MITCHELLS PLAIN VACANT LAND STUDY 2008
For:
URBAN RENEWAL UNIT MITCHELLS PLAIN
in conjunction with
CITY OF CAPE TOWN PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
Report date:
April 2009
MITCHELLS PLAIN VACANT LAND STUDY 2008
MAIN CONTRIBUTORS AND CONTACT DETAIL
Urban Renewal Unit (CoCT):
George Penxa
Director: Urban Renewal Unit
Ivan Anthony
Ivan.anthony@capetown.gov.za
021-391-7124 / 021-391 3198
Aiden Baron
Property Management (CoCT):
Municipal Planning Solutions
(Planning Consultants to the
Property Management Dept):
aiden.baron@capetwon.gov.za
073-227-4445 (cell)
Andre Human
andre.human@capetown.gov.za
021-400-2366
Pieter Matthysen
pieter.matthysen@capetown.gov.za
021-400 5949
Francois Wüst
planning@telkomsa.net
021-975-2096/ 082-373-0225 (cell)
Report Date : 17 April 2009
Data collection and review: Aug 2008 - Dec 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City of Cape Town has for several years been identifying and compiling data for various
parcels of vacant land. However, it was felt that the existing data for Mitchells Plain needed to be
refined in order to assist with the prioritised release and development of city-owned land in the
area. The Urban Renewal Unit had funds available for such a study while Property Management
was in a position to assist with project management and liaison with other key departments. This
report reflects the results of this joint effort by the two departments and the work done by the
consultants.
While a large amount of work covering a huge number of properties is available electronically, the
printouts in this bundle focus on those properties with relative favourable potential in the short to
medium term. The body of work should have immediate benefits as a reference guide but it is
imperative to take the work further with plans to promote the physical development of a number of
these properties, for example by offering it by tender to developers.
It is, however, clear that as far as the selected properties are concerned, more in-depth
investigations and consultation with stakeholder departments and institutions will be required.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANNEXURE A:
Data Bundle Printouts and Maps/Aerial Photograph
1
Introduction .............................................................. - 1 -
2
Study Goals ............................................................. - 1 -
3
Main Data Sources .................................................. - 2 -
4
Scoring and Short-listing of properties ..................... - 2 -
5
Further Assessment of Shortlist ............................... - 3 -
6
Scoring of Specific Potential .................................... - 3 -
7
General Findings ..................................................... - 4 -
8
The printed data bundle (Annexure A) ..................... - 6 -
9
Shortlist per Spatial Context Category ..................... - 6 -
10
Summary of Products/Outcomes .......................... - 8 -
11
Recommendation for Phase II .............................. - 9 -
12
Final Remarks ...................................................... - 9 -
REFERENCES
PROPERTY LIST AND KEY DATA
Table A: Main List with property detail and scores
Table B: Proposed Land Use and Policy Reference
MAPS:
Map A: A-List Properties Against Aerial Photograph
Map B: Properties Investigated (with scores >2,0)
LARGE SCALE MAP
using existing data and cross-referencing to existing planning
studies;
1 Introduction
This study entails a vacant land study for the area of Mitchells
Plain with the focus on properties that are developable on the
short to medium term. The main purpose of this study is thus to
identify and describe vacant developable properties in Mitchells
Plain.
The secondary purpose is to identify a manageable number of
properties that can serve as practical implementation projects on
the short to medium term.
The study should be to the benefit of the Urban Renewal Unit in
Mitchells Plain. It is assumed that a high percentage of the
developable sites will be owned by council and this project will
therefore also benefit the Property Management Department.
There should also be a wider benefit within other departments of
the City of Cape Town, as the results can assist to inform
decision-making, for instance with regards to spatial planning,
housing and infrastructure planning.
It was concluded at an early stage that a fair amount of data was
available for Mitchells Plain and the first phase of the project
would involve obtaining the data and converting it to compatible
formats in order to condense the most appropriate elements of
such data into one new database.
This database, with the
newly added information fields (layers) will be available to inform
other initiatives.
The overall project process, which correlates to a large degree
with the processes involving the data, is depicted on the diagram
on the following page.
•
From this database, to prioritise development opportunities,
focussing on those sites that have a relative high probability of
obtaining the necessary approvals on the short to medium term;
especially those with mixed-use or job-creation possibilities.
As part of this process, observations of a more general nature were
made regarding the development potential of vacant land in Mitchells
Plain, which is presented in par.7.
It was also necessary to involve key role-players to assist the team in
going through the shortlist and adding their valuable knowledge.
Through this iterative process a shortlist of properties could be identified
including a value judgement on its suitability for development on the
short to medium term as well as comments with regards to the type of
development proposed.
It should be noted that the proposals are not intended as rigid planning
directives, but rather as pointers towards development with the purpose
of stimulating development.
The overall purpose is thus to assist in directing resources in terms of
further detailed planning (and preparing properties for disposal) to those
properties with the best potential.
The results in terms of those properties found to have a relative high
suitability for development (the “A” list) are listed in Table A (and B)
after the main document. These properties are also indicated on Map
A and are individually presented with data and aerial photographs in
the printed bundle - Annexure A.
2 Study Goals
3 Main Data Sources
The main short term focus of the study is twofold:
The new database started as the collation of three pre-existing but
separate databases (see data-flow diagram on previous page), namely:
•
To develop a combined spatial database of vacant
properties with development potential in Mitchells Plain
MITCHELLS PLAIN VACANT LAND STUDY 2008 - REPORT DATE: APRIL 2009 - JOINT PROJECT: URBAN RENEWAL UNIT AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT - CONSULTANTS: MUNICIPAL PLANNING SOLUTIONS
-2•
The Planning Designation Of Developable Land Study
(previously called the ‘Vacant Land Study’);
•
The MOSS (Metropolitan Open Space System study);
•
The City-owned property database.
These GIS based databases were integrated into one as far as
possible (although there were many technical challenges).
In some instances new entities were created for instance when it
was necessary to identify a developable portion of an extensive
cadastral property, or an opportunity not previously identified.
Additional information layers (fields) which were subsequently
added are described mostly in paragraph 5.
It can be
mentioned that many of these fields were only populated for the
“A”-list, as will be described in the next paragraph.
4 Scoring and Short-listing of properties
As is indicated in the process diagrams (see following page), the
filtering of properties to identify high potential sites, was to be a
very important component of this study.
The main “tool” to achieve this filtering or sifting was to allocate a
score out of 5 for each property, representing its development
potential on the short to medium term. (Sometimes this score
was manipulated slightly to highlight properties with special
potential in terms of key issues, such as economic development).
The original ±2000 properties were soon reduced to ±300 by
eliminating those smaller than 1000m². These properties were
then scored as described above. The factors that impacted
negatively on the score were:
•
Where ownership issues were suspected;
•
Where other internal departments
responsible for such properties;
•
Where environmental concerns were suspected;
were
already
•
Sites that are relatively small;
•
Any other issue that could delay or curtail development.
The properties in this bundle represent those where preliminary
investigations yielded a score of 4,5 or better out of 5 in terms of
development potential.
The number of properties with such high
score is ±35. This group is called the “A”-list. It was decided to
focus in this study on the top 33 properties as presented in this
bundle.
The next group (called the “B”-list) consists of the properties with a score
of 4 out of five, of which there are approximately 40. These properties
are indicated on Map B.
It should also be noted that these scores are open to constant
amendment as new information becomes available. It remains merely a
tool to keep track of the properties most appropriate for development.
The scores presented in the printouts represent a “snapshot” of the
assessment as at the time of printing. If there is to be a second phase,
the scores could also be reassessed through further interrogation.
It should be reiterated that the purpose of this assessment was not to
provide a final finding on each property, but rather to identify a number of
properties that are relative suitable for development on the short to
medium term. As such, when it was suspected that lengthy legal or
other processes could be required, or when other landowners would be
involved, such properties got lower marks during this round; often
leading to their exclusion from the “A”-list.
5 Further Assessment of Shortlist
Information was collated from the different databases as described in
par. 3. While some of the information (from the original databases) is
still contained in the printouts per property, the data had to be
rationalised to prevent confusion. However, the original data can be
printed if requested.
