Friday, October 23, 2009
COMMENT ON ASPECTS OF THE SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK AND THE EASTERN DISTRICT PLAN AS IT RELATES TO VERGENOEGD DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE (Pty) Ltd and ASISA Agri-tourism (Pty) Ltd and PROPOSALS TO DEVELOP VERGENOEGD FARM
Key issues regarding the spatial development framework
The adoption of the spatial development framework and district plans would result in the exclusion of the proposals of the Vergenoegd Development Initiative which, within existing legislation, would be considered on it’s merits as follows:
VDI’s proposal:
• has the written Resolution of Support of the stakeholder organisations of the communities of Macassar, Khayelitsha and Eerste River who represent all the neighbourhood communities who may be interested in, or affected by our proposal.
• complies in spirit and letter to the full in intentions of the National Environmental Management Act
• contributes to social upliftment, which is critical to improve the lives of our citizens and countrymen
• will deliver significant economic benefit, job creation and housing
• includes the rehabilitation of the fynbos and the creation of 149 ha open space and nature reserve paid from the development revenue
• is totally private sector funded
The proposed spatial development framework is inequitable and prejudicial to the owners of Vergenoegd:
• Successful applications in the vicinity of Vergenoegd has seen the status of the farm reduced to that of an agricultural island in an urban sea.
• Irrespective of the City’s desire to now have a “green lung” or corridor in this location, the effect of existing and approved developments has been to erode the value of Vergenoegd as a premier wine farm and, based on the acceptance of the proposed spatial development framework and district plans, these plans will offer no alternative rights of use
• Irrespective of the legal position and any potential challenge, the current proposals are unfair and inequitable
• previous poor decisions made by the City with regard to the provision of water culverts on the N2 have made the farm an unofficial temporary detention dam thus reducing the value of the property
Integration of community needs
Early in the process VDI appointed a consultant to investigate the needs and wishes of the surrounding communities of Vergenoegd. After extensive canvassing of those communities a document of principles of consensus was drafted under the guidance of the communities, under which the communities would provide support for the development.
Those principles are as follows:
• The unlocking of the latent potential of Vergenoegd estate
• compliance with the relevant legislation
• the promotion of sustainable economic development by building on the comparative economic advantages of the area
• utilisation of the natural resource base in a sustainable manner
• merging of the ecological and economic consideration in decision making
• making a meaningful contribution to the eradication of poverty and inequality
• ensuring an acceptable return on capital invested by the private sector investors and other stakeholders
• Ensuring inclusivity, which implies that the planning, implementation and management of the area should be an inclusive process, that gives due consideration to the interests, needs and values of all the people that live in the area and that have an interest in promoting a prosperous future in the area. In this regard, it is imperative that the following be ensured by, or should result from, the planning process:
o Continuing participation, representation, ownership and involvement of all affected people
o adequate and appropriate opportunities for public participation in decisions that may affect the area
o consideration of environmental values in management and decision-making
o developing and utilising the skills and capacities of all persons involved in, especially historically disadvantaged people, women and farm workers on the estate
o encouraging involvement in the environmental and development programmes identified for the area
It was also agreed that an independent Treasury trust would be established to manage the funding flowing from the development for the benefit of the local communities.
All of the foregoing was reduced to a resolution signed by 44 signatories, being the representatives of the stakeholders. (See appendix 1)
Legal position of the spatial development plan
The City’s view that its proposals can be passed into law without challenge, and replace the existing planning legislation is not correct.
The spatial development framework and district plans are based on studies which are not of sufficient detail to inform planning proposals at the micro level and yet have been incorporated into the plan as if the information was adequate. The professional studies which have been undertaken by the Vergenoegd Development Initiative are detailed and reveal contradictory conclusions in respect of the land use at Vergenoegd. e.g. the agricultural report is based on a mapping at 1:250 000 whereas the VDI proposal is based on actual soil surveys undertaken on the farm. In discussions with some of the authors of the City’s agricultural report it was confirmed by them that the report was never intended to be used at this level of detail but that the original report was a high-level study only and would need to be informed by more detailed studies if the conclusions were to be the reliably used in an SDF document.
In terms of the scoping report approved in March of this year for the Vergenoegd development initiative’s proposal on the farm Vergenoegd we provide the quotation from our town planners report under the section: applicable legislation, plans and guidelines. In terms of section 6.1.3 of the urban edge report, “if the benefits of the proposed use are proven to outweigh the short and long-term costs and the development would make a significant contribution to the social, economic and environmental goals of the area” then the application should be favourably considered. By excluding the farm, the proposed spatial development framework has ignored this part of the guideline for projects located outside the unofficial urban edge by not considering VDI’s specific proposal.
An adjacent portion of land to Vergenoegd has similar planning issues in that there is serious conflict between the guide plan and the unofficial urban edge. We attach as appendix 2, a letter written to the City by Headland planners in this regard.
In as much as the proposed spatial development framework and district plan's proposal for the urban edge will give guidance to developers where they may reasonably consider making investments, the 1988 Guide plan gave exactly the same indication to developers. In consultation with an advocate we have been advised that the guide plan gave reasonable and legitimate expectation that an application for rezoning on land which had been indicated as suitable for urban development would be seriously considered, subject to the outcome of specialist studies.
At this stage after four years of investment and studies the developer is seriously disadvantaged in terms of the time and cost to prepare the specialist studies as contemplated in NEMA if the City’s proposals are adopted.
It has emerged in consultation with industry colleagues that the inclusion of some properties which have been indicated with a heritage designation in the proposed SDF potentially contravene the existing national heritage legislation. The heritage legislation has its own process which has to be followed before properties can be designated with heritage status.
Proposed agricultural status of Vergenoegd
As mentioned above the City planners have proposed a status of Vergenoegd being an Agri-area of significant value given existing use. At a meeting with senior city planners VDI is principals were advised that the agricultural significance was the result of “a proper evaluation of the farm”. To reiterate, further investigation revealed that the decision was based on a 1:250,000 top level survey which is inappropriate to use for this type of decision-making. It is therefore difficult to conclude that this top level survey is a proper evaluation.
Notwithstanding all of the foregoing, in the guide plan, the farm was designated as suitable for urban development based on the agricultural surveys which were undertaken at the time, which revealed poor quality soil types. VDI’s specialist agricultural survey confirmed that the soil types were poor. The Department of Agriculture having reviewed the potential for the farm had concluded that they had no interest in protecting its farm status. Accordingly, in 1988, Dept of Agriculture designated the farm as being exempt from act 70 of 1970, the subdivision of agricultural land act. Further, the farm is 325 ha in extent but has a water allocation of only 44 ha.
The factors which indicate the farm to be unsustainable as an agricultural economic unit are as follows:
• the experience of the current owners over an extended period
• the status accorded by the Department of Agriculture (exempt from act 70 of 1970)
• the guide plan indicating it as suitable for urban development
• the development and business alternatives considered by VDI
• the absence of a business model in the City's planners evaluation that demonstrates its economic potential as a farm
The City’s process of formulating the spatial development framework and district plans
In as much as this SDF proposal will have far reaching consequences for landowners such as the owners of Vergenoegd, it is inexcusable that they were not contacted directly and consulted before the initial proposals were made public. The extent and complexity of the plans which have now been made public clearly indicate that the planners hope that the proposals will be a fait accompli.
Had the City planners reviewed VDI’s approved scoping report of March 2009 and scrutinised the content, it is highly probable that they would have come to a different conclusion regarding the inclusion of Vergenoegd within the urban edge, and the proposed status of the land as set out in the SDF. VDI’s proposal protects the environment, protects agriculture, and protects and rehabilitates the historic buildings, and provides a funding mechanism to do all of the above. Had the specialist studies and the process of planning possible development on Vergenoegd revealed that the farm could possibly be designated with the status that the City planners now wish to accord it in the new SDF proposal, the developers would not have proceeded with the current application. In contrast to this the next section of this document and the appendix 2 that deals with VDI’s approach to the project and process followed to reach the stage of an approved scoping report revealed the application fell within the law, met all reasonable criteria of NEMA for sustainable development, meet the needs of, and was supported by, the surrounding communities.
The City planners proposal will effectively sterilise the farm for development purposes and therefore only two outcomes are possible:
Either the farm is purchased by a wealthy local person but more likely a wealthy foreigner for his/her private use in which case there will be no general benefit to the citizens of Cape Town from this outcome.
or,
The farm will continue to go into decline with no funds available for environmental conservation or the restoration of the heritage buildings and no increase in economic activity or jobs.
VDI/ASISA’s process and summary of the proposed development on Vergenoegd
During 2005, the developers were approached by the owners to acquire the farm for development purposes. The developers then consulted a botanist to advise on any “no go” areas and a town planner to advise on the status of the land. The planner advised that since the farm was indicated as suitable for urban development in terms of the 1988 guide plan, and that the Department of Agriculture had no interest in retaining the farm for agricultural purposes since they had exempted it from act 70 of 1970. Based on an encouraging output from these professionals the developers felt confident in making an investment.
The developers were two of the founding fathers of the new film studio project on another portion of Vergenoegd. During the process of rezoning the developers were heavily criticised for not engaging with the environmental community and other interested and affected parties at an early stage. Being mindful of this, the developers followed a conservative approach and engaged in an extensive process of consultation with numerous interested and affected parties prior to formulating any development proposals. (see Summary of the Founding partners approach in formulating a development proposal at Vergenoegd Estate which is appendix 3)
Informed by the input of our consultation with various interested and affected parties and in conjunction with our professional team (see appendix 4) we prepared an preliminary constraints diagram and formulated initial concepts to determine what extent of development might be possible and whether it would be commercially viable.
We then appointed specialist professionals to undertake the following studies:
• Botanical/natural environment
• Floodplain
• Agricultural soils
• Economic and market
• Archaeological heritage
• Social impact
• Broad-based Black economic empowerment
• Civil engineering services and utilities
• Electrical engineering services and utilities
• Geo-technical soil studies
• Town and urban planning
The outputs of these assessments were converted to a fully informed constraints diagram which enabled our planners to prepare proposed development options which were not in conflict with the constraints, and had the support of the local communities.
We then appointed a consulting team to make the appropriate official applications. On 5th March 2009 we received confirmation of a scoping report to proceed to the environmental impact assessment.
Development summary
Appendix 5, The Sustainable Development Proposal Rev 22, contains the detailed proposal for the development of Vergenoegd. A summary of the major features of the proposal is shown below. Appendix 6 is VDI’s preferred layout.
The Land:
Vergenoegd farm 653 portion 12, remainder of 653 and remainder of 547 consisting of 325 ha in aggregate.
Proposal comprises 76 ha of development as follows:
• 1100 residential units on 61 ha
• 15 ha of industrial/commercial
• 10 ha tourism/wine precinct with a 60 to 80 bedroom hotel
• 83 ha of farmland
• 149 ha of nature conservancy/open space
Economic benefits: The viability and desirability of the commercial elements of the proposal confirmed by the economic study and market assessment are as follows:
• the number of jobs created during construction projected to be 5 630
• the number of permanent jobs created directly by the project i.e. not including The Nation’s Trust projected to be 3 896
• new business sales of R2 billion during construction and over R1 billion on-going
• the funding of upwards of 70 houses through habitat for humanity
• R20 million contribution to local communities for job creation and social upliftment
• creation of more than 20 small businesses for BEE purposes on the site
• revitalisation of the ailing wine business
• creation of a tourism node
• The contribution to the economy of Cape Town is projected to be R398 million (GGP) during construction
• The contribution to the economy of Cape Town is projected to be R227 million (GGP) on-going
• the contribution to the rates base of Cape Town projected to be R101 million
Cultural and nature conservation benefits:
• The restoration of the historic buildings
• the removal of all alien plant species in the conservation area to aid the development of a natural fauna and flora
• the requirement of increased insulation in the residential units to provide low energy use housing
• double glazing on all windows
• grey water and rainwater management systems for all houses
• solar energy for all houses
Conclusion and recommendation
the proposed SDF shows the farm Vergenoegd as being outside of the urban edge and accords the farm the following status:
• Agri area of significant value given existing use
• an open or natural open space
• part of the cultural landscape of Zandvliet/Macassar
• an area of critical biodiversity 1
A detailed evaluation of the property shows that the farm is suitable for development and VDI's recommendation is that the farm should be included within the urban edge in order that development proposals can be considered on merit
VDI’s proposal:
• has the written Resolution of Support of the stakeholder organisations of the communities of Macassar, Khayelitsha and Eerste River who represent all the neighbourhood communities who may be interested in, or affected by our proposal.
• complies in spirit and letter to the full in intentions of the National Environmental Management Act
• contributes to social upliftment, which is critical to improve the lives of our citizens and countrymen
• will deliver significant economic benefit, job creation and housing
• includes the rehabilitation of the fynbos and the creation of 149 ha open space and nature reserve paid from the development revenue
• is totally private sector funded
• will give effect to the protection of the agricultural areas which are of some value and to provide alternative income streams for the farm
• the historic farm buildings will remain part of the cultural landscape of the area
---oooOOOooo---
Key issues regarding the spatial development framework
The adoption of the spatial development framework and district plans would result in the exclusion of the proposals of the Vergenoegd Development Initiative which, within existing legislation, would be considered on it’s merits as follows:
VDI’s proposal:
• has the written Resolution of Support of the stakeholder organisations of the communities of Macassar, Khayelitsha and Eerste River who represent all the neighbourhood communities who may be interested in, or affected by our proposal.
