Mrs T Morrison 21 Wagner Way Sonstraal Heights Durbanville ...

Mrs T Morrison

21 Wagner Way

Sonstraal Heights

Durbanville

7550

E-mail: [email protected]

Application Reference: Case ID 70412073

11 October 2018

The Regional Manager: Development Management (Northern Region)

City of Cape Town

Brighton Road

Kraaifontein

Attention: Ms Anne Smit/Ms Philiswa Magadlela

Dear Madam

ERF 10588, No 14 WAGNER WAY: PROPOSED CONSENT USE APPLICATION

AND REGULATION DEPARTURE IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A PRIVATE

SCHOOL

The proposed Consent Use application in order to establish a Private School (Maximum 32

children) and the Building line departure to relax the 5m western building line to 4,2m refers.

My primary residence is located in Wagner Way. I wish to lodge my OBJECTION to the

proposed private school on the following grounds:

1. Administrative procedure

Section 82(2) of the Cape Town Municipal Planning Bay-law stipulates that the City

must serve notices on a person whose rights or legitimate expectations are materially

and adversely affected by the proposal.

The notices of the proposed application were not adequately circulated to all

landowners along Wagner Way that will be materially and adversely affected by the

proposal.

Council however only served registered notices to 15 land owners located along

Mendelsohn Crescent and Wagner Way resulting in myself and another 70

landowners being unaware of this proposed private school prior to the commenting

deadline. As such not every affected landowner has been notified and afforded the

opportunity to make timeous and thorough representation to Council.

148

2. Traffic Impact

As mentioned Mendelsohn Crescent, Bellini Close, Wagner Way and La Boheme

Street operates as an effective Cul-de-sac. The area has drawn no through traffic since

the area’s inception in 2000. The seclusion and lack of through traffic is the main

reasons I’ve purchased my property in Wagner Way. Establishing a private school at

the end of Wagner Way will obliterate the quite character of the neighbourhood.

Due to the nature of the road network’s layout all the additional traffic generated by

the private school will result in the cars circulating via Wagner Way in an anti-clock

wise singular flow pattern through the entire neighbourhood. As such this quiet road

will experience 128 additional trips daily [i.e. Morning group 32 trip x 2 (i.e. morning

drop-off and afternoon collection) plus Afternoon Group 32 trips x 2 (i.e. afternoon

drop-off and evening collection) = 128 trips].

Normally a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS), compiled by a qualified, registered

Transport Engineer must be submitted for proposed developments that generate more

than 50 trips. The applicant failed to provide a TIS in order substantiate his subjective

opinion that the private school’s impact on external engineering services will be

minor.

Indeed the existing morning and afternoon peak traffic generation as a result of the

existing Curro School (Erf 10378) and the Cobble Walk Centre (Erf 15330) has

already led to the current poor LOS traffic levels being experienced at the

intersections of Verdi Boulevard & Mendelsohn Crescent and Verdi Boulevard &

Legato Drive. The opinion is therefore held that the anticipated 128 trips generated by

the additional proposed private school should therefore justify the call for a full

Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) and not merely a TIS.

3. Insufficient Parking provision & Unacceptable Parking lay-out plan

3.1.Insufficient Parking provision

According to the draft Site Development Plan (SDP) the school consist of 5

classrooms, a Playroom and an Office (i.e. 7 rooms). The City of Cape Town

Development Management Scheme (DMS) requires 1 parking bay per classroom,

plus a stop & drop facility.

The application only provides 6 parking bays. However 2 of the six parking bays

are tandem bays which should be regarded as one bay in terms of Section 141 of

the DMS. As such the applicant can only provide 4 of the required 7 parking bays.

3.2.Unacceptable Parking layout plan

The SDP numbers of the entrance arches are not illustrated on the SDP. As such

the possibility to practically implement the proposed vehicular manoeuvring on-

site is highly doubtful.

Furthermore the proposed 2 bay ‘Stop & Drop’ facility is insufficient to

accommodate for 32 cars on-site without resulting in major vehicular back-ups

into Wagner Way during the morning and afternoon peak.

149

The bottom line is that Erf 10588, Durbanville is too small to accommodate a School.

The on-site constraints raised above have shown that the minimum parking, access

and vehicular manoeuvring space is just not available in order to accommodate a

private school consisting of 32 children.

4. Inappropriate Location

Private schools, by its nature, attract scholars from outside the area. This means all the

generated traffic will be from outside our cul-de-sac.

This school’s location, within a cul-de-sac, will have a massive detrimental vehicular

impact on the character of Wagner Way tranquil residential feel. In addition, the

increase traffic flows will detrimentally impact on our children’s safety. In Wagner

Way our children still play informal cricket, roller-blade and kick ball in the street

typical of the Woonerf Concept which Council should be familiar with. This all will

be lost due to the inappropriate location of a school at the end of the cul-de-sac.

The proposed location is therefore not compatibility with surrounding uses or

conducive to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the surrounding community.

Conclusion

Given the poor quality of the report and lack of proper information Council cannot possibly

consider this application to be compliant with the minimum threshold requirements as

contemplated in Section 99 of the DMS.

The application does not comply with the requirements of the Municipal Planning By-

law;

The proposed land use is not desirable in terms of a number of considerations as

contemplated in Section 99(3) of the DMS, notably:

Section 99(3)(d) - compatibility with surrounding uses;

Section 99(3)(f) - impact on safety and wellbeing of the surrounding community;

Section 99(3)(i) -impact on traffic, parking, access; and

Section 99(3)(j) - the imposition of conditions will not be able to mitigate the adverse

impact of the private school due to the fact that the proposed location of the school at

the end of a Cul-de-sac is fatally flawed.

Based on the reasons argued above Council must refuse the application.

Yours sincerely

T Morrison

150

MrP Tolmie

32 Wagner Way

Sonstraal Heights

DURBANVILLE

7550

E-mail: [email protected]

Application Reference: Case ID 70412073

12 October 2018

The Regional Manager: Development Management (Northern Region)

City of Cape Town

Brighton Road

Kraaifontein

Attention: Ms Anne Smit/Ms Philiswa Magadlela

Dear Madam

ERF 10588, No 14 WAGNER WAY: PROPOSED CONSENT USE APPLICATION AND REGULATION

DEPARTURE IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A PRIVATE SCHOOL

The proposed Consent Use application in order to establish a Private School (Maximum 32 children)

and the Building line departure to relax the 5m western building line to 4,2m refers.

My primary residence is located in Wagner Way. I wish to lodge my OBJECTION to the proposed

private school on the following grounds:

1. Administrative procedure

Section 82(2) of the Cape Town Municipal Planning Bay-law stipulates that the City must

serve notices on a person whose rights or legitimate expectations are materially and

adversely affected by the proposal.

The notices of the proposed application were not adequately circulated to all landowners

along Wagner Way that will be materially and adversely affected by the proposal.

Mendelsohn Cresent, Bellini Close, Wagner Way and La Boheme Street function effectively

as a Cul-de-sac. Due to the nature of the road network’s layout all the additional traffic

generated by the private school will result in the cars circulating via Wagner Way in an anti-

clock wise singular flow pattern through the entire neighbourhood. Thus the traffic impact

will indeed affect 86 land owners residing along Mendelsohn Cresent, Bellini Close, Wagner

Way and La Boheme Street.

Council however only served registered notices to 15 land owners located along

Mendelsohn Crescent and Wagner Way resulting in myself and another 70 landowners being

unaware of this proposed private school prior to the commenting deadline. As such not

every affected landowner has been notified and afforded the opportunity to make timeous

and thorough representation to Council.

151

It is therefore cautioned that, failure to properly service notices of this application on all the

86 affected land owners along Mendelsohn Cresent, Bellini Close, Wagner Way and La

Boheme Street, will constitute grounds for appeal in the event of this application being

approved.

2. Traffic Impact

As mentioned earlier Mendelsohn Cresent, Bellini Close, Wagner Way and La Boheme Street

operates as an effective Cul-de-sac. The area has drawn no through traffic since the area’s

inception in 2000. The seclusion and lack of through traffic is the main reasons I’ve

purchased my property in Wagner Way. Establishing a private school at the end of Wagner

Way will obliterate the quite character of the neighbourhood.

Due to the nature of the road network’s layout all the additional traffic generated by the

private school will result in the cars circulating via Wagner Way in an anti-clock wise singular

flow pattern through the entire neighbourhood. As such this quiet road will experience 128

additional trips daily [i.e. Morning group 32 trip x 2 (i.e. morning drop-off and afternoon

collection) plus Afternoon Group 32 trips x 2 (i.e. afternoon drop-off and evening collection)

= 128 trips].

Normally a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS), compiled by a qualified, registered Transport

Engineer must be submitted for proposed developments that generate more than 50 trips.

The applicant failed to provide a TIS in order substantiate his subjective opinion that the

private school’s impact on external engineering services will be minor.

Indeed the existing morning and afternoon peak traffic generation as a result of the existing

Curro School (Erf 10378) and the Cobble Walk Centre (Erf 15330) has already led to the

current poor LOS traffic levels being experienced at the intersections of Verdi Boulevard &

Mendelsohn Crescent and Verdi Boulevard & Legato Drive. The opinion is therefore held

that the anticipated 128 trips generated by the additional proposed private school should

therefore justify the call for a full Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) and not merely a TIS.

3. Insufficient Parking provision & Unacceptable Parking lay-out plan

3.1. Insufficient Parking provision

According to the draft Site Development Plan (SDP) the school consist of 5 classrooms, a

Playroom and an Office (i.e. 7 rooms). The City of Cape Town Development Management

Scheme (DMS) requires 1 parking bay per classroom, plus a stop & drop facility.

The application only provides 6 parking bays. However 2 of the six parking bays are

tandem bays which should be regarded as one bay in terms of Section 141 of the DMS.

As such the applicant can only provide 4 of the required 7 parking bays.

3.2. Unacceptable Parking layout plan

The SDP is a misrepresentation of the on-site situation. For example a number of the

entrance arches are not illustrated on the SDP. As such the possibility to practically

implement the proposed vehicular manoeuvring on-site is highly doubtful.

152

Furthermore the proposed 2 bay ‘Stop & Drop’ facility is insufficient to accommodate for

32 cars on-site without resulting in major vehicular back-ups into Wagner Way during

the morning and afternoon peak.