MITCHELLS PLAIN VACANT LAND STUDY - DECEMBER 2008 - JOINT PROJECT: URBAN RENEWAL UNIT AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT (CITY OF CAPE TOWN) - CONSULTANTS: MUNICIPAL PLANNING SOLUTIONS
MITCHELLS PLAIN LAND FOR RENEWAL:
DATA FLOWCHART
Planning
Designation for
Undeveloped Land
MOSS Study (Metro
Open Space
System)
New erven as
required
City-owned Land
database
Exclude erven
smaller than
1000m²
New GIS database
with combined data
ADDITIONAL FILTERS
/ INFORMANTS:
SDF’s (2005 & 2008)
Other medium to
low score (±200
properties)
High score (±70
properties)
Urban Design Study
2000
Biodiversity layers
2008
“A” list
Follow-up phase
Housing Comments
Spatial Planning
Comments
Hardcopy database
with report &
recommendations
version 19 Dec 2008
-3Using the collated database as background, each property was
firstly assessed in general terms based on:
•
its relative location, and
•
features that could be discerned from the 2007 aerial
photography.
Subsequently each of the high scoring properties was visited in
order to make an assessment of its local topography (which
cannot be deduced from the aerial photography) as well as any
changes on site since the aerial photographs were taken. The
terrain in terms of topography and the occurrence of natural
vegetation were noted as part of the database. The presence of
dunes and/or natural vegetation on a site generally lowered its
marks i.t.o. development potential.
consultants were Setplan and Lucien le Grange (in association);
•
The Biodiversity layer as at the end of 2008 on the City web (in
shapefile format). The identified sites were compared with the
biodiversity layer and where it overlapped, the extent of the
affected areas were measured and noted in the database. The
development potential score was also lowered in these cases.
6 Scoring of Specific Potential
In addition to the overall development potential score (described in par. 4
above), scores were also allocated in terms of potential (also out of 5) for
the following:
During these visits, normal (ground-level) photographs were
taken of the high scoring sites, which are available electronically
and were also incorporated in the database printouts of the “A”list.
•
Economic development; i.e. the role it can play to further the
goals of economic development and job creation; in a way it
represents potential for retail, office or industrial development;
•
The next step was to establish what could be deduced from the
relevant SDFs, if anything (only done for the “A”-list properties).
The following SDFs were taken into account:
Residential development: Scores high if property is suitable for
residential development. (A property can also score high for
other purposes indicating potential for mixed-use development);
•
High rise: suitability or requirement for high rise building
(irrespective of use). This would be associated with activity
nodes where height will contribute to visual quality and
orientation (landmark buildings), or with sites where height will
afford views over False Bay.
•
Industrial development potential: scores high if suitable for
industrial development; a medium score indicates further
investigation is necessary or that low impact service industry
could be considered.
•
05: the 2005 Urban Renewal SDF (a process that has
started in 2003); the consultants were MCA.
•
08:
the current District F Spatial Plan; prepared
departmentally but with the assistance of consultants
(MLH). This plan was, when it was used, only available in
draft format (dated September 2008).
The following studies also have an important bearing on the
vacant land study and properties were compared with their
findings or maps:
•
A 2000 study called the Vacant Land Inventory:
Management Zone 6: Mitchells Plain Local Area.
Approximately 18 sites in Mitchells Plain were assessed
and some urban design proposals prepared.
The
7 Mitchells Plain Context
Mitchells Plain is a township of approximately 25-30 years old. It was
well-planned and was developed to a high standard. The development
MITCHELLS PLAIN VACANT LAND STUDY - DECEMBER 2008 - JOINT PROJECT: URBAN RENEWAL UNIT AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT (CITY OF CAPE TOWN) - CONSULTANTS: MUNICIPAL PLANNING SOLUTIONS
-4was undertaken by the then City of Cape Town and most of the
land was owned by the city.
One of the consequences of the above is that certain amenities
have been provided in abundance when compared to current de
facto standards. It seems as if schools (sites and actually built)
are overprovided in the original areas of Mitchells Plain, as are
sport fields and to some extent open spaces. Certain centrally
located areas in the CBD and around stations have also been
reserved for higher order development and are still vacant.
Another important consequence is that many of these
underutilised properties still belong to council. It is thus council’s
responsibility (and - on the positive side - resulting income) to
address these properties. This presents an exciting opportunity
for all involved with Mitchells Plain.
Of course it is not all good news because there are many
challenges facing Mitchells Plain and many of these relate in a
way to the available vacant land, such as:
•
Lack of job opportunities in Mitchells Plain or close by;
also specifically the lack of industrial development;
•
Lack of an even distribution of higher order facilities such
as shops, community halls, offices, hotels;
•
Lack of place-making components such as high buildings
and gateway features;
•
Lack of integration with the sea and the beachfront (or
utilisation of opportunities emanating from such location);
•
Natural open space systems that are often seen as a
threat to personal safety and security as it provides a
haven for criminal elements.
8 General Observations
spatially. It is, as such, important to understand that certain more
fundamental issues cannot really be dealt with as part of this study, as
the focus is a vacant land study and to identify opportunities that are
promising on the short to medium term.
This, however, does not preclude the authors from making general
observations and noting the issues conveyed to them by officials and
others working on a daily basis in Mitchells Plain, particularly regarding
the way such concerns relate to vacant and underutilised land.
As such, even if the issues mentioned are not thoroughly investigated, it
is hoped that the discussion that follows can in some way contribute to
the SDF or other sectoral planning processes.
Sport Fields:
There seems to be the opinion that the overall sites for some of
the sport fields are excessive in size and, in fact, that some of the
fields that were physically provided originally cannot be
maintained. As such, they are not sustainable on the long run.
This study identifies Lentegeur sport fields as an example, but it
is clear that one cannot make final recommendations in this
regard without proper in-depth investigations and involving all the
role-players.
Open Space Systems:
Again there seems to be an opinion that open spaces in Mitchells
Plain are, in some cases, over-provided and not benefiting the
community it serves as many serious crimes are committed in
these areas, especially as far as the dune and fynbos systems
are concerned.
This issue can also not really be dealt with within the ambit of this
study, because of the obvious complexity of the debate.
It is, however, recommended that the issue of undesirable open
spaces is further pursued in a separate study.
The purpose of this study however, is not to unpack all the
challenges facing Mitchells Plain or to restructure Mitchells Plain
MITCHELLS PLAIN VACANT LAND STUDY - DECEMBER 2008 - JOINT PROJECT: URBAN RENEWAL UNIT AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT (CITY OF CAPE TOWN) - CONSULTANTS: MUNICIPAL PLANNING SOLUTIONS
-5Schools:
It is clear from studying aerial photographs that most
schools in Mitchells Plain do not have their own sport
fields, although sufficient space has been provided. A
strategy is necessary to provide the learners in these
schools access to sport facilities.
It is obviously
complicated by the (assumed) lack of coaching staff and
funds for accessories and transport.
However, from a vacant land study perspective it is
evident that many hectares are currently vastly underutilised.
Urban compaction, densification and even
personal safety are suffering as a result.
The fact is that these properties belong mostly to the
state and that any proposal to have them partially
developed for other purposes will have to go through
lengthy processes.
Another phenomenon which seems to transpire is that the
older areas of Mitchells Plain are better provided with
schools.
In new areas vacant sites could have been earmarked for
schools but these sites were not transferred to Public
Works, and, as such, it is difficult to determine the original
intention. One of the aspects to be covered before a
process of development or alienation is started, is to
ensure that such sites will not be required for education.
Industrial:
Mitchells Plain does not have its own industrial area
except a small service industry area north of the CBD. As
such, job opportunities are mostly linked to long and often
arduous commuting.
Although there are industrial areas not too far from
Mitchells Plain such as Philippi East, Airport Industria,
Epping and Capricorn Park, there is a definite need to increase
the industrial component closer to home.
The possibility of a semi-industrial corridor along Swartklip Road
can be investigated.
This idea emanates from the
redevelopment potential of the Denel site (ref. no. 191), linked to
opportunities further south on both sides of the road. It might,
however, have an impact on the SDF for the area and should be
tested at that level.
Environmental issues:
Many vacant properties accommodate natural or relatively
undisturbed vegetation, mostly coupled to natural dune systems.