• complies in spirit and letter to the full in intentions of the National Environmental Management Act
• contributes to social upliftment, which is critical to improve the lives of our citizens and countrymen
• will deliver significant economic benefit, job creation and housing
• includes the rehabilitation of the fynbos and the creation of 149 ha open space and nature reserve paid from the development revenue
• is totally private sector funded
The proposed spatial development framework is inequitable and prejudicial to the owners of Vergenoegd:
• Successful applications in the vicinity of Vergenoegd has seen the status of the farm reduced to that of an agricultural island in an urban sea.
• Irrespective of the City’s desire to now have a “green lung” or corridor in this location, the effect of existing and approved developments has been to erode the value of Vergenoegd as a premier wine farm and, based on the acceptance of the proposed spatial development framework and district plans, these plans will offer no alternative rights of use
• Irrespective of the legal position and any potential challenge, the current proposals are unfair and inequitable
• previous poor decisions made by the City with regard to the provision of water culverts on the N2 have made the farm an unofficial temporary detention dam thus reducing the value of the property
Integration of community needs
Early in the process VDI appointed a consultant to investigate the needs and wishes of the surrounding communities of Vergenoegd. After extensive canvassing of those communities a document of principles of consensus was drafted under the guidance of the communities, under which the communities would provide support for the development.
Those principles are as follows:
• The unlocking of the latent potential of Vergenoegd estate
• compliance with the relevant legislation
• the promotion of sustainable economic development by building on the comparative economic advantages of the area
• utilisation of the natural resource base in a sustainable manner
• merging of the ecological and economic consideration in decision making
• making a meaningful contribution to the eradication of poverty and inequality
• ensuring an acceptable return on capital invested by the private sector investors and other stakeholders
• Ensuring inclusivity, which implies that the planning, implementation and management of the area should be an inclusive process, that gives due consideration to the interests, needs and values of all the people that live in the area and that have an interest in promoting a prosperous future in the area. In this regard, it is imperative that the following be ensured by, or should result from, the planning process:
o Continuing participation, representation, ownership and involvement of all affected people
o adequate and appropriate opportunities for public participation in decisions that may affect the area
o consideration of environmental values in management and decision-making
o developing and utilising the skills and capacities of all persons involved in, especially historically disadvantaged people, women and farm workers on the estate
o encouraging involvement in the environmental and development programmes identified for the area
It was also agreed that an independent Treasury trust would be established to manage the funding flowing from the development for the benefit of the local communities.
All of the foregoing was reduced to a resolution signed by 44 signatories, being the representatives of the stakeholders. (See appendix 1)
Legal position of the spatial development plan
The City’s view that its proposals can be passed into law without challenge, and replace the existing planning legislation is not correct.
The spatial development framework and district plans are based on studies which are not of sufficient detail to inform planning proposals at the micro level and yet have been incorporated into the plan as if the information was adequate. The professional studies which have been undertaken by the Vergenoegd Development Initiative are detailed and reveal contradictory conclusions in respect of the land use at Vergenoegd. e.g. the agricultural report is based on a mapping at 1:250 000 whereas the VDI proposal is based on actual soil surveys undertaken on the farm. In discussions with some of the authors of the City’s agricultural report it was confirmed by them that the report was never intended to be used at this level of detail but that the original report was a high-level study only and would need to be informed by more detailed studies if the conclusions were to be the reliably used in an SDF document.
In terms of the scoping report approved in March of this year for the Vergenoegd development initiative’s proposal on the farm Vergenoegd we provide the quotation from our town planners report under the section: applicable legislation, plans and guidelines. In terms of section 6.1.3 of the urban edge report, “if the benefits of the proposed use are proven to outweigh the short and long-term costs and the development would make a significant contribution to the social, economic and environmental goals of the area” then the application should be favourably considered. By excluding the farm, the proposed spatial development framework has ignored this part of the guideline for projects located outside the unofficial urban edge by not considering VDI’s specific proposal.
An adjacent portion of land to Vergenoegd has similar planning issues in that there is serious conflict between the guide plan and the unofficial urban edge. We attach as appendix 2, a letter written to the City by Headland planners in this regard.
In as much as the proposed spatial development framework and district plan's proposal for the urban edge will give guidance to developers where they may reasonably consider making investments, the 1988 Guide plan gave exactly the same indication to developers. In consultation with an advocate we have been advised that the guide plan gave reasonable and legitimate expectation that an application for rezoning on land which had been indicated as suitable for urban development would be seriously considered, subject to the outcome of specialist studies.
At this stage after four years of investment and studies the developer is seriously disadvantaged in terms of the time and cost to prepare the specialist studies as contemplated in NEMA if the City’s proposals are adopted.
It has emerged in consultation with industry colleagues that the inclusion of some properties which have been indicated with a heritage designation in the proposed SDF potentially contravene the existing national heritage legislation. The heritage legislation has its own process which has to be followed before properties can be designated with heritage status.
Proposed agricultural status of Vergenoegd
As mentioned above the City planners have proposed a status of Vergenoegd being an Agri-area of significant value given existing use. At a meeting with senior city planners VDI is principals were advised that the agricultural significance was the result of “a proper evaluation of the farm”. To reiterate, further investigation revealed that the decision was based on a 1:250,000 top level survey which is inappropriate to use for this type of decision-making. It is therefore difficult to conclude that this top level survey is a proper evaluation.
Notwithstanding all of the foregoing, in the guide plan, the farm was designated as suitable for urban development based on the agricultural surveys which were undertaken at the time, which revealed poor quality soil types. VDI’s specialist agricultural survey confirmed that the soil types were poor. The Department of Agriculture having reviewed the potential for the farm had concluded that they had no interest in protecting its farm status. Accordingly, in 1988, Dept of Agriculture designated the farm as being exempt from act 70 of 1970, the subdivision of agricultural land act. Further, the farm is 325 ha in extent but has a water allocation of only 44 ha.
The factors which indicate the farm to be unsustainable as an agricultural economic unit are as follows:
• the experience of the current owners over an extended period
• the status accorded by the Department of Agriculture (exempt from act 70 of 1970)
• the guide plan indicating it as suitable for urban development
• the development and business alternatives considered by VDI
• the absence of a business model in the City's planners evaluation that demonstrates its economic potential as a farm
The City’s process of formulating the spatial development framework and district plans
In as much as this SDF proposal will have far reaching consequences for landowners such as the owners of Vergenoegd, it is inexcusable that they were not contacted directly and consulted before the initial proposals were made public. The extent and complexity of the plans which have now been made public clearly indicate that the planners hope that the proposals will be a fait accompli.
Had the City planners reviewed VDI’s approved scoping report of March 2009 and scrutinised the content, it is highly probable that they would have come to a different conclusion regarding the inclusion of Vergenoegd within the urban edge, and the proposed status of the land as set out in the SDF. VDI’s proposal protects the environment, protects agriculture, and protects and rehabilitates the historic buildings, and provides a funding mechanism to do all of the above. Had the specialist studies and the process of planning possible development on Vergenoegd revealed that the farm could possibly be designated with the status that the City planners now wish to accord it in the new SDF proposal, the developers would not have proceeded with the current application. In contrast to this the next section of this document and the appendix 2 that deals with VDI’s approach to the project and process followed to reach the stage of an approved scoping report revealed the application fell within the law, met all reasonable criteria of NEMA for sustainable development, meet the needs of, and was supported by, the surrounding communities.
The City planners proposal will effectively sterilise the farm for development purposes and therefore only two outcomes are possible:
Either the farm is purchased by a wealthy local person but more likely a wealthy foreigner for his/her private use in which case there will be no general benefit to the citizens of Cape Town from this outcome.
or,
The farm will continue to go into decline with no funds available for environmental conservation or the restoration of the heritage buildings and no increase in economic activity or jobs.
VDI/ASISA’s process and summary of the proposed development on Vergenoegd
During 2005, the developers were approached by the owners to acquire the farm for development purposes. The developers then consulted a botanist to advise on any “no go” areas and a town planner to advise on the status of the land. The planner advised that since the farm was indicated as suitable for urban development in terms of the 1988 guide plan, and that the Department of Agriculture had no interest in retaining the farm for agricultural purposes since they had exempted it from act 70 of 1970. Based on an encouraging output from these professionals the developers felt confident in making an investment.
The developers were two of the founding fathers of the new film studio project on another portion of Vergenoegd. During the process of rezoning the developers were heavily criticised for not engaging with the environmental community and other interested and affected parties at an early stage. Being mindful of this, the developers followed a conservative approach and engaged in an extensive process of consultation with numerous interested and affected parties prior to formulating any development proposals. (see Summary of the Founding partners approach in formulating a development proposal at Vergenoegd Estate which is appendix 3)
Informed by the input of our consultation with various interested and affected parties and in conjunction with our professional team (see appendix 4) we prepared an preliminary constraints diagram and formulated initial concepts to determine what extent of development might be possible and whether it would be commercially viable.
We then appointed specialist professionals to undertake the following studies:
• Botanical/natural environment
• Floodplain
• Agricultural soils
• Economic and market
• Archaeological heritage
• Social impact
• Broad-based Black economic empowerment
• Civil engineering services and utilities
• Electrical engineering services and utilities
• Geo-technical soil studies
• Town and urban planning
The outputs of these assessments were converted to a fully informed constraints diagram which enabled our planners to prepare proposed development options which were not in conflict with the constraints, and had the support of the local communities.
We then appointed a consulting team to make the appropriate official applications. On 5th March 2009 we received confirmation of a scoping report to proceed to the environmental impact assessment.
Development summary
Appendix 5, The Sustainable Development Proposal Rev 22, contains the detailed proposal for the development of Vergenoegd. A summary of the major features of the proposal is shown below. Appendix 6 is VDI’s preferred layout.
The Land:
Vergenoegd farm 653 portion 12, remainder of 653 and remainder of 547 consisting of 325 ha in aggregate.
Proposal comprises 76 ha of development as follows:
• 1100 residential units on 61 ha
• 15 ha of industrial/commercial
• 10 ha tourism/wine precinct with a 60 to 80 bedroom hotel
• 83 ha of farmland
• 149 ha of nature conservancy/open space
Economic benefits: The viability and desirability of the commercial elements of the proposal confirmed by the economic study and market assessment are as follows:
• the number of jobs created during construction projected to be 5 630
• the number of permanent jobs created directly by the project i.e. not including The Nation’s Trust projected to be 3 896
• new business sales of R2 billion during construction and over R1 billion on-going
• the funding of upwards of 70 houses through habitat for humanity
• R20 million contribution to local communities for job creation and social upliftment
• creation of more than 20 small businesses for BEE purposes on the site
• revitalisation of the ailing wine business
• creation of a tourism node
• The contribution to the economy of Cape Town is projected to be R398 million (GGP) during construction
• The contribution to the economy of Cape Town is projected to be R227 million (GGP) on-going
• the contribution to the rates base of Cape Town projected to be R101 million
Cultural and nature conservation benefits:
• The restoration of the historic buildings
• the removal of all alien plant species in the conservation area to aid the development of a natural fauna and flora
• the requirement of increased insulation in the residential units to provide low energy use housing
• double glazing on all windows
• grey water and rainwater management systems for all houses
• solar energy for all houses
Conclusion and recommendation
the proposed SDF shows the farm Vergenoegd as being outside of the urban edge and accords the farm the following status:
• Agri area of significant value given existing use
• an open or natural open space
• part of the cultural landscape of Zandvliet/Macassar
• an area of critical biodiversity 1
A detailed evaluation of the property shows that the farm is suitable for development and VDI's recommendation is that the farm should be included within the urban edge in order that development proposals can be considered on merit
VDI’s proposal:
• has the written Resolution of Support of the stakeholder organisations of the communities of Macassar, Khayelitsha and Eerste River who represent all the neighbourhood communities who may be interested in, or affected by our proposal.
• complies in spirit and letter to the full in intentions of the National Environmental Management Act
• contributes to social upliftment, which is critical to improve the lives of our citizens and countrymen
• will deliver significant economic benefit, job creation and housing
• includes the rehabilitation of the fynbos and the creation of 149 ha open space and nature reserve paid from the development revenue
• is totally private sector funded
• will give effect to the protection of the agricultural areas which are of some value and to provide alternative income streams for the farm
• the historic farm buildings will remain part of the cultural landscape of the area
---oooOOOooo---
Appendix 2 Headland Letter
We reiterate your own council’s view on the urban edge, as contained in the 23/3/2007 report to PEPCO (12-04-07) in which the legal position of the urban edge was clarified:
• “Ever since Council’s submission of the urban edge to Provincial Government Western Cape (PGWC) for statutory approval was turned down there has been ongoing uncertainty as to the ‘power’ of the City’s Urban Edge Policy (adopted by Council ion 2001) in relation to the ‘power’ of the Metropolitan Guide Plan (approved in 1988) which remains the guiding statutory mechanism (applicant’s note: Helderberg Guide Plan has the same status as the Metro Guide Plan, and PEPCO’s meaning therefore applies to the Helderberg plan as well)
• As a result the City initially engaged with PGWC over the possibility of it at some point reconsidering its decision not to formally approve the urban edge as a section 4(6) Structure Plan (in terms of LUPO, 1985). However, reconsideration was not forthcoming.