The bottom line is that Erf 10588, Durbanville is too small to accommodate a School. The on-

site constraints raised above have shown that the minimum parking, access and vehicular

manoeuvring space is just not available in order to accommodate a private school consisting

of 32 children.

4. Inappropriate Location

Secondary and Tertiary facilities (i.e. public or private schools) are normally located along

major roads (i.e. local collectors). Stellenberg High (off Mountain View Drive), Durbanville

High (off Vissershok), Curro Durbanville (off Legato Drive) is prime examples of desirable

locations of school in relation of the local road network hierarchy. The placement of school

along local collectors is sound land use planning principles which seems to be absent from

this proposed application.

The placement of a school at the end of a Cul-de-sac is therefore contrary to all good and

sound land use planning principles.

The applicant’s argument under Socio-Economic Impact that ‘The residential area will

benefit as a school will be provided in the immediate neighborhood [spelling erro] to

accommodate the residents of the area. It will mean a reduction in travelling cost” is

subjective and without bases. The applicant failed to supply any proof that a single scholar

to the proposed school resides in either Mendelsohn Cresent, Bellini Close, Wagner Way or

La Boheme Street.

Private schools, by its nature, attract scholars from outside the area. This means all the

generated traffic will be from outside our cul-de-sac.

This school’s location, within a cul-de-sac, will have a massive detrimental vehicular impact

on the character of Wagner Way tranquil residential feel. In addition, the increase traffic

flows will detrimentally impact on our children’s safety. In Wagner Way our children still play

informal cricket, roller-blade and kick ball in the street typical of the Woonerf Concept which

Council should be familiar with. This all will be lost due to the inappropriate location of a

school at the end of the cul-de-sac.

The proposed location is therefore not compatibility with surrounding uses or conducive to

ensure the safety and wellbeing of the surrounding community.

5. Poor Motivation Report

Whilst poor report writing alone might not be ground for a refusal, it must be stated that the

Motivation Report submitted by Mr J.H van Heerden, smacks of unprofessionalism and thus

disrespect to the affected landowners for the following reasons:

- The submission letter to the City of Cape Town was not dated;

- The zoning of the subject erf was incorrectly stated as CO1 (presumably Community

Zone 1) as appose to the correct Single Residential (SR1) zoning;

- The motivation report contradicting refers to an Early Childhood Development (ECD)

Centre and Private School. Which is it, a School or an Aftercare centre…or both?

153

- Mr van Heerden indeed could not even be bothered to draft a revised cover letter and

motivation report to correct his mistakes/omission. Instead he merely made hand

written changes;

- The motivation report is fraught with grammatical and spelling errors;

- The arguments raised under Section 6 Motivation and Section 7 Desirability is often

subjective, unsubstantiated or outright misrepresentation of the facts as I’ve already

pointed out elsewhere in my submission.

I’m disappointed if this is the level of professionalism and quality of motivation reports that

the City of Cape Town is prepared to accept from applicants.

Conclusion

Given the poor quality of the report and lack of proper information Council cannot possibly consider

this application to be compliant with the minimum threshold requirements as contemplated in

Section 99 of the DMS.

• The application does not comply with the requirements of the Municipal Planning By-law;

• The proposed land use is not desirable in terms of a number of considerations as

contemplated in Section 99(3) of the DMS, notably:

Section 99(3)(d) - compatibility with surrounding uses;

Section 99(3)(f) - impact on safety and wellbeing of the surrounding community; Section

99(3)(i) -impact on traffic, parking, access; and

Section 99(3)(j) - the imposition of conditions will not be able to mitigate the adverse impact

of the private school due to the fact that the proposed location of the school at the end of a

Cul-de-sac is fatally flawed.

Based on the reasons argued above Council must refuse the application.

Yours sincerely

Paul Tolmie

ID number: 7009095441089

0824646279

154

From: Paul <[email protected]> Sent: 18 October 2018 12:47 To: Comments_Objections Northern <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Application Reference: Case ID 70412073: Formal objection: P Tolmie, 32 Wagner way, Sonstraal Heights

To whom it may concern Please find my formal objection in respect of case id 70412073. Regards P Tolmie 32 Wagner way Sonstraal Heights 7550

155

From: MICHAEL VAN NIEKERK <[email protected]> Sent: 01 October 2018 12:40 To: Comments_Objections Northern <[email protected]> Cc: Philiswa Magadlela <[email protected]> Subject: Case ID:70412073 Dear District Manager I am hereby submitting my objection to the planned proposal for ref 10588. I was notified of the application on the 30 th of September by my neighbor. I visited the Kraaifontein Administrative building at about 10 am to collect a copy of the application on the 1st of Oktober. Please note that this objection is made on the 1st of Oktober. When I bought my property 18 years ago i chose it for its location. It is located in a circle road so we do not have any through traffic. Children on push scooters and bicycles or often seen playing in the neighborhood. I have a little park next door where kids often build forts and simply enjoy themselves. I am not writing the above for emotive purposes, but simple stating the facts. My following remarks will be of more practical consideration as applicable to the application. The traffic impact is my major concern. A simple visit to the property would show this application is not feasible. The on site drop off is simply not possible. With two degrees in architecture I can without prejudice state that the planned parking area is physically impossible. With the above in mind all the traffic will end up in the road. I shudder to imagine 32 cars ( Even 6)waiting to drop off and collect children. Please remember this is a normal suburban street where driving out of your driveway blocks traffic. My neighbor has for years run a small office from the property. Every vehicle that visits his property has to turn in my driveway as the road is too narrow to allow a car to turn. Fortunately this has been limited to a few cars a day. The above mentioned application proposes 32 vehicles dropping or collecting children at one given time. Please note that we are referring to a residential house with a steep incline driveway that would test the driving skills of a experienced motorist. In summary I would like to state that I am not opposed to a departure concerning the use of the property. The current application is simply far fetched and completely impractical. I would like to make representations to any and all official channels concerning this application. I never received any official notification about this application. As stated above my neighbor informed me about this application. I hereby state categorically that I would like to be informed about any proses or procedure pertaining to this application. I would truly appreciate a opportunity to verbally or in writing submit any further objection during this proses. Sincerest regards Michael van Niekerk Wagner Way 13 Sonstraal Heights 082 9407383 Sent from my iPad

156

From: Christine Havenga <[email protected]> Sent: 12 October 2018 10:40 To: Comments_Objections Northern <[email protected]> Cc: Philiswa Magadlela <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Erf 10588 Durbanville (14 Wagner Way, Sonstraal Heights): Case ID 70412073: Letter of objection

Dear Ms Magadlela

I refer to a notice, dated 23 August, pertaining to the above mentioned application and

an extension for comments until 12 October 2018 given in e-mails received from Ms

Annaleze van der Westhuizen and yourself on 1 October 2018. The Case ID is 70412073.

I hereby submit a letter of objection on behalf of the owner of Erf 10592 Durbanville, Mr

Michael van Niekerk, with regard to the application for a Consent Use and Permanent

Departure on Erf 10588 Durbanville.

Would you kindly acknowledge receipt of this letter.

Kind regards

Christine Havenga

157

Date: 12 October 2018

Director: Planning and Building Development Management

For Attention: Mss Philiswa Magadlela and Anne Smit

City of Cape Town

Directorate Planning and Building Development Management

P O Box 25

KRAAIFONTEIN

7569

Dear Mss Philiswa and Smit

ERF 10588 DURBANVILLE (14 WAGNER ROAD, SONSTRAAL HEIGHTS)

PROPOSED APPLICATION FOR A CONSENT USE AND AND A PERMANENT DEPARTURE

1. I refer to your notice, dated 23 August, pertaining to the above mentioned

application and an extension for comments until 12 October 2018 given in e-

mails received from Ms Annaleze van der Westhuizen and Ms Philiswa

Magadlela on 1 October 2018. The Case ID is 70412073.

2. On behalf of the owner of Erf 10592 Durbanville, Mr Michael van Niekerk, I

hereby like to object to the proposal for a Consent Use to allow for a Place

of Instruction, a private school catering for 32 children from Grade 1 to

Grade 7 at any time to operate from Erf 10588 Durbanville.

3. The concerns are the following:

3.1 Nature of school and number of children

No information is given regarding the nature of this school. It is just indicated

that application is made for “a private school to accommodate 32 children

at a specific time”. From paragraph 5 of the motivation report it appears if

the school will be attended by a morning group of 32 children from 8:00 till

13:30. It is indicated that these age groups will be between Grades 1 and 7

158

- 2 -

although the Site Development Plan indicates classes for Grades 1 to 5 and

it is indicated that there would be 5 teachers. Elsewhere in the report it is

even indicated that it is an Early Childhood Development Centre.

From the tables in paragraph 5 of the motivation report showing the drop-off

and collecting times during weekday afternoon (15:00 – 18:00) it can be

concluded that this so called private school will be attended by various

groups of children who will be between Grades 1 and 7. These groups of

children will vary between 8 and 16 at a time and will be dropped off and

collected every half an hour. On a Saturday morning these groups are all 16

at a time and operation of the facility will start at 8:00 where after children

will be drop-off and collected nearly every half an hour up to 13:00.

From the above it is clear that this is not a small scale type of Place of

Instruction. Due to the operating nature of this private school, the facility will

have a major impact on the immediate and wider area. From the

motivation report is seems that during the weekday afternoons there will be

most of the time between 8 and 32 vehicles in the street throughout the

afternoon while on a Saturday morning there will be for most of the morning

at least 32 vehicles at the same time in the street. From the numbers given in

the motivation report it is calculated that there would be a total trip

generation of around 164 children on a weekday and 160 on a Saturday

morning.

This is thus not a small scale private school facility catering for one group of

children. It seems if the facility will operate as some type of private school in

the morning and then offering extra classes during the afternoons and on

Saturday mornings. To evaluate the desirability and impact of this Place of

Instruction more information is required about the nature of this school and

its activities.

3.2 Non compliance with Section 99(1)(b) of the City of Cape Town Municipal

Planning Bylaw, 2015:

Section 99(1) of the Municipal Planning Bylaw (MPBL) states that any

proposed land use must comply with or be consistent with the Municipal

Spatial Development Framework, or if not, a deviation from the Municipal

Spatial Development Framework must be permissible.