The relative value of these systems has to be determined
through appropriate surveys complemented by civic debate. The
legal position in any event is that most developments identified in
this report are of such extent that environmental assessments will
be required.
When natural vegetation is evident on a specific site, or when it is
covered by the biodiversity layer, it normally extends the process
in terms of NEMA (to obtain an ROD) or even precludes approval
of any kind.
Against this background the approach adopted was to score sites
without natural vegetation higher. There are, as such, a number
of highly desirable sites from a development point of view that
are on the “B”-list, by virtue of not scoring 4,5 or better out of five
during this assessment. (Again, it should be reiterated that this
study favoured sites with a short term potential for development.)
Development along the Coastline:
The coastline of Mitchells Plain also seems to be a contentious
issue. It is clear that it could be seen to offer exciting (and
extensive) development potential, in a way similar to areas such
as Strand, Muizenberg or Blouberg. The concern is also that
Mitchells Plain has very little connectivity to the beachfront and
MITCHELLS PLAIN VACANT LAND STUDY - DECEMBER 2008 - JOINT PROJECT: URBAN RENEWAL UNIT AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT (CITY OF CAPE TOWN) - CONSULTANTS: MUNICIPAL PLANNING SOLUTIONS
-6does not really benefit from its prime location on the
beautiful False Bay Coast.
The other side of the coin is that it offers a large
uncompromised and pristine area of relatively unique
fynbos vegetation. The coastline is also very sensitive
and the dunes, for example, are continuously moving, a
process accelerated by the removal of the vegetation. As
has been experienced with Macassarstrand Beach
Resort, windswept sand can be a major obstacle to
human habitation.
A concept of small but intensive nodes of development
along the coast could be explored. These nodes could
consist of relatively high-rise buildings that enhance
natural surveillance and exploit the magnificent views on
offer.
It is noted that a plan has been prepared for the
Kapteinsklip node that extends to Mnandi resort, but that
the District F spatial plan indicates a smaller area for
development, especially south of Baden Powell Drive; a
fact that is probably due to more awareness of the
environmental constraints.
As far as this study is concerned (again with regards to
shorter term potential) two or three sites have been
identified where the ‘link to ocean’ can be partly achieved
through high-rise buildings.
Visual contact can be
achieved and a mixed-use residential and tourism related
activities can be promoted.
9 The printed data bundle (Annexure A)
The printed data (Annexure A), which only covers the “A”-list, is
arranged according to a sequential number which is allocated
according to a number of zones into which the study area was
divided.
Only the high scoring properties of the A-list were numbered in this way
(see Map A and Table A).
10 Shortlist per Spatial Context Category
Nodal Development:
Mitchells Plain CBD:
•
221, 222
3ha
•
223
0,9ha
These properties are located at the northern and eastern entrances
to the CBD respectively and require landmark/gateway buildings
accommodating offices, retail and possibly flats on higher floors.
Northern station:
•
123; 124
2,4ha
These properties, south-west but very close to the station, are highly
suitable for commercial development although specific demand
should be taken into account as well as proximity to residential.
Ownership to be investigated.
Southern Station (Kapteinsklip):
•
236
0,6ha
•
234;235*
9,3ha
This node has been the subject of various planning exercises. Some
development is also proposed south of Baden Powell Drive around
the existing Mnandi resort.
Decentralised (neighbourhood) nodes:
•
102
0,9ha
•
202
1,3ha
MITCHELLS PLAIN VACANT LAND STUDY - DECEMBER 2008 - JOINT PROJECT: URBAN RENEWAL UNIT AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT (CITY OF CAPE TOWN) - CONSULTANTS: MUNICIPAL PLANNING SOLUTIONS
-7•
261(maybe)
1ha
•
342*
5,5ha
Some vacant sites are abutting existing neighbourhood
nodes or could be considered for a new neighbourhood node.
Sport fields and surroundings intensification:
•
151, 153
8ha
•
150(a&b)
2ha
•
152(not truly) 6,8ha
Lentegeur sport fields should be the subject of a focussed
investigation with the support of Parks and Recreation. The
large vacant abutting property (#152) enhances the overall
development potential.
Sites in Residential areas but with good exposure:
•
101;
8ha
•
121
2,6ha
•
122
2,5ha
•
152*
6,8ha
A number of relative large sites are located along high order
roads. These sites offer some opportunity for mixed-use or
commercial development to promote economic activity
subject to a transition from the residential component.
On Swartklip Road: Some opportunity for light industrial:
•
154,155
6ha
•
156, 157
8ha
relate to a possible semi-industrial corridor along Swartklip Road.
Ocean front views/linkages to coastline:
•
301
26ha
•
203
1,7ha
•
234*, 235*
9,3ha
While the goal of seafront utilisation along the False Bay coastline is
elusive because of environmental issues, there are some
opportunities where high rise buildings can create visual contact with
the sea. Careful planning can ensure a mixed-use character with
some tourism or hospitality related facilities, although relative
upmarket residential could be a predominant use.
Residential infill:
•
231
2,3ha
•
233
6,2ha
•
348
3,3ha
This category consists typically of properties surrounded by
residential development and without any significant exposure or
potential for nodal development. They are therefore not suitable for
development other than residential.
Strandfontein: on Spine Road:
•
342
5,6ha
•
344
6ha
These large sites provide exciting opportunities for relative upmarket
infill development with opportunity for sea vistas. Two to three storey
buildings should be accommodated. Site 342 provides opportunity
for a mixed-use development and possibly a neighbourhood centre.
These properties are very similar to the previous category but
there might be the opportunity for semi-industrial uses to
MITCHELLS PLAIN VACANT LAND STUDY - DECEMBER 2008 - JOINT PROJECT: URBAN RENEWAL UNIT AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT (CITY OF CAPE TOWN) - CONSULTANTS: MUNICIPAL PLANNING SOLUTIONS
-8Industrial Development:
•
149
14ha
•
191 (separate process underway) 17ha+
•
Landfill/RTS site
10ha+
In an effort to address the need as expressed for industrial
sites, it was necessary to include sites that ranked lower in
terms of short term potential. This is because industrial uses
can cause negative externalities such as noise and pollution
and normal practice is to group these sites together in a
position removed from residential areas. Because Mitchells
Plain is such a predominantly residential area, to find such
sites is difficult.
However, as mentioned in the general paragraph regarding
industrial development (par. 7) the concept of a semiindustrial corridor along Swartklip Road should be explored.
Obviously the concept of mixing residential and other uses in
close proximity should be treated with great caution, but it
should not be disgarded.
It is also necessary to ensure that there is a proven need for
industrial activities in this area. It might be worthwhile to
obtain the comments from Urban Econ who is involved with
an economic study in the area.
Another area to investigate industrial development is around
the sewerage works, particularly directly to the north thereof.
•
the ranking of the original 300 sites;
•
the assessment and recommendation regarding development
potential for each of the shortlisted properties.
It is important that the value of the study with regards to the original ±300
properties not be lost. Also, the relevance of the “B”-list consisting of the
properties that scored 4 out of 5 should be taken into account.
This
data is part of the electronic data bundle which includes shapefiles.
The final recommendations in terms of land-use regarding each site is
clearly of high significance as it will guide future planning and any
development/alienation process. However, it is incumbent that these
recommendations be taken through a rigorous internal and external
process to confirm its validity.
The general observations contained in par.7, which have a potential
impact on planning (spatial planning as well as planning within other
departments in relation to available land) also represent a valuable
outcome.
It is recommended that these remarks be properly
investigated in as much as the following topics are covered:
•
Sport Fields: overprovision and underutilisation: opportunities for
rationalisation and cooperation with schools;
•
Open Space Systems: overprovision in some cases and safety
issues: development may be preferred;
•
Schools: overprovision in some areas and non-utilisation of
ground reserved for sport fields: new initiatives required;
•
Industrial: investigate the possibility of a semi-industrial corridor
along Spine Road and the development of the Denel property;
•
Environmental issues: Investigate the value and sustainability of
conservation of key sites in relation to the biodiversity layer;
•
The Coastline and a balance between conservation and
development: Innovative concepts to marry the ideals of
conservation and development have to be investigated as
selective development can promote safety and therefore the
enjoyment of this pristine coastline by residents and visitors.