• In view of the current district planning process, and the intention that the district SDPs being developed for the City will be approved as 4(6) structure plans, it is envisaged that the District SDPs, inclusive of the urban edge, will effectively super-cede the guidance of the 1988 Metropolitan Guide Plan (applicant’s note: read Helderberg Guide Plan) “
In amplification of our planning report, we urge you to consider the following with respect to the urban edge versus guide plan applicable to our client’s property, and the fact that you may not issue a negative comment based on the urban edge as an argument:
1. Firstly, The Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 (“the Systems Act”) enjoins the municipality to undertake “developmentally-orientated planning”. In so doing it must take account of the principles for land development contained in Chapter 1 of the Development Facilitation Act 67 of 1995. Section 35 of the Systems Act provides that the municipality’s integrated development plan binds the municipality in the exercise of its executive authority, except to the extent of any inconsistency between the municipality’s integrated development plan and national or provincial legislation, in which case such legislation prevails.
1.1. At this junction it is important to note that it is clear that the City is obligated to abide by the statutory Guide Plan’s designations, and cannot override those provisions with municipal policy (the urban edge where it differs in delineation) which is not aligned to the Guide Plan.
1.1.1. In this regard the following explanation of the above effect is reported in case 252/99 (Akani Garden Route (Pty) Ltd vs Pinnacle Point Casino (Pty) Ltd):
1.1.2. “I prefer to begin by stating the obvious, namely that laws, regulations and rules are legislative instruments whereas policy determinations are not. As a matter of sound government, in order to bind the public, policy should normally be reflected in such instruments. Policy determinations cannot override, amend or be in conflict with laws (including subordinate legislation). Otherwise the separation between legislature and executive will disappear. Cf Executive Council, Western Cape Legislature, and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 1995 (4) SA 877 (CC) par 62.”
1.2. Furthermore, in terms of section 24(1) of the Systems Act the “planning undertaken by a municipality must be aligned with, and complement, the development plans and strategies of other affected municipalities and other organs of state so as to give effect to the principles of co-operative government contained in section 41 of the Constitution.”.
2. Secondly, the Helderberg Urban Edge study is heavily predicated on the fact that the statutory Guide Plan would have made way for the MSDF, an event which never happened (refer bullet points above). The fact that this never occurred, places that entire study in jeopardy, because it ignores statutes and presents itself as fixed policy (at the same level of enforceability as a Guide Plan would). This situation is untenable, particularly in light of the legal situation under points 1.1 & 1.2.
2.1. One assumes that it was the intention to approve the Helderberg Urban Edge as a 4(10) plan since the MSDF would become the 4(6) plan replacing the guide plan (we find no specific reference to the approval mechanism in the Helderberg Urban Edge report).
2.2. Section 4(11) of the LUPO states that all 4(10) plans inconsistent with a Guide Plan may not be approved, and may not continue to exist.
2.3. The meaning is clear: the urban edge study is non-binding policy (note 3rd sentence at 1.1.2, above), and may not exist where it deviates from the Guide Plan in matters of urban determination/exclusion (we hesitate to say that the entire urban edge “may not continue to exist” because we cannot comment on one flaw in a document invalidating the whole document).
3. Thirdly, the Guide Plan process is a forward planning document, which deals in broad-brush principles of where development should or should not happen, much as your current SDF and Urban Edge process intends doing.
Those guide plan broad brush principles obviously do not impart rights, and we are disappointed that your department in commenting on our application, assumes that we do not know the distinction. There is perhaps an element of planning law which is missing in our discussion, and that is the real implication of the fact that structure planning does not grant nor take away rights. The effect is of forward planning is clear:
• a structure plan amendment (for example from agriculture to residential) does not impart the zoning rights, ie land use does not suddenly vest because the structure plan indicates residential.
• What is does do, however, is impart the acceptability of residential development (in our example) on a certain piece of land, subject to site specific studies.
• In other words, the hurdle of the principle of development is passed, and a de facto right is expressed. To express it in land development terms, it is the difference between an option agreement (forward planning) and a concluded sale (subdivision/rezoning approval):
o the option creates a contract whereby a principle is established but, subject to various detail, the principle will or won’t be exercised. There will not be another option in operation at the same time between the two same parties under which the contract differs from the principles of the first option.
o Whereas a concluded sale agreement is the exercising of a right.
• It is this last important distinction (to be able to exercise a right) that a structure plan does not impart, but it does very clearly give the impression that the creation of the right will be acceptable.
4. The process of land development based on structure planning (as an investment decision by developers) has the following effect:
• Identify land for purchase,
• Identify whether the forward planning document (in this case the Guide Plan) allows for the PRINICPLE of development – in other words the PRINCIPLE (as a desirability test under LUPO) is established, it cannot be removed (unless the document giving rise to the principle is amended).
• The next level of assessment deals with specific physical issues (wetlands, slopes, fynbos, water courses, etc) – again, we reiterate this point very strongly: there CANNOT be this next level of plan which excludes development IN PRINCIPLE, because the whole reason of interlocking planning tools is that they mutually support each other, not contradict each other.
• Once the site has been assessed as to its physical constraints, only then does one know where developable areas are. If the land is not suitable for development because of these factors - and not based on whether the urban edge is compatible - only then will the developer decide to purchase elsewhere.
5. The process as explained above, amounts to certainty and logical, sequential decisions.
6. The urban edge in principle excluding land from development where a higher order plan supports such development - subject to the various site specific studies – is not fair or just decision making.
7. Note here also that were the urban edge a physical feature (and not a “policy” statement), then it would form part of the exclusion areas. However, since you are applying it as a policy directive sitting in between the level of the Guide Plan (statutory informant) and the site’s attributes (physical informants), it competes directly with the Guide Plan and must therefore show consistency – there is simply no other alternative.
8. To reiterate our point in a different manner, with a more clear-cut understanding of the law (since Urban Edges are not legal tools in terms of LUPO, and the SDF does not yet exist to bring effect to the urban edge in terms of the MSA):
• had there been an approved 4(10) structure plan for the area, and that structure plan had wanted to exclude the site, in principle, from development, that 4(10) plan would be put on hold, pending amendment of the Guide Plan, so that the 4(10) plan could be consistent and have proper status.
• The same applies for the urban edge study: The study’s intention is to limit development in certain areas, but as an approved (or to be approved) document it would necessitate an amendment of the Guide Plan. Your assertion that the guide plan is a long term vision, and that the urban edge is more short term as a guideline document and can therefore be enforced as an exclusionary tool in the presence of the Guide Plan, is simply not supported by the consistency requirements of the Physical Planning Act, the MSA nor the LUPO.
• Where your department is absolutely correct is to state that the Guide Plan is outdated, and urgently requires revision, hence your SDF and District Planning process. And we take your point that your process would seek to amend the guide plan to suit your vision of urban limits.
• However, as that process will not be concluded for at least another 18 months you may not delay our application in anticipation of that process, nor in anticipation of the Urban Edge Task Team’s review process. It simply does not amount to fair and reasonable decision making as defined under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act. In fact, it is not supported by LUPO either, because you are precluded from dealing with draft, unapproved documents when making land use and spatial planning decisions. The time provisions of decision making under LUPO also play a role.
9. A potent statement in the Hottentots-Holland Basin Guide Plan with respect to agricultural potential and protection of assets from Urban Development, is :
• (page 30) “In the demarcation of the guide plan area special attention was given to the possibility of channelling urban development in such a way that high-potential agricultural land would not be sterilised.” (own highlight added)
10. Lastly, the land in question was EXCLUDED from the provisions of Act 70 of 1970 (Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act). In other words, the competent authority deemed that the land was not critical to farming, hence the guide plan statement under page 30 (see previous point).
In conclusion, we would also like to add that the issue of the Guide Plan being an outdated document is not relevant to the issue whether the urban edge is legitimate. The real issue is a legal one of whether the urban edge is an enforceable policy where it is in conflict with the Guide Plan with respect to the mismatch between forward planning statements, a mismatch which cannot be used as a means to pass negative comment on our application. We submit that the legal situation exists that the urban edge is ultra vires, at least where it is inconsistent with the guide plan in matters of where urban development may be located.
We therefore request that you immediately revise your comments, and address the current statutory forward planning statements.
Yours faithfully
HEADLAND
Claus Mischker
Appendix 3 Summary of the Founding partners approach
THE VERGENOEGD DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE
Summary of the Founding partners approach in formulating a development proposal at Vergenoegd Estate.
1. Securing the opportunity
From the period April 2005 to the 31st of October 2005 the founding partners – Rod MacPhail and Andy Miles -of the Vergenoegd project –subsequently to become a corporate structure in ASISA Agri-tourism (Pty) Ltd (ASISA) and the Vergenoegd Development Initiative (Pty) Ltd (VDI) - held many discussions with the Vergenoegd Trust, the owners of the Vergenoegd wine estate, with a view to acquiring the property.
The owner of the farm had made a decision to dispose of the property since the business of growing and making wine, although of excellent quality, was not commercially successful and had been consistently incurring losses for a number of years. Clearly this is unsustainable in the long term. The owner had been disposing of their land assets over a period of 15 years in order to maintain the business. Eventually the owner took the view that it was time that others should take over the property and develop a plan to restore the farm to good financial health.
During that time the owner of the farm had held discussions with a number of potential purchasers with a view to eliciting the information regarding their future intentions for the farm. The farm has been in the ownership of the Faure family for over 200 years, and the present winemaker is a member of for a family.
Several offers and proposals were made to the farm’s owner’s during the six-month period of negotiation. The owners wished to have an understanding of the development concepts which would be used on the farm should transfer of ownership take place.
Of concern was the maintenance and rehabilitation of the historic buildings, a turnaround in the fortunes of the wine business, the maintenance of the family link in the winemaking tradition.
The founding partners of ASISA and VDI had a vision which would turn around the fortunes of the wine farm, add a significant tourism node, and develop portions of the unused parts of the farm to generate funding to give effect to the vision.
The farm’s owner was convinced that ASISA had the right formula and on the 31st of October 2005 entered into an option agreement under which ASISA would acquire Vergenoegd.
2. Fundamental Policy and Direction of The Project
The founding partners set a clear direction and objective for the project that embodied the following – economically sustainable success, preserving the environment in all respects and the provision of upliftment through genuine broad based economic empowerment. At the stage neither Andy nor Rod were aware of the concept of a Sustainable Development Initiative that has subsequently become the cornerstone of the project. Nevertheless right from the outset the entrepreneurial intuition of the founders provided a clear vision for the project that embraced these principles.
3. Preliminary meetings – formulating the initial ideas
Being entrepreneurs, the founders’ vision for the business opportunities was the easiest to conceptualise. The six month period of negotiation with the Faure family had provided an opportunity to work through iterations of ideas and possibilities. The tourism experience and expertise of the founders immediately recognised the tourism potential at Vergenoegd and tourism became a key element of the business strategy. The wine business is economically unattractive but it creates a superb physical environment for tourism and provided it occurs sensitively a marvellous environment for residential property. One of the key issues or challenges in realising the opportunity was to find a viable plan to generate funding to enable the overall project to be implemented. At that stage the possibility of residential development looked like the solution to at least portion of this funding need. Subsequently the addition of further development potential on the land on the southern side of the N2 brought economic viability to the full conceptual plan.
Where did the process of the founders start? “Getting started with the right intentions and the right partners”. The first meeting that ASISA held with the BBBEE consultant was on 2nd November 2008 just three days after the signature of the option agreement. This meeting was to discuss the best method to give effect to broad-based black economic empowerment from this project. On the advice of the consultant and together with the desire of ASISA it was agreed that we would negotiate with the Nation’s Trust to become the first BBBEE partner in the project. The motivation came from a clear meeting of minds. The founding entrepreneurs were looking for a reliable process to foster job creation both from within the project (the founders had already formulated a list of initial ideas of potential new business opportunities) and if surplus funds could be made available then for broader and more ambitious purposes. The Nation’s Trust provided exactly that vehicle and become the first partners to join the Vergenoegd Development Initiative (VDI). (At this stage we were referring to the beneficiary organisation as a PBO but for the sake of clarity and focus in this document we refer to it as the SDI). The then CEO of Nations Trust, Ashley Du Plooy has since these early beginnings played and continues to play a role in advising us on broad based black participation in the VDI.
Right at the outset it was vital that participation of BBBEE beneficiaries be correctly structured to achieve maximum benefit. “Correct corporate and Legal structure”. On 7th/8th November 2005 we (the Founders) began consultations with our accounting and tax adviser, together with our legal adviser for their advice regarding the structure which would give the maximum benefit to the Nation’s Trust and other beneficiaries that we knew would become part of VDI’s SDI. Whilst these initial meetings with these advisers provided the basis for appropriate corporate and legal structuring they remain interested in and committed to the project and provide us with valuable on-going support and advice.
On 23rd of November 2005 we took the first step in furthering our understanding of the issues facing the wine business by consulting with John Faure, the winemaker on the farm for some 20 years, to discuss the critical agricultural issues, the commercial uncertainties facing the wine production business and his views on the role and needs of the existing staff on the farm.
It emerged from these and many subsequent discussions that the return of the wine business to profit is a “turnaround” that will require significant skill input and take time. It is unfortunate that in economic terms the wine business is small and it is complex, and thus unattractive. However, it is essential to the maintenance of the character of the estate and its heritage. The founders are confident that in time they will return the commercial wine activity to a level of operating profit contribution. However, the sustainability of the wine making and agricultural activities is totally dependent on a major capital generating endeavour such as the property development proposed and further, needs the support of the operating profit from the synergistic tourism businesses proposed. It is this combination of capital generation and additional operating profits that will provide a confident business environment in the long term.
“Getting the lie of the land” – Literally!! Understanding the existing land use and its features was an essential component to begin formulating the potential land use and would be a requirement for many of the professionals that would be appointed to assist in the project. To facilitate this we then entered into an initial physical, ecological and environmental survey of the property. On 5th December 2005 we discussed the requirements for the survey and to understand the topography of the farm. It was agreed that we would undertake an aerial survey of the farm which would give us the required details.