159

- 3 -

Compliance with the Municipal Spatial Development Framework

The motivation for the proposed Place of Instruction (Private School) made

no reference to compliance with the spatial guidelines of the City of Cape

Town Municipal Spatial Development Framework, 2018 (MSDF) or the

Northern District Plan which is considered a prerequisite for considering the

desirability of any land use application in terms of both the Municipal Bylaw

and the national Spatial and Land Use Act, 2013.

Although both these documents promote diversification of land uses, there

are very definite provisions regarding areas where such mixed use land uses

should be promoted.

The MSDF identified certain sub-metropolitan nodes where land use

intensification and diversification should be promoted. These nodes are

areas with good public transport accessibility, concentrations of

employment, commercial development, social amenities and civic functions

which can generate the thresholds required to support a sustainable public

transport system and thus promote Transit-oriented development. There are

some identified sub-metropolitan nodes in the immediate area such as the

Durbanville CBD area and the Cape Gate area in Brackenfell.

Land intensification and diversification is also promoted along structuring

corridors. Examples of such structuring corridors in the immediate area are

Durban Road and Wellington Road in the Durbanville CBD on a lower scale.

The subject property is located within a low density residential suburb in a

narrow, bending local street. No public transport is available and all parents

will have to use their own private vehicles to drop off and pick up their

children at different times during week days as well as on Saturday mornings.

Staff will need to walk quite a distance to this facility if they do not have their

own private vehicles.

It is thus clear that the location of the proposed land use is not compliant

with the spatial guidelines of the MSDF or Transit-orientated development.

Compliance with the Northern District Plan

The more localised Northern District Plan confirms the spatial guidelines of

the MSDF. It identifies certain local nodes where land use intensification and

diversification should be promoted. These include the nearby Sonstraal

160

- 4 -

Heights Business Nodes, the Durbanville CBD area as well as several other

local nodes in the nearby Brackenfell and Uitzicht areas. Please see the

underneath extract from the Northern District Plan.

The Northern District Plan also acknowledges that certain older residential

areas in the Durbanville Area has a special low density, treed character

which should be promoted. These neighbourhoods address a specific need

in the market which is different from that presented by the more modern,

higher density residential area. It further states that certain of the newer

areas such as this specific area in Sonstraal Heights share some of the above

characteristics and their character should thus also be protected as there is

a market need for these type of residential areas and people pay a

premium to live there which is also reflected in their municipal property rates.

Figure 1: Extract from the Northern District Plan indicating development nodes and

areas for mixed use intensification.

Certain low intensity mixed uses can be accommodated in residential areas,

e.g. home occupation, bed and breakfast establishments and home child

Erf 10588

161

- 5 -

care. Small scale Early Childhood Development Centres which complies

with the land use desirability criteria of the City’s Early Childhood

Development Land Use Policy such as safe access/egress to the site,

adequate and safe on-site parking be provided, it be located on or close to

a residential collector road that can accommodate the increased traffic

flow especially in areas of high car ownership and the facility not creating a

nuisance to adjacent land owners.

The reason why some small scale ECD’s are considered favourably when

complying with the aforementioned criteria is due to the fact that ECD’s are

a social facility which is not being provided by government and needs to be

easily accessible to the parents of babies and small pre-school children.

These facilities cater for a maximum of 34 children and drop off and

collecting times are staggered to around an hour at a time during the early

morning and late afternoon.

There is no specific policy for private schools of this nature, but it can be

assumed that the same criteria would apply as those for ECD facilities. The

intensity of the proposed private school is, however, much more than that of

a small scale ECD where peak traffic pick and drop off times are limited to

the early morning and late afternoon. According to the motivation report

parents will come and pick up their children throughout the day and the

facility will also operate on Saturday mornings. The impact of this private

school can be compared to that of a large scale ECD which is not allowed

within single residential areas of this nature.

Where ECD’s or other school facilities are allowed within single residential

areas it is a requirement that the owner/operator resides on the property.

Although it is indicated that the owner will reside on the property no

information is given regarding the operator.

The proposed private school facility is thus not considered a low intensity

land use compatible with the low density character of this area abutting a

narrow local residential street. In accordance with the spatial guidelines of

the Northern District Plan such a facility should rather be located within an

identified local urban node or adjacent to a local residential collector road

or local activity street.

The proposed land use is thus not considered to comply with the provisions of

Section 99(1)(b) and can thus not be supported.

162

- 6 -

3.3 Non compliance with Section 99(1)(c) of the City of Cape Town Municipal

Planning Bylaw, 2015:

Section 99(1)(c) of the Municipal Planning Bylaw (MPBL) states that any

proposed land use must be desirable as contemplated in terms of its impact

on the listed areas in subsection (3) of Section 99. The opinion is held that

the proposed land use is not considered desirable in terms of its impact on

the following:

3.3.1 Socio-economic

The proposed private school development will have no specific positive

socio-economic impact on this residential area. There are numerous public

and private schools in the immediate area as can be seen on the

underneath map.

Although some of the public schools are on full capacity a new public

primary school is currently being built in the adjacent Vredekloof suburb.

There are also numerous other private schools in the immediate area

offering education and extra classes in different price brackets and for

different type of needs which are not yet on full capacity.

Figure 2: A map indicating some of the public and private schools in the immediate area

El Shaddai Christian School

La Vigne Educational House

Dot’s Learning Centre

New Vredekloof Primary School

163

- 7 -

3.3.2 Compatibility with surrounding uses

The immediate area of the subject property consists of primarily low density Single

Residential and Group Housing erven. As indicated earlier, although the relevant

spatial policies of the City allow for some diversification of land uses it specifically

states that it should either be in identified nodes or along identified activity and

collector road. These policies also state that the character of certain areas should

be protected. Underneath are some photographs giving an indication of the low

density character of the residential units along the relatively narrow bending local

street. The proposed private school is thus not considered to be compatible with

the surrounding land uses or the character of the area.

Figure 3: An aerial photograph showing the low density character of the area. The

subject property is demarcated in yellow.

Figure 4: Photographs showing the low density single residential character of this

relatively narrow local street.

164

- 8 -

3.3.3 Impact on safety, health and wellbeing of the surrounding community

Wagner Way is currently a quiet residential street where children play in the

afternoon or ride on their bicycles. Residents paid a premium for this type of

lifestyle. The large number of additional traffic throughout the day on all

weekdays as well as Saturday mornings will negatively impact on the

amenity of the area and thus the residents’ quality of life and also the safety

of especially the children from this street. This situation will further be

aggravated by the inadequate parking layout and access proposal as will

be discussed underneath.

Except for indicating that some shrubs will be planted along the boundary

wall between the subject property and the adjacent Erf 10589 no proposals

are made in the motivation report regarding mitigating measures to lessen

the impact of the outdoor play area on adjacent properties. This is a major

concern especially due to the fact that this school will not only operate on

weekdays, but also on Saturdays. No information is also provided regarding

the programmes to be followed at the school, e.g. the periods for outdoor

play. Taking into consideration the number of children who will attend this

facility throughout the day this will cause an extreme nuisance to adjacent

land owners.

3.3.4 Traffic impacts, parking, access and other transport related considerations

Traffic impact

From the tables in paragraph 5 of the motivation report showing the drop-off

and collecting times during weekday afternoon (15:00 – 18:00) it can be

concluded that this so called private school will be attended by various

groups of children who will be between Grades 1 and 7. In the morning

(8:00) and in the afternoon (13:30) a total of 32 children will be dropped off

and collected at the same time for the morning session. From 15:00 on

weekday afternoons various groups of children varying between 8 and 16 at

a time and will be dropped off and collected every half an hour. On a

Saturday morning these groups are all 16 at a time and operation of the

facility will start at 8:00 where after children will be drop-off and collected

nearly every half an hour up till 13:00.

Due to the operating nature of this private school, the traffic generated by

this facility will have a major impact on the immediate and wider area. From

165

- 9 -

the motivation report is seems that during the weekday afternoons there will

be most of the time between 8 and 34 vehicles in the street throughout the

afternoon while on a Saturday morning there will be for most of the morning

at least 32 vehicles at the same time in the street. From the numbers given in

the motivation report it is calculated that there would be a total trip

generation of around 164 children on a weekday and 160 on a Saturday

morning. It can further be assumed that many parents will wait in their

vehicles for their children which will further aggravate the situation in this

street.

A facility of this nature and extent would thus at least have required a Traffic

Impact Statement if not a full Traffic Impact Assessment done by a traffic

engineer to determine the impact of all this additional traffic on this local

street as well as the wider area. This is also especially critical due to the

existing traffic problems in Sonstraal Heights, especially at the traffic circle at

the intersection of De Villiers Drive and Verdi Boulevard during peak times.

Vehicles already stack up in Verdi Boulevard and residents of Wagner Drive

struggle to enter Verdi Boulevard during peak hours as can be seen on the

underneath photograph.

Figure 5: A photograph taken during the morning peak time when vehicles heap up in

Verdi Boulevard up into Wagner Drive.

166

- 10 -

Inadequate parking layout and provision

The parking requirement for schools prescribed in Item 138 of the Cape Town

Development Management Scheme is 1 bay per classroom and office, plus

a stop and drop facility. This requirement is based on the normal operations

of a school. This facility appears to be a combination of a school and extra

classes for several groups of children on weekday afternoons as well as on

Saturday mornings. It is thus difficult to determine the exact parking

requirement which would be adequate for a facility of this nature.

A total of two parking bays are indicated for the 5 teachers. It is not clear

where the other 3 teachers would park. This would thus either cause these 3

teachers to park in the street or that only 1 parking bay would be available

for parents. Although a stop and drop facility is shown on the plan it is

unlikely that any children will be dropped off at this point as the current

parking configuration is such that this proposed stop and drop facility would

be impractical and uninviting to use as such. No indication is also given with

regard to traffic flow on the proposed Site Plan.

As acknowledged by the applicant in his motivation report, Wagner Way is a

“Minor Road”. This is a narrow bending local neighbourhood road, not

designed to accommodate this amount of traffic. There are various

awkward bends in this road as acknowledged by the City’s City’s Traffic

Impact Assessment and Development Control Section. This can especially

cause some blind spots for vehicles reversing directly into Wagner Way from

the proposed parking layout.