* denotes a site appearing under more than one heading
11 Summary of Products/Outcomes
Being a Vacant Land Study, the deliverable of this study in the
first instance is the printed bundle of data, maps and
photographs. This data is electronically available, the core of
which is the GIS data. Of particular relevance are:
MITCHELLS PLAIN VACANT LAND STUDY - DECEMBER 2008 - JOINT PROJECT: URBAN RENEWAL UNIT AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT (CITY OF CAPE TOWN) - CONSULTANTS: MUNICIPAL PLANNING SOLUTIONS
-9-
12 Recommendation for Implementation
The main impetus of this report is to lead the way to the
development of key developable properties in Mitchells Plain by
starting with a large number of properties and reducing it to a
shortlist of such properties with a preliminary assessment and
recommendation with regard to future use. As such it should be
seen as a precursor for more detailed work to prepare these sites
for disposal and eventual development.
It is recommended that a detailed business plan for the
implementation phase be drafted. The following actions should
be part of the implementation phase:
•
Confirming criteria for the final shortlist of properties; e.g.
a range of types of opportunities and equitable
geographical distribution;
•
Applying the criteria to identify the most suitable sites for
development on the short term (using the “A” list of the 33
properties as basis);
•
Further interrogation of these sites (or groups) reducing
the number to approximately five. This assessment will
involve more detail and more checks to ensure
compliance;
• Obtaining community and political support;
•
Refining
the
land-use
parameters
aesthetical/functional guidelines for each site;
•
Involving departmental, government
stakeholders in the process;
•
Achieving interdepartmental consensus with regard to the
mechanisms to achieve development and the role of each
department.
It may be prudent to establish an
interdepartmental working committee to this end;
and
and
parastatal
•
Get clarity on scheduling and/or funding of further investigations,
planning and design; including environmental, traffic and visual
impact assessments;
•
Ensuring compliance with the regulations in terms of the
Municipal Finance Management Act pertaining to the disposal of
public land;
•
Prepare shortlist of the properties to be taken through a similar
process during next round.
Depending on the availability of funding, these tasks can be undertaken
within a relative short timeframe if done in collaboration with the Property
Management Branch and using the same team. As such tangible urban
renewal can take place when these properties are put out on tender and
developed.
13 Final Remarks
The contributions of other departments and individuals within the City of
Cape Town during the course of this study are greatly appreciated.
While this study represents the joint efforts of the Urban Renewal Unit
and Property Management Department, the constructive inputs from the
Housing and Planning Departments must be mentioned, as well as those
received from Alistair Graham.
It should also be noted that Mitchells Plain has been, and still is, the
subject of various studies and initiatives by different departments within
the City, and as such, great care will have to be taken to ensure that
specific proposals are universally supported. It is assumed that even
more stakeholders will have to be involved during the next phase when
real tenders and development are on the cards.
MITCHELLS PLAIN VACANT LAND STUDY - DECEMBER 2008 - JOINT PROJECT: URBAN RENEWAL UNIT AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT (CITY OF CAPE TOWN) - CONSULTANTS: MUNICIPAL PLANNING SOLUTIONS
REFERENCES:
Databases/Shapefiles
•
The Planning Designation Of Developable Land Study
(previously called the ‘Vacant Land Study’);
•
The MOSS (Metropolitan Open Space System study);
•
The City-owned property database.
•
Biodiversity Layer as at end 2008
Documents
City of Cape Town District F Spatial Development Plan: Working
Draft; Departmental with input from MLH; Sept 2008
Denel Swartklip Site Development Framework: City of Cape
Town; 2006
Kapteinsklip: Proposed Urban Design Framework: Consultants:
Jacques Theron & Associates; 2001
Mitchells Plain Urban Renewal SDF, Consultants: MCA; 2005
Vacant Land Inventory: Manage Zone 6: Mitchells Plain Local
Area; Consultants: Setplan; 2000
TABLE A: "A"-LIST WITH PROPERTY NUMBERS, SIZE AND SCORES
Erf ref
101
121
122
123
124
149
150a
150b
151
152
153
154
155
191
201
202
203
221
222
223
224
231
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
261
301
342
344
Zone
1A
1B
1B
1B
1B
1B
1C
1C
1C
1C
1C
1C
1C
1D
2A
2A
2A
2B
2B
2B
2B
2B
2B
2B
2B
2B
2B
2B
2B
2C
3A
3B
3B
Property
43937
39539
36576
17128
5458
693/10
25264
26292
42911
42912
42952
45867
44229
x52676
11504
11473
21777-A
20461
20462
34027
20457
36151
41853
41079
41078
41382
41948
41384
41383
23802
xRotarycamp
43996
48076
Grouping
h
h
a
a
a
a
a
f
f
b
b
b
b
c
c
c
c
c
c
Size in hectares
Ha total site Ha nett avl
8.11
8.11
2.65
2.65
2.51
2.51
0.99
0.99
2.45
1.47
14.47
14.47
0.85
0.85
1.34
1.34
4.82
4.34
6.79
6.79
3.69
3.51
2.5
2.50
6.8
3.40
68.65
54.92
1.1
1.10
1.36
1.36
1.75
1.75
2.75
2.20
0.92
0.83
0.91
0.91
1.35
1.22
2.87
2.30
6.93
6.24
2.49
2.49
6.86
6.86
0.63
0.63
2.5
2.50
0.36
0.36
0.24
0.24
1.07
1.07
53.09
26.55
5.64
5.64
6.77
6.09
Overall
4.7
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.5
4.5
4.7
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.7
4.7
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.7
4.7
Economic
4
3
3
5
4
5
3
3
3
4
3
4
5
5
3
5
4
4
5
5
5
3
2
4
4
5
3
4
4
3
4
3
4
Potential
Industr
2
2
3
4
3
4
1
1
1
2
1
4
5
5
0
2
1
5
4
1
3
1
0
0
0
3
1
1
1
0
1
2
0
Resident
4
4
4
3
4
3
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
2
4
2
4
4
4
2
3
4
4
4
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
High-rise
2
3
3
4
4
2
4
4
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
4
5
4
4
5
4
4.5
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
4.5
3.5
4.5
TABLE B: PROPOSED LAND USE AND POLICY REFERENCE
Erf ref
101
121
122
123
124
149
150a
150b
151
152
153
154
155
191
201
202
203
221
222
223
224
231
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
261
301
342
344
PARCELNRha available
43937
8.11
39539
2.65
36576
2.51
17128
0.99
5458
1.47
693/10
14.47
25264
0.85
26292
1.34
42911
4.34
42912
6.79
42952
3.51
45867
2.50
44229
3.40
x52676
54.92
11504
1.10
11473
1.36
21777-A
1.75
20461
2.20
20462
0.83
34027
0.91
20457
1.22
36151
2.30
41853
6.24
41079
2.49
41078
6.86
41382
0.63
41948
2.50
41384
0.36
41383
0.24
23802
1.07
xRotarycamp 26.55
43996
5.64
48076
6.09
Land use recommendation
Policy reference
70% res; 30% mixed-use (housing necessary for transition)
res infill; mixed-use perimeter
Res 60% Mixed-use 40% (investigate direct access for commercial purposes)
res infill; mixed-use perimeter?
Res 60% Mixed-use 40% (investigate direct access for commercial purposes)
res infill; mixed-use perimeter?
80% commercial 20% res
station node mixed-use infill
40% res (transition) 60% service industry; check retention pond necessary or not
station node mixed-use infill
industrial (excellent exposure) - investigate ownership and context; drainage?
job creation/industrial??clash with SDF
recently created - check files
underutilised sportfields - res infill
recently created - check files
underutilised sportfields - res infill
investigate Lentegeur SFs in totality with support from Parks&Recr
underutilised sportsfields: res&mixed
Res Med density (60u/ha) 70%; Commercial/mixed-use 30%; keep in mind redev of Lentegeur SFs res infill with mixed-use on perimeter
investigate Lentegeur SFs in totality with support from Parks&Recr
underutilised sportsfields: res&mixed
30% res (transition); 70% commercial or light industry (create axis of more industrial land uses)
res-infill; mixed-use on perimeter -ind?