“More on the right partners” . The role of property developers in helping meet South Africa’s burgeoning housing needs has received a great deal of attention over recent years. The founders were very conscious of this debate and the policy direction emanating from National, Provincial and local Government. The philosophy of the founders was to embrace this requirement and to make housing a key element of the BBBEE component.
In December 2005 we consulted with Mr Frikkie van Zyl from the provincial housing department for his advice. Several meetings were held on potential opportunities to partner with the City on housing through the early and mid part of 2006. We also consulted with Habitat for Humanity and subsequently they have become a founding member of the VDI’s SDI and a potential beneficiary.
4. Formulating the property development proposal
“Philosophy on constraints” . A founding policy for the direction of the project was to recognise constraints to development and to generate “benign alternatives”. It was a real desire that if at all possible the development proposal would be non confrontational to any interested party.
Having had experience on previous projects we realised that close attention be given to the National Environmental Management Act. It was our stated principle that we should not ask for construction in any areas where there are the critically endangered species of plant.
The starting point in looking at the land and developing a sense of the “possible” on the site we consulted with Dr Charles Boucher and Dr Barbara Gale to provide us with the botanical, ecological and freshwater review of the farm in order to determine any possible no-go areas.
The first pass at Dr Boucher’s work took the form of an extensive “drive and walk about” on the site on January 9th 2006. Dr Boucher has an intimate knowledge of the land having spent part of his childhood living in Croydon and fishing in the Eerste River that crosses the farm. Dr Boucher was able to provide an intimate, immediate and informative study of the land and recognisable “no go” areas where development would be inappropriate. Whilst this first study would subsequently be refined in Dr Boucher’s detailed study (that would in fact only be finally completed a year later) and input from Dr Barbara Gale this preliminary input gave us a sound basis to start looking at land use options with the correct sense of doable scale of development.
An aerial survey had been completed of the whole farm and this was then distributed to professional team on January 15 2006.
“First consultation with City officials”. On the 20th January 2006 we met with City officials from Helderberg municipality. We furnished a layout of the farm and advised them that we were contemplating development of the farm that would entail an application to have portions of the land rezoned for the purposes of residential housing and tourism development on the northern portion of the farm and a light industrial/commercial node of the South side of the N2 . We also advised that the proposal would include the “turnaround” of the ailing wine business and agricultural activities on the farm and provide resources to rehabilitate conservation areas. We also briefed them of the philosophical and policy approach of the founders’ in proposing the development and the inclusion of BBBEE partners in the SDI. At that meeting we were advised by the officials that they would not support an application of a gross density of greater than five units per hectare (1140 units). This provided a further guiding constraint to our thinking on scale and type of development that would receive official City support.
“The legal framework of the land”. On 25th of January 2006 we met up with this Mr. Jaco van der Westhuizen from the City to discuss the planning framework and land use. We have consulted extensively with our town planning consultants and held discussions with City officials on the legislature that is applicable to the land. As the land falls within that the guide plan as such is suitable for urban development.
“Identifying the development constraints and opportunities”. During the period from January 2006 until March 2007 we formulated a constraints plan in order to determine all the constraints that would be applied to us if we wished to proceed with an application that would essentially meet all the aspirations of the interested and affected parties and would comply with the law without compromising the economic viability of the project nor impinging on ecology or heritage of the farm. During this period we were also able to further develop potential opportunities within the project some commercial and many importantly that added value to the possible benefits within the Sustainable Development Initiative.
Formal studies were commissioned to look at soils and natural water resources on the farm, the flood plain was indentified and evaluated and electrical and civil engineering professionals did preliminary assessments of the available services and implications for possible development.
We held a number of meetings with City and provincial officials to understand the requirements of potential development and explain our preliminary ideas and elicit comment and reaction. These included the following:
By the end of June 2006 we had a first pass proposal and we met with the City officials who deal with water catchment. We presented our ideas to them and they indicated that they could see no difficulties with our proposals.
On the 16th of August 2006 we met with City housing officials to discuss how the project could assist the provision of entry level housing.
On 8th September 2006 we met the Department of Water Affairs to discuss the project. Since the project requires the construction of a new dam the Department have to be consulted on this matter. DWAF found our proposals to be acceptable but of course we have to make the necessary application for a water licence.
On 7th October 2006 we made with Professor Ellis and Dr Schloms who undertook an agricultural survey for us in order determine the soil quality is on the farm. With the results of that survey we made with the Department of Agriculture on the 20th October 2006 when we held a meeting with Messrs Roussouw and Smit.
Our principle is that we wish to construct properties with a low environmental impact. In this regards we met, on 3rd November 2006, Rhapsody water (Pty) Ltd, and Freeheat (Pty) Ltd who advised us how to minimise the water usage, provide grey and rainwater management systems and provide effective solar heating and incorporate them into our development.
On 10th November 2006 we met up with the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa (WESSA) to discuss our proposals with Mr Gubb and Mr Dowling. They advised us that if we were not impinging on important botanical areas they would be supportive of our application. On 13th November 2006 we met with the City’s environmental department, and discussed our proposals with Dr Keith Wiseman.
On 21st of November 2006 we met with Ms Sam Ralston of CapeNature to discuss our proposals. Like WESSA, her view was that provided we were not impacting on sensitive botanical areas they would have no objection to our development.
On 29th of November 2006 we met up with Dr Keith Wiseman and approximately 14 other delegates from the City and Helderberg region to discuss our proposals. We were advised to consult with Mr Gert Kruger and we have kept in contact with him intermittently as progress was made.
During the period early 2007 until May 2007 we worked through all constraints and took cognisance of the sage advice of the many officials and professionals that had provided input to develop a proposal that would fit agriculture, the environment and be economically sensible.
“An independent view of the development potential and opportunity” . To supplement the entrepreneurial vision for developing the property in August 2006 we commissioned the Dennis Moss Partnership to complete an independent design review of the development possibilities at Vergenoegd. This was an extensive and comprehensive appointment undertaken by DMP between August 2006 and March 2007. This reviewed the work of the founding partners and the work of the professional team done to date and then involved a complete independent review of all the elements of planning. The Dennis Moss Partnership is the most highly regarded firm of professional planning consultants in this particular type of land use. They are extremely well versed in all the legal, technical, design and planning requirements of a development of this nature being considered. The current proposal is the manifestation of the independent design review completed by DMP in March 2007.
Under the guidance and counsel of DMP two other significant processes were embarked upon. Firstly DMP introduced us to the concept of a Sustainable Development Initiative and secondly we commissioned economic and social studies to assess the potential benefits of the proposed development. This later work was subsequently further expanded in to a full market assessment. These studies were completed by a leading professional firm in this field – Urban Econ under the guidance of Dr Judex Oberholzer.
The outcome of these studies revealed the following highlights:
• The viability and desirability of the commercial elements of the proposal as formulated by the founding partners have been confirmed by the economic study and market assessment.
• The contribution to the economy of Cape Town is projected to be R398 million (GGP) during construction
• The contribution to the economy of Cape Town is projected to be R227 million (GGP) on-going
• new business sales of R2 billion during construction and over R1 billion on-going
• the contribution to the rates base of Cape Town projected to be R101 million
• the number of jobs created during construction projected to be 5 630
• the number of permanent jobs created directly by the project i.e. not including The Nation’s Trust projected to be 3 896
“Saving the best for last.” Consultations with our BBBEE consultant has determined that the project presently has the status of a level 4 contributor to broad-based Black economic empowerment and he expects that our final result will mean that we will be a level 3 contributor to BBBEE.
The introduction to the SDI concept gave a recognised overarching framework within which the intentions and aspirations of the founding partners in respect of the concept of the development could be housed. This led to the appointment of Zevanti Consulting - Mr Ralph Damonse - as a specialist professional to identify all the potential participants in the surrounding communities from Khayelitsha, Macassar, Blue Downs, Eerste River and Faure.
The engagement and work of Zevanti in facilitating individual and meetings of the entire grouping has resulted in the formalisation of the full VDI SDI and a resolution of support from the communities, a copy of which is contained in this document. The establishment of the structure and operating working of the VDI is currently being developed. If the development proposals find favour and are approved, a Treasury Trust will be established with representation from these local communities, the Nations’ Trust and Habitat for Humanity to formulate the policy for the distribution of the financial benefits earmarked for the SDI.
During March to June 2007 we were working closely with the Dennis Moss Partnership and this culminated in us commissioning DMP as the official consultants to lead the formal application process. DMP’s previous role in completing the independent design review was concluded and this background placed them ideally to move into this new role.
The period from June 2007 to November 2007 when the formal application process commenced was a period of intense review of all the components of the proposed development and most notably the incorporation of the project as an SDI. This period has also seen the completion of the work of the independent environmental consultants in preparing for the formal applications.
“Financial viability – the money - will it work”. In our story above we are largely silent on the viability. This is not because it is less important but rather because it is a given. To formulate a development proposal that is not workable and financially sustainable is to create meaningless expectation. The founding partners are both seasoned professionals and entrepreneurs and at every stage of the three years of planning and preparation to making the formal applications we have rigorously evaluated all the commercial aspects of the proposals.
Appendix 4 Professional team
Vergenoegd Professional Team
Dudley Janeke Environmental Scoping Report
Concept 2 Completion civil engineers Preliminary civils report
Photosurveys Aerial survey
Dr Charles Boucher Botanist
Dennis Moss Partnership Heritage Consultant
Prof. Fred Ellis & Dr Schloms Agriculture
Dr Mike Shand Concept and Feasibility
Ninham Shand inc 100 years flood
Ninham Shand inc Geotechnical report
Ninham Shand inc Preliminary dam design
Anine Trumpleman Planning consultant
Dennis Moss Partnership Planners and Architects
Arup Traffic report
Jonathan Kaplan Archaeology
Kobus Veldsman Electrical consultant
Ralph Damense Community liaison
Urban Econ Economists
Anton Bolle Land surveyor
Zirk Botha BBBEE Consultant
Igor Vukic Legal adviser
Phillip Haupt Corporate Structure consultant
We reiterate your own council’s view on the urban edge, as contained in the 23/3/2007 report to PEPCO (12-04-07) in which the legal position of the urban edge was clarified:
• “Ever since Council’s submission of the urban edge to Provincial Government Western Cape (PGWC) for statutory approval was turned down there has been ongoing uncertainty as to the ‘power’ of the City’s Urban Edge Policy (adopted by Council ion 2001) in relation to the ‘power’ of the Metropolitan Guide Plan (approved in 1988) which remains the guiding statutory mechanism (applicant’s note: Helderberg Guide Plan has the same status as the Metro Guide Plan, and PEPCO’s meaning therefore applies to the Helderberg plan as well)
• As a result the City initially engaged with PGWC over the possibility of it at some point reconsidering its decision not to formally approve the urban edge as a section 4(6) Structure Plan (in terms of LUPO, 1985). However, reconsideration was not forthcoming.
• In view of the current district planning process, and the intention that the district SDPs being developed for the City will be approved as 4(6) structure plans, it is envisaged that the District SDPs, inclusive of the urban edge, will effectively super-cede the guidance of the 1988 Metropolitan Guide Plan (applicant’s note: read Helderberg Guide Plan) “
In amplification of our planning report, we urge you to consider the following with respect to the urban edge versus guide plan applicable to our client’s property, and the fact that you may not issue a negative comment based on the urban edge as an argument:
1. Firstly, The Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 (“the Systems Act”) enjoins the municipality to undertake “developmentally-orientated planning”. In so doing it must take account of the principles for land development contained in Chapter 1 of the Development Facilitation Act 67 of 1995. Section 35 of the Systems Act provides that the municipality’s integrated development plan binds the municipality in the exercise of its executive authority, except to the extent of any inconsistency between the municipality’s integrated development plan and national or provincial legislation, in which case such legislation prevails.
1.1. At this junction it is important to note that it is clear that the City is obligated to abide by the statutory Guide Plan’s designations, and cannot override those provisions with municipal policy (the urban edge where it differs in delineation) which is not aligned to the Guide Plan.
1.1.1. In this regard the following explanation of the above effect is reported in case 252/99 (Akani Garden Route (Pty) Ltd vs Pinnacle Point Casino (Pty) Ltd):
1.1.2. “I prefer to begin by stating the obvious, namely that laws, regulations and rules are legislative instruments whereas policy determinations are not. As a matter of sound government, in order to bind the public, policy should normally be reflected in such instruments. Policy determinations cannot override, amend or be in conflict with laws (including subordinate legislation). Otherwise the separation between legislature and executive will disappear. Cf Executive Council, Western Cape Legislature, and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 1995 (4) SA 877 (CC) par 62.”
1.2. Furthermore, in terms of section 24(1) of the Systems Act the “planning undertaken by a municipality must be aligned with, and complement, the development plans and strategies of other affected municipalities and other organs of state so as to give effect to the principles of co-operative government contained in section 41 of the Constitution.”.
2. Secondly, the Helderberg Urban Edge study is heavily predicated on the fact that the statutory Guide Plan would have made way for the MSDF, an event which never happened (refer bullet points above). The fact that this never occurred, places that entire study in jeopardy, because it ignores statutes and presents itself as fixed policy (at the same level of enforceability as a Guide Plan would). This situation is untenable, particularly in light of the legal situation under points 1.1 & 1.2.
2.1. One assumes that it was the intention to approve the Helderberg Urban Edge as a 4(10) plan since the MSDF would become the 4(6) plan replacing the guide plan (we find no specific reference to the approval mechanism in the Helderberg Urban Edge report).