Figure 6: Photographs showing the bends in this portion of Wagner Way.

167

- 11 -

It is agreed with the comments of the City’s City’s Traffic Impact Assessment

and Development Control Section, dated 11 September 2018, that the

“parking layout is cumbersome, awkward and does not meet minimum

standards for a functional parking area. Vehicles parked in bays 1 to 6, in

order to leave the premises will have to reverse and negotiate various

awkward bends in order to reach the access gate.”

In this regard I would also like to refer to the Item 141 of the Development

Management Scheme which inter alia lies down the following provisions with

regard to parking layouts:

Item 141(1)(b)

The layout of any parking area, except for parking in SR 1 and SR 2 zonings,

shall ensure that vehicles can readily leave the site without reversing across

the sidewalk, unless approved by the City.

As the Place of Instruction which will operate from a substantial portion of

the dwelling house (161,70 m²) the land use on this property is not primarily

Single Residential any more. This provision thus applies and it is clear that the

proposed parking layout will cause vehicles to reverse across the sidewalk.

A departure from this provision of the Development Management Scheme is

thus required.

Item 141(1)(b)

A tandem bay accommodating two motor vehicles shall be regarded as

one bay for the purposes of this Development Management Scheme,

except for Single Residential zonings, where a tandem bay shall be

regarded as two bays.

The same argument applies here. This is not a primarily Single Residential

land use any more and the tandem bays shall be regarded as one bay. This

opinion is shared by the City’s Traffic Impact Assessment and Development

Control Section. A departure is thus required for the number of parking bays

required.

All existing and as-built structures as well as site features are also not shown

on the plan as can be seen on the underneath photograph showing the

168

- 12 -

area where the parking is proposed. Some of these will impact on the

movement of vehicles and functionality of the parking layout.

Figure 7: Area in front of dwelling house where parking is proposed.

The position of the pedestrian gate and footpath to the classrooms and

main access to the school will undoubtedly have parents drop off and

collect children from the Wagner Way road reserve as can be seen on the

photograph on the next page.

169

- 13 -

Figure 7: Main pedestrian access to the proposed school according to Site Plan.

The opinion is held that the parking layout proposal as well as the provision

of on-site parking is sub-standard without any consideration of the

immediate area and land owners. It is concurred with the comments of the

City’s Traffic Impact Assessment and Development Control Section that “the

on-site parking layout is considered a cosmetic attempt at fitting the

minimum required parking bays on the premises and is not supported”.

3.4 General

3.4.1 Development contributions

The fact that the application states that the school will “accommodate a

maximum of 32 children at any given point of time” also seems to be a

cosmetic attempt to present it as a facility similar to a small scale ECD centre

where a maximum of 34 children is allowed and for which Development

Contributions are not required.

170

- 14 -

This is most definitely not a small scale facility and should this facility be

approved, Development Contributions should be calculated based on the

total number of children attending this school on any given day.

3.4.2 Discrepancies in report

The motivation report is full of discrepancies, e.g. the age groups of the

children, the area of the house to be utilized for the school, it being called

an ECD facility and the adjacent property to the west being owned by the

same owner while it is currently in the market. This shows total disrespect for

the adjacent land owners and also if the information given in this report can

be trusted.

4. I trust that this objection would be considered favourably by your

Department and the Planning Tribunal and that the application be refused

accordingly in the interest of the immediate area as well as the wider

community.

5. We also request an opportunity for an interview with the Planning Tribunal

when this application is considered. We further request a site visit by the

Planning Tribunal and to be present at it.

Yours faithfully

Christine Havenga

Christine Havenga and Associates

7 Danie Theron Street Amanda Glen Durbanville 7550 P O Box 1290 Sanlamhof 7532

Tel. (021) 975 6266 Fax (021) 957 1247 Cell 073 1951 040 E-mail [email protected]

171

From: MICHAEL VAN NIEKERK <[email protected]> Sent: 02 October 2018 14:20 To: MPT Oral Hearings <[email protected]> Cc: Comments_Objections Northern <[email protected]>; Johannes Vlok <[email protected]> Subject: Case ID: 70412073 Dear MPT Please find following my request for myself and further affected applicants to represent our objection to the proposed application 70412073. We would appreciate the opportunity to state in person our strongest objection of the effect of the proposal on our neighborhood. The gravity of the application on our way of life can not be underestimated and deserves serious consideration. Please advice as to the date, time and location of the meeting as i could not find the relevant information on the link noted on the application document. I am sure the city would like the proses to be fair and transparent to all concerned. Please acknowledge receipt of this communication for record purposes. Sincere regards Michael van Niekerk Wagner Way 13 Sonstraalheights

172

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: 02 October 2018 15:55 To: Comments_Objections Northern <[email protected]> Subject: Objection to Application 70412073 La Boheme - proposed school on erf 10588 outside La Boheme

Objection to Application 70412073

Dear sir/madam

I would like to officially object to the proposed school that will be set up in Application 70412073.

The area is saturated with traffic as is in the mornings and since the Curo school was sneaked in at the

corner of Verdi and Subert road the morning traffic has become un-bearable. Adding another 30 plus

cars on this stretch of road each morning is unacceptable. If you take a look at a map you will realize

that this will put an extra strain on all the traffic from La Boheme rd, Wagner Way and Belini Close a

group of 70 houses.

The fact that we was not informed of this application is also un acceptable. Haw many other people

was un-informed about this?

Regards

Hugo van Schalkwyk

084 575 3909

[email protected]

173

mailto:[email protected]

From: Janine Wiggins <[email protected]> Sent: 12 October 2018 09:32 To: Comments_Objections Northern <[email protected]> Subject: Objection to Proposed New Private School in Sonstraal Heights, 14 Wagner Way (REF70412073)

Good Day,

REFERENCE NUMBER 70412073 - OPENING OF A PRIVATE SCHOOL IN 14 WAGNER WAY, SONSTRAAL HEIGHTS, DURBANVILLE

I herewith submit my objection to the opening of yet another school in our neighbourhood.

My only concern is the additional traffic in Wagner Way and subsequently the surrounding area, especially at the 4 way stop at Schubert and Verdi Boulevard, as well as at the roundabout at Legato Drive and Verdi Boulevard

towards Fairtrees Road.

The normal traffic in the mornings is really frustrating during the school quarters - and this just to get out of your own neighbourhood to go to work.

Adding additional cars, approximately +-30 cars, during the time-slot of 06:45 to 08:30 is not ideal and will add to our frustration.

This will lead to unnecessary animosity towards the school.

To Conclude: I strongly object to the additional traffic that the opening of a new school will add to the already congested morning traffic in our area.

Regards,

Janine Wiggins

42 Wagner Way (Erf 10578)

0721840625

[email protected]

174


From: Karen Zaayman <[email protected]> Sent: 12 October 2018 13:30 To: Comments_Objections Northern <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Application Number: 70412073, ERF 10588, No 14 Wagner Way, Sonstraal Heights, Durbanville, Cape Town Good day, Please find objection letter attached for your consideration

Thank you & Kind Regards

Karen Zaayman Cell 082 478 5894 | Tel 021 932 2000 Fax 021 932 2010 | Fax2e-mail 086 653 2219 Email [email protected] Web www.truformbedding.co.za Address 24 Brentford Street Beaconvale Parow 7500 Postal PO Box 562 Goodwood 7459

175

tel:0824785894

tel:0219322000

tel:0219322010

tel:0866532219

tel:0866532219


http://www.truformbedding.co.za/

https://www.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&q=24+Brentford+Street+Beaconvale+Parow+7560&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1_8eN7orMAhWLORoKHTg8DBAQ_AUIBygB

https://www.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&q=24+Brentford+Street+Beaconvale+Parow+7560&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1_8eN7orMAhWLORoKHTg8DBAQ_AUIBygB

12 October 2018

Att: Cape Town Government / Municipality

RE: 70412073, ERF 10588, No 14 Wagner Way, Sonstraal Heights, Durbanville, Cape Town

Good day,

We would like to lodge our objection to the proposed building of a school in Wagner Way.

As a property owner in Wagner Way, we are highly opposed to this application.

We specifically selected Wagner Way to purchase our first home, due to the peacefulness and

serenity of the street and quiet neighborhood where children can play, cycle, skateboard and have fun in the street without cars constantly driving by. A very rare commodity!

The building of a school will turn our quiet street into a traffic and noise nightmare.

This is an area already surrounded by multiple and good quality schools for all age groups. This firstly means that there isn’t necessarily a demand for more schools, and secondly, as schools would, they

already cause massive congestion in the area. Which would not be a problem if the area’s infrastructure was sufficient, which – in the case of Sonstraal Heights – it most definitely is not.

Imagine the impact of yet ANOTHER school.

We request that you spend one morning on the circle at Cobble Walk Centre to see the amount of vehicles moving from this area and the impact of the current schools on the traffic flow.

This decision not only affects the neighboring properties, but it affects the whole street. It influences

our ability to get to and from our homes, it impacts the ability of our children to freely walk around

and play in the streets, it impacts our noise pollution, and most importantly our safety.

We as the residents and home owners of Wagner Way are begging you – please do not grant this application and negatively impact a currently very happy community.

Thank you for your careful consideration.

Johan & Karen Zaayman 28 Wagner Way

176

From: Conrad Gouws <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 10:23 AM To: Comments_Objections Northern <[email protected]> Cc: Philiswa Magadlela <[email protected]>; Susanna Matthysen <[email protected]>; 'Bernard du Toit' <[email protected]> Subject: Erf 10588, No 14 Wagner Way, Durbanville- Objection to application Case ID 70412073

Case ID 70412073 Request additional time to make formal submissions against the application @ 14 Wagner Way ERF 10588 14 Wagner Way. Will be able to submit before close of business 12 October if that is in order. Please revert. Apologies – The Gouws family reside in 24 Wagner Way ERF 10584. I was not aware that an application was in progress for a private school at 14 Wagner Way. Kind regards, Conrad Gouws [email protected] mob +27 (0) 82 320 4181 * *Also available on whatsapp messages and calls

conrad_gouws_aqua

AQUA FRUIT (PTY) LTD

P.O Box 2659 - Durbanville 7551 Cape Town SOUTH AFRICA

www.aquafruit.co.za Legal warning: the information contained in this e-mail message is confidential and is for the exclusive attention of the planned recipient. If you have received the message by error, please notify the sender and delete the message without copying, recording or distributing it.