30% res (transition); 70% commercl or light industry (create corridor of more industrial land uses) {big
retent dam}
res-infill;
mixed-use on perimeter -ind?
seperate study; mixed-use dev; accommodate commercial/industrial
semi-industrial corridor
med dens Res (50u/ha); accommodate pedestrian flow through site; some mixed-use
res infill; mixed-use on perimeter
mixed-use exploiting exposure on Spine Rd and link to exist retail; 50% residential
neighbourhood node combined w exposure
High rise residential or offices (landmark building required); even retail?
utilise sea views; landmark buildings
service industry/warehousing but upmarket to link with CBD (check exist proposals); some parking toCBD
be reserved
infill prime site
landmark building required; offices or residential on top floors; com'ty, retail or offices on ground floor;
pedinfill
linkage
CBD
prime site
landmark building required; offices on top floors; com'ty, retail or offices on ground floor
CBD infill prime site
mixed-use; see existing docs? planning should be in place
CBD infill prime site
med density high rise residential (60u/ha); landmark building exploiting possible views; retain POS system
to the
res infill;
sea west
views; place-making
school? med dens residential 40u/ha
res infill; densification
70% Residential; retain dune? dev with #235
station node; sea views
med dens high rise upmarket residential (50u/ha)
station node; sea views
commercial/retail dev complementing station and exploiting high volume ped traffic; retain permeability
station node infill - commercial
med to high dens residential (50-70u/ha); some mixed-use facing station
station node; residential w mixed-use
mixed-use belt facing station (on Yellowwood St)
station node - mixed-use; good exp
mixed-use belt facing station (on Yellowwood St)
station node - mixed-use; good exp
possible commercial & com'ty facility hub for area
neighbourhood node?
mixed-use incorporating high rise (exploiting sea views) upmarket residential, hotels, tourism, entertainment
and retail high-rise upmarket
sea views/linkages;
mixed-use retail/commercial/com'ty facility with 40% med/high density residential; some high rise for mixed-use
views
dev; good access/exposure
high-rise med-high dens residential (50-70u/ha); mix of heights exploiting views (retirement village?) res
20%
mixed-use
infill;
some mixed-use on perimeter
MANDALAY
149
149
WELTEVREDEN VALLEY
R300
LENTEGEUR
HOSPITAL
101
101
122
121
121 122
HIGHLA
AD
NDS RO
1B
1B
152
152
151
151
150a
150a
154
154
150b
150b
155
155
153
153
LENTEGEUR
SF
1A
1A
191
191
EI
SL
EB
EN
RO
KHAYELITSHA
1C
1C
AD
123
123
124
124
VAN
GAU
RD
DRI
1D
1D
VE
MO
RG
EN
ST
ER
RO
AD
S
W
A
WESTRIDGE
SF
R
T
K
L
IP
R
PHILIPPI
O
A
D
222
221222
221
IV
E
223
223
E
DR
B
T
Z
R
OR
A
SPINE ROAD
SF
M
A
N
WE
O
SP
D
R
IV
E
224
224
2D
2D
PORTLANDS SF
261
261
SWARTKLIP RD
SF
W
2C
2C
E
L
2B
2B
T
E
V
E
R
231
231
D
E
N
R
O
I
SP
A
2A
2A
NE
RO
AD
D
201
201
202
202
3B
3B
237
237
239
239
236
236
238
238
SEWAGE
WORKS
233
233
235
235
WOLFGAT
NATURE RESERVE
234
234
203
203
2E
2E
344
344
SWARTKLIP
GATEWAY
342
342
3A
3A
BAD
301
301
3C
3C
BLUEWATERS
OW
EN P
ELL
D
R31
RIVE
0
MNANDI
RESORT
MAP A:
MITCHELLS PLAIN VACANT LAND STUDY
PROPERTIES WITH SCORE 4,5 OR MORE
("A" LIST) AS AT 22 DEC 2008
better1c9
by Devpot_1
DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL (OUT OF 5)
4.6 to 4.81
4.5 to 4.6
4 to 4.5
3.5 to 4
2 to 3.5
MANDALAY
(20)
(13)
(42)
(20)
(54)
149
149
WELTEVREDEN VALLEY
Exist_dev_bubbles
by beskrywing
PARTIAL DEVELOPMENT
TYPE
R300
1 (60)
School
.
2 (9)Fields
Sport
3 (6) .
Mall
4 (2)
Hospital
LENTEGEUR
HOSPITAL
101
101
(OR IMPORTANT DEV TYPE
IN CASE OF LARGE PROPERTIES)
122
121
121 122
HIGHLA
AD
NDS RO
1B
1B
152
152
151
151
150a
150a
154
154
150b
150b
155
155
153
153
LENTEGEUR
SF
1A
1A
191
191
EI
SL
EB
EN
RO
KHAYELITSHA
1C
1C
AD
123
123
124
124
VAN
GAU
RD
DRI
1D
1D
VE
MO
RG
EN
ST
ER
RO
AD
S
W
A
WESTRIDGE
SF
R
T
K
L
IP
R
PHILIPPI
O
A
D
222
221222
221
IV
E
E
R
223
223
B
DR
Z
SPINE ROAD
SF
M
A
S
RT
A
N
WE
O
PO
D
R
IV
E
224
224
2D
2D
PORTLANDS SF
261
261
SWARTKLIP RD
SF
W
2C
2C
E
L
2B
2B
T
E
V
E
R
231
231
D
E
N
R
O
SP
A
2A
2A
IN
E
RO
AD
D
201
201
202
202
3B
3B
237
237
239
239
236
236
238
238
SEWAGE
WORKS
233
233
235
235
234
234
203
203
344
344
342
342
3A
3A
B
W
N PO
ADE
ELL
DRI
31
VE R
WOLFGAT
NATURE RESERVE
2E
2E
0
MNANDI
RESORT
MAP B
301
301
3C
3C
BLUEWATERS
MITCHELLS PLAIN VACANT LAND STUDY:
PROPERTIES WITH SCORE OF 2 OR MORE.
No Window
ANNEXURE A
PRINTOUT BUNDLE OF “A”-LIST PROPERTIES:
DATABASE AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
43937
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
8.11
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
Zoning (current)
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
Grouping
0
1
1A
1
ha_avl_q
Owner_txt
Owner
101
ERF_UNPURE
8.11
1
OWNER_CAT
city
1
zoning_q
check_owner (unsure)
Rural
1
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
reasonably flat; small ret pond on SW corner;
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
SG code not the same; abuts Eisleben Rd access?;
triangular shape;
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
SDP08_pg
05: infill housing; 08: Med dens res dev
Setplan2000
p19
Depts_08
Housing: identified; layouts were done; lapsed; AG: agree with 70/30
split; not low income housing
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
res infill; mixed-use perimeter
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
2
4
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
70% res; 30% mixed-use (housing
necessary for transition)
4
2
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.7
38227
38227
38266
38266
1110
1110
126
126
43937
43937
101
101
84
84
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
39539
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
2.65
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
1
1B
1
ha_avl_q
ERF_UNPURE
2.65
0
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
Grouping
0
Owner_txt
Owner
121
1
check_owner (unsure)
Rural {Single Res}
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
flat; some nat veg
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
west of railway; bridge; access through residential
area; dictates LU?
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
SDP08_pg
05: infill dev; 08: med dens dev
Setplan2000
p8,20
Depts_08
Housing:"reverted back from CTCHC" ; AG: 100% residential; very
suitable; needs dev for safety
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
res infill; mixed-use perimeter?
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
2
3
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
Res 60% Mixed-use 40% (investigate
direct access for commercial
purposes)
4
3
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.5
36576
36576
36576
36576
36576
36576
122
122
39539
39539
39539
39539
39539
121
121
39540
39540
39540
39540
39540
39540
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
36576
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
2.51
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
1
1B
1
ha_avl_q
ERF_UNPURE
2.51
0
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
Grouping
0
Owner_txt
Owner
122
1
check_owner (unsure)
Rural {Underm.}
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
some nat veg; reasonably flat
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
east of rail; bridge; access through res area
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
SDP08_pg
05: infill dev; 08: med dens dev
Setplan2000
p8,20
Depts_08
Housing:"reverted back from CTCHC" AG: 100% residential; very
suitable; needs dev for safety
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
res infill; mixed-use perimeter?
