivenintheSDFtodensificationofexistingurbanareasandbetterutilisationofurbanland.


8.2. TheSouthAfricanNationalHeritageResourcesAct(NHRA),Act25of1999,andNationalEnvironmentalManagementAct(NEMA),Act107of1998

Duetothesizeofthedevelopment(nearly2hectaresinextent)aNotificationofIntenttoDevelop(NID)applicationwasrequiredfromHeritageWesternCape.TheapplicationfoundthatnoheritageresourceswouldbeimpacteduponandNIDapprovalwasgrantedbytheheritageauthority(seeappendixK).

Aparallelenvironmentalapplication(BasicAssessmentReport)wassubmittedbyKhulaEnvironmentalConsultants on 31 August 2017 to the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs andDevelopment Planning. This application process is nearing the end of its public participation process,whichwasundertakenasapre-applicationpublicparticipationprocess.

Amongstothers,theStellenboschMunicipality’scomments(appendixN)werereceivedinresponsetothe basic assessment report and indicated that due to the site’s isolation, state of environmentaldegradation, and local development potential, that the proposed development was supported inprinciple.

TheoutcomeoftheenvironmentalapplicationwillbesubmittedtotheMunicipalityuponreceiptfromthecompetentauthority.

8.3. TheWesternCapeLandUsePlanningAct(LUPA),Act3of2014,andtheSpatialPlanningandLandUseManagementAct(SPLUMA),Act16of2013

8.3.1. Considerationisgiventotheprovisionsofsection39(5)oftheLUPAasfollows:

a) Thefinancialorothervalueoftherightsintermsoftherestrictiveconditionenjoyedbyapersonorentity, irrespective of whether these rights are personal or vest in the person as the owner of adominanttenement;

It is submitted that the land abutting the property towhich the restrictive servitude refers, has been

alienatedfromanystateownershipandisnowpartofaprivateresidentialestate.Theservitudecondition

thereforelacksanyvalidityorusetoaccessstatelandasindicatedinthetitledeed.Novalueofrightsmay

beinfringeduponasaresultofremovingthisconditionandderegisteringtheservitude.

b) thepersonalbenefitswhichaccruetotheholderofrightsintermsoftherestrictivecondition;

Nobenefitisaccrued.Aservitudeisremovedwhichno-longerhasanymeaningfulaccessfunction.

c) thepersonalbenefitswhichwillaccruetothepersonseekingtheremoval,suspensionoramendmentoftherestrictiveconditionifitisremoved,suspendedoramended;

Theclaimants,beingregisteredownersoftheland,areabletobenefitfromthesuccessfullandclaimand

developtheproperty.

d) thesocialbenefitoftherestrictiveconditionremaininginplaceinitsexistingform;

Nosocialbenefitwillberetainedbyretainingtherestrictivecondition.

e) thesocialbenefitoftheremoval,suspensionoramendmentoftherestrictivecondition;and

Theclaimantsareabletobenefitfromthesuccessfullandclaimanddeveloptheproperty.

f) whethertheremoval,suspensionoramendmentoftherestrictiveconditionwillcompletelyremoveallrightsenjoyedbythebeneficiaryoronlysomeofthoserights.

Theremovalwillcompletelyremovetherightsenjoyedbythebeneficiary.


8.3.2. Section47of theSPLUMA are tobe consideredwhenconsidering the removalof a restrictivecondition.TheapplicationisdeemedascompliantwiththeprovisionsoftheActinthatitdoesnotmateriallydeprivethebeneficiaryofanyrights(thelandadjacenttoerf1692isprivatelyownedandnolongerthepropertyofthestate)andthereforerightsofaccessappeartobedefunct.Theprocessofnotificationintermsofsubsection47(4)willbedealtwithduringpublicparticipationoftheapplication.

9. MOTIVATION

9.1. AlignmentwiththeStellenboschSpatialDevelopmentFramework,2012

• Thesiteislocatedwithintheurbanedgeandinanareadesignated“urbandevelopment”intheSDF.Thepinkarrowsinfigure5showplannedfutureurbangrowthandintegration.

Figure8:AnextractfromtheStellenboschSpatialDevelopmentFramework

• ThedevelopmentofthepropertywillpromotetheinclusivedevelopmentgoalsoftheStellenbosch

SDF;

• Thedevelopmentoffersdensificationwithintheurbanedge,andtheenhanceduseofanopportune

(yetundeveloped)portionoflandintheurbanarea.Seefigure5;

• The development offers a range of residential opportunities and future commercial GLA in

Franschhoek;

• ThedevelopmentisthereforeseentobesupportiveoftheSDF’sdevelopmentgoals.