2.2. Section 4(11) of the LUPO states that all 4(10) plans inconsistent with a Guide Plan may not be approved, and may not continue to exist.
2.3. The meaning is clear: the urban edge study is non-binding policy (note 3rd sentence at 1.1.2, above), and may not exist where it deviates from the Guide Plan in matters of urban determination/exclusion (we hesitate to say that the entire urban edge “may not continue to exist” because we cannot comment on one flaw in a document invalidating the whole document).
3. Thirdly, the Guide Plan process is a forward planning document, which deals in broad-brush principles of where development should or should not happen, much as your current SDF and Urban Edge process intends doing.
Those guide plan broad brush principles obviously do not impart rights, and we are disappointed that your department in commenting on our application, assumes that we do not know the distinction. There is perhaps an element of planning law which is missing in our discussion, and that is the real implication of the fact that structure planning does not grant nor take away rights. The effect is of forward planning is clear:
• a structure plan amendment (for example from agriculture to residential) does not impart the zoning rights, ie land use does not suddenly vest because the structure plan indicates residential.
• What is does do, however, is impart the acceptability of residential development (in our example) on a certain piece of land, subject to site specific studies.
• In other words, the hurdle of the principle of development is passed, and a de facto right is expressed. To express it in land development terms, it is the difference between an option agreement (forward planning) and a concluded sale (subdivision/rezoning approval):
o the option creates a contract whereby a principle is established but, subject to various detail, the principle will or won’t be exercised. There will not be another option in operation at the same time between the two same parties under which the contract differs from the principles of the first option.
o Whereas a concluded sale agreement is the exercising of a right.
• It is this last important distinction (to be able to exercise a right) that a structure plan does not impart, but it does very clearly give the impression that the creation of the right will be acceptable.
4. The process of land development based on structure planning (as an investment decision by developers) has the following effect:
• Identify land for purchase,
• Identify whether the forward planning document (in this case the Guide Plan) allows for the PRINICPLE of development – in other words the PRINCIPLE (as a desirability test under LUPO) is established, it cannot be removed (unless the document giving rise to the principle is amended).
• The next level of assessment deals with specific physical issues (wetlands, slopes, fynbos, water courses, etc) – again, we reiterate this point very strongly: there CANNOT be this next level of plan which excludes development IN PRINCIPLE, because the whole reason of interlocking planning tools is that they mutually support each other, not contradict each other.
• Once the site has been assessed as to its physical constraints, only then does one know where developable areas are. If the land is not suitable for development because of these factors - and not based on whether the urban edge is compatible - only then will the developer decide to purchase elsewhere.
5. The process as explained above, amounts to certainty and logical, sequential decisions.
6. The urban edge in principle excluding land from development where a higher order plan supports such development - subject to the various site specific studies – is not fair or just decision making.
7. Note here also that were the urban edge a physical feature (and not a “policy” statement), then it would form part of the exclusion areas. However, since you are applying it as a policy directive sitting in between the level of the Guide Plan (statutory informant) and the site’s attributes (physical informants), it competes directly with the Guide Plan and must therefore show consistency – there is simply no other alternative.
8. To reiterate our point in a different manner, with a more clear-cut understanding of the law (since Urban Edges are not legal tools in terms of LUPO, and the SDF does not yet exist to bring effect to the urban edge in terms of the MSA):
• had there been an approved 4(10) structure plan for the area, and that structure plan had wanted to exclude the site, in principle, from development, that 4(10) plan would be put on hold, pending amendment of the Guide Plan, so that the 4(10) plan could be consistent and have proper status.
• The same applies for the urban edge study: The study’s intention is to limit development in certain areas, but as an approved (or to be approved) document it would necessitate an amendment of the Guide Plan. Your assertion that the guide plan is a long term vision, and that the urban edge is more short term as a guideline document and can therefore be enforced as an exclusionary tool in the presence of the Guide Plan, is simply not supported by the consistency requirements of the Physical Planning Act, the MSA nor the LUPO.
• Where your department is absolutely correct is to state that the Guide Plan is outdated, and urgently requires revision, hence your SDF and District Planning process. And we take your point that your process would seek to amend the guide plan to suit your vision of urban limits.
• However, as that process will not be concluded for at least another 18 months you may not delay our application in anticipation of that process, nor in anticipation of the Urban Edge Task Team’s review process. It simply does not amount to fair and reasonable decision making as defined under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act. In fact, it is not supported by LUPO either, because you are precluded from dealing with draft, unapproved documents when making land use and spatial planning decisions. The time provisions of decision making under LUPO also play a role.
9. A potent statement in the Hottentots-Holland Basin Guide Plan with respect to agricultural potential and protection of assets from Urban Development, is :
• (page 30) “In the demarcation of the guide plan area special attention was given to the possibility of channelling urban development in such a way that high-potential agricultural land would not be sterilised.” (own highlight added)
10. Lastly, the land in question was EXCLUDED from the provisions of Act 70 of 1970 (Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act). In other words, the competent authority deemed that the land was not critical to farming, hence the guide plan statement under page 30 (see previous point).
In conclusion, we would also like to add that the issue of the Guide Plan being an outdated document is not relevant to the issue whether the urban edge is legitimate. The real issue is a legal one of whether the urban edge is an enforceable policy where it is in conflict with the Guide Plan with respect to the mismatch between forward planning statements, a mismatch which cannot be used as a means to pass negative comment on our application. We submit that the legal situation exists that the urban edge is ultra vires, at least where it is inconsistent with the guide plan in matters of where urban development may be located.
We therefore request that you immediately revise your comments, and address the current statutory forward planning statements.
Yours faithfully
HEADLAND
Claus Mischker
Appendix 3 Summary of the Founding partners approach
THE VERGENOEGD DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE
Summary of the Founding partners approach in formulating a development proposal at Vergenoegd Estate.
1. Securing the opportunity
From the period April 2005 to the 31st of October 2005 the founding partners – Rod MacPhail and Andy Miles -of the Vergenoegd project –subsequently to become a corporate structure in ASISA Agri-tourism (Pty) Ltd (ASISA) and the Vergenoegd Development Initiative (Pty) Ltd (VDI) - held many discussions with the Vergenoegd Trust, the owners of the Vergenoegd wine estate, with a view to acquiring the property.
The owner of the farm had made a decision to dispose of the property since the business of growing and making wine, although of excellent quality, was not commercially successful and had been consistently incurring losses for a number of years. Clearly this is unsustainable in the long term. The owner had been disposing of their land assets over a period of 15 years in order to maintain the business. Eventually the owner took the view that it was time that others should take over the property and develop a plan to restore the farm to good financial health.
During that time the owner of the farm had held discussions with a number of potential purchasers with a view to eliciting the information regarding their future intentions for the farm. The farm has been in the ownership of the Faure family for over 200 years, and the present winemaker is a member of for a family.
Several offers and proposals were made to the farm’s owner’s during the six-month period of negotiation. The owners wished to have an understanding of the development concepts which would be used on the farm should transfer of ownership take place.
Of concern was the maintenance and rehabilitation of the historic buildings, a turnaround in the fortunes of the wine business, the maintenance of the family link in the winemaking tradition.
The founding partners of ASISA and VDI had a vision which would turn around the fortunes of the wine farm, add a significant tourism node, and develop portions of the unused parts of the farm to generate funding to give effect to the vision.
The farm’s owner was convinced that ASISA had the right formula and on the 31st of October 2005 entered into an option agreement under which ASISA would acquire Vergenoegd.
2. Fundamental Policy and Direction of The Project
The founding partners set a clear direction and objective for the project that embodied the following – economically sustainable success, preserving the environment in all respects and the provision of upliftment through genuine broad based economic empowerment. At the stage neither Andy nor Rod were aware of the concept of a Sustainable Development Initiative that has subsequently become the cornerstone of the project. Nevertheless right from the outset the entrepreneurial intuition of the founders provided a clear vision for the project that embraced these principles.
3. Preliminary meetings – formulating the initial ideas
Being entrepreneurs, the founders’ vision for the business opportunities was the easiest to conceptualise. The six month period of negotiation with the Faure family had provided an opportunity to work through iterations of ideas and possibilities. The tourism experience and expertise of the founders immediately recognised the tourism potential at Vergenoegd and tourism became a key element of the business strategy. The wine business is economically unattractive but it creates a superb physical environment for tourism and provided it occurs sensitively a marvellous environment for residential property. One of the key issues or challenges in realising the opportunity was to find a viable plan to generate funding to enable the overall project to be implemented. At that stage the possibility of residential development looked like the solution to at least portion of this funding need. Subsequently the addition of further development potential on the land on the southern side of the N2 brought economic viability to the full conceptual plan.
Where did the process of the founders start? “Getting started with the right intentions and the right partners”. The first meeting that ASISA held with the BBBEE consultant was on 2nd November 2008 just three days after the signature of the option agreement. This meeting was to discuss the best method to give effect to broad-based black economic empowerment from this project. On the advice of the consultant and together with the desire of ASISA it was agreed that we would negotiate with the Nation’s Trust to become the first BBBEE partner in the project. The motivation came from a clear meeting of minds. The founding entrepreneurs were looking for a reliable process to foster job creation both from within the project (the founders had already formulated a list of initial ideas of potential new business opportunities) and if surplus funds could be made available then for broader and more ambitious purposes. The Nation’s Trust provided exactly that vehicle and become the first partners to join the Vergenoegd Development Initiative (VDI). (At this stage we were referring to the beneficiary organisation as a PBO but for the sake of clarity and focus in this document we refer to it as the SDI). The then CEO of Nations Trust, Ashley Du Plooy has since these early beginnings played and continues to play a role in advising us on broad based black participation in the VDI.
Right at the outset it was vital that participation of BBBEE beneficiaries be correctly structured to achieve maximum benefit. “Correct corporate and Legal structure”. On 7th/8th November 2005 we (the Founders) began consultations with our accounting and tax adviser, together with our legal adviser for their advice regarding the structure which would give the maximum benefit to the Nation’s Trust and other beneficiaries that we knew would become part of VDI’s SDI. Whilst these initial meetings with these advisers provided the basis for appropriate corporate and legal structuring they remain interested in and committed to the project and provide us with valuable on-going support and advice.
On 23rd of November 2005 we took the first step in furthering our understanding of the issues facing the wine business by consulting with John Faure, the winemaker on the farm for some 20 years, to discuss the critical agricultural issues, the commercial uncertainties facing the wine production business and his views on the role and needs of the existing staff on the farm.
It emerged from these and many subsequent discussions that the return of the wine business to profit is a “turnaround” that will require significant skill input and take time. It is unfortunate that in economic terms the wine business is small and it is complex, and thus unattractive. However, it is essential to the maintenance of the character of the estate and its heritage. The founders are confident that in time they will return the commercial wine activity to a level of operating profit contribution. However, the sustainability of the wine making and agricultural activities is totally dependent on a major capital generating endeavour such as the property development proposed and further, needs the support of the operating profit from the synergistic tourism businesses proposed. It is this combination of capital generation and additional operating profits that will provide a confident business environment in the long term.
“Getting the lie of the land” – Literally!! Understanding the existing land use and its features was an essential component to begin formulating the potential land use and would be a requirement for many of the professionals that would be appointed to assist in the project. To facilitate this we then entered into an initial physical, ecological and environmental survey of the property. On 5th December 2005 we discussed the requirements for the survey and to understand the topography of the farm. It was agreed that we would undertake an aerial survey of the farm which would give us the required details.
“More on the right partners” . The role of property developers in helping meet South Africa’s burgeoning housing needs has received a great deal of attention over recent years. The founders were very conscious of this debate and the policy direction emanating from National, Provincial and local Government. The philosophy of the founders was to embrace this requirement and to make housing a key element of the BBBEE component.
In December 2005 we consulted with Mr Frikkie van Zyl from the provincial housing department for his advice. Several meetings were held on potential opportunities to partner with the City on housing through the early and mid part of 2006. We also consulted with Habitat for Humanity and subsequently they have become a founding member of the VDI’s SDI and a potential beneficiary.
4. Formulating the property development proposal
“Philosophy on constraints” . A founding policy for the direction of the project was to recognise constraints to development and to generate “benign alternatives”. It was a real desire that if at all possible the development proposal would be non confrontational to any interested party.
Having had experience on previous projects we realised that close attention be given to the National Environmental Management Act. It was our stated principle that we should not ask for construction in any areas where there are the critically endangered species of plant.
The starting point in looking at the land and developing a sense of the “possible” on the site we consulted with Dr Charles Boucher and Dr Barbara Gale to provide us with the botanical, ecological and freshwater review of the farm in order to determine any possible no-go areas.
The first pass at Dr Boucher’s work took the form of an extensive “drive and walk about” on the site on January 9th 2006. Dr Boucher has an intimate knowledge of the land having spent part of his childhood living in Croydon and fishing in the Eerste River that crosses the farm. Dr Boucher was able to provide an intimate, immediate and informative study of the land and recognisable “no go” areas where development would be inappropriate. Whilst this first study would subsequently be refined in Dr Boucher’s detailed study (that would in fact only be finally completed a year later) and input from Dr Barbara Gale this preliminary input gave us a sound basis to start looking at land use options with the correct sense of doable scale of development.
An aerial survey had been completed of the whole farm and this was then distributed to professional team on January 15 2006.