177







http://www.aquafruit.co.za/

Erf 10588, No 14 Wagner Way, Durbanville- Objection to application Case ID 70412073

Name Erf No. Date Comment received

Closing date –

original

Objections condoned

Closing date – DM extension

Late Objections

Notice sent

Interview requested

1 P Tolmie 10580 18/10/2018 27/09/18 Late (After extension)

12/10/18 Yes No No

2 Hielvrett Groenewald

10599 12/10/2018 27/09/18 In time (extension)

12/10/18 No No No

3 SS Barnard


12/10/18 No No

4 Liesel Pope 10558 12/10/2018 27/09/18 In time (extension)

12/10/18 No Yes

5 Karen & Johan

Zaayman


12/10/18 No No

6 Michael van Niekerk


12/10/18 No Yes

7 Robert Jonas


12/10/18 No Yes

8 Janine Wiggins


12/10/18 No No

9 Lionel & R Moodley


12/10/18 No No

10 Anton la Grange


12/10/18 No No

11 T Morrison 10595 11/10/2018 27/09/18 In time (extension)

12/10/18 No No

12 Bernard du Toit


12/10/18 No No

13 Johannes Vlok

Included signatures

but no names of

11 residents from the

area

10593 10592* 10601 10575 10574

10558* 10557 10553

10556* 10555 10461 10554

02/10/2018 27/09/18 In time (extension)

12/10/18 No Yes

14 Marius Hough


12/10/18 No No

15 Jaco & Gretha Fick


12/10/18 No No yes

16 Conrad Gouws


12/10/18 No No

178

17 Esmé Schmidt

45 Wellington

Road no residential

address indicted – 30 Wagner

way – 10581 per 18 below?


12/10/18 No No

18 Carl Schmidt


12/10/18 No No

19 Hein von Molendorff


12/10/18 No No

20 Jacob Greyling


12/10/18 No No

21 Aletta Heyns


12/10/18 No No

22 Andre Adendorff


12/10/18 No No

23 Cisca le Roux

Resident of Wagner way - No address

provided – same as no 24?


12/10/18 No No

24 Seppie Le Roux


12/10/18 No No

25 Hugo van Schalkwyk


12/10/18 No No

26 Monique Lotz

No address

provided – 17362?


12/10/18 No No

27 Richard Kelly


12/10/18 No No

28 Ronnie du Plessis

Resident in La

Boheme Estate –

no address provided


12/10/18 No No

29 Michael van Niekerk

10592 01/10/2018

27/09/18 In time (extension)

12/10/18 No Yes yes

30 C Havenga on behalf of

M van Niekerk –

no 29


12/10/2018 no yes yes

31 Kiggen Family Trust Frans

Kiggen

7150 25/09/2018 27/09/18 In time (Original)

12/10/18 No Yes

179

32 Kiggen Family Trust Frans

Kiggen

7204 25/09/2018 27/09/18 In time (Original)

12/10/18 No Yes

180

Erf

Number Email RatePayer Name Organization Name Address Line 1 Address Line Address Line Address Line Address Line

Postal

Code notice sent y/n objection y/n

same owner

y/n comment

10460 [email protected]

AFRAH 114 CASH AND

CARRY CC AFRAH 114 CASH AND CARRY CC

CARE OF

MOHAMED

ABDULAHI 68 DURBAN ROAD BELLVILLE CAPE TOWN 7530 y n y

10461 JAN WESSELS MNR J A WESSELS & MEV A J M WESSELS VERDI BOULEVARD 67 SONSTRAAL HOOGTE 7550 y * y

10553 [email protected] ADRIAN UYS MR A J UYS EN MEV S M UYS AVALON ESTATE 11 AMANI CLOSE DURBANVILLE 7550 y * y

10554 [email protected] DIRK SWART DIRK JACOBUS SWART

46

MENDELSOHNSINGEL DURBANVILLE 7550 y * y

10555 [email protected] MARCEL KOEN MR. M KOEN

57 MENDELSOHN

CRESCENT DURBANVILLE 7550 y * y

10556 [email protected];[email protected] Robert Jonas GEMINI JJ TRUST GEMINI JJ TRUST

55 Mendelsohn

Ave PO BOX 160 BLACKHEATH 7581 y y* y

10557 [email protected] A W BALLARD MEV A W BALLARD POSBUS 12212 N1 STAD 7463 y * y

10558 [email protected] IAN POPE IAN ANTHONY ROSS POPE 1 WAGNER STREET SONSTRAAL HEIGHTS DURBANVILLE 7550 y y* y

10573 [email protected] J G LOCHNER MNR J G LOCHNER BELLINI CLOSE 17 SONSTRAAL HEIGHTS DURBANVILLE 7550 n n

10574 [email protected] LUKAS MULLER LUKAS PETRUS LATEGAN MULLER 18 BELLINI CLOSE SONSTRAAL HEIGHTS DURBANVILLE 7550 y * y

10575 CHARL LE ROUX MR.C LE ROUX & MS.C VAN DER STRAATEN 5 WAGNERSTRAAT DURBANVILLE 7550 y * y

10577 [email protected] Keith OLSEN MNR K F OLSEN 44 WAGNER WAY SONSTRAALHOOGTE DURBANVILLE 7550 n n

10578 [email protected]; [email protected] JANINE WIGGINS MR W & MRS J WIGGINS WAGNERSTRAAT 42 SONSTRAAL HEIGHTS DURBANVILLE 7550 n y y

10589

W P LOUW BROKERS

CC W P LOUW BROKERS CC 14 WAGNER STREET SONSTRAAL DURBANVILLE 7550 y n y

10590 C D HOFFMAN MNR C D HOFFMAN POSBUS 9 GOUDINIWEG 6856 y n y

10591 CITY OF CAPE TOWN CITY OF CAPE TOWN PRIVATE BAG X6 BELLVILLE 7535 n/a n/a

7150 [email protected] KIGGEN FAMILIE TRUST KIGGEN FAMILIE TRUST PO BOX 738 CAPEGATE 7562 y y y

7204 [email protected] KIGGEN FAMILIE TRUST KIGGEN FAMILIE TRUST PO BOX 738 CAPEGATE 7562 y y y

8621

BERGSHOOP HOME

OWNERS ASSOCIATION BERGSHOOP HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION 100 BERGHSHOOP LANGEBERG ROAD DURBANVILLE 7550 n n


10580 [email protected] PAUL TOLMIE MR PJ TOLMIE & MRS S TOLMIE 32 Wagner PO BOX 2398 DURBANVILLE 7551 n y y

10581 [email protected];[email protected] CARLHEINZ SCHMIDT Esme Schmidt MR C SCHMIDT 30 WAGNER WAY SONSTRAAL HOOGTE 7550 n y y

no address provided but see C Schmidt above - found on GIS

and same address

10582

[email protected];[email protected];

([email protected])

JOHANNES

ZAAYMAN MR J AND MRS KL ZAAYMAN 28 WAGNER STREET SONSTRAAL 7550 n y y johan and gerber email on GIS

10592 [email protected] M D VAN NIEKERK MNR M D VAN NIEKERK

13 Wagner Way

Dville POSBUS 1400 KRAAIFONTEIN 7569 y y* y

2 - request interview at MPT and objection from consultant - C

Havenga as well as well as signing letter of 10593*

10593 [email protected] JOHANNES VLOK MR JHJ VLOK AND MS L VLOK 15 WAGNER STREET SONSTRAAL HEIGHTS DURBANVILLE 7550 y y y

included a petition below his letter* 10592 13 Wagner; 10601

33 wagner; 10575 5 Wagner; 10574 3 Wagner; 10558 1

Wagner; 10557 Mendelsohn Ave;10553 44 Mendelsohn;

10556 55 Mendelsohn; 10555 57 Mendelsohn; 10461 67 Verdi;

10554 46 Mendelsohn


HUGO VAN

SCHALKWYK MR & MRS VAN SCHALKWYK WAGNER WAY 17 SONSTRAAL HEIGHTS 7550 n y y no address provided; traced per GIS

10595 Rob Morrison <[email protected]> TRACEY MORRISON TRACEY T MORRISON 21 WAGNER WAY SONSTRAAL HEIGHTS 7550 n y y

10596 [email protected] J D L FICK MNR J D L FICK 23 Wagner Way POSBUS 4122 DURBANVILLE 7551 n y y



Anton and KARIN LA

GRANGE MRS. K LA GRANGE 27 WAGNER WAY SONTRAAL HEIGHTS DURBANVILLE 7550 n y y

10599 Orne Groenewald <[email protected]>

HIELVRETT

GROENEWALD MNR H GROENEWALD WAGNER STRAAT 29 SONSTRAAL HEIGHTS 7550 n y y

10600 [email protected] WYNAND VILJOEN WYNAND CHARL VILJOEN 31 WAGNER WAY SONSTRAAL HEIGHTS DURBANVILLE 7550 n n

10601 EBEN PIENAAR MNR E PIENAAR WAGNER WAY 33 SONSTRAALHOOGTE DURBANVILLE 7550 y * y

10627 CITY OF CAPE TOWN CITY OF CAPE TOWN

VIR AANDAG

TYGERBERG

ADMIN erf2734 PRIVAATSAK X6 BELLVILLE 7535 n n/a

17378 [email protected] Seppie le Roux La Boheme Est 15 Durbanville n y y

? [email protected] Ronnie Du Plessis La Boheme Estate n y ?

17384 [email protected] Richard Kelly La Boheme Estate 9 n y y

17362 Monique Adam <[email protected]> Monique Lotz La Boheme Estate 31 n y y no address provided but traced on GIS

? [email protected];[email protected] Cisca le Roux ? Wagner way y ? no address provided and not found via GIS

17365 [email protected] Andre Adendorff la Boheme 28 n y y

17398 [email protected] Alet Heyns La Boheme 34 n y y

17381 [email protected] or [email protected] Jacob Greyling La Boheme 12 n y y

17399 [email protected] Hein Molendorff La Bohme 35 n y y

10584 [email protected] Conrad Gouws 24 Wagner Way n y y intervenor/late opjection?