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
3
3
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
Res 60% Mixed-use 40% (investigate
direct access for commercial
purposes)
4
3
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.5
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
17128
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
0.99
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
0
ha_avl_q
1
Owner_txt
Owner
Zoning (current)
123
Grouping
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
h
1
1B
ERF_UNPURE
0.99
0
OWNER_CAT
govt
2
zoning_q
check_owner (unsure)
Com'tyFac
1
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
flat; disturbed
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
to be dev with 5458; part of station node; ownership
govt?
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
SDP08_pg
05: infill dev at station node to enhance eco dev; 08:med
dens dev
Setplan2000
p89
Depts_08
Housing not identified (govt); AG: City has first option to purchase back
from govt; refer stn precinct plan
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
station node mixed-use infill
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
4
5
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
80% commercial 20% res
3
4
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.5
17128
17128
123
123
5458
5458
124
124
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
5458
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
2.45
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
0
ha_avl_q
0.6
Owner_txt
Owner
Grouping
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
h
1
1B
ERF_UNPURE
1.47
0
OWNER_CAT
govt
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
124
2
check_owner (unsure)
Com'tyFac
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
flat; shallow ret pond 40%; no nat veg
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
govt owned; community zoned; station node - mixed
use high dens; west of rail; bridge;
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
SDP08_pg
05: infill dev at station node to enhance eco dev; 08:med
dens dev
Setplan2000
p89
Depts_08
Housing not identified (govt) AG: not sure owned by City? see #123
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
station node mixed-use infill
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
3
4
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
40% res (transition) 60% service
industry; check retention pond
necessary or not
4
4
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.5
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
693/10
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
14.47
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
Zoning (current)
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
Grouping
0
1
1B
1
ha_avl_q
ERF_UNPURE
14.47
Owner_txt
Owner
149
0
OWNER_CAT
Trust
3
zoning_q
check_owner (unsure)
rural
1
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
low-lying; covered with alien bushes (Port Jackson?);
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
2
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
added MPS; between railway (2 sides) and Stock Rd;
good visibility; potential for Ind? owned by Stock Rd
Community Trust
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
SDP08_pg
08: med density dev
p75(c)
Setplan2000
Depts_08
Housing: not aware; reckons access is problematic; AG thinks it can be
either res or industrial
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
job creation/industrial??clash with SD
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
4
5
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
industrial (excellent exposure) investigate ownership and context;
drainage?
3
2
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.5
149
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
25264
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
0.85
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
0
ha_avl_q
0
Owner_txt
Owner
Grouping
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
a
1
1C
ERF_UNPURE
0
0
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
150a
1
check_owner (unsure)
{POS}
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
OS zoned; see SF
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
SDP08_pg
08: med dens dev
p77(e)
Setplan2000
p9
Depts_08
Housing not identified; AG: dev needs to proceed; need plan for total
precinct; underutilised and unsafe
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
underutilised sportfields - res infill
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
1
3
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
recently created - check files
5
4
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.6
33
22
6225
225
25263
25263
25265
25265
25264
25264
158
158
25270
25270
25271
25271
26230
26230
26226
26226
26227
26227
26228
26228
26229
26229
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
26292
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
1.34
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
0
ha_avl_q
1
Owner_txt
Owner
Grouping
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
a
1
1C
ERF_UNPURE
1.34
0
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
150b
1
check_owner (unsure)
{POS}
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
see SF
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
SDP08_pg
08: med dens dev
p77(e)
Setplan2000
p9
Depts_08
Housing not identified; AG: dev needs to proceed; need plan for total
precinct; underutilised and unsafe
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
underutilised sportfields - res infill
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
1
3
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
recently created - check files
5
4
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.6
25250
25250
25260
25260
26229
26229
26224
26223 26224
26223
26237
26238
26238 26237
26236
26236
88
26234
26234
26231
26232
26232 26231
26240
26240
26239
26239
99
99
26230
26230
26226
26226
26241
26242
26242 26241
202
02
26243
26243
26244
26244
203
203
26246
26245
26245 26246
26206
26206
26207
26207
26292
26292
159
159
26247
26247
26248
26248
26291
26291
26250
26249
26249 26250
26210
26210
26251
26251
26252
26252
26211
26211
33
26214
26214
26256
26256
26215
16
16 26215
217
17
26254
26253
26253 26254
26255
26255
26258
26257
26257 26258
26218
26218
220
220 26219
26219
26260
26260
26262
26261
26261 26262
26222
6221
6221 26222
6170
6170
26259
26259
26264
26264
26263
26263
26266
26265
26265 26266
26267
26267
26269
26269
26268
26268
26276
26276
26271
26271
26290
26290
26278
26278
26280
26280
26273
26273
26288
26288
26286
26286
26284
26284
26281
26282
26282 26281
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
42911
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
4.82
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
0.9
0
ha_avl_q
Owner
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
a
1
1C
ERF_UNPURE
0
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
Grouping
4.338
Owner_txt
151
1
check_owner (unsure)
POS
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
flat; cut grass;
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
un-uti'd; strip of two erven E of SF; servitudes? zoned
OS; see 2 abutting sites erven also dev'able
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
SDP08_pg
05: SF (strip on W perimeter indicated for dev); 08:
similar as 05
Setplan2000
p77(e)
p9
Depts_08
Housing not identified; AG: dev needs to proceed; need plan for total
precinct; underutilised and unsafe
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
underutilised sportsfields: res&mixed
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
1
3
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
investigate Lentegeur SFs in totality
with support from Parks&Recr
4
2
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.7
42912
42912
152
152
42911
42911
151
151
25264
25264
158
158
91
91
26292
26292
159
159
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
42912
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
6.79
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
0
ha_avl_q
1
Owner_txt
Owner
Grouping
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
a
1
1C
ERF_UNPURE
6.79
0
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
152
1
check_owner (unsure)
Com'tyFac
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
flat; low veg;
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
prop ret pond? more veg than sites abutting to the
east
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
SDP08_pg
05: infill dev; 08: med dens dev around something(?)
p77(e)
Setplan2000
p9
Depts_08
Housing: identified; AG: dev needs to proceed; need plan for total
precinct; underutilised and unsafe
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
res infill with mixed-use on perimeter
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
2
4
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
Res Med density (60u/ha) 70%;
Commercial/mixed-use 30%; keep in
mind redev of Lentegeur SFs
4
2
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.6
42912
42912
152
152
42911
42911
151
151
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
42952
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
3.69
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
0.95
0
ha_avl_q
Owner
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
a
1
1C
ERF_UNPURE
0
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
Grouping
3.5055
Owner_txt
153
1
check_owner (unsure)
POS
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
flat; cut grass;
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
un-ut'd; OS zoned; dev with 42911; servitudes and
det ponds?
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
SDP08_pg
05: SF (strip on W perimeter indicated for dev); 08:
similar as 05
Setplan2000
p77(e)
p9
Depts_08
Housing not identified; AG: dev needs to proceed; need plan for total
precinct; underutilised and unsafe
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
underutilised sportsfields: res&mixed
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
1
3
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
investigate Lentegeur SFs in totality
with support from Parks&Recr
4
2
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.6
21776
21776
42952
42952
153
153
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
45867
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
2.5
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
0
ha_avl_q
1
Owner_txt
Owner
Grouping
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
f
1
1C
ERF_UNPURE
2.5
0
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
154
1
check_owner (unsure)
com'ty fac/SDA{Res}
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
some low dunes; blue gums; some nat veg
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
rezoned to res?
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
SDP08_pg
05: infill dev; 08 med dens dev
p76
Setplan2000
p6
Depts_08
Housing: "layouts were done; lapsed"; AG: seen as housing but agrees
can look at mixed-use edge
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
res-infill; mixed-use on perimeter -ind
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
4
4
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
30% res (transition); 70% commercial
or light industry (create axis of more
industrial land uses)
3
3
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.6
45523
45523
45525
45525
45866
45866
45867
45867
154
154
44229
44229
155
155
x52676
x52676
191
191
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
44229
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
6.8
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
0
ha_avl_q
0.5
Owner_txt
Owner
Grouping
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
f
1
1C
ERF_UNPURE
3.4
0
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
155
1
check_owner (unsure)
com'tyFac/SDA{Res}
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
some dunes; some nat veg; ret dam 50%
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
rezoned for res?