“First consultation with City officials”. On the 20th January 2006 we met with City officials from Helderberg municipality. We furnished a layout of the farm and advised them that we were contemplating development of the farm that would entail an application to have portions of the land rezoned for the purposes of residential housing and tourism development on the northern portion of the farm and a light industrial/commercial node of the South side of the N2 . We also advised that the proposal would include the “turnaround” of the ailing wine business and agricultural activities on the farm and provide resources to rehabilitate conservation areas. We also briefed them of the philosophical and policy approach of the founders’ in proposing the development and the inclusion of BBBEE partners in the SDI. At that meeting we were advised by the officials that they would not support an application of a gross density of greater than five units per hectare (1140 units). This provided a further guiding constraint to our thinking on scale and type of development that would receive official City support.
“The legal framework of the land”. On 25th of January 2006 we met up with this Mr. Jaco van der Westhuizen from the City to discuss the planning framework and land use. We have consulted extensively with our town planning consultants and held discussions with City officials on the legislature that is applicable to the land. As the land falls within that the guide plan as such is suitable for urban development.
“Identifying the development constraints and opportunities”. During the period from January 2006 until March 2007 we formulated a constraints plan in order to determine all the constraints that would be applied to us if we wished to proceed with an application that would essentially meet all the aspirations of the interested and affected parties and would comply with the law without compromising the economic viability of the project nor impinging on ecology or heritage of the farm. During this period we were also able to further develop potential opportunities within the project some commercial and many importantly that added value to the possible benefits within the Sustainable Development Initiative.
Formal studies were commissioned to look at soils and natural water resources on the farm, the flood plain was indentified and evaluated and electrical and civil engineering professionals did preliminary assessments of the available services and implications for possible development.
We held a number of meetings with City and provincial officials to understand the requirements of potential development and explain our preliminary ideas and elicit comment and reaction. These included the following:
By the end of June 2006 we had a first pass proposal and we met with the City officials who deal with water catchment. We presented our ideas to them and they indicated that they could see no difficulties with our proposals.
On the 16th of August 2006 we met with City housing officials to discuss how the project could assist the provision of entry level housing.
On 8th September 2006 we met the Department of Water Affairs to discuss the project. Since the project requires the construction of a new dam the Department have to be consulted on this matter. DWAF found our proposals to be acceptable but of course we have to make the necessary application for a water licence.
On 7th October 2006 we made with Professor Ellis and Dr Schloms who undertook an agricultural survey for us in order determine the soil quality is on the farm. With the results of that survey we made with the Department of Agriculture on the 20th October 2006 when we held a meeting with Messrs Roussouw and Smit.
Our principle is that we wish to construct properties with a low environmental impact. In this regards we met, on 3rd November 2006, Rhapsody water (Pty) Ltd, and Freeheat (Pty) Ltd who advised us how to minimise the water usage, provide grey and rainwater management systems and provide effective solar heating and incorporate them into our development.
On 10th November 2006 we met up with the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa (WESSA) to discuss our proposals with Mr Gubb and Mr Dowling. They advised us that if we were not impinging on important botanical areas they would be supportive of our application. On 13th November 2006 we met with the City’s environmental department, and discussed our proposals with Dr Keith Wiseman.
On 21st of November 2006 we met with Ms Sam Ralston of CapeNature to discuss our proposals. Like WESSA, her view was that provided we were not impacting on sensitive botanical areas they would have no objection to our development.
On 29th of November 2006 we met up with Dr Keith Wiseman and approximately 14 other delegates from the City and Helderberg region to discuss our proposals. We were advised to consult with Mr Gert Kruger and we have kept in contact with him intermittently as progress was made.
During the period early 2007 until May 2007 we worked through all constraints and took cognisance of the sage advice of the many officials and professionals that had provided input to develop a proposal that would fit agriculture, the environment and be economically sensible.
“An independent view of the development potential and opportunity” . To supplement the entrepreneurial vision for developing the property in August 2006 we commissioned the Dennis Moss Partnership to complete an independent design review of the development possibilities at Vergenoegd. This was an extensive and comprehensive appointment undertaken by DMP between August 2006 and March 2007. This reviewed the work of the founding partners and the work of the professional team done to date and then involved a complete independent review of all the elements of planning. The Dennis Moss Partnership is the most highly regarded firm of professional planning consultants in this particular type of land use. They are extremely well versed in all the legal, technical, design and planning requirements of a development of this nature being considered. The current proposal is the manifestation of the independent design review completed by DMP in March 2007.
Under the guidance and counsel of DMP two other significant processes were embarked upon. Firstly DMP introduced us to the concept of a Sustainable Development Initiative and secondly we commissioned economic and social studies to assess the potential benefits of the proposed development. This later work was subsequently further expanded in to a full market assessment. These studies were completed by a leading professional firm in this field – Urban Econ under the guidance of Dr Judex Oberholzer.
The outcome of these studies revealed the following highlights:
• The viability and desirability of the commercial elements of the proposal as formulated by the founding partners have been confirmed by the economic study and market assessment.
• The contribution to the economy of Cape Town is projected to be R398 million (GGP) during construction
• The contribution to the economy of Cape Town is projected to be R227 million (GGP) on-going
• new business sales of R2 billion during construction and over R1 billion on-going
• the contribution to the rates base of Cape Town projected to be R101 million
• the number of jobs created during construction projected to be 5 630
• the number of permanent jobs created directly by the project i.e. not including The Nation’s Trust projected to be 3 896
“Saving the best for last.” Consultations with our BBBEE consultant has determined that the project presently has the status of a level 4 contributor to broad-based Black economic empowerment and he expects that our final result will mean that we will be a level 3 contributor to BBBEE.
The introduction to the SDI concept gave a recognised overarching framework within which the intentions and aspirations of the founding partners in respect of the concept of the development could be housed. This led to the appointment of Zevanti Consulting - Mr Ralph Damonse - as a specialist professional to identify all the potential participants in the surrounding communities from Khayelitsha, Macassar, Blue Downs, Eerste River and Faure.
The engagement and work of Zevanti in facilitating individual and meetings of the entire grouping has resulted in the formalisation of the full VDI SDI and a resolution of support from the communities, a copy of which is contained in this document. The establishment of the structure and operating working of the VDI is currently being developed. If the development proposals find favour and are approved, a Treasury Trust will be established with representation from these local communities, the Nations’ Trust and Habitat for Humanity to formulate the policy for the distribution of the financial benefits earmarked for the SDI.
During March to June 2007 we were working closely with the Dennis Moss Partnership and this culminated in us commissioning DMP as the official consultants to lead the formal application process. DMP’s previous role in completing the independent design review was concluded and this background placed them ideally to move into this new role.
The period from June 2007 to November 2007 when the formal application process commenced was a period of intense review of all the components of the proposed development and most notably the incorporation of the project as an SDI. This period has also seen the completion of the work of the independent environmental consultants in preparing for the formal applications.
“Financial viability – the money - will it work”. In our story above we are largely silent on the viability. This is not because it is less important but rather because it is a given. To formulate a development proposal that is not workable and financially sustainable is to create meaningless expectation. The founding partners are both seasoned professionals and entrepreneurs and at every stage of the three years of planning and preparation to making the formal applications we have rigorously evaluated all the commercial aspects of the proposals.
Appendix 4 Professional team
Vergenoegd Professional Team
Dudley Janeke Environmental Scoping Report
Concept 2 Completion civil engineers Preliminary civils report
Photosurveys Aerial survey
Dr Charles Boucher Botanist
Dennis Moss Partnership Heritage Consultant
Prof. Fred Ellis & Dr Schloms Agriculture
Dr Mike Shand Concept and Feasibility
Ninham Shand inc 100 years flood
Ninham Shand inc Geotechnical report
Ninham Shand inc Preliminary dam design
Anine Trumpleman Planning consultant
Dennis Moss Partnership Planners and Architects
Arup Traffic report
Jonathan Kaplan Archaeology
Kobus Veldsman Electrical consultant
Ralph Damense Community liaison
Urban Econ Economists
Anton Bolle Land surveyor
Zirk Botha BBBEE Consultant
Igor Vukic Legal adviser
Phillip Haupt Corporate Structure consultant
VDI Proposal rev 23
The Vergenoegd Development Initiative
and
ASISA Agri-tourism Sustainable Development Proposal
CONTENTS
PREAMBLE
THE PAST AND PRESENT
OUTLINE OF BUSINESS PLAN
• Vineyards and Wine Estate
• Protection of Agricultural Heritage
• Tourism and Hospitality Development
Residential Development
Commercial Centre
Industrial
• Nature Reserve
THE FARM AND LAND USE
THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE (SDI)
The Nation’s Trust
Habitat for Humanity
AIDS benefit organisation
Children's fund
BROAD BASED BLACK ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT
A PICTORIAL TOUR OF THE FARM
CURRICULA VITAE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS
CURRICULA VITAE OF NON EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS
DIAGRAM OF FARM AND POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT
PREAMBLE
The Vergenoegd Development Initiative came about as a result of the combination of recognising a commercial opportunity to improve the fortunes of the wine farm, and a need to respond to National and Provincial Government policy with respect to broad based black economic empowerment, job creation and the development of housing.
This project was started with the negotiations with the present landowners in April 2005. This document, which as a result of work since the commencement date now envisions a development that will, subject to layout plan being approved;
unlock the value in the currently undeveloped and uneconomic portion of the farmland
will create 2000 to 8000 jobs through our BBBEE partner the Sustainable Development Initiative
provide 70 to 150 houses to assist in meeting community needs
provide funding for the rehabilitation of the natural environment
provide funding for amenities for local communities. e.g., an AIDS clinic and support for children's organisations.
provide the necessary resources to refinance the wine farm
deliver additional cash flow streams from tourism to the winemaking business
construct housing for the employees of the wine farm
The delivery of the benefits will be by way of a Sustainable Development Initiative (SDI)/Public Beneficiary Organisation(PBO). The funding for the entire project is to be raised from the sale of residential properties and does not require any public funding.
THE PAST AND PRESENT
The historic wine farm Vergenoegd has been a landmark in the Helderberg region since 1696. The farm is located on the eastern boundary of Baden Powell Drive (R310) and straddles the N2 Highway.
The wines produced on the farm have achieved international recognition, and have won prizes both here in South Africa and abroad. The well- known South African wine guide,” John Platter South African Wines” has rated the Vergenoegd wine at 4½ stars in quality (ref. page 567 of the 2008 edition). At present the vineyard produces only red wines, but consideration is being given to the development of a new wine range.
Wine farming is a notoriously cyclical activity with a worldwide glut of wine production and the farm has been incurring losses for several years.
This document serves as an outline business plan for the long-term sustainability of the farm. The plan conceived will stabilise the business by providing additional cash flow streams from tourism, conferences and events and thus ensure that the combined wine and tourism enterprise is subject to a less cyclical earning stream and a stable future.
Taking cognisance of National and Provincial Government policy, this concept plan has been devised such that it unlocks the value in the currently undeveloped portion of the farmland. The benefits will flow not only to the business but will provide substantial job creation and socio-economic upliftment to the surrounding area and contribute to the economy of the Western Cape.
OUTLINE OF THE BUSINESS PLAN
The farm consists of several portions, the aggregate area of which is approximately 325 ha.
The ASISA will provide funding for the following activities:
VINEYARDS AND THE WINE ESTATE
The wine making activity uses approximately 70 ha of which only about 20 ha is required for the core products of the business at the present sales levels, i.e. the production of premium red wine. The remaining 50 ha produces bulk wine.
Currently the farm is only producing a range of red wine. It is being considered that this range be expanded to include white and rosé wines. Marketing resources will be applied to expanding the geographic distribution particularly in international markets.
The growth of the business will create jobs and add to the economic activity on the farm. The farm will retain over 200 ha of agricultural land and nature reserve.
In line with our programme of protecting the environment (see the residential development) we hope to convert the farm to produce organic products only.
PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURAL HERITAGE
The agricultural heritage of the farm will be protected in perpetuity. The development will be undertaken to make the farm viable and meet the corporate social investment requirements of this project.
Once the sustainable business plan has been implemented there will be no further residential development on the farm.
This will also provide security of the environment for the new property owners and preserve the amenity that they have bought into.
TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY DEVELOPMENT
A restaurant has been established. The restaurant’s income will be supplemented by the development of a business catering for meetings, incentives, conferences and events. This will enhance both food and wine sales particularly the home produced Vergenoegd wines. Restaurant trade will also enhance wine sales through consumption and retail sales. This will have the effect of making the current wine business more economically viable and a platform for growth into the future.
A boutique guest house/hotel (about 80 rooms) located on the homestead portion of the farm will add to tourism capacity and create employment in the region. The location of the estate near the junction of the N2 and the R310 is at the gateway to South Africa’s premier wine route and is thus well placed to offer a pleasant and convenient location to both local and particularly international tourists.
Both of the executive Directors have significant skills and experience in the local and international tourism business.
VDI will provide funding for the following activities:
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
In line with the latest thinking of residential development in the Winelands, the proposal is that three nodal villages be located on not more than 23% of the farm, providing a range of quality housing in a range of market segments.
It is envisaged that the housing architecture will be based on the Boland wine farm style. The concept will fit in comfortably with the architecture of the region.
It is this development that will be the funding “engine room” to meet the social and commercial benefits of the overall business plan.
ECOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Mindful of the dry nature of the South African climate the developers intend to impose requirements on the construction of the homes to take into account the most efficient use of water and the use of solar energy.
It will be a requirement that all the homes have a dual water system which will permit the use of grey water and rainwater as the principal source of water for the home and the garden.
On the advice of experts we believe that this can easily save more than 75% of municipal water. Only the kitchen will be serviced from the municipal water supply. All bathrooms will be serviced from the rain water supply although backup municipal water will be available in the event of the rain water supply being depleted.
Each home will be fitted with a solar water heater. This will reduce their energy consumption at each property by considerable amount.