? [email protected] Bernard du Toit 22 Wagner way ? y y

17382 [email protected] M Hough la Boheme 11 n y y

10583 Lionel Moodley <[email protected]> LC Moodley 26 Wagner Way n y y

17383 [email protected];[email protected] SS Barnard La Boheme 10 y y

181

mailto:[email protected];[email protected]


mailto:[email protected];[email protected];[email protected]

mailto:[email protected];[email protected];[email protected]





Annexure

G

182

CIVIC CENTRE IZIKO LOLUNTU BURGERSENTRUM

87 BRIGHTON ROAD KRAAIFONTEIN 7570 PO BOX 25 KRAAIFONTEIN 7569 www.capetown.gov.za

Making progress possible. Together.

TRANSPORT DIRECTORATE

ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE & MANAGEMENT

Willie Liebenberg

Principal Professional Officer

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE 26 JUNE 2020

TO Anne Smit / Phumeza Wellem

Urban Management

PROPOSED APPLICATION FOR CONSENT USE IN TERMS OF SECTION 42(I) OF THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN

MUNICIPAL PLANNING BY-LAW (2015), ERF 10588, 14 WAGNER WAY, SONSTRAAL HEIGHTS,

DURBANVILLE

The application with case number 70505672, refers.

1. NATURE OF APPLICATION:

Item 21(d): Proposed Place of Instruction to permit an Edublox small-scale private school.

2. COMMENTS:

In terms of section 8.1 of the Development Charges (DC) Policy for Engineering Services for the

City of Cape Town (Approved Policy C 19-05-20 June 2020) development charges apply to this

application. The first 34 learners are exempted from DC’s, this has been factored into the DC

calculation.

3. RECOMMENDATION:

This Department offers in principle no objection to the proposed application on Erf 10588, subject to the

following conditions:

3.1 The owner/developer shall pay a development charge (DC) in accordance with the approved

Development Charges Policy for Engineering Services for the City of Cape Town.

3.2 The total amount payable for the proposed land use right in accordance with the attached DC

calculation is R21 478.96 (dated 26 June 2020) and it must be noted that the amount due will be

escalated annually with the Construction Price Adjustment Formula (CPAF) using the industry

indices of StatsSA.

3.3 DC’s will be payable prior to transfer of the property or building plan submission stage or within

30 days of the approval of the application, whichever one comes first.

3.4 That sufficient on-site parking bays be provided as calculated per the City of Cape Town Zoning

Scheme Regulations or as consulted and agreed with the Transport: TIA & Development Control

Branch.

3.5 That the parking layout meets the requirements of the TDA: TIA & Development Control Branch.

3.6 That no additional service connections be permitted to the site.

T +27 21 444 4936 F +27 21 400 4891

M [email protected] W www.tct.gov.za

183

2


87 BRIGHTON ROAD KRAAIFONTEIN 7570 PO BOX 25 KRAAIFONTEIN 7569 www.capetown.gov.za


3.7 That the consent use be limited to a place of instruction facility with a maximum of 32 pupils and

a GLA of 46m². Should the number of children or GLA increases, this Department reserves the

right for revised comments.

3.8 That the UTG7 Urban Transport design guidelines (Section 10.4) be applied w.r.t. the construction

of new driveway ramp. All costs associated with the new exit driveway will be at the cost of the

developer.

3.9 That a works permit be applied for prior to any construction work within Wagner Way.

Yours sincerely

Willie Liebenberg

http://teamsites.capetown.gov.za/sites/rs_oaa_kraai/Shared Documents/DEV FACIL/Docs 2020/W

Liebenberg/Memorandums/D'ville/10588 Jun20 - Place of Instruction 32 Children (70505672).docx

184

City Of Cape Town Development Charges Calculator Version 2.12 June 2019

Erf Number *

Suburb *

Developer/Owner *

Erf Size (ha) *

Date (YYYY/MM/DD) *

Current Financial Year

Approved Building Plan No.

Existing Right Total New Right

A1 Dwelling unit 1 1

A2 Dwelling unit

A3 Dwelling unit

A4 Dwelling unit

A5 Dwelling unit

A6 Dwelling unit

A7 Dwelling unit

A8 Dwelling unit

A9 Dwelling unit

A10 Dwelling unit

A11 Dwelling unit

A12 Dwelling unit

A13 Dwelling unit

A14 Dwelling unit

Rooms

m2 GLA

Rooms

m2 GLA

C1 m2 GLA

C2 m2 GLA

C3 m2 GLA

D1 m2 GLA

D2 m2 GLA

Learner

m2 GLA

Learner 32

m2 GLA 46

Bed

m2 GLA

E4 m2 GLA

E5 m2 GLA

E6 m²

F1 Actual Demand

Service Units Additional Demand Unit Cost Amount VAT Total

Roads trips/day 4.2550 2 981.61R 12 686.76R 1 903.01R 14 589.78R

Transport pers.trips/peak period 1.3800 897.17R 1 238.09R 185.71R 1 423.81R

Stormwater ha*C 0.0042 177 090.61R 749.45R 112.42R 861.86R

Sewerage kl/day 0.1656 18 005.47R 2 981.71R 447.26R 3 428.96R

Water kl/day 0.1840 2 208.64R 406.39R 60.96R 467.35R

Solid Waste kg/day 1.3800 445.62R 614.96R 92.24R 707.20R

R 21 478.96

Calculated : Received :

Signature : Signature:

Date : Date:

______________________________

______________________________

______________________________

WF Liebenberg (Consent: Small scale school )

___________________________________

26-Jun-20

10588, 14 Wagner Way

Durbanville(70505672)

Herman & Hannelie Bronner

2019/2020

June 26, 2020

NOTE : THIS CALCULATION IS BASED ON THE DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION PROVIDED AND UNIT COSTS APPLICABLE FOR THE

FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION IS MADE. UNIT COSTS ARE ESCALATED ANNUALLY ON 1 JULY WITH THE

CPAF AND THE ACTUAL AMOUNT DUE WILL BE BASED ON THE UNIT COST APPLICABLE ON THE DATE PAYMENT BECOMES DUE.

Total bulk engineering services component of Development Charge payable

0.1308

Development Parameters

B1

INDUSTRIAL

INSTITUTIONAL/COMMUNITY

Early Childhood Development Centres / Home Child Care

Single Residential > 350m² Erf

Single Residential < 350m² Erf

Click yellow button to enter demand

Calculation of bulk engineering services component of Development Charge

Unit

Office/ Consulting rooms (welfare offices, clinics, hospitals &

env. facilities)

Is the development located within Public Transport (PT2) zone? No

City of Cape Town Developer/Owner

E3

Meeting Places (places of assembly, place of worship)

Open Spaces / Public Open Spaces

Care / Accommodation (Hospitals, Clinics, Old age home)


Rural / Undetermined / Agricultural

Code Land Use

Flat <100m² Unit


State Funded Housing

GAP/Affordable Housing

RESIDENTIAL

Second/ Additional Dwelling/Granny Flat

Hotel

Accommodation Establishments

Rural Intensification / Agri-subdivisions

Group Housing >650m² Erf

Group Housing >200m² Erf

Group Housing <200m² Erf

Flat >100m² Unit

ACCOMMODATION ESTABLISHMENTS

E1

Warehouse

Industrial

Universities / Schools

B2

Retail/Shop

BUSINESS

General Business

Office

E2

Land uses not reflected on the calculator

185


12 HERTZOG BOULEVARD 8001 P O BOX 298 CAPE TOWN 8000 www.capetown.gov.za


TRANSPORT DIRECTORATE

TRANSPORT PLANNING

Sigmund Storm

Senior Professional Officer: TIA & DC

M E M O R A N D U M T: +27 21 444 8890

E: [email protected]

DATE 21 July 2020

TO Anne Smit, Planning & Building Development Management

CASE NO 70505672: PROPOSED CONSENT USE: ERF 10588, 14 WAGNER WAY, SONSTRAAL HEIGHTS

The above mentioned application refers.

Application details:

Application for a consent use to permit a private school for a maximum of 32 primary school learners at

any given time.

Comments on the application:

1. This office previously, provided comments on the proposal circulated under a different case number.

2. The previous proposal included an on-site parking layout that did not meet minimum design

standards and was not supported by this office.

3. Subsequent to the previous circulation and negative comments by this office, the applicant

appointed EFG Engineers to compile a Traffic Statement and in consultation with this office design a

workable on-site parking area meeting design standards as well as being in accordance with the on-

site parking ratio required by the City’s DMS.

4. The Transport Statement with reference 854/01lr dated May 2019 investigated and reported on the

existing background traffic volumes along Wagner Way.

5. Traffic counts conducted showed that two-way background traffic volumes along Wagner Way

amounted to approximately 63 vehicles in the Friday AM peak and 61 vehicles during the Friday PM

peak hour.

6. In accordance with the Guidelines for the Provision of Engineering Services for Residential Townships

(1983) the passenger car capacity of a Class 5 residential access road is between 300 to 500

passenger car units per hour.

7. When compared to the volumes from the traffic counts conducted it is clear that Wagner Way operates well under capacity (approximately 12 to 20 percent of available capacity) and the

Transport Statement therefor concludes that the proposed school and associated traffic will have

negligible impact on the level of service along Wagner Way and that no congestion is anticipated.

8. The proposed on-site parking layout is considered workable and in accordance with minimum design

standards.

9. Parking provision is in accordance with the ratio of 1 bay per office/classroom and 1 drop –off bay

per 20 children as required by the City’s DMS.

10. There is a shortfall of 1 on-site parking bay but this shortfall is motivated in accordance with the

principle of shared parking as permitted by the DMS in view of the owner/applicant residing on the

property.

Recommendation:

In view of the above this office has no objection to the application subject to the following conditions being

imposed:

1. That the usage on the property be restricted to that of a residential dwelling and a private school for

primary school learners with a strict maximum of 32 learners on the property at any given time.

2. That 8 permanent and clearly marked on-site parking bays (inclusive of 2 bays within the existing

garage) be provided in accordance with the design by EFG Engineers be provided by the applicant.

