MPT South Western

Resolution details

RESOLVED that:

a. The application for the consolidation of unregistered Erven 549 and 550, Chapmans Peak BE APPROVED in terms of Section 98(b) of the Municipal Planning By-Law, 2015, in accordance with plan of consolidation LUM/76/701-1, contained in Annexure C page 2893 of the original agenda.

b. The application for the rezoning of Erven 549 and 550, (Portions of Erf 548), Noordhoek from Subdivisional Area for Rural (RU) purposes to Subdivisional Area for Rural (RU), Local Business 1: Intermediate Business (LB1) and Mixed-Use Subzone 1 (MU1) purposes in accordance with plan LUM/76/701-4,contained in Annexure F BE APPROVED in terms of Section 98(b) of the Municipal Planning By-Law, 2015, subject to the conditions contained in Annexure A.

c. The application for subdivision of the consolidated property (Erf 701) BE APPROVED in terms of Section 98(b) of the Municipal Planning By-Law, 2015, in accordance with plan of subdivision LUM/76/701-3 contained in Annexure E.

d. Amendment of conditions of the prior Rezoning, subdivision & departure approvals pertaining to Erf 548 (as set out in Annexure A) BE APPROVED in terms of Section 98(b) of the Municipal Planning By-Law, 2015.
NOTE:
In response to the MPT querying the status of the historic land use approvals, the Departmental representatives confirmed that these rights are still valid.

AMENDMENTS TO ANNEXURE A RELATING TO APPLICATIONS GRANTED AND CONDITIONS IMPOSED

1.2 Rezoning of unregistered Erven 549 and 550, (Portions of Erf 548), Noordhoek from Subdivisional Area for Rural (RU) purposes to Subdivisional Area for Rural (RU), Local Business 1: Intermediate Business (LB1) and Mixed-Use Subzone 1 (MU1) purposes in accordance with plan LUM/76/701-4 (Annexure F)

1.3 Subdivision of the consolidated property (Erf 701) in accordance with plan of subdivision LUM/76/701-3 (Annexure E)

1.4.3 Condition 4.1.3: “All building plans for Portion 29 shall be generally in accordance with the Site Development Plan (SDP) drawn by South Architects, numbered 07017 - SDP 001 Revision A, dated 2011-11-07.”

To be amended as follows:
Condition 4.1.3: All building plans for Portion 29 shall be generally in accordance with the plans drawn by Mike Shaw Architects, numbered CS 01 dated 31-01-2019 and CS 06, CS 07, CS 08 and CS 09 dated 17 10 2016 as contained in Annexure H

Note: The 2 substation sites referred to in condition 3.2.4 are envisaged to be located on portion 2.

1.5.1 Condition 2.1.1: “The development of the portion of the property to be used for the tourist facilities shall be generally in accordance with the Site Development Plans with Drawing Numbers LUM/76/1387-5/1 to LUM/76/1387- 5/10 drawn by Mike Shaw Architects.”

To be amended as follows:
Condition 2.1.1: The development of the portion of the property to be used for the tourist facilities, winery and offices shall be generally in accordance with the plans with Drawing Numbers CS 01 dated 31-01-2019 and CS 10 and CS 11 dated 17 10 2016 drawn by Mike Shaw Architects as contained in Annexure H

Note: The 2 substation sites referred to in condition 3.2.4 are envisaged to be located on portion 2.

1.5.7 Condition 3.1.1:“The development of the portion of the property to be used for agricultural industry shall be generally in accordance with the Site Development Plans with Drawing Numbers LUM/76/1387-5/1 to LUM/76/1387-5/10 drawn by Mike Shaw Architects.”

To be amended as follows:
Condition 3.1.1: The development of the portion of the property to be used for agricultural industry shall be generally in accordance with the plans with Drawing Numbers CS 01 dated 31-01-2019 and CS 10 and CS 11 dated 17 10 2016 drawn by Mike Shaw Architects as contained in Annexure H

Note: The 2 substation sites referred to in condition 3.2.4 are envisaged to be located on portion 2.

Conditions

Additional Condition 2.1.6

2.1.6 Proposed Portion 2 (The Local Business Zone 1: Intermediate Business portion) may only be used for office purposes.

Amended Conditions

2.4.4 Prior to the occupation of any new buildings on the property, the following road improvements shall be completed/ implemented to the satisfaction of the Director: Transport and the Department of Transport & Public Works:
• A dedicated/formalized embayment on either side of Chapmans Peak Drive at the entrance to accommodate safe public drop-off facilities. The exact location and layout of such embayment(s) must be confirmed with the Transport Planning and Asset Management & Maintenance Branches and the Department of Transport & Public Works during the design stage of the project.
Note: In this regard, attention must be given to ensuring required sight distances.

• A pedestrian crossing on Chapmans Peak Drive in order to facilitate a safe crossing point for pedestrians.

2.5 Landscaping

2.5.1 Prior to building plan approval a landscape plan giving particular attention to the screening of the parking areas for the property must be submitted to the Director: Environmental Management (or his/her delegate) for comment which must then accompany the landscape plan submission to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning for approval.

2.5.2 The approved landscaping plan shall be implemented by and at the cost of the owner/developer within 12 months of the completion of the building on the property. Implementation shall be substantially in accordance with the approved landscape plan.

Note: In order for the City to effectively comment on the landscape plan, the following requirements must be noted:

• The landscape plan for the property must be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect registered with the South African Council for the Landscape Architectural Profession (SACLAP) and shall include the items for the submission of landscape plans listed in the City of Cape Town’s Model Land Use Planning and Development Conditions Handbook.
• The landscaping requirements set out in the environmental authorisation as amended, issued in terms of the National Environmental Management Act need to be complied with (see Annexure A1)
• The landscape plan shall identify measures in order to comply with the visual mitigation measures identified in the Visual impact Assessment (see Annexure A2).

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The MPT APPROVED the reasons as set out in the planner’s report except reasons 7.1.2, 7.1.4, 7.1.5, 7.1.8, 7.1.10, 7.1.11 and 7.1.13 which are amended and added an additional reason 7.1.14

7.1.2 As argued in the report the office component has no negative material impact on the surrounding uses and is being regarded as being compatible in this context
7.1.4 As argued in the assessment report of the Urban Planning and Mechanisms section as well as the report by the case officer, the proposal is consistent with the Municipal Spatial Development Framework. The circumstances warranting the deviation from the Southern District Plan is based on the conviction that the impact of a relatively small footprint in the context of vast open spaces that are to be landscaped, the low height of two stories, as well as the competitive advantage of the site’s location, will be acceptable and desirable as demonstrated by numerous specialist studies.
7.1.5 The proposal complies with the Densification Policy, the Economic Growth Strategy, the Social Development Strategy and the Urban Design Policy.
7.1.8 There will be no negative impact on heritage resources and such has been endorsed by Heritage Western Cape
7.1.10 The proposal will have a positive socio-economic impact as set out in the social impact assessment
7.1.11 The proposal is desirable and will not impact significantly on existing rights as assessed and motivated in paragraph 6.2.5
7.1.13 The design and form of proposed buildings will blend into the surrounding area and it’s character and such design and form will be in accordance with plans listed for approval contained in Annexure H
7.1.14 The application complies with the extent of desirability as required by Section 99 (3) of the Municipal Planning By-Law

FOR INFORMATION:
ACTION: F CURRIE / P HOFFA