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---