186

2

3. That vehicular movement be restricted to the one directional system by the provision of a second

carriageway crossing in accordance with the design by EFG Engineers.

4. That no dropping off or collection of learners be permitted from anywhere within the adjacent public

road reserve/s and that all vehicular activity be contained on site.

5. That any vehicular access control devices/gates remain open during peak arrival and collection

periods.

Yours sincerely

Sigmund Storm

187

Parow Civic Iziko Ioluntu Burgersentrum C/O Tallent & Voortrekker Road, Parow, 7500 C/O Tallent & Voortrekker Road, Parow, 7500 H/V Tallent & Voortrekker Weg, Parow, 7500 Private Bag X4, Parow, 7499 Private Bag X4, Parow, 7499 Privaatsak X4, Parow, 7499

To: Silverrose Magadlela / Anne Smit

From: Sigmund Storm

Date: 11 September 2018

CASE NO 70412073: PROPOSED CONSENT USE & PERMANENT DEPARTURE: ERF 10588, 14 WAGNER WAY

SONSTRAAL HEIGHTS, DURBANVILLE

Your application 70412073 refers.

Application details:

Consent for a Place of Instruction (Private School) to accommodate a maximum of

32 children at any given point in time

Building line departure to permit the relaxation of the 5.0m western building line to

4.2m

Comments on the application:

1) The proposed playroom is also classified as a classroom/office as a staff member in

all probability will be present in a supervisory role. The on-site parking requirement

would therefore be 7 bays.

2) Tandem parking bays are regarded as one parking bay as clearly stated by the

DMS.

3) The parking layout is cumbersome, awkward and does not meet minimum

standards for a functional parking area. Vehicles parked in bays 1 to 6, in order to

leave the premises will have to reverse and negotiate various awkward bends in

order to reach the access gate.

4) All existing and as-built structures and site features are not shown on the plan. Some

of these will impact on the movement of vehicles and functionality of the parking

layout.

5) The position of the stop and drop bays are not considered to be “inviting” and it is

highly doubted that any parent will make use of these. The position of the

pedestrian gate, footpath to the classrooms and access to the school will

undoubtedly have parents drop and collect children from the Wagner Way road

reserve.

6) The on-site parking layout is considered a cosmetic attempt at fitting the minimum

required parking bays on the premises and is not supported.

MEMORANDUM

188

2

Recommendation:

In view of the above the application is not supported.

Regards

Sigmund Storm

Senior Professional Officer

TIA and Development Control

189

Water and Sanitation 70412073

Reason for alternative: Support Application

Application supported subject to the condition that should the applicant require a larger water connection due to fire supply requirements on

the premises then the cost of the design, wayleaves, installation and new water meter shall be for applicant's account.

Regards

Tiaan

190

KRAAIFONTEIN MUNICIPAL OFFICES IBHUNGANA LIKAMASIPALA EKRAAIFONTEIN KRAAIFONTEIN MUNISIPALE KANTORE

BRIGHTON ROAD, KRAAIFONTEIN, 7570 P O BOX 25, KRAAIFONTEIN 7569 www.capetown.gov.za


CITY HEALTH

KRAAIFONTEIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

Dolorence Mohlaba

Environmental Health Practitioner

Tel: 021 444 6735 Fax: 021 444 1471

Email: [email protected]

Ref. no. 70505672

CITY HEALTH – Environmental Health – NORTHERN SUB-DISTRICT – KRAAIFONTEIN OFFICES ________

Date 14 July 2020

To Planning and Building Development Management

Attention Anne Smit / Phumeza Wellem

Case No 70505672

________________________________________________________________________________________

RE: THE PROPOSED APPLICATION FOR CONSENT USE TO PERMIT A PLACE OF INSTRUCTION

(PRIVATE SCHOOL – EDUBLOX DURBBANVILLE - GRADES 2-7) AND RELAXATION OF THE

PARKING REQUIREMENT PERTAINING TO A COMBINED PARKING SITUATION, ON ERF 10588, 14

WAGNER WAY, SONSTRAAL HEIGHTS, DURBANVILLE.

This Department has no objection to the proposed rezoning application subject to the

compliance with the following items:

1. According to the sketch plan provided and measurements taken, the facility will be

suitable to accommodate a maximum of 32 children as follows: Classroom 1: 10

children; Classroom 2: 8 children; classroom 3: 7 children and classroom 4: 7 children.

2. Building plans must be submitted for comments and approval for the internal

alterations.

3. Application for registration with Department of Education.

4. An adequate pest control programme must be implemented.

5. All low level electrical plugs must be suitably protected.

6. Locker facilities or suitable shelving must be provided for the storage of the children’s

personal belongings and bags.

7. The building must be made accessible to disabled persons in accordance with the

Requirements of Part S of Regulation 2378, Regulations under the National Building

Regulations and Building Standards Act (103/1977) read with SANS 10400-S: 2011,

Edition 3, for the application of the National Building Regulations. This includes

ramps/walkways, toilet facilities and removal of obstructions in the path of travel of

disabled persons.

8. The premises must comply with the Tobacco Products Control Amendment Act, 2008

(Act No 63 of 2008) and Notice Relating to Smoking of Tobacco Products in public

places, Regulation No R975 dated 29 September 2000.

9. The applicant must comply with the Western Cape Noise Control Regulations P.N.

200/2013 as promulgated under the Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act 73 of

1989) by not creating a disturbing noise and/or noise nuisance to surrounding property

owners.

192

2

10. An integrated waste management approach must be implemented based on waste

minimisation and must incorporate reduction, recycling and re-use. All waste

generated to be stored in a secured refuse area pending removal.

11. The Director: City Health reserves the right to call for additional requirements should it

be deemed necessary.

PLEASE TAKE NOTE: The total number of children indicated above is for “normal” operations,

these numbers may be further reduced / limited due to COVID-19 protocols and directives.

Yours faithfully

Dolorence Mohlaba Jackie Hintenaus

Environmental Health Practitioner Principal Environmental Health Practitioner

193

Annexure

H

194

1

Annexure 2 Date: 13 December 2018

(Amended 21 April 2020)

CASE ID – 70412073

ERF 10588 – DURBANVILLE

COMMENTS ON OBJECTIONS AND DEPARTMENT FEEDBACK

The subject application was circulated to the abutting/affected property owners which

were the following:

Erven 10460, 10554, 10553, 10590, 10589, 7150, 7204, 10593, 1592, 10601, 10575,

10574, 10558, 10557, 10556, 10555 and 10461.

With the circulation of the application for comments/objections, the onus is on the

Municipality to determine who the affected property owners are in order to inform them

about the proposed development. As a result of the aforementioned, the above property

owners were regarded as affected property owners. The application was circulated to 17

affected property owners. Only 6 owners objected to the proposal (35.3%). Owners of

erven 7204, 7150, 10556, 10558, 10592 and 10593 (see attached plan A).

Considering the whole of Wagner Way which includes properties which were not

notified, consisting of 34 properties, only 14 owners objected (41%) – see attached Plan

B.

A total of 30 objections were received, which includes properties as far as Bergshoop

Complex, which is located in Langeberg Road and totally out of reach of the subject

property. One objector did not provide her location.

NOTE: It should be noted that the lower section of Wagner Way will not be utilised by the

parents as they will be instructed by the owner to use the upper section of Wagner Way

back to Verdi Boulevard. Vehicles will be able to manoeuvre on the property (do not

need to reverse into the street).

Summary of objections received from affected/abutting property owners:

Erf 7150 & 7204 (Bergshoop Complex) Frans Kiggen

• Application does not comply with section 99 of the Municipal planning By-Law of

2015

• Inappropriate location for a school

• On-site parking problematic

• Noise pollution – properties back onto 14 Wagner Way

195

2

Erf 10556 (55 Wagner Way) Robert Jonas

• Increase in traffic volume to be negative

Erf 10558 (1 Wagner Way) L. Pope

• The application was not properly circulated to all the affected property owners.

• Owners in the remainder of Wagner Way are also affected by the traffic generated

by the proposed school.

• Increase in traffic will be negative

• Insufficient parking provision

• Inappropriate location

• Poor motivation report being

o Not dated

o Zoning refers to CO1 zoning

o Refers to ECD Centre and Private School

Erf 10593 (15 Wagner Way) J. Vlok

• Negative impact on traffic flow

• Insufficient on-site parking

• Negative impact on security, noise and pollution

• No need for more schools – Curro is sufficient

Erf 10592 (13 Wagner Way) M. van Niekerk

• Nature of school and number of children (large-scaled rather than small-scaled)

• Compliance with MSDF

• Non-Compliance with Northern District Plan

• Non-Compliance with Section 99(i)(b)

• Non-Compliance with Section 99(i)(c)

• Inadequate parking layout

Other objections received

Erf 10596 (23 Wagner Way) J. Fick:

The other objections received reiterate the aforementioned objections – no new /

different objections have been raised.

196

3

Comments on objections

1. There will be an increase in traffic volume and a negative impact on traffic flow

There will be a slight increase in traffic volumes; however, only a small portion of

Wagner Way will be negatively affected, i.e. the portion between Verdi Boulevard

and erf 10588 (Subject Property). All the property owners along this section of

Wagner Way had the opportunity to object against the proposed school. The

application was circulated to the 17 property owners, and only 4 of the 17

(23.52%) objected. The increase in the traffic volume was therefore not deemed

critical by those most affected.

In his complaint, Mr van Niekerk indicated, as part of his motivation, that 164 trips

would be generated on a weekday. This is inaccurate. As set out i[n section 5 of the

original Application (attached to this document), at full capacity the clinic would be

able to accommodate a maximum of 48 children on a weekday (96 trips) and 80

children on a Saturday morning (160 trips). Lessons are 1.5 hours in duration, as

clear in the time lapse between the first drop-off and the first collection time; not

30 mins as most likely assumed by Mr van Niekerk. (Please note the typing error in

section 5.2 of the application: 16:30pm Drop-Off should be 16, not 18, totalling 32

learners on-site)

Mr van Niekerk’s complaint includes that at full capacity on a Saturday morning,

there will be 32 vehicles in the street for most of the morning. This is not accurate.