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
SDP08_pg
05: infill dev; 08 med dens dev (ret dam partly; parabolic
dunes)
Setplan2000
p76
p6
Depts_08
Housing: "layouts were done; lapsed" AG: seen as housing but agrees
can look at mixed-use edge
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
res-infill; mixed-use on perimeter -ind
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
5
5
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
30% res (transition); 70% commercl or
light industry (create corridor of more
industrial land uses) {big retent dam}
3
2
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.7
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
x52676
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
68.65
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
0.8
1D
1
ha_avl_q
ERF_UNPURE
54.92
0
OWNER_CAT
private
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
Grouping
2.27
Owner_txt
Owner
191
3
check_owner (unsure)
Rural(?)
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
undulating/ dunes; difficult to assess; no access;
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
3
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
still utilised or only partly; determine when will close
or relocate; excellent opportunity for industrial dev
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
2.27
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
SDP08_pg
05: plan for whole area up to Khayelitsha; 08: scaled
down, more similar to existing factory extent (almost like
Setplan2000
p80,86
Depts_08
AG: precinct plan prepared; current process
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
semi-industrial corridor
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
5
5
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
seperate study; mixed-use dev;
accommodate commercial/industrial
2
2
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.5
152
151
154
150b
155
LENTEGEUR
SF
153
191
156
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
11504
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
1.1
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
Zoning (current)
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
Grouping
0
1
2A
2
ha_avl_q
Owner_txt
Owner
201
ERF_UNPURE
1.1
0
OWNER_CAT
city
1
zoning_q
check_owner (unsure)
Undet'd
1
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
slight slope; no veg
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
important corner site; pedestrian routes evident
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
SDP08_pg
05: quiet; 08: quiet except indicated as undeveloped on
map4
Setplan2000
Depts_08
Housing not identified; AG: no proposals
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
res infill; mixed-use on perimeter
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
0
3
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
med dens Res (50u/ha);
accommodate pedestrian flow through
site; some mixed-use
4
3
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.5
11504
11504
11504
11504
11504
11504
201
201
11473
11473
11473
202
202
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
11473
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
1.36
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
Zoning (current)
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
Grouping
0
1
2A
2
ha_avl_q
Owner_txt
Owner
202
ERF_UNPURE
1.36
0
OWNER_CAT
city
1
zoning_q
check_owner (unsure)
Govt
1
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
flat; no veg
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
close to shops; high pot for mixed-use;
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
SDP08_pg
05: quiet; 08: quiet except indicated as undeveloped on
map4
Setplan2000
Depts_08
Housing not identified; AG: agrees with concept
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
neighbourhood node combined w exp
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
2
5
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
mixed-use exploiting exposure on
Spine Rd and link to exist retail; 50%
residential
2
4
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.7
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
21777-A
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
1.75
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
1
2A
2
ha_avl_q
ERF_UNPURE
1.75
1
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
Grouping
0
Owner_txt
Owner
203
1
check_owner (unsure)
com'tyfac/POS {Rural
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
flat; no vegetation; slightly depressed relative to
surrounding
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
unused ptn of sport fields in corner; poss of high rise
w view but need to be high
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
SDP08_pg
silent
Setplan2000
Depts_08
Housing not identified; AG: agrees with concept
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
utilise sea views; landmark buildings
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
1
4
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
High rise residential or offices
(landmark building required); even
retail?
4
5
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.6
203
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
20461
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
2.75
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
0
ha_avl_q
0.8
Owner_txt
Owner
Grouping
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
b
2
2B
ERF_UNPURE
2.2
0
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
221
1
check_owner (unsure)
Undet'd
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
flat; no veg;
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
CoCT owned. Concider for high density
housing/mixed use development
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
SDP08_pg
05: activity node linked to interchange; 08: mixed-use
dev
Setplan2000
p88(vii)
Depts_08
Housing not identified; AG: very suitable; new layout/erf diagrams;
mentions fish processing
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
CBD infill prime site
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
5
4
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
service industry/warehousing but
upmarket to link with CBD (check
exist proposals); some parking to be
reserved
4
4
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.6
20450
20450
20450
20450
20450
20450
20462
20462
20462
20462
20462
20462
222
222
20461
20461
20461
20461
20461
221
221
A
34027
34027
34027
34027
34027
34027
223
223
20457
20457
20457
20457
20457
20457
224
224
20456
20456
20456
20456
20456
20456
20462
20462
222
222
20461
20461
221
221
20459
20459
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
20462
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
0.92
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
0
ha_avl_q
0.9
Owner
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
b
2
2B
ERF_UNPURE
0
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
Grouping
0.828
Owner_txt
222
1
check_owner (unsure)
Govt
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
flat; no veg; old road; inf parking
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
CoCT owned. highly accessible and exposed; good
access for commercial; high density housing/mixed
use development; incorporate 20450
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
SDP08_pg
05: activity node linked to interchange; 08: mixed-use
dev
Setplan2000
p88(vii)
Depts_08
Housing not identified; AG: very suitable; new layout/erf diagrams;
mentions interest from False Bay College
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
CBD infill prime site
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
4
5
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
landmark building required; offices or
residential on top floors; com'ty, retail
or offices on ground floor; ped linkage
4
4
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.7
21160
21160
20462
20462
222
222
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
34027
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
0.91
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
0
ha_avl_q
1
Owner_txt
Owner
Grouping
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
b
2
2B
ERF_UNPURE
0.91
0
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
223
1
check_owner (unsure)
Undet'd
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
flat, no veg; inf parking but not much;
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
highly developable; key strat site at entrance to CBD;
commercial/retail/office
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
SDP08_pg
05: part of activity node linked to interchange; 08: quiet;
except identified as vacant land map 4
Setplan2000
p88(vii)
Depts_08
Housing not identified; AG: highly suitable: offices
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
CBD infill prime site
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
1
5
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
landmark building required; offices on
top floors; com'ty, retail or offices on
ground floor
2
5
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.8
34027
34027
34027
34027
34027
34027
223
223
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
20457
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
1.35
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
0
ha_avl_q
0.9
Owner
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
b
2
2B
ERF_UNPURE
0
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
Grouping
1.215
Owner_txt
224
1
check_owner (unsure)
Undet/Business
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
levelled and gravelled; parking, inf trading & taxis
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
mixed-use; see existing docs?
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
SDP08_pg
05: part of activity node linked to interchange; 08: quiet;
except identified as vacant land map 4
Setplan2000
p88(vii)
p5
Depts_08
Housing: identified; mentioned abutting housing pr; AG: temporary site
for uses that will move to abutting site; very suitable
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
CBD infill prime site
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
3
5
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
mixed-use; see existing docs?
planning should be in place
3
4
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.6
21164
21164
21163
21163
20457
20457
224
224
20456
20456
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
36151
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
2.87
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
0.8
2B
2
ha_avl_q
ERF_UNPURE
2.296
0
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
Grouping
0
Owner_txt
Owner
231
1
check_owner (unsure)
Com'tyFac
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
levelled seemingly long ago; some nat veg; lighting
alongside footpath
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
nice views potentially; but dev can infringe on views
from road
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
SDP08_pg
05: quiet; 08:quiet except identified as undeveloped
map4
Setplan2000
Depts_08
Housing:identified; AG: crime hotspot area; remnant dune OS system
very suspect; needs infill housing
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
res infill; sea views; place-making
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
1
3
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
med density high rise residential
(60u/ha); landmark building exploiting
possible views; retain POS system to
the west
4
4.5
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.6
29233
29233
36151
36151
231
231
36150
36150
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
41853
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
6.93
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
0.9
2B
2
ha_avl_q
ERF_UNPURE
6.237
0
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
Grouping
0
Owner_txt
Owner
233
1
check_owner (unsure)
Com'tyFac
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
flat; some nat veg;
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
earmarked for high school originally?