The insulation of the house will be considered during the design stage and advice will be sought as to the most efficient methods of heat insulation.
We are advised that in terms of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations framework Convention on climate change, it is likely that the development we will be a net saver of carbon emissions.
The homes will also comply with City of Cape Town’s proposed guideline on energy efficient buildings.
In consideration of the limited availability of electricity supply the houses will be so designed to use a minimum amount of electricity and thus comply with Eskom's requirement for “green” developments.
COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL CENTRE
A small convenience retail centre will be required to provide facilities for the tourism market and the residential development.
INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
It is envisaged that a small site will be set aside on the south side of the N2 for much-needed industrial/commercial development and therefore job opportunities, adjacent to Khayelitsha.
NATURE RESERVE
There are areas on the farm which have been identified as having botanical importance. In addition to the plant life on the farm there are some areas of the farm which were formerly seasonal wetlands.
It is the intention of VDI that the areas of environmental significance will be protected.
130 ha to 150 ha of the farm (not less than 40% of the total land area) will be secured for nature reserve purposes.
THE FARM AND LAND USE
The farm soils at Vergenoegd are somewhat variable. The soil profile comprises the eastern edge of Cape flats sand and the more variable soils of the Helderberg mountain range.
At present the farm and wine business occupy about 100 Ha. The remaining 225 Ha of the land is unused.
The development options being considered by the Vergenoegd Development Initiative show the development of a maximum about 25% the farm area. The proposed development will provide funding for the tourism venture described above, re-invest and revitalise the wine farm business, and to make a major contribution to corporate social investment, in particular, job creation and housing development.
Between 70% and 75% of the land will be retained for farming purposes and nature reserve.
THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE (SDI)/ PUBLIC BENEFICIARY ORGANISATION (PBO)
It is intended to create an SDI/PBO to administer the financial contributions made by the Vergenoegd Development Initiative for the purposes of corporate social investment.
Subject to the input of the various interested and affected parties, this project will contribute, depending on the extent of the development, about 5% of the net revenue received from the sale of the land, to the SDI/PBO.
It is also envisaged that a sustainable income flow will be set up from this development in order that the SDI/PBO may continue its work indefinitely. This is in line with current thinking on sustainable development initiatives set up for the public benefit. It is proposed that 1% of the proceeds of each subsequent sale of property (to be paid for from the estate agents’ commission) will be made available to the SDI/PBO.
The entrenched beneficiaries of the SDI/PBO shall be as follows:
THE NATION’S TRUST
The Nation’s Trust, who is a principal BBBEE partner in the Vergenoegd Development Initiative.
The Nation’s Trust is an organisation which provides funding for the development of entrepreneurship in young people and to equip them, as far as possible, with the necessary skills, resources and facilities to create viable and sustainable businesses and employment opportunities for the future.
The principles of the Nation’s Trust closely align with the views and principles of the developers, and this association of like-minded individuals, we believe, is a powerful asset which is necessary to bring this development to successful fulfilment.
This integrated development, if the rights are granted, will make it possible to provide capital to assist the Nation’s Trust in its good works.
This contribution will be the driver to create up to 8000 jobs. Whilst the activities on the farm will create approximately a further 100 jobs, the main focus of job creation by the Nation’s Trust will be off site in the surrounding areas of Faure, Eerste Rivier, Macassar, Khayelitsha, Mfuleni, and Blue Downs. The Nation’s Trust funds young entrepreneurs in a variety of activities and the jobs will be created as a consequence of the contribution from the development.
The Nation’s Trust provides funding on a loan basis. Therefore when the monies are recovered they are re-lent to new entrepreneurs. The estimate of job creation has been based on the first tranche of lending only. Over time, the money initially given to the Nation’s Trust will create even more jobs into the future. It is envisaged that the Nation’s Trust will be a beneficiary in perpetuity and therefore, upon re-sales of the properties, the Nation’s Trust will receive further funding for it’s work.
The patrons of the Nation’s Trust are Mr Nelson R Mandela, Mrs Zanele M Mbeki, her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and His Royal Highness, Charles, Prince of Wales.
PROJECTS, PROGRAMMES AND NEW BUSINESSES
The executive directors have identified more than 20 business opportunities which will have the purpose of job creation on the project. The independent economic study of the proposals have identified that more than 5 200 jobs will could be created during construction and 3 800 jobs on a sustainable basis from this development. All of these business opportunities will be managed within the Sustainable Development Initiative.
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
An agreement has been signed with Habitat for Humanity with regard to assisting their excellent program in the creation of quality housing. The modus operandi of Habitat for Humanity is very closely aligned with the developers ideals as well as those of the Nation’s Trust. The method of Habitat for Humanity is to provide community housing on a self-help, self-build basis with the assistance of volunteers. This means that the labour costs are provided free by the community and all the money is spent on construction materials. The new house owner will have to pay for the house that has been built, but without interest payments on the money. The repayments are however, adjusted to take into account the inflation, and funding is recovered on a purchasing power basis. The funds can then be re-lent to new house owners and therefore there is a continuing and sustainable investment in housing stock.
It is the intention of the developers that they will fund 70 to 150 houses (depending on developable footprint) through Habitat for Humanity. Habitat for Humanity will also be an entrenched beneficiary of the SDI/PBO and therefore upon re-sales of the properties on Vergenoegd, Habitat will enjoy continuing benefit into the future.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS
At present the areas which have been identified as suitable for conservation are heavily degraded or previously farmed but non-economic farmland and require active management in order to rehabilitate the flora that is found in the area.
The conservation areas are not sufficiently large to be self-sustaining and it is envisaged that an ongoing active management plan will be necessary both to restore the natural areas to their former pristine beauty and to maintain them in that manner.
AMENITIES FOR LOCAL COMMUNITIES
On an ad hoc basis the SDI/PBO will identify suitable organisations who will also benefit from VDI. For example a local AIDS clinic and a suitable children's fund. VDI it has retained the services of a professional consultant who has undertaken research with the local communities to determine these communities' needs and desires in order to make the SDI/PBO most effective. A memorandum of support for the project has been signed by all the community groupings within a radius of 13 km of the farm, including support from politicians.
BROAD BASED BLACK ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT
It has been determined by our specialist adviser that the Vergenoegd Development Initiative is presently a level 4 contributor to BBBEE and therefore has 100% recognition as such.
We are advised that it is likely that upon completion of the project, VDI will be a level 3 contributor to BBBEE.
A PICTORIAL TOUR OF THE FARM
http://picasaweb.google.com/rod.macphail/vergenoegd and
www.photodex.com click sharing, click browse member, type in box rodmacphail, double click Vergenoegd
CURRICULA VITAE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS.
Roderick Campbell Simpson MacPhail
Academic and Professional qualifications:
BSc (Civil engineering) University of Strathclyde (1973)
Member of the South African Institution of Civil Engineers (1976)
registered as a Professional Engineer in terms Act 81 of 1968 (1976)
Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers (UK) 1977
Diploma in Financial Management (1982)
Certificate in Labour Law UCT (2004)
Rod has design and construction experience, both in South Africa and in the UK. His experience extends to the design and construction of townships services including roads, sewerage systems, water supply systems and the like.
Having spent several years in consulting engineers' design offices, he gained extensive experience in the design of bridges and other structures, including dams and retaining walls.
In the mid-80s, Rod held the post of National Sales Manager (capital equipment) for a major packaging equipment supplier in Cape Town. During that period the principal customers were from the wine industry, who were supplied with packaging equipment and materials by the business. Rod developed his interest in wine at that stage, and he holds a certificate in wine tasting.
During the late 80's and early 90's he was managing director of a specialist concrete repair company in the UK.
During the past seven years he has, together with his partner Andy Miles, been successful in developing residential property in Cape Town.
He was a founding shareholder and director engaged in the development of the Dreamworld Film City, a R400 million integrated film studio and residential development for Cape Town.
In 1993, he started a guest house in Tamboerskloof. This 15 bedroom luxury development has been very successful and in February 2007 an adjacent property was acquired and a further three rooms were added. Rod has now opened a new luxury guesthouse in Langebaan. These businesses have afforded him the opportunity to make high level business connections within the international travel industry.
Andrew John Miles
Academic qualifications:
BSc (Hons) Mechanical Engineering
Master of Business Administration (UCT)
Andy has 30 years business experience in his own businesses and in major corporations in general management in South Africa. He has held both Managing Director and Marketing Director positions.
The positions he has held have included Marketing Director of the AA when he was principally responsible for the recognition of the economic value of the AA brand, and its subsequent commercial exploitation.
As Managing Director of Springbok Atlas, the largest inbound tour operator in South Africa, he was responsible for the turnaround of the business, and developed excellent connections within the international travel industry.
During the past seven years, he has, together with his partner Rod MacPhail, been successful in developing residential property in Cape Town.
He was a founding shareholder and director engaged in the development of the Dreamworld Film City, a R400 million integrated film studio and residential development for Cape Town.
Contact details
Rod MacPhail 083 303 1133 fax 021 438 3486
email: rod@leeuwenvoet.co.za
Andy Miles 082 569 4708 fax 021 438 2697
e-mail: andymiles@mweb.co.za
Postal address 20 Ingleside Rd, Camps Bay, 8005
CURRICULA VITAE OF THE NON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (designate)
Ashley du Plooy (Chairman VDI) (BEE Director)
Born in Cape Town, he matriculated from this Spes Bona secondary school in 1981 and continued his studies at the University of Cape Town where he undertook two years work in the furtherance of a bachelor of arts degree in 1983 and 1984.
He set aside his studies in 1984 owing to the intense political upheavals in the Western Cape at that time. During this period he held various activist leadership roles in student, youth, civic and political structures.
His work in socio-economic development has included leadership roles in UCT's Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, the Africa Research Centre and the Sashed Trust.
The scope of his work has been in socio-economic profiling in the townships, inquiring into poverty, wage and service conditions, key legislation on labour and Parliamentary debates thereon, early childhood learning, language policy, anti-racist and anti-sexist programs, development funding, sports transformation, children's rights, corporate development, sanctions, local government and political works.
During the scope of his work he has contributed to numerous publications in his fields of interest as well as in the production and distribution of pamphlets.
He has also consulted to a number of organisations which include, inter alia, the South African Institute for distance learning, the Apex Advisory Board, the Swiss Development Corporation, National Department of Education, USAID, adult learning, Basic education and development foundation, and the National Association of Distance Learning Organisations of Southern Africa.
He has held principal positions in a number of organisations but latterly as managing director of the Nation’s Trust. The Nation’s Trust is a youth economic empowerment programme which he was CEO until March 2006 when the trust merged with The Umsobomvu Youth Fund. His appointment is as market linkages director for the new enlarged group.
ooOOOooo
and
ASISA Agri-tourism Sustainable Development Proposal
CONTENTS
PREAMBLE
THE PAST AND PRESENT
OUTLINE OF BUSINESS PLAN
• Vineyards and Wine Estate
• Protection of Agricultural Heritage
• Tourism and Hospitality Development
Residential Development
Commercial Centre
Industrial
• Nature Reserve
THE FARM AND LAND USE
THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE (SDI)
The Nation’s Trust
Habitat for Humanity
AIDS benefit organisation
Children's fund
BROAD BASED BLACK ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT
A PICTORIAL TOUR OF THE FARM
CURRICULA VITAE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS
CURRICULA VITAE OF NON EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS
DIAGRAM OF FARM AND POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT
PREAMBLE
The Vergenoegd Development Initiative came about as a result of the combination of recognising a commercial opportunity to improve the fortunes of the wine farm, and a need to respond to National and Provincial Government policy with respect to broad based black economic empowerment, job creation and the development of housing.
This project was started with the negotiations with the present landowners in April 2005. This document, which as a result of work since the commencement date now envisions a development that will, subject to layout plan being approved;
unlock the value in the currently undeveloped and uneconomic portion of the farmland
will create 2000 to 8000 jobs through our BBBEE partner the Sustainable Development Initiative
provide 70 to 150 houses to assist in meeting community needs
provide funding for the rehabilitation of the natural environment
provide funding for amenities for local communities. e.g., an AIDS clinic and support for children's organisations.
provide the necessary resources to refinance the wine farm
deliver additional cash flow streams from tourism to the winemaking business
construct housing for the employees of the wine farm
The delivery of the benefits will be by way of a Sustainable Development Initiative (SDI)/Public Beneficiary Organisation(PBO). The funding for the entire project is to be raised from the sale of residential properties and does not require any public funding.
THE PAST AND PRESENT
The historic wine farm Vergenoegd has been a landmark in the Helderberg region since 1696. The farm is located on the eastern boundary of Baden Powell Drive (R310) and straddles the N2 Highway.
The wines produced on the farm have achieved international recognition, and have won prizes both here in South Africa and abroad. The well- known South African wine guide,” John Platter South African Wines” has rated the Vergenoegd wine at 4½ stars in quality (ref. page 567 of the 2008 edition). At present the vineyard produces only red wines, but consideration is being given to the development of a new wine range.
Wine farming is a notoriously cyclical activity with a worldwide glut of wine production and the farm has been incurring losses for several years.
This document serves as an outline business plan for the long-term sustainability of the farm. The plan conceived will stabilise the business by providing additional cash flow streams from tourism, conferences and events and thus ensure that the combined wine and tourism enterprise is subject to a less cyclical earning stream and a stable future.
Taking cognisance of National and Provincial Government policy, this concept plan has been devised such that it unlocks the value in the currently undeveloped portion of the farmland. The benefits will flow not only to the business but will provide substantial job creation and socio-economic upliftment to the surrounding area and contribute to the economy of the Western Cape.