9.2. DesirabilityintermsoftheStellenboschMunicipalityLandUsePlanningBy-Law,2015

Erf1692


Cognisance is given to section 65 of the Stellenbosch Municipal Planning By-law in respect of thedesirabilityofthedevelopment,asfollows:

• Thedevelopmentistobedesignedwiththegeneralcharacteroftheareainmind,whichcontainsa

rangeofdwellingtypesandsizes;

• The site contains the development of dwellings for the claimants of a land trust whom own the

property.Apercentageofthedevelopmentwillremainundertheownershipoftheclaimants,allowing

forsecuretenureofpropertyfortheirownuseorrentalandwhichismanagedbytheover-arching

propertyowners’association;

• Noadverseimpactsontherightsofsurroundingpropertyownersareexpected.Thedevelopmentof

additionaldwellingswillbringnewstocktothemarketandarguablyimprovethevalueofsurrounding

land;

• Capacityexists in theMunicipal services infrastructure tosupport theproposeddevelopment.Any

upgradesrequiredwillbesupplementedbythedevelopmentcontributionspaidbythedeveloper.See

section8.2fortheengineeringservicereportsummary;

• No traffic impacts are expected, nor any intersection upgrades required as a result of the

development.Seesection8.3;

• Developmentrulesforthevariousproposedzoningsaretobecompliedwithsoastonottriggerany

departureapplications.Parkingprovisionispertherequirementsofthezoningscheme;

• Thedevelopmentofunutilisedpropertycontributestoimprovedsafetyandsecurityandisdesirable

intermsofforwardplanningbydensifyingexistingurbanareas;

• Densification of existing urban areas, and within the urban edge should be supported by

Municipalities,especiallywhenkeepingwiththelocalcharacter;

• Ahierarchyofbodycorporates/propertyowners’associationswillmanagethedevelopment,dealing

withallmaintenanceaspects.

9.3. Heritage&EnvironmentalResources

AnenvironmentalBasicAssessmentReport(BAR)applicationprocessisrunninginparallelwiththeland

use application. The outcomes of the BARwill be conveyed to theMunicipality when these become

available.

ANotificationofIntenttoDevelop(NID)applicationwassubmitted,andsubsequentlyapprovedbythecompetentauthority,onthegroundsthatnoheritageresourceswillbeimpactedupon(seeappendixK).

9.4. OtherMotivatingFactors

• TheinitialprocessleadinguptothestructuringofthedevelopmentinvolvedpublicparticipationwiththeneighbouringFranscheHoekEstateandwiththeMunicipality.Theresultisanumberofdesignelementswhichbufferthedevelopmentfromsurroundingpropertyowners,mitigatinganyadverseeffectsontherightsofsaidowners;

• Acombinationofhardandsoftopenspacehasbeenutilised(greenspacesandcul-de-sacs)toprovideawealthofdefensibleopenspaceinthedevelopment;


• Buildings are designed in the local vernacular and the visual impact of the apartment buildingsproposed has been mitigated by architecturally appearing similar to large dwellings rather thanapartmentblocks;

• Thedevelopmenthasbeendesignedtoobviateanyneedtoapplyforregulationdepartures,furtherminimisinganypotentialriskofimpactingontherightsofothers;

• Noadverseenvironmentalimpactsareexpectedduetothesizeofthesiteandthatthevegetationspeciesfoundonthepropertybeingwellrepresentedinformalconservationareas;

• ThedevelopmentrespondswelltotheprovisionsoftheStellenboschBy-lawonMunicipalPlanning,theStellenboschSpatialDevelopmentFrameworkandtherequirementsoftheWesternCapeLandUsePlanningActandtheSpatialPlanningandLandUseManagementAct;

• The motivation for the regulation departure from the minimum general residential erf size is toprovide an independent erf in accordancewith the arrangement between the developer and theFranschhoekClaimants’ Trust. The claimantswill have tenureofportion31, andmanagementwillremaintheresponsibilityofthedeveloper;

• The departures sought are in majority “internal” departures applicable to streets inside thedevelopment.OnlyonedepartureappliestoReservoirStreet(portion30);

• Thedesignofthedevelopmentissuchthatthegeneralresidentialsitesappearsimilartolargesingledwellingsratherthanflats.Thisapproachnecessitatesmoredeparturesthanasinglelargeapartmentbuildingwould,howevertheimpactofalargebuildingtotheneighbourswouldbeconsiderablymore.

10. CONCLUSION

Theproposeddevelopmentistheresultofasuccessfullandrestitutionprocess,providingformerlydispossessedresidentswithanopportunitytobenefitfromayetundevelopedportionofpropertyinFranschhoek.

Inaddition,thepropertyiswelllocatedforthedevelopmentofadditionalresidentialdwellingstoaugmentthehousingmarketinFranschhoekandarangeofdwellingtypeswillbemadeavailable.

The development does not result in adverse impacts on traffic & transport infrastructure, Municipal civilengineeringcapacitiesareavailabletosupportthedevelopmentandnodepartureapplicationsarerequiredtorealisethedevelopment,meaningthatthenegativeimpactonsurroundingrightsisalmostentirelymitigated.

The development does not constitute an impact on any heritage resources and the specialist botanicalexamination indicated that the risk of destroying conservation worthy species is very low. However, thefinalisationof the environmental BasicAssessmentReportwill provide a confirmationof any environmentalimpactsandmitigationthereof.

Fromalegislativepointofview,thedevelopmentcomplieswithforwardplanningframeworks,policyandLandUsePlanningLegislationatallspheresofGovernment.

Finally,theremovaloftherestrictiveconditionisseentohavelittleimpactasitappearstonolongerservethelandtowhichtheservitudeprovidedaccess.

Forthesereasonsandthosecontainedinthemotivationabove,theapplicationissubmittedforMunicipality’sfavourableconsideration.


FCH1692 HEADLAND August2018 TOWNPLANNERS

rezoning, subdivision, removal of …khulaec.co.za/downloads/franschhoekfinal/18_appendix_e4...2.2....

Documents