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
SDP08_pg
05: infill housing; 08: quiet although on map4
Setplan2000
Depts_08
Housing: identified; AG: not needed for school; an idea was to move SF
there as more central; current SF unsafe and removed
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
res infill; densification
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
0
2
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
school? med dens residential 40u/ha
4
3
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.6
41853
41853
41853
41853
41853
41853
233
233
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
41079
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
2.49
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
0.41
ha_avl_q
1
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
c
2
2.49
2B
0
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
Grouping
ERF_UNPURE
Owner_txt
Owner
234
1
check_owner (unsure)
Com'tyFac
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
reasonably flat parts; some veg; dunes on southern
perimeter
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
3
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
station prec; views;
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
0.41
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
SDP08_pg
05: infill housing also Kapteinsklip precinct plan!; 08:
mixed-use and res dev (some rough proposals)
Setplan2000
p76(c)
p13
Depts_08
Housing: identified; AG: confirm idea of linking road east west; someone
needs to drive process
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
station node; sea views
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
0
4
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
70% Residential; retain dune? dev
with #235
4
4
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.5
41078
41078
235
235
41079
41079
234
234
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
41078
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
6.86
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
1.44
ha_avl_q
1
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
c
2
6.86
2B
0
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
Grouping
ERF_UNPURE
Owner_txt
Owner
235
1
check_owner (unsure)
Com'tyFac
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
more dunes than #4; especially SW perimeter
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
3
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
station precinct
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
1.44
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
SDP08_pg
05: infill housing also Kapteinsklip precinct plan!; 08:
mixed-use and res dev (some rough proposals)
Setplan2000
p76(c)
p13
Depts_08
Housing: identified; AG: confirm idea of linking road east west; someone
needs to drive process
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
station node; sea views
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
0
4
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
med dens high rise upmarket
residential (50u/ha)
4
4
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.7
41076
41076
41077
41077
41078
41078
235
235
11068
11068
41079
41079
234
234
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
41382
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
0.63
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
0
ha_avl_q
1
Owner_txt
Owner
Grouping
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
c
2
2B
ERF_UNPURE
0.63
0
OWNER_CAT
city?
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
236
1
check_owner (unsure)
Business
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
flat strip abutting rail;
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
good pot for eco dev
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
SDP08_pg
05: see Kapteinsklip local plan 08: mixed-use
p76(c)
Setplan2000
p13
Depts_08
AG: stn precinct plan - someone needs to drive, include sites to west
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
station node infill - commercial
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
3
5
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
commercial/retail dev complementing
station and exploiting high volume ped
traffic; retain permeability
1
3
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.7
41948
41948
237
237
41383
41383
239
239
41382
41382
236
236
41384
41384
238
238
41533
41533
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
41948
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
2.5
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
0
ha_avl_q
1
Owner_txt
Owner
Grouping
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
c
2
2B
ERF_UNPURE
2.5
0
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
237
1
check_owner (unsure)
Com'tyFac
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
flat but higher than road; some veg;
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
station precinct (East); high dens housing; views
possible if high
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
SDP08_pg
05: see Kapteinsklip local plan 08: med dens dev;
mixed-use on E perimeter
Setplan2000
p76(c)
p13
Depts_08
Housing: identified; AG: stn precinct plan - someone needs to drive,
include sites to west
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
station node; residential w mixed-use
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
1
3
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
med to high dens residential
(50-70u/ha); some mixed-use facing
station
4
4
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.5
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
41384
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
0.36
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
0
ha_avl_q
1
Owner_txt
Owner
Grouping
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
c
2
2B
ERF_UNPURE
0.36
0
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
238
1
check_owner (unsure)
Com'tyFac
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
flat but above road
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
stn precinct; dev with #239
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
SDP08_pg
05: see Kapteinsklip local plan 08: mixed-use
p76(c)
Setplan2000
p13
Depts_08
Housing: identified; AG: stn precinct plan - someone needs to drive,
include sites to west
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
station node - mixed-use; good exp
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
1
4
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
mixed-use belt facing station (on
Yellowwood St)
4
4
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.5
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
41383
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
0.24
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
0
ha_avl_q
1
Owner_txt
Owner
Grouping
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
c
2
2B
ERF_UNPURE
0.24
0
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
239
1
check_owner (unsure)
Com'tyFac
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
same as #238
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
same as #238
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
SDP08_pg
05: see Kapteinsklip local plan 08: mixed-use
p76(c)
Setplan2000
p13
Depts_08
Housing: identified; AG: stn precinct plan - someone needs to drive,
include sites to west
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
station node - mixed-use; good exp
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
1
4
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
mixed-use belt facing station (on
Yellowwood St)
4
4
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.5
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
23802
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
1.07
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
1
2C
2
ha_avl_q
ERF_UNPURE
1.07
0
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
Grouping
0
Owner_txt
Owner
261
1
check_owner (unsure)
Res
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
slight depression but generally flat; no val veg;
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
in Tafelsig;
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
SDP08_pg
05: infill housing; 08: silent except identified as vacant
land map 4
Setplan2000
Depts_08
Housing: not identified; AG: not really aware of; node for Tafelzicht
elsewhere
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
neighbourhood node?
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
0
3
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
possible commercial & com'ty facility
hub for area
4
3
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.5
SW
SF
261
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
xRotarycam
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
53.09
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
0.5
3A
3
ha_avl_q
ERF_UNPURE
26.545
1
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
Grouping
18.1
Owner_txt
Owner
301
1
check_owner (unsure)
Undet?
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
dunes and undulating; scattered camp facilities and
Bible School;
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
3
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
see erf 1212-3; lease to expire 2010; huge potential
for intensive semi-high rise buildings overlooking
False Bay
18.1
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
SDP08_pg
05 and 08: out of scope
Setplan2000
Depts_08
Housing: not identified; AG: different leases; a mess, phase out leases
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
sea views/linkages; high-rise upmark
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
1
4
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
mixed-use incorporating high rise
(exploiting sea views) upmarket
residential, hotels, tourism,
entertainment and retail
4
4.5
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.5
47731
47731
37800
37800
35744
35744
43996
43996
342
342
79
79
xRotarycamp
xRotarycamp
301
301
xBlueWaterCamp
xBlueWaterCamp
381
381
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
43996
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
5.64
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
1
3B
3
ha_avl_q
ERF_UNPURE
5.64
0
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
Grouping
3.91
Owner_txt
Owner
342
1
check_owner (unsure)
Govt
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
even but slightly sloped; little veg; SAPS on corner but
outside site
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
2
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
zoned govt; large site on Spine rd; mixed-use with
housing on top floors; some service industry?
3.91
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
SDP08_pg
05: infill housing; 08: out of scope
Setplan2000
p12
Depts_08
Housing: not identified; AG: refer to subdivisional approval; leased to
SAPS; would be next phase;
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
mixed-use dev; good access/exposur
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
2
3
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
mixed-use retail/commercial/com'ty
facility with 40% med/high density
residential; some high rise for views
4
3.5
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.7
47731
47731
43996
43996
342
342
PROPERTY BASICS
property nr
prop size
PARCELNR
new_erfref
reference
system
48076
bio_cover_ha
ha_site
6.77
factor_avl_q
Available extent (for
development)
0.9
3B
3
ha_avl_q
ERF_UNPURE
6.093
0
OWNER_CAT
city
zoning_q
Zoning (current)
new_zone
SHEET_MPS
Grouping
0
Owner_txt
Owner
344
1
check_owner (unsure)
Com'tyFac
BACKGROUND INFO
terrain (existing incl vegetation)
Terrain
characteristics;
other provisional
comment
even but slightly sloping; views!!; little or no veg
Enviro&biodiversity
enviro_sens
0
First Impressions {PROV_COM (Planning Comment 2008)
bio_cover_ha
high rise building to utilise sea views
0
What SDFs indicate for this property { _COMMENT
Previous studies
and departmental
comments
SDP08_pg
05: infill housing 08: quiet
Setplan2000
p12
Depts_08
Housing: not identified AG: refer to subdivisional approval; was seen as
mixed-use dev
FINDINGS
Policy_ref
res infill; some mixed-use on perimet
Recommendations
and Sectoral
Policy
industrial dev
econ_dev
0
4
residential dev
high-rise dev
Land-Use Recommendation {_q
high-rise med-high dens residential
(50-70u/ha); mix of heights exploiting
views (retirement village?) 20%
mixed-use
4
4.5
Overall Development Potential {D
Potential: score out of 5
4.7
48076
48076
344
344