OUTLINE OF THE BUSINESS PLAN
The farm consists of several portions, the aggregate area of which is approximately 325 ha.
The ASISA will provide funding for the following activities:
VINEYARDS AND THE WINE ESTATE
The wine making activity uses approximately 70 ha of which only about 20 ha is required for the core products of the business at the present sales levels, i.e. the production of premium red wine. The remaining 50 ha produces bulk wine.
Currently the farm is only producing a range of red wine. It is being considered that this range be expanded to include white and rosé wines. Marketing resources will be applied to expanding the geographic distribution particularly in international markets.
The growth of the business will create jobs and add to the economic activity on the farm. The farm will retain over 200 ha of agricultural land and nature reserve.
In line with our programme of protecting the environment (see the residential development) we hope to convert the farm to produce organic products only.
PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURAL HERITAGE
The agricultural heritage of the farm will be protected in perpetuity. The development will be undertaken to make the farm viable and meet the corporate social investment requirements of this project.
Once the sustainable business plan has been implemented there will be no further residential development on the farm.
This will also provide security of the environment for the new property owners and preserve the amenity that they have bought into.
TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY DEVELOPMENT
A restaurant has been established. The restaurant’s income will be supplemented by the development of a business catering for meetings, incentives, conferences and events. This will enhance both food and wine sales particularly the home produced Vergenoegd wines. Restaurant trade will also enhance wine sales through consumption and retail sales. This will have the effect of making the current wine business more economically viable and a platform for growth into the future.
A boutique guest house/hotel (about 80 rooms) located on the homestead portion of the farm will add to tourism capacity and create employment in the region. The location of the estate near the junction of the N2 and the R310 is at the gateway to South Africa’s premier wine route and is thus well placed to offer a pleasant and convenient location to both local and particularly international tourists.
Both of the executive Directors have significant skills and experience in the local and international tourism business.
VDI will provide funding for the following activities:
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
In line with the latest thinking of residential development in the Winelands, the proposal is that three nodal villages be located on not more than 23% of the farm, providing a range of quality housing in a range of market segments.
It is envisaged that the housing architecture will be based on the Boland wine farm style. The concept will fit in comfortably with the architecture of the region.
It is this development that will be the funding “engine room” to meet the social and commercial benefits of the overall business plan.
ECOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Mindful of the dry nature of the South African climate the developers intend to impose requirements on the construction of the homes to take into account the most efficient use of water and the use of solar energy.
It will be a requirement that all the homes have a dual water system which will permit the use of grey water and rainwater as the principal source of water for the home and the garden.
On the advice of experts we believe that this can easily save more than 75% of municipal water. Only the kitchen will be serviced from the municipal water supply. All bathrooms will be serviced from the rain water supply although backup municipal water will be available in the event of the rain water supply being depleted.
Each home will be fitted with a solar water heater. This will reduce their energy consumption at each property by considerable amount.
The insulation of the house will be considered during the design stage and advice will be sought as to the most efficient methods of heat insulation.
We are advised that in terms of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations framework Convention on climate change, it is likely that the development we will be a net saver of carbon emissions.
The homes will also comply with City of Cape Town’s proposed guideline on energy efficient buildings.
In consideration of the limited availability of electricity supply the houses will be so designed to use a minimum amount of electricity and thus comply with Eskom's requirement for “green” developments.
COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL CENTRE
A small convenience retail centre will be required to provide facilities for the tourism market and the residential development.
INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
It is envisaged that a small site will be set aside on the south side of the N2 for much-needed industrial/commercial development and therefore job opportunities, adjacent to Khayelitsha.
NATURE RESERVE
There are areas on the farm which have been identified as having botanical importance. In addition to the plant life on the farm there are some areas of the farm which were formerly seasonal wetlands.
It is the intention of VDI that the areas of environmental significance will be protected.
130 ha to 150 ha of the farm (not less than 40% of the total land area) will be secured for nature reserve purposes.
THE FARM AND LAND USE
The farm soils at Vergenoegd are somewhat variable. The soil profile comprises the eastern edge of Cape flats sand and the more variable soils of the Helderberg mountain range.
At present the farm and wine business occupy about 100 Ha. The remaining 225 Ha of the land is unused.
The development options being considered by the Vergenoegd Development Initiative show the development of a maximum about 25% the farm area. The proposed development will provide funding for the tourism venture described above, re-invest and revitalise the wine farm business, and to make a major contribution to corporate social investment, in particular, job creation and housing development.
Between 70% and 75% of the land will be retained for farming purposes and nature reserve.
THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE (SDI)/ PUBLIC BENEFICIARY ORGANISATION (PBO)
It is intended to create an SDI/PBO to administer the financial contributions made by the Vergenoegd Development Initiative for the purposes of corporate social investment.
Subject to the input of the various interested and affected parties, this project will contribute, depending on the extent of the development, about 5% of the net revenue received from the sale of the land, to the SDI/PBO.
It is also envisaged that a sustainable income flow will be set up from this development in order that the SDI/PBO may continue its work indefinitely. This is in line with current thinking on sustainable development initiatives set up for the public benefit. It is proposed that 1% of the proceeds of each subsequent sale of property (to be paid for from the estate agents’ commission) will be made available to the SDI/PBO.
The entrenched beneficiaries of the SDI/PBO shall be as follows:
THE NATION’S TRUST
The Nation’s Trust, who is a principal BBBEE partner in the Vergenoegd Development Initiative.
The Nation’s Trust is an organisation which provides funding for the development of entrepreneurship in young people and to equip them, as far as possible, with the necessary skills, resources and facilities to create viable and sustainable businesses and employment opportunities for the future.
The principles of the Nation’s Trust closely align with the views and principles of the developers, and this association of like-minded individuals, we believe, is a powerful asset which is necessary to bring this development to successful fulfilment.
This integrated development, if the rights are granted, will make it possible to provide capital to assist the Nation’s Trust in its good works.
This contribution will be the driver to create up to 8000 jobs. Whilst the activities on the farm will create approximately a further 100 jobs, the main focus of job creation by the Nation’s Trust will be off site in the surrounding areas of Faure, Eerste Rivier, Macassar, Khayelitsha, Mfuleni, and Blue Downs. The Nation’s Trust funds young entrepreneurs in a variety of activities and the jobs will be created as a consequence of the contribution from the development.
The Nation’s Trust provides funding on a loan basis. Therefore when the monies are recovered they are re-lent to new entrepreneurs. The estimate of job creation has been based on the first tranche of lending only. Over time, the money initially given to the Nation’s Trust will create even more jobs into the future. It is envisaged that the Nation’s Trust will be a beneficiary in perpetuity and therefore, upon re-sales of the properties, the Nation’s Trust will receive further funding for it’s work.
The patrons of the Nation’s Trust are Mr Nelson R Mandela, Mrs Zanele M Mbeki, her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and His Royal Highness, Charles, Prince of Wales.
PROJECTS, PROGRAMMES AND NEW BUSINESSES
The executive directors have identified more than 20 business opportunities which will have the purpose of job creation on the project. The independent economic study of the proposals have identified that more than 5 200 jobs will could be created during construction and 3 800 jobs on a sustainable basis from this development. All of these business opportunities will be managed within the Sustainable Development Initiative.
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
An agreement has been signed with Habitat for Humanity with regard to assisting their excellent program in the creation of quality housing. The modus operandi of Habitat for Humanity is very closely aligned with the developers ideals as well as those of the Nation’s Trust. The method of Habitat for Humanity is to provide community housing on a self-help, self-build basis with the assistance of volunteers. This means that the labour costs are provided free by the community and all the money is spent on construction materials. The new house owner will have to pay for the house that has been built, but without interest payments on the money. The repayments are however, adjusted to take into account the inflation, and funding is recovered on a purchasing power basis. The funds can then be re-lent to new house owners and therefore there is a continuing and sustainable investment in housing stock.
It is the intention of the developers that they will fund 70 to 150 houses (depending on developable footprint) through Habitat for Humanity. Habitat for Humanity will also be an entrenched beneficiary of the SDI/PBO and therefore upon re-sales of the properties on Vergenoegd, Habitat will enjoy continuing benefit into the future.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS
At present the areas which have been identified as suitable for conservation are heavily degraded or previously farmed but non-economic farmland and require active management in order to rehabilitate the flora that is found in the area.
The conservation areas are not sufficiently large to be self-sustaining and it is envisaged that an ongoing active management plan will be necessary both to restore the natural areas to their former pristine beauty and to maintain them in that manner.
AMENITIES FOR LOCAL COMMUNITIES
On an ad hoc basis the SDI/PBO will identify suitable organisations who will also benefit from VDI. For example a local AIDS clinic and a suitable children's fund. VDI it has retained the services of a professional consultant who has undertaken research with the local communities to determine these communities' needs and desires in order to make the SDI/PBO most effective. A memorandum of support for the project has been signed by all the community groupings within a radius of 13 km of the farm, including support from politicians.
BROAD BASED BLACK ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT
It has been determined by our specialist adviser that the Vergenoegd Development Initiative is presently a level 4 contributor to BBBEE and therefore has 100% recognition as such.
We are advised that it is likely that upon completion of the project, VDI will be a level 3 contributor to BBBEE.
A PICTORIAL TOUR OF THE FARM
http://picasaweb.google.com/rod.macphail/vergenoegd and
www.photodex.com click sharing, click browse member, type in box rodmacphail, double click Vergenoegd
CURRICULA VITAE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS.
Roderick Campbell Simpson MacPhail
Academic and Professional qualifications:
BSc (Civil engineering) University of Strathclyde (1973)
Member of the South African Institution of Civil Engineers (1976)
registered as a Professional Engineer in terms Act 81 of 1968 (1976)
Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers (UK) 1977
Diploma in Financial Management (1982)
Certificate in Labour Law UCT (2004)
Rod has design and construction experience, both in South Africa and in the UK. His experience extends to the design and construction of townships services including roads, sewerage systems, water supply systems and the like.
Having spent several years in consulting engineers' design offices, he gained extensive experience in the design of bridges and other structures, including dams and retaining walls.
In the mid-80s, Rod held the post of National Sales Manager (capital equipment) for a major packaging equipment supplier in Cape Town. During that period the principal customers were from the wine industry, who were supplied with packaging equipment and materials by the business. Rod developed his interest in wine at that stage, and he holds a certificate in wine tasting.
During the late 80's and early 90's he was managing director of a specialist concrete repair company in the UK.
During the past seven years he has, together with his partner Andy Miles, been successful in developing residential property in Cape Town.
He was a founding shareholder and director engaged in the development of the Dreamworld Film City, a R400 million integrated film studio and residential development for Cape Town.
In 1993, he started a guest house in Tamboerskloof. This 15 bedroom luxury development has been very successful and in February 2007 an adjacent property was acquired and a further three rooms were added. Rod has now opened a new luxury guesthouse in Langebaan. These businesses have afforded him the opportunity to make high level business connections within the international travel industry.
Andrew John Miles
Academic qualifications:
BSc (Hons) Mechanical Engineering
Master of Business Administration (UCT)
Andy has 30 years business experience in his own businesses and in major corporations in general management in South Africa. He has held both Managing Director and Marketing Director positions.
The positions he has held have included Marketing Director of the AA when he was principally responsible for the recognition of the economic value of the AA brand, and its subsequent commercial exploitation.
As Managing Director of Springbok Atlas, the largest inbound tour operator in South Africa, he was responsible for the turnaround of the business, and developed excellent connections within the international travel industry.
During the past seven years, he has, together with his partner Rod MacPhail, been successful in developing residential property in Cape Town.
He was a founding shareholder and director engaged in the development of the Dreamworld Film City, a R400 million integrated film studio and residential development for Cape Town.
Contact details
Rod MacPhail 083 303 1133 fax 021 438 3486
email: rod@leeuwenvoet.co.za
Andy Miles 082 569 4708 fax 021 438 2697
e-mail: andymiles@mweb.co.za
Postal address 20 Ingleside Rd, Camps Bay, 8005
CURRICULA VITAE OF THE NON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (designate)
Ashley du Plooy (Chairman VDI) (BEE Director)
Born in Cape Town, he matriculated from this Spes Bona secondary school in 1981 and continued his studies at the University of Cape Town where he undertook two years work in the furtherance of a bachelor of arts degree in 1983 and 1984.
He set aside his studies in 1984 owing to the intense political upheavals in the Western Cape at that time. During this period he held various activist leadership roles in student, youth, civic and political structures.
His work in socio-economic development has included leadership roles in UCT's Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, the Africa Research Centre and the Sashed Trust.
The scope of his work has been in socio-economic profiling in the townships, inquiring into poverty, wage and service conditions, key legislation on labour and Parliamentary debates thereon, early childhood learning, language policy, anti-racist and anti-sexist programs, development funding, sports transformation, children's rights, corporate development, sanctions, local government and political works.
During the scope of his work he has contributed to numerous publications in his fields of interest as well as in the production and distribution of pamphlets.
He has also consulted to a number of organisations which include, inter alia, the South African Institute for distance learning, the Apex Advisory Board, the Swiss Development Corporation, National Department of Education, USAID, adult learning, Basic education and development foundation, and the National Association of Distance Learning Organisations of Southern Africa.
He has held principal positions in a number of organisations but latterly as managing director of the Nation’s Trust. The Nation’s Trust is a youth economic empowerment programme which he was CEO until March 2006 when the trust merged with The Umsobomvu Youth Fund. His appointment is as market linkages director for the new enlarged group.
ooOOOooo
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)