Refer to Section 5 of the original application (Proposed Development), which is

attached to this document and outlines the staggered drop-off / collection times.

On a Saturday morning there is only one point in the morning (09:30) where

learners are dropped off and collected at the same time (maximum of 32 learners

altogether). For the remainder of the morning, a maximum of 16 learners are

either dropped-off or collected at different times during the day. Also note that

parents are actively discouraged to wait for their child(ren). As many families live

locally, parents often return home after dropping off their child(ren). Others use

the 1.5 hour lesson duration as an opportunity to do shopping. The subject

property is conveniently located close to the Cobble Walk Shopping Centre as well

as other local shopping facilities (including Giant Hyper, Cape Gate Mall and

Makro).

In order to prove that traffic volume and flow will not be negatively impacted, an

independent Traffic Impact Study was carried out by E.F.G. Engineers and

deliberately executed on the two busiest days. See the Traffic Impact Statement

(T.I.S.) attached (Annexure 4).

NOTE: A business operated from this property for many years, which also

generated volumes of traffic. Nobody in the community complained about it. The

197

4

school will substitute the previous business. Nothing changed on the property.

Refer to Annexure 6 for more information in this regard.

2. The Application was not properly circulated

The onus is on the municipality to determine who the affected property owners

are, which are indicated on the attached plan. It is agreed that only the

aforementioned properties are affected by the proposed school.

3. Owners in the remainder of Wagner Way are also affected by the traffic generated

by the proposed school

Owners in the remainder of Wagner Way will not be affected by the increase in

traffic. The shortest route back to Verdi Boulevard is to follow the same route

back. All the parents will be notified by the owner to use the same route back to

Verdi Boulevard and to manoeuvre on the property. Refer to the Traffic Impact

Study (Annexure 4), which tracked and indicated the flow of traffic.

4. Parking Provision

Insufficient parking provision

An amended Parking Layout is submitted (Annexure 4). The requirement is 1 bay /

classroom and Office plus a Stop-and-Drop facility. The 5 classrooms have been

reduced to 4 classrooms as per the requirements from the Health Department.

One classroom has been reallocated as a Sick Bay. As a result of the

aforementioned, only 5 bays plus a Stop-and-Drop facility needs to be provided.

The amended Parking Layout have been drawn up and submitted by E.F.G

Engineers and meets the requirements stated by Sigmund Storm (see Annexure 3).

Mr van Niekerk indicated that the original Parking Layout only allocated two

parking bays to teachers. This is not accurate (see Annexure 1, Plan B). It should be

further noted that the reality of the parking situation would be reflected in the

traffic count which was compiled by EFG Engineers, as contained in the tables

included in the Traffic Impact Study (Annexure 4).

NOTE: Initially Sigmund Storm was concerned that the Indoor Play Room would be

used as an additional classroom. The aforementioned was clarified with him – the

Health Department confirmed that the four classrooms provided were adequate to

accommodate 32 learners. As a result, Sigmund Storm was in agreement that the

indoor Play Room can remain as such and will not need an additional parking bay,

as reflected in the requirements stated in Annexure 3.

198

5

Inadequate parking layout

The parking layout was amended according to the criteria set out by Sigmund

Storm in Annexure 3 and to the satisfaction of the traffic engineer. He consented

to the Traffic Impact Statement which was done by E.F.G. Engineers (Annexure 4)

Conclusive Statement

Based on the Traffic Impact Study and amended Parking Layout, it was

recommended by E.F.G. Engineers that the Development Application on Erf 10588

be approved from a traffic point of view provided that:

o additional access from 10588 on Wagner Way is constructed for vehicles

leaving the site

o the detailed design of the proposed access and the parking area are

according to the latest City of Cape Town standards.

5. Inappropriate location

The criteria for Small ECD Centres are applicable as guidelines in determining the

criteria for a small-scale private school (the subject application): A small-scale

Private School) is permitted to be located in Residential Nodes, as many of the

parents it has to serve, live in such residential nodes. The location is therefore

appropriate. Erf 10588 is also located opposite Public Open Space, which further

defines the location as ideal for a small-scale private school.

As the Subject school is better regarded as a Learning Clinic, it serves the

surrounding schools. The location is therefore ideal, as it is centrally located to the

schools it serves. See Annexure 6 regarding the nature of the school and

considerations in deeming 14 Wagner Way the ideal location.

6. Poor Motivation report

o Not dated – The Application is dated 23/07/2018

o Zoning refers to CO1 zoning – According to the amendments applicable to

the zoning scheme (3rd February 2020), the 5m CO1 building line application

is now longer applicable. This has now removed from the Development

Management Scheme.

o Refers to ECD Centre and Private School – It should be noted that reference

to an ECD centre is incorrect. I have been amended in the motivation report

so small-scale private school.

199

6

7. Negative impact on security, noise and pollution

o Security: There is no reason to expect that security of the community would

be negatively impacted by the school. Indeed, the fact that there will be

movement in the street during the day and a known presence would serve

as a deterrent and therefore improve security within the street. Due to the

nature of the school, children are dropped off and immediately taken into

the school area, which is fully enclosed. They remain supervised within the

enclosed area until collected by their parents, and therefore pose no risk to

the safety of the community or the children themselves.

o Noise: The 32 children will be properly supervised by 4 teachers at all times

(small child:staff ratio). Due to the nature of the school, there are only two

intervals of 30 mins during the morning where the children may have

unstructured play outside, as well as the time periods between arrival and

the commencement of morning classes at 08:00 and at the end of the

morning session, while the morning children wait to be collected by their

parents. During the after-school and Saturday sessions, there are no

structured play time or intervals. Noise will therefore be kept to the

minimum.

o Pollution: The children are restricted to the school area, which is fully

enclosed, from the moment they arrive until their collection. Any littering

will therefore be confined to this area. As above, the children will be

supervised at all times, with strict rules in terms of disposing of rubbish.

Cleaners are also employed to keep the premises tidy at all times. In terms

of pollution as a result of increased traffic, the Traffic Impact Study

(Annexure 4) has shown that the traffic generated by the school does not

have a detrimental effect.

8. No need for more schools – Curro is sufficient

There is a great demand for more schools in the area as Curro is over-subscribed,

as are the other schools in the area. The proposed school is also different from

Curro and the other local schools, as the morning program focus on learners with

learning needs who do not flourish in mainstream education. The after-school and

Saturday classes service learners attending the local schools and thus the premises

need to be easily accessible to the surrounding schools. The service rendered by

the school will therefore be complement and service the local schools, rather than

being competitive. See Annexure 6 for more information about the nature of the

school.

200

7

9. Nature of School and number of children (large-scaled rather than small-scaled)

The criteria to determine whether the proposed private school should be defined

as ‘large-scaled’ or ‘small-scaled’, is based on the criteria used for ECD Centres, as

set out by the Development Management Scheme (DMS). An establishment that

accommodates less than 35 children at a specific time, is categorised as small-

scaled. The proposed facility is therefore small-scaled, as it will accommodate a

maximum of 32 learners at any specific time.

The morning programme will accommodate a maximum of 32 learners. In regards

to after-school / Saturday lessons, please refer to Section 5 of the original

Application (it is also attached to this document. You will see that, for most of the

afternoons/Saturday morning, even at full capacity, the maximum number of

children in lessons at any specific time is well below the maximum allowance of

32. See Annexure 6 for more information on how the after-school classes are

organized and scheduled.

From his complaint, it seems that Mr van Niekerk is under the impression that both

Erf 10588 and Erf 10589 belong to the applicant, and that major development will

be undertaken. This is incorrect. Erf 10589 is currently in the market but has not

been bought by the applicant. No additions will be made to the current building.

The school will operate solely from the portion of the house that have been

operated as a business by the previous owner. See Annexure 6 for more

information about the previous connection between Erf 10588 and Erf 10589 (12

Wagner Way).

10. Compliance with M.S.D.F

Small-scaled private schools (as with ECD Centres) are located in Residential areas

where it has to serve the community. The predominant use of the property is

Single Residential and the school facility is regarded as an ancillary use on a

residential property.

The M.S.D.F. is applicable to properties where the predominant use of the

property is no longer residential. The proposed facility does not trigger the

requirements of the M.S.D.F. Only the requirements for the Development of ECD

Centres form the basis for applications for small-scale private schools.

11. Non-Compliance with Northern District Plan

The requirements of the North District Plan is not applicable. As above, only the

requirements for the Development of ECD Centres apply. Small-scale Private

Schools serves the immediate community in the residential areas and should be

201

8

located in residential areas. The Predominant use of the property is residential,

and the school is an ancillary use to the residential component.

12. Non-Compliance with Section 99(i)(b)/(c)

99(i)(b) Various small-scale businesses operate from residential properties in the

neighbourhood. This small-scaled school is therefore compatible with the

surrounding uses.

99(i)(c) Various private schools exist in the area which are at full capacity. There is

therefore a need for schools in the area. This school is unique and different to the

other schools, as it is a small-scaled learning clinic which serves and complements

the local schools. See Annexure 6 for more information about the nature of the

school.

If an application does not conform to the requirements of Section 99, then such

application will not be accepted by the Municipality, Section 99 contains the

minimum threshold requirement for accepting an application. The Subject

application was accepted thus it has been deemed by the Municipality to conform

to all the criteria of Section 99.

Summary of Amendments / Additions to the Application:

• Amendments to the Site Development Plan and Plan layout (Attached to this

document, Annexure 2)

o One of the classrooms changed to a Sick Bay (Health Department

requirement)

o As a result of the aforementioned, the number of classrooms have been

reduced from 5 to 4.

o A disabled toilet (WC) is provided (Health Department requirement)

o Disabled access to be provided – indicated as a pedestrian walkway on the

SDP (Health Department requirement)

• An amended Parking Layout has been submitted, which meets the requirements

stipulated by Sigmund Storm (Annexure 4)

We request an opportunity for an interview with the Planning Tribunal and a Site Visit,

and to be present at the Site Visit.

Hannelie Brönner

(with JH van Heerden)

202

Mrs T Morrison 21 Wagner Way Sonstraal Heights Durbanville ...

Documents

Transcript of Mrs T Morrison 21 Wagner Way Sonstraal Heights Durbanville ...